Obama and His Brilliant Mind Refused Dutch Expertise 3 Days Into the Oil Spill…..

By LOREN STEFFY Copyright 2010 Houston Chronicle

Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help.

It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.

The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.

Now, almost seven weeks later, as the oil spewing from the battered well spreads across the Gulf and soils pristine beaches and coastline, BP and our government have reconsidered.

U.S. ships are being outfitted this week with four pairs of the skimming booms airlifted from the Netherlands and should be deployed within days. Each pair can process 5 million gallons of water a day, removing 20,000 tons of oil and sludge.

At that rate, how much more oil could have been removed from the Gulf during the past month?

The uncoordinated response to an offer of assistance has become characteristic of this disaster’s response. Too often, BP and the government don’t seem to know what the other is doing, and the response has seemed too slow and too confused.

Federal law has also hampered the assistance. The Jones Act, the maritime law that requires all goods be carried in U.S. waters by U.S.-flagged ships, has prevented Dutch ships with spill-fighting equipment from entering U.S. coastal areas.

“What’s wrong with accepting outside help?” Visser asked. “If there’s a country that’s experienced with building dikes and managing water, it’s the Netherlands.”

Even if, three days after the rig exploded, it seemed as if the Dutch equipment and expertise wasn’t needed, wouldn’t it have been better to accept it, to err on the side of having too many resources available rather than not enough?

BP has been inundated with well-intentioned cleanup suggestions, but the Dutch offer was different. It came through official channels, from a government offering to share its demonstrated expertise.

Many in the U.S., including the president, have expressed frustration with the handling of the cleanup. In the Netherlands, the response would have been different, Visser said.

There, the government owns the cleanup equipment, including the skimmers now being deployed in the Gulf.

“If there’s a spill in the Netherlands, we give the oil companies 12 hours to react,” he said.

If the response is inadequate or the companies are unprepared, the government takes over and sends the companies the bill.

While the skimmers should soon be in use, the plan for building sand barriers remains more uncertain. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal supports the idea, and the Coast Guard has tentatively approved the pro-ject. One of the proposals being considered was developed by the Dutch marine contractor Van Oord and Deltares, a Dutch research institute that specializes in environmental issues in deltas, coastal areas and rivers. They have a strategy to begin building 60-mile-long sand dikes within three weeks.

That proposal, like the offer for skimmers, was rebuffed but later accepted by the government. BP has begun paying about $360 million to cover the costs. Once again, though, the Jones Act may be getting in the way. American dredging companies, which lack the dike-building expertise of the Dutch, want to do the work themselves, Visser said.

“We don’t want to take over, but we have the equipment,” he said.

While he battles the bureaucracy, the people of Louisiana suffer, their livelihoods in jeopardy from the onslaught of oil.

“Let’s forget about politics; let’s get it done,” Visser said.

Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention

Here is the full text of John L. Perry’s column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to “resolve the Obama problem” is becoming more possible and is not “unrealistic.” Perry also writes that a coup, while not “ideal,” may be preferable to “Obama’s radical ideal” — and would “restore and defend the Constitution.” Newsmax has since removed the column from its website.

Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention

By: John L. Perry

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

# Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”

# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

# They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.

# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

# They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, “I’m not interested in victory”) that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

Tea Party Candidates, Women Roar in Primary Election Night

Shown here are California GOP Senate nominee Carly Fiorinia, left, and Nevada GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle. (AP Photos)

The primary elections Tuesday amounted to a night of messages — from the Tea Party, from female candidates and for the Democrats.

With hundreds of primaries held across 11 states, a number of candidates made history while others pulled out come-from-behind wins. The elections helped set the stage for a November general election in which incumbents are girding for a series of hard-fought battles.

In California, the Republican Party has placed two women at the top of its ticket for the first time, nominating former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina for Senate and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman for governor.

Fiorina told Fox News on Wednesday that she’s been “itching” for the general election fight against incumbent Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer for a while.

“It really feels great to be here on Wednesday morning and able to take her on … As of today, game on, Barbara,” she said.

State Rep. Nikki Haley moved a step closer to her goal of becoming South Carolina’s first female governor, advancing into a runoff with her top competitor. After a bruising primary in which two men claimed they had affairs with her, Haley blew away her competition with 49 percent of the vote; she was forced into a runoff with Rep. Gresham Barrett, who won 22 percent, only because she did not clear the 50-percent threshold.

The big save of the night came in Arkansas, where Sen. Blanche Lincoln defied expectations by beating Democratic primary challenger Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in a runoff. She moves on to a tough general election battle for her seat.

And in Nevada, Tea Party-backed candidate Sharron Angle claimed a decisive victory after surging in the polls against a more established GOP competitor in the final weeks of the race.

Angle took 40 percent of the vote to 26 percent for Sue Lowden, a former state GOP chairwoman. Businessman Danny Tarkanian won 23 percent.

Angle will face off against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the fall. Though polls have shown Reid’s popularity at rock-bottom levels, Democrats are overjoyed that Angle won, saying her conservative stances on the issues are far outside the mainstream

Angle, in her victory speech, thanked the Tea Party for its support
and promised Reid a tough race.

“We are going to dump Harry Reid on Nov. 2,” she said.

Other top Democrats are in for a challenging contest in November following the results of Tuesday’s elections.

While Boxer will face off against Fiorina, former Gov. Jerry Brown, seeking to reclaim his old job, is poised to battle Whitman.

Fox News

Taliban Now Using HIV Bombs

By TOM NEWTON DUNN

TALIBAN fighters are burying dirty needles with their bombs in a bid to infect British troops with HIV, The Sun can reveal.
Hypodermic syringes are hidden below the surface pointing upwards to prick bomb squad experts as they hunt for devices.

The heroin needles are feared to be contaminated with hepatitis and HIV. And if the bomb goes off, the needles become deadly flying shrapnel.

The tactic, used in the Afghan badlands of Helmand, was exposed by Tory MP and ex-Army officer Patrick Mercer.

Senior backbencher Mr Mercer said yesterday: “Are there no depths to which these people will stoop? This is the definition of a dirty war.”

Razor blades are also being used. All Royal Engineer and Royal Logistic Corps bomb search teams have been issued with protective Kevlar gloves.

Once a government pet, BP now a capitalist tool

In this May 30, 2010 file photo, BP PLC CEO Tony Hayward talks to reporters as he visits a Coast Guard command center in Venice, La. BP's inability to contain the worst oil spill in U.S. history has focused attention on CEO Tony Hayward's words and deeds over the past six weeks - and the scrutiny has not yielded a flattering image. (AP file photo)

By: Timothy P. Carney

As BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig was sinking on April 22, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was on the phone with allies in his push for climate legislation, telling them he would soon roll out the Senate climate bill with the support of the utility industry and three oil companies — including BP, according to the Washington Post.

Kerry never got to have his photo op with BP chief executive Tony Hayward and other regulation-friendly corporate chieftains. Within days, Republican co-sponsor Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., repudiated the bill following a spat about immigration, and Democrats went back to the drawing board.

But the Kerry-BP alliance for an energy bill that included a cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gases pokes a hole in a favorite claim of President Obama and his allies in the media — that BP’s lobbyists have fought fiercely to be left alone. Lobbying records show that BP is no free-market crusader, but instead a close friend of big government whenever it serves the company’s bottom line.

While BP has resisted some government interventions, it has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels.

Now that BP’s oil rig has caused the biggest environmental disaster in American history, the Left is pulling the same bogus trick it did with Enron and AIG: Whenever a company earns universal ire, declare it the poster boy for the free market.

As Democrats fight to advance climate change policies, they are resorting to the misleading tactics they used in their health care and finance efforts: posing as the scourges of the special interests and tarring “reform” opponents as the stooges of big business.

Expect BP to be public enemy No. 1 in the climate debate.

There’s a problem: BP was a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobby dedicated to passing a cap-and-trade bill. As the nation’s largest producer of natural gas, BP saw many ways to profit from climate legislation, notably by persuading Congress to provide subsidies to coal-fired power plants that switched to gas.

In February, BP quit USCAP without giving much of a reason beyond saying the company could lobby more effectively on its own than in a coalition that is increasingly dominated by power companies. Theymade out particularly well in the House’s climate bill, while natural gas producers suffered.

But two months later, BP signed off on Kerry’s Senate climate bill, which was hardly a capitalist concoction. One provision BP explicitly backed, according to Congressional Quarterly and other media reports: a higher gas tax. The money would be earmarked for building more highways, thus inducing more driving and more gasoline consumption.

Elsewhere in the green arena, BP has lobbied for and profited from subsidies for biofuels and solar energy, two products that cannot break even without government support. Lobbying records show the company backing solar subsidies including federal funding for solar research. The U.S. Export-Import Bank, a federal agency, is currently financing a BP solar energy project in Argentina.

Ex-Im has also put up taxpayer cash to finance construction of the 1,094-mile Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline carrying oil from the Caspian Sea to Ceyhan, Turkey—again, profiting BP.

Lobbying records also show BP lobbying on Obama’s stimulus bill and Bush’s Wall Street bailout. You can guess the oil giant wasn’t in league with the Cato Institute or Ron Paul on those.

BP has more Democratic lobbyists than Republicans. It employs the Podesta Group, co-founded by John Podesta, Obama’s transition director and confidant. Other BP troops on K Street include Michael Berman, a former top aide to Vice President Walter Mondale; Steven Champlin, former executive director of the House Democratic Caucus; and Matthew LaRocco, who worked in Bill Clinton’s Interior Department and whose father was a Democratic congressman. Former Republican staffers, such as Reagan alumnus Ken Duberstein, also lobby for BP, but there’s no truth to Democratic portrayals of the oil company as
an arm of the GOP.

Two patterns have emerged during Obama’s presidency: 1) Big business increasingly seeks profits through more government, and 2) Obama nonetheless paints opponents of his intervention as industry shills. BP is just the latest example of this tawdry sleight of hand.

Once a government pet, BP now a capitalist tool

The Call for Obama to Resign: Gaining Steam with Military, Veterans?

The Stand Up America Blog
Lincoln Reagan Dinner
Published on 06/08/10

Virginia City, Montana, June 5th, 2010

By Paul E. Vallely

The Declaration of Independence states: “To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

We cannot permit the current leaders in the White House and Halls of Congress to continue in their efforts to lead us down the road of Progressive Socialism and destruction of America. This is the current battle that we Constitutionalists face and we must be aggressive in our efforts. Incompetence, Deceit, Fraud, Corruption,

Dishonesty and Violation of the US Constitution and oaths of office of officials now come into play as relates to our National Character, National Security, Economy and the Nation’s well-being and is the rationale for resignations. Demand Resignation of derelict officials by the people of this country in now required.

Where is our Moral Compass?

The oath of office is simple and reads:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Sadly, we have seen them violate their oath. Fraud, lying, and corruption are rampant and some have engaged in treasonous activities, and they effectively thumb their noses at us and have sold you to the highest bidder.

The Articles of Confederation were replaced with the Constitution, which granted the federal government enough authority to cultivate, promote and secure the Blessings of Liberty. The balance of authority and individual liberty was understood. Power was confined to that which was enumerated in the Constitution with a certain and meaningful intent for check and balances.

Lincoln issued this warning in his inaugural address, “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one. This is a most valuable and sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.” Being a representative republic, not a democracy, “rising up” means other than revolution by means of arms. The people must “rise up” from the grass roots across this great country as we think of the greater good of this and future generations. We are limited in the peaceful transfer of power…resignation, death, elections, and impeachment.

“We the People” have had enough. Enough is Enough. The Obama White House and identifiable Members of Congress are now on a progressive socialist, treasonous death march and are bankrupting and weakening the country. We have watched them violate their sacred oath of office. “We, the People” cannot wait for and solely rely on the next round of elections in November of this year. It is now and each day that these public servants must put the citizen’s interests above self-interest by resigning immediately.

Our so-called Representatives and Senators are more interested in party loyalty than performing their duties. So, do not expect them to resign en masse or be impeached. Therefore the “people” must decide. A civil uprising is brewing. We now must call for the immediate resignation of Barry Soetero (AKA President Barack Hussein Obama) …..based on Incompetence, Deceit, Fraud, Corruption, Dishonesty and Violation of the US Oath of Office and the Constitution.

And a call for a National Petition for new elections to select the next President of the United States of America must be initiated. We can wait no longer for a traditional change of Power and New Government.

Can Black Americans Afford Obama?

by Walter E. Williams

My March 2008 column “Is Obama Ready for America?” started out: “Some pundits ask whether America is ready for Obama. The much more important question is whether Obama is ready for America and even more important is whether black people can afford Obama.”

Let’s look at this.

In 1947, Jackie Robinson, in signing a contract with the Brooklyn Dodgers, broke the color bar in Major League Baseball. In 1950, three blacks broke the color bar in the National Basketball Association (NBA): Earl Lloyd (Washington Capitals), Chuck Cooper (Boston Celtics) and Nat “Sweetwater” Clifton (New York Knicks). Their highly successful performances opened the way for other blacks to follow — peaking at 27 percent in Major League Baseball and 80 percent in the NBA.

Without a question, the first blacks, relative to their white peers, in professional sports were exceptional. There’s no sense of justice that should require that these players be as good as they were in order to get a job. But the fact of business, in order to deal with racial hostility and stereotypes of incompetence, they had to be first rate and possess character beyond question. It was not only important for their careers, it was important for their fellow blacks. At the time the sports color bar was being broken, black people could ill afford stumblebums. Today, black people can afford stumblebums in several sports. In fact, black people can afford for the Philadelphia Sixers to put Williams in their starting lineup. Any person watching me mess up royally would have to be a lunatic to say, “Those blacks can’t play basketball.” The bottom line is that whether we like it or not, whether for good reason or bad reason, whether it’s fair or unfair, people make stereotypes, and stereotypes can have effects.

In that March 2008 column, I said, “For the nation and for black people, the first black president should be the caliber of a Jackie Robinson and Barack Obama is not. Barack Obama has charisma and charm but in terms of character, values and understanding, he is no Jackie Robinson.” Obama’s electoral success was truly remarkable. It’s a testament to the essential goodness of the American people. A June 6-9, 2008 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll reported “that 17 percent were enthusiastic about Obama being the first African American President, 70 percent were comfortable or indifferent, and 13 percent had reservations or were uncomfortable.”

President Obama, with the assistance of devious House and Senate leadership, has gotten a health care law enacted that the majority of American voters are against. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 58 percent of voters support repeal of the health care law. Under the president’s leadership, the 2010 budget deficit will reach more than $1.5 trillion, about 10 percent of gross domestic product, the largest deficit since the end of World War II.

We’re not that far behind the troubled nation of Greece, which has a current budget deficit of nearly 13 percent of GDP. Our national debt at $13 trillion is about 90 percent of GDP and budgeted to grow by $9 trillion over the next decade. On the diplomatic front, the Obama team is not doing much better, showing every sign of permitting a terrorist nation like Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Early indications suggest that the Barack Obama presidency might turn out to be similar to the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter. That’s bad news for the nation but especially bad news for black Americans. No white presidential candidate had to live down the disgraced presidency of Carter but I’m all too fearful that a future black presidential candidate will find himself carrying the heavy baggage of a failed black president. That’s not a problem for white liberals who voted for Obama who received their one-time guilt-relieving dose from voting for a black man to be president, but it is a problem for future generations of black Americans.

Conn. School Board Revotes on Church Graduation

Associated Press

ENFIELD, Conn. — A Connecticut school board voted narrowly Tuesday to fight a court ruling that would keep the town’s two high school graduations from being held inside a Bloomfield megachurch, reversing an earlier decision not to do so.

Last week, Enfield’s Board of Education voted by the same 5-4 margin to let stand the temporary injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge Janet Hall. The judge found that holding the June 23 and 24 graduations at the 3,000-seat First Cathedral Baptist Church would amount to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

Attorney Vincent McCarthy, who’s representing the school district, plans to file the appeal with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. He did not immediately return calls for comment Tuesday night.

David McGuire, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, says he’s disappointed by the decision, but believes the injunction will be upheld by the appeals court.

“We believe that the vote will create unnecessary divisions in an already tense community,” McGuire said.

Town officials have said they wanted the graduations at the church, which has hosted a number of them in recent years, citing its lower cost, large indoor crowd capacity and ample parking.

School officials initially decided in January to hold outdoor ceremonies at the high schools, but officials said parents were concerned about bad weather and limited seating if the graduations had to be moved inside the schools.

WTIC-AM reports that attorneys for the students who are suing say the board changed its mind after intense lobbying by the Family Institute of Connecticut, a socially conservative religious organization.

Members of the board voted along party lines on Tuesday, with Republicans supporting plans to move for an expedited appeal and Democrats opposing it.

Several nearby school districts had changed their plans to hold graduation ceremonies at the megachurch after receiving letters in the fall from groups including the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut and Americans United for Separation of Church and State warning they’d sue.

McCarthy is a lawyer for the American Center for Law and Justice, founded by Pat Robertson.

The lawyers said they expect the lawsuit will be heard and a final decision made before next year’s graduations.

America: Going Broke

(Reuters) – The U.S. debt will top $13.6 trillion this year and climb to an estimated $19.6 trillion by 2015, according to a Treasury Department report to Congress.

The report that was sent to lawmakers Friday night with no fanfare said the ratio of debt to the gross domestic product would rise to 102 percent by 2015 from 93 percent this year.

“The president’s economic experts say a 1 percent increase in GDP can create almost 1 million jobs, and that 1 percent is what experts think we are losing because of the debt’s massive drag on our economy,” said Republican Representative Dave Camp, who publicized the report.

He was referring to recent testimony by University of Maryland Professor Carmen Reinhart to the bipartisan fiscal commission, which was created by President Barack Obama to recommend ways to reduce the deficit, which said debt topping 90 percent of GDP could slow economic growth.

The U.S. debt has grown rapidly with the economic downturn and government spending for the Wall Street bailout, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the economic stimulus. The rising debt is contributing to voter unrest ahead of the November congressional elections in which Republicans hope to regain control of Congress.

The total U.S. debt includes obligations to the Social Security retirement program and other government trust funds. The amount of debt held by investors, which include China and other countries as well as individuals and pension funds, will rise to an estimated $9.1 trillion this year from $7.5 trillion last year.

By 2015 the net public debt will rise to an estimated $14 trillion, with a ratio to GDP of 73 percent, the Treasury report said. (Reporting by Donna Smith; Editing by Kenneth Barry)

Hillary to World: Raise Your Taxes!

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in her push for higher taxes around the world, asserted facts about Brazil’s economy that are contradicted by her own department’s official profile of the South American country.

Clinton has taken on an odd diplomatic priority by urging the U.S., and other countries, to raise taxes. She said during a trip to Pakistan that the country needed to increase taxes.

“At the risk of maybe sounding undiplomatic, Pakistan has to have more internal investment in your public services and in your business opportunities,” she said last October. “By any fair measure, for example, the percentage of taxes of [gross domestic product] is among the lowest in the world. The United States, we tax ourselves, depending upon who is in power, somewhere between 16% and 23% of GDP, and right now, it usually hovers around 20%. You’re less than half of that.”

Federal revenues make up about 20% of GDP. But add local taxes and fees and the number balloons to over 28% of GDP, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Clinton continued her tax-hike agenda recently at the Brookings Institute, and held up Brazil, which is forging closer ties with Iran, as an example of all the good things that can happen in a high-tax country.

Here is what she said, compared with what the State Department’s profile of Brazil says. The department updated the profile in February, after Clinton had been in office one year.

“Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere, and guess what? It’s growing like crazy,” she said.

Actually, the State Department report on Brazil states its “GDP dropped 0.8% in the first quarter of 2009.”

The Tradingeconomics.com research firm shows that the U.S. economy, which Clinton believes does not tax enough, has out-preformed Brazil.

Brazil has experienced sluggish GDP rates, averaging 1.61% in 2007 before the world recession hit, compared to the U.S. averaging 2.5%, according to the firm’s inflation-adjusted numbers.

After the recession hit, Brazil’s economy was sluggish just like the U.S. economy. Brazil grew by 1.39% in 2008 and 0.96% in 2009, compared with -1.83% and 0.18% for the U.S., respectively. In other words, Brazil’s economy is hardly “growing like crazy,” as Clinton asserted.

What’s more, while Clinton praised Brazil’s high-tax society, the State Department report criticized it: “Significant vulnerabilities remain in the Brazilian economy. The total tax burden is high, income distribution remains skewed, and the private business community complains of burdensome regulation. The global financial crisis has hampered President [Lula da Silva’s] efforts to accelerate economic expansion.”

The report has more criticism for Brazil’s tax system:

“In order to attract increasing levels of FDI [foreign direct investment], many business groups and international organizations have highlighted the need for Brazil to improve its regulatory environment for investments and to simplify the tax code.”

The State Department report does not credit high taxes, as Clinton does, for Brazil’s growth. But it does single out somethings she rarely talks about: turning government-run enterprises over to private business.

The State Department said: “Many antiquated and burdensome state management structures that operated in the sector have been dismantled, though some of them still exist.

The Brazilian railroad industry has been privatized through concession contracts ranging from 30 to 60 years, and the ports sector is experiencing similar, albeit less expansive, privatization. In response to the dramatic deterioration in the national highway system, the federal government has granted concessions for existing highways to private companies, which in turn promise to restore, maintain, and expand these highways in exchange for toll revenues generated. New opportunities are expected to arise with the opening of the Brazilian civil airports to private management and investment through a federal concession model.”

Clinton had one fact correct: Brazil has the highest percent of tax revenue (38%) compared to total GDP. Clinton credits those taxes for improved economic performance.

Argentina has a 23% tax share of GDP, yet has out-performed Brazil’s economy the past three years. Chile is at 17%, and its economy performed only slight below Brazil’s in those years.

Let’s fact-check another Clinton assertion about Brazil. She said at Brookings: “The rich are getting richer, but they’re pulling people out of poverty. There is a certain formula there, that used to work for us until we abandoned it — to our regret, in my opinion.”

According to the CIA World Factbook, the percentage of Brazilians living below the poverty line is 26%. The 2000 edition said Brazil had a poverty rate of 17.4% in 1990. You might argue that Brazil’s embrace of high taxes has created more poor, not fewer.

Compare Brazil’s rate to two other modern-economic countries in South America with relatively low tax-rates: Chile and Argentina. Chile’s poverty rate is 18.2%; Argentina’s is 13.9% — both are substantially below Brazil.

Clinton made an overall pitch at Brookings for higher world taxes:

“I also believe you put your finger on one of the biggest international problems we have,” she said to one question. “And I’ll just — you know, this is my opinion. I’m not speaking for the administration. So I will preface that with a very clear caveat. The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues, whether it’s individual, corporate, whatever the taxation forms are.

“So my view is that you have to get many countries to increase their public revenue collections in order to make investments that will make them richer over the long run. You have to work hard on the innovation, new-technology agenda, to try to create new forms of jobs. You have to strike the right balance, which is not easy. And different countries probably require different approaches between stimulus and restraint.”

If Clinton wants to double-check any of her tax theories, she should look at the United States poverty rate. It rapidly descended after World War II, dropping from an estimated 30% to 13.2% in the late 1960s, at the dawn of the modern welfare state and the added taxes needed to feed it. Poverty plunged in the 40s, 50s and 60s due to the new modern economy, strong families and broader access to education. Where does the U.S. poverty rate stand today? The same 13.2 percent, meaning more people are in poverty today than 50 years ago, despite a generation of welfare programs.

Mr. Scarborough is a national security writer who has written books on Donald Rumsfeld and the CIA, including the New York Times bestseller Rumsfeld’s War.