NATO Regime Change: Syria Coming Soon?

Paul Joesph Watson - With western-backed Al-Qaeda rebels now firmly in control of Libya, NATO is set to move on to its next target for regime change – Syria – with Bashir Assad’s government becoming increasingly isolated as attack plans are finalized.
According to DebkaFile’s military and intelligence sources, several different blueprints for military intervention in Syria are now being considered by NATO powers and allied states in the region, including the use of Turkish and Saudi troops to overthrow Assad’s regime.
“Well-informed military sources warn that Assad will not be cowed by the international, military and economic noose tightening around his neck. He is far more likely to try and loosen it by lashing out against his enemies, starting with Israel. Iran will certainly be a willing supporter of such belligerence, starting a war which could spread like wildfire across the region,” states the report.
Earlier this month NATO powers, including US President Barack Obama, called on Assad to step down. The UN has already pulled all its non-essential staff out of the country.
Obama’s demand that Assad step aside is exactly what happened prior to the bombardment of Libya. On February 26, Obama called on Gaddafi to give up power. Three weeks later, US B-2 bombers were attacking Libyan airfields.
The establishment media is repeating precisely the same rhetoric we were bombarded with prior to the attack on Libya, where for weeks rebel troops who had seized control of fighter jets, tanks and rocket-propelled grenade launchers were described as “protesters” and “demonstrators”.
Given that the western press has proven adept at manufacturing lies to justify military interventions, whether the actions of Assad’s regime represent genuine atrocities or legitimate conduct in the midst of a civil war remains unclear. Some have claimed the abuses are being embellished, while both former CIA agent Robert Baer and ex-MI6 officer Alastair Crooke point out that the Syrian people definitely want change, but not in the form of a NATO “humanitarian” assault.

• “Syrians want change. But whether Westerners believe it or not, most people in Damascus, in Aleppo, the middle classes, the merchant classes and the [sectarian] minorities believe Assad is the only person who can bring in reforms,” he said. “They fear two things above all else – civil war and Western intervention … They would like to avoid the example of Libya because it would lead them into civil war,” said Crooke.

Whether or not Assad’s regime has committed atrocities, as Congressman Ron Paul points out today, both Assad and Gaddafi are no worse than some of the tyrants currently being propped up by western powers, such as the US and British-backed unelected monarchy in Bahrain which has terrorized and murdered its people for almost six months. Fellow western ally Saudi Arabia also sent troops into Bahrain, trained by the British Armed Forces, to crush the popular uprising, leaving behind a trail of human rights abuses.
There was no NATO “humanitarian” intervention when Bahraini troops acting on behalf of the dictatorship began indiscriminately firing tear gas into villages and homes, killing old women and children via asphyxiation, before detaining thousands of pro-democracy protesters and subjecting them to torture while killing scores of others.
Meanwhile, western ally Saudi Arabia is trying to pass a law that would designate any form of protest against the monarchy as a terrorist act. This follows widespread protests by pro-reform demonstrators earlier this year which were met with police brutality, murders and arrests without charge.
“Gaddafi may well have been a tyrant, but as such he was no worse than many others that we support and count as allies,” writes Ron Paul. “Disturbingly, we see a pattern of relatively secular leaders in the Arab world being targeted for regime change with the resulting power vacuum being filled by much more radical elements. Iraq, post-Saddam, is certainly far closer to Iran than before the US invasion. Will Libya be any different?”
Given that Libya has now been seized by Al-Qaeda terrorists who are already committing atrocities against the country’s black population, NATO’s “humanitarian” pretext for further interventions has been completely discredited, but don’t expect that to stand in the way of the opportunity to capture another “rogue state” and homogenize it into the global empire of the new world order.

Al-Qaeda Leader Is New Military Commander Of Tripoli

  RT- Journalist Pepe Escobar told RT Al-Qaeda is already effectively in power in the capital.

Obama Disapproval Rate Hits All-Time New High

Daily Caller - President Obama’s disapproval rating reached its highest level to date Sunday, according to Gallup’s daily presidential tracking poll.
Based on the latest data, 55 percent of Americans say they disapprove of the job President Obama is doing. Just 38 percent of Americans say they approve of Obama’s performance as president.
Gallup’s polls are based on telephone interviews with approximately 1,500 adults and carry a margin of error of ±3 percentage points.

Gov. Rick Perry Leads New Gallup Poll By 12 Points Over Romney

Ed Morrissey - Rick Perry will pick up a conservative endorsement from Capitol Hill, according to a report today from Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Senator James Inhofe told a Chamber of Commerce audience at the Tulsa Press Club that he plans on making good to a promise he made Rick Perry a year ago to be the first to endorse him for President:

“I called Rick Perry a year ago and told him, ‘If you’re running for president, I’ll be the first to endorse you,’” Inhofe said at a State Chamber of Commerce breakfast at the Tulsa Press Club.
“I’m going to be that person on Monday.”

Inhofe also said that he has reservations about other members in the field, but none with Perry:

Inhofe said he “likes Mitt Romney, but he’s a little mushy on environmental issues” and “Newt Gingrich, I always have this vision of him sitting on the couch holding hands with Nancy Pelosi,” but that he has no reservations about Perry.

I’m not surprised at all by Inhofe’s decision to make an early endorsement for Perry.  Six months ago, I interviewed the Senator in his office to discuss his fight against the EPA, and I brought up Perry’s battles with the regulatory agency.  Inhofe immediately mentioned how it would strengthen Perry as a presidential candidate, and charmingly diagnosed Perry’s denial of interest in the race at the time (at 11:35):

EM: Your neighbor to the south, Texas, has been told by the EPA that they are no longer able to, ah, to control their own quality standards, because of a dispute between Texas and the EPA.  Do you think that that’s going to be a big platform on which this is going to be fought, because obviously Rick Perry says he’s going to fight the EPA all the way down the line.
INHOFE: Rick Perry’s doing a great job, by the way, and, ah (laughter), he’s looking better and better in the presidential race.
EM: Well, he says he’s not in it, but I’m not sure I’m buying that.
INHOFE: Well, we can all be cute about that … You remember, it wasn’t more than a year ago that they came to kill eleven of his coal-fired generating plants.  And all he’s trying to do is just provide energy for the people of his state, Texas.  So this is consistent with the fact that the EPA is going to try to shut down any — you watch and see what they’re going to try to do in Oklahoma now that we have a good, conservative Republican governor …

Inhofe has been waiting a long time to make this endorsement, and it should help Perry gain some traction among conservatives, especially in the Midwest.
Update: Looks like Inhofe isn’t the only one making a decision.  Perry gained 11 points since last month’s Gallup survey to take a 12-point lead among Republican primary voters:

Shortly after announcing his official candidacy, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has emerged as rank-and-file Republicans’ current favorite for their party’s 2012 presidential nomination. Twenty-nine percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents nationwide say they are most likely to support Perry, with Mitt Romney next, at 17%. …
Perry is a strong contender among key Republican subgroups. Older Republicans and those living in the South show especially strong support for him, at or near 40%. Conservative Republicans strongly favor Perry over Romney, but liberal and moderate Republicans support the two about equally. Perry’s support is also above average among religious Republicans.

The topline survey result doesn’t include Palin, who will make an appearance in Iowa over Labor Day weekend. With Palin in the mix, however, the news stays good for Perry, with 25% and an 11-point lead maintained over Romney.  Palin ties Ron Paul for 3rd with 11%.
It’s bad news for everyone else except, er, Ron Paul, who gained three points in the same period to come in 3rd at 13% in the topline response.  Romney falls to 17%, and Michele Bachmann to 10%, while undecideds declined one point to 17%, the lowest level yet in the Gallup series. Perry wins most of the subgroups – both men and women, all age demos except the youngest (he comes in second to Ron Paul, 21% to 29%), all regional demos except the East, where he barely misses a tie with Romney 16% to 17%, and all church-attendance demos.

Gov. Rick Perry Leads New Iowa Poll 22% For Romney 19%, 18 %Bachmann

Ed Morrissey - A couple of caveats are in order before we start looking at this poll.  First, it comes from PPP, a Democratic pollster which has had its fair share of difficulties in sampling Republicans.  It’s also early in the race, as Rick Perry just starts getting vetted and Sarah Palin hasn’t yet begun to campaign, if in fact she decides to campaign at all.
Still, this is a rather dramatic result:

The race is pretty close four ways in Iowa but Rick Perry is the new favorite among Republican voters in the state. Among announced candidates he’s at 22% to 19% for Mitt Romney, 18% for Michele Bachmann, and 16% for Ron Paul. Further back are Herman Cain at 7%, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum at 5%, and Jon Huntsman at 3%.
If you throw Sarah Palin into the mix the numbers are pretty similar with Perry at 21%, Romney at 18%, Bachmann at 15%, Paul at 12%, and Palin registering at only 10%.

I’m surprised and a little skeptical about two results.  Mitt Romney’s strong performance in Iowa seems a little questionable.  While he has done some campaigning in the state, he has given the impression that he will focus less there than on a strong performance in New Hampshire.  I’d also have guessed that Palin would outperform Ron Paul in the state.  PPP does note that this survey shows Romney losing significant ground, from 26% in June.
Assuming this is accurate, then it looks like Michele Bachmann didn’t win much for her efforts in Ames.  I had written at the time that the straw poll seemed more likely to produce the #3 and #4 candidate than a frontrunner, and this poll suggests the same thing.  While Romney doesn’t necessarily need a good performance in Iowa, Bachmann has no path to the nomination without winning the state.  And it’s the Tea Party base that she courts that — so far — has swung instead to Perry:

Only 33% of Republican voters in Iowa identify themselves as members of the Tea Party but a broad advantage with them is driving Perry’s lead. He gets 32% to 22% for Bachmann, and 19% for Paul. Romney is all the way back in 6th place with those voters at only 6%. Romney doesn’t need to win Tea Party voters to win in Iowa but he needs to do a whole lot better than that. With the majority of Republicans who don’t consider themselves Tea Partiers Romney actually leads Perry and Bachmann with 30% to their 16% but it’s not enough to make up for his poor performance with the far right faction of the party.

It’s an interesting first look at the state since Perry’s entry.  We’ll see if this is a reliable indicator or an outlier when other pollsters conclude their own Iowa surveys.
Update: Not surprisingly, Romney leads in Michigan, where his father served as Governor.  The Epic-MRA poll had some bad news for another favorite son:

Romney leads Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 32 to 17 percent. The EPIC-MRA poll surveyed a relatively small sample size, but Perry’s strong second-place showing in a state outside his natural base across the South is notable.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., was third at 12 percent, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin all tied for fourth at 5 percent. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., earned just one percent of the vote in his home state; of all the candidates tested on his home turf, McCotter had the lowest name-identification, as nearly half of Republican voters said they didn’t recognize his name.

Remind me again — why is McCotter running for President?
This poll had a significantly smaller sample size than PPP’s in Iowa (210 to 317, respectively), for a much more populous state.  As National Journal notes, the results are good news for Perry and another indicator that this will become a two-man race, barring any late entries.
Update II: PPP says they have a national survey coming out tomorrow that shows Rick Perry with a double-digit lead over Romney for the Republican nomination.  According to their Twitter feed:

11:34 (CT): Our national GOP poll, out tomorrow, is better for Perry even than the Iowa one. Double digit lead.
11:36: Nationally, if it came down to a 2 person race: Perry 52, Romney 36. Mitt needs to try to wrap it up before it gets to that point.
11:40: More evidence Bachmann has maxed out support- down 9 to Romney, 30 to Perry in national heads to heads

Congressional Black Caucus: Tired Of Obama Failed Job Policies

During a sometimes-raucous session of what's being called the "For the People" Jobs Initiative tour, a key member of the Congressional Black Caucus told an audience in Detroit Tuesday that the CBC doesn't put pressure on President Obama because he is loved by black voters.  But at the same time, Rep. Maxine Waters said, members of the CBC are becoming increasingly tired and frustrated by Obama's performance on the issue of jobs. Even as she expressed support for the president, Waters virtually invited the crowd to "unleash us" to pressure Obama for action.
"We don't put pressure on the president," Waters told the audience at Wayne County Community College.  "Let me tell you why. We don't put pressure on the president because ya'll love the president. You love the president. You're very proud to have a black man -- first time in the history of the United States of America. If we go after the president too hard, you're going after us."
The problem, Waters said, is that Obama is not paying enough attention to the problems of some black Americans.  The unemployment rate for African-Americans nationally is a little over 16 percent, and almost twice that in Detroit.  And yet, Waters said, the president is on a jobs-promotion trip through the Midwest that does not include any stops in black communities.  "The Congressional Black Caucus loves the president too," Waters said.  "We're supportive of the president, but we're getting tired, y'all.  We're getting tired. And so, what we want to do is, we want to give the president every opportunity to show what he can do and what he's prepared to lead on. We want to give him every opportunity, but our people are hurting. The unemployment is unconscionable. We don't know what the strategy is. We don't know why on this trip that he's in the United States now, he's not in any black community.  We don't know that."
As she discussed her dilemma -- frustrated with the president but hesitant to criticize him lest black supporters turn on her -- Waters asked the crowd for its permission to have a "conversation" with the president.  "When you tell us it's alright and you unleash us and you tell us you're ready for us to have this conversation, we're ready to have the conversation," she said.  Some members of the crowd immediately voiced their approval.
"All I'm saying to you is, we're politicians," Waters continued.  "We're elected officials.  We are trying to do the right thing and the best thing. When you let us know it is time to let go, we'll let go."
"Let go!" some in the audience yelled.

Waters attended the meeting with fellow members of Congress Reps. John Conyers, Hansen Clarke, Emanuel Cleaver, and Gregory Meeks.  The panel discussion in Detroit was moderated by Jeff Johnson of TheGrio.com, who wrote an account of the session here.  The tour included a stop in Cleveland and will also go to Miami, Atlanta, and Los Angeles.

Left And Right Media Attacks Ron Paul

Steve Watson - The establishment effort to keep Presidential candidate Ron Paul out of the public conscience has failed and desperation tactics have set in.
Politico has taken it upon itself to dredge up an old and thoroughly debunked story in an attempted attack on the Congressman’s character.
“…there are reasons why Paul, and his fan base, might be grateful for the minimalist coverage that he’s received,” writes Maggie Haberman.
“… a more thorough vetting of the kind that mainstream candidates generally receive would invariably lead to some of the newsletters that bore his name (if not his byline or direct authorship) decades earlier.”
Haberman links to a three year old New Republic report which suggests that Ron Paul was responsible for racist and bigoted newsletters that were written in his name in the 1990s.
This is the exact same desperate tactic that was employed when Paul ran for president in 2008.

• Amongst the ludicrous smears directed toward Paul at the time by The New Republic was the claim that Paul had referred to Martin Luther King as a “gay pedophile”.

In reality Paul has noted King as one of his heroes on many occasions. Indeed, the only time that the Congressman has ever voted for something that is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution, it was for America to recognize Martin Luther King day as a public holiday.
“Once again, the establishment is trying to flog a lame, tired 20 year old story that has been explained ad naseum in campaign after campaign.” writes Paul’s campaign adviser Jesse Benton.
“These items were not written by Dr. Paul and they are anathema to belief in human liberty.” Benton added.
Similar tactics were employed by the establishment last year, in a last ditch effort to reverse Rand Paul’s exponential popularity surge. It failed miserably as Congressman Ron Paul’s son comfortably won his Kentucky Senate seat.
The fact that the media has dredged up this rotting corpse of a non-story AGAIN in an attempt to smear Paul indicates complete desperation and only serves to highlight that unlike most of his political opponents, Ron Paul’s record and his character remain clean as a whistle.
The Congressman appeared on Fox News yesterday to discuss the media attempts to derail his campaign. Paul also conducted a longer sit down interview on the subject with KTRK-TV in Houston. Watch both these interviews below. 

Average Teen Unemployment Rate In Washington D.C. Is 50.1%

(CNSNews.com) – An analysis based on U.S. Census Bureau data by the Employment Policies Institute (EPI) shows that the average unemployment rate for teens ages 16 to 19 in the District of Columbia was 50.1 percent as of June 2011. This corresponds with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showing that for D.C. the annual average unemployment rate for teens in 2010 was 49.8 percent.

Michael Saltsman, research fellow at EPI, provided the 50.1 percent figure to CNSNews.com as an update of  an analysis he compiled based on the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.

The 50.1 percent figure is almost double the average teen unemployment rate in June 2007 in the District, when it was 26.2 percent, according to Saltsman.

Since 2007, the rate has increased each year: 29.5 percent in June 2008, 44.7 percent in 2009 and 48.8 percent in 2010, based on EPI’s analysis.

“We’re in the midst of the third summer in a row where teen unemployment has been above 20 percent,” Saltsman said when he announced his report on July 8.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not keep monthly unemployment rates on teens, but its data showing the average annual unemployment rate for teens ages 16 to 19 in D.C. for 2010 was 49.8 percent.

President Barack Obama delivers a statement on the monthly jobs report, Friday, July 8, 2011, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

The state with the second highest unemployment in the EPI analysis, California, also closely mirrors the BLS annual average for 2010 -- 34.4 percent compared to EPI’s 34.6 percent.

The latest data from the BLS on average teen unemployment nationwide – all 50 states and the District of Columbia -- as of July 2011 was 25 percent.

“Young people are facing more competition for fewer jobs, a lingering consequence of the recession and wage mandates that have eliminated entry-level opportunities,” Saltsman said. “The consequences for this generation of young people missing out on their first job are severe, including an increased risk of earning low wages and being unemployed again in future years.”

Saltsman’s analysis, which was released on July 8, ranked the 20 states with the highest average teen unemployment through May 2011: the first column shows the actual teen unemployment rate over the teen labor force; the  second column reflects the number of discouraged teen workers added to the unemployment rate (also compiled from Census Bureau data).

District of Columbia – 49.0 percent, 52.2 percent

California – 34.6 percent, 36.2 percent

Georgia – 34.6 percent, 35.7 percent

Nevada – 34.3 percent, 36.4 percent

Washington – 33.2 percent, 34.2 percent

Idaho – 31.8 percent, 33.1 percent

West Virginia – 30.2 percent, 32.9 percent

Missouri – 29.6 percent, 31.2 percent

Florida – 29.4 percent, 31.4 percent

Kentucky – 29.0 percent, 30.3 percent

South Carolina – 28.5 percent, 29.0 percent

Rhode Island – 28.0 percent, 29.6 percent

Michigan – 27.6 percent, 29.1 percent

Mississippi – 27.5 percent, 30.7 percent

Tennessee – 26.9 percent, 27.4 percent

Arizona – 26.7 percent, 28.2 percent

Arkansas – 26.7 percent, 28.2 percent

Colorado – 26.1 percent, 26.7 percent

Illinois – 26.1 percent, 27.5 percent

Oregon – 25.8 percent, 26.4 percent

Obama Has A 45% Approval Rating In New York

Howard Portnoy - There are several states on the national electoral map that are, with rare exception, “gimmes” for Democratic candidates. Among them are California and New York.

Which makes the findings of the latest Quinnipiac University poll a “rare exception.” For the first time since President Obama took the oath of office, his disapproval rating among Empire State residents is higher than his approval rating. Of 1,640 registered voters queried in the survey, 45% said they approve of the job the president is doing, while 49% said they disapprove.

The findings represent a sharp turnaround from June, when Obama’s approval rating among New Yorkers was in very positive territory, 57% against 38%.

In the 2008 presidential election, Obama carried New York with 63% of the vote.

Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, is quoted by the New York Post as stating:

The debt-ceiling hullabaloo devastated Obama’s numbers even in true-blue New York. He just misses that magic 50 percent mark against a no-name Republican challenger.

Speaking of which, the poll contains some encouraging news for the president. He still outpaces a generic challenger in New York by 49% to 34%. By the same token, on the question of whether he deserves a second term, the split among voters is closer, with 48% answering affirmatively, 46% negatively.

A recent USA Today/Gallup poll revealed that more than half of Americans nationwide believe the president is not deserving of a second term, while 47% claim that he is.

Should President Obama Resign From His Office?

Douglass MacKinnon -  As our economy continues to self-destruct; U.S. credit is shockingly downgraded; home prices remain at historic lows; unemployment rises; small businesses continue to close their doors; public-employee-bloated cities, towns, states and employers continue to default; race riots flare, Mexican drug cartels cross our sovereign border at will to establish ultraviolent operations; test scores for public school children continue to plummet; the health care system falls under the control of a failed socialist model; terrorism rises, and the world outside our borders spirals into deeper and more dangerous chaos, a serious and very legitimate question needs to be asked:
In the best interests of our nation and the American people, should President Obama resign his office?
Supporters of the president will be offended by the very question and more than likely fire the usual "racist" accusations my way. But it's a question that at least needs to be debated.
Even if Obama loses the election in November 2012, he will still remain in office until Jan. 20, 2013. If, as many people now believe, Obama is in way over his head and dramatically ill-equipped to handle the critical responsibilities of his office, then it seems logical to assume he can still do quite a bit more damage to our nation from now until then.
As to why he is so far over his head and so unqualified to be president, one of his strongest supporters just outlined the answer in a lengthy article for the liberal (and Obama-defending) New York Times.
In the piece, Drew Westen, a committed liberal, articulated his hopes and disappointments of Obama. By doing so, he (in a Nixon-going-to-China moment) pinpointed exactly why the Obama administration has been such an unmitigated disaster.
"Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography," Weston wrote, noting that Obama:
Had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state.
Had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography.
Had, before joining the U.S. Senate, voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.
Bingo! This is an incredibly important moment and revelation. While conservatives have been making this exact same point for years, now that a liberal is saying it in the most powerful liberal publication in the nation, maybe others will not only start to pay attention, but give these "disquieting aspects of his biography" the scrutiny they deserve.
In one paragraph, Westen has pulled back the curtain to reveal a man so far out of his element as to be a true threat to the well-being of our nation.
This is not a game. This is not a TV show or a horror movie we can turn off. This is the United States of America coming off the rails and cascading toward true anarchy because in large part, our president, as outlined by a liberal in the liberal bible, "accomplished very little before he ran for president" ... had "never run a business or state" ... "had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor" ... and is well-known for "dodging difficult issues."
Honestly, if more Americans knew of these indisputable facts, it's hard to see how Barack Obama could be elected mayor of a small town in Alaska, let alone president of the United States. And yet . .. here we are.
Since liberals and liberal publications are now starting to admit that the president may not be up to the job, maybe one of them can then offer up a scenario to get us out of this mess. Something like: have Joe Biden resign, have Obama appoint a competent and vetted vice president, and then have President Obama resign.
Liberals could do all that while finally conceding that real-world experience does matter and that Obama brought none to the White House. Hence, the train wreck.

Twenty Percent Of American Men Don't Work? Where's The American Outrage

FORTUNE -- Has anyone in Washington noticed that 20% of American men are not working? That's right. One out of five men in this country are collecting unemployment, in prison, on disability, operating in the underground economy, or getting by on the paychecks of wives or girlfriends or parents. The equivalent number in 1970, according to the McKinsey Global Institute, was 7%.
Both political parties have proven their talent in ginning up outrage over the federal budget, whether it's spiraling spending or millionaires collecting tax breaks on private jets. So today a tiresome, and dangerous, debt drama unfolds in real time, freezing leaders in both parties in their respective partisan corners. Are these same leaders capable of confronting the fearsome fact that 4.3 million Americans have been jobless not just for months--but going on years? We are in danger of losing a generation of work-habituated Americans, especially men--and lawmakers can't see their way past November, 2012.
This is a conversation that goes beyond a stubbornly high 9.2% unemployment rate and last week's unnerving news that company layoffs are ticking up again. While we all know there is a job shortage, employers are increasingly talking about a "talent shortage" -- they can't find qualified workers even for the jobs that are available. "We found that 30% of companies surveyed had openings for six months or longer, and can't find the right person," says Susan Lund, research director for the McKinsey Global Institute.
With slack demand, companies can afford to be pickier about who they hire -- and commonly steal away already-employed workers rather than dip into a riskier pool of people who have been out of work for months or years. "As long as there is slow demand, [they say] 'I can delay hiring and when I do hire a person it's the perfect person,'" says Jeff Joerres, president and CEO of ManpowerGroup.
Google (GOOG) has anywhere from 1,500 to 2,500 jobs open at any given time that take months and months to fill, says Laszlo Bock, the company's senior vice president of people operations. And it's not just computer and engineering skills that companies need. Frits van Paasschen, CEO of the Starwood (HOT) hotel chain, says "we have a whole set of jobs"—like international tax accountant—"where we can't find" qualified applicants. Joerres says the No. 1 need for companies right now is sales person: Someone skilled not only in personal relations but also able to master the details of an integrated supply chain.
All three executives spoke at an Atlantic magazine-sponsored jobs forum last week that exposed a stark disconnect between the jobs that are available—and the increasingly rusty skill-sets of those who are unemployed, especially for long periods of time. People have "no idea what skills they should have to find a job," says Bock.
That's a place where businesses have to start stepping up to the plate. It's true that McKinsey reports an expansion of training programs. And there are companies like Delta partnering with a state university to produce airline-ready managers and associations like the Manufacturing Institute working with community colleges on certificate programs. But Joerres says a lot of companies don't offer training for prospective employees because—with slack consumer demand and weak job market—they don't have to. "If they don't have to, they aren't going to," he says.
The longer a worker is unemployed, the farther he or she falls behind in sellable skills in a fast-paced global economy. But there is an even more fundamental question behind the rise in long-term employed rates: Are our public policies contributing to the rise of millions of Americans who lose the habit of work?
Whether you believe (as some economists do) that unemployment insurance discourages immediate job searching—or not—it's worth asking whether the American "unemployment" system should more closely follow a program like Germany's "re-employment" system, which cut stubborn long-term unemployment rates in that country.
And then there is federal disability insurance, where the percent of American adults collecting checks has doubled since 1989 -- even though the American population isn't any less healthy, or more mentally disabled (the fastest growing disability claim). "It is difficult to overstate the role that the [disability program] plays in discouraging…the ongoing employment of non-elderly adults," concludes a study by MIT's David H. Autor and the University of Maryland's Mark Duggan.
If that's not enough to grab the attention of political leaders, here's a 10-year peek into the future of the U.S. labor force if current trends continue: A continued expansion of workers collecting income from disability rolls plus another four million high school dropouts--on top of today's 15.4 million.
And yet, according to a ManpowerGroup report, at the same time companies will face an "acute talent shortage."
Where's the outrage over that?

The Growing Bipartisan Consensus On Obama, Worst President Of Modern Times

Emmett Tyrell - Washington: Who on Aug. 18, 2010 -- almost one year ago -- said, "I now think it is clear even to official Washington that President Obama is the worst president of modern times. President Jimmy Carter is redeemed"? Yes, it was I. And I threw the entire weight of The American Spectator behind that asseveration, putting both Jimmy and Barry on the cover.
Now, of course, others are stepping forward and drawing the awkward comparison. On the left, there is Maureen Dowd in The New York Times quoting an anonymous Democratic senator who laments that "we are watching him turn into Jimmy Carter right before our eyes." Apparently, the left-wing fussbudget Eric Alterman made the same comparison in U.S. News and World Report.
Yet I went further, making the point that between Barry and Jimmy, Barry is worse. Consider the prophet's performance on TV during this financial crisis. He is actually calling for more spending, and the markets continue to tumble. His fabled cool is exposed. It is obliviousness.
Columnists William McGurn and Bret Stephens made similar comparisons on the same day, Aug. 8, 2011, and in the same newspaper, the Wall Street Journal. Stephens is bold: "I just think the president is not very bright." He quotes Socrates, Aristotle, and Plutarch respectively on wisdom, prudence and the costs of flattery. McGurn has an eye to history. He reminds us of the extravagant statements made about Carter's genius over thirty years ago by New York Times columnists Tom Wicker, Anthony Lewis, R. W. Apple and the author Norman Mailer in The New York Times Magazine. It really is astonishing how these oafs fell for a liberal Democrat's claim to high intelligence even as they dismissed a conservative Republican as simple-minded while he ended the Cold War and set the American economy on course for the longest period of growth in modern history. I have in mind Ronald Reagan.
Stephens quotes President Obama as saying to an aide in 2008, "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I'll tell you right now that I'm ... a better political director than my political director." Stephans excuses Obama's vanity as but an echo of the balderdash said about him by his admirers. I know what he means. There is the "presidential historian" Michael Beschloss telling radio host Don Imus that Obama "is a guy whose IQ is off the charts...." Asked for evidence, Beschloss confides, "he's probably the smartest guy ever to become president." And, of course, a media "presidential historian" would know.
My favorite panegyric to Obama comes from The New York Times columnist David Brooks, recalling his first interview with then-Sen. Obama. "I don't want to sound like I'm bragging," says Brooks, "but usually when I talk to senators, while they may know a policy area better than me, they generally don't know political philosophy better than me. I got the sense that he knew both better than me." Brooks went on to make this invaluable observation, "I remember distinctly an image -- we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant, and I'm thinking, (a) he's going to be president and (b) he'll be a very good president." What would this precious Washington insider have reported if Sen. Obama had been wearing pantyhose?
For more than thirty years a wounded Jimmy Carter has roamed the world speaking ill of whomever the sitting president might be and occasionally making it difficult for that president to make policy. Obama has already surpassed him, speaking ill of America as a whole while being president. In Strasbourg, France, on April 3, 2009, he said, "Instead of celebrating our dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." What he will do in retirement one can only imagine. But until his retirement, enjoy the show.

GOP Picks For Super Committee Are Suspect?

Daniel Horowtiz - Well, the much anticipated picks for the debt deal Super Committee have been announced.  There will be much ink spilled over who was chosen and who was rejected.  However, the salient point is not the orientation of the committee, but the entire premise behind the committee itself.
Many conservatives will laud the choice of Pat Toomey for the committee; others will decry the pick of light bulb ban man, Fred Upton.  The reality is that none of this matters.
The Democrats have picked three radical leftists in the Senate, and are expected to follow suit with their House picks.  There is no way that Democrats on the committee will ever support meaningful spending cuts, repeal of Obamacare, or entitlement reform.  Harry Reid made sure to keep the likes of Kent Conrad and Mark Warner – senators, who have expressed some support for minor entitlement reforms – off the committee.
Even if the committee would miraculously approve some real spending cuts, does anyone really believe that Obama would support the recommendations more than he did Simpson-Bowles?  That blue-ribbon panel identified policy changes that both parties liked and hated; it called for some cuts and entitlement reform – and more taxes; nevertheless, Obama threw his own commission under the bus.  We are really to believe that Obama would approve a commission report that calls for good entitlement reforms with or without tax hikes?

Let’s be charitable for a moment and presume that Fred Upton will never support tax increases.  We must also anticipate that if he does support a tax increase, Boehner will be tenacious enough to whip up the votes against it.  Keep in mind that he is forced to schedule a vote on the committee’s recommendations.  But again, let’s assume that the tax hikes are defeated.  Is this the best we can do from a deal that was supposed to be a harbinger for sweeping spending cuts?  It is pathetic that the best we can say from our own deal, fueled by our own leverage, is that “at least we were spared from tax increases.”  No kidding!  The best we can hope for from our own leverage is that we won’t pass more imprudent legislation?  Weren’t we supposed to use our leverage to gain ground by reducing the size of government?
Instead of gaining ground with spending cuts, we will actually lose ground with this ridiculous super committee.  We can appoint Jim DeMint, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Jim Jordan, Michele Bachmann, and Jeff Flake to the committee – and it still won’t matter.  The new committee will be as ephemeral as Simpson-Bowles.  After the excitement surrounding the selections dies down, the committee will be deadlocked, triggering the sequestration process.  But that’s a good thing, isn’t it?
Nope.
This sequestration cuts 50% from defense spending, while exempting all welfare programs from the process.  We must remember that much of the discretionary cuts triggered from the first tranche will also include defense cuts.   Some of the remaining cuts will come from the government’s obligations to healthcare providers.  That’s some concession from Obama.  More precisely, it appears that he will be able to have his cake and eat it too.
The real problem has very little to do with the orientation of the committee.  The problem all along was this ridiculous debt deal that failed to preclude a credit downgrade, limit government, or curb entitlements.  Worse, it will cut from the few areas that the federal government is actually responsible to support.
But fear not; at the very least, we won’t incur tax hikes – or, will we?

Wisconsin Labor Unions KO'd In The Second Round

Karl - Despite an unprecedented push from Big Labor, involving tens of millions of dollars and turnout near the level of a regular election, the left failed to gain control of the Wisconsin senate in recall elections sought after Republicans passed budgetary and collective bargaining reforms in the state.  From Allahpundit’s usual yeoman aggregation, note the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel held an editorial until late yesterday (presumably today in print) stating:

So it turns out that the sky isn’t going to fall on all local governments in Wisconsin. The numbers now starting to come in show that Gov. Scott Walker’s “tools” for local governments apparently will help at least some of them deal with cuts in state aid imposed by the state budget.
That’s contrary to the expectation and the rhetoric of critics in the spring, and it’s to Walker’s credit. It bears out the governor’s assessment of his budget-repair bill, although we still maintain he could have reached his goals without dealing a body blow to public employee unions…

This grudging admission from the establishment media ignores that the union reforms broke up the cozy dominance of the WEA Trust as health insurer for public school teachers (and forced the trust to offer competitive rates in other districts), creating savings all across the state.  The MJS knows how uncompetitive these rates were, too.
As Walter Russell Mead notes, Wisconsin is simply a preview of the future elsewhere:

The tide is running hard against the public sector unions.  Wisconsin has been a big, Battle of Gettysburg style defeat, but the unions are suffering almost as much at the hands of their “friends” — Democratic politicians in blue states — as from open enemies like the Wisconsin GOP.  In New York, in Chicago, even in California, Democratic politicians are playing hardball.  They can’t help it.  There isn’t any money.
The public sector unions aren’t fighting a party; they are fighting arithmetic.  Sooner or later, numbers win.

Eventually, even the establishment media may figure this out.

Obama Campaign Getting Ready To "Massacre" Mitt Romney

Ed Morrissey - Remember when Barack Obama promised to change Washington?  When his election signaled the day that the earth cooled, the oceans receded, and politics as usual came to and end?  In 2012, as Andy McCarthy puts it, Hope and Change will be old and busted.  The New Hotness — leave the guns, take the cannoli:

Barack Obama’s aides and advisers are preparing to center the president’s re-election campaign on a ferocious personal assault on Mitt Romney’s character and business background, a strategy grounded in the early stage expectation that the former Massachusetts governor is the likely GOP nominee.
The dramatic and unabashedly negative turn is the product of political reality. Obama remains personally popular, but pluralities in recent polling disapprove of his handling of his job and Americans fear the country is on the wrong track. His aides are increasingly resigned to running for re-election in a glum nation. And so the candidate who ran on “hope” in 2008 has little choice four years later but to run a slashing, personal campaign aimed at disqualifying his likeliest opponent.

In a move that will make some Democrats shudder, Obama’s high command has even studied President Bush’s 2004 takedown of Sen. John F. Kerry, a senior campaign adviser told POLITICO, for clues on how a president with middling approval ratings can defeat a challenger.

“Unless things change and Obama can run on accomplishments, he will have to kill Romney,” said a prominent Democratic strategist aligned with the White House.

“Kill Romney”?  That’s not very New Tone, is it?
Let’s take these in reverse order.  First, the idea that George Bush started the politics of personal destruction in 2004 is fatuous.  Long before the Swift Boat Vets for Truth became a force in the campaign, Kerry and his allies had already started attacking Bush over his service in the Texas Air National Guard.  Democrats hailed Kerry as a real war hero in comparison to Bush, who never claimed to be one in the first place, and cast aspersions on Bush’s service and honesty.  All through 2004, Democrats accused Bush of having his father buy him out of deployment to Vietnam, gossip which culminated in a horrendous September installment on 60 Minutes II that used falsified documents to slander Bush just weeks before the campaign.  The entire attack was a lie.
Next, it’s true that Obama does remain personally popular in surveys, but that’s not going to last long if the economy slides into another recession and job losses start mounting again.  His personal likeability won’t last long, either, if his campaign starts making a series of personal attacks on his opponents.  Given the dropping approval ratings — which is what really matters — Obama would be better off recalculating his policies to produce better results.
Finally, it’s way too early for target selection anyway.  Perhaps the White House fears Romney more than, say, Rick Perry, who will bigfoot this race when he finally jumps into it in the coming days, and they want to help push him out of the way.  However, if they’re already starting on a personal attack strategy for Romney and leaking it, they’d better hope that Romney is the eventual nominee.  If Republicans end up nominating Perry or another Republican instead and the strategy simply shifts to the new challenger, it makes their operation all the more obvious and much less effective.
In any case, strategizing this early on personal attacks rather than positive arguments shows a lot of desperation in the White House at the moment — as well as a tacit admission that they don’t expect to have a positive argument for a second Obama term by late 2012.

Rush Limbaugh: Obamageddon, Barackalypse, 'Obama Debt Man Walking" in 2012

RUSH:  Does anybody now doubt that this is on purpose? I mean, after all, Barack Obama inherits a AAA credit rating from George W. Bush, and look what he does to it.  Obama is always running around complaining and whining and moaning about all that he inherited from George W. Bush.  Well, he inherited a AAA credit rating, an unemployment rate of 5.7%.  Does anybody doubt that this is on purpose?  Well, look, my credit rating doesn't suck.  There are a lot of individual Americans whose credit ratings aren't in trouble.  The United States has never been in this position -- and the next thing that's gonna happen is that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and others are going to be downgraded. What are the Democrats doing?  Blaming the referees! Blaming Standard & Poor's! That always changes the outcome, doesn't it?  Blame the refs.  You people in Seattle? The Seahawks, Super Bowl, 2005, Steelers? Blame the refs.  Last time I looked the Steelers still won the game.  So go ahead and blame Standard & Poor's all you want, Democrats. Now they're blaming the military! Barney Frank's blaming the military.  Rumsfeld was on our DC affiliate this morning, WMAL.  You know our military spending is 4% of GDP right now?  Military spending is 4% of GDP.  During the Eisenhower administration in the fifties, post the WWII, defense spending was 10% of GDP.  Today it's 4% of GDP, and Barney Frank and the Democrats are try to say it's the military's fault that we've been downgraded. This is the fault of the Democrat Party.  Greetings, my friends, I am Rush Limbaugh: America's Anchorman fighting the rising forces of socialism.  They want us to believe now that France is better than we are?  And of course you can talk about S&P all you want, folks, but the real problem that we've got and the real referee we're dealing with are the loan sharks, and that's the ChiComs.  The ChiComs are dictating the terms of this. They are our number one lender; and, you know, ask the banks about what happened when Trump was having trouble paying them back. What did they have to do?  If Trump went down, they went down.  Well, the ChiComs are in much the similar situation. This is just so outrageous.  Even my old buddy Pete Wehner who worked for Rove in the White House and who has been reluctant... Pete's the epitome of fairness and evenhandedness and so forth.  Even Pete, at his Commentary magazine blog today, said this:  "It reinforces, perhaps, like nothing else has the impression that Obama is overseeing -- and some respects engineering -- the decline of the American republic."  There can be no doubt!  It now just takes the courage to admit it.  This is why I said, "I hope he fails," because I didn't want to see this happen to our country.  I am mad and I am depressed at the same time over what happened to the SEALs in Afghanistan. Folks, this is not who we are.  This country today, as constituted, is not who we are.  Now, sometimes that phrase is incorporated when some actor or Hollywood type will get caught in an embarrassing situation, and while being caught in the act of whatever it is, say, "This is not who I am."  Yes, it is who you are.  You were doing it!  Well, this is not who we are.  This legitimately is not who we are.  We are not, we were never intended to be a nation in decline.  We have a president that's overseeing -- and Pete's right here: Engineering -- the decline of the American republic.  I'm glad that somebody is finally starting to echo this.  Just like... Snerdley, what year did I do my April Fool's thing, "tax the poor"?  That was 1990 some odd, right? It was the early 1990s, and the whole point -- even though it was an April Fool's joke, the whole point of it -- was that a rising percentage of Americans were not paying taxes, not just the poor, and now we're up to 48% of the American people have no skin in the game, not paying taxes.  In 1993, 1994, I, El Rushbo, got the ball rolling with this whole notion of tax the poor -- and even though I did it on April Fool's and as a partial April Fool's joke, of course people fell for it. It was almost as effective as when I endorsed Bill Clinton that day for ten minutes, and then denied it to every caller thereafter.  I said, "No, I didn't endorse Clinton."  "I just heard you!"  "That was in my youth. You can't hold me accountable for things I did in my youth," to try to illustrate what a liar the guy was.

So I'm simply trying to point out here that this is all being done on purpose, and it's tragic, and it just ticks me off.  When Barney Frank sits over there and starts talking about how we need to cut defense, he is singing from the ChiCom hymnal.  They want us to cut our defense spending, too!  Now, contrary to what the Democrats are saying, Standard & Poor's is not saying we're not taxed enough; they're saying we're spending too much -- and I'll tell you something else, and I have written this to a bunch of people over the weekend.  Another thing I'm ticked off about is this stupid debt deal.  Remember last week on Wednesday, after Obama received the new spending authority in that debt deal we spent $259 billion in one day. We went $259 billion in debt in one day which was more than the cuts over ten years are gonna ending being in the debt deal.  Now, before the debt deal started, before it was signed, I told you the Republicans were operating out of fear.We were told that if we did not sign that debt deal, what? What were we told?  Let me ask you. We were told that our credit would be downgraded, that we might go into default, and that the Republicans would be blamed for it.  Okay, so we did the debt deal.  What happened?  Our credit has been downgraded, we haven't gone into default, but the Republicans are being blamed for it, and the military is being blamed for it! So an opportunity to sit there and do the right thing, once agai, was squandered because of fear.  George Patton wrote a poem in 1945 entitled, "I am Fear." I have it here, and at some point during the program today I'm gonna read it to you as only I, America's Anchorman, can. He was paid $250 by Cosmopolitan magazine, I think it was, to write this poem -- 250 bucks back in the forties -- and it is perfect.  Tax the Poor was April 1st, 1991.  That's what being on the cutting edge of societal evolution is all about. Taxing the poor. I suggested it in April 1st of 1991, and of course the whole point of it was that a rising tide of Americans were not paying for what they were getting.  And of course I was castigated from coast to coast for it.  And here we are 20 years later. (interruption) It did make the news!  Oh, yeah, it made the national news. Taxing the poor made national news, of course it did. Now, 20 years comes along and goes by and I understand there are other people out there claiming they are responsible for all the attention to do it now. Fine and dandy, but folks,  (long sigh) I can't tell you as a proud, patriotic, heartfelt, God-do-I-love-this-country American, how mad I am at what is being done while everybody sits around and watches it.  You may not want to admit that this is being done on purpose, but if you sit down and you spend just 15 minutes analyzing what has happened in the last two and a half years, I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion.  In the last two and a half years we've had plenty of time to assess what hasn't been working and change it.  Instead, we have doubled down in what hasn't been working.  We have doubled and tripled what hasn't been working.  We piled what doesn't work on top of what doesn't work, on top of what doesn't work.  The old definition of "insanity" is "doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result."  We've got it!  We have insanity at the upper levels of our government.  So now we know what Obama got for his birthday: A downgrade of our credit rating, probably exactly what he wanted in his heart of hearts.  Has he said anything about it?  No.  What's the market today?  Ha!  We're down just a measly 304 today.  The futures last night had us down 290 at the opening bell.  So we're down a measly 304. So Democrats, let me ask you: Are you happy now?  You've finally got your hope and change.  I said that I hoped he would fail, and this is exactly what I meant.  But, from your perspective, from Obama's perspective, he hasn't failed.  He's succeeded beyond his wildest dreams -- and now look where we are.  How many of you saw the movie Planet of the Apes?  Do you remember how that movie ended?  Colonel George Taylor on a beach, Statue of Liberty halfway buried. New York City doesn't exist. Charlton Heston is Colonel George Taylor, "You did it. You finally did it! Damn you all to hell, you did it."  That's how I feel today.  That's how I felt all weekend long.  Damn it to hell, they did it!

Obamageddon.  That's what we have witnessed since Friday.  Obamageddon. Barackalypse Now.  The only silver lining I can find is that as far as 2012 goes, Obama's a Debt Man Walking.  Anybody want to tell me he's not landslidable now?  Let me repeat this as the Media Tweak of the Day: "What we have witnessed since Friday is Obamageddon, Barackalypse Now; and the only silver lining out there is that as far as 2012 goes, Obama's now Debt Man Walking."  What's he gonna say?  He's gonna make a speech at one o'clock. "We gotta all work together! Construction workers, go out there and rebuild America."  Balanced approach? Yeah, balanced approach: Tax increases! Where has Obama been hiding over the weekend?  I know he's been playing golf.  Our problem is he hasn't been playing enough golf as it turns out.  But how come he's refusing to go on TV and talk about this?  Shouldn't he be talking about it, maybe taking a victory lap, spiking the ball in the end zone? The NFL's back;  he said he was hoping that would happen.  Well, go out there. Go to some team's training camp and spike the ball in the end zone.  Obama's managed to accomplish something else that's completely "unprecedented," which is one of his favorite words.  This is unprecedented.  Our credit rating started in 1917. This is unprecedented.  Instead the White House is saying Obama won't dignify S&P's downgrade with a response, which just means they haven't been able to come up with one.  Christina Romer has, though.  She said we've been intercoursed.  Our economy's intercoursed.  Christina Romer, yeah.  I got the sound bite.  Grab audio sound bite number five.  This Friday night, HBO's Real Time, that idiot, Bill Maher, talking to former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors Christina Romer about the economy, and Bill Maher says, "How intercoursed are we?  I mean, right before the show S&P downgraded our credit rating."

ROMER:  Pretty darn (bleep). MAHER:  Ooh. AUDIENCE: (applause and laughter) ROMER:  I've been hanging around Tim Geithner too long. AUDIENCE: (laughter) MAHER:  Why?  Does he swear like a sailor? ROMER:  Oh, like a seventh grade boy. RUSH:  So our former head of the Council of Economic Advisors is going on a comedy show on HBO to talk about how our economy is now "intercoursed," and she was one of the former economic team that helped introduce policies that led us to the point where now we're intercoursed.  (interruption) What did...? (interruption) Who, Biden did?  (interruption) Gore?  Oh, I said Gore over the edge?  I haven't heard anything about Gore did, haven't paid any... (interruption)  What did Gore do?  Cursed us out?  Cursed...? (interruption) Who?  Cursed us, when you say...? (interruption)  Oh, oh, that. Oh, that, oh, that. He's ticked off because we can't talk about the G-D climate anymore. Yeah, well, we beat that back. That's one moment of progress.  We've had a AAA credit rating since 1917, all the way through World War I. The Great Depression, we had a AAA credit rating. World War II, we had a AAA credit rating, and we lose it now, and for what?  For what great purpose did we lose it?  Except an ideological hatred of American capitalism and a love of class warfare, what did we lose our AAA rating for?  A naked effort to get still more and more money to buy votes.  A never-ending quest for power, that's why we lost our AAA credit rating.  Think about it: Obama's finally managed another major accomplishment on that list he told us he had, that list that he said he'd only done about 70% so far.  At long last, Obama and his fellow Democrats have finally been able to convince the world that we are just another country, after all. There's nothing exceptional about us or our economy.  For crying out loud, France has a higher credit rating than we do.  France!  They produce cheese and perfume, for crying out loud. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH:  Yeah, Christina Romer says that we have been intercoursed.  She's the one that gave us the date rape drug, which was the stimulus!  Obama's gonna come out at one o'clock. He's gonna say that we need more taxes, more spending, more stimulus.  (He's in summer reruns right before he goes on vacation.)

29% Of American Voters Say Tea Partiers Are Terrorist

Alex Pappas - Vice President Joe Biden caught some flak recently after he and other Democrats reportedly compared tea partiers to terrorists during the debate to raise the debt ceiling.
But it turns out only 29 percent of Americans agree with him, according to a Rasmussen poll released Monday. Fifty-five percent disagree. (RELATED: Conservatives strike back against ‘Tea Party downgrade’ label)
Rasmussen’s poll surveyed 1,000 likely voters on Aug. 5 and 6, asking them, “Some people have accused the Tea Party of acting like economic terrorists during the budget debates.  Are members of the Tea Party economic terrorists?”
A spokesman for Biden, who according to Politico joined other Democrats in a closed-door meeting in making the comparison, distanced the vice president from the reports.
“The word was used by several members of Congress,” spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff told the publication. “The vice president does not believe it’s an appropriate term in political discourse.”
Well known tea party groups jumped on Biden’s remarks and called them insensitive.
“It is offensive, false and shocking that the person one step away from the Presidency calls Members of Congress, who were elected on tea party principles, a term used for the attackers on 9/11,” said Jenny Beth Martin, a national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots.

Republican Presidential Canidate Michele Bachmann Questions Obama Admin.After Agency Downgrades U.S. Credit Rating

(CNN) -- A day after Standard & Poor's rating agency downgraded the U.S. credit rating to AA+ from its top rank of AAA, there were more questions than answers Saturday about what effects the move will have on the economy and American consumers.
The move by S&P, one of the leading credit rating agencies, came just days after Congress approved a deal to deliver $2.1 trillion in savings over the next decade. The deal followed heated debt-ceiling talks in Washington.
"The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics," S&P said Friday shortly after markets closed.
While was unclear what the short-term impact of the credit rating downgrade would be, some initial answers were expected Monday when the stock market reopened.
One area of concern is whether a downgrade would ward off investors from buying U.S. debt and increase the country's cost to borrow money, therefore increasing consumer interest rates on everything from mortgages to car loans to student loans.

"Only time's going to tell how we're going to be affected," former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker told CNN's Anderson Cooper. "Interest rates that affect the U.S. government ultimately can ripple throughout the economy, which is not good news given our weak economic condition already."
Rating agencies such as S&P, Moody's and Fitch analyze risk and give debt a grade that is supposed to reflect the borrower's ability to repay its loans.
The safest bets are stamped AAA. That's where U.S. debt has stood for years. Moody's first assigned the United States a AAA rating in 1917.
Fitch and Moody's, the other two main credit ratings agencies, maintained the AAA rating for the United States after this week's debt deal, though Moody's lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to "negative."
A negative outlook indicates the possibility that Moody's could downgrade the country's sovereign credit rating within a year or two.
John Chambers, the head of sovereign ratings at S&P, told CNN that the political brinkmanship over the debt ceiling proved to be a key issue, with "the U.S. government getting to the last day before they had cash-management problems."
Few governments separate the budget process from the debt-authorization process as the United States does, he noted.
And, though the budget deal that finally was reached will deliver at least $2.1 trillion in savings over the next decade, that will not suffice, he said. "It's going to be difficult to get beyond that -- at least in the near term -- and you do need to get beyond that to get to a point where the debt-to-GDP ratio is going to stabilize."
Asked who was to blame, Chambers said, "This is a problem that's been a long time in the making -- well over this administration, the prior administration."
Congress should shoulder some of the blame, he said. "The first thing it could have done is to have raised the debt clinging in a timely manner so that much of this debate had been avoided to begin with, as it had done 60 or 70 times since 1960 without that much debate."
Chambers added that his agency's decision is likely to have a long-term impact. "Once you lose your AAA, it doesn't usually bounce back," he said.
He pointed to the decision by Congress about whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as one crucial area. "If you let them lapse for the high-income earners, that could give you another $950 billion," he said.
U.S. Treasury officials received S&P's analysis Friday afternoon and alerted the agency to an error that inflated U.S. deficits by $2 trillion, said an administration official, who was not authorized to speak for attribution.

The agency acknowledged the mistake, but said it was sticking with its decision. The administration official called it "a facts-be-damned decision ... Their analysis was way off, but they wouldn't budge."
But Chambers defended his agency's move. "It doesn't make a material difference," he said. "It doesn't change the fact that your debt-to-GDP ratio, under most plausible assumptions, will continue to rise over the next decade."
Rumors of a possible downgrade surfaced shortly after Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi announced in Rome that finance ministers of the Group of Seven industrialized nations may meet "in a few days" to discuss the sagging world economy.
The G7 members are Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States.
The announcement came on a day when financial anxiety gripped the globe. Stock markets worldwide saw intense volatility amid worries of a widening debt crisis in Europe and a stalled economic recovery in the United States.
American markets were dramatically up and down a day after having their worst day since the 2008 financial crisis.
Stock market values fell Friday across Europe and Asia, where reaction to news of the U.S. credit downgrade was mixed.
A scathing editorial in the Chinese state-run Xinhua News Agency criticized the United States for living outside its means.
"China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States to address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets," the editorial said.
"To cure its addiction to debts, the United States has to re-establish the common sense principle that one should live within its means."
Other responses were more measured.
"We will have to analyze it. It will require some time," said India's finance minister, Pranab Mukherjee. "(The) situation is grave and there is no gain in making off-the-cuff remarks."
In South Korea, which also holds a large amount of U.S. debt, the Yonhap news agency said government officials were closely monitoring financial developments in the United States.
"The news is bad and Seoul plans to keep very close tabs on how the market reacts," Yoon Jong-won, head of the ministry's economic policy bureau, told Yonhap.
Concerns about debt issues in Europe appeared to battle with optimism that a positive U.S. jobs report indicated the American economy is not headed into a new recession -- the dreaded "double-dip."
"The crisis in Europe is quickly becoming on par with the financial crisis of 2008," David Levy, portfolio manager at Kenjol Capital Management, told CNN Money. "The jobs report shows that things aren't getting much worse in the U.S., but the focus is clearly on Europe at this point."
"We are going to get through this," Obama said prior to the downgrade at the Washington Navy Yard, where he announced a jobs program for veterans. "Things will get better. And we're going to get there together."

Obama, who spoke Friday afternoon with France's Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel about the crisis, noted that July marked the 17th consecutive month of private-sector job growth in the United States, but said much more work needs to be done.

Battleground States Swing Against Obama

Karl - This morning’s Quinnipiac University poll is no birthday present for the president:

The national debt ceiling deal does not rescue President Barack Obama’s crashing job approval rating in Florida as he gets a negative 44 – 51 percent score among voters surveyed August 1 – 2, after the deal was announced, compared to a negative 44 – 50 percent score among voters surveyed July 27 – 31, before the deal ***.

This compares to a positive 51 – 43 percent approval rating for President Obama in a May 26 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll.

Florida voters surveyed after the deal say 50 – 42 percent that Obama does not deserve to be reelected, compared to a 47 – 46 percent split before the deal and 50 – 44 percent support for his reelection May 26.

Indeed, the Q-Poll shows Mitt Romney and Rick Perry both gained on Obama in the post-deal polling.  Other internals are similarly bad.  NRO’s Jim Geraghty notes Florida women shifted from 53%/40% approval/disapproval of Obama in May to a 46/49 split today.  The Hotline’s Josh Kraushaar  thinks the most scary number for Obama in the poll is the 61% job disapproval among independents, with just 33% approving, noting:  “That’s Bush post-Katrina territory.”  Kraushaar also gives the broader context: “All told, we now have Obama behind/in deep trouble in FL, IA, PA, MI, OH, NH, and NC in the last month.”  He adds that those are “Dukakis ’88 numbers.”

Maybe Obama’s seventh pivot to jobs will turn things around.  Our Orator-in-Chief is taking a thinly-veiled, taxpayer-funded campaign tour through Midwestern swing states later this month.  As the odds of a double-dip recession rise, it may take more than words to slow the ocean of bad news for the unemployed and the Lightworker who desperately does not want to join their ranks next year.

American Debt Ceiling Deal from From Hell

Economic Collapse - Is the debt ceiling deal supposed to be some sort of a cruel joke?  Is this what the American people have been waiting months and months for?  The “debt ceiling deal from hell” is a complete and total fraud.  Barack Obama will not need to worry about the debt ceiling again until after the 2012 election, and no “real” spending cuts will happen until after the 2012 election.  The way the political game in Washington D.C. is played today, if you don’t get something right now, you probably will never end up getting it.  The Republicans have traded a massive debt ceiling increase right now for the possibility of very skimpy budget cuts in the future.  Meanwhile, this deal establishes a new “Super Congress” that threatens to fundamentally alter our political system (and not in a good way).  The funny thing is that everyone is running around proclaiming that the Tea Party won this battle.  That is a complete and total lie.
So what about the $917 billion in “immediate” spending cuts that the Republicans are getting as part of this deal?
Well, they aren’t really spending cuts at all.  Rather, they are spending caps.  Basically what is happening is that future spending increases are being cancelled and our politicians are selling that to us as “spending cuts”.
What is even sadder is that the $917 billion is spread over ten years and the vast majority of the “cuts” are in the latter years.
For example, even if you consider these to be “spending cuts” (which they are not), the deal calls for only about $25 billion in “cuts” in 2012 and only about$47 billion in “cuts” in 2013.
25 billion dollars is far less than one percent of the federal budget, so needless to say these “cuts” are not very impressive at all.
Okay, so how about the second stage of the deal which will produce “spending cuts” of between 1.2 and 1.5 trillion dollars?
Well, yes, these would actually be spending cuts and they would be spread over 10 years.
Near the end of the year, the new “Super Congress” (more on that in a minute) will submit a proposal to Congress which could cut spending over the next 10 years by a total of up to 1.5 trillion dollars.
If the recommendations of the “Super Congress” are not implemented, than “automatic” spending cuts of $1.2 trillion will go into effect over the next 10 years.

• However, there are some very important things to remember about these “spending cuts”.

First of all, none of these “automatic” spending cuts would even go into effect until 2013.  The face of American politics will be dramatically different by then, and there is absolutely nothing that makes these cuts binding on Congress.
As Gregg Easterbrook recently noted, Congress can cancel spending cuts at any time and for any reason….

By projecting the only tangible savings — which aren’t even specified, but are merely caps — into the future, the plan allows Congress to cancel them. In 2012 or any future year, Congress will say, “We can’t have caps this year because of the [INSERT ANY WORD CHOSEN AT RANDOM] crisis. We are postponing action till next year.” Rinse and repeat.

As I have written about so many times before, the U.S. national debt is completely and totally out of control.  This was supposed to be the moment when at least some members of Congress were finally going to get serious about our exploding debt.  Unfortunately, our politicians have sold us down the river once again.
Even if the best case scenario happens (which it never does) and Congress sticks to this deal for the full ten years (which is about as likely as hell freezing over), the “savings” that this deal would produce are quite pathetic as Peter Schiff recently explained….

The Congressional Budget Office currently projects that $9.5 trillion in new debt will have to be issued over the next 10 years. Even if all of the reductions proposed in the deal were to come to pass, which is highly unlikely, that would still leave $7.1 trillion in new debt accumulation by 2021. Our problems have not been solved by a long shot.

Keep in mind that Congress can change this deal whenever it wants.
So nobody should get excited about these “spending cuts”.  After all, when was the last time that “future spending cuts” actually materialized in Washington?
The reality is that neither political party seems to want to do much to cut government spending.
So the band will play on and the can will get kicked even farther down the road.
When Obama was inaugurated, the U.S. national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08.
Today, it is $14,342,358,440,969.10.
But what this “debt ceiling deal” will do is it will give the congressional leadership of both parties much more power.
The new “Super Congress” that this deal establishes will be granted “extraordinary new powers” that regular members of Congress do not possess.
For example, The Huffington Post says that any new legislation produced by the “Super Congress” will not be able to be filibustered or amended….

Under the reported framework, legislation the new congressional committee writes would be fast-tracked through Congress and could not be filibustered or amended.

So who will be a part of the “Super Congress”?
The members will be chosen by the leadership of both parties.
So anyone that is not part of the “establishment” is not likely to be included.
The following is what U.S. Representative Ron Paul had to say about this new “Super Congress”….

“Nothing more than a way to disenfranchise the majority of Congress by denying them the chance for meaningful participation in the crucial areas of entitlement and tax reform. It cedes power to draft legislation to a special commission, hand-picked by the House and Senate leadership.”

It is this new “Super Congress” that will decide what will be in the package of “spending cuts” that will be voted on by the end of the year.
Regular members of Congress will be frozen out of the process.
On December 23rd, Congress will be required to vote up or down on the spending cuts proposed by the “Super Congress”.  Regular members of Congress will not be allowed to amend the legislation in any way, and no filibusters will be permitted.
Does that sound very “American” to you?
The more that one examines this “debt ceiling deal”, the worse it looks.
Meanwhile, many Democrats are running around and acting as if their lunch money was just stolen.
For example, the following is what Politico is reporting that U.S. Representative Mike Doyle said about this deal….

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Democratic congressman Emanuel Cleaver was even more dramatic when he proclaimed that this deal “looks like a Satan sandwich“.
Well, this deal is a total nightmare, but not for the reasons that Cleaver is suggesting.
This deal opens the door for more rampant deficit spending, and nearly all of the “spending cuts” are put off until after the 2012 election.
Basically, the Republicans got taken out behind the woodshed and beaten to a pulp on this one.  Any Republican that is trying to proclaim that the debt ceiling deal is a “great victory” is a complete moron.
But in the end, it really does not matter which political party gets a “victory” out of all this.  What matters is that our federal government is still steamrolling toward a date with financial oblivion.
If this is the best that our politicians can come up with, we are absolutely doomed.

Progressive Dems: Smearing The Tea Party

Jeff Jocoby - DID VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN slander Tea Party Republicans by saying they "acted like terrorists" in the protracted debate over raising the federal debt ceiling? To use such language would be contemptible, especially in the wake of Anders Breivik's twin massacres in Norway and just weeks before the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 atrocities. Biden claims he never said it, and out of respect for his office I'd like to say I believe him.
But I don't.
Politico reported Monday afternoon that at a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic caucus the vice president joined in the "hot rhetoric" against GOP conservatives, specifically agreeing with one Democrat who described them as a "group of terrorists [who] have made it impossible to spend any money." Biden's office initially refused to confirm or deny the comment, but after it became public, he went on TV to disavow it: "I did not use the 'terrorism' word," he told CBS.
What makes Biden's denial so implausible is that liberals and Democrats have been flinging the "terrorist" slur across the aisle for weeks. Do you remember President Obama's call, after the deadly shooting in Tucson last January, for "more civility in our public discourse?" Remember how he deplored the urge "to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do?" Many on the left have apparently forgotten, to judge by their zeal for linking the Tea Party's views on the debt ceiling to the extremism that leads fanatics to kill.
Listen, for example, to former Obama administration official Steven Rattner, speaking on MSNBC last week: "These Tea Party guys are, like, strapped with dynamite, standing in the middle of Times Square at rush hour and saying, 'Either you do it my way, or we're going to blow you up, ourselves up, and the whole country up with us.'"
Or to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, warning that "if sane Republicans do not stand up to this Hezbollah faction in their midst, the Tea Party will take the GOP on a suicide mission."
Or to Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House Minority Whip, talking about "Russian roulette" with loaded chambers, and how House Republicans "want to shoot every bullet they have at the president."
Or to former Ted Kennedy aide William Yeomans, now an American University law professor, who says labeling Tea Party Republicans "hostage-takers" doesn't go far enough, since "they have now become full-blown terrorists."
I am no prig when it comes to robust political commentary. I have always believed that the marketplace of ideas has room for rhetoric that is passionate, combative, or angry. And I respect the power of an apt metaphor to enliven a critique or sharpen an argument. But there is language that goes beyond the limits of decency. Smearing people as "terrorists" -- as the equivalent of hate-filled zealots who blow up embassies and gun down children and detonate bombs in crowded subways -- adds nothing but poison to a debate over fiscal policy. There is nothing clever or illuminating about such invective. It is illiberal and grotesque and it pollutes our public discourse.
Twenty years ago, Mike Godwin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation observed that in any online debate, it is only a matter of time before someone invokes Adolf Hitler or the Nazis to discredit an opponent's position. Sadly, "Godwin's Law" seems more entrenched than ever, and it isn't limited to the internet or to Nazi analogies.
In the course of the debt-ceiling showdown, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that GOP resistance would force the government into "a Sophie's choice. Who do you save?" -- a Godwinian reference to the movie in which Meryl Streep plays a mother able to rescue only one of her children from death in a Nazi concentration camp. Republicans and Tea Party members also found themselves compared to pro-apartheid Afrikaaners, to the Ku Klux Klan, to arsonists. And, over and over again, to terrorists.
I know that American politics, to coin a phrase, ain't beanbag. Political passions have always run high, and I wouldn't want to live in a country where public issues and values weren't vigorously contested. But there is a difference -- a sharp difference -- between disputing a view you reject and demonizing someone who holds that view as a murderous enemy. Liberals who loathe the Tea Party have every right to challenge it. But when, in an apoplectic frenzy, they defame its members as "terrorists," they go way too far, and debase only themselves.