This is a must-post, since there are, no doubt and for what I can only call unfathomable reasons, some people out there who don’t read Victor Davis Hanson as a matter of habit and some things just have to be shared.

Do you remember candidate Barack Obama offering his hope-and-change platitudes in front of the fake Greek columns during the Democratic convention? Or earlier pontificating at the Victory Monument in Berlin?

Why didn’t an old cigar-chomping Democratic pro take him aside and warn him about offending Nemesis? She is the dreaded goddess who brings divine retribution in ironic fashion to overweening arrogance.

Or maybe a friend could have whispered to Senator Obama to tone it down when he was merciless in damning the Bush administration for its supposedly slow response to Hurricane Katrina.

Obama railed that Bush showed “unconscionable ineptitude.” Obama further charged that Bush’s response was “achingly slow,” a result of “passive indifference,” and that his team was rife with “corruption and cronyism.”

Those adjectives now apply to Obama himself, as he seems lost amid his own disaster — eerily in about the same Gulf environs. Adding insult to injury, a recent poll revealed that Louisiana residents thought Bush had done a better job with Katrina than Obama has with BP.

Couldn’t one of Obama’s many handlers have warned him to ignore the media’s tingling-leg gaga worship, or their nonsense that Obama is “a god”?

Read on.

In regard to the kerfuffle involving the National Rifle Association and H.R. 5175, the “Disclose Act”, there has been a lot of bashing of the NRA by conservatives and a number of organizations devoted to preserving our Second Amendment rights, based on accusations that America’s primary gun owners’ rights group has “sold out” to the anti-gun left in order to exempt themselves from the provisions of a bill which would strip other Second Amendment advocacies of certain rights while having no significant effect on the NRA.

Columnists, bloggers and even other “gun groups” for whose opinions, common sense and patriotic beliefs we here at Hard Astarboard have a great deal of respect express the above sentiment, and here we feel we must disagree.

Seth, Wolf and I are all life members of the NRA and appreciate the hard work they’ve done in the legislative area (the Institute for Legislative Action, NRA-ILA is perpetually, tirelessly and with almost superhuman tenacity all over state legislatures, city councils and both house of Congress) to preserve our Second Amendment rights. The NRA provides a plethora of useful and educational services, including firearms safety.

To the meat of the affair: The NRA-ILA is a legislative behemoth supported by millions of members and is the front line of the defense of our right to keep and bear arms. Their very size, financing and therefore powerful voice are intimidating to the left and to the elected and appointed flunkies of the left, and because of this the NRA’s opposition to H.R. 5175 caused the political opposition to make an accommodation.

The NRA had no intention of cutting out the “little guys”, as it were, but they also have a self appointed and therefore selfless duty to their members and indeed to all gun owning Americans to stay in the box and continue fighting the good fight on our behalf.

To quote Mike Piccione, editor of Guns & Patriots in a recent newsletter:

There were a lot of conservatives bad-mouthing the NRA last week. Most of the talkers aren’t even NRA members, so they have that in common with Obama, Pelosi & Hillary. I trust Wayne LaPierre to protect my gun rights more than whining critics with soft hands that spend more time holding a blow-dryer than a gun. I feel for my $2 a month I get value from the NRA that can’t be delivered from any other organization. If someone is bashing the NRA what is their real agenda anyway?

To hear the NRA’s side of the story, here:

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox’s Letter to Members of Congress on H.R. 5175, the Disclose Act

Read the document here in PDF format:

May 26, 2010

Dear Member of Congress:

I am writing to express the National Rifle Association’s strong concerns with H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act, as well as our opposition to this bill in its current form. It is our sincere hope that these concerns will be addressed as this legislation is considered by the full House.

Earlier this year, in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court struck down the ban on certain political speech by nonprofit membership associations such as the NRA. In an attempt to characterize that ruling as something other than a vindication of the free speech and associational rights of millions of individual American citizens, H.R. 5175 attempts to reverse that decision.

Under the First Amendment, as recognized in a long line of Supreme Court cases, citizens have the right to speak and associate privately and anonymously. H.R. 5175, however, would require the NRA to turn our membership and donor lists over to the government and to disclose top donors on political advertisements. The bill would empower the Federal Election Commission to require the NRA to reveal private, internal discussions with our four million members about political communications. This unnecessary and burdensome requirement would leave it in the hands of government officials to make a determination about the type and amount of speech that would trigger potential criminal penalties.

H.R. 5175 creates a series of byzantine disclosure requirements that have the obvious effect of intimidating speech. The bill, for example, requires “top-five funder” disclosures on TV ads that mention candidates for federal office from 90 days prior to a primary election through the general election; “top-two funder” disclosure on similar radio ads during that period; “significant funder” and “top-five funder” disclosures on similar mass mailings during that period; and “significant funder” disclosure for similar “robocalls” during that period. Internet communications are covered if placed for a fee on another website, such as the use of banner ads that mention candidates for federal office. Even worse, no exceptions are included for organizations communicating with their members. This is far worse than current law and would severely restrict the various ways that the NRA communicates with our members and like-minded individuals.

While there are some groups that have run ads and attempted to hide their identities, the NRA isn’t one of them. The NRA has been in existence since 1871. Our four million members across the country contribute for the purpose of speaking during elections and participating in the political process. When the NRA runs ads, we clearly and proudly put our name on them. Indeed, that’s what our members expect us to do. There is no reason to include the NRA in overly burdensome disclosure and reporting requirements that are supposedly aimed at so-called “shadow” groups.

On the issue of reporting requirements, the bill mandates that the NRA electronically file all reports with the FEC within 24 hours of each expenditure. Within 24 hours of FEC posting of the reports, the NRA would be required to put a hyperlink on our website to the exact page on which the reports appear on the FEC’s website - and keep that link: active for at least one year following the date of the general election. Independent Expenditure reports would have to disclose all individuals who donate $600 or more to the NRA during the reporting period and Electioneering Communication reports would have to disclose all individuals who donate $1,000 or more to the NRA during the reporting period. There are literally thousands of NRA donors who would meet those thresholds, so these requirements would create a significant and unwarranted burden.

Some have argued that under the bill, all the NRA would have to do to avoid disclosing our $600 or $1,000 level donors is to create a “Campaign-Related Activity Account.” Were we to set up such an account, however, we would be precluded from transferring more than $10,000 from our general treasury to the account; all individual donors to that account would have to specifically designate their contributions in that manner and would have to limit their contributions to $9,999; the burdensome disclosure requirements for ads, mailings and robocalls would still apply; and the NRA would be prohibited from spending money on election activity from any other source - including the NRA’s Political Victory Fund (our PAC). In sum, this provision is completely unworkable.

Unfortunately, H.R. 5175 attacks nearly all of the NRA’s political speech by creating an arbitrary patchwork of unprecedented reporting and disclosure requirements. Under the bill, the NRA would have to track the political priorities of each of our individual members - all four million of them. The cost of complying with these requirements would be immense and significantly restrict our ability to speak.

As noted above, there is no legitimate reason to include the NRA in H.R. 5175’s overly burdensome disclosure and reporting requirements. Therefore, we will continue to work with members from both parties to address these issues. Should our concerns not be resolved - and to date, they have not been - the NRA will have no choice but to oppose passage of this legislation.

Sincerely,

Chris W. Cox
Executive Director

Continuing:

Statement From The National Rifle Association On H.R. 5175: DISCLOSE ACT

We appreciate the concerns that some NRA members have raised regarding our position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act.” Unfortunately, critics of our position have misstated or misunderstood the facts.

We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA’s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).
Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. H.R. 5175 would put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threaten our members’ freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also be forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings—even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.

The NRA provides critical firearms training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement throughout the country. This bill would force us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refuse to let this Congress force us to make that choice.

We didn’t “sell out” to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If it doesn’t, we will continue to strongly oppose the bill.

Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn’t happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.

There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That’s easy to say unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.

The NRA is a bipartisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That’s their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.

And here:

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox’s Message on H.R. 5175

I appreciate the concerns that some NRA members have raised regarding the NRA’s position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act”. Regrettably, our position has been misstated by some and intentionally misrepresented by others. I hope you’ll allow me to provide the proper context.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision was a significant victory for free speech and the Constitution. The NRA filed a strong brief in that case, which the Court specifically cited several times in its opinion. The DISCLOSE Act is an attempt to reverse that victory and that’s why we told Congress we oppose it.

The NRA has never supported–nor would we ever support — any version of this bill. Those who suggest otherwise are wrong.

The restrictions in this bill should not apply to anyone or to any organization. My job is to ensure they don’t apply to the NRA and our members. Without the NRA, the Second Amendment will be lost and I will do everything in my power to prevent that.

We believe that any restriction on political speech is repugnant. But some of our critics believe we should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle to protect other organizations. That’s easy to say–unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as I do.

The NRA is a single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. Nor do all groups fight all issues together. For example, we didn’t support the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when it backed amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens and we did not join the Chamber in its support of President Obama’s stimulus bill. And we’ve been in direct opposition when the Chamber has tried to restrict Second Amendment rights in publicly accessible parking lots.

Rather than focusing on opposing this bill, some have encouraged people to blame the NRA for this Congress’s unconstitutional attack on free speech. That’s a shame. If you oppose this bill, I hope you will contact your Member of Congress and Senators so they can hear from you.

Listen to whomever you like and draw whatever conclusions you will, but our position at Hard Astarboard is that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the NRA.

Hmmph…

Obama’s home loan modification program was talked up by the bailout-friendly news media as a potential “ray of light” for struggling homeowners.

But on June 21, Associated Press reported the mortgage assistance program is “falling flat.”

The broadcast networks supported the mortgage modification and housing bailout when Obama launched it in 2009, after criticizing Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s plan for not doing “enough” to fix the problem. ABC, CBS and NBC haven’t mentioned the new figures since AP reported them.

“More than a third of the 1.24 million borrowers who have enrolled in the $75 billion mortgage modification program have dropped out,” AP said. “That exceeds the number of people who have managed to have their loan payments reduced to help them keep their homes.”

Not surprising; It seems that the “progressive” elements within the government are so wrapped up in their other-wordly reality that true reality eludes them. So they create a mostly wasted program that benefits only a few of those interested or in need of such a venue, then, together with their tame mainstream media, announce the sheer brilliance, greatness and necessity of the waste of time and allocated treasure.

The “ambitious” Home Affordable Modification Program was supposed to help 3-4 million people. As of last month the number of dropouts (436,000) exceeded the permanent modifications by almost 100,000 (340,000).

This was part of the same housing bailout Rick Santelli condemned on CNBC saying “the government is promoting bad behavior.” Santelli’s rant against the housing bailout helped inspire thousands of Americans to protest bailouts and runaway government spending at Tea Parties around the country in 2009 and 2010.

But Santelli’s opposition to a bailout was an exception among the pro-bailout news media. As recently as Feb. 18, 2010 ABC’s Robin Roberts was praising the program as “what may be a ray of light for the millions of homeowners struggling to hold on to their piece of the American dream.”

The rest of the article.

Most Americans don’t want what the Obama Administration and the far-left run House and Senate are hanging on us. That’s why there were so many intraparty shake-ups during recent primaries and why the Tea Party, despite the belittlement, courtesy of the leftist mainstream media, that no one took much notice of once it became obvious that the Fourth Estate and the Alphabet networks were shilling for anything that was “progressive” out of pure party politics rather than any attempt at responsible reporting. What’s new, right?

I’ve had more than one fellow conservative tell me that they are actually glad that Obama got elected.

Why?

Because as president, his agenda has served to wake up millions of sleepy, daydreaming, uninformed and otherwise unaware Americans to the reality of socialist doctrine the far left, through their dominance within the Democratic Party, has been stealthily forcing upon us and in so doing, activate that good old spirit of liberty that defines us as a people; defines our heritage and our way of life and as a result, We, The People are now united and, eyes wide open to the threat among us, fighting back.

That “American Dream” cannot be provided by government programs, government spending and government regulation, it must be worked hard for by people who cherish their freedom and want to build a good life wherein they are independent and beholden to no parentally structured political body for what they have.

First, so much for the Obama deepwater offshore drilling moratorium.

A federal judge halted President Obama’s deep-water oil-drilling moratorium on Tuesday, telling the government its justification for the ban was “rather overbearing” and misled the public in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Judge Martin L.C. Feldman issued an injunction, describing the president’s decision as rushed and ruling that the government had jumped to the conclusion that all deep-water drilling rigs are dangerous despite the lack of any evidence.

The White House said it will immediately appeal, but in the meantime it is yet another setback as Mr. Obama seeks to show he has gained control of the environmental disaster in the region two months after the BP well first began gushing. Eleven workers were killed when the rig exploded on April 20.

The moratorium has come under fire from lawmakers of both parties in the region, who said the halt could hurt the already struggling economy’s chances of rebounding.

Judge Feldman said the Interior Department misstated the opinion of the experts it consulted. In his report to Mr. Obama, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the recommendations, including the six-month moratorium, were reviewed by experts from the National Academy of Engineering but the engineers said they never saw the final recommendations and don’t support a blanket ban.

Oh, well, Mr. President, there’s one attempted sabotage on our fledgling (if existing at all) economic recovery that looks to have bitten the dust.

Next, returning to the subject of Obama’s overtures toward a “boiling frog” style takeover of the Internet, Bob Livingston has a spot on essay on the subject that casts a pall of reality over the dubious reassurances of one Senator Joe Lieberman.

Relax!
It’s always a comforting feeling when the fascists tell you to relax. And that’s what Senator Joe Leiberman (I-Conn.) told everyone to do Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley.

Crowley asked about the Kill Switch bill Leiberman co-sponsors with Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) that would allow the President to shut down the Internet in a time of emergency.

The President will never take over the Internet, Leiberman—with a warm smile—assured the audience. The government shouldn’t take over the internet. The president would only do that in catastrophic times. Not going to do it every day. It’s only for national security. Relax.

“Right now China—the government—can disconnect parts of its Internet in a case of war. We need to have the ability to do that, too,” Leiberman said.

Of course, in China the government runs over its people with tanks. It drags them off to prisons without trial for practicing Christianity or saying something government doesn’t like, where they disappear forever—probably with a bullet in the brain. I wonder if Lieberman thinks our government should have those abilities as well.

China also censors the Internet—every day—to stifle the free flow of information… because it can.

The worry for Leiberman and his fascist buddies—the elected elitists who march to the orders of the New World Order—is not what would happen to America if some outside entity launched a cyber attack on the United States.

The worry is that the Internet has opened up a treasure trove of information and an ability to share ideas with freedom-loving people all over the world. No longer is the main stream media the sole purveyor of information….

The rest is here.

Now, in the interests of displaying a group of people who are really easy to laugh at, we give you… “progressives!”

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a liberal consumer advocacy organization, has announced it will sue McDonald’s unless the fast-food franchise stops using toys to market its “Happy Meals” to children.

“This morning, CSPI notified McDonald’s that we will file a lawsuit against the company unless it stops using toys to beguile young children,” said Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D., at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.

“We contend that tempting kids with toys is unfair and deceptive both to kids who don’t understand the concept of advertising and to their parents who have to put up with their nagging children,” he said.

unfair and deceptive both to kids who don’t understand the concept of advertising and to their parents who have to put up with their nagging children…

And these are people who expect to be taken seriously.

Sports-wise, the United States is moving ahead in the World Cup…

Landon Donovan scored a stunning goal in the first minute of injury time, advancing the United States to the second round at the World Cup with a 1-0 win over Algeria.

With the U.S. perhaps three minutes from elimination Wednesday, Donovan brought the ball upfield on a counterattack and Jozy Altidore’s shot on the breakaway was tipped by Clint Dempsey into goalkeeper Rais Bolihi. The rebound went to Donovan, who kicked it in from about 8 yards for one of the biggest goals in U.S. soccer history.

…while the French… display their Frenchness.

French soccer chiefs were so certain their failing team would crash out of the World Cup that they had a bus ready to take them straight to the airport for a coach-class flight back home. Sure enough, the most arrogant, disjointed, fractured and embarrassing squad in the tournament was happy to oblige.

For the third match in a row, France, a 2006 World Cup finalist in Germany, showed a complete lack of class on and off the field in South Africa. A 2-1 defeat to the host nation sent the French home with just a single point, and coach Raymond Domenech provided a new low point by gracelessly refusing to shake the hand of South Africa coach Carlos Alberto Parreira.

Two days after a player mutiny in which the team refused to show up for one of Domenech’s official training sessions, France was on its way back to Paris, stripped of its superstar privileges.

Instead of flying in first-class luxury on an Airbus A380, like how it arrived to South Africa two weeks ago, the squad was ushered out of the country on a no-frills charter flight booked by its fuming national federation.

And it was nothing less than the team deserved.

So much for France…

Now this, I think is funny, when you consider all the time that what seems to be the majority of Californians, at least the younger set, spend babbling on their cell phones.

SAN FRANCISCO – In this city known for producing laws both path-breaking and contentious, legislators have forcefully stepped into another debate — this time over the potential danger of cell phone use.

With the 10-1 vote in favor of an ordinance Mayor Gavin Newsom has indicated he will sign, San Francisco has waded into the as-yet unresolved debate over the relationship between long-term use of cell phones and health problems such as brain tumors.

The law requires cell phone retailers to disclose the phones’ specific absorption rate, or SAR, to customers.

SAR measures the maximum amount of radiation absorbed by a person using a handset. The Federal Communications Commission limits SAR to an average of 1.6 watts per kilogram of body tissue, but information about radiation levels is not usually readily available when people purchase phones at stores.

“From our perspective, this is a very reasonable and quite modest measure that will provide greater transparency and information to consumers for whom this is an area of interest or concern,” said Newsom spokesman Tony Winnicker, who noted that the mayor is an iPhone user. “We’re playing a role that we’ve often played, which is to be at the forefront of a debate.”

I took the liberty of putting in a link to the FCC’s SAR page in the text above.

Here in California, one of the hallmarks of “progressive” government is the heavy volume of “warning” signs.

For instance:

“This property uses chemicals known to the State of California to…”

They vary with the nature of the subject of the warning, but they’re all over, especially in hotel lobbies.

There are warning, rules and regs signs everywhere, which serve mainly to insult the intelligence of the smarter among us, but the lefties eat ‘em up — “Government, working for the people” or something.

Having said that, it should be interesting to see how the legions of cell phone addicts, not to mention Muslim cab drivers, react to the passing of this bill.

Then again, this is California, and brain damage already seems to have afflicted most of the population already, though the source of said brain damage is still a bit unclear.

So they pass the SAR bill, and even if a few of these wireless wonders manage to look up from their incessant conversations long enough to notice and find the time to respond in some way or other, the entire SAR debacle will remain the tip of a much larger iceberg, if these folks are correct.

Nancy Pelosi.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says she believes she must pursue public policies “in keeping with the values” of Jesus Christ, “The Word made Flesh.”

I was reminded of her reference to The Word while visiting over here.

At the time I heard about it in early June, I just laughed at the very hypocrisy of a commie witch who supports a political doctrine steeped in atheism, so obviously unenlightened in the scripture she pretends to embrace, referring to the Word in the contexts she does.

At a May 6 Catholic Community Conference on Capitol Hill, the speaker said: “They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that? What is your favorite that?’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.”

“And that Word,” Pelosi said, “is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.

“Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.”

John 1:14 states, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw His glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.”

In the religious hypocrisy arena, it seems, the speaker of the House and the president make a perfect team.

That Obama guy is really a card, I’ll tellya’!

It seems he just loves implying that he’s got all sorts of support and agreement from lots of folks who, once he’s reported their agreement with his policies, are just so surprised that he was able to read that support into things they never said or otherwise indicated.

8 of 15 Experts Consulted by Obama Administration on Offshore Drilling Were Not Informed of Moratorium–And Now Oppose It

Well, I’ll be!

Eight of the 15 experts consulted by the Interior Department for a report about oil drilling safety on the Outer Continental Shelf that was commissioned by President Barack Obama said they disagreed with the report’s call for a six-month halt on current deepwater offshore drilling operations–that was added to the text of the report without their knowledge only after they had reviewed the text. The eight experts outlined their objections in a June 8 letter to Louisiana Sens. Mary Landrieu (D) and David Vitter (R) and Gov. Bobby Jindal (R).

“A group of those named in the Secretary of Interior’s Report, ‘Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf,’ dated May 27, 2010 are concerned that our names are connected with the moratorium as proposed in the executive summary of that report,” the experts said in their letter.

“There is an implication that we have somehow agreed to or ‘peer reviewed’ the main recommendation of that report,” the eight experts wrote. “This is not the case.”

That Obama’s one guy you really have to keep an eye on, or he’ll lie your socks right out from inside your shoes.

And just think… knowing this, all kinds of “Progressives” support him to this day. I guess that means we’ve got to keep an eye on them, as well. Anyone who supports a liar…

And the rest of the article.

As we know, it’s always been important to socialists like the ramrods of today’s Democrats for the United States to be as much like Europe as possible. In our current president’s case, he probably preens in front of a mirror with a gilt European frame. GOd knows, he’s always trying to emulate Europe.

That, of course, is what gives hope (yeah, HOPE, for a CHANGE) that he will heed the words of those Germans who are advising him to knock off the deficit spending “stimulus” approach to the bad economy.

The congressional battle over adding more government stimulus spending versus deficit reduction spilled overseas Monday as the German government publicly rebuked the Obama administration over its red ink and said countries now must focus on controlling debt.

It’s the same sort of pushback President Obama has been getting from critics at home as he calls for a second round of stimulus spending, which he argues is needed to spur private job creation at a time when unemployment hovers near 10 percent nationwide.
But he’s increasingly being opposed by Republicans and some Democrats at home, and German officials’ comments signal a looming fight over deficits as the world’s leaders gather in Toronto next week for a summit of the leaders of the world’s biggest economies, with the Group of Eight summit of industrial powers kicking off Friday in Canada.

A larger gathering of the world’s 20 leading economies, known as the Group of 20, follows immediately afterward.

“It’s urgently necessary for monetary stability that public budgets return to balance,” German Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle said at a press conference Monday, according to Bloomberg News. “This is something we should also tell our American friends.”

Read the rest.

That Obama’s a real leader of the Free World, isn’t he?

Yeah, leading the free world into massive debt.

In this morning’s Jewish World Review, I found a column on Afghanistan that grabbed my attention and should grab yours…

Private security contractors protecting the convoys that supply U.S. military bases in Afghanistan are paying millions of dollars a week in “passage bribes” to the Taliban and other insurgent groups to travel along Afghan roads, a congressional investigation released Monday has found.

The payments, which are reimbursed by the U.S. government, help fund the very enemy the U.S. is attempting to defeat and renew questions about the U.S. dependence on private contractors, who outnumber American troops in Afghanistan, 130,000 to 93,000.

The report’s author called the findings of the six-month investigation “sobering and shocking.”

“This arrangement has fueled a vast protection racket run by shadowy network of warlords, strongmen, commanders, corrupt Afghan officials, and perhaps others,” wrote Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., the chairman of the House subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs. “Not only does the system run afoul of the (Defense) Department’s own rules and regulations mandated by Congress, it also appears to risk undermining the U.S. strategy for achieving its goals in Afghanistan.”

The entire column is here.

The more I read, see and hear about the way things are going in our society, the greater my belief that the worst blight on the face of America, I mean, the most puss-filled, festering sore, is our politicians.

Worse than the slimy, ever-hungry union bosses, worse than liberal trial lawyers, worse than crack heads who mug eighty year old ladies for their egg money, worse than the smelliest substance at the bottom of a septic tank.

These parasites, who, if they had any consciences at all, would serve one term in office and then call it a day, going back to the private sector and earning honest livings.

Instead, they choose politics as a career path — and most of these, what was that phrase Seth likes to use — toilet cakes are no more qualified to decide on what’s best for the country or to lead the nation than the above mentioned crack addict or, for that matter, the smelly substance at the bottom of said septic tank.

They virtually steal, as in embezzle, rob, pickpocket, whatever, our hard earned tax dollars and throw them at whatever earmark has arisen that will help one of their colleagues get reelected, basically using the lucre they take from us to campaign for their friends.

When they’ve exhausted our money, they raise taxes on luxury and other items, raise property taxes, increase fines and other penalties and borrow money via bonds and other instruments upon which we, the taxpayers, will eventually have to pay not only the principal, but interest as well.

AND… they “borrow” money from escrow accounts whose purpose is to pay pensions and other obligated monies.

And they break us. That’s right, US. That tax money is still OUR money, even though it is in what is supposed to be the politicians’ “safekeeping”, until such times as some needs to be spent “prudently” in the interests of ALL the taxpayers.

But that’s not happening, because these slugs we continue to reelect continue to leech away at our tax dollars.

Meanwhile, they also vote themselves first class benefits, perks and retirement pensions.

Having vented, let me proceed.

From the Daily Worker Oops. Pravda Waitaminnit, I mean The New York Times:

Many states are acknowledging this year that they have promised pensions they cannot afford and are cutting once-sacrosanct benefits, to appease taxpayers and attack budget deficits.

Illinois raised its retirement age to 67, the highest of any state, and capped public pensions at $106,800 a year. Arizona, New York, Missouri and Mississippi will make people work more years to earn pensions. Virginia is requiring employees to pay into the state pension fund for the first time. New Jersey will not give anyone pension credit unless they work at least 32 hours a week.

“We can’t afford to deny reality or delay action any longer,” said Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois, adding that his state’s pension cuts, enacted in March, will save some $300 million in the first year alone.

But there is a catch: Nearly all of the cuts so far apply only to workers not yet hired. Though heralded as breakthrough reforms by state officials, the cuts phase in so slowly they are unlikely to save the weakest funds and keep them from running out of money.

Some new rules may even hasten the demise of the funds they were meant to protect.

Lawmakers wanted to avoid legal battles or fights with unions, whose members can be influential voters. So they are allowing most public workers across the country to keep building up their pensions at the same rate as ever. The tens of thousands of workers now on Illinois’s payrolls, for instance, will still get to retire at 60 — and some will as young as 55.

When the politicians start cutting like that, even though they’re mostly cutting the pensions of future employees, it means they’ve already overspent to the point that they don’t really have what they need to keep their current obligations.

It means they’re getting ready to begin spending money they don’t have, writing checks based on zero equity. The kind of thing these same politicians would put you and I in jail for.

One striking exception is Colorado, which has imposed cuts on its current workers, not just future hires, and even on people who have already retired. The retirees have sued to block the reduction.

Other states with shrinking funds and deep fiscal distress may be pushed in this direction and tempted to follow Colorado’s example in the coming years. Though most state officials believe they are legally bound to shield current workers from pension cuts, a Colorado victory could embolden them to be more aggressive.

Colorado pruned a 3.5 percent annual pension increase to 2 percent, concluding that was the fastest way to revive its pension fund, which was projected to run out of money by 2029. The cut may sound small, but it produces big results because it goes into effect immediately. State plans vary widely, but many have other costly features, like subsidized early-retirement benefits, which could likewise be trimmed for existing workers.

Despite its pension reform, Illinois is still in deep trouble. That vaunted $300 million in immediate savings? The state produced it by giving itself credit now for the much smaller checks it will send retirees many years in the future — people who must first be hired and then, for full benefits, work until age 67.

By recognizing those far-off savings right away, Illinois is letting itself put less money into its pension fund now, starting with $300 million this year.

That saves the state money, but it also weakens the pension fund, actually a family of funds, raising the risk of a collapse long before the real savings start to materialize.

“We’re within a few years of having some of the pension funds run out of money,” said R. Eden Martin, president of the Commercial Club of Chicago, a business group that has been warning of a “financial implosion” for several years. “Funding for the schools is going to be cut radically. Funding for Medicaid. As these things all mount up, there’s going to be a lot of outrage.”

The rest is here.

But you see, while these politicians, and here I’m not singling out either party, stick it up the collective kazoo of all of us, they don’t concern themselves with what’s happening on the next guy’s watch or what’s going to happen in the course of the next two, three or ten generations. Oh, no, they’ll sweep whatever “inconveniences” come along under a rug for their successors to “deal with”.

These politicians are, to be blunt, criminals. They are guilty of grand larceny, among other things, and they are only there because a few million irresponsible, ignorant people elect them without first bothering to actually scrutinize them.

People will spend more time analyzing the Past Performances of a horse they’re considering wagering on to bet a few bucks than they will the Past Performances of a politician who may just screw up our entire society, economically and in every other way conceivable, as they now have.

How often do we see a body of politicians who have screwed the pooch vote to lower their own pay, health care or pensions accordingly?

“Crickets chirping”