Is the nation ready for another Texas President....It's OK with me...Perry's a bit of a showboat, but he is a solid politician and stands up for what he believes...
Perry’s Path to GOP Nomination Could be the Clearest
By Chris Stirewalt Published May 27, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Maybe Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he’s decided to test the waters on a presidential run just because he’s feels left out.
For all the attention paid to the presidential possibilities of two members of the House (Paul Ryan and Michele Bachmann) and a reality show host (you know who), you’d never know that the Republicans had on their bench the three-term governor of the state with the nation’s best economy and the largest Republican population.
But for some reason, when Perry told people he wasn’t running, reporters believed him. If Chris Christie even flies over Iowa, the blogosphere goes into meltdown mode, but the political press for some reason mostly took Perry at his word.
It seems strange that they would have.
Perry, who has been governor for more than a decade, is a favorite of the Tea Party movement for his tough stands on state sovereignty, border security, taxes and gun rights. Anybody who packs heat when he jogs so he can blow away coyotes that mess with his Labrador retriever and hangs out with Ted Nugent at a Tax Day rally is going to have serious street cred with the Republican base.
As the Perry talk heats up, these primary election positives will be reinforced by liberals who find his Texas-fried politics to be repellant. Every time Democratic cable news talkers remind viewers that Perry once warned that Texas might secede from the union if Washington kept piling on new federal powers, somewhere in Iowa or South Carolina a Republican primary voter thinks, “Not bad.” When Perry gets chided for declining photo-ops with President Obama on visits to the state, somewhere in New Hampshire a guy with a “Don’t tread on me” flag on his bumper thinks, “Cool!”
But unlike some of the other Tea Party favorites, Perry has an easier case to make to establishment Republicans. His state has a $1.3 trillion economy now on track to pass California's as the nation’s largest. Perry has also avoided some of the hardest stands of the conservative movement. Consider that while Perry is constantly hectoring Obama for more border security, he declined to sign onto the movement for an Arizona-style crackdown on illegal immigration when it was very hot among Republican circles.
Raised on a cotton farm and prone to a strong Texas twang, Perry won’t be grabbing the wonk vote from Mitch Daniels’ fans. But as a 28-year political veteran who started his career as a Democrat and pushed his way to the head of the state GOP and now the national Republican Governors Association, Perry knows how to adapt, survive and compromise when he needs to.
Plus, Republicans are almost certain to pick a nominee who is or was a governor. It makes for more gravitas when running against a sitting president and the GOP just seems more comfortable with the strong, decisive type than coalition-building congressmen.
Republican’s haven’t lost a presidential election with a former governor since Thomas Dewey in 1948. All six of the Republican presidential losses in the same period have been with a current or former member of Congress.
So how could it be that the GOP hasn’t been looking harder at Perry, the 61-year-old Methodist who’s married to his high-school sweetheart? It’s partly because Perry has no ties to the East Coast media establishment. The people around him are pure Texas and he’s never done much that would catch the eye of the political press. He’s not exactly a symposium kind of guy.
So maybe Perry is just engaging in this presidential flirtation to make a point and raise his profile ahead of fundraising season when he will be hitting the road to raise money for his fellow governors. Maybe he thought it would nice just to be asked.
But whatever has brought him to this point, if he does take a serious look, he may find that he has clearer path to the nomination than anyone else.
Perry has a natural alliance with the most important potential kingmaker of the cycle, if Sarah Palin doesn’t run herself. He would provide the sharpest contrast – politically and culturally – with frontrunner Mitt Romney at a time when Republicans are eager for an alternative. And being from a large, wealthy state, he has the best chance to turn on the kind of fast fundraising necessary to contend with Romney’s mega bucks.
Now that he’s moseyed over to the pool, Perry may find good reason to dive in.
Chris Stirewalt is FOX News’ digital politics editor. His political note, Power Play, is available every weekday morning at FOXNEWS.COM.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
So much for Telling the Truth....at least unless it is the truth according to Obama!
So much for free speech and being able to express your own opinion....EVEN if you are a former President of the United States....This administration is more focused on crafting their message whether it's the truth or not....with Obama lying all the time I guess the truth is not something he holds dear....
Former President Clinton Retracts Default Comments After White House Intervention
Published May 27, 2011 | The Wall Street Journal
Former President Bill Clinton retracted comments that the U.S. government could default on its debt for a few days without "calamitous" consequences, after being urged to do so by top White House officials, people familiar with the events said Thursday.
After hearing Mr. Clinton's comments on Wednesday, White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley and Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, spoke with aides to Mr. Clinton and advised that he clarify his thinking, two people said. The former president did so that afternoon.
The White House officials suggested Mr. Clinton's comments could be used by congressional Republicans, who are resisting the Obama administration's push to raise the government's $14.3 trillion borrowing limit. Some Republicans have been arguing that allowing the deadline to pass wouldn't be as catastrophic as the Obama administration has warned.
Mr. Daley, who is traveling with President Barack Obama in Europe, heard about Mr. Clinton's remarks and called Doug Band, the former president's top aide. Mr. Daley suggested that Mr. Clinton may have walked into a bigger controversy than he intended, one person said. For months, the White House has been urging Congress to raise the legal borrowing limit so the government has enough money to pay all its bills.
Mr. Sperling, who was at a conference on fiscal issues where Mr. Clinton spoke, helped draft Mr. Clinton's clarification. Mr. Sperling and Mr. Daley both worked for Mr. Clinton when he was president.
Former President Clinton Retracts Default Comments After White House Intervention
Published May 27, 2011 | The Wall Street Journal
Former President Bill Clinton retracted comments that the U.S. government could default on its debt for a few days without "calamitous" consequences, after being urged to do so by top White House officials, people familiar with the events said Thursday.
After hearing Mr. Clinton's comments on Wednesday, White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley and Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, spoke with aides to Mr. Clinton and advised that he clarify his thinking, two people said. The former president did so that afternoon.
The White House officials suggested Mr. Clinton's comments could be used by congressional Republicans, who are resisting the Obama administration's push to raise the government's $14.3 trillion borrowing limit. Some Republicans have been arguing that allowing the deadline to pass wouldn't be as catastrophic as the Obama administration has warned.
Mr. Daley, who is traveling with President Barack Obama in Europe, heard about Mr. Clinton's remarks and called Doug Band, the former president's top aide. Mr. Daley suggested that Mr. Clinton may have walked into a bigger controversy than he intended, one person said. For months, the White House has been urging Congress to raise the legal borrowing limit so the government has enough money to pay all its bills.
Mr. Sperling, who was at a conference on fiscal issues where Mr. Clinton spoke, helped draft Mr. Clinton's clarification. Mr. Sperling and Mr. Daley both worked for Mr. Clinton when he was president.
Corrupt/Perverse Barney Frank....
What does this say about the folks of Massachusetts that continue to reelect this corrupt guy?.... What are they thinking????
Michelle Malkin May 27, 2011 12:00 A.M.
Barney Frank’s Friends with Benefits
The Massachusetts congressman’s shady ethics history
If you want to watch a corruptocrat start sputtering like Porky Pig with allergies, confront him with three simple words: conflict of interest. Asked this week about his role in securing an ex-lover’s highly coveted job at government mortgage giant Fannie Mae, Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Barney Frank retorted:
“Aba-dee aba-dee aba-dee aba-dee.”
Or that’s what it sounded like, anyway. Frank was rather miffed about the recent disclosure that he helped former lover Herb Moses land a job with the behemoth lender while sitting on a House committee that regulates lenders a decade ago. The Boston Herald reported Thursday that Frank immediately played the Everybody Does It card: “It is a common thing in Washington for members of Congress to have spouses work for the federal government. There is no rule against it at all.”
Frank then switched to the Everybody Knew defense: “It was widely known. It was out there in the public.”
Next, he dismissed any controversy about his ethical judgment with the Nobody Cares shield: “It’s nonsense.”
No doubt he’ll spring the Homophobia Card on critics at an opportune moment to ice his multi-tiered cake of excuses.
Funny thing. Not too long ago, it was Frank himself counseling fellow Democratic scandal magnet Rep. Maxine Waters to butt out of Boston-area OneUnited Bank’s bid for $12 million in federal TARP bailout funds because of conflict-of-interest odors. Waters’s husband, Sidney Williams, was an investor in one of the banks that merged into OneUnited and owned stock holdings estimated at $350,000.
Frank’s exact words to Waters: “You should stay out of it. . . . You should stay away from this.”
Waters didn’t listen. The House Ethics Committee charged her with several ethics violations (though no trial has yet been scheduled). Frank nearly broke his arm patting himself on the back and pronouncing himself “vindicated” after the charges were filed last year.
But where was Mr. Clean when his own sleazy dalliances needed self-policing?
While head of the House Financial Services Committee in 2009, amid economic upheaval across the country, Frank was jet-setting with hedge-fund mogul and TARP beneficiary S. Donald Sussman to his private Caribbean resort. The foxes in the House Ethics henhouse granted what they called “unusual” permission for the jaunt because Frank’s partner, Jim Ready, is close pals with Sussman. When Republicans raised questions about ethical improprieties, Frank — whose party has perfected the art of class-warfare demagoguery — whinnied that it wasn’t a crime to have wealthy friends.
What should be criminal is the Democratic-friends-and-fat-cats protection racket run by the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overlords. While political operatives have raked in tens of millions of dollars in directors’ fees and lavish compensation packages, the government-sponsored lenders have bled billions and will soak up an estimated $400 billion in bailout funds. Financial journalist Gretchen Morgenson reported this week that Frank “was very aggressive and really tough” on Fannie critics after the corrupt institution “rolled out the red carpet” for his ex-lover. After his friend with crony benefits broke up with him, Frank remained a dogged Fannie defender.
Sneering at financial reformers before a 2003 House hearing, Frank asserted: “I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government-sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. . . . I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.”
Not that such spectacular bad judgment and lack of foresight should be any surprise coming from a politician whose early career was punctuated by a formal reprimand for using his office to fix the parking tickets of another lover (this one a prostitute) and lying about his criminal-probation history. As a cocky Frank said at the time of that scandal: “I think members of Congress rise or fall on their own individual records.” Eventually, yes.
— Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies (Regnery, 2010). © 2011 Creators Syndicate
Michelle Malkin May 27, 2011 12:00 A.M.
Barney Frank’s Friends with Benefits
The Massachusetts congressman’s shady ethics history
If you want to watch a corruptocrat start sputtering like Porky Pig with allergies, confront him with three simple words: conflict of interest. Asked this week about his role in securing an ex-lover’s highly coveted job at government mortgage giant Fannie Mae, Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Barney Frank retorted:
“Aba-dee aba-dee aba-dee aba-dee.”
Or that’s what it sounded like, anyway. Frank was rather miffed about the recent disclosure that he helped former lover Herb Moses land a job with the behemoth lender while sitting on a House committee that regulates lenders a decade ago. The Boston Herald reported Thursday that Frank immediately played the Everybody Does It card: “It is a common thing in Washington for members of Congress to have spouses work for the federal government. There is no rule against it at all.”
Frank then switched to the Everybody Knew defense: “It was widely known. It was out there in the public.”
Next, he dismissed any controversy about his ethical judgment with the Nobody Cares shield: “It’s nonsense.”
No doubt he’ll spring the Homophobia Card on critics at an opportune moment to ice his multi-tiered cake of excuses.
Funny thing. Not too long ago, it was Frank himself counseling fellow Democratic scandal magnet Rep. Maxine Waters to butt out of Boston-area OneUnited Bank’s bid for $12 million in federal TARP bailout funds because of conflict-of-interest odors. Waters’s husband, Sidney Williams, was an investor in one of the banks that merged into OneUnited and owned stock holdings estimated at $350,000.
Frank’s exact words to Waters: “You should stay out of it. . . . You should stay away from this.”
Waters didn’t listen. The House Ethics Committee charged her with several ethics violations (though no trial has yet been scheduled). Frank nearly broke his arm patting himself on the back and pronouncing himself “vindicated” after the charges were filed last year.
But where was Mr. Clean when his own sleazy dalliances needed self-policing?
While head of the House Financial Services Committee in 2009, amid economic upheaval across the country, Frank was jet-setting with hedge-fund mogul and TARP beneficiary S. Donald Sussman to his private Caribbean resort. The foxes in the House Ethics henhouse granted what they called “unusual” permission for the jaunt because Frank’s partner, Jim Ready, is close pals with Sussman. When Republicans raised questions about ethical improprieties, Frank — whose party has perfected the art of class-warfare demagoguery — whinnied that it wasn’t a crime to have wealthy friends.
What should be criminal is the Democratic-friends-and-fat-cats protection racket run by the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overlords. While political operatives have raked in tens of millions of dollars in directors’ fees and lavish compensation packages, the government-sponsored lenders have bled billions and will soak up an estimated $400 billion in bailout funds. Financial journalist Gretchen Morgenson reported this week that Frank “was very aggressive and really tough” on Fannie critics after the corrupt institution “rolled out the red carpet” for his ex-lover. After his friend with crony benefits broke up with him, Frank remained a dogged Fannie defender.
Sneering at financial reformers before a 2003 House hearing, Frank asserted: “I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government-sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. . . . I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.”
Not that such spectacular bad judgment and lack of foresight should be any surprise coming from a politician whose early career was punctuated by a formal reprimand for using his office to fix the parking tickets of another lover (this one a prostitute) and lying about his criminal-probation history. As a cocky Frank said at the time of that scandal: “I think members of Congress rise or fall on their own individual records.” Eventually, yes.
— Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies (Regnery, 2010). © 2011 Creators Syndicate
Muslim Leaning/Incompetent Obama does it Again!
Our Muslim leaning, Incompetent President Obama has done it again....He's driving this nation into the ground not to mention he's putting this nation in great security jeopardy....He's got to go in 2012!!!! Start the movement NOW!
Charles Krauthammer May 27, 2011 12:00 A.M.
What Obama Did to Israel
The president has made negotiations all but impossible.
Every Arab-Israeli negotiation contains a fundamental asymmetry: Israel gives up land, which is tangible; the Arabs make promises, which are ephemeral. The longstanding American solution has been to nonetheless urge Israel to take risks for peace while America balances things by giving assurances of U.S. support for Israel’s security and diplomatic needs.
It’s on the basis of such solemn assurances that Israel undertook, for example, the Gaza withdrawal. In order to mitigate this risk, Pres. George W. Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel’s absorption of major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines, and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.
For two and a half years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”
Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. “By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different” from 1967.
It means nothing of the sort. “Mutually” means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn’t? Then, by definition, you’re back to the 1967 lines.
Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.
And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines. Period. Indeed, in September the Palestinians are going to the U.N. to get the world to ratify precisely that: a Palestinian state on the ’67 lines. No swaps.
Note how Obama has undermined Israel’s negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the ’67 war — its only bargaining chip. Remember: That ’67 line runs right through Jerusalem. Thus the starting point of negotiations would be that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter are Palestinian — alien territory for which Israel must now bargain.
The very idea that Judaism’s holiest shrine is alien or that Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter is rightfully, historically, or demographically Arab is an absurdity. And the idea that, in order to retain them, Israel has to give up parts of itself is a travesty.
Obama also moved the goal posts on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world’s only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a “two-state solution.” That’s why it has been the policy of the U.S. to adamantly oppose this “right.”
Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?
No matter. “The status quo is unsustainable,” declared Obama, “and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”
Israel too? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza, and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas turned down the Olmert offer, walked out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu, and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the U.N. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.
Obama’s response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the ’67 borders, and refusing to reaffirm America’s rejection of the right of return.
The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2011 the Washington Post Writers Group.
Charles Krauthammer May 27, 2011 12:00 A.M.
What Obama Did to Israel
The president has made negotiations all but impossible.
Every Arab-Israeli negotiation contains a fundamental asymmetry: Israel gives up land, which is tangible; the Arabs make promises, which are ephemeral. The longstanding American solution has been to nonetheless urge Israel to take risks for peace while America balances things by giving assurances of U.S. support for Israel’s security and diplomatic needs.
It’s on the basis of such solemn assurances that Israel undertook, for example, the Gaza withdrawal. In order to mitigate this risk, Pres. George W. Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel’s absorption of major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines, and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.
For two and a half years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”
Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. “By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different” from 1967.
It means nothing of the sort. “Mutually” means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn’t? Then, by definition, you’re back to the 1967 lines.
Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.
And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines. Period. Indeed, in September the Palestinians are going to the U.N. to get the world to ratify precisely that: a Palestinian state on the ’67 lines. No swaps.
Note how Obama has undermined Israel’s negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the ’67 war — its only bargaining chip. Remember: That ’67 line runs right through Jerusalem. Thus the starting point of negotiations would be that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter are Palestinian — alien territory for which Israel must now bargain.
The very idea that Judaism’s holiest shrine is alien or that Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter is rightfully, historically, or demographically Arab is an absurdity. And the idea that, in order to retain them, Israel has to give up parts of itself is a travesty.
Obama also moved the goal posts on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world’s only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a “two-state solution.” That’s why it has been the policy of the U.S. to adamantly oppose this “right.”
Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?
No matter. “The status quo is unsustainable,” declared Obama, “and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”
Israel too? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza, and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas turned down the Olmert offer, walked out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu, and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the U.N. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.
Obama’s response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the ’67 borders, and refusing to reaffirm America’s rejection of the right of return.
The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2011 the Washington Post Writers Group.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Democrats Continue to Just Ignore Unfunded Entitlements Rather than trying to Reform Them
Dirty Harry Reid CONTINUES to make NO SENSE at all!....Medicare has $24.6 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities yet he is willing to just ignore that and let it go broke rather than make the needed changes so it is there in some meaningful way for yeart into the future....This certainly isn't leadership!
Breitbart.tv » Party of ‘No’: Reid Says No Changes To Medicare Despite Unfunded Liabilities
Breitbart.tv » Party of ‘No’: Reid Says No Changes To Medicare Despite Unfunded Liabilities
Waste Highlighted Again.....
Another example of out of control government spending...spending on things that are simply wasteful...Can you imagine how low our taxes would be IF we only paid to do the things in the Federal Government that are mandated by the Constitution????
Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn Report Shows Taxpayer Money Spent on Robots That Fold Laundry, Shrimp on Treadmills The National Science Foundation has, and it spent $500,000 of taxpayer money studying research involving a shrimp on a treadmill.
May 26, 2011
You've probably heard of shrimp on the barbie, but what about shrimp on a treadmill?
The National Science Foundation has, and it spent $500,000 of taxpayer money researching it. It's not entirely clear what this research hoped to establish.
But it's one of a number of projects cited in a scathing new report from Sen. Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma, exclusively obtained by ABC News.
Coburn's full report on the NSF's projects.
It's not just shrimp on a treadmill. The foundation spent $1.5 million to create a robot that can fold laundry. But before you try to buy one to save some time, consider that it takes the robot 25 minutes to fold a single towel.
The list goes on. Lots of people love to use FarmVille on Facebook, but lots of people probably don't love the government's spending $300,000 in taxpayer money to study whether it helps build personal relationships.
"What it says to me is, they have too much money if they're going to spend money on things like that," Coburn said in an interview.
But there's more.
The National Science Foundation has its headquarters in Arlington, Va., just across the river from Washington, D.C., a building it pays $19 million a year to rent. But now that the 20-year lease is nearly up, it has decided that it is time to move; into a new building that will cost $26 million annually to rent.
Even gelatin wrestling has been the subject of an agency project. In Antarctica, no less. The foundation notes that the project is the work of contractors, not agency employees.
Whatever the case might be, Coburn said, the situation is another example that federal spending has gotten out of control.
"We have 12 different agencies doing pure research, and we're duplicating and we're not sharing the information across and it's siloed," he said.
In response to Coburn's report, the National Science Foundation launched a vigorous defense of its projects. Agency officials said they "have advanced the frontiers of science and engineering, improved Americans' lives, and provided the foundations for countless new industries and jobs."
And the facts back up that statement. One agency project helped lead to the creation of Google, while another led to the invention of bar codes.
Will the Robot Hoedown & Rodeo lead anywhere? Stay tuned, because it's your taxpayer money that's paying for it.
ABC News' Auzzie Deen and Bret Hovell contributed to this report.
Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn Report Shows Taxpayer Money Spent on Robots That Fold Laundry, Shrimp on Treadmills The National Science Foundation has, and it spent $500,000 of taxpayer money studying research involving a shrimp on a treadmill.
May 26, 2011
You've probably heard of shrimp on the barbie, but what about shrimp on a treadmill?
The National Science Foundation has, and it spent $500,000 of taxpayer money researching it. It's not entirely clear what this research hoped to establish.
But it's one of a number of projects cited in a scathing new report from Sen. Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma, exclusively obtained by ABC News.
Coburn's full report on the NSF's projects.
It's not just shrimp on a treadmill. The foundation spent $1.5 million to create a robot that can fold laundry. But before you try to buy one to save some time, consider that it takes the robot 25 minutes to fold a single towel.
The list goes on. Lots of people love to use FarmVille on Facebook, but lots of people probably don't love the government's spending $300,000 in taxpayer money to study whether it helps build personal relationships.
"What it says to me is, they have too much money if they're going to spend money on things like that," Coburn said in an interview.
But there's more.
The National Science Foundation has its headquarters in Arlington, Va., just across the river from Washington, D.C., a building it pays $19 million a year to rent. But now that the 20-year lease is nearly up, it has decided that it is time to move; into a new building that will cost $26 million annually to rent.
Even gelatin wrestling has been the subject of an agency project. In Antarctica, no less. The foundation notes that the project is the work of contractors, not agency employees.
Whatever the case might be, Coburn said, the situation is another example that federal spending has gotten out of control.
"We have 12 different agencies doing pure research, and we're duplicating and we're not sharing the information across and it's siloed," he said.
In response to Coburn's report, the National Science Foundation launched a vigorous defense of its projects. Agency officials said they "have advanced the frontiers of science and engineering, improved Americans' lives, and provided the foundations for countless new industries and jobs."
And the facts back up that statement. One agency project helped lead to the creation of Google, while another led to the invention of bar codes.
Will the Robot Hoedown & Rodeo lead anywhere? Stay tuned, because it's your taxpayer money that's paying for it.
ABC News' Auzzie Deen and Bret Hovell contributed to this report.
Only on the LEFT COAST!
Only on the LEFT coast....to even allow this to proceed is absolutely ridiculous!...Another example of government overreach....
Ban on Male Circumcision Proposed in California City
By Drew Lynch Published May 26, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Santa Monica – Residents in Santa Monica, CA may be voting on a new ballot initiative in 2012. The group, MGM Bill has a proposal that would make it a a misdemeanor to circumcise a male before age 18. Female circumcision, or also called female genital mutilation, is already outlawed in California and the U.S.
Jenna Troutman, a spokeswoman for the group MGM Bill and founder of the website wholebabyrevolution.com, says males should get the same protection from genital mutilation as females. She notes that the bill they are proposing is identical to one that already prohibits female genital mutilation.
The proposal contains no religious exemptions and has raised questions regarding a possible First Amendment violation.
Peter Eliasberg, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said the measure might pass a First Amendment challenge. "If there is some support [among medical doctors or psychologists] for the idea that circumcision hurts children, the government could do this," he said.
However, David David Lahrer, a Jewish leader, told the Los Angeles Times in an article published Tuesday that the proposal “takes the notion of the mommy state to a ridiculous extreme.” He even stated that “it probably touches on being anti-Semitic.”
But Troutman takes the constitutional argument in a different direction stating that it’s an issue of equal protection as stated in the 14th Amendment.
“This bill is identical to a female genital mutilation bill that has already passed,” Troutman told Foxnews.com.
But Lahrer says that it is "idiotic" to compare circumcision to female genital mutilation.
Whether Santa Monica voters get their say on the measure or not, the campaign has already sparked heated debate.
“We just need 6,000 signatures. We are very optimistic," Troutman said confidently. "The whole baby revolution is sweeping the nation, and I’m trying to educate parents.”
Ban on Male Circumcision Proposed in California City
By Drew Lynch Published May 26, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Santa Monica – Residents in Santa Monica, CA may be voting on a new ballot initiative in 2012. The group, MGM Bill has a proposal that would make it a a misdemeanor to circumcise a male before age 18. Female circumcision, or also called female genital mutilation, is already outlawed in California and the U.S.
Jenna Troutman, a spokeswoman for the group MGM Bill and founder of the website wholebabyrevolution.com, says males should get the same protection from genital mutilation as females. She notes that the bill they are proposing is identical to one that already prohibits female genital mutilation.
The proposal contains no religious exemptions and has raised questions regarding a possible First Amendment violation.
Peter Eliasberg, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said the measure might pass a First Amendment challenge. "If there is some support [among medical doctors or psychologists] for the idea that circumcision hurts children, the government could do this," he said.
However, David David Lahrer, a Jewish leader, told the Los Angeles Times in an article published Tuesday that the proposal “takes the notion of the mommy state to a ridiculous extreme.” He even stated that “it probably touches on being anti-Semitic.”
But Troutman takes the constitutional argument in a different direction stating that it’s an issue of equal protection as stated in the 14th Amendment.
“This bill is identical to a female genital mutilation bill that has already passed,” Troutman told Foxnews.com.
But Lahrer says that it is "idiotic" to compare circumcision to female genital mutilation.
Whether Santa Monica voters get their say on the measure or not, the campaign has already sparked heated debate.
“We just need 6,000 signatures. We are very optimistic," Troutman said confidently. "The whole baby revolution is sweeping the nation, and I’m trying to educate parents.”
In Europe it's evident....Obama is way over his head!
I spent the last three weeks in Europe listening to European TV report on everything from Bin Ladin's death to Obama's speech on the Middle East and what is MOST EVIDENT to me is the Europe has us figured out....they have a much lessened impression of America today than they did two years ago...they realize that Obama is over his head....they realize that we are is a big heap of trouble financially and that we don't have a clue how to get out of it....all we do is fight among ourselves rather than starting to address the problem like Europe has....we are much more the laughing stock of the world....Obama's making jokes in Ireland while Netanyahu is really making a MAJOR speech to the American Congress on the middle east....I wish he had an American Birth Certificate...I'd vote for him as President in a minute!!!..meanwhile our guy is making blunder after blunder in Europe and looking more and more like the fool he is...
What an Embarassment!.....God knows the guy doesn't even know what year it is!
He does need to apologize for his past policies and the article below continues to make that case....from the Heritage Foundation -
Obama Has Something To Apologize For
When President Ronald Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate in West Germany and famously demanded that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev "Tear down this wall!" he brought to Europe—and indeed the world—America's conviction that freedom and democracy are a powerful liberating force whose time had come for those living under communist oppression.
By contrast, as President Barack Obama travels throughout Europe this week and meets with U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom and Poland, he brings with him the baggage of his presidency—more than two years of a foreign policy that has neglected America's friends in Europe. Though the President has embarked on a worldwide "apology tour" for what he believes are America's transgressions, he now truly has something to apologize for.
First and foremost on the President's list of apologies should be his foreign policy decisions that have led to a weakening of the "Special Relationship" between the United States and Great Britain. That relationship is an alliance based on shared ideals and interests in the broader world, and its strength is not to be taken for granted. The Special Relationship rests on a mutual desire to play a leading role in the world, embracing the classically liberal values on which America was founded, and maintaining relations with other nations that are compatible with that relationship.
The Heritage Foundation's Ted Bromund explains how the President's policies have weakened that relationship:
[The Obama Administration] does not regard Europe as the most important region in the world or Britain, the leading power in Europe, as America's most important ally. It has emphasized its desire to win better relations with undemocratic regimes and has therefore played down America's traditional alliance relationships. Finally, by "leading from behind," it has further devalued all of its alliance relationships, especially its relationship with the U.K.
The U.K. is not the only place in Europe where the President has gone wrong. When he travels to Poland, he owes an apology for his 2009 decision to bow to Russia and abandon the U.S. missile defense shield in Poland, thereby reducing NATO's security and effectively stabbing that ally in the back, after it made the difficult decision to support the United States. The President also slapped Poland in the face when he passed on paying his respects to Polish President Lech Kaczynski, the Polish First Lady and 94 senior officials who perished in a plane crash.
And make no mistake, it is the President's responsibility to maintain these relationships. In The Heritage Foundation's "Understanding America" series, Baker Spring writes that though the Senate has a key constitutional role in foreign policy (via its power of "Advice and Consent"), the Constitution makes clear that it is up to the President to make and conduct foreign policy. And the first priority of foreign policy "is to preserve and strengthen the position of the United States as an independent and sovereign nation."
Unfortunately, President Obama has made it his first priority to apologize for America's exceptionalism and its position as a leader in the world. His apology tour has taken him around the world from Turkey to France, from the G-20 Summit to the Summit of the Americas, and he has issued mea culpas for everything from early American history to the war on terrorists. Along the way, President Obama has weakened the United States abroad and made the job of U.S. leadership even harder.
It's time for President Obama's apology tour to take a new direction. And he can start by righting his wrongs in Poland and the U.K.
What an Embarassment!.....God knows the guy doesn't even know what year it is!
He does need to apologize for his past policies and the article below continues to make that case....from the Heritage Foundation -
Obama Has Something To Apologize For
When President Ronald Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate in West Germany and famously demanded that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev "Tear down this wall!" he brought to Europe—and indeed the world—America's conviction that freedom and democracy are a powerful liberating force whose time had come for those living under communist oppression.
By contrast, as President Barack Obama travels throughout Europe this week and meets with U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom and Poland, he brings with him the baggage of his presidency—more than two years of a foreign policy that has neglected America's friends in Europe. Though the President has embarked on a worldwide "apology tour" for what he believes are America's transgressions, he now truly has something to apologize for.
First and foremost on the President's list of apologies should be his foreign policy decisions that have led to a weakening of the "Special Relationship" between the United States and Great Britain. That relationship is an alliance based on shared ideals and interests in the broader world, and its strength is not to be taken for granted. The Special Relationship rests on a mutual desire to play a leading role in the world, embracing the classically liberal values on which America was founded, and maintaining relations with other nations that are compatible with that relationship.
The Heritage Foundation's Ted Bromund explains how the President's policies have weakened that relationship:
[The Obama Administration] does not regard Europe as the most important region in the world or Britain, the leading power in Europe, as America's most important ally. It has emphasized its desire to win better relations with undemocratic regimes and has therefore played down America's traditional alliance relationships. Finally, by "leading from behind," it has further devalued all of its alliance relationships, especially its relationship with the U.K.
The U.K. is not the only place in Europe where the President has gone wrong. When he travels to Poland, he owes an apology for his 2009 decision to bow to Russia and abandon the U.S. missile defense shield in Poland, thereby reducing NATO's security and effectively stabbing that ally in the back, after it made the difficult decision to support the United States. The President also slapped Poland in the face when he passed on paying his respects to Polish President Lech Kaczynski, the Polish First Lady and 94 senior officials who perished in a plane crash.
And make no mistake, it is the President's responsibility to maintain these relationships. In The Heritage Foundation's "Understanding America" series, Baker Spring writes that though the Senate has a key constitutional role in foreign policy (via its power of "Advice and Consent"), the Constitution makes clear that it is up to the President to make and conduct foreign policy. And the first priority of foreign policy "is to preserve and strengthen the position of the United States as an independent and sovereign nation."
Unfortunately, President Obama has made it his first priority to apologize for America's exceptionalism and its position as a leader in the world. His apology tour has taken him around the world from Turkey to France, from the G-20 Summit to the Summit of the Americas, and he has issued mea culpas for everything from early American history to the war on terrorists. Along the way, President Obama has weakened the United States abroad and made the job of U.S. leadership even harder.
It's time for President Obama's apology tour to take a new direction. And he can start by righting his wrongs in Poland and the U.K.
Democrats/Obama continue to avoid leadership!
From today's Heritage Foundation release and they are exactly right...the democrats are doing a lot of smearing, but they are coming up with NO PLANS of their own and in fact are even bold face lying to the American People teling them that Medicare isn't in trouble.....Obama continues to walk away from leadership on this and many other issues......
Middle Age American should be all for the Ryan Medicare plan...it's the only way they will have ANYTHING to supplement their health insurance in old age....If there are no major reforms there will be NO Medicare for them at all...
As as for current seniors and those approaching retirement they are no effected at all by these proposals....Where are the Democrat plans to start to get this mess straightened out?????
It's time for grass roots communication of what really needs to be done...
Senate Stands Still on Budget Crisis
Solving our nation's fiscal crisis is not up for debate, and politicians should be past the point of using it as fodder for political gain. But you wouldn't know it by looking at the latest from liberals in Congress who are digging in their heels and refusing to recognize the reality of America's budgetary mess.
Yesterday, the Senate at long last voted on House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) FY 2012 "Path to Prosperity" budget, which had previously passed the House. It was defeated 57-40, with no Democrats voting for it. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) also had their budget alternatives defeated, with Toomey's bill receiving 42 votes. Senate Democrats have yet to even offer an alternative, and, notably, President Barack Obama's budget failed yesterday by 97-0, a unanimous rebuke of the President's proposal. Ryan reflected on where Congress now stands:
[Republicans are] the ones who actually put the specifics on the table—$6.2 trillion in savings over the next ten years. We put a budget up -- we passed a budget, brought it to the table. Where are we now? It's been 754 days since the Senate Democrats proposed, let alone, passed a budget. They're not offering any solutions, putting nothing on the table.
Instead of offering solutions, the left is resorting to smear tactics. The prime example this week surrounds a special congressional election in western New York, where Democrat Kathy Hochul defeated Republican Jane Corwin, who supported Ryan's budget. Hochul attacked the plan, falsely claiming that it was an attempt to end Medicare.
Hochu's attacks weren't original works of inspired political rhetoric—they were, instead, just more of the same smear tactics against the Ryan plan, which have included a video of a Ryan look-alike pushing an old woman in a wheelchair over a cliff, claims by Rep. Steve Rothman (D–NJ) that the plan would impose "suffering, pain and terror" on "tens of millions of seniors," an ironic accusation by Donald Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, that the plan would lead to "rationing," and a warning to preschoolers issued by House Democrats in the Committee on Education and the Workforce that they could "lose health care if you or your family is low income or has a medical condition."
But for all the noise the left is making, an important fact remains. Medicare is in trouble, and neither President Obama nor Democrats in Congress have offered a solution to do anything about it. The program faces a 75-year unfunded liability in excess of $30 trillion, even as it is plagued by serious gaps in coverage, an increasing number of demoralized doctors refusing to accept new Medicare patients, a sluggish and outdated system of inflexible governance, and tens of billions of dollars in annual losses to waste, fraud, and abuse.
Criticism of Ryan's plan has focused on a proposal to provide premium support to Medicare enrollees, helping them to purchase a health care plan of their choice. As Heritage’s Robert Moffit and Kathryn Nix write, it's modeled after the plan that federal workers and employees enjoy, and it would introduce intense competition in a consumer-driven market, which has historically slowed the growth of health care costs and increased patient satisfaction.
Ryan's budget, like Heritage's "Saving the American Dream" plan, seriously addresses America's fiscal reality—a $14.3 trillion deficit with unfunded entitlement obligations as far as the eye can see. America stands at a crossroads. Standing still, voting present and lobbing partisan bombs in hopes of achieving short-term political gain won't move the country in the right direction. Now is not the time to leave Medicare withering on the vine, either. Now is the time for solutions and much-needed reforms.
Middle Age American should be all for the Ryan Medicare plan...it's the only way they will have ANYTHING to supplement their health insurance in old age....If there are no major reforms there will be NO Medicare for them at all...
As as for current seniors and those approaching retirement they are no effected at all by these proposals....Where are the Democrat plans to start to get this mess straightened out?????
It's time for grass roots communication of what really needs to be done...
Senate Stands Still on Budget Crisis
Solving our nation's fiscal crisis is not up for debate, and politicians should be past the point of using it as fodder for political gain. But you wouldn't know it by looking at the latest from liberals in Congress who are digging in their heels and refusing to recognize the reality of America's budgetary mess.
Yesterday, the Senate at long last voted on House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) FY 2012 "Path to Prosperity" budget, which had previously passed the House. It was defeated 57-40, with no Democrats voting for it. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) also had their budget alternatives defeated, with Toomey's bill receiving 42 votes. Senate Democrats have yet to even offer an alternative, and, notably, President Barack Obama's budget failed yesterday by 97-0, a unanimous rebuke of the President's proposal. Ryan reflected on where Congress now stands:
[Republicans are] the ones who actually put the specifics on the table—$6.2 trillion in savings over the next ten years. We put a budget up -- we passed a budget, brought it to the table. Where are we now? It's been 754 days since the Senate Democrats proposed, let alone, passed a budget. They're not offering any solutions, putting nothing on the table.
Instead of offering solutions, the left is resorting to smear tactics. The prime example this week surrounds a special congressional election in western New York, where Democrat Kathy Hochul defeated Republican Jane Corwin, who supported Ryan's budget. Hochul attacked the plan, falsely claiming that it was an attempt to end Medicare.
Hochu's attacks weren't original works of inspired political rhetoric—they were, instead, just more of the same smear tactics against the Ryan plan, which have included a video of a Ryan look-alike pushing an old woman in a wheelchair over a cliff, claims by Rep. Steve Rothman (D–NJ) that the plan would impose "suffering, pain and terror" on "tens of millions of seniors," an ironic accusation by Donald Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, that the plan would lead to "rationing," and a warning to preschoolers issued by House Democrats in the Committee on Education and the Workforce that they could "lose health care if you or your family is low income or has a medical condition."
But for all the noise the left is making, an important fact remains. Medicare is in trouble, and neither President Obama nor Democrats in Congress have offered a solution to do anything about it. The program faces a 75-year unfunded liability in excess of $30 trillion, even as it is plagued by serious gaps in coverage, an increasing number of demoralized doctors refusing to accept new Medicare patients, a sluggish and outdated system of inflexible governance, and tens of billions of dollars in annual losses to waste, fraud, and abuse.
Criticism of Ryan's plan has focused on a proposal to provide premium support to Medicare enrollees, helping them to purchase a health care plan of their choice. As Heritage’s Robert Moffit and Kathryn Nix write, it's modeled after the plan that federal workers and employees enjoy, and it would introduce intense competition in a consumer-driven market, which has historically slowed the growth of health care costs and increased patient satisfaction.
Ryan's budget, like Heritage's "Saving the American Dream" plan, seriously addresses America's fiscal reality—a $14.3 trillion deficit with unfunded entitlement obligations as far as the eye can see. America stands at a crossroads. Standing still, voting present and lobbing partisan bombs in hopes of achieving short-term political gain won't move the country in the right direction. Now is not the time to leave Medicare withering on the vine, either. Now is the time for solutions and much-needed reforms.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
America Wake UP!
I DON'T Understand the American People....Why/How don't the American People understand this....the changes proposed by Ryan and the Republicans won't effect anyone currently over 50 years old (unlike the changes Obama made to reduce benefits under Obamacare)...and for those under 50 IF the program is not reformed there will be NO PROGRAM at all for anyone and all the money put into the program for years will be for nothing.....
Medicare Messaging War: Paul Ryan out with new explainer on Medicare overhaul
Published: 9:26 AM 05/25/2011 | Updated: 10:05 AM 05/25/2011 By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller
On the same day that Democrats won a special election in New York’s 26th district that party strategists said would be a telling referendum on the Republican effort to overhaul Medicare, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan released a video to further explain his reform plan in an effort to combat the Democratic talking point that the GOP wants to “kill” one of the nation’s most popular programs.
Republicans in Congress have rallied around the Medicare plan drafted in the budget resolution the House passed last month. The measure would overhaul the nation’s health care program for seniors by offering subsidies to individuals to buy their own plans in a private market. In response, Democrats have warned that Ryan’s plan would “end Medicare as we know it,” and one group is even running ads that show a Republican literally pushing an old woman off a cliff in her wheelchair.
Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, for example, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee emphasized Wednesday that the party’s success in New York has fueled an effort to continue hammering Republicans on Medicare, which other party leaders say will be the focal point of the 2012 campaigns.
“The results provide clear evidence that Democratic senators and senate candidates will be able to play offense across the country by remaining focused on the Republican effort to end Medicare and force seniors to pay thousands more for health care costs,” Murray said.
As Ryan attempts to convey in his new video, there won’t be a Medicare program for long unless his policies are enacted to “save” it. In fact, Ryan spends the first half of his new five-minute video explainer warning that the program will vanish on its current path.
“The truth is,” Ryan says, standing in the House Budget Committee room on Capitol Hill, “it’s headed for a painful collapse.”
Ryan frames his solution in the “big-government versus the individuals” language of the Tea Party that Republicans hope will continue to resonate with voters in the same way it did during the debates over the Democrats’ health care overhaul.
“The urgent need to reform Medicare and the president’s misguided approach have left us with a serious question to ask: Who should be making health care decisions for you and your family?” Ryan asks. “A government monopoly and a panel of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.? Or you?”
Medicare Messaging War: Paul Ryan out with new explainer on Medicare overhaul
Published: 9:26 AM 05/25/2011 | Updated: 10:05 AM 05/25/2011 By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller
On the same day that Democrats won a special election in New York’s 26th district that party strategists said would be a telling referendum on the Republican effort to overhaul Medicare, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan released a video to further explain his reform plan in an effort to combat the Democratic talking point that the GOP wants to “kill” one of the nation’s most popular programs.
Republicans in Congress have rallied around the Medicare plan drafted in the budget resolution the House passed last month. The measure would overhaul the nation’s health care program for seniors by offering subsidies to individuals to buy their own plans in a private market. In response, Democrats have warned that Ryan’s plan would “end Medicare as we know it,” and one group is even running ads that show a Republican literally pushing an old woman off a cliff in her wheelchair.
Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, for example, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee emphasized Wednesday that the party’s success in New York has fueled an effort to continue hammering Republicans on Medicare, which other party leaders say will be the focal point of the 2012 campaigns.
“The results provide clear evidence that Democratic senators and senate candidates will be able to play offense across the country by remaining focused on the Republican effort to end Medicare and force seniors to pay thousands more for health care costs,” Murray said.
As Ryan attempts to convey in his new video, there won’t be a Medicare program for long unless his policies are enacted to “save” it. In fact, Ryan spends the first half of his new five-minute video explainer warning that the program will vanish on its current path.
“The truth is,” Ryan says, standing in the House Budget Committee room on Capitol Hill, “it’s headed for a painful collapse.”
Ryan frames his solution in the “big-government versus the individuals” language of the Tea Party that Republicans hope will continue to resonate with voters in the same way it did during the debates over the Democrats’ health care overhaul.
“The urgent need to reform Medicare and the president’s misguided approach have left us with a serious question to ask: Who should be making health care decisions for you and your family?” Ryan asks. “A government monopoly and a panel of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.? Or you?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)