Accents, politics, and double standards

On February 6, 2012, in Uncategorized, by ThresaFralin

Have you heard about the latest overwrought tempest in a P.C. teapot on this post-Super Bowl Monday morning? It’s over Michigan Republican Pete Hoekstra’s “ insensitive ” Senate campaign ad using an Asian-American actress portraying a Chinese worker gloating over incumbent Dem. Sen. Debbie Stabenow’s big spending habits. Watch: Black ministers and Asian activists have decried the commercial. Both left and right are up in arms: The portrayal of a young Asian woman speaking broken English in a Super Bowl ad being run by U.S. Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra against Michigan incumbent Debbie Stabenow is bringing charges of racial insensitivity. GOP consultant Nick De Leeuw flat-out scolded the Holland Republican for the ad. “Stabenow has got to go. But shame on Pete Hoekstra for that appalling new advertisement,” De Leeuw wrote on his Facebook page Sunday morning. “Racism and xenophobia aren’t any way to get things done.” A media consultant who has advised Democrats also thought it could prove problematic. “Some Asian-Americans may be offended by the stereotype that is portrayed in the spot,” said Robert Kolt, who teaches advertising part-time at Michigan State University and had previewed a number of Sunday’s Super Bowl ads. “Pete seems like a nice guy in the ad, but I think he is wasting a lot of money now. … It’s just not Super Bowl-worthy. It’s not cute, it’s not funny and it’s not memorable.” Is the ad less than tasteful? Yes. Is it “xenophobic” to point out that China is benefiting ginormously from our fiscal recklessness, indebtedness, and outsourcing of jobs? Certainly not. Oddly enough (in other words: predictably enough), there was little uproar when Vice President Joe Biden — a serial P.C. offender — mocked an Indian accent in decrying outsourcing of call center jobs just last month: Back in 2006, Biden joked about Indian accents and Dunkin’ Donuts and gas stations — with a hardly a peep from the Sensitivity Police: Liberal Democrat Bob Beckel mocked GOP Gov. Bobby Jindal’s State of the Union response address and likened it to a “call center ad in Mumbai:” The P.C. police, as always, are P.C. only when it’s P.E. — politically expedient. As for all the lefties decrying the ugly nativism of the “Buy American” message that resonates with Rust Belt voters, I remind you that it’s not just Republicans who have channeled Pat Buchanan for electoral gain:

View post:
Accents, politics, and double standards

“The rosy predictions for revenues and reduced healthcare spending can come to fruition, but not with the current socialist policies as the baseline.” The budget season has officially commenced today with CBO’s release of its annual budget and economic outlook.  Here are some of the major takeaways from the report: FY 2012 Budget The topline figure that the media will focus on is the projected $1.070 trillion budget deficit for FY 2012, down from $1.3 trillion last year.  However, as CBO notes several times throughout the report, the reduction in this year’s deficit is predicated on several assumptions. 1)      Revenues :  The entirety of this year’s deficit reduction comes from higher projected revenues, roughly $220 billion.  CBO is forced to score current law, which assumes that the payroll tax cut will expire at the end of February.  Another 10-month extension, which is almost a forgone conclusion, would cost over $100 billion.  Also, the CBO baseline does not include a likely AMT patch, and extension of many annual “tax extenders,” such as the credit for research and development.  It’s very likely that the extensions will wipe out the entire revenue gain from this year over 2011, thereby eliminating the reduction in the deficit. 2)      Outlays :  CBO is projecting $3.601 trillion in spending, up just $3 billion from last year.  Obviously, this projection does not account for a full-year extension of unemployment benefits and doc fix, which could add as much as $70 billion to this year’s spending total. 3)      Defense :  Outlays for defense will be reduced by another $20 billion. When these factors are accounted for, it is clear that non-defense discretionary spending will not decrease significantly, while mandatory spending will continue to rise.  If you assume the alternative scenario, in which most of the temporary tax and spending measures are extended, the deficit should be about the same as last year; around $1.3 trillion.  In other words, there will be slightly more revenue this year, but increased spending as well. 10-Year Budget Frame: 2013-2022: Over the next 10 years, CBO is projecting $41.179 trillion in spending and $44.251 trillion in revenue, for a deficit of $3.072 trillion.  The $3 trillion figure is a real lowball estimate of our projected debt for several reasons.  Under that scenario, our annual deficits would dip to $450 billion in just two years, and stay below $400 billion indefinitely.  They are assuming rosy pictures of revenue increases, along with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.  Furthermore, CBO notes, that Medicare and Medicaid spending have always increased above expectations, and with Obamacare taking effect, the real cost of healthcare spending will blow out the budget deficits – way beyond $3 trillion. Another important long-term factor is interest on the debt.  At present, interest rates are at historic lows, but they will eventually revert back to their historic norms.  That could add several trillion more to the 10-year deficit. The rosy predictions for revenues and reduced healthcare spending can come to fruition, but not with the current socialist policies as the baseline. Economic Outlook CBO is projecting more stagnation for the next few years.  For 2012, they are seeing 2% GDP growth and 8.9% unemployment.  For 2013, they are projecting a pullback to just 1.1% growth and a spike in unemployment to 9.2%.  With these bleak economic figures, it’s hard to envision a scenario in which revenues increase substantially and spending on welfare programs decline (as projected by the report).  How can revenues go from 16% of GDP to 20% in just two years, even without the extension of tax cut provisions?  Then again, it’s all a moot point.  Budget deficits tend to be much higher than the figures projected in CBO reports, in part, due to some of the aforementioned factors. Social Security Social Security is, by far, the largest expenditure for the foreseeable future.  This year, SS outlays will top $770 billion, accounting for 21.3% of the entire federal budget for FY 2012.  From 2013-2022, SS spending will top $10.5 trillion, almost 24% of the budget.  On the revenue side, Social Security taxes will only rise $627 billion this year and $8.9 trillion over 10 years.  Once again, this projection does not factor in any future payroll tax cuts. Another noteworthy point is that the Social Security Disability Insurance trust fund will be exhausted in 2016. Remember that the Social Security Trust Fund is a notional accounting gimmick and is nonexistent.  Consequently, every penny of SS benefits that is not covered from the payroll tax will augment our deficit.  The real question is why one quarter of the budget is consumed by a program that should be controlled by the individual.  Why are we bankrupting our future for a program that offers a worse rate of return than private accounts, which would not cost the government and future generations of Americans a penny? Medicare Gross Medicare spending, the second largest domestic spending program, will reach $560 billion this year and $7.8 trillion over 10 years.  Net Medicare spending (subtracting $1.2 trillion in offsetting revenues from premium payments from seniors) will be about $6.55 trillion.   This year’s outlays would have been higher if not for a shift in certain payments from fiscal year 2012 into fiscal year 2011 because the first scheduled date for payments to health plans in 2012 fell on a weekend.  Revenues from the Medicare payroll tax will only bring in roughly $2.8 trillion – and that is including the payroll tax increases under Obamacare.  As such, the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund, which is funded by payroll taxes, will be exhausted in 2022. Now that it is incontrovertibly clear that government has failed at controlling healthcare and retirement costs, is it too much to ask that we allow personal ownership and the free-market to get a bite at the apple? Liberals always complain that seniors will be left to their own devices under our policies.  Judging by the future debt figures, I think we would all rather be on our own, as opposed to shouldering the burden of crushing debt payments. Cross-posted to The Madison Project

See more here:
CBO’s Budget Report: Perennial Debt for Generations

Tagged with:
 

Check this out! An article written by yours truly was mentioned last week on CBS’  60 Minutes . The CBS feature was about Groupon CEO Andrew Mason and posed the question: “Is Groupon’s swift success sustainable, especially given competition from the likes of Google and Amazon?” While addressing this question, 60 Minutes  gave a little hat tip to a Blaze article titled “ GROUPON DEAL GOES HORRIBLY, HORRIBLY WRONG FOR CAKE MAKER .” You can check out the full 60 Minutes report here (The Blaze article is at the 8:03 mark). In the words of Bill Cosby: “That’s kinda’ cool.”

More here:
Did you see The Blaze on ‘60 Minutes’ last weekend?

Jeffrey Lord, former White House political director under Ronald Reagan, is slamming a piece in National Review Online that accuses Newt Gingrich of spewing “insulting rhetoric” about Reagan while he was president. The National Review piece, written by former Reagan Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, has gained significant traction as many conservatives have come forward to question Gingrich’s electability. The former House Speaker has repeatedly cast himself as a ” loyal lieutenant of Reagan’s bold conservatism ” against the more timid, “Massachusetts moderate” Mitt Romney. Writing in the American Spectator , Abrams, Lord says, has “been swept up in the GOP Establishment’s Romney frothings over the rise of Newt Gingrich in the Republican primaries.” But no more, he says, because Abrams has been “caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job.” Some of the top examples Abrams cites come from a statement Gingrich made on the House floor in 1986. Lord obtained a copy of the speech, which he said Abrams is “grossly misrepresenting” as “some sort of anti-Reagan jihad:” Specifically, Abrams implies that Newt Gingrich was spewing mindless vitriol about Reagan on the House floor. Not only not so, it was quite to the contrary. Of President Reagan, Gingrich says: • “Let me be clear: I have the greatest respect for President Reagan. I think he personally understands the threat of communism.” Gingrich then goes on — at Newtonian length — praising Reagan for Reagan’s understanding of Lenin, Reagan’s understanding of the real “purposes of a Soviet dictatorship” and much more. He lists and applauds Reagan repeatedly for the President’s appreciation of “the threat in a more powerful Soviet empire” and the threats posed by Communist Cuba and Nicaragua. He ranks Reagan with the great cold war presidents in protecting freedom. In short, time after time after, Newt Gingrich — true to form — is there on the floor of the House relentlessly praising and crediting Ronald Reagan. Is it any wonder that years later Nancy Reagan would speak so publicly and warmly about “Ronnie” passing the conservative torch to Newt? Is there any wonder that Michael Reagan has stepped into the middle of this current brawl to endorse Newt? • Abrams quotes Newt for saying in this speech that Reagan’s policies towards the Soviets are “inadequate and will ultimately fail.” This is shameful. Why? Here’s what Newt said — in full and in context: “The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan’s strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail.” In other words, Newt was picking up on a concern, prominent in the day and voiced by no less than Reagan’s then ex-UN Ambassador Kirkpatrick, not to mention prominent Reagan supporters Will and Kristol and the late-Mondale aide turned conservative Krauthammer, that Reagan’s anti-Communist policies could be stronger if better institutionalized and not tied as much to the Reagan persona. The entire speech focused on suggestions of how to do just that — to effectively institutionalize Reagan’s conservative beliefs in the government. Is Abrams seriously accusing Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Will of being anti-Reagan? Of spewing “insulting rhetoric” at a president everyone in Washington knew they staunchly supported? Really? Of course not. But in apparent service to the Romney campaign, in order to make Newt Gingrich appear to be doing just that, Abrams apparently quite deliberately cut out the original Gingrich reference to Will, Kirkpatrick, Krauthammer, and Kristol. You can read Lord’s full analysis here .

Read the original post:
Former Reagan Adviser Questions NRO Piece About Gingrich’s Gipper Critiques

Tagged with:
 

The New York Police Department is taking heat following revelations that a documentary about the threat of radical Islam was screened to nearly 1,500 officers during training.

The New York Police Department is facing intense scrutiny following revelations Monday that a film about the threat of radical Islam was screened to nearly 1,500 officers during training. Critics of the 2008 documentary “The Third Jihad” have denounced it as “anti-Islam” and ” hate-filled .” The Council on American-Islamic Relations called it ” anti-Muslim propaganda .” The 72-minute film exposes what it calls a strategy by radical Muslims to “infiltrate and dominate America,” and features grisly images from jihadist terror attacks, Muslim leaders calling for an Islamic world order, and goes after CAIR, among other organizations, for having radical ties. “Islamism is like a cancer,” one interviewee says. “You either defeat it or it will defeat you.” News that the film was shown during NYPD training first broke in January 2011: NYPD spokesman Paul Browne initially told the New York Village Voice that officers never saw the film, calling it a “wacky movie” that was “reviewed and found to be inappropriate.” Browne later amended that statement, saying that upon further review the film had been shown “a couple of times when officers were filling out paperwork before the actual coursework began.” “It was not approved for the curriculum. It’s not shown for any purpose now,” Browne told the Village Voice. But one year later, documents obtained through the state’s Freedom of Information Law indicated otherwise: The film was shown “on a continuous loop” for between three months and one year of training, and was seen by at least 1,489 police officers, the New York Times reported Monday. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday blasted the police department, saying someone had used “terrible judgment” in showing the film. “Somebody exercised some terrible judgment,” Bloomberg said. “As soon as they found out about it, they stopped it.” Of particular note was the fact that New York Police Department Commissioner Ray Kelly himself appeared in the film as an interviewee: On Monday, Browne said Kelly’s appearance was lifted from old interview footage. But the next day, the police department shifted and confirmed Kelly did participate , after the film’s producer provided the date and time of the interview to the Times. Kelly said he regrets appearing in the film. Others featured include former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, former CIA Director James Woolsey, Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman and about a dozen other intelligence and Middle East experts and activists. CAIR used the NYPD’s admission to call for the resignations of both Kelly and Browne — coming at a time when sentiments between CAIR and the NYPD are particularly inflamed over recent reports that the police department used spy tactics to keep tabs on Muslim groups in an effort to catch terrorists. “This controversy has moved beyond an issue of poor judgment in the use of an Islamophobic training film to an issue of the integrity of public officials,” CAIR said in a statement Wednesday. “The lack of truthfulness exhibited by Commissioner Kelly and Deputy Commissioner Browne means New Yorkers must now question the credibility of every statement they make. This situation necessitates their immediate resignations.” Anti-Muslim? But despite seething objections that the film is anti-Muslim and anti-Islam, “The Third Jihad” explicitly states that it is about radicalism only. “This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radical,” a statement reads at the beginning of the film. Narrated by Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, the film describes what it says is the true agenda of much of the Muslim leadership in America: A kind of “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” based on a 15-page manifesto from the Muslim Brotherhood. Among the strategies outlined in the document, the film says, are to set up mosques and Islamic centers to achieve the ultimate goal of “sabotaging the miserable houses of the West so that Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Organizations listed that can help carry out these goals include the Muslim Students Association, the Islamic Society of North America and the Islamic Association for Palestine — a Hamas-linked organization whose three officers founded CAIR in the 1990s. “Islam will dominate….We want to see Shariah here, and it will be,” a member of the New York-based Islamic Thinkers Society vows in one clip. The film shows several images taken from Muslim websites: An Islamic flag flying over the White House, an hourglass depicting the inevitability of countries around the world falling to Islam and an American flag with the words “Under Shaytan Authority.” In Islamic theology, “shaytan” is the term for “devil.” “When groups like these talk about wanting to create a global Islamic state and Islam dominating the world, you realize that they hold some of the same goals as Al Qaida and millions of radicals around the world, and that’s what make them dangerous,” Jasser narrates. ‘A slander against the film’ In a telephone interview with The Blaze, Jasser — who has been a repeat guest on Glenn Beck’s show — said the media’s treatment of the film as “anti-Muslim” shows “the death of journalism.” “[The film] is a wake up call to the threat that is in our community,” he said. “Not one report has attacked the facts in the documentary. To call it anti-Muslim is slander against the film.” He said CAIR’s announcement Wednesday that it’s calling for the NYPD commissioner’s resignation shows the organization only wants to use the situation “as a tool to attack Commissioner Kelly.” “What type of documentary does CAIR want shown?” he asked. He said he finds it curious that it’s suddenly become “a major federal crime” that the film was shown to a group of police officers when it’s been available online for the past several years. “The more [CAIR] can take up the bandwidth of the discussion about the threat of the radical Islam with victimization issues…the less work they have to do for reform,” Jasser said. “They don’t want anybody becoming educated about the slippery slope of political Islam, which is the movement of trying to put into place their own Shariah law…they look upon us as not just a faith group but as a global political movement.” Alex Traiman, a spokesman for the Clarion Fund, which financed the film, said he also sees the response to the current media controversy as “CAIR trying to take down the New York Police Department.” According to its website , the Clarion Fund is a nonprofit organization that “produces and distributes documentaries on the threats of radical Islam” and lists former Reagan deputy defense secretary and Center for Security Policy founder Frank Gaffney Jr. among its advisory board members. In a telephone interview with The Blaze, Traiman referred to CAIR’s response as “their tried and true method of demonizing anyone who asks real questions by just labeling it Islamophobia.” “CAIR is targeted specifically in our film for doing exactly what they’re doing now,” he said. Despite the controversy, Jasser said he stands firmly behind the film. “The reason I agreed to narrate is that there are many of us within the Muslim community that are a part of, if you will, a “jihad against jihad,” he said. “I’d much rather have people see that a Muslim is part of the solution. The solution has to come from within.” Watch an abbreviated version of “The Third Jihad” below:

Excerpt from:
‘A Slander Against the Film’: Narrator Says Documentary Shown to NYPD Officers Isn‘t ’Anti-Muslim’

Tagged with:
 

Mitch Daniels and other GOP leaders criticize the president for not matching his actions to his words.

More:
Republican response: Obama’s speech didn’t ring true

Mitch Daniels and other GOP leaders criticize the president for not matching his actions to his words.

More:
Republican response: Obama’s speech didn’t ring true

Tagged with:
 

So before the Patriots-Ravens AFC Championship game, some old lady in a sequined Patriots scarf – claiming to be Steven Tyler – screamed the national anthem. It was…not good. Check it out. But the worst national anthem peformance…and by worst, I mean best…belongs to Michael Bolton.  Here is his at 2003 American League Championship Series.  Sooooo many details to savor. a.) Bolton anticipated forgetting the words to the national anthem. b.) We know this because…he wrote the words on his palm. c.) And…he does…he forgets the words at the 0:46 mark. d.) Very nonchalantly Bolton brings his fingertips up to rest on the mike with his palm facing inward.  Uh huh.  Any delusions that I was smooth in ninth-grade Spanish class now destroyed. e.)  Excruciating silence as he reads. f.)  Immediately, Bolton closes his eyes to recapture the sincerity of his performance. g.) But, unfortunately, Bolton did not have Adam Sandler’s stupid remote control in Click. His song and the crowd were not put on pause.  We all heard his pause. h.) A cascade of boos affirm, we were not on pause, we saw him read his palm. i.)  The color guard behind him cracks and lets out a mocking smile. j.) Recognizing that he did not pull off his cheat, Bolton embarrassingly touches his temple and shakes his head. “My bad…” k.) In a desperate attempt to win back the crowd he gives a little extra on “rockets’ red GLARE!!!” l.) All of the above took place in 10 seconds time. Amazing. m.) At the end Bolton, dripping with false sincerity, points to the color guard that earlier laughed at him. k.) And finally… Bolton gives a clap to the color guard.  But! But! But!…he leaves his left hand, the hand with the crib notes written on them closed… resulting in an awkward open hand to closed fist clap. It’s as though he doesn’t want us to see the notes that he just so obviously read. What is Bolton hiding? Does he have nudie pictures drawn next to “were so gallantly streaming.”

Continued here:
Worst National Anthem Performance: Tyler vs. Bolton

CNN

Former President Jimmy Carter said there’s a “subtlety of racism” to Newt Gingrich’s comments about food stamps and welfare while on the campaign trail in South Carolina. Referring to the most recent GOP presidential debate in which Gingrich received a standing ovation for defending his comment calling President Barack Obama the “food stamp president,” Carter said the former House Speaker is choosing his words carefully to appeal to “right wing” voters in the South. “I think [Gingrich] has that subtlety of racism that I know quite well and that Gingrich knows quite well, that appeals to some people in Georgia, particularly the right wing,” Carter said in an interview on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” set to air Wednesday. “Really?” Morgan asked. “And you think he’s doing it deliberately?” “He knows well the words that you use, like welfare mamas and so forth, that have been appealing in the past in those days when we cherished segregation of the races,” Carter said. “He’s appealing for that in South Carolina.” “That’s a pretty serious charge to level at Newt Gingrich, that he’s being racist,” Morgan said. “I wouldn’t say he’s racist, but he knows the subtle words to use to appeal to a racist group,” Carter explained. “When you emphasize, over and over and over, welfare and food stamps and ‘why don’t the black people get jobs’ and ‘if I’m president, I’ll make sure they turn toward a work ethic, rather than an ethic of welfare and food stamps,’ that’s appealing to the wrong element in South Carolina.” Watch the full clip below, via CNN :

View post:
Jimmy Carter: Gingrich ‘Has That Subtlety of Racism’

Tagged with:
 

**Written by Doug Powers Hot off the wire from the Washington Post : The Obama administration will announce this afternoon it is rejecting a Canadian firm’s application for a permit to build and operate a massive oil pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border, according to sources who have been briefed on the matter. However the administration will allow TransCanada to reapply after it develops an alternate route through the sensitive habitat of Nebraska’s Sandhills. Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns will make the announcement, which comes in response to a congressionally-mandated deadline of Feb. 21 for action on the proposed Keystone pipeline. In other words, the Obama State Department is allowing TransCanada to reapply after they find a route for the pipeline that avoids the delicate habitat where the endangered 2012 election lives. Oh well, extending unemployment will create more jobs anyway according to the White House . At this point, the “alternate route” for the Keystone project’s oil appears to lead to China . Update: In a report released just yesterday, Obama’s own jobs council recommended increasing US energy independence in various ways, including pipelines : President Obama’s jobs council called Tuesday for an “all-in approach” to energy policy that includes expanded oil-and-gas drilling as well as expediting energy projects like pipelines. “[W]e should allow more access to oil, natural gas and coal opportunities on federal lands,” states the year-end report released Tuesday by the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. The report does not specifically mention the Keystone XL oil pipeline, but it endorses moving forward quickly with projects that “deliver electricity and fuel,” including pipelines. Update II: Obama’s statement is here . This part was interesting: This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people. I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. A commitment to reducing our dependence on oil. Not foreign oil, but oil. That certainly sounds like a judgment on the merits of the pipeline. **Written by Doug Powers Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Read the rest here:
Obama Admin. Rejects Keystone Pipeline; TransCanada Can Reapply After Finding Alternate Route; Updated

Tagged with: