“This Is Change!”
USA Today reported on February 27:
“This is change, whether you believe in it or not. And not just pocket change. Following through on many of his campaign promises, President Obama wants to spend about $3.6 trillion next year to pull the nation out of recession and begin major new initiatives in health care, energy and education. All that and more is contained in a 134-page budget request for 2010 and beyond that is unprecedented in size, breathtaking in scope and sure to have a major impact on millions of Americans — if he can get much of it through Congress.
“It’s a budget plan that would help the young by increasing their chances of getting a college education and the poor by providing funds for health insurance. It seeks to clean the air and reduce the USA’s dependence on foreign oil. It would cut taxes on low- and middle-income Americans while raising them, starting in 2011, on couples who make at least $250,000 a year.
“All this would come at a price to be paid by in the future: annual deficits of at least $500 billion, and a federal debt that would reach $23 trillion in a decade…
“In little more than five weeks, Obama has shown he intends to think big and act quickly. He’s already agreed to spend nearly $800 billion over two years to try to jump-start the economy. He’s not only pressed Congress for the second half of a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, he’s reserving the option for another $750 billion on top of that…”
But USA Today has to admit the incredible “risks” involved with this proposed budget. It states:
“Even groups aligned with Obama express concern that tax increases at the end of this recession could trigger another one — a situation Franklin Roosevelt faced in the 1930s. ‘The Great Depression was really two big recessions with a recovery in the middle,’ says Bill Gale of the Brookings Institution. ‘There’s potential to do real damage.'”
Mr. Obama’s Proposed Budget–The Big Gamble
Reuters added on February 27:
“President Barack Obama forecast the biggest U.S. deficit since World War Two in a budget on Thursday that urges a costly overhaul of the healthcare system and would spend billions to arrest the economy’s freefall. An eye-popping $1.75 trillion deficit for the 2009 fiscal year underlined the heavy blow the deep recession has dealt to the country’s finances as Obama unveiled his first budget. That is the highest ever in dollar terms, and amounts to a 12.3 percent share of the economy — the largest since 1945. In 2010, the deficit would dip to a still-huge $1.17 trillion, Obama predicted.
“With that backdrop, his budget represents a gamble that Americans are ready for the sort of change they embraced by electing him in November… The cost of extra borrowing to pay for the record budget deficit pushed U.S. stocks and government debt prices down on Thursday. The budget’s healthcare plans delivered a hit to shares in health insurers and drugmakers
“… some analysts questioned whether Obama’s goals were realistic at a time when the economy is still in crisis and the surging deficits threaten to burden a future recovery… While Obama is still basking in high approval ratings from the U.S. public, his stimulus package and other efforts to revitalize the economy have done little to win over Wall Street. U.S. stocks prices hit 12-year lows this week.”
Mr. Obama’s Proposed Budget–“The Great Illusion”
The Wall Street Journal wrote on February 26:
“President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end ‘tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans,’ and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won’t see their taxes increased by ‘one single dime.’
“This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can’t possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama’s new spending ambitions…
“Mr. Obama is of course counting on an economic recovery. And he’s also assuming along with the new liberal economic consensus that taxes don’t matter to growth or job creation. The truth, though, is that they do. Small- and medium-sized businesses are the nation’s primary employers… The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion. Unwinding the U.S. commitment in Iraq and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire can’t possibly pay for his agenda. Taxes on the not-so-rich will need to rise as well.
“On that point, by the way, it’s unclear why Mr. Obama thinks his climate-change scheme won’t hit all Americans with higher taxes. Selling the right to emit greenhouse gases amounts to a steep new tax on most types of energy and, therefore, on all Americans who use energy… Mr. Obama is very good at portraying his agenda as nothing more than center-left pragmatism. But pragmatists don’t ignore the data. And the reality is that the only way to pay for Mr. Obama’s ambitions is to reach ever deeper into the pockets of the American middle class.”
Germany to the Rescue
The EUObserver wrote on February 27:
“German chancellor Angela Merkel has given the strongest signal to date that her country may come to the rescue of embattled eurozone economies… Certain conditions are likely to be attached to any support plan offered by Berlin. While Ms Merkel refused to be drawn on the exact nature of financial support, she made it clear that action to tackle excessive budget deficits would be a stipulation for receiving aid.
“She indicated such action could be carried out under Article 100 of the Maastricht Treaty that allows financial assistance to be given to countries experiencing ‘difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control’… German officials hinted support for Ireland could be dependent on the country increasing its low corporate tax…
“Germany [is] seen as the safest EU economy by investors…”
German Neo-Nazi’s Dream of a Fourth Reich
The Daily Mail reported on February 26:
“Neo-Nazis are on the rise in Germany and are planning to exploit the economic crisis to build a Fourth Reich, a defector from their ranks warned yesterday. Uwe Luthardt painted a chilling picture of the far-Right trying to recruit the record number of young Germans facing a bleak future as the country’s economy contracts and unemployment mounts. Experts fear that the worsening conditions are worryingly similar to those of the late 1920s and early 1930s which propelled Hitler’s Nazi regime – the Third Reich – to power…
“German unemployment has climbed by 63,000 this month to 3,552,000, or 8.5 per cent. Its economy – the world’s third largest – is predicted to shrink by 5 per cent this year.
“A sign of resurgent extreme Right came earlier this month in Dresden where nearly 7,000 neo-Nazis turned up to ‘honour German patriots’ on the anniversary of the Allied bombing in 1945 which killed 25,000 residents. It was nearly double the turnout of last year…
“Mr Luthardt described an organisation that preys on the gullible and the weak who seek, as he did, to restore some mythical glory to Germany while finding scapegoats for the economic misery. He told of weapons stores, how members greet each other with Heil Hitler! salutes, sing the banned songs of the Third Reich, relish the idea of a new Holocaust against the Jews and plot to bring hard-core Nazism back with a vengeance.
“Luthardt was in the NPD for only four months, but quickly rose to become a member of the ruling board. He told Der Spiegel magazine that old Nazis living in South America donate to the party via shell companies. Other funds come from the staging of skinhead-music concerts. He went on: ‘The simple aim is the restoration of the Reich in which a new stormtrooper organisation takes revenge on anyone who disagrees with them… The basic concept the NPD talks about is, “Let’s kick out all the foreigners, then the Germans will have jobs again.”‘”
Israel Moves to the Right
Deutsche Welle reported on February 27:
“Last ditch talks to form a broad coalition government in Israel have failed after Likud party leader Benjamin Netanyahu and Tzipi Livni from the Kadima party were unable to reach agreement. Netanyahu said a coalition with Foreign Minister Livni’s centrist Kadima party was impossible.
“This increases the possibility that Israel’s next government will be an alliance of hawks and hard-line religious parties opposed to substantial concessions for peace. After the talks in Tel Aviv, Livni said the meeting ended without agreements on some substantial issues, like support for the formation of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which Netanyahu opposes.”
More Attacks on Israel
Haaretz reported on March 1:
“A Qassam launched from the Gaza Strip exploded off the coast of Ashkelon on Sunday, just hours after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promised a ‘painful, uncompromising response’ to Palestinian rocket fire… Olmert’s vow came a day after ten rockets were fired at Israel from the coastal territory, bringing the number of projectiles launched from Gaza since the truce to more than 60… Olmert said that Israel would respond to rocket fire…”
Jewish Leaders “Furious” With Hillary Clinton
On February 27, wcbstv.com and CBS wrote the following:
“In a swift about face from her views as New York’s senator, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now hammering Israel over its treatment of Palestinians in Gaza… On Thursday… she [delivered] angry messages demanding Israel speed up aid to Gaza. Jewish leaders are furious…
“Clinton’s decision to hammer Israel comes as the Clintons and President Barack Obama are planning to give the Palestinians $900 million toward the rebuilding of Gaza in the wake of the Israeli offensive that was sparked by Hamas rocket fire…”
Nuclear War at Sea
On February 26, Der Spiegel Online wrote:
“The collision of two strategic nuclear submarines [owned by the French and the British] earlier this month shows that the Cold War is still being fought every day in the Atlantic — with the world’s most powerful weapons… It quickly became clear that a nuclear catastrophe had almost occurred out at sea — and that it could happen at any time…
“Vanguard and Le Triomphant aren’t ordinary attack submarines — they’re rare and extremely expensive ballistic missile submarines. The British have four, as do the French, the Americans have 14, the Russians 15, and the Chinese are believed to have three. The hull of the Vanguard, as tall as a four-story building and roughly 150 meters (492 feet) long, contains a nuclear reactor and 16 ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads with a combined power more than 300 times greater than that of the atom bomb that destroyed Hiroshima…
“Neither the British nor the French are willing to reveal when, where and exactly how it happened… Strategic submarines are high-tech weapons with an archaic mission: to exact revenge. And they are built for the day the world comes to an end…The submarines… are designed to retaliate with such force that there can be no winners in a nuclear war…
“That leaves the Russians. The 173-meter (567-foot) Dimitry Donskoy, for example, is the world’s largest strategic submarine… According to the Russian daily Komsomolskaya Pravda, the Donskoy could ‘simultaneously destroy dozens of cities like New York, or level half of Afghanistan.'”
Left-Liberal Propaganda for Darwin’s Evolution Theory
On February 25, Der Spiegel Online published the following “masterpiece” about brainwashed evolution-worshipping scientists (and other “intellectuals”):
“The US isn’t the only place with heated debates about Darwin’s theory of evolution: Europe has its own hardcore creationists and intelligent design backers, too… Fundamentalist Christians who believe in creationism — which holds that God created the world and humanity in the manner described in the Bible — reject the principle of evolution and are striking back. They are pushing for the use of school texts that vilify the theory of evolution as a mere ideology. They have sued to have the theory of intelligent design — a water-down version of creationism — taught in biology courses at the same time as evolution, as both an equally valid scientific theory and alternative to evolution.
“‘It would be like claiming a right to teach astrology in a physics course,’ said James Williams, a lecturer in science education at the University of Sussex…
“According to a survey conducted in 2006, the majority of British have their doubts about evolution, and 40 percent want creationism taught in biology classes.
“Scientists agree that the overwhelming mass of evidence supports the theory of evolution. ‘No serious scientist questions the theory of evolution,’ says Ralf Sommer, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Tübingen…
“The guerrilla tactics used against evolution continue to be the same: Evolution’s opponents try to discredit Darwin’s broader theory by looking for gaps and narrower scientific issues that remain answered… Scientists today also know that evolution is verifiable because you don’t have to wait millions of years to see it in action. ‘Evolution can sometimes happen very quickly,’ says Claus Wedekind, an evolutionary biologist from the University of Lausanne — so quickly, in fact, that scientists can sometimes observe it within the space of one human generation.
“Intelligent design and creationism, on the other hand, are not scientific theories because they aren’t falsifiable: They postulate the existence of a deity, a divine creation and guided evolution — all things that can never be empirically proved or disproved… This type of reasoning hasn’t stopped people from doubting the theory of evolution. In Germany, 20 percent of the population doesn’t believe in the theory; in the US, it’s closer to one-third…
“In June 2007, the Council of Europe’s Committee on Culture, Science and Education released a report entitled “The Dangers of Creationism in Education.” According to Anne Brasseur, a member of the council who collaborated on the report, its goal was to firmly anchor the theory of evolution in school curricula.
“The report was prompted by resistance to teaching Darwin’s theory in some European countries. ‘For example,’ Brasseur explains, ‘the former deputy education minister of Poland called the theory of evolution a lie.’
“She went on to list a number of other negative examples:
“In Russia, many parents are strongly opposed to the teaching of evolution in grade schools. In Italy in 2004, there was a proposed decree against the theory of evolution. In Switzerland, the ProGenesis group has a tentative project called ‘Genesis-Land’ that envisions a leisure park on the model of the Creation Museum in the US state of Kentucky… In Germany, the Ministry of Education for the state of Hesse saw no infringement of the curriculum when teachers at a number of schools were found to be teaching the Biblical theory of creation in biology class. The publishing house ‘Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen’ is now publishing the sixth edition of a grade school textbook that includes the theory of intelligent design.
“The Catholic Church’s position on evolution is unclear. Pope Benedict XVI has stated that the theories of evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive and, in July 2007, that ‘there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution.’ Still, in April 2007, he wrote in a theological book published in Germany that the existence of evolution was ‘not ultimately provable.’ In 2005, Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schönborn published an opinion piece in the New York Times entitled ‘Finding Design in Evolution,’ in which he discussed a theory of creation that included the theory of a guided evolution — in short, intelligent design… At previous times in history, the Catholic Church has espoused different positions on evolution. John Paul II, for example, the predecessor of the current pope, apparently gave some recognition to Darwin’s theory when he said in 1996 that: ‘The theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis’…
“According to Brasseur, however, Pope Benedict XVI’s Vatican criticized the Council of Europe’s report — without success. The council ultimately approved the report’s recommendations, with 48 votes in favor and 25 against. As for Germany’s five representatives on the council, three voted against the report, one voted for it and one abstained.”