Donald Trump to run for President in 2012

That's right folks.  "The Don" is more than considering it.  He's told close friends and relatives to get ready because after "The Apprentice" wraps up he's announcing it publicly on NBC.  That's the report from Newsmax who cites sources close to Trump.  Only time will tell, Trump has flirted with the idea of running before but nothing materialized.  With that said, Donald Trump has been a leading opponent of Obama and his policies and is rabidly pro-defense.  Trump was willing to cut Obama slack early on but his tone has hardended over the last couple of years as he has seen the direction in which Obama is driving the country. 

Trumps largest concerns are jobs and the economy, America's standing in the world, our weakening defense and China holding our debt.  Trump has some interesting ways to tackle these concerns as well, including an interesting plan to tax China and using those revenues to pay down our debt with China which would lock the nation into a cycle of debt reduction.  Basically the idea is that China will HAVE to pay the tax if it wants to recoup it's investment in American debt.  Could China call the debt and eat the losses?  Perhaps, but Trump obviously thinks it's unlikely and given that Donald Trump has grown and grown and grown as a businessman, I'm inclined to believe him.  He's also recently inserted himself into the NYC Mosque controversy and offered to put up a portion of the money needed to move the mosque to a location more conducive to building bridges and providing access to Muslims. 

Weighing Trump down is a 14 yr old case involving a New Jersey widow whose home Trump tried to have the government condemn so he could expand his casino.  This suit was CLEARLY in violation of the right to property and was not a proper use of eminent domain.   Has "The Don" changed his tune?  Is this worse than 30 years of attendence at Reverend Wright's church?  Is it more harmful than being a radical socialist for ones entire life?  Only time will tell but Newsmax has a poll that shows Obama up 53-47 over Trump right now.  If the economy worsens, as Trump lays out his plan, he is likely to close that gap.  If nothing else, this will be an interesting primary and general election cycle.

RNC Chairman debate

So, I confess, I KIND OF watched the RNC chairman's debate yesterday (I'm replaying it as we speak which is what inspired me to write this).  I will say that when I was poking around the net today, I found an AWESOME critique by Bryan Preston over at Pajamas Media which I'm urging all of you to read.  The inclusion of SBA as a sponsor seems to have focused the debate more on social issues and as Preston points out, that has little bearing on the RNC Chairman's ability to do his job.  With that said, the idea is to find the MOST conservative candidate who can win and among Republicans, (as we saw here in Delaware) you're able to find strong conservatives and elect them. 

Candidates
Ann Wagner
Wagner has conservative credentials.  She's done great things in Missouri and she has plenty of political experience.  Most of the candidates talk about raising money, Saul and Ann really come forward with some specifics which is good.  Ann's plans don't quite sound as well thought out but she makes a good case.  Ann Wagner points out that the PEOPLE are the ones who decide who wins the primaries and that the RNC needs to focus on recruiting candidates, fund party, victory and GOTV efforts across the country.  Supports legislative efforts to define marriage as between one man and one woman.  Cited a lack of focus on the real issue of debt as a failure and also said that the people would decide if we are on the right track or wrong track.  Danced around the question a bit.  Cites many of the TEA Party values as absolutely critical for people to be considered a Republican.  Three Pillars: Fiscal Conservatism, National Defense, Social Values - a Chairman should espouse all of these values.  Brings grassroots groups to the table to build coalitions in Missourah (sorry Ann! it's there) especially pro-life groups.

Saul Anuzis
Saul REALLY gets it.  He understands that funding is priority, followed closely by management skills and he certainly has the message.  He's backed by TEA Party groups across the country and is a breath of fresh air among a sea of also rans.  Understands that the state parties need to drive the message and the GOTV efforts but that the RNC should support it with funds.  Anuzis feels that the primary should be the determination and not the state party electors.  Believes that marriage between a man and a woman is a cultural and religious belief that is worth fighting for.  Saul breaks down the failures of the party.  He explains that the Republican Party lost its way and shifted ever to the left becoming more like Democrats and he points out that when the Republicans act like Republicans they win, when they act like Democrats they lose.  Understands that this is a "2nd chance" not a mandate and that if the Republican Party doesn't move back to its conservative base and principles, the voters will throw them out again.  If they are with us 80% of the time, they are a Republican.  The chairman should support the platform at least 80% of the time.  Worked WITH the grassroots groups in every way that they could and is ready to run toward issues and not away with them.  Understands the balance of ALL issues (including social issues) in the party platform.  Ready to build coalitions across the party platform.

Maria Cino (no website)
She's a lobbyist, which turns me off already.  She sounds like she feel entitled and her talk about retiring debt is interesting but I'd ask, if she's so good, how come the RNC is $20 million in debt?  She talks about beating Obama but she supports Obamacare.  Given a question about races like Delaware, where Christine beat Castle, she dodged the question.  She talked about how the RNC should support the candidates that the state parties and the voters choose...thanks captain obvious.  My question and the one asked is, did you see the victory by Christine as a triumph of principle or a disaster?  Believes in the party platform.  Cites McCain-Feingold as a mistake and then losing our way on spending.  Cutting spending and cutting deficits wins elections.  Agrees with Ann Wagner on the party platform.  Wants to continue building coalitions and calls for a state victory plan due in April (while Delaware is bracing for a new state chairman!)

Michael Steele
I think he's got balls even running in the first place.  He's got his talking points going, he has a few one liner zingers but he's got a record and like he says, it speaks for itself.  He takes credit for the RNC sweep this year but it's disingenuous.  Make no mistake Steele, you won because the TEA Party allowed you to win.  Many forget that Steele was no TEA Party friend early on and here in Delaware he only barely made it a priority to meet with the candidate who had the most attention this year (O'Donnell).  He clearly DOESN'T understand what's going on.  To take credit for the grassroots movement is...well it's simply disrespectful and ignorant of reality.  Steele makes a good point about the RNC not getting involved in state party business but I think he misses the fact that some state (like Delaware) have structures that are not conducive to building unity.  The RNC would do well to counsel states like Delaware on how to improve their process to promote unity.  Steele understands that marriage is between a man and a woman as a matter of tradition.  In his view, the definition of "family" may change but the party will support the ideal of marriage as traditionally defined.  Believes that the GOP walked away from the Contract with America and that Democrat lite does not sell well in the public.  Also says that the party stopped reaching out to people.  Cites outreach as necessary to growing the party, reaching out to minority categories.  Supports moderation as a leader and does not want to create a litmus test to determine eligibility to be a Republican.  In favor of building more coalitions but worked AGAINST the TEA Party groups early on.

Reince Priebus
He makes a case for himself and his working with conservatives in Wisconsin.  Reince could be effective in teaching state party leaderships how to work with the TEA Party.  Stresses unity and cooperation which he does in a way that keeps himself above the fray and he shows the RNC as a broker of power between state parties, TEA Party groups and conservative single issue groups.  Reince thinks everything has to mean something and he thinks the chairman should be a conservative Republican.  Reince supports the way Delaware currently operates but what he misses is that in his home state of Wisconsin, he worked WITH the TEA Party  and grassroots groups to come up with palpable candidates before the primary.  In Delaware the state party ignored the movement and subsequently came up lame in their nomination.  Also believes marriage is between a man and woman and that no one should lose their dignity.  Does not believe the courts can rewrite the Constitution and define marriage.  He believes the biggest failure of the party in the last decade has been not sticking to principles and he cited having to hold "our noses and voting for Republicans that didn't uphold the basic principles of our platform."  Believes that the RNC chair out to take a chance and go out and support the conservative platform every chance they get.  Thinks we need a chairman that will go out there and be PROUD to be a Republican.  Cites pro-abortion, pro-stimulus, pro-bailout people as people who "might not be a Republican".  Has a track record of working WITH grassroots groups and building solid coalitions.

My take:
Look, the chairman has a job to do.  That job is tough!  Bryan over at Pajamas Media points out the nuts and bolts of the gig but it's more than that.  RNC chairman has to tie the whole party together and expand the message.  Every single one of these candidates makes a case and a point on some issues.  I've laid out responses by the candidates throughout the first 40%-50% of the debate and you can watch the rest on your own.  I'm going to tell you, while Bryan sees things differently than I, I think we end up with the same two front runners.

Reince Priebus comes across VERY smart and VERY congennial.  The only problem is he sometimes doesn't sound very honest.  That doesn't mean he isn't and I'm not questioning his integrity but he comes across a bit slick.  He almost sounds like a used car salesman but maybe that's just his Wisconsin accent.  Neither here nor there, I LIKE what he had to say.  The problem for him is that he doesn't seem to live what he says.  The law firm he works for is a huge supporter of Obamacare.  For those of us who believe in TEA Party principles it is almost expected that someone who wants to be a leader of this movement stand for the principles in his or her personal life as well as publicly.  Many would expect Reince to leave that firm and move to another.  Fair or unfair I think it is a valid question for Reince to answer.  Why not leave the firm?  Are there no other firms?  Is the partnership at that firm more important than standing on principles?  and for those of us looking at this, if his answer is that his family well being and money was more important, does that disqualify him?  For me, I think it's a difficult road.  I worked for JP Morgan Chase during the time when they received bailouts and I made the decision that a job outside of the bailout process, with no input into that tactic was important and the alternative (unemployment) was not acceptable.  Until I see where Reince was involved directly in this effort, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Priebus was also a little flustered, did not look confident behind the mic at all times and simply doesn't inspire confidence in his look and speech.  His words make sense but the way he presents them sometimes betrays him.

Saul Anuzis simply gets it.  He, like Reince, has built a red wall in his otherwise blue state.  Anuzis understands that we have to get back to being Republicans at heart and that there is room for disagreement but that the chairman should be a strong conservative.  He understands the correct order of things.  He knows that fundraising will drive the message and GOTV and that the states should be responsible for moving those things forward with RNC monetary support.  He also knows that it is important that the PEOPLE, through the primary system make the decisions and not party leaders.  He sees a real need for the party to present a united front and to reform their own state primaries to ensure that the people and the party don't butt heads (like we did here in Delaware).  He's a strong conservative and he understands that the RNC should be a strong support mechanism for the state parties.  He does not have any of the Obamacare baggage that Reince does and he knows how to use social networking and technology to make fundraising easier and more effective and to drive the message.  Saul looked comfortable and sounded confident which made his ideas all the more palpable.  Hes also honestly believes in his principles and with an absence of anything in the past to the contrary, I think he's the real deal.  Apparently Tom Ross agrees with me about him.

About The Rest - we can't afford to let these people walk away if they don't win.  Every single one of them needs a seat at the party table.  None of them can really be "counted out", as backroom deals often make their way into politics (shocking right?) but I find them to be the long shots.

Ann Wagner - She's a great conservative thinker with political experience.  She'd be a great boon to the party as someone who can support, groom and engage candidates for national offices.  I hope she takes a role with the RNC that allows her to put forth this talent, perhaps as a "scout" or trainer for candidates for U.S. Senate, U.S. House, President, etc.  She's not likely to be our next RNC chairwoman but of the rest, she is the best.

Michael Steele - Steele is fighting an uphill battle that is only partially his own fault.  The GOP had already been in decline when he took over and he is right, when he took office it was hard to find anyone who wanted to be a Republican (and some "Republicans" like Castle yearned to be Dems) much less give money to a GOP with no identity.  Steele fought the TEA Party/conservative movement early on and you can sense some of that in his answers.  Steele would just as soon make the GOP Democrat Lite (despite his suggestion to the contrary) if it meant a bunch of R's elected.  Well that's what got us where we were in 2008.  Finally, Steele takes credit for the GOP wave election in 2010.  Well, he deserves credit for getting the hell out of the way and keeping his mouth shut but make no mistake, Steele did NOTHING to help the wave.  This was the TEA Party election Mr. Steele.  It was the grassroots movement flexing its muscle and carrying you across the finish line.  I wonder how you even went into $20 million of debt by doing nothing.  Perhaps if you spent less time filing FEC complaints against good conservative candidates, you wouldn't be in debt.  Steele isn't likely to win.  I'd put his chances at 30% but don't count him out completely.  With all of this said, I think Steele is KEY to GOP outreach efforts especially to minority groups and his help MUST be retained to work on the message that is presented to minority groups.

Maria Cino - Ok, so I didn't like her from the word go because the first thing I saw was "lobbyist" and the second was "Pfizer" and the third was "supported Obamacare".  She is not my choice for RNC chair but she made some compelling points and a look over her she cited McCain-Feingold as a mistake, along with losing our way with spending.  Not exactly rocket science but good points.  Look, Maria has done a great job in the past with the GOTV efforts and I think she would make a great GOTV/Coalitions Director.  That said, she really hasn't got a shot at being Chairwoman despite the support of Delaware's Priscilla Rakestraw (the longest serving National Committeewoman and one of the more disliked Delaware Republicans).

Let me know what you think.

Maybe Tom Ross ISN'T the Anti-Christ afterall

I can't believe I'm typing this....but there is a selection coming up in 2011.  The RNC is picking a new chairman.  The race is mostly a bunch of party insiders, including a Pfizer lobbyist named Maria Cino who is currently pushing Obamacare (she's being backed by Delaware's own Priscilla Rakestraw), current Chairman Michael Steele and steele's right hand man Reince Priebus.  There are a host of others as well including a couple of conservative candidates and a newcomer who resigned from his RNC post and blasted Steele in a letter leaked to David Frum (he's the progressive from No Labels, info on him is here).

The conservatives are Ann Wagner, former Ambassador to Luxemborg and a relative unknown named Saul Anuzis.  Anuzis has the backing of TEA Party Nation, one of the many TEA Party groups out there.  Anuzis has real Conservative credentials and is considered to be the TEA Party's best chance at the RNC chairmanship.  That's why I was absolutely SHOCKED to see that Tom Ross, Delaware's own GOP Chairman, who attacked and berated and flat out disrespected the conservative candidates in the Delaware races this year, had openly put his support behind Saul.  I know, I had to look twice myself and lest ye think this is a joke, here is the visual evidence for you.

There he is, Tom Ross, Delaware Republican Party chair....wow...

Turns out Christine O'Donnell actually HELPED down ticket Republicans

At least, that is how it would appear when one looks at the exit polling from the Delaware U.S. Senate race.  O'Donnell struggled with women(36% for 61% against) and with black voters(93% against) in the state.  It's been long understood that those groups are the most important blocs to win in Delaware.  Details of the exit poll breakdown show that O'Donnell tied Coons among white women (48% each) but lost black women 95% - 4% which accounts for nearly the entire 25 point swing in female voters.  What appears to have done O'Donnell in is the 18% of Republicans who abandoned the more conservative O'Donnell as opposed to the 9% of Democrats who crossed over to vote against Coons. 

So what does all this mean?  Republicans down ticket SHOULD have benefited from the increases in Republicans and Independent voters over the registration totals.  Remember, the registration gap at election time was:

Democrats:  47 %.  

Republicans:  29.4%.  

"Other" & Independents:  23.5%

Yet the exit polling shows that Democrats made up only 44% of actual voters in November:
Democrats:  44 %.

Republicans:  30%.   

"Other" & Independents:  27%

So in theory, this should have HELPED candidates down ticket, not hurt them as has been suggested by the GOP elite.  There is one explanation for why those candidates may have lost their races....the 18% of Republicans who voted against O'Donnell.  It's interesting that 18% of Delaware Republicans cost Christine the election and likewise, 18% of Delaware Republicans consider themselves more liberal than moderate.

Democrats:  44%. 

Media gets it wrong again on No Labels

As usual, the media flubs it. Linda Killian has a piece running on in the AOL political section today on No Labels, a new progressive front group founded by some of the top progressive establishment types in America (and Canada). Sadly, her piece misses the mark on so many levels. For one thing, she claims that there are “nearly 40 percent of American voters who consider themselves Independents”. Now, in reality, about 18% of Americans are registered Republicans, 23% are registered Democrats and about 14% are registered independents. Those who consider themselves “Independent” who are not registered, registered as another third party or even registered under one of the major parties bumps the number up to about 33%. However, a closer inspection of the American ideological spectrum through actual data shows a stark contrast between her context and the political realities. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt in claiming that 40% of the nation is “Independent”, the ideological breakdown done by Gallup way back in June of this year (2010 for you progressives out there) shows that the number of people calling themselves “Conservative” or “Very Conservative” has actually risen 2% from this time last year and the number stands at 42%. Another 20% consider themselves liberal or very liberal and political moderates are down to 35%. Additionally, of those registered Independents, 36% consider themselves politically conservative and disenfranchised with the parties while 41% consider themselves politically moderate.


None of this means that moderates aren’t important mind you. The TEA Party groups that sprang up across the nation tapped into the spirit of bipartisanship and reaching a MAJORITY of American voters by focusing on jobs, the economy and placing limits on the federal government. There is absolutely room for us to have discussions WELL across the political spectrum but that is not what progressive groups like No Labels see to do. These groups seek to stifle public debate and keeps the decision making process amongst an elite few. This group has been created by an army of progressive supporters of President Obama because these folks have decided that somehow America wants progressivism despite overwhelming data to the contrary. 51% now say they are worse off under Obama and 66% say the country is heading in the wrong direction under progressive leadership. Jobless claims are hovering just around the 10% mark and there is little urgency by the political class to do anything about it. The American people are not that stupid. That is why Americans rejected the founders of No Labels resoundingly in 2010. Mike Castle and Charlie Crist are founding politicians of the group and both were ousted in their own party primaries (Crist switched to the Independent line just before the primary he was clearly going to lose to Marco Rubio) and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh is stepping down from the Senate because his own reelection chances were slim. Kirsten Gillibrand from New York held on to her job in Washington and NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg spent $85 million of his own vast fortune on changing the rules to run for a 3rd term.


All of this begs the question, If such an overwhelming majority of Americans want bi-partisanship and efficient government, why did they oust candidates like Castle and Crist who have a lengthy record of crossing the aisle to work with increasingly liberal Democrats? The answer may lie in a recent survey that was pointed out in The Hill back in April of this year (2010). The study found that 4 in 10 TEA Party members was either a Democrat or an Independent. 57% of the TEA Party members were Republicans while 41% were Democrat or Independent. With the media having spent a great deal of time painting the TEA Party as a vast right wing conspiracy and a group of far right wingnuts, you would expect the numbers to be a little more weighted than that right? Further evidence that political moderates by and large actually find the TEA Party more than palatable is found in the same study which saw 2/3rds of the TEA Party considering themselves conservatives, 26% moderate and 8% liberal. So, No Labels considers itself a counter to the TEA Party and a moderate progressive voice for a majority of Americans yet, 26% of moderates agree with the TEA Party and consider themselves a part of the movement? That makes no sense.


So who is No Labels really out to support? The political class (these are big government, progressive, establishment types). This group is out to support a full 14% of the American population. They see power slipping from their grasp and they won’t let it go gently into that good night. They see their backroom deals in smoke filled rooms dissipating before their eyes and it scares them because if they lose this, what else do they have? It’s sad to see people who began their careers with the best of intentions, slip into such dark and lonely places. Thank God the majority of the American people are too smart to fall for these kinds of tricks.

Background:
Peeling back the labels on "No Labels"
Castle joins other progressives in creating "No Labels"

Peeling back the labels on No Labels

Fans of this blog will recall that yesterdays post examined a new progressive group launched by Mike Castle and a host of other establishment political types.  For those of you who might be reading this blog for the first time and who may not be familiar with the term “Progressive” in politics, please begin your study here.  The term sounds benign, even wonderful, moving the country forward and progressing sounds appealing.  The problem is that along the way, as you evolve the government, individuals lose their personality and individuality.  You will need to understand Progressivism to understand the rest of this post.

Today we will focus on some of the founders of No Labels and their affiliations.  No Labels lists 11 founding members on their website and while each of these founding leaders is indeed linked to Progressive or liberal causes, we’ll examine 6 of them in total and 2 in this post. 

David Frum

American progressives (as you know from the history lesson above) have learned that in America’s political structure, it is imperative that you work within BOTH major parties if you are going to accomplish any REAL lasting changes.  In a Republic built to allow laws to be written, removed and reinstated depending on how the  people feel, it is increasingly difficult (and rightfully so) to fundamentally transform America.  That is why progressives cannot be pigeon-holed into only the Democrat Party.  Look at Teddy Roosevelt, perhaps the biggest Progressive to every become President, who was a Republican!  In fact, today, the Republican Party is nearly as progressive as the Democrat Party.  John McCain, Mike Castle, Olympia Snowe and Lisa Murkowski are just a few examples of Republican progressives serving in Washington, D.C. right now. 

Progressives also understand the need to make their views appear mainstream and accepted across the political spectrum in order to build support on both sides of the issues.  That is why modern progressive Republicans have attempted to call themselves conservatives in order to provide a “conservative voice” who can champion their causes.  Frum is a so called “conservative voice” who is frequently called upon by liberal sources like the New York Times, MSNBC and the Washington Post to provide opinions from “the other side”.   

Frum grew up in Ontario, Canada and his first real political move at age 14 was to volunteer for a member of the Canadian “New Democrat Party”.   After attending Yale and working for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes he did work at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (a conservative think tank in NYC).  Once President Bush was elected in 2000, the Canadian citizen (he received his U.S. citizenship on 9-11-07) was appointed as a speechwriter for economics in the White House where he worked from 2001 to 2002. Beginning in 2003 he worked at the American Enterprise Institute but was let go in March of this year amid his criticism of Fox News and the conservative opposition to Obamacare. 

This is not the first time Frum had been discharged amid controversy.  In 2008, Frum broke with National Review Online when he started The New Majority which has become a centrist funding arm.  Frum has also categorized younger readers as “a generation often repelled by today's mainstream conservatism” and he has consistently attacked conservative positions that conflict with President Obama’s agenda.  Frum has supported Obama and progressives in feuds with other more conservative columnists like Stanley Kurtz.  In fact, Frum has increasingly bucked the ideas of conservatism in favor of more populist and progressive positions even to the point of being widely considered to be a progressive plant in the media who practices “pragmatic conservatism” which is little more than slower progressivism.  He has also consistently attacked the TEA Party as being “too conservative” or “lacking pragmatism”.  He has joined a slew of progressive Republicans who have rejected the ideas of reducing the deficit by using the principles of Reagan who lowered taxes to drive up revenue and cut spending to balance the budget. 

Frums conservative credentials are weak when viewed in the overall context of his writing and political viewpoints.  It certainly doesn’t help his cause that his wife, author Danielle Crittenden, is a long time Huffington Post contributor.  In the end it’s pretty clear that Frum is little more than a shill for the progressive movement in general and specifically for the Republican Establishment progressives who value remaining in power far more than retaining freedom and liberty for the people.

Holly Page

Holly Page’s credentials from the No Labels website describe her as having spent 13 years at the Democratic Leadership Council (with the last 5 spent as Executive VP).  The site glosses over her real job which is as a lobbyist with Fontheim International.  Let’s go back just a moment and introduce you to the DLC.  It was started in 1985 by Will Marshall and Al From in response to the dramatic losses by Democrats in the 1984 General election when Reagan conservatism paved the way for Republicans.  Reagan’s natural conservatism reached out to the American middle class, a group that had long been courted by and been loyal to the Democrat Party.  Democrats had lost the popular vote badly and From and Marshall founded the DLC and it’s think tank the “Progressive Policy Institute” in order to discover ways to win back the American middle class.  DLC, PPI and their latest initiative “The Third Way” are aimed at using the moderates and the concept of bi-partisanship to push through the progressive agenda and encourage an ever growing, ever more powerful government.

Mrs. Page has played a key role with the DLC and is responsible for “The National Conversation” which is the largest gathering of Democratic elected officials outside of the DNC.  She brokered a deal with Harvard and the Aspen Institute to provide leadership development training to progressive elected officials.  Holly is also responsible for setting up the first ever online town hall with President Clinton in 1998 and a World Leaders Summit for the Third Way.  She is a dedicated progressive who has worked for progressive political candidates for almost two decades. 

This concludes today’s look at the leaders of “No Labels” and gives you an idea of what you will find in the weeks to come as we begin to peel back the label on the people behind the organization.  You will see the progressive roots in each leader and the connections to other progressive organizations.  The media has called this group “MSNBC’s TEA Party” and to prove its effectiveness the leaders spent the last 12 months preparing a launch event that drew 1,100 people to Columbia University in NYC.  By contrast, the 1^st ever April 15^th TEA Party in Wilmington, Delaware drew nearly 1,500 in the cold and driving rain.  Outdoor events across the state drew nearly 2,500 participants.  New York City is 9 times the size of Delaware in terms of population.  I’m just sayin’.

Next up: Jonathan Cowan and Mark McKinnon

Trouble a brewing

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck is often ridiculed by the left for his "conspiracy theories".  Beck has routinely warned about events that people have considered crazy which have in the long run proven true.  The unemployment number rising above 9%, the rising price of gold and the Fed's quantitative easing scheme come to mind.  Recently Glenn has been warning about a "big event" that will threaten the stability of America and possibly the world. 


Isn't it strange that North Korea has been ratcheting up attacks against South Korea in recent days, sending all of Asia into a tail spin?  Meanwhile, China has recently began buying tons of gold.  This is after buying more U.S. debt than any other nation (the Fed is actually the largest holder) and buying up a rather large chunk of the world's natural resources.  China has been quite vocal about the government's accounting tricks and has openly questioned the out of control spending of the Obama administration.  With their region in turmoil and their current position as a financial superpower, China just may be in a position where it can call in the U.S. debt load.  Beck may just have hit yet another nail on the head but only time will tell.  If Washington doesn't right the ship and do it fast, you can bet that China doesn't need to sit around and wait for us anymore.