TODAY ON THE SUNDAY TALK SHOWS

CNN – Rand Paul: ‘We’re still heading head-long towards a debt crisis’
FOX – Sen Tom Coburn: Lawmakers will have to ‘swallow’ Gang of Six plan
NBC – Treasury Secretary Geithner: We need to raise the debt ceiling
CBS – Sen. Mark Warner: ‘We’re going to make everyone mad with our approach’
ABC – Geithner: ‘I think it would make the last crisis look like a tame, modest crisis’
CSPAN – McKeon: ‘I hope that there is a request to keep some troops’ in Iraq

---

CNN: STATE OF THE UNION

Rand Paul: ‘We’re still heading head-long towards a debt crisis’

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) discussed the ongoing debate over the budget and whether the debt ceiling should be raised. “I don’t want to keep giving an irresponsible government more money,” the Kentucky Republican said. “Somebody needs to stand up and say, ‘The Emperor has no clothes.’”Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) followed immediately after Paul saying, “The debt ceiling should be passed as clean as possible,” said Weiner. “The Republicans really have to stop playing politics with this.”
Real estate mogul and reality TV host Donald Trump joined to discuss the high price of oil, his potential presidential bid, and the perception of the U.S. abroad. “I wish I didn’t have to do it,” Trump said regarding a potential presidential bid. He said. “He said he enjoyed his life and “has a very successful show.”
“I will tell you, I am giving it serious, serious thought and I am honored by the polls,” said Trump, referring to recent polls that show him leading other potential 2012 Republican hopefuls. “You know why they know my name? It’s because of success.”

---

FOX NEWS SUNDAY

Sen Tom Coburn: Lawmakers will have to ‘swallow’ Gang of Six plan

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said he is “outraged” about a series of incidents in recent months in which air traffic controllers have fallen asleep on the job. “They have to be well-rested, and they have to be alert,” LaHood said, calling it a “personal responsibility issue.” LaHood said he will make three recommendations: that the time between shifts be increased from eight to nine hours, that managers be more available late at night and early in the morning, and that air traffic controllers no longer be allowed to stack shifts in order to have a longer weekend. He said the air traffic controllers’ union has agreed to the changes. He said he will not be allowing employees to take naps on the job, as some other countries do to encourage alertness.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said that budget proposal from the bipartisan Gang of Six, of which he is a member, won’t appeal to either side, but that they will have to “swallow” it. “What the country needs to hear from the leaders in Washington is, ‘We understand how big this problem is, and we’re willing to lose elections to do what is best for the country,’” Coburn said. “And that’s not happening now.”

---

NBC: MEET THE PRESS

Treasury Secretary Geithner: We need to raise the debt ceiling

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that Congress will have to raise the debt ceiling, even if it hasn’t yet completed work on reducing long-term deficits, which Republicans say is an essential part of getting their support for raising the limit. “If by the time we need to raise the debt limit, we haven’t worked all that out, Congress still has to raise the debt limit,” Geithner said. He said the Republicans holding the debt limit as a bargaining chip are playing a dangerous political game. “They’re going to own the responsibility for the risks that creates for the American economy,” he said. Geithner also said higher gas prices are not putting the economic recovery in danger, even though they have slowed progress.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), responding to Geithner, reinforced that long-term cuts need to be in place before he will vote to raise the debt ceiling. “That’s his opinion,” Lee said. “It doesn’t make any sense to do that. We need structural reform, reform like a balanced budget amendment.”
Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan said there should be no debt limit, since Congress and the president already set the budget and know how money it will need to be borrowing in the future.

---

CBS: FACE THE NATION

Sen. Mark Warner: ‘We’re going to make everyone mad with our approach’

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) joined to discuss his 2012 budget proposal, the debt ceiling and the president’s speech Wednesday in which he criticized Ryan’s spending plan. “Look, I could go point-by-point on all of those things, but I don’t see how productive it would be to get into a partisan bickering match with the president,” said Ryan after listening to the president’s remarks recorded during a hot-mic moment on Friday. “I think the tone needs to be set at the top,” said Ryan, going on to say that the tone should be one of “mutual respect.”
Asked about his comments on The Charlie Rose Show that he may have to move on the budget without the president, Ryan softened his position saying, “My point is that we need to lead. … If our leaders are not actually leading, that doesn’t get things done.”
Ryan dodged when asked to give a direct answer as to whether he would vote for or against raising the debt limit in a clean vote, saying that the vote would be on raising the debt limit in conjunction with spending controls.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) followed Ryan, immediately criticizing those who would consider voting against raising the debt limit: “I think it’s dangerous to kind of roll the dice on the debt limit. … This is literally potentially lighting the match that could burn down the house.” Warner, a member of the bipartisan “Gang of Six,” was asked about how the group was faring, “Bob, we’re very close,”Warner said, complementing Ryan’s plan for being “serious,” but going on to criticize it for placing a “massive responsibility on our seniors” to bring down the debt. “I think if we start with a bipartisan plan, I think there’s a whole host of folks in both parties who want to actually be for something,” Warner said. “I assure you, we’re going to make everyone mad with our approach,” he said referring to the Gang of Six proposal.
Asked about the president’s speech and whether it helped or hurt the work toward a bipartisan solution, Warner said, “I think the president laid out his vision. . .in stark contrast to representative Ryan’s vision.”

---

ABC: THIS WEEK

Geithner: ‘I think it would make the last crisis look like a tame, modest crisis’

Geithner said that the consequences of Congress not raising the debt ceiling include stopping government payments like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and veterans’ benefits and would risk defaulting on its interest payments. “If we did that, we tip the U.S. economy and the world economy back into recession, depression,” Geithner said. “I think it would make the last crisis look like a tame, modest crisis.”
In response, tea party-aligned Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) said, “I don’t believe in leadership by fear and intimidation.”

---

CSPAN: NEWSMAKERS

McKeon: ‘I hope that there is a request to keep some troops’ in Iraq

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), Armed Services Committee Chairman joined to discuss both defense spending, Iraq and the subject of women and homosexuals serving in the military.
Asked whether the troops should pull out of Iraq at the end of the year, McKeon said “I hope that there is a request to keep some troops there. … I’m not convinced that the Iraqis are totally ready” to maintain security. McKeon’s remarks come a day after House Speaker John Boehner made a surprise visit to Baghdad.
Asked about women in combat, McKeon said, “People may be talking about it, but it’s the first time it has been brought up to me.” When pressed, McKeon referred to his granddaughter who joined the National Reserves, “I can’t imagine that little blonde out there on the front lines, but that doesn’t mean that others may not be qualified. We’ve lost men and women in Afghanistan, whether they call it a combat role or not.” Asked if was leaning towards a “yes,” McKeon said, “I try to keep an open mind on things. And I don’t think that I’m the smartest person that ever walked the planet. … So I’m open to debate, hearing what other people have to say.”
Asked what he personally thought about gays serving in the military, McKeon said, “It doesn’t bother me at all. What I’m concerned about are the troops that it may bother.” McKeon went on to say that his chief concern was readiness, and that he did not believe the question as to whether having gays serve openly would create a distraction in the military and upset troop readiness had been answered sufficiently.
By Aaron Blake & Emi Kolawole

Don't we have any sane people who want to be President?

Santorum Shuns Own 2012 Slogan

 

Conservative former Sen. Rick Santorum has said he had "nothing to do" with his own campaign slogan, "Fighting to make America America again," after announcing on Wednesday that he was forming a committee for a possible presidential run. Santorum backed away from the phrase after learning that it was from a poem by Langston Hughes, an African American Communist who advocated for civil rights and social justice. Many of Hughes' poems defended gay rights, and some were homoerotic, which may explain why Santorum has disassociated himself from the slogan. In 2003, then-Senator Santorum equated homosexuality with incest. "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery," he told the Associated Press.

Read it at The Los Angeles Times

Life is not easy when you don't know about anything being done to this plant!!

Carcinogens Injected Into Wells: Report

This could damage President Obama's push for greater use of natural gas as an alternative to oil: A report issued late Saturday by Congressional Democrats has found that the process of tapping into large reserves of natural gas—known has hydraulic fracturing or "fracking"—involves injecting hazardous chemicals into wells. Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce committee said their report was the first comprehensive national inventory of chemicals used by companies that engage in the practice. The report says that between 2005 and 2009, more than a dozen leading energy companies have injected hundreds of millions of gallons of drilling fluids containing possibly carcinogenic compounds, including methanol, benzene, sulfuric acid, and lead. Some ingredients mixed into the hydraulic fracturing fluids were common and generally harmless, like salt and citric acid. Others were unexpected, like instant coffee and walnut hulls, the report added. But many ingredients were "extremely toxic."

Read it at The Wall Street Journal

Meet The Boy Genius Who Just Took Down The Online Poker Industry

Courier-Mail Americans Are Now More Addicted To Gambling Than Alcohol The FBI Seizes The Three Biggest U.S. Poker Websites

The internet is still coming to grips with the huge online gambling bust that just took down the U.S.'s three biggest online poker sites.

But Australia's Courier-Mail already has the scoop on the one man who may have single-handedly built the online industry ... then handed it to the U.S. government on a platter.

According to this story, Daniel Tzvetkoff was a young Australian entrepreneur who set up the payment processing schemes used by the biggest poker sites to handle their (mostly illegal) transactions.

He made Full Tilt Poker and Poker Stars millions of dollars — and making as much $150,000 a day for himself — but then got even more greedy and started taking them for himself.

They sued him, demanding more than $100 million of their own money back.

Then last April, Tzvetkoff was arrested in Las Vegas and charged with the same crimes those sites founders were charged with today: money laundering, bank fraud, wire fraud. As an Australian citizen with a lot of wealth, he was considered a flight risk and denied bail.

Then after a "secret" meeting with prosecutors, he was suddenly out on bail. And now, his former colleagues are the ones facing serious jail time.

Daniel Tzvetkoff knows the operations of these poker site inside and out. He's the one man positioned to give these companies to the U.S. Attorneys on a silver platter. And it looks like that's exactly what he did, cooperating with the authorities to avoid his own lengthy jail sentence.

All the major gambling prosecutions in the U.S., since Tzvetkoff's arrest have been run out of the office of Arlo Devlin-Brown, the Manhattan Asst. U.S. Attorney, who is Tzvetkoff's "handler."

According to a source, "He knows how to reverse-engineer transactions to determine its original source," making him very valuable to investigators.

And the biggest irony of all? It's been rumored that the only reason the FBI got their hands on him is because Full Tilt or Poker Stars (the companies he used to work for and stole from) tipped off the FBI that he was going to be traveling to the United States

They ratted him out ... and he turned the tables. No honor among thieves.

And as the Courier Mail put it, if this were still the old days, he'd buried in the Las Vegas desert right now.

Chaos on House floor as Democrats try to unsettle GOP budget

By Pete Kasperowicz 

The House floor erupted into a chaotic scene Friday as House Democrats tried to upset Republican plans to pass their 2012 budget resolution. 

Democrats unsettled Republicans by voting "present" in a vote on a more conservative budget than the official GOP proposal put forth by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), almost enabling that bill to pass.

In the end, it failed in a 119-136 vote, with 172 Democrats voting present. 

Several Republicans, including Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (Calif.) and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), a member of GOP leadership, switched their votes to ensure the more conservative budget backed by the Republican Study Committee did not win approval. 

The drama erupted when Democrats began to shift their votes to "present," with Democrats and Republicans alike standing to shout at one another and the presiding officer in a scene more akin to the British Parliament than the U.S. House. A majority of Republicans initially voted for the RSC bill, likely in anticipation that Democrats would oppose it. 

As the presiding officer tried to close down the vote, about a dozen more Democrats asked to switch their vote from "no" to "present," which nearly allowed the RSC bill to pass.

“Democrats, vote 'present!' ” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) shouted at his colleagues, who tried, one by one, to switch their "no" votes to "present." Ryan, the architect of the official GOP budget, shouted “Shut it down!” in an effort to close the vote and count the tally before Democrats could switch enough of their votes to advance the amendment.  

At one point, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) stood on a chair and pointed at the presiding officer to keep the vote open. 

The RSC's alternative budget resolution would cut even more deeply into spending than Ryan's bill, and was not expected to be approved by the House.

In the end, only one more Republican voted against the RSC budget than supported it, 119-120.

“Well, I thought I was paid to actually cast a vote, not just show up,” Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Texas), the chairman of the GOP conference, chuckled as he left the chamber.

Hensarling voted for the RSC budget and said he would have been fine had the Democratic maneuver worked and the GOP adopted the more conservative plan.  

A spokeswoman for Hoyer said the maneuver was his idea and that Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was aware of the plan before the vote. A second Democratic source said the plan was hashed out in a leadership meeting earlier in the week, without staff present.  

"This vote will show which budget Republicans support — the Republican budget that ends Medicare as we know it and cuts investments while giving tax breaks to the wealthiest, or the extreme RSC budget that is the GOP budget on steroids: ending Medicare as we know it and going even further in decimating investments in our future," a whip notice from Hoyer's office said. "With Democrats voting present, Republicans are solely responsible for passage or failure of the RSC budget."

But Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said the plan to have members switch their votes was apparently concocted by Hoyer on the floor.

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) said if the plan had succeeded, Republicans would have moved Ryan's budget resolution as a substitute amendment.

The Republican whip, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), laughed at the Democratic maneuver. Of the 'present' votes, he told The Hill, "I guess they learned that from Obama in the Senate."

Earlier, the House also rejected a budget plan from the Progressive Caucus, in a 77-347 vote with no support from Republicans. A proposal from the Congressional Black Caucus was defeated in a 103-303 vote, again with no Republican support.

Democrats' Disgust With ObamaThe budget deal, angrily rejected by Nancy Pelosi as it passed Thursday, was the last straw. Patricia Murphy on why some liberals are now pushing for a primary challenge to the president.

As President Obama headed to Chicago Thursday afternoon to kick off the first official fundraiser of his re-election campaign, he left behind a sizable collection of dispirited Democrats.
Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP Photo
They were not relishing the chance to vote on a budget-cutting bill that had been forged without their input and that most found repugnant.

The compromise that Obama struck last week with House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to keep the federal government running contained steep cuts to some of the party’s most cherished programs—nutrition for poor women and children, long-stalled transportation projects, funding for community health centers—as well as language barring the District of Columbia from using its own tax dollars to finance abortions.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, warned that the $38 billion in promised cutbacks would hurt the most vulnerable Americans. “We don’t have enough time to talk about the ways it violates our values,” he told The Daily Beast.

There is no more visible symbol of Democratic disgruntlement than the woman who was perhaps the president’s closest ally when she wielded the speaker’s gavel. When Nancy Pelosi voted against the budget measure Thursday, she did little to hide her anger with the White House over the fact that Obama, for the first time, had left her out of the negotiations on a major deal. Instead, he chose to work directly with Boehner and Reid to hammer out the compromise that each could take back to their caucuses for approval.

“I have been very disappointed in the administration to the point where I’m embarrassed that I endorsed him,” one senior Democratic lawmaker said. “It’s so bad that some of us are thinking, is there some way we can replace him? How do you get rid of this guy?”

“I feel no ownership of that or responsibility to it, except to say we don’t want to shut down the government,” the minority leader said. “As was pretty evident, House Democrats were not a part of that agreement.”

Pelosi sounded miffed by the enhanced status that Obama granted Boehner and Reid. “They were the ones that had the votes, so they had the strength to negotiate and the president presided over that,” she said. (Eighty-one House Democrats voted for the measure, more than offsetting defections by 59 of Boehner’s Republicans.)

For many Democrats, the budget bill was only the latest in a string of disappointments served up from the White House since 2009, when Obama swept into office on a tide of goodwill and a platform of base-pleasing promises they say he hasn’t lived up to. On the list are his pledges to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, pass comprehensive immigration reform, and end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

In 2008, for example, Obama promised Latino groups that he would pass comprehensive reform within a year of taking office. But he made no serious push to do so when the Democrats controlled the House and Senate. Latinos are further incensed over the fact that his administration is deporting a record number of illegal immigrants, more than under George W. Bush.

In protest, Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez launched a cross-country tour, complete with a stop in Chicago on Saturday, to urge the administration to make its enforcement more compassionate. “I have made no secret of the fact that I think the president can do more to keep families together and that the focus of changes this year needs to be administrative and procedural because legislation is very unlikely,” Gutierrez said Thursday.
Some legislative grumbling is inevitable when a party returns to power after eight years. But a number of Democrats are past protesting the president, discussing among themselves ways to recruit a primary challenger in 2012.

“I have been very disappointed in the administration to the point where I’m embarrassed that I endorsed him,” one senior Democratic lawmaker said. “It’s so bad that some of us are thinking, is there some way we can replace him? How do you get rid of this guy?” The member, who would discuss the strategy only on the condition of anonymity, called the discontent with Obama among the caucus “widespread,” adding: “Nobody is saying [they want him out] publicly, but a lot of people wish it could be so. Never say never.”

A serious challenge still seems unlikely. One Democrat who has repeatedly criticized Obama but won’t oppose him next year is Dennis Kucinich, the liberal Democrat from Ohio who ran for president in 2008 and reiterated Thursday that he won’t be making another run in 2012.

Kucinich said he disagrees strongly with Obama’s policies on Iraq, Afghanistan, civil liberties, and the budget, but added that even Obama could not live up to the expectations House Democrats had for him when he came into office. Instead, he made clear that the president may no longer be able to take his Hill allies for granted.

“Congressional Democrats are going to have to reassert themselves,” Kucinich said. “Instead of waiting for direction from the White House, we’re going to have to give direction to the White House.”

Patricia Murphy is a writer in Washington, D.C., where she covers Congress and politics. She is a graduate of Vanderbilt University and the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism.

20 Most Dangerous Jobs

 Police officers and firefighters are everyday heroes, but it may be time to recognize farmers and fishermen, as well. The Daily Beast once again examines the figures to find out the riskiest jobs in America.

 

This month, a firefighter in D.C. suffered life-threatening burns while extinguishing a house fire. Last Thursday, David Hunsinger Jr., a firefighter in Bladen County North Carolina, died on his way to answer an emergency call. And in March, a Cleveland firefighter suffered a heart attack in the line of duty.

During the last year for which data are available, a total of 39 firefighters died while on-the-job, a fatality rate of 4.4 per 100,000 workers. There are 3.3 deaths per 100,000 full-time workers for the average occupation in the U.S., but for most occupations, the greatest occupational hazard is literally getting to work.

Fishermen must deal with the prospect of becoming lost at sea or falling overboard; farmers face heavy-equipment accidents; roofers are always a fall away from death.

Gallery: 20 Most Dangerous Jobs

To find out which jobs are the most dangerous, posing the greatest risk of injury or death, The Daily Beast combed occupational statistics for more than 100 jobs. As with last year’s list, incidence rates of injury and death were weighted equally.

Rate of injuries are based on the incidence rate [PDF] and number of nonfatal occupation injuries for 2009 and fatality rates [PDF] are based on fatal occupation injuries per full-time equivalent workers. Salary and employment figures are based on average estimates from 2009. All data are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

ANOTER REASON THE JUDGE SHOULD THROW THE SINGLE GUILTY BY BONDS JURY! This guy's answer is Bull----, too! How non of the female jurors have spoken?

Bonds convicted for his "BS answer," juror says

Homerun king "gave a b------- answer" to the grand jury, foreman says of Bonds' conviction on obstruction charge

SAN FRANCISCO - Barry Bonds was convicted Wednesday on a single count of obstruction of justice. Here is what that means:

The federal jury was told in its instructions to find the slugger guilty of obstruction if any one of seven specific statements he made in 2003 to a grand jury investigating sports doping was "evasive, false, or misleading" and if Bonds knowingly made the statement to keep the grand jury from accomplishing its task. In other words, the jury was asked to figure out if Bonds lied in an attempt to obstruct the grand jury.


In the end, the jury deadlocked on whether Bonds was obstructing justice on six of the statements.

The statement that triggered Bonds' conviction came from an exchange with prosecutors that started with a question about performance-enhancing drugs, needles and Bonds' relationship with his childhood friend and personal trainer, Greg Anderson.


Bonds guilty of obstruction, jury hung on others

This is the statement jurors were given:

"Q: Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?

Bonds: I've only had one doctor touch me. And that's my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don't get into each others' personal lives. We're friends, but I don't — we don't sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don't want — don't come to my house talking baseball. If you want to come to my house and talk about fishing, some other stuff, we'll be good friends, you come around talking about baseball, you go on. I don't talk about his business. You know what I mean? ...

Q: Right.


A: That's what keeps our friendship. You know, I am sorry, but that — you know, that — I was a celebrity child, not just in baseball by my own instincts. I became a celebrity child with a famous father. I just don't get into other people's business because of my father's situation, you see ..."

Jurors were only supposed to make their decision based on the second answer, the one beginning "That's what keeps ..."

However, it seemed after the verdict on Wednesday that they looked at the whole exchange. The foreman of the jury, who said his first name was Fred, repeatedly used an expletive to describe Bonds' answer to the question from the prosecutors.

"When you're in front of a grand jury you have to answer, and he gave a b------- answer. It was a b------- answer," Fred said. "He gave a story rather than a yes or no answer."

Why The Barry Bonds Verdict Should Be Thrown Out

BARRY BONDS: GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Our initial reaction upon hearing the Barry Bonds verdict was: "How can you obstruct justice without actually lying?"

The answer is, you can't. And at least one legal expert agrees that his conviction should be thrown out for that reason.

Barry Bonds was on trial because prosecutors believed that he lied in front of the grand jury investigating BALCO, a drug supplier that Bonds was associated with. He was brought to trial on four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice.

In order to prove that he obstructed justice, prosecutors essentially had to prove that he lied to them in front that grand jury. But one of the counts of perjury was dropped before the trial ended and the jury could not agree on the other three. (On two of the counts, the jury was actually leaning toward acquittal.)

In other words, the government did not prove that he lied.

The obstruction count included the phrase "evasive and misleading," which is why the jury eventually found him guilty. But being evasive and misleading isn't really a crime. Under oath, you're required to tell the truth, but you aren't required to be helpful. If the prosecutors didn't like his answers, they should have asked better questions.

Bonds was not the target of the original grand jury -

 (He was actually offered immunity in exchange for his testimony.)

 Five BALCO associates were either convicted or plead guilty as result of that case, so it's hard to argue that Bonds' evasiveness "obstructed" any justice.

On May 20, at the next hearing in this case, Bonds' defense team will argue that very fact.

 They will say that the jury's verdict on the Count 5 can't hold up if they didn't convict on the perjury charges.

(The fact that they were 11-1 to convict on Count 2, means his escape was very narrow, but still an escape.) They will ask the judge to set the verdict aside and let their client go free.

And ESPN's legal analyst Roger Cossack says if he was the judge, he would agree.

The conviction should be thrown out.

This case was all about lying and the government didn't make its case.

Economism and Economites

The theory that people’s lives are principally focused on “production, exchange, and consumption.”

Writing for The New American, Isabel Lyman listed a number of things that might indicate you are an “economite” including, subscribing to Forbes magazine, or forgoing “family time to work to afford more expensive gadgets, clothes, and trips”:

The term “economite” was coined by John Attarian in his book, “Economism and the National Prospect.” In a brisk 72 pages, Attarian, who earned a doctorate in economics from the University of Michigan, provides plausible answers to the troubling questions that currently preoccupy many thoughtful Americans:

“What has happened to this great nation?

Where are we headed as a people?

Who’s taking us down this road to destruction?

Why do so many seem to be oblivious to the danger?”

Attarian places the blame squarely on the worldview he calls “economism” and its adherents, the “economites.”

Economism incorporates the belief that men and women are primarily economic beings, focused mainly on “production, exchange, and consumption.

Indeed, economism tries to explain virtually all human motivation and action by economics. ”