It is submitted here that the major psychological reason why Leftists so zealously criticize the existing order and advocate change is in order to feed a pressing need for self-inflation and ego-boosting -- and ultimately for power, the greatest ego boost of all. They need public attention; they need to demonstrate outrage; they need to feel wiser and kinder and more righteous than most of their fellow man. They fancy for themselves the heroic role of David versus Goliath. They need to show that they are in the small club of the virtuous and the wise so that they can nobly instruct and order about their less wise and less virtuous fellow-citizens. Their need is a pressing need for attention, for self-advertisement and self-promotion -- generally in the absence of any real claims in that direction. They are intrinsically unimportant people who need to feel important and who are aggrieved at their lack of recognition and power. One is tempted to hypothesize that, when they were children, their mothers didn't look when they said, "Mummy, look at me".

This means that the "warm inner glow" that they obtain from their advocacy and agitation is greatly prized. So it is no wonder that anything which threatens to disturb it -- such as mere facts -- is determinedly ignored. This view of Leftism as a club of the righteous that must never be disturbed or threatened is explored in detail by Warby (2002). See also Ridley (2002) for a brief account of the way Lomborgs findings were greeted primarily by abuse rather than by any serious attempt at refutation.

And, of course, people who themselves desperately want power, attention and praise envy with a passion those who already have that. Businessmen, "the establishment", rich people, upper class people, powerful politicians and anybody who helps perpetuate the existing order in any way are seen by the Leftist as obstacles to him having what he wants. They are all seen as automatically "unworthy" compared to his own great virtues and claims on what they already have. "Why should they have...?" is the Leftists implicit cry -- and those who share that cry have an understanding of one-another that no rational argument could achieve and that no outsider can ever share.

Envy is a very common thing and most of us have probably at some time envied someone but, for someone with the Leftists strong ego needs, envy becomes a hatred and a consuming force that easily accounts for the ferocious brutality of Communist movements and the economically destructive policies (such as punitively high taxation, price controls and over-regulation generally) employed by Leftists in resolutely democratic societies. So the economic destruction and general impoverishment typically brought about by Leftists is not as irrational as it at first seems. The Leftist actually wants that. Making others poorer is usually an infinitely higher priority for him than doing anybody any good. One suspects that most individual Leftists realize that no revolution or social transformation is ever going to put them personally into a position of wealth or power so the destruction of the wealth and power and satisfaction of those who already have it must be the main thing they hope to get out of supporting Leftist politics. For a fuller account of the enormously destructive nature of envy see Schoeck (1969).

Whether or not someone is important, rich, successful, famous etc., is however of course very much a matter of individual perception. If many of the worlds most famous sports stars were introduced to me, for instance, I might well in all innocence proceed to ask them; "And what do you do for a living?" And while Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is my personal hero, there are many, even in academe, who would never have heard of the Mahatma. This "relativity" of importance, prestige etc. would seem to explain why many active Leftists are in fact college or university professors. College or university professor is a generally high status occupation that provides an above-average income so might, on the face of it, be seen as already providing considerable recognition and praise. But if status is precisely why certain people have gone to the considerable trouble generally required to enter that occupation, it could well be that the ego need of that person is so big that even more recognition is then craved. A college professorship may be prestigious but still be seen as providing far too little power, public exposure and opportunity for self-display. "Seeing I am so smart, I should be running the whole show", is an obvious line of thought for such people. Just some power and fame is still not enough power and fame for them.

The need for self-display does however in most people tend to decline as they mature -- which is part of the reason why graduates tend to be less radical than students and why older people tend to be much more conservative than young people (Ray, 1985). To misquote Lenin (1952) only slightly, much of Leftism would appear to be "an infantile disorder".

And nothing above, of course, is meant to suggest that pressing ego needs, self-righteousness etc are confined to Leftists. It is merely meant to say that Leftism is the principal political expression of such needs. Such needs can also be met by religion etc. and it must be noted that Communism was often described as a religion by its critics. Why people choose politics rather than some other means of meeting their ego needs would have to be the subject of a whole new enquiry but it seems possible that the potentially very broad exposure that politics provides to an individual might attract the people with the very highest ego needs. This high level of ego need among Leftists would also explain the generally much greater political activism of the political Left compared to the rather somnolent political Right.

It would also explain why Leftists so often have a "spare me the details" or "Dont worry about the facts" orientation. For most Leftists, it is the activism itself rather than what is advocated that is the main point of the exercise. As long as the cause advocated is both generally praiseworthy and disruptive to implement, that will suffice. The insincerity of the Leftist is of course an abiding theme in the many writings of Ayn Rand (e.g. Rand, 1957) -- who sees the hunger for power as the real motivation behind everything that the Leftist does. 

HOROWITZ

 In no time, she decided that the fastest route to regaining that power was to spend as few years as possible as the junior senator from New York and then move onward and upward to reclaim what she believes is her rightful place in history as the first female president of the United States of America.

Hillary Rodham Clinton promptly relocated to the Empire State and moved into an upscale house financed by the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Never mind that two months after her election she pardoned four residents of New Square who had been convicted of defrauding the federal government, an act not quite as egregious as her husband's attempt to win her New York's Hispanic vote by pardoning 16 members of the FALN terrorist group who had planted over 130 bombs in the U.S., killed six people and injured 70.

All that added to the sympathy of New York's bleeding-heart liberals for the woman wronged by her predatory husband and his paramour Monica Lewinsky, and Hillary ran up enough votes to elect her to the U.S. Senate.

            ▪ A $100,000 windfall from cattle futures after a $1,000 investment.

            • The Castle Grande real estate scam.

            • The serial philandering of her husband, which cast her – depending on one's viewpoint – as a clench-jawed stoic, a perpetual victim, or a willing collaborator.

Chicago-born Hillary – who by way of education, career, marriage and circumstance had already migrated to Wellesley, New Haven, Washington D.C., and Little Rock – had learned a lot in "The Natural State," specifically how to supernaturally evade responsibility, deny accountability, and dodge law enforcement, all the perfect preparation for her lengthy stay in White House – at the lofty address she now wants to reoccupy.

Don't Throw Me in That Briar Patch!
By the time she moved into the White House in 1993, Hillary was so accustomed to – and comfortable with – her husband's and her own self-created scandals that living a straight-and-narrow, law-abiding life appeared to be alien to her.

Like Brer Rabbit, Hillary practically begged for scandal. To recount the Joel Chandler Harris classic, Brer Rabbit was despised by Brer Fox, who decided to teach a lesson to the uppity rabbit. He created a tar baby and, sure enough, Brer Rabbit struck up a conversation with the sticky statue, but to no avail. Frustrated, he punched the baby and his paw got stuck in the tar. Infuriated, he struck him again and his other paw got stuck. Then he kicked the tar baby with both feet and butted it with his head and they too got stuck.

Finally, Brer Fox appeared to taunt his captive. "I'm going to barbecue you today, for sure."

"I don't care what you do with me, roast me," Brer Rabbit said. "Just so you don't fling me in that briar patch." Then Brer Fox threatened to hang the critter, drown him or skin him. But those horrible prospects didn't daunt Brer Rabbit. "Snatch out my eyeballs, tear out my ears by the roots," he pleaded with his antagonist, "but please, Brer Fox, don't fling me in that briar patch!

An Expert at Scandal
Unlike Brer Rabbit, Hillary wasn't born and bred in the world of political scandal – far from it. In fact her family were Republicans and young Hillary supported the1964 presidential bid of Barry Goldwater, the archconservative senator from Arizona. Unphased by his loss, she continued her conservative ways by becoming the president of the Wellesley College chapter of College Republicans.

But with her exposure at Wellesley to the radical leftist Saul Alinsky and her subsequent introduction to Yale Law School's draft-dodging leftist Bill Clinton, the die was cast for her hate-America's-military-intelligence-defense establishment. To the smartest woman in the world and her then-boyfriend, the path to changing what they hated was clear: Get power and hold onto it no matter what it takes!

What it took in Arkansas was first learning and then becoming a scandal expert. Within months of taking up residence in the White House, Hillary put her expertise to work.

In May 1993, the co-president was accused of having a central hand in firing several long-time employees of the White House Travel Office, the better to give the pricey travel business to her Hollywood pals, Linda Bloodworth Thomason and Harry Thomason. In true scandal-mode form, Hillary denied everything and when Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray investigated Travelgate, he concluded that there was substantial evidence that involved Hillary but not enough to warrant an indictment.

A couple of months later, in July 1993, White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster was said to have committed suicide, although the case for his murder has been made persuasively by, among others, Christopher Ruddy, in his 1993 book, "The Strange Death of Vincent Foster: An Investigation."

But the case didn't end there. In 1996, Hillary was accused by the Senate Special Whitewater Committee of ordering the removal of potentially damaging files related to Whitewater from Foster's office on the night of his death. Hillary denied everything, once again proving her adeptness in the scandal briar patch.

In June 1996, White House security head Craig Livingstone, a political operative and former bouncer, illegally obtained over 700 FBI files of mostly White House personnel from former Republican administrations. Hillary was accused of requesting the files and, in fact, hiring Mr. Livingstone, but she denied everything to yet another Independent Counsel, and Filegate became one more notch in her briar patch scandal belt.

Ultimately, her co-presidency brought about the fall of more elected and appointed members of her regime, as well as "friends” who met untimely deaths, were indicted, pleaded the fifth, fled the country, and were imprisoned, than in any administration in American history.

Staggering Numbers
Keeping in mind that Hillary – in her own "two for the price of one" pronouncement – told the nation that she would be sharing the presidency with her husband, it would beg the imaginations of even her most fervent acolytes that the tsunami of scandals that inundated the Clinton tenure somehow escaped either the notice or personal involvement of Hillary herself.

To see the shocking Scandal Index of the Clinton years, as compiled by the liberal Progressive Review ( http://prorev.com) is to appreciate the Clinton's 24/7/365 belief that any progress in their leftist domestic and foreign affairs agenda could only be realized through the most nefarious activity – much of which fit neatly into the criminal category. Under the listing of "Records Set'" by the Clinton administration (read: co-presidency), Progressive Review cites the following, of which I will only list a sampling:

▪ Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates.

▪ Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation.

▪ Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify.

▪ First president sued for sexual harassment.

▪ First president accused of rape.

▪ First president to be held in contempt of court.

▪ First president to be impeached for personal malfeasance.

▪ First first lady to come under criminal investigation.

▪ Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign-contribution case.

▪ Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions.

▪ Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date: one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners: 14.

▪ Number of Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5.

▪ Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine that were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47.

▪ Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33.

▪ Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61.

▪ Number of congressional witnesses who pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122.

▪ Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15; acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6.

▪ Clinton machine crimes for which convictions were obtained: drug trafficking, 3; racketeering, extortion, bribery, 4; tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement, 2; fraud, 12; conspiracy, 5; fraudulent loans, illegal gifts, 1; illegal campaign contributions, 5; money laundering, 6; perjury, et al.

▪ Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar: Bill Kennedy, 116; Harold Ickes, 148; Ricki Seidman, 160; Bruce Lindsey, 161; Bill Burton, 191; Mark Gearan, 221; Mack McLarty, 233; Neil Egglseston, 250; John Podesta, 264; Jennifer O'Connor, 343; Dwight Holton 348; Patsy Thomasson, 420; Jeff Eller, 697; and Hillary Clinton, 250.

Believe it or not, this exhaustive list omits even lengthier lists – on public record – of crimes investigated, public officials and reporters intimidated, threatened and muzzled, and the raft of dead people associated with the Clintons who died by guns, knives, alleged suicides, etc. See http://members.tripod.com/~rcjustice/pres.html and http://prorev.com/legacy.htm.

Apparently, the Clinton Scandal Squad enforcers believed that nothing was more important than protecting the co-presidents from realizing their relentlessly leftwing agenda – this in spite of the fact that by 1998 under the Clinton co-presidency, the GOP gained 48 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, 11 governorships, and 1,254 seats in state legislatures, and that during their tenure, 439 (out of 1,998 Democrats) became Republicans as opposed to 3 Republicans who became Democrats.

Megalomania: Hillary refused to acknowledge – publicly or in print – the woman who in essence wrote her 1996 book, "It Takes a Village."

Lying: Hillary gave false testimony about her co-defendant Ira Magaziner, who helped her conduct secret meetings about her failed plan to socialize U.S. medicine.

Obstruction of Justice: the "smartest woman in the world" couldn't remember where she placed the Rose law firm billing records that were subpoenaed in 1994, until they magically reappeared two years later in the White House library.

Tastelessness: In 1999, after the wife of terrorist Yasir Arafat told the co-president that Israel was deliberately poisoning Palestinians, Hillary saw fit to embrace her. And that is not to omit what Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Michael Goodwin called her "rancid race baiting" remarks at a recent Martin Luther King Jr. celebration about Republicans running "the House" like a "plantation." Significantly, she omitted mention of the holiday that Arkansans celebrated during her years in the state house that honored Dr. King while at the same time honoring Robert E. Lee, the Confederate general who fought to allow the South to keep blacks enslaved.

Selective Amnesia: In her 2004 book, "Living History," Hillary strangely omitted mention of her own and her husband's key associates, men with whom she took numerous photographs and who donated millions of dollars to her husband's campaigns, going back to their Arkansas days. These include – among dozens of other shady characters and outright criminals – Moctar Riady, the Indonesian billionaire owner of the Lippo banking company (the partner of which is the Chinese communist government and reputedly a front for Chinese espionage), and his son James, who eventually pleaded guilty to campaign violations.

Contempt for Women: The world got its first glimpse of Hillary’s shabby character when she was co-running for the co-presidency in 1992 and – with what turned out to be supreme irony – told Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes" that she "wouldn't be some 'stand by your man' woman like [country-music icon] Tammy Wynette."

Her low regard for women continued through the 1990s as the White House went after many but certainly not all of the president's women – Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Elizabeth Ward Gracen – by auditing their tax returns, and, in 1997, leaking Paula Jones' confidential tax returns to the press.

According to Candace E. Jackson in her book, “The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine,” Hillary “was right there in the inner circle taking a lead in giving these women zero credibility, in attacking them in public and through the press and in participating in all of these scare tactics, like hiring private investigators to threaten them and follow them…[she] is either as misogynistic as her husband or she is simply willing to conspire to mistreat women if that's what it takes to preserve their political careers."

In “Hillaryland,” Ryan Lizza writes in TheNewRepublicOnline, the New York senator has many Kool-Aid-drinking “crawl-across-broken-glass-for-Hillary” types [and] a “vast political empire based in Washington and New York…she has made every effort to change her image from far-left liberal by enacting legislation with Republicans…the more right-wing the co-sponsor, the better; extra points for anyone involved with her husband's impeachment.”

But will her extreme makeover work? According to columnist Jonah Goldberg, Hillary’s recent return of a campaign contribution from Wal-Mart, on whose board she sat from 1986 until 1992, “is a perfect illustration not merely of her hypocrisy but of the quicksand she is now in. She thinks it's a winning message to say she's too good for Wal-Mart's money but not Hollywood's. That's not exactly red-state savvy.”

“The amazing thing about [Hillary],” Goldberg says, “is that she's so unappealing. Even liberals don't like what they see…at every turn, [her] Zelig-like public persona has been a fabrication – either by her fans, her enemies or herself…”

All of which may explain a recent CNN-Gallup poll in which 51 percent of respondents said they definitely would “not vote” for Hillary in a presidential race.

Indeed, according to an online conservative site, even “media liberals are starting to jump ship” on Hillary, with “one CNN veteran [Ken Bode] calling her a `certain loser,’ a Newsweek scribe [Jonathan Alter] warning that she'll take Democrats on a `kamikaze’ mission in 2008,” and arch-leftist Maureen Dowd of the Clinton-fawning New York Times batting her away as one would an irritating gnat.

Hillary’s…Um…Style
Equally difficult to overcome, however, are unfortunate personality traits that Hillary has none-too-convincingly tried to conceal from the public. While decades have passed since she was labeled “Sister Frigidaire” in her high school newspaper, her image of being cold, robotic and inaccessible continues to this day.

Some critics have called her angry, impatient, given to temper outbursts, calculating, opportunistic, and a chronic victim, but Tim Cavanaugh of www.reason.com said, “Plainly put, it's her personality... She still lacks a key quality that a politician can't achieve through hard work: likeability.”

Indeed, it’s difficult to like someone who constantly patronizes her audiences, speaking ever so slowly so that the stupid masses will “get” what the smartest woman in the world is saying. Or when she uses her alienating alternative oratorical style, which consists solely of the strident, the screechy and the preachy.

Expanding on the Zelig multiple-personality comparison, author and political commentator Kate O’Beirne calls Hillary a “skilled poseur,” enumerating the ways in which she takes positions “entirely at odds with the words she proclaims from the housetops.” Not the least being her advocacy for the little guy, when in fact Hillary is the second-biggest spender in the Senate after New Jersey’s Sen. Jon Corzine.

Mrs. O’Beirne cites Hillary’s “Liberal Quotient” from the Americans for Democratic Action, which was 95 last year, tied with far-left Senators Barbara Boxer and Richard Durbin, and her lifetime ADA rating of 95, which outscores both Senators Ted Kennedy (89.16) and John Kerry (88.7). NARAL scored her a perfect 100 percent since her election to the senate, and the National Rifle Association gave her the grade of “F.”

Although Hillary would like the public to believe that she is a born-again hawk when it comes to the military, O’Beirne reports that the conservative American Security Council gave her “a measly 20 percent on national-security issues” and states that “her ersatz hawkishness is one of tepid gestures and hollow speechifying.”

Another example of her counterfeit hawkishness was demonstrated when she denounced the recent election of the terrorist group Hamas in Palestinian parliamentary elections, which led terrorism expert Steven Emerson to remind the public that, while co-president, Hillary met repeatedly with "groups that had openly supported Hamas, Hezbollah and other foreign terrorist organizations,” including, among many others, the militant Islamic Relief Association and The American Muslim Council, whose followers carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.”

Today, John Spencer, the former Mayor of Yonkers, NY, and a Vietnam combat veteran who will challenge Hillary in the November senate race (www.joinspencer.com) has accused the smartest woman in the world of accepting money from wealthy businessmen Hassan Nemazee and Faraj Aalaei, who are both associated with the American Iranian Council, a pro-Iranian-regime.

“Senator Clinton voted against the very munitions necessary to avoid a nuclear confrontation with Iran,” Mr. Spencer said, ”while at the same time accepting money from supporters of the Iranian mullahs…she lacks the credibility to keep New York safe and she should return this tainted money."

Then there is Hillary’s paranoid streak, as evidenced, O’Beirne states, by “her modus operandi [which] has always been to rally troops against the enemy – whether the Clintons’ Arkansas enemies, the Gingrich forces in the House, Ken Starr and `the vast right-wing conspiracy,’ George W. Bush and his band of ideologues, or whoever will bear the Republican mantle in 2008.”

A Worm Under Every Rock
No matter where you look, Hillary’s name is associated with scandal. For one thing, she has acknowledged accepting contributions from the influence peddling, recently indicted, uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

There is also, according to Carl Limbacher at NewsMax.com, the Clinton campaign-finance scandal of the late 1990s, where millions of dollars of illegal Chinese campaign cash found its way into Democratic Party and Clinton legal defense fund coffers. Worse, American missile- guidance technology was given to Beijing. This outrage may be blamed on the senator’s husband, but that won’t wash for the “two for the price of one” Scandal Queen.

That is not to omit the recently released 400-page Barrett Report. In 1995, while Independent Counsel David Barrett was investigating the president’s Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros for various crimes, he discovered that the president had used the Internal Revenue Service (headed by Hillary’s college friend, Margaret Milner Richardson), the Justice Department (headed by Clinton puppet Janet Reno), and the White House (headed by co-presidents Bill and Hillary) to audit political enemies, particularly the women who had accused the president of sexual harassment and even rape.

Clintonista Democrats have tried for 10 years to have the parts of the Barrett Report that dealt with these matters redacted, and they succeeded. But Republican Senators Charles Grassley, Chairman of the House Finance Committee, and James Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have both stated publicly that they are determined to get the entire report released.

The redacted portions must be pretty explosive because as columnist Tony Snow has noted, the “report is a bombshell, capable possibly of wiping out Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential prospects.”

The Nemesis Who Won't Go Away
Increasingly, Hillary and company have projected onto Republicans the “the culture of corruption” mantra and, onto President Bush, the “I” word – impeachment. This is to deflect attention away from Hillary’s latest scandal, one in which she will undoubtedly deny everything to escape accountability or even criminal indictment.

In short, Hillary’s current nemesis, Peter Paul – the largest single campaign contributor to her 2000 Senatorial campaign – has filed a suit against her and President Clinton – among many others.

According to Mr. Paul, the suit is “for committing a series of business frauds against me that involved me spending more than $1.2 million for Hillary's Senate campaign; having a Clinton front man go into business with my Japanese investor partner, causing the collapse of my public company; and filing fraudulent reports to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in the amount of nearly three-quarters-of-a-million dollars.”

Today, all of the many codefendants in the case – except Hillary – have exhausted their appeals and are now poised for discovery and trial, the schedule for which will be set by the court after a hearing on Hillary’s anti-SLAPP motion in Los Angeles in March.

NOTE: SLAPP suits, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, are recognized in California as lawsuits that are brought against individuals, corporations or organizations in an attempt to silence defendants who speak out on matters of public concern. An anti-SLAPP motion seeks to strike all claims against a defendant – in this case, Hillary herself!

Initially, Hillary’s anti-SLAPP motion appeal was denied by both trial and appellate courts but then sent back to the trial court to clarify a discrepancy. But on February 3, 2006, the judge changed his original ruling. He ignored the tardiness of Hillary’s original filing and agreed to allow her to argue that her 1st Amendment rights (to conduct her senatorial campaign) included her own and her husband’s right to defraud her largest contributor. This action will allow Mr. Paul’s lawyers to depose Hillary. [Read more about this case in Part II of this series].

As the disposition of Hillary’s appeal approaches, the Clintons, their lawyers and spinners, as well as their echo chamber in what used to be the "mainstream" media – but is now known as the Old Media and even the Antique Media – are using all of their formidable resources to make sure that Hillary dodges yet another scandal.

Sound familiar? This is exactly what the leftwing media did when they tried to smear Paula Jones when she accused the Philander-in-Chief of sexual harassment. What they didn't count on, however, was that Mrs. Jones had the truth on her side and believed so fervently that justice would be served that she refused to knuckle under to their unceasing assaults.

Today, Peter Paul ( http://www.hillcap.org) also refuses to be intimidated by the Clinton machine and is equally assured that justice will out. He has become yet another Clinton nemesis who won't go away.

Global Community Urges Israel to Allow Hamas to Survive

As usual:

France and Egypt announced an initiative to stop the fighting in Gaza late Tuesday, hours after Israeli mortar shells exploded near a U.N. school sheltering hundreds of people displaced by the onslaught on Hamas militants. At least 30 Palestinians died, staining streets with blood.

The Egyptian and French presidents didn't release details of their proposal, saying only that it involved an immediate cease-fire to permit humanitarian aid into Gaza and talks to settle the differences between Israel and the Islamic militants of Hamas who rule the small coastal territory.

They said they were awaiting a response from Israel.

Hopefully theyll get a response by, oh, April or so. What everyone needs to do is step back, ignore Hamas propaganda and understand that Hamas has inserted itself deeply into the civilian community in Gaza for the purpose of having Israeli reprisals result in civilian casualties. Additionally: We dont know if it was an Israeli shell that caused the deaths - could have been a Hamas rocket or mortar falling short or, indeed, a deliberate massacre by Hamas in order to have a pile of dead people to show to the media (remember, were dealing with inhuman savages in Hamas - they glory in killing the innocent in order to advance their sick ideology - you cant put anything past them). To cause Israeli to stop short of the destruction of Hamas in Gaza because Hamas says that the Israelis bombed a school is the worst sort of asinine thing to do - even if one wishes to suppose the worst of Israel, all stopping Israel does at this point is ensure that more people will die at a later date at the hands of Hamas and then at the hands of the IDF in response.

This is a battle - fight it out to the end.

By PETER BAKER and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

WASHINGTON President-elect Barack Obamas economic recovery plan ran into crossfire from his own party in Congress on Thursday, suggesting that quick passage of spending programs and tax cuts could require more time and negotiation than Democrats once hoped.

Senate Democrats complained that major components of his plan were not bold enough and urged more focus on creating jobs and rebuilding the nations energy infrastructure rather than cutting taxes.

Just hours earlier, Mr. Obama called for speedy passage of the stimulus measure, warning that the recession could linger for years if Congress did not pass his plan within weeks.

Further complicating the picture, Democratic senators said Thursday that they would try to attach legislation to the package that would allow bankruptcy courts to modify home loans, a move Republicans have opposed.

Parallel to its work on the stimulus plan, the Obama team has also been considering how to use the second $350 billion of the bailout program approved by Congress. A transition team official said Thursday night that the new approach would give government officials broader range to provide relief on consumer loans for homes, automobiles and education, while also doing more to address foreclosures and the problems of municipalities and small businesses.

For his recovery plan, meanwhile, Mr. Obama has been assembling a package worth as much as $775 billion over two years to revive the sagging economy, using the plan to define his presidency even before it begins and to foreshadow his broader approach to governing.

While relying on traditionally liberal notions of using government spending to spur growth, he has also tried to adapt it for a new era with investment in clean energy and technology. And he is trying to balance all of that with tax breaks that appeal to Republicans.

But the broad support he has enjoyed so far for the basic concept is now being tested as the specifics become clearer. While conservatives criticize the high spending, and moderate Democrats express concern about the swelling deficit, liberals are pushing for even more money devoted to social programs, alternative-energy development and road, bridge and school construction.

David Axelrod, Mr. Obamas senior adviser, said the president-elects team was not concerned by the emerging pockets of criticism of his plan.

Obviously, its a big answer to a big problem and there are a lot of component parts to it, Mr. Axelrod said in an interview after meeting with balky Senate Democrats. These folks are not potted plants. Theyre elected officials, and they're doing their jobs.

He added, Its a collective process, and were willing to listen to peoples ideas.

Asked if they were willing to adopt peoples ideas, Mr. Axelrod said: Well see. It depends on the idea.

Mr. Axelrods comments came after a spirited meeting at the Capitol where he and two other Obama aides, Lawrence H. Summers, the incoming national economic adviser, and Philip Schiliro, tapped to be the chief White House lobbyist, heard lots of frustration from Democratic senators.

There is only one thing we have got to do in the stimulus, and that is how can we create jobs, said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, as he left the meeting. I am a little concerned by the way that Mr. Summers and others are going at this in that, to me, it still looks like a little more of this trickle-down, if we just put it in at the top, its going to trickle down. A number of people in there said, Look, we have got to have programs that actually create jobs and put people to work. 

Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and chairman of the Budget Committee, said lawmakers and the incoming administration had differences over how to focus the huge federal spending in a recovery bill. Investment, investment, investment has got to be the central focus: energy, roads, bridges, waterways, housing, he said. Job creation is Job One.

Mr. Conrad, who described the meeting as extremely positive, said Mr. Summers ended it by telling the senators, Message received, loud and clear.

Several Democrats on the Finance Committee earlier in the day questioned the proposal to give tax credits worth $500 to individuals and $1,000 to married couples. Several senators said that initiative would provide a token sum of money, which taxpayers were likely to save, not spend.

Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and others also criticized a proposal to give businesses a $3,000 tax credit for each new employee they hire, saying it was unlikely to influence business decisions.

After meeting with Mr. Summers, Mr. Kerry said he expected adjustments to be made. We are in a good dialogue, he said. I am very confident about some adjustments being made.

The Democratic demands clash with those of Republicans who want more tax cuts and express doubts that heavy infrastructure spending would be the best way to stimulate the economy. Its very important as we go ahead that we find the right balance, said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader. Yes, our economy needs help. But at the end of the day, how much debt are we going to pile on future generations?

With the cascade of conflicting opinions, Mr. Obamas allies pushed for quick passage. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker, said she would cancel the Presidents Day recess in mid-February if lawmakers had not passed an economic plan by then. If we dont have a bill before the presidents recess, there will be no presidents recess, she told reporters.

Mr. Obama reinforced that urgency in a speech at George Mason University in the Virginia suburbs of Washington. For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, he said, more Americans will lose their jobs, more families will lose their savings, more dreams will be deferred, and our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

The speech was his first since the election and indicated how fully he is stepping into the role of president when it comes to domestic issues even before his inauguration. His advisers have calculated that he cannot wait to begin a campaign to build public support and have mapped out a series of events to explain his economic approach, including booking him on the ABC program This Week on Sunday.

For the moment, the public remains strongly in Mr. Obamas corner. The latest Gallup tracking poll this week showed that 65 percent express confidence in his leadership.

But Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic political strategist, said the Obama plans price tag is an awfully big number that follows a financial bailout thats strikingly unpopular with the public. Both of these things create a challenge to overcome, some nervousness on the Hill and among the public.

Mr. Obama addressed that nervousness in his speech. I understand that some might be skeptical of this plan, he said. Our government has already spent a good deal of money but we haven't yet seen that translate into more jobs or higher incomes or renewed confidence in our economy. But he said his plan wont just throw money at our problems. Well invest in what works.

Known on the campaign trail for inspirational addresses, Mr. Obama on Thursday was sober and ominous, summoning the nation to meet a daunting task.

Now, I dont believe its too late to change course, he said, but it will be if we dont take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years.

Some Democrats said they were not sure that Congress and the Obama administration would ultimately see eye to eye. Mr. Harkin pointed to Mr. Obamas speech earlier in the day to promote the economic recovery package and said the rhetoric did not match the dollars in the plan.

Obama said today that he wanted to double renewable energy in three years, well we can do it, Mr. Harkin said, but he added that spending to jump-start that initiative would have to be included in the stimulus

Ice age threatens the USA as global warming ends

   2008 was the coldest year in the contiguous USA's history for many years.  Alaska is also seeing increasing cold weather.  (See story below)

  The average contiguous US temperature dropped .2 degrees in 2008.

  This means the USA is cooling at the rate of 1 degree every five years.
   If this cooling is not stopped average temperatures in the USA will drop 20 degrees in one hundred years.  
   USA farmland will be destroyed.  Some areas of the USA will be iced over.  Ocean trade patterns will be significantly changed.  Energy costs will skyrocket.

   We must stop the ice age before it is too late.

   Now is the time to increase the consumption of gas, use larger cars, open your windows when you heat your home.  Start bonfires.  Do something.  An ice age can be stopped by human effort. 

<<< Kabdul560 wrote: 

 

Extreme Alaska cold grounds planes, disables cars                            

By STEVE QUINN, Associated Press Writer Steve Quinn, Associated Press Writer

AP  Elisabeth Habermann, with the University of Alaska Fairbanks, skis from the race trail in the subzero 

    Slideshow: Alaska copes with extreme temperatures

JUNEAU, Alaska Ted Johnson planned on using a set of logs to a build a cabin in Alaska's interior. Instead he'll burn some of them to stay warm.

Extreme temperatures in Johnson's case about 60 below zero call for extreme measures in a statewide cold snap so frigid that temperatures have grounded planes, disabled cars, frozen water pipes and even canceled several championship cross country ski races.

Alaskans are accustomed to subzero temperatures but the prolonged conditions have folks wondering what's going on with winter less than a month old.

National Weather Service meteorologist Andy Brown said high pressure over much of central Alaska has been keeping other weather patterns from moving through. New conditions get pushed north or south while the affected area faces daily extremes.

"When it first started almost two weeks ago, it wasn't anything abnormal," Brown said. "About once or twice every year, we get a good cold snap. But, in this case, you can call this an extreme event. This is rare. It doesn't happen every year."

Temperatures sit well below zero in the state's various regions, often without a wisp of wind pushing down the mercury further.

Johnson lives in Stevens Village, where residents have endured close to two weeks of temperatures pushing 60 below zero.

The cold has kept planes grounded, Johnson said. Food and fuel aren't coming in and they're starting to run low in the village, about 90 miles northwest of Fairbanks.

Johnson, whose home has no heater or running water, said he ventures outside only to get more logs for burning and to fetch water from a community facility. He's been saving the wood to build a cabin as a second home, but that will have to wait a few years now because the heat takes precedence.

"I've never seen it this cold for this long," he said. "I remember it 70 below one time, but not for a week and a half."

In Anchorage, Alaska's largest city, residents are used to lows of about 10-degree temperatures in January not 19 below zero, which is what folks awoke to Wednesday morning.

Temperatures finally settled to about 10 below at midday, but that was cold enough to cancel races in the U.S. Cross Country Ski Championships.

Skiers won't compete unless it's warmer than 4 below zero, but the numbers have ranged between 10 below and 15 below.

That has led to four days of canceled or postponed competition with organizers hoping to get a set of races under way on Thursday, the event's final day.

Obama voters were ignorant - more proof

Most intelligent people know that the most ignorant USA voters chose Obama. 

This video captures real Obama supporters proving their ignorance in their own words

This is an important video provided by a poster who is doing his best to help Obama voters recognize their own ignorance.  To recognize personal ignorance is the first step to learning.

   The video is merely anecdotal evidence to support the statistics proving that the USA's most ignorant voters chose Obama.  Let me know if you would like to see the statistical date proving the ignorant chose Obama.

Biased CNN report prevents Israel from achieving a just peace

One of the major problems preventing Israel from achieving peace is the bias and outright lies of the media.  Here is an example of the biased CNN willingly duped by a Hams Islamic terrorist faking his younger brothers death.  This type of sickness pervades the biased media who want Israel destroyed