Monthly Archives: October 2012

Listing of transcripts and videos of Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” on www.theDailyHatch.org

Everywhere school vouchers have been tried they have been met with great success. Why do you think President Obama got rid of them in Washington D.C.? It was a political disaster for him because the school unions had always opposed them and their success made Obama’s allies look bad.

In 1980 when I first sat down and read the book “Free to Choose” I was involved in Ronald Reagan’s campaign for president and excited about the race. Milton Friedman’s books and film series really helped form my conservative views. Take a look at one of my favorite films of his and this one deals with school vouchers:

Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 1 of 6.

 
Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools
Transcript:
Friedman: These youngsters are beginning another day at one of America’s public schools, Hyde Park High School in Boston. What happens when they pass through those doors is a vivid illustration of some of the problems facing America’s schools.
They have to pass through metal detectors. They are faced by security guards looking for hidden weapons. They are watched over by armed police. Isn’t that awful. What a way for kids to have to go to school, through metal detectors and to be searched. What can they conceivably learn under such circumstances. Nobody is happy with this kind of education. The taxpayers surely aren’t. This isn’t cheap education. After all, those uniformed policemen, those metal detectors have to be paid for.
What about the broken windows, the torn school books, and the smashed school equipment. The teachers who teach here don’t like this kind of situation. The students don’t like to come here to go to school, and most of all, the parents __ they are the ones who get the worst deal __ they pay taxes like the rest of us and they are just as concerned about the kind of education that their kids get as the rest of us are. They know their kids are getting a bad education but they feel trapped. Many of them can see no alternative but to continue sending their kids to schools like this.
To go back to the beginning, it all started with the fine idea that every child should have a chance to learn his three R’s. Sometimes in June when it gets hot, the kids come out in the yard to do their lessons, all 15 of them, ages 5 to 13, along with their teacher. This is the last one-room schoolhouse still operating in the state of Vermont. That is the way it used to be. Parental control, parents choosing the teacher, parents monitoring the schooling, parents even getting together and chipping in to paint the schoolhouse as they did here just a few weeks ago. Parental concern is still here as much in the slums of the big cities as in Bucolic, Vermont. But control by parents over the schooling of their children is today the exception, not the rule.
Increasingly, schools have come under the control of centralized administration, professional educators deciding what shall be taught, who shall do the teaching, and even what children shall go to what school. The people who lose most from this system are the poor and the disadvantaged in the large cities. They are simply stuck. They have no alternative.
Of course, if you are well off you do have a choice. You can send your child to a private school or you can move to an area where the public schools are excellent, as the parents of many of these students have done. These students are graduating from Weston High School in one of Boston’s wealthier suburbs. Their parents pay taxes instead of tuition and they certainly get better value for their money than do the parents in Hyde Park. That is partly because they have kept a good deal of control over the local schools, and in the process, they have managed to retain many of the virtues of the one-room schoolhouse.
Students here, like Barbara King, get the equivalent of a private education. They have excellent recreational facilities. They have a teaching staff that is dedicated and responsive to parents and students. There is an atmosphere which encourages learning, yet the cost per pupil here is no higher than in many of our inner city schools. The difference is that at Weston, it all goes for education that the parents still retain a good deal of control.
Unfortunately, most parents have lost control over how their tax money in spent. Avabelle goes to Hyde Park High. Her parents too want her to have a good education, but many of the students here are not interested in schooling, and the teachers, however dedicated, soon lose heart in an atmosphere like this. Avabelle’s parents are certainly not getting value for their tax money.
Caroline Bell, Parent: I think it is a shame, really, that parents are being ripped off like we are. I am talking about parents like me that work every day, scuffle to try to make ends meet. We send our kids to school hoping that they will receive something that will benefit them in the future for when they go out here and compete in the job market. Unfortunately, none of that is taking place at Hyde Park.
Friedman: Children like Ava are being shortchanged by a system that was designed to help. But there are ways to help give parents more say over their children’s schooling.
This is a fundraising evening for a school supported by a voluntary organization, New York’s Inner City Scholarship Fund. The prints that have brought people here have been loaned by wealthy Japanese industrialist. Events like this have helped raise two million dollars to finance Catholic parochial schools in New York. The people here are part of a long American tradition. The results of their private voluntary activities have been remarkable.
This is one of the poorest neighborhoods in New York City: the Bronx. Yet this parochial school, supported by the fund, is a joy to visit. The youngsters here from poor families are at Saint John Christians because their parents have picked this school and their parents are paying some of the costs from their own pockets. The children are well behaved, eager to learn, the teachers are dedicated. The cost per pupil here is far less than in the public schools, yet on the average the children are two grades ahead. That is because teachers and parents are free to choose how the children shall be taught. Private money has replaced the tax money and so control has been taken away from the bureaucrats and put back where it belongs.
This doesn’t work just for younger children. In the 60’s, Harlem was devastated by riots. It was a hot bed of trouble. Many teenagers dropped out of school.
_____
 
 
Milton Friedman congratulated by President Ronald Reagan. © 2008 Free To Choose Media, courtesy of the Power of Choice press kit

Here are some great jobs about Milton Friedman:

“Milton Friedman is a scholar of first rank whose original contributions to economic science have made him one of the greatest thinkers in modern history.”
President Ronald Reagan

“How grateful I have been over the years for the cogency of Friedman’s ideas which have influenced me. Cherishers of freedom will be indebted to him for generations to come.”
Alan Greenspan, former Chairman, Federal Reserve System

“Right at this moment there are people all over the land, I could put dots on the map, who are trying to prove Milton wrong. At some point, somebody else is trying to prove he’s right That’s what I call influence.”
Paul Samuelson, Nobel Laureate in Economic Science

“Friedman’s influence reaches far beyond the academic community and the world of economics. Rather than lock himself in an ivory tower, he has joined the fray to fight for the survival of this great country of ours.”
William E. Simon, former Secretary of the Treasury

“Milton Friedman is the most original social thinker of the era.”
John Kenneth Galbraith, former Professor of Economics, Harvard University

Other segments: 

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 6 of transcript and video)

Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 6 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: FRIEDMAN: But I personally think it’s a good thing. But I don’t see that any reason whatsoever why I shouldn’t have been required […]

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 5 of transcript and video)

Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 5 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: Are your voucher schools  going to accept these tough children? COONS: You bet they are. (Several talking at once.) COONS: May I answer […]

 

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 3 of transcript and video)

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 3 of transcript and video) Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 3 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: If it […]

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 2 of transcript and video)

Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 2 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: Groups of concerned parents and teachers decided to do something about it. They used private funds to take over empty stores and they […]

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 1 of transcript and video)

Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 1 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: Friedman: These youngsters are beginning another day at one of America’s public schools, Hyde Park High School in Boston. What happens when […]

Why can’t we get an apology from the President concerning Libya?

I have emailed and written the President over 200 times in the last year and I have received over 20 emails and 5 letters back from the White House. However, I have been most urgent in my emails and letter writing concerning this issue about the youtube video being blamed for the attack in Libya.

I don’t understand why the president doesn’t apologize for even mentioning the youtube video when there was not even a protest going on in Libya the day of the attack? Take a look at these quotes below from the White House:

What the Obama administration has said about the Libya attack

By Michael Pearson, CNN
updated 2:19 PM EDT, Wed October 17, 2012
Demonstrators set the U.S. Consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya, on fire on September 11. The U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. nationals were killed during the attack. The Obama administration initially blamed a mob inflamed by a U.S.-produced movie that mocked Islam and its Prophet Mohammed, but later said the storming of the consulate appears to have been a terrorist attack. <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/11/middleeast/gallery/cairo-embassy/index.html' target='_blank'>Photos: Protesters storm U.S. Embassy buildings</a> Demonstrators set the U.S. Consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya, on fire on September 11. The U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. nationals were killed during the attack. The Obama administration initially blamed a mob inflamed by a U.S.-produced movie that mocked Islam and its Prophet Mohammed, but later said the storming of the consulate appears to have been a terrorist attack. Photos: Protesters storm U.S. Embassy buildingsON
Attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya>>

(CNN) — Questions surrounding the September 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead took center stage in the second presidential debate between President Barack Obama and GOP challenger Mitt Romney.

In the debate, Obama said he had identified the deaths as a terrorist incident within a day. Romney said it took the administration two weeks to label it as such.

CNN Fact Check – Terrorist Attack

Critics have also accused the administration of laying blame for the attack on mobs angered by an anti-Muslim movie and for failing to properly recognize the security threat in the region.

Here’s a look at notable comments made by administration officials, publicly and in interviews with CNN, since the attack:

September 12 — President Barack Obama:

“The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. … No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.”

September 12 — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

“We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is no justification for this; none.”

September 12 — White House spokesman Jay Carney, in response to questions about whether the attack was planned:

“It’s too early for us to make that judgment. I think — I know that this is being investigated, and we’re working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time.”

September 12 — Obama, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, again uses the “act of terror” line:

“No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

He repeats the line again the next day in Golden, Colorado. “I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.”

September 13 — Jay Carney:

“The protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States.”

September 13 — A senior U.S. official tells CNN that the Benghazi violence was a “clearly planned attack”:

“It was not an innocent mob,” the official said. “The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective, but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.”

September 13 — State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland:

“Well, as we said yesterday when we were on background, we are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated, whether they had any external contacts, whether there was any link, until we have a chance to investigate along with the Libyans. So I know that’s going to be frustrating for you, but we really want to make sure that we do this right and we don’t jump to conclusions. That said, obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating.”

September 14 — Jay Carney:

“We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”

September 16 — Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CNN’s “State of the Union” with Candy Crowley:

“There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government, and it’s one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It’s been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against Western facilities including our embassies and consulates.”

On CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Rice also said that, “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”

September 18 — Jay Carney:

“Our belief, based on the information we have, is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped — that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere. What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation.”

September 19 — Jay Carney:

“It is a simple fact that there are, in post-revolution, postwar Libya, armed groups, there are bad actors hostile to the government, hostile to the West, hostile to the United States. And as has been the case in other countries in the region, it is certainly conceivable that these groups take advantage of and exploit situations that develop, when they develop, to protest against or attack either Westerners, Americans, Western sites or American sites. … Right now I’m saying we don’t have evidence at this point that this was premeditated or preplanned to coincide on a — to happen on a specific date or coincide with that anniversary.”

September 19 — Matthew Olson, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, responding to a question by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joe Lieberman on whether the attack was a terrorist attack:

“They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. … At this point, what I would say is that a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly the Benghazi area, as well we are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.” Olson also said U.S. officials had no “specific evidence of significant advanced planning.”

September 20 — Jay Carney:

“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials.”

September 20 — President Obama at a town hall meeting organized by the Spanish-language Univision Network, responding to a question about the possible involvement of al Qaeda:

“What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

September 21 — Hillary Clinton:

“What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”

September 25 — President Obama on ABC’s “The View,” in response to interviewer Joy Behar’s question, “I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”:

“We’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. We don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it. But what’s clear is that around the world, there’s still a lot of threats out there.” Obama also said “extremist militias” were suspected to have been involved.

September 26 — Hillary Clinton:

“What is happening inside Mali is augmented by the rising threat from violent extremism across the region. For some time, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other groups have launched attacks and kidnappings from northern Mali into neighboring countries. Now, with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions. And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions under way in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi.”

September 27 — Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:

“It was a terrorist attack. … As we determined the details of what took place there and how that attack took place, it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack.”

September 27 — A senior U.S. official tells CNN that it became clear within about a day of the Benghazi attack that it been the work of terrorists.

Separately, CNN National Security Analyst Fran Townsend reports that a law enforcement source told her that “from day one, we had known clearly that this was a terrorist attack.”

September 28 — Statement by Shawn Turner, spokesman for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper:

“In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation, we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving. As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”

October 1 — Nuland, in response to calls from Rep. Peter King, R-California, for Rice to resign because her remarks about the attack were, according to him, misleading:

“Well, let me start by saying that Secretary Clinton believes that Ambassador Rice has done a superb job. So let’s just start there, and we completely reject any such calls here in this building.”

October 1 — Nuland, responding to a question about whether officials in Libya had sought additional security for diplomatic installations and personnel there:

“I think it’s fair to say that we are still working through what we have in this building in terms of documentation, in terms of information about what we knew, who knew it, when they knew it, and that’s part of the process that we have to go through.”

October 2 — Carney:

“I can tell you that from the moment our facility was attacked in Benghazi, the president’s focus has been on securing our diplomats and facilities in Libya and around the world, and on bringing the killers to justice. At every step of the way, the administration has based its public statements on the best assessments that were provided by the intelligence community. As the intelligence community learned more information, they updated Congress and the American people on it.”

October 9 — During a background briefing with reporters, a senior State Department official responding to a question about whether the attack was a spontaneous assault taking advantage of a demonstration over the movie:

“That is a question that you would have to ask, have to ask others. That was not, that was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion.”

The background briefing contains detailed information about the attack, including how dozens of armed men stormed the complex as Stevens and two security team members took refuge in a fortified room.

“The lethality and the number of armed people is unprecedented,” one official said. “There had been no attacks like that anywhere in Libya — Tripoli, Benghazi or anywhere — in the time that we had been there. And so it is unprecedented, in fact, it would be very, very hard to find precedent for an attack like (it) in recent diplomatic history.”

October 9 — Clapper, during a speech in Orlando:

Upon returning from a trip to Australia, Clapper said, he was “reading the media clips about the hapless, hopeless, helpless, inept, incompetent DNI, because I acknowledged publicly that we didn’t instantly have that ‘God’s eye, God’s ear’ certitude” about what had happened.

He later added, in answer to a question: “The challenge is always a tactical warning, the exact insights ahead of time that such an attack is going to take place, and obviously we did not have that. This gets into the mysteries versus secrets thing. If people don’t behave, emit a behavior or talk or something else ahead of time to be detected, it’s going to be very hard to predict an exact attack and come up with an exact attack.”

October 10 — Under Secretary of State for Management Pat Kennedy, in congressional testimony:

“No one in the administration has claimed to know all the answers. We have always made clear that we are giving the best information we have at the time, and that information has evolved.”

In the same hearing, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb testified that the State Department “had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time.”

October 10 — Obama, in an ABC interview:

“The information may not have always been right the first time. And as soon as it turns out that we have a fuller picture of what happened, then that was disclosed.”

October 10 — Carney, responding to questions about whether administration officials had misled the public because they did not want to acknowledge a terrorist attack:

“The president of the United States referred to it as an act of terror immediately after it occurred.”

“I never said we don’t know if it’s terrorism. There was an issue about the definition of terrorism. This is by definition an act of terror, as the president made clear.”

October 11 — Vice President Joe Biden, during his debate with GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, responding to a question about what the administration knew about security requests from Libya:

“We weren’t told they wanted more security there.”

October 12 — Carney, asked to respond to Biden’s comments:

“The vice president was speaking about himself, and the president and the White House. He was not referring to the administration, clearly, since there was a public hearing for four and a half hours where it was discussed openly by individuals working at the State Department requests that were made.”

October 15 — Clinton, in an interview with CNN:

“I take responsibility. I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They’re the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.”

October 16 — Obama, speaking to GOP challenger Mitt Romney at their second debate:

“The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened; that this was an act of terror. And I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”

CNN’s Adam Aigner-Treworgy, Elise Labott, Julie In, Diane Laposta, Adam Levine and Tom Dunlavey contributed to this report.

Related posts:

Why can’t we get an apology from the President concerning Libya?

I have emailed and written the President over 200 times in the last year and I have received over 20 emails and 5 letters back from the White House. However, I have been most urgent in my emails and letter writing concerning this issue about the youtube video being blamed for the attack in Libya. […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 158))(Libya comments by President at 2nd debate discussed, part C)

Second Presidential Debate 2012- Obama and Romney on Foreign Policy Published on Oct 16, 2012 by AussieNews1 With just 21 days to go until the presidential election in the United States, President Obama and his challenger Governor Romney meet for their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. ________________________ President Obama c/o The […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 157B)(Libya comments by President at 2nd debate discussed, part B)

Second Presidential Debate 2012- Obama and Romney on Foreign Policy Published on Oct 16, 2012 by AussieNews1 With just 21 days to go until the presidential election in the United States, President Obama and his challenger Governor Romney meet for their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. ________________________ President Obama c/o The […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 157) (Libya comments by President at 2nd debate discussed, part A)

Second Presidential Debate 2012- Obama and Romney on Foreign Policy Published on Oct 16, 2012 by AussieNews1 With just 21 days to go until the presidential election in the United States, President Obama and his challenger Governor Romney meet for their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. ________________________ President Obama c/o The […]

President now tells us the truth about Libya

The White House Disinformation Campaign on Libya Published on Oct 7, 2012 by HeritageFoundation New evidence shows there were security threats in Libya in the months prior to the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Despite these threats, the State Department left its personnel there to fend […]

Lybia timeline

The White House Disinformation Campaign on Libya Published on Oct 7, 2012 by HeritageFoundation An Incriminating Timeline: http://herit.ag/WMfTr6 | New evidence shows there were security threats in Benghazi, Libya, in the months prior to the deadly September 11, 2012, attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Despite these threats, the Obama […]

 

Open letter to President Obama (Part 158))(Libya comments by President at 2nd debate discussed, part C)

Second Presidential Debate 2012- Obama and Romney on Foreign Policy

Published on Oct 16, 2012 by

With just 21 days to go until the presidential election in the United States, President Obama and his challenger Governor Romney meet for their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.

________________________

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. 

In the second presidential debate which I watched last night, I was very sad that the administration did not come out in the first week and say that this was a terrorist attack instead of talking about a youtube video that HAD NO PLACE IN THE CONVERSATION SINCE THIS WAS A PLANNED ATTACK!!!!! I don’t understand why you talked about this youtube video for about two weeks and I am hoping you will respond to this letter or I am going to keep writing you about this till you do.

Your liberal friends at www.thinkprogress.org have noted that Romney errored when he stated:

23) “It was a terrorist attack and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people.” Obama called the Libya incident an act of “terror” the very next day. “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,” he said. “Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

_________

However, it doesn’t matter if you mentioned this in a vague way early or not. It matters that you and your officials kept leading people to believe for two weeks that there was a protest and a youtube video inspired the attack, but it was a planned attack and there WAS NO PROTEST!!!!

Take a look this article below from the Heritage Foundation that discusses this.

Amy Payne

October 16, 2012 at 9:04 pm

_

_

Did Someone Say Libya?

The issue was raised in the debate: What did the administration do about security before the Benghazi attack, and how did it respond afterward? It was the question that the president never clearly and explicitly responded to. When it comes to how the White House responded to the attack, the administration has a lot of explaining to do. Its series of explanations were muddled and misleading.

When it comes to responding to the attack, Americans of course expect that our government will go after the perpetrators. The questions of how our government responded to the terrorist threat Libya, however, still has to be answered.

James Jay Carafano

_________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

The nation’s founders would be horrified by today’s congressional spending that consumes 25 percent of our GDP

Balance the Budget: Now is the Time

Uploaded by on Jul 27, 2011

__________

I really wish we could pass a Balanced Budget Amendment and control the amount of money the federal government could spend. Milton Friedman in his 1980 film series “Free to Choose” got me thinking about this and in that same film series I got introduced to the brilliant Dr. Walter Williams. Take a look at this article below by him.

How To Control Congress

Let’s assume that each of our 535 congressmen cares about the destructive impact of deficits and debt on the future of our country. Regardless of party, congressmen face enormous lobbying pressures and awards to spend more and little or no pressure and awards to spend less. The nation’s founders would be horrified by today’s congressional spending that consumes 25 percent of our GDP. Contrast that to the years 1787 to the 1920s when federal government spending never exceeded 4 percent of our GDP except in wartime. Today, federal, state and local government consumes 43 percent of what Americans produce each year. The Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation computes that the average taxpayer is forced to work from Jan. 1 to mid-April to pay federal, state and local taxes. If he were taxed enough to pay the $1.5 trillion federal deficit, he’d be forced to work until mid-May.

Tax revenue is not the problem. The federal government has collected just about 20 percent of the nation’s GDP almost every year since 1960. Federal spending has exceeded revenue for most of that period and has taken an unprecedented leap since 2008 to produce today’s massive deficit. Since federal spending is the problem, that’s where our focus should be.

Cutting spending is politically challenging. Every spending constituency sees its handout as vital, whether it’s Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid recipients or farmers, poor people, educators or the military. It’s easy for congressmen to say yes to these spending constituencies because whether it’s Democrats or Republicans in control, they face no hard and fast bottom line.

The bottom line that Americans need is a constitutional amendment limiting congressional spending to some fraction, say 20 percent, of the GDP. That limit could be exceeded only if the president declared a state of emergency along with a two-thirds vote of approval in both houses of Congress.

 
 

 

 

Each year of a declared state of emergency would require another two-thirds vote in each house.

During the early ’80s, I was a member of the National Tax Limitation Committee’s distinguished blue-ribbon drafting committee that included notables such as Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, Paul McCracken, Bill Niskanen, Craig Stubblebine, Robert Bork, Aaron Wildavsky, Robert Nisbet, Robert Carleson and others. We drafted a Balanced Budget/Spending Limitation amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Senate passed that amendment on Aug. 4, 1982, by a vote of 69 to 31, two more than the two-thirds vote required for approval of a constitutional amendment. The vote was bipartisan: 47 Republicans, 21 Democrats and 1 Independent voted for the amendment.

It was a different story in the House of Representatives. Its leadership, under Tip O’Neill tried to prevent a vote on the amendment; however, a discharge petition forced a vote on it. While the amendment was approved by a majority (236 to 187), it did not meet the two-thirds required by Article V of the Constitution. The vote was again bipartisan: 167 Republicans, 69 Democrats. The amendment can be found in Milton and Rose Friedman’s “Tyranny of the Status Quo.”

The benefit of a balanced budget/spending limitation amendment is that it would give Congress a bottom line just as we in the private sector have a bottom line. Congress would be forced to play one spending constituency off against another, rather than, as it does today, satisfy most spending constituents and pass the buck to the rest of us and future generations in the forms of federal deficits and debt.

The 1980s discussions settled on giving Congress a spending limit of 18 or 20 percent of our GDP. I thought a 10 percent limit was better. When queried by a reporter as to why 10 percent, I told him that if 10 percent is good enough for the Baptist Church, it ought to be good enough for Congress.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at http://www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Open letter to President Obama (Part 157B)(Libya comments by President at 2nd debate discussed, part B)

Second Presidential Debate 2012- Obama and Romney on Foreign Policy

Published on Oct 16, 2012 by

With just 21 days to go until the presidential election in the United States, President Obama and his challenger Governor Romney meet for their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.

________________________

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. 

In the second presidential debate which I watched last night, I was very sad that the administration did not come out in the first week and say that this was a terrorist attack instead of talking about a youtube video that HAD NO PLACE IN THE CONVERSATION SINCE THIS WAS A PLANNED ATTACK!!!!! I don’t understand why you talked about this youtube video for about two weeks and I am hoping you will respond to this letter or I am going to keep writing you about this till you do. Take a look this article below from the Heritage Foundation that discusses this.

Amy Payne

October 16, 2012 at 9:04 pm

 

_

Libya: Another Presidential Non-Answer

The Obama doctrine in action has led us to a point where terrorists feel emboldened again to attack the United States, as they did the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

In the last few days, Mitt Romney has been outspoken on the topic of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, as he was outspoken in his criticism of the statement of appeasement issued by the U.S. embassy under attack in Cairo on September 11. If we are to get the real details of what took place that day, it will have to be under pressure from House Republicans. Did the president mean what he said when stated that he is ultimately responsible? The Secretary of State said the same thing today, but they have yet to show what that actually means.

– Helle C. Dale

__________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

Barrett Jones for Heisman? Part 3

Barrett Jones
Alabama’s versatile Barrett Jones could become the first offensive lineman to be a Heisman Trophy finalist since 1996

Talking about a beatdown!!! Sadly I saw my Hogs get beaten  52-0 to Bama and it seemed that the Tide liked running up the middle behind the center Barrett Jones, and I must say that  Jones is deserving of consideration of the Heisman Trophy. This is not the first time I have written about this subject. Jones grew up at the same church I went to in Memphis growing up (Bellevue Baptist) and he graduated from the same high school that I did (Evangelical Christian School). I wrote an article last year about Barrett and I just wrote a few weeks ago and they both were published in the Saline Courier and can be found on that website.

Here is what the people from Sports Illustrated had to say about the Heisman race this year:

Can we please just go ahead and fast forward to this time next week? Or better yet, next Thursday night?

Hey Stewart — I saw the video of you and Andy Staples SI Videodiscussing Heisman candidates. What is your recipe for dark horse candidates? Do you see anyone other than a QB or RB who will get enough votes to end up at the ceremony this year?
— Will, Hoboken, N.J.

Twice in the past three years a defensive player has reached New York, and both times the player was barely on the radar going into the last week. In 2009, Ndamukong Suh garnered a little bit of Heisman buzz during the season, but I’d guess 80 to 90 percent of the votes he got came from a dominating performance (12 tackles, 4.5 sacks) against Texas in a much-watched Big 12 title game. Last year, Tyrann Mathieu became a household name starting in Week 1 against Oregon, but most assumed he’d lost his shot at the Heisman following his one-game suspension midway through the year. But his game-turning punt returns in the SEC title game against Georgia (on the heels of another the week before against Arkansas) likely pushed him past idle Matt Barkley as the fifth finalist.

Last impressions are always powerful, but I’ve noticed the past few years that the first Saturday of December is carrying more and more weight in the Heisman race. I suppose that shouldn’t be surprising in today’s media climate; on Twitter, guys win, lose, then re-win the Heisman with each drive of each game. It’s not like a player can be a complete nobody the first 13 weeks and then win with a huge final performance, but RGIII doesn’t win last year without the strong finish against Texas. Ditto Mark Ingram against Florida in 2009. Unless a guy completely blows away the rest of the field, a la Cam Newton two years ago or Tim Tebow in 2007, that last game takes on paramount importance. And that in turn can benefit a so-called dark horse candidate who makes a strong last impression.

As for this year, if ever an offensive lineman was going to make it to New York (for the first time since Ohio State’s Orlando Pace in 1996), you would think Andy’s favorite guy, Alabama center Barrett Jones, would be the one. He’s been around so long and received so much acclaim that he’s got to be the most recognizable offensive lineman in many years. Considering Tide quarterback AJ McCarron isn’t likely to put up Heisman-type numbers, Jones or one of the Tide’s other preseason All-America O-linemen (tackle D.J. Fluker and guard Chance Warmack) might be that team’s best bet. But it would likely require both ‘Bama reaching the SEC title game and Gary Danielson spending at least a quarter dissecting isolation shots of the Tide’s blocking techniques.

A quarterback or running back will still win the thing.

Related posts:

Barrett Jones and Tim Tebow are very similar

For   Barrett Jones is a Tim Tebow type of person and I am glad that people like Jones and Tebow are not ashamed of their Savior Jesus Christ. They don’t try to live two lives, one in church and one that is different in the lockerroom. Barrett Jones is the 2011 Outland Trophy winner […]

Sound off on Tebow

Denver quarterback Tim Tebow reacts after Broncos running back Lance Ball scored a touchdown against the New England Patriots on Sunday, Dec. 18, 2011. (Associated Press/Jack Dempsey) I think Tebow is fine Christian man who believes in telling others about Christ and he lives a morally pure life unlike many others in our society. Therefore, […]

Barrett Jones wins Outland Trophy

Knoxnews.com reports: LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (AP) — Alabama’s Barrett Jones has won the Outland Trophy as the nation’s most outstanding interior lineman. The announcement was made during the College Football Awards show at Disney World. Stanford’s David DeCastro and Penn State’s Devon Still were the other finalists. Jones is the third Alabama player to […]

Aaron Douglas played for Vols and Bama before dying because of drugs jh39

Aaron Douglas played for Vols and Bama before dying because of drugs jh39 Aaron Douglas was a lineman for Alabama and I have already written about another Bama lineman by the name of Barrett Jones who was a teammate of Aaron’s. Here are the two links below: Barrett Jones of Alabama Crimson Tide (Part 1 […]

Barrett Jones of Alabama Crimson Tide (Part 1 of series “Christians in Athletics”)

Today I am starting a new series called “Christians in Athletics.”  Barrett Jones grew up under the ministry of Adrian Rogers at Bellevue. Below is a clip from the Memorial Service for Dr. Rogers.   Barrett Jones of Alabama Crimson Tide has spent time the last two years ministering to earthquake victims in Haiti. Actually […]

Bama’s star lineman Barrett Jones puts ministry first

Barrett Jones of Alabama Crimson Tide has spent time the last two years ministering to earthquake victims in Haiti. (Barrett grew up and went to ECS where I graduated and to Bellevue Baptist where I was a member while growing up. Adrian Rogers was the pastor from 1972 to 2004.) Actually I wrote about Barrett’s […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 157) (Libya comments by President at 2nd debate discussed, part A)

Second Presidential Debate 2012- Obama and Romney on Foreign Policy

Published on Oct 16, 2012 by

With just 21 days to go until the presidential election in the United States, President Obama and his challenger Governor Romney meet for their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.

________________________

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. 

In the second presidential debate which I watched last night, I was very sad that the administration did not come out in the first week and say that this was a terrorist attack instead of talking about a youtube video that HAD NO PLACE IN THE CONVERSATION SINCE THIS WAS A PLANNED ATTACK!!!!! I don’t understand why you talked about this youtube video for about two weeks and I am hoping you will respond to this letter or I am going to keep writing you about this till you do. Take a look this article below from the Heritage Foundation that discusses this.

Amy Payne

October 16, 2012 at 9:04 pm

Al-Qaeda Still Poses a Threat

During the debate President Obama, once again, took the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and implied that al-Qaeda is down and on the ropes. Although bin Laden is currently sitting at the bottom of the Arabian Sea, the inconvenient truth for the Administration is that al-Qaeda is very much alive and active—especially on the Arabian Peninsula and across North Africa. This was most vividly demonstrated on September 11, 2012, when the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other brave Americans were murdered in Benghazi by terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaeda.

While Obama was blaming a YouTube video and a street protest (which never happened) as the reason for the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Heritage expert Jim Phillips made the link to al-Qaeda just a couple of days after the attack. Now, more than a month later, the Administration still has not been able to give a straight answer as to what the circumstances were surrounding the murder of Ambassador Stevens.

The Administration has either been misleading the American people or it is so incompetent that, more than a month later, it is still unable to tell the American people the facts. Either way, the American people deserve better.

– Luke Coffey

___________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

“Woody Wednesday” Review of “To Rome with Love”

Jesse Eisenberg – Press Conference “To Rome With Love”

Published on Apr 21, 2012 by

Review: Allen’s ‘Rome’ delivers lackluster love

Published: Tuesday, June 19 2012 11:06 a.m. MDT

By David Germain

This film image released by Sony Pictures Classics shows, : Alec Baldwin as John, left, and Jesse Eisenberg as Jack in a scene from “To Rome With Love.”

Sony Pictures Classics, Philippe Antonello, Associated Press

INTERVIEW: Jesse Eisenberg on working with Woody Allen at the To Rome With Love Press Conference at Hotel Parco Dei Principi in Rome, Italy on April 13, 2012.

____________

Woody Allen’s “To Rome with Love” began with better titles. Yet despite the exquisite locations of the filmmaker’s first story of love, Italian style, this bland ensemble romance deserves the generic name rather than the clever working titles it started with.

Allen initially called it “Bop Decameron,” then changed it to “Nero Fiddled” before he and his distributor decided to slip in the name of the Eternal City.

Hey, it helped to have the City of Light mentioned in the title of last year’s Allen hit “Midnight in Paris.” So putting Rome in the name makes good marketing sense to hint that his latest continues the trend of light romance in a beautiful Old World capital.

Unfortunately, “To Rome with Love” lives up — or rather, lives down — to the superficial postcard sentiment of its title.

Weaving four stories of Italians and American visitors, the writer-director creates a lot of clever moments with his ensemble comedy that features Allen’s first on-screen appearance since 2006’s “Scoop.” In between the good times, the story and characters just drift about awkwardly, stuck on a walking tour of Rome that continually bumps up against dead ends, or worse, circles back so we wind up seeing the same things a few times too many.

It’s hard to even pick out a highlight among the four stories. Parts of each story work quite well, while other portions just weigh the scenarios down.

The film almost comes down to how well the actors inhabit their roles. Allen’s known for giving his cast plenty of leeway. That’s often resulted in Academy Award performances, and just as often has left Allen’s stars nervously milling around.

There are no Oscar prospects on screen in “To Rome with Love,” but Alec Baldwin conveys a sense of wistful nostalgia as an architect seemingly strolling into his own memories of Italy in his youth.

Baldwin’s a wry, omniscient commentator wafting in and out of a love triangle involving Jack (Jesse Eisenberg), Sally (Greta Gerwig) and her seductive pal Monica (Ellen Page). Gerwig’s sadly cast as a flavorless third wheel, but Eisenberg and Page are so tentative and cold in their supposedly impetuous fling that they seem like neutered pups alongside old hound Baldwin.

Roberto Benigni manages a few laughs as a dreary but contented family man hurled into notoriety after Rome’s press and paparazzi inexplicably choose him as a person of interest, shadowing him like an A-lister and hanging on his every word about what he had for breakfast. It’s a lightweight commentary on fleeting fame, and the gimmick quickly wears thin.

The weakest of the stories centers on naive newlyweds Antonio and Milly (Alessandro Tiberi and Alessandra Mastronardi), who come to Rome for a fresh start but end up separated and tossed into romantic misadventures with others. Antonio winds up with a bombshell hooker (Penelope Cruz, an Oscar winner for Allen’s “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”), Milly with an Italian movie star (Antonio Albanese).

Antonio and Milly’s meanderings are pointless and uninvolving. Cruz, however, knows how to play voluptuous in her sleep, so she makes her little corner of the scenario fun and sexy.

Allen co-stars as retired music producer Jerry, who comes to Rome with his wife, Phyllis (Allen veteran Judy Davis) to meet the Italian fiance of their daughter, Hayley (“Midnight in Paris” co-star Alison Pill).

After Jerry hears the sublime opera vocals of Hayley’s future father-in-law, Giancarlo (Italian tenor Fabio Armiliato) from the shower, he’s determined to make the humble undertaker into a star. Giancarlo insists he sings only for personal pleasure, and when he auditions at Jerry’s insistence, he discovers that his talent fails him outside the shower.

You can guess the rest. The scenes of Giancarlo performing on stage could have become as repetitious as the media’s pursuit of Benigni, but Allen shows enough restraint and gives the sequences enough diversity that they remain consistently funny.

The time away from the screen hasn’t helped Allen’s acting chops. He’s curiously listless as Jerry, and Davis, who was razor-sharp in Allen’s “Husbands and Wives,” rarely rises above dreary hen-pecking as his wife.

The ineffable magic that made “Midnight in Paris” click eludes Allen here. When in Paris, Allen’s gimmicks coalesced into a sly, engaging romantic fantasy.

When in Rome, though, it’s not Nero who’s fiddling, but Allen, bopping and dithering around the city like a tourist so desperate to cram in all the sights that he comes away only with a few crisp highlights and a lot of out-of-focus snapshots.

“To Rome with Love,” a Sony Pictures Classics release, is rated R for some sexual references. Running time: 112 minutes. Two stars out of four.

Motion Picture Association of America rating definitions:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 156B) (President Obama’s false claim about mammograms and Planned Parenthood)

 Planned Parenthood CEO Caught Making False Mammogram Claim

Uploaded by on Mar 29, 2011

Media Contact: Amy Kim, 323.454.3304, media@liveaction.org

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 30–A series of new undercover phone calls reveals that contrary to the claims of Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards and other supporters of the nation’s largest abortion chain, the organization does not provide mammograms for women.

_________________

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

Last night in the second presidential debate you made a false claim that I wanted to correct you on concerning Planned Parenthood. You will read below:

Despite an extensive investigation by the pro-life organization Live Action, proving that Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform the cancer-screening procedure, the claim that it does continues to be repeated regularly and unapologetically by Planned Parenthood supporters.

(Even  the liberal Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog says that the truth is that Planned Parenthood will refer people to other clinics that do mammograms.)

Debate: Obama defends HHS mandate, Planned Parenthood funding, repeats false mammogram claim

HAMPSTEAD, NY, October 16, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – President Barack Obama made no secret of his allegiance to the nation’s largest abortion provider at this evening’s presidential debate, making no fewer than five references to Planned Parenthood in the first hour of the debate and claiming, falsely, that the group provides “mammograms.” He also once again implied federal funding for Planned Parenthood is pivotal to his young daughters’ future.

During the town hall debate at Hofstra University, the president pulled the abortion provider into issues as diverse as Mitt Romney’s tax plan, women’s pay rates, and a question about the George W. Bush administration.

“If anyone ever doubted that President Obama was in bed with the largest baby killing organization in the world, Planned Parenthood; that doubt is now gone,” Bryan Kemper, the youth director of Priests for Life, wrote on his Facebook page, in response. “You would think he was on their board of directors, which he will probably be when his is out of office.”

President Obama again credited the largest abortion chain as a life-saving institution. “When Governor Romney says that we should eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, there are millions of women all across the country, who rely on Planned Parenthood for, not just contraceptive care, they rely on it for mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings,” he said.

The claim that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms has been one of the most persistent political fantasies since the abortion giant clashed with Komen for the Cure earlier this year. Despite an extensive investigation by the pro-life organization Live Action, proving that Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform the cancer-screening procedure, the claim that it does continues to be repeated regularly and unapologetically by Planned Parenthood supporters. Obama himself made the claim in a recent interview with Glamour magazine, for which he was roundly chastised by former Planned Parenthood clinic manager Abby Johnson.

During last night’s debate Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life, immediately tweeted, ““For the last time: #plannedparenthood doesn’t do mammograms!!!!”

Abby Johnson posted on Facebook: “Did Obama seriously talk about these imaginary mammograms again??”

The most extended discussion of the HHS birth control mandate came after audience member Katherine Fenton asked about “inequalities” in the workplace, with working women making less money than men.

“You know a major difference in this campaign is that Governor Romney feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making,” Obama replied. “Governor Romney not only opposed it, he suggested that in fact employers should be able to make the decision as to whether or not a woman gets contraception through her insurance coverage.”

Obama and the pro-abortion movement have spun opposition to the HHS mandate as a form of religious bigotry by which employers impose their religious beliefs on their employees, while opponents of the mandate have said that it amounts to the government violating employers’ freedom of religion by forcing them to subsidize something they believe is sinful.

The Obama administration, in the media and in court, has also presented the HHS mandate as an issue of sexual equality. Justice Department lawyers have argued the government has a compelling reason to force people to fund contraception, because it allows women to choose to work rather than have children.

“In my health care bill, I said insurance companies need to provide contraceptive coverage to everybody who is insured,” Obama stated.  “Because this is not just a health issue. It’s an economic issue for women. It makes a difference. This is money out of that family’s pocket.”

“It makes a difference in terms of how well and effectively women are able to work…and earn a living for their family,” he said.

The president again invoked his daughters, Sasha and Malia, as he defended Planned Parenthood. “I’ve got two daughters, and I want to make sure that they have the same opportunities that anybody’s sons have. That’s part of what I’m fighting for as president of the United States.” 

When moderator Candy Crowley of CNN asked the president if he believed Governor Romney had been forthcoming enough about his tax plan, Obama replied,“We haven’t heard from the governor any specifics beyond Big Bird and eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood.”

When asked how he differed from the previous Republican president, George W. Bush, Obama retorted Romney was more extreme than Bush-43.

“George Bush never suggested that we eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, so there are differences between Governor Romney and George Bush,” Obama said.

While the contentious debate focused largely on economic issues, one other exchange was noteworthy for social conservatives: it happened when Governor Romney mentioned the role of families in preventing violence and caring for children.

After an audience member asked about gun control, Romney replied he would want to reduce the culture of violence that surrounds young people.

“Let me mention another thing, and that is parents,” he said. “We need moms and dads, helping to raise kids. Wherever possible the benefit of having two parents in the home, and that’s not always possible. [There are] a lot of great single moms, single dads.”

“To tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone, that’s a great idea,” he stated,

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

Ryan is the shot in the arm that Romney needed.

Maybe Romney will focus on cutting spending now that Ryan is on board.

Is the American Electorate that Dumb?

Posted by Roger Pilon

Today POLITICO Arena asks:

Can Ryan boost Romney’s poll numbers?

My response:

Ryan is the shot in the arm that Romney needed. If last night’s “60 Minutes” interview of the two is any indication, Romney is finally focused on the big issues. It’s rare that a vice-presidential pick adds much to a ticket, but this case may be the exception. So, yes, Ryan can boost Romney’s poll numbers. Just look at the weekend crowds.

Ryan put it simply: The country’s going broke. You’d never know that from listening to the Democratic response to the pick. For that side, it’s all about what the Romney-Ryan team will take away from seniors, women, students, and the middle class — as if all of that ”stuff” were free from government. They’re counting on seniors being too senile, women being too emotional, young people being too uneducated, and the middle-class being too focused on their mortgages to understand the situation we’re in, where we borrow 40 percent of what we spend and add trillions to the national debt every year. The Ryan budget won’t push Granny over the cliff. The Obama team’s head-in-the-sand will.

And it isn’t as if the Obama team doesn’t know exactly what they’re doing. In Obama’s latest ad, run last night during the Olympics closing ceremonies, he himself states plainly that the nation faces two fundamentally different visions of where we’re going. But he talks only about government benefits, not about costs — the “Life of Julia” nonsense. It’s a cynical view of the American public — a view that this election, more than any in recent memory, will put to the test.