President Obama sat down with FOX News host Bill O'Reilly on Sunday for a live interview that aired during pre-game coverage of the Super Bowl on local FOX broadcast stations.

Obama told Bill O’Reilly that he’s not concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. After all, Obama says only certain strains of the Muslim Brotherhood are against the US.

FOX News reported:

Obama said this after a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood told the Egyptian Army this week to prepare for war with Israel.

By the way… According to a recent PEW poll 59% of Egyptian Muslims agree with the fundamentalists over the modernizers.
This doesn’t seem to bother the Obama Administration.

Indiana governor Mitch Daniels is taking to the front pages of the Wall Street Journal, writing on Monday that President Obama’s signature health care reform law is “a massive mistake.”

The Indiana Republican, and potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate, penned an op-ed in Journal on Monday, saying the health care reform law will present numerous states with an unsustainable fiscal burden.

The Wall Street Journal reported:

Unless you’re in favor of a fully nationalized health-care system, the president’s health-care reform law is a massive mistake. It will amplify all the big drivers of overconsumption and excessive pricing: “Why not, it’s free?” reimbursement; “The more I do, the more I get” provider payment; and all the defensive medicine the trial bar’s ingenuity can generate.

All claims made for it were false. It will add trillions to the federal deficit. It will lead to a de facto government takeover of health care faster than most people realize, and as millions of Americans are added to the Medicaid rolls and millions more employees (including, watch for this, workers of bankrupt state governments) are dumped into the new exchanges.

Governor Daniels also mentioned that he wrote Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Services (HHS), and included a list of demands that he will need fulfilled by 2013 if the federal government expects the State of Indiana to run their program for them.

One of the most contentious parts of Governor Jerry Brown's 2011-12 Proposed Budget, is his call for the elimination of 425 local redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and redirecting approximately one-third of their property tax revenues into other state and local services.

Since its inception in 1945, California's redevelopment agencies have been touted as an effective tool allowing communities to address issues of physical deterioration, revitalize downtrodden business climates, and add to California's affordable housing stock.

Places such as Pasadena's Old Town, Stockton's water front plaza and San Diego's Gaslamp Quarter have rightfully been touted as models of success. Yet those success stories are often overshadowed by similar tales marked by corruption, cronyism and either an inability or unwillingness to follow state law.

Many local officials have argued against the elimination of RDAs saying the move would cripple efforts to create jobs and revitalize blighted blocks in a struggling economy. According to the California Redevelopment Association, the state’s active redevelopment authorities supported 304,000 full- and part-time local jobs annually.

However, many of the agencies' own filings with the State Controller's Office - who keeps track of redevelopment financial reports - failed to show such achievements. Take for example the time frame from 2004-05 through 2008-09, about 300 redevelopment agencies did not list any jobs created. Of those, more than 250 agencies also did not list any new construction or rehabilitation.

And while the jobs discussion has dominated much of the redevelopment conversation, citizens and lawmakers alike have seemingly glossed over what is perhaps the most controversial aspect of redevelopment: eminent domain.

California’s redevelopment agencies are virtually the only government entity authorized with the power to seize private property for the purpose of redevelopment.

Eminent domain is the power governments have to confiscate, or take, private property as long as it is for a legitimate “public use”. Whereas eminent domain was initially intended to ensure that public services, such as roads and highways, were available to the public, local and state governments often use eminent domain for any project that is considered economically beneficial. Public use, as a practical matter, has morphed into a more ambiguous “public benefit.”

In the Golden State property rights are highly vulnerable to infringement by government control in several forms: excessive taxation, regulation, and the process of takings (ie eminent domain) for centrally planned economic development.

Across the country cities have used eminent domain to force people off their land (remember the infamous Kelo case) so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing.

These governmental forces (excessive taxation, regulation, and strong eminent domain powers) make property rights less secure, increasing owner uncertainty. Greater uncertainty decreases the willingness to undertake capital investment and accumulation thereby reducing the productivity of labor and depressing wages. Greater uncertainty also curtails transactions transferring property to new owners who discover more valuable uses. Ultimately, economic growth stagnates. When government undermines private property rights, the economy suffers and this thwarts prosperity for California’s future.

Yet this is difficult to see when after a nearly seven decade existence redevelopment has simply become the primary method of "doing business" for local governments. As such it is understandably difficult for many local leaders to perceive another way to effectively encourage private sector development in cities and counties.

While economic redevelopment is a complex issue, it need not always be conducted via the heavy arm of government. There are several alternatives to redeveloping communities, all of which can be successful if local governments follow a model that protects property rights, deregulates land uses, promotes competition, loosens business restrictions and lowers taxes.

Well-defined and enforced private property rights are the cornerstone of a capitalist economy. The positive economic effects of private property are widespread. Secure property rights promote specialization and exchange, provide incentives for conservation and preservation of resources, and promote technological innovation, entrepreneurship, capital accumulation, and investment. In essence, secure property rights underlie economic growth.

This relationship is confirmed in The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom. As shown in the chart, property rights and economic prosperity go hand in hand. On average, GDP per capita is over 10 times higher in nations with the strongest property rights than in those with the weakest property rights. The same is true for California's local governments.

Simply put, private property is necessary for economic growth and to achieve prosperity. Government infringement through redevelopment's use of eminent domain powers undermines private property rights in California. This distorts incentives, discourages the use of assets as collateral, and forfeits the benefits of capitalism. By eliminating redevelopment and the use of eminent domain, municipal leaders will witness the economic growth they so desperately desire.

Whether or not Governor Brown's budget proposal to eliminate California's RDA's is accepted has yet to be seen. However the moment offers lawmakers an opportunity to strengthen the property rights of all Californian's thereby spurring economic growth from the bottom up.

Crossposted at The Sacramento Citizen

It’s a dangerous time to be an ally of the United States.
The Telegraph reported:

The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today. The documents also show that…

…A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

More… Dan added:

If we had an actual news media in America, this would destroy Obama’s chances for 2012, but our “news” media will just ignore it.

True. The state-run media won’t touch this.

President Barack Obama’s pledge to tackle the economy and job creation still hasn't quite come to fruition according to new unemployment figures - reminding us once again that to date, Obama is the worst President in history on job creation.

The new Gallup poll has revealed that unemployment in the U.S. has risen to 9.9 per cent, a higher figure than anticipated.

That's up from 9.6% at the end of December. Gallup also reports that broader U.S. underemployment was 18.9% in January, essentially the same as the 19.0% in December.

California, after years of fiscal upheaval, confronts yet another deficit of $25.4 billion in the current and coming fiscal year, larger than the entire budgets of most states.

Declining revenue coupled with increased spending, a job killing environment, and lawmakers' past reliance on one-time budget fixes have contributed to the recurring deficit.

Governor Brown has proposed a budget that would eliminate a $25.4 billion deficit using a mix of program cuts and higher taxes. The plan assumes that voters will agree to extend tax hikes, providing the state an additional $9 billion to $11 billion annually through 2015. Yet republicans remain firm in their refusal to vote for more taxes, and democrat lawmakers have not yet fully agreed to the terms of the Governor's budget.

So what's to be done?

Senator Harman (R-Huntington Beach) is now pushing an idea that we've been discussing for over a year. In a recent interview on FoxNews by host Stuart Varney the Senator discussed California's budget and the prospect of expanding off-shore drilling as a way for the state to generate revenue.

Last year California's non-partisan legislative analyst gave a thumbs up to then Governor Schwarzenegger's proposal for off-shore drilling as long as the revenues went to the state's general fund instead of being earmarked for state parks as Schwarzenegger had proposed.

"This project provides the opportunity to gain significant and much-needed revenues for the General Fund that could help to preserve state programs that it considers to be a high priority," the report states. "Analyzing these potential risks and trade-offs, we find, on balance, that the Tranquillon Ridge project merits legislative approval."

In an era when voters refuse to increase taxes, at the end of the day, the only way out of this crisis is for California's liberal lawmakers to realize if they want to raise the revenues to pay for their social programs, they've got $8 billion of revenues they can tap by developing their own resources right offshore.

Mitt Romney discusses Egypt, health care and running for president again...

"I'm very drawn to the fact that this country needs someone who has private sector experience because this economy is troubled, we've got a president who says a lot of the right things, but doesn't know how to get the job done. Almost everything he has done in his first two years has made it more difficult for our economy to grow. It's been the most anti-investment, anti-jobs, anti-growth administration we've seen in a long, long time."

The mainstream media always seems ready and willing to nitpick every word that comes from the mouth of our Republicans leaders. Take for example when former Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin flubbed and said North Korea instead of South Korea, the left roared with collective laughter. Or how about when Rep. Michele Bachmann mispronounced Iwo Jima, Chris Matthews was apoplectic.

But now that Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York has had his own flub of epic proportions, will the media hold him to the same standard?

On Sunday’s “State of the Union with Candy Crowley,” Schumer warned of the consequences of the federal government declining to raise the debt ceiling, referencing the government shutdown in 1995. (h/t the Blaze).

As the moment nears for the federal government to act, he urged the “three branches of government” to come together to find a solution. However, the branches he spoke of aren’t quite those in the Constitution: the executive, legislative and judiciary.

Instead Schumer boldly declared his own version of the three branches of government as the House, the Senate, and the President.

In the instance you didn’t quite catch what Schumer said, we've embedded the video to the right, and following is a copy of the transcript (via Hot Air):

"So I would urge my Republican colleagues, no matter how strong they feel — you know, we have three branches of government: we have a House, the Senate, we have a President, and all three of us are going to have to come together and give some. But it is playing with fire to risk the shutting down of the government, just as it is playing with fire to risk not paying the debt ceiling."

Now in fairness, it's likely this was simply a mistake by the Senator. Then again, perhaps it's another striking example of the fact that our elected representatives know even less about America's history and institutions than the typical citizen. In which casse, it becomes ever more understandable how Democrats can pass legislation like the health care law and call it constitutional.

Perhaps it's time for Senator Schumer to spend some more time in his civics class.

Image via FWR