Do keep in mind that I’m predicting the government will tell us that we’re in positive growth for Q3, 2009 – and I expect this to continue at least through Q2, 2010…with an outside chance it might go all the way through Q1, 2011. But I’m also saying that its complete BS – its just shuffling money around. Here’s an excellent take which tracks with my views:

…We see more than 100% of GDP growth as completely dependent on government(s) spending.

The Federal Housing Administration has issued more than a trillion dollars in mortgages this year, picking up where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac left off (they really haven’t stopped either). Delinquency rates are approaching 17%.

Real GDP may be positive for the quarter, but when the government is involved there are lots of shenanigans.

For example, we’ve heard it plans to deduct the cash rebate for cars from the sales price, thus lowering the GDP deflator and artificially raising the reported real GDP number.

Senseless…

…When the market realizes that the Fed can’t create inflation (a full monetization of the majority of debt; something that would make even Ben blink), it’ll see that the S&P 500 is really trading at 20 times earnings that are not growing.

It’ll realize that all we’ve done is actually increase the overall debt in the system with massive stimulus and spending.

It’ll see the risk in stocks as extremely high.

Its what I expect, too – and my prediction is March of 2010 is when the proverbial poop will hit the fan. It might come sooner than that – the upcoming Christmas shopping season looks to be a disaster, and as that bad news comes home it might start the renewed slide in stocks right after Thanksgiving. On the other hand, Obama and Co might manage to weave and dodge (and borrow and print) their way through for a while longer…but eventually the truth comes out: we can’t spend our way to wealth, and when you’re broke the worst thing you can do is borrow more money.

Credit is contracting; incomes are falling, home prices continue to slide (in spite of some alleged stats to the contrary…my house is probably worth $153,000.00…three months ago, it would have fetched about $187,000.00; all around the country, this is what is happening…especially in FL, NV, CA and AZ), corporate insiders continue to bail out of stocks, unemployment continues to grow…its called a Depression. It can be fixed – but not by Obama’s warmed over New Deal.

Why wars start:

History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap. – Ronald Reagan

And Obama is telling Iran and the rest of our enemies that the price of aggression is very, very low.

First, the attention grabbing, please-every-liberal-out-there opening paragraphs:

U.S. states whose residents have more conservative religious beliefs on average tend to have higher rates of teenagers giving birth, a new study suggests.

The relationship could be due to the fact that communities with such religious beliefs (a literal interpretation of the Bible, for instance) may frown upon contraception, researchers say. If that same culture isn’t successfully discouraging teen sex, the pregnancy and birth rates rise.

But then, on starting on paragraph 16:

Other factors that may have been important to consider include ethnic backgrounds of state residents, according to Adamczyk, the City University of New York sociologist.

“We know that African American women on average tend to underreport their abortions, which means they could also underreport the likelihood that they got pregnant,” Adamczyk said. “If you’re dealing with states with a high number of African American women, you might run into that problem.”

Adamczyk’s own, separate research has shown a nearly opposite correlation, at the individual level. “What we find is that more religious women are less likely to engage in riskier sex behaviors, and as a result they are less likely to have a premarital pregnancy,” Adamczyk said during a telephone interview. But for those religious teens who do choose to have premarital sex, they might be more likely to ditch their religious views and have an abortion, she has found.

Since we have a noted and respected sociologist who came to the conclusion that Christianity leads to sexual morality, why not write that as the story? Because its not what liberals want to hear – its really nothing more than that. But the real kicker, here, is that if you take a look at the graph which allegedly shows the correlation between a State’s religiosity and teen pregnancy, you’ll find that only five of the top ten teen pregnancy States are also top ten religious States. How can you get correlation from something like that? While Mississippi is rated number one in both categories, number two in teen birth rates is New Mexico, rated 22nd in religiosity.

The study is bull – but its put out there and you can bet that for years now we’ll have liberals linking to it claiming that it proves Christianity to be a crock. This is how liberals are sustained – fools fed lies.

Bush administration policies made it tough on tyrants. Saddam Hussein was toast. Mohammar Khadaffy, seeing the writing on the wall, suddenly turned into a good guy. Even Kim Jong Il thought twice about beating his chest and preening his trollkin hair in touting his nuclear capabilities.

Yep, to paraphrase a rap song, during the Bush administration, it was hard out there for a tyrant.

Enter Barack Hussein Obama: Since his inauguration, Ponyang has re-started its nuke program, Ghadaffi is now supporting Iran’s nuclear program, and Iran is…well, kicking its thermonuclear program into full gear.

Ain’t it a caution as to the difference nine months can make, now that Barack Hussein Obama is doing his level best to make the world safe for tyranny…

President Obama dismayed America’s allies in Europe and angered his political opponents at home today when he formally ditched plans to set up a missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

The project had been close to the heart of Mr Obama’s predecessor, President Bush, who had argued before leaving office in January that it was needed to defend against long-range ballistic missile attacks from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.

But it had hobbled relations with Russia, which considered it both a security threat and an unnecessary political provocation in its own backyard.

This of course, comes on the heels of this news:

VIENNA — Experts at the world’s top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.

The document drafted by senior officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency is the clearest indication yet that the agency’s leaders share Washington’s views on Iran’s weapon-making capabilities.

It appears to be the so-called “secret annex” on Iran’s nuclear program that Washington says is being withheld by the IAEA’s chief.

The document says Iran has “sufficient information” to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to “overcome problems” on developing a delivery system.

At any rate, since Putin and the neo-Soviets in Russia got their way, at the very least, Obama’s decision to pull a Nancy will reap dividends in getting Russian cooperation, right?

Not so fast, appeasement breath:

“Those who are talking about a concession to Russia are primarily those who are looking for a bargaining chip in seeking extra dividends of some kind from us,” said Dmitry Rogozin, the Russian envoy to NATO, in remarks carried on the Interfax news agency. “In actual fact, the Americans have simply put their own mistake right. And we are not duty-bound to pay for someone to put their own mistakes right.”

The Obamateur makes the world less hostile to tyrants, destabilizes the balance of power, and continues to weaken the United States to the point of impotence in the process.

A socialist utopian trifecta.

There. Don’t you feel safer, now that hopenchange is here?

First, some quotes from the old gal:

“Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he’s not a leader. He’s a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.”

“He has on his shoulders the deaths of many more troops…”

“They’ll take food out of the mouths of children in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest.”

And now:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”

Nancy – go jump in a lake.

Nile Gardiner of the Telgraph (UK) calls it a shameful surrender… I have to agree.

I blogged a couple of weeks ago that the Obama administration was about to abandon its plans for Third Site missile defence installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. I wrote then that “if enacted, this would represent a huge turnaround in American strategic thinking on a global missile defence system, and a massive betrayal of two key US allies in eastern and central Europe. Such a move would significantly weaken America’s ability to combat the growing threat posed by Iran’s ballistic missile program, and would hand a major propaganda victory to the Russians.”

It now looks as though the president has surrendered to Russian demands to kill off Third Site.

Pouring salt on the wound, the announcement came on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland.

Well, President Bush was right,”This is a dangerous world, & [Obama] isn’t remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you.” 

Senator Mitch McConnell issued the following statement with regard to the news:

“The administration’s decision to abandon an important missile defense program for the defense of NATO and our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic, in my view, is both shortsighted and harmful to our long-term security interests.  We must not turn our backs on two loyal allies in the War on Terror.  Further, the administration has secured no apparent commitment from the Russians to work with us to reduce either the missile or nuclear threat from Iran.  More troubling will be if the administration has made these concessions to Russia in pursuit of expediting ill-considered arms control deals.”

True enough, The Wall Street Journal reported today that Russia “welcomed the news but said it saw no reason to offer concessions in return.”

So, Obama, what they hell are you thinking?

What also gets me about this whole thing is that Obama and the Democrats have claimed that Bush was the one alienating our allies and making us less safe. Ain’t that something? After such stupid allegations against Bush, Obama can insult our allies time and time again, end the war on terror, approve of the release of the Lockerbie bomber, and now this — without blinking an eye. Obama has done more to appease our enemies that protect this country and there is no reason why any American should stand for it.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: It makes no sense . Why do we even care what Russia thinks? Does anyone seriously contemplate war with Russia? We don’t need an arms control agreement with Russia…we don’t need anything with Russia.

We’re selling out superb allies in order to…what? What the heck are we doing? Is this just rote liberalism? Because liberals wanted arms control agreements with Russia in the 80’s, we must continue to want arms control agreements with them forever? Russia is a dying nation – Putin’s an arrogant ass, but one day he’ll be gone and Russia will face the stark fact that unless we support them, they won’t be able to hold their country against China and Islam. We need give them nothing – but we’re giving them this gift, on the 70’s anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Poland on conjunction with Hitler’s Nazi Germany.

Fool or idiot? More and more, “idiot” is coming to the fore in my view of Obama.

Very interesting:

The House ethics committee revealed Wednesday it is investigating allegations involving three lawmakers in unrelated incidents.

The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, commonly known as the ethics panel, issued separate statements Wednesday identifying inquiries into Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Sam Graves (R-Mo.).

A statement issued by the ethics committee said each of the investigations is ongoing, but the panel will defer its efforts in Jackson’s case in light of an ongoing Justice Department inquiry.

Each of the investigations was referred to the ethics committee by the Office of Congressional Ethics, although the ethics panel noted in its statement that it had previously begun its own investigation into Jackson.

Although the committee did not detail what allegations it is investigating with regard to Graves, the Missouri lawmaker issued a statement Wednesday referring to allegations about testimony before the Small Business Committee.

In March, Roll Call reported that the Congressman invited his friend and neighbor Brooks Hurst to testify before a Congressional hearing on renewable fuels, without mentioning that his wife and Hurst are investors together in renewable fuels plants in Missouri.

So, the Graves issue is probably small beans and placed in the mix to give a bi-partisan flavor…but I’m really wondering what must Waters and Jackson have done to merit this sort of scrutiny. Jackson, of course, is the son of the ill-famed “civil rights” leader, while Waters is a long-time hero of the kookiest of the kook left. In writing Caucus of Corruption, Matt and I found out that Waters is a grafter – putting her family on the payroll and making everyone pay for access, so I wonder if this has something to do with it – did she, at last, go too far? As for the younger Jackson – is it “like father, like son”?

If you wish to understand:

Without the way, there is no going; without the truth, there is no knowing; without the life, there is no living. – Thomas a’ Kempis

Democrats, make my day:

A group of House Democrats introduced legislation Tuesday that would overturn a federal marriage law that denies recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Same-sex marriages are now legal in six states.

The Respect for Marriage Act, unveiled by Reps. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Jared Polis, D-Colo, has the support of more than 90 lawmakers.

The legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law signed by President Bill Clinton.

This is the “first step to overturning DOMA,” Nadler said, who called the law “irrational and hateful.”

“Democracy doesn’t always get it right,” said Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who also supports the Respect for Marriage Act. “This should have been corrected a long time ago.”

I love the Orwellian name – “Respect for Marriage”…naturally chosen because liberals would prefer if the average Joe out there doesn’t realize that what is happening is changing the law so that, say, Nevada can be forced to recognize gay “marriages” from Massachusetts. Even on the issues they care most about, liberals feel it necessary to lie.

The plain fact of the matter is that the American people have spoken: gay marriage is not wanted. Only by thwarting the will of the people is gay marriage legal, anywhere…and now Democrats want to allow a judicial back-door for imposing gay marriages in States which have explicitly rejected it. Democrats push this, and we’ll make all sorts of hay over this attempted usurpation of the rights of the States, and of the people.

This will be a grand debate:

The first ever Festival of Dangerous Ideas will pit Sydney’s archbishop, Cardinal George Pell, against one of the most prominent exponents of modern atheism, British journalist Christopher Hitchens.

A press release from the Sydney Archdiocese announced today that this festival will take place Oct. 3-4 in the Sydney Opera House.

In his address, titled “Without God We Are Nothing,” Cardinal Pell plans to speak about secularism as a “minority sport and a temporary phenomenon” that only survives “by attacking Christianity or living off Christianity’s moral capital.”

Our liberal friends like to think of themselves as the holders of dangerous ideas – but this is because they are mostly very ignorant and don’t realize that their oh, so “advanced” ideas are actually just endlessly warmed-over heresies long put to rest by Christians enlightened by Truth. And so, putting one of the smartest atheists up against Cardinal Pell will make for a fascinating debate – atheism will be as well represented as it can be…and my belief is that once done, it will be shown up as the sad, tattered thing it is…