What The Establishment Wanted

Fox News Projects Mitt Romney the Winner of the Florida Republican Primary

Mitt Romney has won the Florida Republican presidential primary, Fox News projects.

The victory, in the GOP contest's biggest state to date, is likely to give the former Massachusetts governor a burst of momentum as he and Newt Gingrich battle for the lead in what has become an increasingly negative race.

With 61 percent of precincts reporting, Romney is leading with 47 percent. Gingrich has 31 percent, followed by Rick Santorum with 13 percent and Ron Paul with 7 percent.

Romney is expected to win all 50 of Florida's convention delegates.

Fox News also projects that Gingrich will finish second, followed by Rick Santorum in third and Ron Paul in last place.

The results mark a serious setback for the former House speaker, who trounced Romney just 10 days ago in South Carolina and was leading Romney in Florida polls as recently as last week.

With his Florida win, Romney is the only Republican candidate to have won two primaries. In a historical anomaly, the first three contests went to three different winners.

But the former House speaker is vowing a drawn-out battle for delegates as the Republican race heads next to Nevada, and then a batch of primaries in western and Midwestern states.

Asked Tuesday how close the race was to being over, Gingrich said, "I would probably say six months. I would say June or July, unless Romney drops out."

Gingrich has held a narrow lead in most recent national polls. But Romney began to edge him out in Florida over the past week, despite Gingrich's come-from-behind victory in South Carolina on Jan. 21.

Gingrich, after dominating the debates in the run up to South Carolina, was more subdued on stage ahead of Florida -- while Romney aggressively challenged Gingrich's attacks on his personal wealth and his immigration position. Both campaigns, and the groups that support them, were on air with scorching attack ads in the Sunshine State.

Florida's primary is the most valuable so far in pure numbers. With the awarding of Florida's 50 delegates, Romney will have 87 delegates nationally, compared with 26 for Gingrich. Santorum will remain at 14 delegates and Paul stands with four. It takes 1,144 delegates to clinch the Republican nomination.

In a positive sign for Gingrich, exit polls showed evangelical voters trending for the former House speaker. The exit polls showed Gingrich with 40 percent among that group, and Romney with 36 percent.

But the margin was wider for Romney among seniors and Hispanics. Half of the seniors polled were supporting Romney, while 35 percent backed Gingrich. Romney also led Gingrich 56-29 percent among Hispanic voters, the largest minority in the state, exit polling showed.

Voters overwhelmingly went for Romney among those who said winning in November is the most important quality in a Republican nominee. But for voters who valued "true conservative" credentials as their top quality, Gingrich led with 46 percent, followed by Santorum at 26 percent and Paul at 16 percent. Among those voters, Romney was last with 11 percent.

Commentary

The establishment got what it wanted But the Tea Party will never be denied remeber this GOP!

REPUBLICANS WE HAVE NO PART OF YOU! YOU NEED US

  Myself as a God fearing Constitutional Conservative and Tea Party activist and along with many others in our movement are tired to the point where someone needs to speak out.I will be more than happy to do so.What we are tired of is people comparing the Tea Party movement being associated with the GOP of today nothing could be more different.
 Alot of the base of the Republican party once years ago was trumpeting the great Ronald Reagan a great man indeed but if he was to see the state of the Republican party today the great gipper would be saying What in the heck happened to you all of you?
 Reagan would not be able to recognize todays GOP.Why one may ask?The party has been taken over by moderates dressed up as conservatives a.k.a RINOS (Republican In Name Only) bearing no resemblence to the great Conservative movements of years gone by.
 Which leads us to the Tea Party movement.While the GOP today care more about looking good like their left wing buddies in the media and Democrat party we in the Tea Party are getting more viciously attacked by the media and the aforementioned Democrat party.
 But there is a light shinning bright at the end of the tunel.Our movement is made up of Americans period with no fancy BS label like liberal main stream or middle class.
 We are made up of Americans fed up with frivolous entitlement spending like welfare ssi benefits given out hand over foot.Laws like abortion taking away the most vulnerable our beautiful gifts from God newborns being slaughtered just because the US Supreme Court stated over close to 40 years ago that a woman has a Constitutional right to abort her child Yes I said child in her womb.Since the Roe v. Wade decision back in 1973 millions of innocent lives have been taken away because of an UNCOSTITUTIONAL ruling by a few empty black robes.Yet today we say God Bless America.
 I believe that the Lord will continue to bless our great nation but we need to turn back to him and sooner rather than later.
 There are even some within the ranks of the Tea Party movement who are trying to take over our movment just to give those power hungry a whiff of feeling important.You know who you are.Listen to US.Rep. Alan West's (R-Fl) comments over the weekend yes toward the establishments of both hack filled lamestream political parties.Then you will get the picture.

Respectfully Submitted

David R.Beaupre

NYT Tries To Go U.S.Constitutional



Opinion/Editorial

  Here they come in their own mind once again all of the sudden the left wing self righteous New York Times editorial board are now experts in something that they cannot properly interpret,comprehend or understand the U.S. Constitution. I know what you are thinking I am LMAO and trying not to spill my coffee from laughing so hard.
 The title of this OPED from the NYT is "Filibustering Nominees Must End" this morning.This is where it gets good starting off when the NYT tells the US senate what to do "The system for reviewing presidential appointments is broken. The Senate has a constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on the naming of judges and high-ranking executive branch officials. But the process has been hijacked by cynical partisanship and cheap tricks.This is not a new problem, but it has gotten intolerably worse and is now threatening to paralyze government, as Republicans use the filibuster to try to kill off agencies they do not like. The number of unfilled judicial seats is nearing a historic high.It is time to end the ability of a single senator, or group of senators, to block the confirmation process by threatening a filibuster, which can be overcome only by the vote of 60 senators. We agree with President Obama’s call in the State of the Union address for the Senate to change its rules and require votes on judicial and executive nominees within 90 days."
 Hello NYT are not your buddies in the Democrat party in the majority in the US Senate or not?Filibustering is part of the process now all of the sudden a change in heart Gee I wonder why?
 Oh wait here is the answer "This is a major change of position for us, and we came to it reluctantly. The filibuster has sometimes been the only way to deny life terms on the federal bench to extremist or unqualified judges. But the paralysis has become so dire that we see no other solution."
 Yeah this is their idea of sticking the moistened finger outside on a windy day to see which way the political winds are blowing.No NYT just nominees who you deem unqualified or extremists which are those common sense thinking people who interpret the Constitution as the founders intended.
 Here is a good example of the NYT not understanding the Constitution "Senate Republicans then blocked the confirmation vote for Richard Cordray, a strong pro-consumer leader and the bureau’s chief of enforcement. Mr. Obama gave Mr. Cordray a recess appointment, which means he will be able to serve only until the end of 2013."
 Here is the problem the US Senate was not in a recess and it was reported everywhere but hey its the NYT! Once again the NYT has a hard time dealing with the FACTS!

Conservatives Wanted

  Where have all the great Reaganites gone?................ Im hearing the crickets chirping.
We have cowards in the so called leadership of the republican party who Mitt Romney please give me a break he really makes me want to vote for him he had the deer in the headlights look in the debates in South Carolina.Ron Paul please spare me.
  Who in the heck is this Reince Prebuis? or however you pronounce his name.where is he hiding.Oh by the way he is the supposed leader/Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
  Truth is the Tea Party is the backbone of American Constitutional Conservatism good ol fashioned American values where have they gone?
  I am echoing the sediments of many out there crying in the political wilderness.Come on RINOS and left wingers out there attack me you cowards.I promise you this you want to debate me bring it on.
  As long as I have a breath I will take on anyone that doesnot believe in the great LORD OUR GOD who gave us our precious freedom.
 There are Tea Party leaders who believe that social issues are not or have no part of the Tea Party to those who believe that crap I say get a life.you are just in the way so I suggest you move out of our way.You know who you are.
 To those who are on our side don't be discouraged out there fight the good fight we have the truth never give up you all inspire me.
 Go in the good graces of our loving God our Father.I love all my fellow brothers and sisters in our all American movement.We have to put things into perspective though put the LORD first in all that we do.Pray for our fellow brothers and sisters we will never bend break or back down if one of our brothers or sisters are distraught lift them up in prayer.God is our warrior he is our refuge.

God Bless my brothers and sisters in our movement and remember this is a labor of love this Tea Party movement

WAKE UP REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

January 28, 2012

It's Not About Newt

By Joseph M. Koenig

GOP voters are sending a clarion call to the party establishment, but it seems GOP leaders are not getting the message. The statement being sent to the GOP elite isn't about Newt, and it goes beyond even Romney.  It is about a deep dissatisfaction that has been building for years within the Republican rank and file.
With the proclamations of Bob Dole and others against Newt Gingrich recently, it is clear the GOP establishment fears a Gingrich nomination.  In truth, however, it is the GOP establishment's own ineffectual leadership that led to the recent surge of the former Speaker of the House. 
The prevailing wisdom in Washington and the media is that Newt's re-birth in South Carolina is due to his fiery debate performances, which is true, but what happened in the polls goes far beyond clear articulation of conservative principles and debate prowess.  Yes, the Republican voters want a fighter, someone who will take on President Obama, but Newt's boldness and passion resonated so well with the disaffected party base, they were willing to overlook his huge political and personal shortcomings.  There is a larger lesson here. 
According to Rasmussen Reports, just five days before the South Carolina vote, Mitt Romney held a 14 point lead over Gingrich.  After two debate performances, the final primary results showed a nearly 27 percentage point swing in Newt's favor, with the Speaker finishing almost 13 points ahead of Romney.  A shift that large, that fast, reveals a weakness not just in Romney's support, but in the establishment GOP's support as well. 
Political debate-goers are not prone to giving standing ovations.  Jumping to your feet and cheering is something enthusiastic fans watching a Super Bowl do, not conservative GOP loyalists watching their candidates in an intraparty debate.  The fact that such an audience, and surely millions of viewers at home, felt such elation, such euphoric relief, that they were prompted to offer not one, but multiple standing ovations to a political candidate, demonstrates the utter paucity of spirit and lack of understanding so glaringly obvious in the GOP political elite. 
Unfortunately, the GOP elite's failure to understand exactly why Gingrich did so well portends the sad prospect that Republican leadership isn't going to improve anytime soon.  In election after election, and on issue after issue, the Republican base has felt increasingly frustrated and disappointed by their party's leadership, who have consistently underperformed, buckled under media and opposition pressure, and squandered any mandate provided them by the American people. 
With a candidate like Newt, who brings with him loads of personal and political baggage, such reactions as those seen in the debates reveal sentiments that run much deeper, and that have been building far longer than any one campaign season.  The Republican rank and file have been sending messages to their party leaders for years, but without avail.  The GOP has touted itself as the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller government, but for too many years, their supporters have seen government and spending continue to spiral out of control, even when they put Republicans in charge. 
In 2006, Republicans were sent a resounding rebuke, losing both the Senate and the House after 12 years of controlling majorities.  After defeating an uninspiring establishment GOP candidate in the 2008 election, President Obama promptly showed the disaffected Republican voters what real spending was like, making the ousted Republicans look downright miserly. 
Realizing just how much worse things could be under liberal Democrat control, the American people rose up.  The Tea Party was born.  In 2010, frustrated Tea Partiers sent Republicans back to congress in an attempt to stop the profligate spending.  The mandate could hardly have been clearer.  Even Obama admitted to taking a shellacking.
While it is true Republicans control only one chamber of one branch of the federal government, the change the American people sent them to Washington to effect has not happened.  The frustration that led Tea Partiers to demonstrate in public squares and dominate town halls around the country has not been alleviated.  The debt limit battle was lost, the economy continues to stagnate, and the GOP establishment is once again pushing a candidate that fails to inspire hope that he can actually make real change happen in Washington.
Unlike many of the Occupy Wall Street movement protestors, the Tea Party conservatives had businesses to run, and jobs to return to, but the frustration and anger they felt is still very real.  They are tired of sending people to Washington, Republicans claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility, only to see things continue to get worse. 
Romney lost big in South Carolina against split opposition support.  However, Mitt shouldn't take it personally.  The "Anybody but Romney" vote, could well be renamed the "Anybody but What We've Already Tried" vote.  The Republican voters have already tried the next-in-line, safe, establishment candidate, and lost--to Obama no less.  As heroic as they have been in wars past, there are no more perfect examples of this kind of unexciting candidate as John McCain and Bob Dole, both of whom have now publicly endorsed Romney. 
If they had a real understanding of why Newt surged, and why their preferred candidate has failed to connect with voters, they would have kept McCain and Dole as far from cameras and microphones as possible.  To many, Romney is the best Republicans have in their current field of candidates, but to openly associate him with the same tired, uninspiring cast of characters of elections past is more than just bad political strategy.  The tone-deafness of the Republican establishment could not be more astounding. 
The voters want someone who understands their frustration, anger, and concern for the future of the country.  They are tired of candidates too timid to say it like it is, candidates so afraid to offend the smallest of minorities with uncomfortable truths they instead exasperate the majority through monotonous political-speak, media-safe answers, and unfulfilled promises. 
The stakes are higher than ever. The Republican base is ready.  Their message is loud and clear.  If the Republican establishment had the willingness to hear, and the courage to tap into and focus the dissatisfaction and passion so evident in the party base, the change we all would like to see would be possible. Until they get that message, however, it looks like it is going to be business as usual.

Commentary

just in the opening paragraph is the reason why there is a Constitiutional Conservative Tea Party Movement in this great nation.

Put Bill Hudak's Name In On Ballot As A Write In On Massachusetts Primary Day

  To my brothers and sisters in the Tea Party movement back in Massachusetts.I have been asked by many in the rank and file of our movement back home to urge as many as possible voters on primary day on the GOP ballot to write in Bill Hudak's name as opposed to voting for the hackarama Massachusetts Republican party candidate former State Sen. and failed Lt.Governor's candidate Richard Tisei (RINO-Wakefield).
 After thinking it over I have come to the conclusion that that is a great idea.We all know why Mr.Hudak had decided not to seek the GOP nod to run eventually against the money launderer US Rep.John Tierney (D-Salem Ma).
 We need to send a message to the left wing establishment especially to the MassGOP who should be ashamed of themselves for supporting Tisei over Bill Hudak.They thought by supporting Tisei and their lamebrain excuse "he is electable" as Mr.Hudak stated so eloquentlky on Jeff Katz talk 1200 radio program if and a big if Tisei defeated Tierney there would be no difference between the two and I agree 100%.
 The important thing to remember my brothers and sisters you have the power and not the MassGOP don't be forced into voting for Tisei out of conveinence.

I write this with a humble heart with the Lord as my witness.

Respectfully submitted

David R.Beaupre founder of Independence Tea Party of Massachusetts

According To Leftist Site Same Sex Marriage Moving Forward Around Country

Gay Marriage Moving Forward Around the Country

 

Abby Rapoport

January 27, 2012

It's not just Washington state. Maryland, Maine and New Jersey are also home to new initiatives for gay marriage.

It's been a good week for gay-rights advocates. Washington state gained the crucial 25th vote needed to pass same-sex marriage. The news prompted headlines around the country, but it was hardly the only place where such legislation moved forward.
In Maryland, Governor Martin O'Malley is once again pushing a gay marriage bill. Last year's bill stalled, but this time around, lawmakers are making broader exemptions for religious institutions. O'Malley and other advocates are also trying to drum up public support for the bill, which if passed will likely be put to a public vote this fall. Current polling shows Maryland closely divided on the issue, but no one is tiptoeing around it. Today, O'Malley's wife went so far as to call the bill's opponents "cowards."
Maine advocates announced Thursday that they had more than double the signatures necessary to put get gay marriage on the ballot. While there was little surprise that the coalition had gathered the signatures, some speculated that they would not go forward with the referendum; back in 2009, voters rejected a similar measure after the state legislature approved it. But according to the Bangor Daily News, a spokesperson for EqualityMaine explained that polling now shows 54 percent of Mainers want same-sex couple to have the right to marry.
In fact, many thought the increasing support for gay marriage would put New Jersey governor Chris Christie in a sticky situation. Until this week, the governor had refused to comment on a gay marriage bill in the state Legislature. As the New York Times reports, Democrats hoped he might come out in favor of the bill after he nominated an openly gay lawyer to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Instead Christie pushed to bring the question to voters, voicing support for a referendum—the shrewd and safe political choice for the rising GOP star.
Still, Christie's political skills soon fell short when he offended black leaders around the state by arguing that the civil rights laws could have just as easily been passed by voter referenda "rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South." Just about every one had the same critique—the general population would have taken far longer (if ever) to extend civil rights to black Americans. Instead, granting legal equality required bravery from a minority of activists and lawmakers. It's a lesson many legislators might consider as the fight for gay rights goes on.
In the meantime, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad is busy not commenting on his alleged request that the Iowa Governor's Conference on LGBTQ Youth, a conference on preventing bullying, take his title off of its name.

Commentary

Thanks alot Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and especially Mitt Romney for not fighting for family values

This story came from a liberal web site called the American Prospect

Howie Carr Nails It!

These Dems spin better than Rumpelstiltskin

By Howie Carr  Boston Herald Columnist

How profoundly America has changed since January 2009.
I was pondering this the other night during the State of the Union address. Did you know that our elite military units like the Navy SEALs are now examples of America at its absolute finest? Why, wasn’t it just a few years ago that Sen. Dick Durbin was comparing these very same troops to the Khmer Rouge and Joe Stalin’s Red Army?
What used to be Dick Cheney’s hit squad is now a beacon of freedom.
But now of course the president is a Democrat. When Durbin spoke a Republican resided in the White House.Remember when Theo Epstein snubbed Republican George W. Bush when the rest of the Red Sox [team stats] went to the White House after the 2007 World Series? Nobody said boo. Now Bruins [team stats] goalie Tim Thomas [stats] does the same thing to our PC president and — hey, somebody get a rope!
Since January 2009, natural disasters are no longer the personal fault of the president.
Now that Obama is president, Gen. “Betrayus” is once again Gen. Petraeus, the greatest American military genius since MacArthur, no make that U.S. Grant.
George W. Bush played 30 rounds of golf in eight years and it was dereliction of duty. Obama’s played 80 in three years and it’s a well-deserved rest from his terrible burden of world leadership.
On Jan. 20, 2009, all the homeless people went home. Inflation ended that same day. No longer do dying Americans have to travel to Canada to buy affordable prescription drugs.
The Tea Party — violent rhetoric. Occupy Wall Street and the publicly defecating hippies — in the finest tradition of our Founding Fathers.
Bush mispronounces nuclear — idiot. Obama butchers corpsman — misspoke.
Raising the debt ceiling under Bush — the worst kind of fiscal irresponsibility. Raising the debt ceiling under Obama — a valiant effort by our young president to save the world economy.
McDonald’s jobs under Bush — “burger flipping.” McDonald’s jobs under Obama — entry-level jobs with one of America’s noblest public corporations.
Unemployment rate of 4.5 percent under Bush — “jobless recovery.” Unemployment rate of 8.5 percent under Obama — the new normal.
The Patriot Act under Bush — incipient fascism. The Patriot Act under Obama — yawn.
Words and phrases you haven’t heard since January 2009: “no blood for oil ... Cindy Sheehan ... not one more dime ... quagmire ... atrocities ... candlelight vigils ... not on our watch ... waterboarding ... Abu Ghraib...
Being a Democrat means never having to say you’re sorry.

Commentary

One of Howie's Best Columns ever

Conservatives Blast Mitt Romney

 

 

Mike Reagan, Rush Limbaugh Blast Romney

Thursday, 26 Jan 2012 08:38 PM

By Jim Meyers

Read more on Newsmax.com: Mike Reagan, Rush Limbaugh Blast Romney

Ronald Reagan’s eldest son Mike Reagan has issued a statement lambasting Mitt Romney and his supporters for claims that Romney’s Republican presidential rival Newt Gingrich was a strong critic of President Reagan.

Reagan says such claims are false.

Even Rush Limbaugh, shocked by the Romney claims, chimed on his Thursday radio broadcast to say "This is obviously a coordinated attack to take Newt out here in Florida."

Rush slammed the Romney-backed smear campaign against Newt.

“That kind of stuff is why people hate Romney so much," Limbaugh said.

Limbaugh added that Newt has always been a conservative from his early days in national talk radio in the 1980s.

“He was perhaps the premier defender of Ronald Reagan,” Limbaugh said.
On Thursday, Mike Reagan, a respected conservative commentator, responded to the Gingrich critics with this statement to Newsmax:
“I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.

“Recently I endorsed Newt Gingrich for president because I believe that Newt is the only Republican candidate who has both consistently backed the conservative policies that my father championed and the only Republican that will continue to implement his vision.

“It surprises me that Mitt Romney and his supporters would raise this issue — when Mitt by his own admission voted for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale who opposed my father, and later supported liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas for president.

“As governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s achievement was the most socialistic healthcare plan in the nation up until that time.

“Say what you want about Newt Gingrich but when he was Speaker of the House he surrounded himself with Reagan conservatives and implemented a Ronald Reagan program of low taxes and restrained federal spending.

“Newt’s conservative program created a huge economic boom and balanced the budget for the first time in more than a generation.”

Mike Reagan concluded: “I would take Newt Gingrich’s record any day over Mitt Romney’s.”

And Nancy Reagan, Reagan’s wife, has stressed Gingrich’s close relationship with her late husband.

In a 1995 speech at a dinner honoring Ronald Reagan, Nancy said: “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.”

Commentary

Romney is a fraud and will always be a RINO fraud

Obama Cutting Military Even More

Pentagon: Army, Marines to shrink as budget slows

By ROBERT BURNS
AP National Security Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon outlined a plan Thursday for slowing the growth of military spending, including cutting the size of the Army and Marine Corps, retiring older planes and trimming war costs. It drew quick criticism from Republicans, signaling the difficulty of scaling back defense budgets in an election year.

The changes Defense Secretary Leon Panetta described at a news conference are numerous but hardly dramatic. They aim to save money by delaying some big-ticket weapons like a next-generation nuclear-armed submarine, but the basic shape and structure of the military remains the same.

The Army would shrink from a peak of 570,000 to 490,000 within five years, and the Marines would drop by 20,000, to 182,000. Those are considerable declines, but both services will still be slightly larger than on 9/11, before they began a decade of war. Both will keep their footholds abroad, although the Army will decrease its presence in Europe and the Marines plan to increase theirs in Asia.

Panetta said the administration will ask Congress for $525 billion to run the Pentagon in 2013 - $6 billion less than the current budget. War costs, which are not considered part of the base budget, would decline from $115 billion to $88 billion, reflecting the completion of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

The base budget would then increase in each year of the Pentagon's five-year plan, reaching $567 billion in 2017. A year ago the Pentagon had projected 2017 spending to reach $622 billion. The Pentagon counts those reductions in projected future spending as "defense savings."

When Obama took office in January 2009 the Pentagon's base budget was $513 billion. In 2001 it was $297 billion.

Under a budget deficit-cutting deal Congress made last summer, the Pentagon is committed to reducing projected spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years. The plan Panetta presented Thursday covers the first five years of that span and would cut a cumulative total of $259 billion in planned spending.

"We believe this is a balanced and complete package," Panetta said.

In a bid to pre-empt election-year Republican criticism, Panetta said the plan begins to shift the Pentagon's focus from the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to future challenges in Asia, the Mideast and in cyberspace. More special operations forces like the Navy SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden will be available around the world, he said, and the Pentagon will stress improvements in cyberdefenses.

Republicans were quick to pounce on the proposed Army and Marine Corps reductions.

"These cuts reflect President Obama's vision of an America that is weakened, not strengthened, by our men and women in uniform," said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

McKeon voted for the bill last August that established the requirement for $487 billion in defense savings over five years.

"Taking us back to a pre-9/11 military force structure places our country in grave danger," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee that will hold hearings on the Pentagon budget plan.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the Panetta plan "ignores the lessons of history." He said it provides for a military that is "too small to respond effectively to events that may unfold over the next few years."

The military's top general, however, defended the administration's approach. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he is convinced that the risks raised by cutting the size of the military are manageable. He said failing to make these changes would have meant even bigger risks.

"This budget is a first step - it's a down payment - as we transition from an emphasis on today's wars to preparing for future challenges," he said, adding, "This budget does not lead to a military in decline."

Among other details Panetta disclosed:

--The Air Force would retire some older planes including about two dozen C-5A cargo aircraft and 65 of its oldest C-130 cargo planes.

-- The Navy would keep a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers but retire seven cruisers earlier than planned. It also would delay purchase of some other ships, including a new Virginia-class submarine.

--Purchase of F-35 stealth fighter jets, to be fielded by the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, would be slowed.

--Current plans for building a new generation of submarines that carry long-range nuclear missiles would be delayed by two years. The current fleet of nuclear-capable bombers and land-based nuclear missiles would be left unchanged.

--Military pay raises will remain on track until 2015, when the pace of increase will be slowed by an undetermined amount.

--Obama will ask Congress to approve a new round of domestic base closures, although the timing of this was left vague and there is little chance that lawmakers would agree to this in a presidential election year.

The defense spending plan is scheduled to be submitted to Congress as part of the administration's full 2013 budget on Feb. 13.

The defense budget is being reshaped in the midst of a presidential contest in which Obama seeks to portray himself as a forward-looking commander in chief focusing on new security threats. Republicans want to cast him as weak on defense.

Obama has highlighted his national security successes - the killing of bin Laden, the death of other senior al-Qaida leaders and the demise of Libya's Moammar Gadhafi - to counter Republican criticism. He also has emphasized the completion of the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq and the start of a drawdown in Afghanistan as turning points that offer new opportunities to scale back defense spending.

But several congressional Republicans see a political opening in challenging the reductions in projected military spending that the GOP and Obama agreed to last summer as part of a deal to raise the nation's borrowing authority. They've echoed Obama's potential presidential rivals Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who plead for fiscal austerity but contend that sizable cuts would gut the military.

Commentary

Why the military cut ENTITLEMENT spending there are far too many layabouts out there frivolously collecting welfare and SSI benefits

Nancy Reagan To Mitt Hey Mitt Listen To This You RINO!

Nancy Reagan In 1995: "Ronnie Turned That Torch Over To Newt"

Speaking at a 1995 Goldwater Institute Dinner, former First Lady Nancy Reagan praised Newt Gingrich.

"They believed that government should simply get out of the way. Ronnie and Barry fought for those principles, which, today, have been overwhelmingly embraced," Reagan said. "So they must have done something right. Just take a look at the extraordinary men and women who make up the 104th Congress and of course its distinguished speaker, Newt Gingrich. The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and, in turn, Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive."

Commentary

Hey Mitt how do you feel now after dissing The great Ronald Reagan.

Another Screw Job From Bacon Hill

Gov. Deval Patrick insists public will support tax on soda, candy       

Gov. Deval Patrick (D-Ma)

By Chris Cassidy Boston Herald

 

Taxes on candy and soda and an expansion of the Bay State’s bottle bill are two “widely supported” ways to increase revenue, Gov. Deval Patrick told reporters as he filed a $32.3 billion budget yesterday, just under 3 percent larger than this year’s.
“We’re listening to outside voices,” Patrick said at a State House press conference yesterday morning. “I think it’s important for the Legislature to listen as well.”
Patrick said Bay State residents don’t mind paying more for chocolate bars and cola or shelling out deposits for bottles of water and Gatorade — just as they do for carbonated drinks.
He cited two polls to back up his claims, though some may question the objectivity of at least one of them.
Patrick said 69 percent of the public supports the elimination of tax exemptions on candy and soda, according to a poll from the Boston Foundation and New England Healthcare Institute. However, the Boston Foundation spent thousands on lobbyists to support a bill to eliminate the soda tax exemption last year, according to disclosure forms filed with the state.
Patrick also cited a MassINC poll claiming 77 percent of the public supports an expansion of the bottle bill.
Besides candy and soda, Patrick also wants to increase taxes on cigarettes and bring taxes on cigars and smokeless tobacco up to the same level as cigarettes.
The revenue, Patrick said, amounts to less than 1 percent of the budget. He warned tough choices lie ahead as the Legislature tackles his budget, saying it will require sacrifice.
“I’m asking the Legislature to make tough choices,” Patrick said. “The progress we’ve made is happening because we’ve made those choices and made them together.”


Commentary

Just like his Campaign slogan "Together We Can" continue to screw the taxpayers of Massachusetts

 

George Soros Is The Extremist

Commentary

This guy is a ultra moonbat idiot

NYT Columnist Freak Show In His Own Little World On US President

                                                   

                                                                                                                              Thomas L. Friedman

      
A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Friday found that two-thirds of Americans would consider voting for a third-party presidential candidate, while 48 percent wanted a third party in the race. Now what does that tell you?
It tells you that with the campaign about to go into full swing, as the president delivers his State of the Union address tonight, voters are still casting about for a leader with a winning message. I can save both parties a lot of money. I am one of those voters, and I can tell you exactly for whom I want to vote -- and I don't think I'm alone.
I want to vote for a candidate who advocates an immediate investment in infrastructure that will create jobs and upgrade America for the 21st century -- ultrafast bandwidth, highways, airports, public schools, mass transit -- and combines that with a long-term plan to fix our fiscal imbalances at the real scale of the problem, a plan that could be phased in as the economy recovers.
On the latter point, I am talking about the Bowles-Simpson bipartisan deficit reduction plan -- or something equally serious and with a chance of bipartisan support. President Barack Obama has proposed smart infrastructure investments, but he has not paired them with a credible long-term deficit-reduction plan, and the only chance of passage in Congress is to have both. Mitt Romney is not even close.
Christina Romer, the former chairwoman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, put it best when she told The New York Times Dec. 31 that the U.S. "faces two daunting economic problems: an unsustainable long-run budget deficit and persistent high unemployment. ... Over the next 20 to 30 years, rising health care costs and the retirement of the baby boomers are projected to cause deficits that make the current one look puny. At the rate we're going, the United States would almost surely default on its debt one day. ... We already have a blueprint for a bipartisan solution. The Bowles-Simpson commission hashed out a sensible plan of spending cuts, entitlement program reforms and revenue increases that would shave $4 trillion off the deficit over the next decade. It shares the pain of needed deficit reduction, while protecting the most vulnerable and maintaining investments in our future productivity.
"But we can't focus on the deficit alone," added Ms. Romer. "Persistent unemployment is destroying the lives and wasting the talents of more than 13 million Americans. Pairing additional strong stimulus with a plan to reduce the deficit would likely pack a particularly powerful punch for confidence and spending."
Second, I want to vote for a candidate committed to reforming taxes, and cutting spending, in a fair way. The rich must pay more, but everyone has to pay something. We are all in this together.
Third, I want to vote for a candidate who has an inspirational vision, not just a plan to balance the budget. People will sacrifice to make this country great again if they think you have a real plan for American success in the 21st century. And that plan is obvious.
We're not going to be about launching one big moon shot anymore. We need to be building a country where everyone in the world wants to come to launch their own moon shot -- their own company, their own startup -- because we have the best immigration policies, regulations, schools and incentives. We can't tax or cut our way to prosperity and jobs. We have to invent our way there. We need both more "Made in America" and "Imagined in America."
Finally, I want to vote for a candidate who supports a minimum floor of public financing of presidential, Senate and House campaigns. Money in politics is out of control today. Our Congress has become a forum for legalized bribery. Americans are losing faith in the instruments of government because they think the game is rigged by big money -- and they're right.
Any candidate with that four-part agenda would win -- and so would the country, because he would win with a mandate to do what needs doing.
"The people are so far ahead of the politicians," says the Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. His polling, he adds, shows that many Americans today "think that China, Germany and Brazil have strategies for success, and that we don't. But they are looking for that. They are looking for a leader who will be really bold."
People have been misled by months of crazy GOP debates that make the country look so much more divided, small-minded and unwilling to sacrifice to fix our problems than it actually is. That's why I'd bet anything that the first candidate who steps out of the cartoonish politics of destruction -- "Romney is just a capitalist vulture. Obama is a Kenyan socialist" -- and shocks the public by going radically responsible, radically honest, radically demanding and radically aspirational, along the lines above, will be our next president.
I hope it is Mr. Obama, because I agree with him on so many other issues. But if it's Mr. Romney, he'd deserve to win. And, if by some miracle, both run that campaign, and the 2012 contest is about two such competing visions, then put every dollar you own in the U.S. stock market. It will go up a gazillion points.

Commentary

What is Friedman talking about his ideal President is in the White House right now a Socislist leftist

Robichaud Is Dead Wrong On Tisei

GOP should run Tisei vs. Tierney

Should Republicans take a page out of the Democrats’ playbook?
Over the past six months, the Democrats have cleared the field for Lizzy Warren. Her coronation as their Senate nominee will give the Harvard Law professor a direct shot at our hometown Sen. Scott Brown.
It is a dangerous move on behalf of the Democrats to anoint a novice candidate who has not been fully vetted. Remember, President Obama declined to nominate Lizzy to spearhead the new consumer agency she designed, because she could not survive the Senate confirmation process.
But clearing the primary path might be a good strategy for Republicans to adopt against U.S. Rep. John Tierney.
Many believe the North Shore district is the GOP’s best chance to capture a congressional seat in Massachusetts.
Unlike Lizzy, former state Sen. Richard Tisei, who ran on the ticket with Charlie Baker in 2010, has been thoroughly vetted and is a proven vote-getter.
The newly drawn district, which covers a large portion of his old Senate district, was one area where the Baker-Tisei ticket ran the strongest.
Since entering the race last November, Tisei has raised a whopping $305,000. That’s record-breaking for a Massachusetts Republican’s first FEC report.
On the other hand, second-time candidate Bill Hudak has been able to scrounge up only $21,300 between January 2011 to Sept. 30, which is less than his $25,000 debt. His fourth quarter reports have not been filed yet.
Despite Patrice Tierney’s conviction at the end of the 2010 campaign season, Hudak only received a disappointing 43 percent of the vote. He ran behind the ticket, not ahead of it.
Democrats have helped Elizabeth Warren’s former rivals gracefully withdraw — Sen. John Kerry threw a fundraiser to retire exiting candidate Setti Warren’s debt, for example — and Republicans should do the same for Hudak.
He could use his team to win a lower-tier office, as former Republican state Senate leader Brian Lees did. Lees first ran unsuccessfully for Congress, but he turned that defeat into a winning campaign for the state Senate. There is an open Governor’s Council seat that would be a great fit for Hudak, who is an attorney.
Being able to save valuable resources from avoiding a primary and having the opportunity to directly confront the incumbent for nine months instead of seven weeks greatly would enhance Tisei’s chances.
There are so many questions the Tierneys should be forced to answer. Seven weeks is not enough time to get a tarnished Tierney to tell the truth.
With such strong financial backing for Tisei’s candidacy, Hudak would be wise to run for another office, so the GOP can pick up two seats rather than one.

Commentary

Holly please do the right thing and shut the %^&* up

Message To All Constitutionalists In The Massachusettts 6th Congressional District

 To all my brothers and sisters within the Tea Party movement.I am passionately asking all you out there to please stand by Bill Hudak for the GOP nomination to take out John Tierney.He is the only one that can be a viable solid Conservative to defeat Tierney come November.
 As you all know the Massachusetts Republican Party has taken it upon themselves not to support Bill for obvious reasons leaving the very important Tea Parties of the district to support Bill.The establishment has decided to support a candidate who is no friend of the Conservative movment former State Senator Richard Tisei who authored the Transgender Bill a.k.a the "bathroom bill."
 Tisei also is now making the bogus claim of being a "Goldwater Conservative" which is not even close to being the truth.
 The Mass GOP has been raising $$$ hand over foot for the Tisei campaign to build a warchest.
 A few other factors on Tisei he is no friend to fiscal conservatives as well he was against lowering the state income tax way down to 3% making the claim that 5% was good enough for him.
  So in closing I ask you please we all need to rally behind Bill Hudak for the 6th Congressional seat because if Tisei is the nominee there will be no difference between the current occupant the liberal fraud and money launderer John Tierney and Richard Tisei.

David R.Beaupre Founder of Independence Tea Party of Massachusetts

God Bless Gabrielle Giffords (D-Az) Announces Retirement

Rep. Giffords to resign from Congress this week WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona announced Sunday she intends to resign from Congress this week to concentrate on recovering from wounds suffered in an assassination attempt a little more than a year ago that shook the country.

"I don't remember much from that horrible day, but I will never forget the trust you placed in me to be your voice," the Democratic lawmaker said on a video posted without prior notice on her Facebook page.

"I'm getting better. Every day my spirit is high," she said. "I have more work to do on my recovery. So to do what's best for Arizona, I will step down this week."

Giffords was shot in the head and grievously wounded last January as she was meeting with constituents outside a supermarket in Tucson, Ariz. Her progress had seemed remarkable, to the point that she was able to walk dramatically into the House chamber last August to cast a vote.

Her shooting prompted an agonizing national debate about super-charged rhetoric in political campaigns, although the man charged in the shooting later turned out to be mentally ill.

In Washington, members of Congress were told to pay more attention to their physical security. Legislation was introduced to ban high-capacity ammunition clips, although it never advanced.

Under state law, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer must call a special election to fill out the remainder of Giffords' term, which ends at the end of 2012.

President Barack Obama on Sunday called Giffords "the very best of what public service should be."

"Gabby's cheerful presence will be missed in Washington," Obama said. "But she will remain an inspiration to all whose lives she touched - myself included. And I'm confident that we haven't seen the last of this extraordinary American."

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he saluted Giffords "for her service and for the courage and perseverance she has shown in the face of tragedy. She will be missed."

In a statement, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that "since the tragic events one year ago, Gabby has been an inspiring symbol of determination and courage to millions of Americans."

Democratic officials had held out hope for months that the congresswoman might recover sufficiently to run for re-election or even become a candidate to replace retiring Republican Sen. Jon Kyl.

The shooting on Jan. 8, 2011, left six people dead, a federal judge and a Giffords aide among them. Twelve others were wounded.

A 23-year-old man, Jared Lee Loughner, has pleaded not guilty to 49 charges in the shooting. He has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and is being forcibly medicated at a Missouri prison facility in an effort by authorities to make him mentally ready for trial.

In the months since she was shot, Giffords, 41, has been treated in Houston as well as Arizona as she re-learned how to walk and speak.

She made a dramatic appearance on the House floor Aug. 2, when she unexpectedly walked in to vote for an increase in the debt limit. Lawmakers from both parties cheered her presence, and she was enveloped in hugs.

More recently, she participated in an observance of the anniversary of the shooting in Arizona.

In "Gabby: A Story of Courage and Hope," a book released last year that she wrote with her husband, the astronaut Mark Kelly, she spoke of how much she wanted to get better, regain what she lost and return to Congress.

She delivers the last chapter in her own voice, saying in a single page of short sentences and phrases that everything she does reminds her of that horrible day and that she was grateful to survive.

"I will get stronger. I will return," she wrote.

Giffords was shot in the left side of the brain, the part that controls speech and communication.

Kelly commanded the space shuttle Endeavour on its last mission in May. She watched the launch from Cape Canaveral, Fla.

Kelly, who became a NASA astronaut in 1996 and made four trips into space aboard the space shuttle, retired in October.

Commentary

Here at the Conservative American I want to honor Congresswoman Giffords and may the Lord our God be with her in all her future endeavors.
As far as that scumbag Jared Lee Loughner bipolar my $%^&& he should be put to death due to the fact that he killed innocent people there that day.For the members of the  Democrat party and the lamestream media to say that he was connected to the Tea Party is shameful and disgusting. to say the least

Ezra Klein Has It All Wrong Not Right

    

Ezra Klein

Mitt Romney is the most moderate candidate in the Republican primaries. Yes, even more so than the recently departed Jon Huntsman, whose tax-cut proposal was more radical and more regressive and whose endorsement of Rep. Paul Ryan's budget put him well to Romney's right on entitlements.
But compared with recent Republican nominees, Romney's policy platform is quite conservative and arguably even a bit extreme.
George W. Bush looks like a Kenyan socialist in comparison.
Romney hasn't just proposed to extend the Bush tax cuts. He's also proposed adding cuts worth more than $2 trillion.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Romney's plan -- which, after extending the Bush tax cuts, lowers the corporate tax rate, eliminates the estate tax and repeals some high-income tax increases from the Affordable Care Act -- amounts to a tax cut of $600 billion in 2015.
The International Monetary Fund estimates America's gross domestic product will be $18 trillion that year. So, that's a tax cut of more than 3 percent of GDP.
In contrast, when Bush's first tax cut was passed, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated it would cost a shade over 1 percent of GDP.
By any measure, Romney's tax cuts are far, far larger.
They are also more regressive.
Bush's tax cut was, in theory, to be paid for out of the surplus. Today there is no surplus.
Romney promises to pay for his tax cuts but he opposes raising new taxes or cutting defense spending. That leaves domestic spending, most of which goes to seniors and low-income Americans.
Nor do his tax cuts make up the difference by distributing most of their benefits among low-income taxpayers.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that Romney's plan will mean an average tax cut of $164,000 for those in the top 1 percent and $69 -- no, that's not a typo -- for those in the bottom 20 percent.
So, in extending the Bush cuts and adding more of his own, Romney is proposing more than $6 trillion in new tax cuts that will disproportionately help the richest Americans. And he intends to pay for it through spending cuts -- such as block-granting Medicaid -- that will disproportionately hurt seniors and low-income Americans.
That's not a political attack, by the way. It's math. And it is math that makes his tax cut far more regressive than Bush's proposal.
Which is not to say Bush was a moderate.

Although, in fairness to him, No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D were compromise proposals that attracted substantial Democrat support, particularly in the Senate.

It's not even to say that Romney, personally, is not a moderate. When Bush was president, Romney was governor of Massachusetts and his signature achievement was a health-care law that later served as the foundation for President Obama's efforts.

But the Republican Party has moved far to the right since 2000 and Romney has moved with it.

Bush wanted to pay down a surplus with spending cuts and expand Medicare. Romney wants to finance larger tax cuts by slashing domestic spending.

It's a more regressive policy that will be paid for in a more regressive way.

In today's GOP, even the most moderate presidential candidate is far to George W. Bush's right.

Commentary

 

What in the heck is guy smoking to say Mitt Romney is a Conservative he obviously has never stepped foot in Massachusetts then

NYT All Upset At Gingrich Victory In Palmeto State Primary Victory



Opinion/Editorial

  They are all up in arms this morning distraught and mad as hell and IM LOVING IT! Just by the headline of the lead OPED in this mornings New York Times "South Carolina’s Divisive Message" is the title.
  With a victory for the former House Speaker Newt Gingrich the common sense well informed voters last night of South Carolina said NO! to the Republican Party establishment big time.
  Now to this BS NYT political offensive it begins in true whining fashion "Since it was first held 32 years ago, the South Carolina Republican primary has been won by the party’s most electable candidate, the one backed by the Republican establishment and invariably the winner of the nomination. On Saturday, the state veered in an extreme direction, and the outcome spoke poorly for a party that allowed itself to be manipulated by the lowest form of campaigning.
  Newt Gingrich won the primary by a decisive margin of 12.5 percentage points, and there is no mystery about how he did it. Two-thirds of voters interviewed in exit polls said they made their decision on the basis of the two South Carolina debates, where Mr. Gingrich exploited racial resentment and hatred of the news media to connect with furious voters.
  He was helped by Mitt Romney’s halting answers about his tax returns and his finances, and by Rick Santorum’s tepid campaign, in which he compared himself to warm porridge. But Mr. Gingrich won this largely on his own.
 Now the NYT attack the good folks of South Carolina "He had a much better sense of the raw, destructive anger at President Obama swirling around a highly conservative and combative state, and he reflected it back to voters everywhere he went."
  Aww I'm sorry NYT editorial board you're all upset because your little northeastern RINO Republican candidate got rejected by the good people of South Carolina meaning Mitt Romney.I love it manipulated by the lowest form of campaigning HELLO you hypocrites in the lamestream media you have engaged in the lowest form of campaigning a.k.a as MEDIA BIAS! 2008 election you never called President Barack HUSSEIN Obama to task on anything friggin hypocrites.No No No NYT sorry Gingrich spoke the truth he never ever took the path that you all and the left does with the issue of race not even close you morons.Oh and by the way NYT as far as hatred of the news media when CNN's John King went after Gingrich in reference to the issue of the ex-wife what do you expect him to say HELLO dumb asses wake up.
 Once again the NYT attacks the South Carolina electorate and the Tea Party movement "South Carolina has moved sharply rightward since Mr. Obama arrived on the national scene. In 2000, 24 percent of state voters said they were “very conservative,” but that number jumped to 34 percent in 2008. Now it is up to 37 percent, according to exit polls. Two-thirds of Saturday’s voters said they supported the Tea Party, reflecting the election in 2010 of four South Carolina freshmen who are among the most extreme members of the House."
 Extreme NYT? No the Constitutional conservative Tea Party movement is about something you have no idea about its called the U.S. Constitution.
 More BS ranting "It was Mr. Gingrich who pulled the race into the gutter, where he found considerable support. He repeatedly called Mr. Obama “the greatest food-stamp president in American history,” and lectured a black questioner at Monday’s debate about the amount of federal handouts to blacks, suggesting their work ethic was questionable."
 Sorry NYT once again not just the truth but the facts you cannot comprehend under Obama your buddy Government reliance meaning people relying upon the government for assistance has shot through the roof with programs such as food stamps.
 This is vicious hatred for the people of South Carolina by the NYT "Is that really what Republicans across the country want from their nominee, or is South Carolina, with its history of acute racial tension and contrarianism, simply sending a singular, extreme message?"
 So much for the tolerance and diversity that the left and especially the NYT loves to preach about PRACTICE IT NYT HYPOCRITES AGAIN!
 The oped ends with an Official New York Times message to the RINO Republican Establishment a.k.a marching orders "It is still hard to imagine a path to the nomination for a divisive candidate like Mr. Gingrich, let alone one to the White House. If he continues along this muddy road, there is still time for Republicans in upcoming states to repudiate him, and demonstrate that South Carolina has become an aberration rather than a bellwether."
 And the sad the thing is is that they will listen and try to adhere to it.

An Ignored 'Disparity' By Thomas Sowell

With all the talk about "disparities" in innumerable contexts, there is one very important disparity that gets remarkably little attention — disparities in the ability to create wealth. People who are preoccupied, or even obsessed, with disparities in income are seldom interested much, or at all, in the disparities in the ability to create wealth, which are often the reasons for the disparities in income.

In a market economy, people pay us for benefiting them in some way — whether we are sweeping their floors, selling them diamonds or anything in between. Disparities in our ability to create benefits for which others will pay us are huge, and the skills required can develop early — or sometimes not at all.

A recent national competition among high school students who create their own technological advances turned up an especially high share of such students winning recognition in the San Francisco Bay Area. A closer look showed that the great majority of these Bay Area students had Asian names.

Asian Americans are a substantial presence in this region but they are by no means a majority, much less such an overwhelming majority as they are among those winning high tech awards.

This pattern of disproportionate representation of particular groups among those with special skills and achievements is not confined to Asian Americans or even to the United States.

It is a phenomenon among particular racial, ethnic or other groups in countries around the world — the Ibos in Nigeria, the Parsees in India, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, Germans in Brazil, Chinese in Malaysia, Lebanese in West Africa, Tamils in Sri Lanka. The list goes on and on.

Gross inequalities in skills and achievements have been the rule, not the exception, on every inhabited continent and for centuries on end. Yet our laws and government policies act as if any significant statistical difference between racial or ethnic groups in employment or income can only be a result of their being treated differently by others.

Nor is this simply an opinion.

Businesses have been sued by the government when the representation of different groups among their employees differs substantially from their proportions in the population at large. But, no matter how the human race is broken down into its components — whether by race, sex, geographic region or whatever — glaring disparities in achievements have been the rule, not the exception.

Anyone who watches professional basketball games knows that the star players are by no means a representative sample of the population at large. The book "Human Accomplishment" by Charles Murray is a huge compendium of the top achievements around the world in the arts and sciences, as well as in sports and other fields.

Nowhere have these achievements been random or representative of the demographic proportions of the population of a country or of the world. Nor have they been the same from one century to the next. China was once far more advanced technologically than any country in Europe, but then it fell behind and more recently is gaining ground.

Most professional golfers who participate in PGA tournaments have never won a single tournament, but Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods have each won dozens of tournaments.

Yet these and numerous other disparities in achievement are resolutely ignored by those whose shrill voices denounce disparities in rewards, as if these disparities are somehow suspicious at best and sinister at worst.

Higher achieving groups — whether classes, races or whatever — are often blamed for the failure of other groups to achieve. Politicians and intellectuals, especially, tend to conceive of social questions in terms that allow them to take on the role of being on the side of the angels against the forces of evil.

This can be a huge disservice to those individuals and groups who are lagging behind, for it leads them to focus on a sense of grievance and victimhood, rather than on how they can lift themselves up instead of trying to pull other people down.

Again, this is a worldwide phenomenon — a sad commentary on the down side of the brotherhood of man.