The NYTimes has a remarkably even-handed treatment of the value of the US dollar and even says that there are Some Signs of an Upturn for the Dollar. What you will not read in the NYTimes is that in spite of all the articles that have been printed about the US economy being in a recession, it really isn't.
Economists define a recession as two or more quarters of negative GDP growth. Larry Elder, writing in the Washington Times, correctly states that "... since the recovery began in President Bush's first year in office, we have had zero quarters of negative economic growth, let alone consecutive ones."
The US News & World Report writes about The Recession that Wasn't:
It's not just the 1Q number that gives me hope. The jobs numbers—both initial unemployment claims and monthly payroll numbers—are also way below levels commonly seen during recession. Plus, corporate profit growth outside of financials and housing remains strong. Simply put, the recessionistas—to borrow a classic Kudlow zinger—are running out of time with both monetary and fiscal stimulus (bleh!) kicking in gear and the credit markets on the mend. If 2Q isn't negative, then what quarter will be negative, if any? Even the NBER doesn't declare recessions when the economy never actually has a single down quarter.
Journalist Greg Wilcox says that we could be out of this recession before we're in it:
[Richard A. Weiss, chief investment officer and executive vice president at City National Bank] said that, historically, once consumer confidence hits bottom, the economy begins its recovery.
Guess what? The Baltimore Business Journal reported Friday that the new Consumer Attitudes and Spending by Household Index survey showed that consumer confidence hit 39 this month, up from its record low of 29.5 in April.
Bloomberg wonders, What Recession?:
"Why, if it's a recession, are all the economically sensitive stocks leading the market?'' said James Paulsen, the Minneapolis-based chief investment strategist at Wells, which oversees about $220 billion. "They were priced for consumer death, and now we're finding out not only are they not going to die, but it may not be all that bad.'' . . .
Companies aren't expressing "gloom and doom,'' Barton Biggs, a former Morgan Stanley strategist who now manages $1.5 billion at Traxis Partners in New York, said in a Bloomberg Television interview. "Things are not as bad as you would believe from listening to the press and some of the Wall Street commentators.''
Even Paul Krugman of the New York Times writes a headline reading, Bad news: No recession. Of course, it takes an ultra-liberal like Krugman to put a negative spin on tens of thousands of Americans actually keeping their jobs.
One thing to keep in mind is that economic numbers are often revised months after the initial numbers come out. That's because all the data just can't be collected that fast. For instance, it wasn't until President Bush had been in office for almost a year before economists finally admitted that the recession began Clinton's watch.
But for now, there is no recession and we have the numbers to prove it. Even a Democrat congress couldn't undo the effectiveness of the Bush tax cuts.
One final note: I remember how Democrats and their MSM mouthpieces castigated Bush for talking about how the economy was in recession during his debates with Gore, speaking about "self fulfilling prophecy". Yet now that a Republican is in the White House they don't seem to have a problem talking about a "looming recession", runaway inflation and even the crash of the dollar.
I guess it's OK to scare the voting public if it will scare them into voting for an inexperienced, naive junior Senator who just happens to be a Democrat. Let's hope the American public isn't that gullible come November.
In a gaffe that is common in any long campaign, Barrack Obama claimed that he has visited 57 states with "one left to go".
Bloggers and main stream media alike have been having a bit of fun with Obama's
little mistake. My favorite is from Suitably Flip, which has come up with a special 57-star American flag lapel pin in Obama's honor.
Given the internet and email rumors that have plagued the Obama campaign about his refusal to wear an American Flag pin on his lapel, this bit of humor is particularly droll.
Of course, if George W. had of made this mistake, there would no end to the declarations of further proof of his lack of intelligence and it would join the long list of "Bushisms" that have become so popular among the left-leaning elitists.
But far more frightening than this slip of Obama's tongue took during his victory speech for the North Carolina primary, when he made the outrageous claim that Roosevelt, Kennedy and Truman all talked to our enemies:
Real Clear Politics has an excellent article by Jack Kelly in which he destroys this historical misrepresentation clearly, concisely and pithily. Money quote:
The closest historical analogue to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet with no preconditions with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler. That didn't work out so well.
And so I will not join those poking fun at Obama's slip. He obviously meant to say 47 states, with "one more to come". No, what I find most curious about this clip is when he states that he "really wanted to go" to Alaska and Hawaii, but couldn't because his staff "couldn't justify it".
Obama, who is running your campaign? If I ran for president I would listen to my staff, but if I "really wanted" to do something, I would do it. If they convinced me otherwise, then I would say that I had decided that it would not be in the campaign's best interest. In other words, it would be my decision.
But not Obama. He does what his handlers tell him. He came right out and told us so.
And this is the man that wants to run the most powerful nation in the history of the world?
I just can't justify voting for this history-ignorant, no-experience puppet.
The title of this post is stolen directly from BBC News. Honest. It's from the Science/Nature section and deals with global warming.
Then again, "tits" means something else entirely to the bird-watching population of England:
Of course, this is actually a very good lesson for the Gorebal Warming alarmists. As the natural temperature variations occur across geologic ages, different species are affected differently. What is bad for some is very good for others.
From Obama's Church Website:
The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.
James Cone defines the theology as thus:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
When Wright was interviewed on Hannity and Combs in 2007 he repeatedly asked Sean Hannity, "How many of Cone's books have you read? How many of Cone's book have you read?"
Cones is a racist and a Marxist and Wright has wholeheartedly adopted his theology and has for the entire 20 years that Obama was in his church.
Entire post submitted by non-blogging Fourth Horseman. For more quotes from James Cone, read this post from Deus Decorus Est.
The center of useful idiots thinks that John McCain should "provide detailed, timely disclosure about his health."
So far, he has failed to meet this obligation to voters, even though he is now the presumed Republican nominee.
The Times claims McCain should reveal this information for two reasons. First, in this era of modern medical science and extended life spans, McCain could be the oldest man ever to become president. Second, he once had skin cancer -- even though he beat cancer and today is cancer free, as evidenced by his lack of stops at hospitals for radiation treatments during the rigorous months on the campaign trail.
The Red Rag goes further, declaring:
No presidential candidate should get to the point that he has locked up his party’s nomination without public vetting of his health.
And where was the NY Times when half the voting population was demanding Kerry's medical records from the Vietnam war? Ah, perhaps the Times thinks that sick people can't lead while character is unimportant.
What am I thinking? Of course they don't believe character is important. Did they even read Obama's book? I'm talking about his first one, in which he reveals his true self.
. . . in May. MAY!
Fifty degrees outside at 9 am on a Sunday morning.
Global warming my ass. Pray that the next sunspot cycle kicks into gear because if it doesn't, you'd better get ready for the next ice age.
A lawsuit against gun manufacturers brought by Mayor Giuliani in 2000 was dismissed today by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as the panel unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Two of the three judges also found that the city's public nuisance law did not create a legal exception to the federal law.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was designed to protect the gun industry from frivolous prosecution by liberal big-city mayors as they attempt to blame the device, rather than the socio-economic factors of their failed policies that create a rich source of criminals.
New York City attempted to undermine federal law by saying gun manufacturers were creating a "public nuisance" because they failed to monitor retail dealers in order to keep their wares out of criminal hands:
The essence of the complaint was that the suppliers failed to monitor: gun shows where non-licensed sellers sold weapons; private or "kitchen table" sellers who are not required to conduct background checks or keep records required of Federal Firearms Licensees; "straw purchases" by qualified handgun purchasers for those who are not qualified; multiple sales of guns; intentional illegal trafficking by corrupt licensees; theft from licensees with poor security or false reports of theft; and, in general the oversupply of guns to markets in jurisdictions that have lax gun regulations.
In other words, once the gun manufacturer had created the gun and transferred ownership of the merchandise to a legal owner, they failed to follow the gun through it's lifetime and make certain that each transfer was to a legal owner. This is absurd on the face of it.
But that won't stop Mayor Bloomberg from continuing his fight against evil inanimate objects. He will continue suing gun dealers across state lines, saying:
Regardless of this ruling, we will continue our fight against illegal guns full-bore — in the courtrooms, on the streets, and in Congress.
Big city liberals, driving up the prices of mid-America's beloved hobbies by abusing the justice system in pursuit of political gain. How stereotypical of them.