Sometimes when I reflect back on all the wine I drink I feel shame. Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the vineyards and all of their hopes and dreams .. If I didn't drink this wine, they might be out of work and their dreams would be shattered. Then I say to myself, "It is better that I drink this wine and let their dreams come true than be selfish and worry about my liver."
~ Jack Handy
"Without question, the greatest invention in the history of mankind is beer. Oh, I grant you that the wheel was also a fine invention, but the wheel does not go nearly as well with pizza."
~ Dave Barry
I did not read the op ed by Jeb Bush until late last night after I had sent out yesterday's memo and this morning I received an e mail from a fellow memo reader with the article attached and his own interesting comments as follows: "One of the oft-repeated Big Lies about Republicans is that they are in cahoots with big business (while Democrats are looking out for the little guy). It not only reveals a lack of understanding about Republicans, but more importantly about big business. Big business is as apolitical as it can be. They give gobs of money to candidates in both parties because they seek favors from whoever has power. While they don’t discriminate between Republicans and Democrats, the fundamental difference between the parties makes the Democrats much more useful to big business.
Democrats wish to increase the power of government and expand the control of government, making them a natural fit for big business, which has the economic power to influence legislation (Congress) and regulation (White House). Democrats and big business are both highly motivated to deal with each other and reach mutually-beneficial outcomes. Republicans seek smaller government and free markets; they want to create conditions that encourage small businesses to expand, often at the expense of big business.
The piece below makes starkly clear the difference between Republicans’ free-market approach and Democrats’ statist control. If you’re still not clear about the unholy alliance between big business and Democrats’ big government, read Reckless Endangerment by New York Times reporter Gretchen Morgenson." (See 1 below.)
---
The following was sent to me by another dear friend, fellow memo reader and staunch member of The Republican Jewish Coalition. An organization I joined early on when we could hardly fill a telephone booth, as it were: "The following editorial was written by Mychal Massie, who is chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives. It is blunt, to-the-point, and expresses thoughts many have entertained but few have articulated for fear of the "racist" label."
I posted this once before, I believe, but in view of what is happening it certainly deserves re-posting.
Massie's referral to the phrase "Nigger Rich" strikes a responsive chord because I grew up in Birmingham. Consequently, I saw first hand the deprivation caused by segregation. Its effect has never left my psyche but it also helped me understand the impact on and shaping of black cultural behaviour.
When you cannot spend your hard earned pitiful wages as others, you seek to do so in ways that send signals, ie. you buy Cadillacs because you can't live where your economics would permit. You buy fancy clothes and flashy jewelry because you can't pay for a first class education since you are deprived of attending those schools. (Lamentably, when you can, far too often, many resent those who take advantage of the new opportunity and resort to calling those who do "Uncle Toms." Former Sec. of State Rice, comes to mind as a victim among her own race.)
Eventually many lost faith in their minister's conservative church message of better days. They, all too often, turned to ministers preaching resentment sermons, and why not after the assassination of MLK - one of my early heroes. These patterns can become cultural and can manifest in subtle patterns. One prominent one is getting back at "whitey." Natural and understandable yes. But also ultimately destructive.
Dependency on and working in government became a practical way for black citizens to achieve employment. Working for the government was also a way to insure you have say and control over the future direction of how equity is dispensed. Furthermore, government was also the institution most willing to hire black citizens. Today blacks represent a disproportionate number of government employees to their population as a whole and this is equally true in terms of the military among the non-commissioned officer corps.
Fortunately, economic and social circumstances have changed and all for the better. However, resentment lingers and its impact on black cultural attitudes remains in many instances because full acceptance into a color blind society is not yet a reality. Prejudice does not die quietly or easily. It is part of the human condition. Being Jewish, I can attest to that fact. This is why I believe intermarriage will go a long way towards resolving the last vestiges of unacceptability. People are people and virtually all have the same desires, needs and goals.
I believe Obama is a trained prodigy of the consequences of resentment thinking and I believe this is why he pursues the unachievable goal of 'fairness' even in the face of economic disaster. I also believe Massie is right in his assessment and this is why we are paying a very heavy price for Obama's subliminal thinking and misshapen cultural background and this is why we desperately need to defeat him. (See 2 below.)
---
As with all forecaster Bob Prechter has been right and has been wrong.
Personally I believe Prechter is correct in pointing out and saying what I have been attempting to say. I also believe he fails to give sufficient credit to the possibility that our political system can change and thus things could be turned around. Not soon but sooner than he might believe.
America is a nation whose economic system rests upon a foundation whereby free citizens have the ability to engages and can force change. For this to happen they must be informed and become active. This is what The Tea Partyers are mostly about.
Capitalism, a large and mostly productive work force, favorable geography and extensive natural resources made us the greatest nation in the world. Unbridled Capitalism, excessive unionism and a barnacled political system beholden to special interests brought us down. Time will tell whether we can recover. I believe we can and will but agree it will neither be easy nor quick in coming. You decide! (See 3 below.)
---
One more brazen self serving insensitive intrusion by our narcissistic president. (See 4 below.)
And a retired Marine Col says it is 3AM and while two others discuss our leadership vacuum.(See 4a, 4b and 4c below.)
------
Assad responds to Turkey's subtle threat. (See 5 below.)
---
Obama goes to Michigan and tries to convince those who still listen to him that he is not part of the political process and that, once again, it is someone elses fault for not compromising with him. In this case, you guessed it, its those nasty, mean spirited uncompromising Republicans.
Obama then took off for two fund raisers with the fat cats he criticizes but apparently needs their money so, as a re-elected president, he can keep attacking them . (See 6 below.)
---.
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) A New Strategy for Economic Growth
Growth is not just about economics. Growth unleashes human potential.
By KEVIN WARSH AND JEB BUSH
As the economy continues to struggle, we are reminded of a course offered at Yale University titled "Grand Strategy." Drawing on a weighty curriculum of history and philosophy, the course seeks to train future policy makers to tackle the complex challenges of statecraft in a comprehensive, systematic way. Clearly, U.S. economic policy is sorely lacking an effective grand strategy, and we are likely to endure high unemployment, weak economic performance and trying financial markets until such a strategy is articulated and pursued.
Policy makers should cease the barrage of ad hoc, short-term policy initiatives. Is increased federal spending across government agencies a grand strategy? How about checks in the mail to spur spending? Cash for clunkers to move auto inventories? Fast trains and faster Internet? Mortgage modification programs and fleeting tax credits to re-stoke home ownership?
Inducing consumers to do today what they would otherwise do tomorrow is hardly a grand strategy. Hundreds of billions in "stimulus" spending has stimulated little but more debt. Forty-eight months have passed since the onset of the financial crisis, 26 months since the recession technically ended. Yet job creation remains remarkably weak, and markets deeply uneasy.
We can't go on like this.
The debt-limit debate caused policy makers to recognize what citizens already knew: We must put our fiscal house in order. Cutting spending is essential. But we will never cut our way to prosperity.
So, what should be the economic grand strategy? In a word: growth.
Stability has replaced growth as the foremost objective of economic policy. But growth over the next 10 years is more consequential to our well-being than any new regulations promulgated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council or cost-cutting considered by the new congressional super committee. Absent strong growth, any projected improvements in the country's fiscal position won't materialize.
The grand strategy is sector-neutral. It doesn't have favored industries or political parties. It does not seek to curry favor with special interests. The grand strategy fights statism everywhere.
The grand strategy goes out of its way to ensure that big companies are not advantaged at the expense of smaller, entrepreneurial competitors. If banks are "too big to fail," they are too big. They must be allowed to succeed or fail on their own merit, without any hint of government support. The failed behemoths at the core of housing finance, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, should be wound down. Robust, dynamic competition is a far better way to allocate credit.
The grand strategy need not—and should not—be grandiose. It should avoid overpromising. Fiscal and monetary policies can help mitigate the effects of shocks to the economy, but they run grave risks if their goal is to target asset prices. When investors' perceptions of Treasury securities change rapidly, they tend to be far less sure about the price of riskier assets, like stocks. The resulting volatility in financial markets harms growth.
A pro-growth strategy is decidedly long term in orientation. It aims for higher standards of living five, 10 and 20 years out, long past the next election cycle. It replaces the false promise made to the next generation of entitlement-program recipients with a solvent, dependable model that encourages work and savings. Reforming Social Security before costs multiply and uncertainties spread is both fairer and more growth-oriented. And enacting consumer-driven health-care policies represents the best way to control costs and improve patient care.
An effective growth strategy confronts tough challenges before they become intractable. The strategy is a threat to those who take refuge in our burdensome tax code, and it is a great source of encouragement to those who seek higher rates of return on physical and human capital. Hence, fundamental tax reform—dramatically lowering tax rates for individuals and companies while eliminating loopholes, deductions and credits—is critical to economic growth.
Achieving strong growth requires the free flow of capital, goods and ideas. We have world-class products and services to sell to the growing middle class in emerging markets. We must find our voice to resist the rising tide of economic protectionism and recognize the job-creating benefits of our pending free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama.
The growth strategy also demands an abiding respect for the rule of law, and stable, cost-effective rules of the road from regulators. A constantly changing regulatory regime kills investment and limits economic growth. The strategy also demands investing in our own natural resources, such as shale gas and the commensurate infrastructure to re-industrialize our country, creating jobs here in the U.S. rather than shipping hundreds of billions of dollars abroad.
Finally it means ensuring that the opportunities presented by a growing economy are matched by the skills of the next generation. We need to transform our education system through higher standards, merit-based teacher compensation and school choice. No grand strategy will prevail unless far more of our high-school graduates are college or career ready.
Stronger economic growth is not just about economics. Growth unleashes human potential. It turns personal aspirations into positive achievements. And it lays the predicate for a better, stronger, more prosperous and opportunity-filled America. Our weak economic recovery has dashed the hopes and dimmed the prospects of too many of our citizens. And it has put America's place in the world at risk.
We should resist the temptation to wrangle with the green eyeshade folks who question our prospects. Instead, we must take actions that demonstrate our resolve and resiliency. We must restore our faith in growth economics and reform our policies accordingly. This will bring strength to our markets and reaffirm our place in the world.
Mr. Warsh, a former Federal Reserve governor, is a distinguished visiting fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Mr. Bush, governor of Florida from 1999-2007, is president of Jeb Bush and Associates, LLC.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Is Obama Unraveling?
By Mychal Massie
At a time when many Americans can barely afford Burger King and a movie,
Obama boasts of spending a billion dollars on his re-election campaign.
Questioned at a recent appearance about the spiraling fuel costs, Obama
said, "Get used to it" – and with an insouciant grin and chortle, he
told another person at the event, who complained about the effect high
fuel prices were having on his family, to "get a more fuel-efficient
car."
The Obamas behave as if they were sharecroppers living in a trailer
and hit the Powerball, but instead of getting new tires for their
trailer and a new pickup truck, they moved to Washington. And instead of
making possum pie, with goats and chickens in the front yard, they're
spending and living large at taxpayer expense – opulent vacations, gala balls, resplendent dinners and exclusive command performances at the White House, grand date nights, golf, basketball, more golf, exclusive resorts and still more
golf. In the 1950's they called it acting (NIGGER RICH.)
Expensive, ill-fitting and ill-chosen wigs and fashions hardly befit
the first lady of the United States. The Obamas have behaved in every
way but presidential – which is why it's so offensive when we hear Obama
say, in order "to restore fiscal responsibility, we all need to share
in the sacrifice – but we don't have to sacrifice the America we believe
in."
The American people have been sacrificing; it is he and his family
who are behaving as if they've never had two nickels to rub together –
and now, having hit the mother lode, they're going to spend away their
feelings of inadequacy at the taxpayers' expense.
Obama continues to exhibit behavior that, at best, can be described as mobocratic and, at worst, reveals a deeply damaged individual. In a February 2010 column, I asked, "Is Obama unraveling?" I wrote that it was beginning to appear the growing mistrust of him and contempt for his policies was beginning to have a destabilizing effect on him.
At that time, I wrote that not having things go one's way can be a
bitter pill, but reasonable people don't behave as he was behaving. He
had insulted Republicans at their luncheon, where he had been an invited
guest. I had speculated that was, in part, what had led him to falsely
accuse Supreme Court justices before Congress, the nation and the world, during the 2010 State of the Union address.
It appeared, at that time, as if he were "fraying around the emotional edges." That behavior has not abated – it has become more pronounced. While addressing the nation, after being forced to explain the validity of his unilateral aggression with Libya, America witnessed a petulant individual scowling and scolding the public for
daring to insist he explain his actions.
But during an afternoon speech to address the budget/debt, he took his scornful, unstable despotic behavior to depths that should give the nation cause for concern. Displaying a dark psychopathy more representative of an episode of "The Tudors" television series, he invited Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to sit in the front row during his speech and then proceeded to berate both Ryan and Ryan's budget-cutting
plan. Even liberal Democrats were put off by the act. MSNBC's Joe
Scarborough questionedthe sanity of Obama's actions.
Today, criticism is coming from all sides. A senior Democrat lawmaker said, "I have been very disappointed in [Obama], to the point where I'm embarrassed that I endorsed him. It's so bad that some of us are thinking, is there some way we canreplace him? How do you get rid of this guy?" ("Democrats' Disgust with Obama," The Daily Beast, April 15, 2011)
Steve McCann wrote: Obama's speech "was chock full of lies, deceit and crass fear-mongering. It must be said that [he] is the most dishonest, deceitful and mendacious person in a position of power I have ever witnessed" ("The Mendacity of Barack Obama," AmericanThinker.com, April 15, 2011).
McCann continued: "[His] performance was the culmination of four years of outright lies and narcissism that have been largely ignored by the media, including some in the conservative press and political class who are loath to call [him] what he is in the bluntest of terms: a liar and a fraud. That he relies on his skin color to intimidate, either outright or by insinuation [against] those who oppose his radical agenda only add to his audacity. It is apparent that he has gotten away with his character flaws his entire life, aided and abetted by sycophants around him. ..."
With these being among the kinder rebukes being directed at Obama, and with people becoming less intimidated by his willingness to use raceas a bludgeon, with falling poll numbers in every meaningful category and an increasingly aggressive tea-party opposition – how much longer before he cracks completely?
The coming months of political life are not going to be pleasant for Obama. Possessed by a self-perceived palatine mindset, that in his mindplaces him above criticism, how longbefore he cracks in public? Can America risk a man with a documented track record of lying and misrepresenting truth as a basic way of life, who is becoming increasingly more contumelious?
Mychal Massie is chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black
Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in
Washington, D.C. He was recognized as the 2008 Conservative Man of the
Year by the Conservative Party of Suffolk County, N.Y. He is a
nationally recognized political activist, pundit and columnist. He has
appeared on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, NBC, Comcast Cable and
talk radio programming nationwide. A former self-employed business
owner of more than 30 years, Massie can be followed at mychal-massie.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)Prechter: We're In a Depression That Will Last for Years
By Forrest Jones
The United States isn’t merely double-dipping back into recession, but worse — it's in the early stages of a depression that will strangle the economy possibly for years to come, says Robert Prechter, president of Elliott Wave International.
That means investors need to stock up on cash and other funds whose strategy is to succeed in a bear market, Prechter says.
Excessive debt burdens will take years to shake off, and the problem is that many economists underestimate how long a debt-saddled contraction can last, especially when negative social moods hamper economic activity even more.
"Some people are talking that maybe we'll have a double dip like 1980 to 1982, but I've been saying all along that this is the wrong perspective. You have to realize that we are in a depression," Prechter told CNBC.
"We're in the early stages, so we don't have the severe unemployment, the severe bread lines and that sort of thing. But since we are early in the trend, this is the kind of thing that the market is now beginning to look ahead and realize that the problem is deeper than just a minor recovery or a mild recession," he adds.
That doesn't mean investors need to run to the hills in panic and prepare for the end of days.
It means they should prepare for a bear market to last for about five years and look for opportunities in such a scenario.
"For most people, I've been recommending to stay in cash. Because I think we're going to have one of the greatest buying opportunities of all time coming up," Prechter told CNBC.
"It's as if we are in 1973 or in 1930, one of those years where there's a lot of downside coming but if you have cash and you don't sit there fully invested all the way, you're going to have a great opportunity. The other opportunity is there are some nice bear funds out there."
Others agree that clouds continue to darken and build on the U.S. economic horizon.
Jim Rogers, famous for his bullish stance on commodities, says the U.S. will end up in defaulting in some shape or form and suffer a financial Armageddon.
"I don’t think we ever left the first recession, this is one long period of economic difficulty and America is going to pay the price for all of these mistakes," Rogers tells Newsmax.TV.
The economy can one day be repaired; Mexico, South Korea and Russia have gone through similar crises and came out alive, although it will be a painful recovery since the U.S. in particular has gone from being the world's largest creditor to the largest debtor.
"We’ve made some terrible mistakes in the past 40 or 50 years," Rogers says.
"You don’t just wake up one day and say okay that’s over, that’s fine, let’s move on to the next thing. We are going to have to take some pain, admit our mistakes, have some bankruptcies, cut spending with a chainsaw at the government level. It’s not going to be fun. The more we put it off, the worse it gets," Rogers adds.
© Moneynews. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Obama's Undignified Transparency
By Jeannie DeAngelis
If the American people were doubtful about the manipulative nature of Barack Obama, his undignified behavior at the "dignified transfer" of the remains of 30 American troops killed by Taliban insurgents in the worst single loss of life in 10 years of the Afghan war should extinguish any remaining doubt. It's confirmed -- Barack Obama is willing to disrespect the families of dead war heroes if doing so assists in his desperate bid for reelection.
After the tragedy in the "forested peaks" of Wardak Province, 60 miles southwest of Kabul, Pentagon officials had said that because 19 families of the deceased 30 soldiers objected to media coverage of the remains coming off a plane at Dover Air Force Base, no images would be taken. The Pentagon was so emphatic about the sensitive nature of the event, they even "rejected media requests to take photos that showed officials at the ceremony but did not depict caskets."
Doug Wilson, head of public affairs at the Pentagon, said that not even the photographers who generally accompany the Defense Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were permitted to attend. The Pentagon was committed to fully respecting the wishes of the fallen soldiers' families; they deferred to the bereaved and refrained from chronicling the event with official photos of the solemn occasion.
Ordinarily, if 11 out of 30 families didn't mind having the flag-draped caskets photographed, they could be, after which they'd be "ushered away" before the remains of any troops whose families were too devastated to want to be a public spectacle were unloaded from the plane.
The difference in this case was that when the nearly three dozen soldiers, 21 of whom were DevGru SEAL members, arrived from overseas, prior to being formally identified by Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations, "any given case could contain the remains of troops whose families did not want coverage." So taking pictures was strictly prohibited.
What the Pentagon didn't anticipate was the President's falling poll numbers putting him in dire need of a good saluting-dead-soldiers photo op.
Unbeknownst to those caught up in that heartrending moment, a White House photographer accompanied the President to the ceremony -- incognito. By that night, "an official White House photo of a saluting Obama was distributed to news media and published widely. It also was posted on the White House website as the 'Photo of the Day."
Don Wilson said he "did not know the White House photographer was present and had no idea a photo of the event was being released until it became public."
The snapshot portrayed "Obama and other officials in silhouette and did not depict [the] caskets." In an attempt to give Barack Obama the stature he lacks as a leader, the photo was shot against a gray sky, under the wing of an aircraft, outlining a saluting President from behind, standing ramrod straight, two heads above four other men whose hands were over their hearts.
The issue here is not whether Obama was saluting or not; it's that the President's unrelenting quest for attention was the sole reason that the crushed parents, brokenhearted wives, and confused children whose loved ones' bodies were rolled off a cargo plane into a concrete hanger were denied the simple request for a private moment of grief.
After the Navy SEALS successfully carried out Operation Neptune Spear and sent Osama bin Laden on a one-way journey to 72 Virginsville, the soldiers were uneasy about confidentiality and the details that were slowly leaked. The concern was how exposing the identities of the covert team could potentially impact the safety of the SEALs' families.
Now, upon the deaths of 21 of those Seal Team Six members, the President's narcissistic self-absorption has usurped honoring the express wishes of men lying silent within metal tombs who asked nothing from the country they died defending except that above all, family comes first.
Ironically, in March 2009, the Obama administration chose to reverse an 18-year-old moratorium, renewed by George W. Bush, that banned photographing the caskets of US soldiers returning home from war. The newly-enacted Pentagon policy specified that, upon notification of a loved one's death, the "primary next of kin" has the right to make the "family decision regarding media access to dignified transfers at Dover."
By toting along a photojournalist to an event that banned photographs, Barack Obama, the man who approved the "primary next of kin" policy, decided once again to exempt himself from a rule he made for others. The President chose to disregard the wishes of 19 military families and violated a stipulation that was included with his authorization.
When asked about the picture, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that it was "carefully taken so that it did not show the cases containing remains." Which really means: We knew the families were against media coverage but the President made an executive decision to secretly attempt a tactful photo op.
Carney should have stopped there, but he kept on explaining - "In this case, the White House released the photo, in the interests of transparency, so that the American people could have as much insight as possible into this historic and sobering event." The President is so wary that he didn't even invite the press to his transparency award ceremony. The most opaque, non-transparent presidency in the history of the nation decided to be transparent on the one occasion when total discretion was of the essence.
If President Barack Obama wants to be transparent, maybe instead of invading the homecoming of dead war heroes with a hidden camera he could start with a more benign effort like releasing his college transcripts and following his own rules.
4a)Mr. President, It's 3AM!
By Frank Ryan
During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-candidate Hilary Clinton ridiculed Barack Obama's inexperience with the famous ad asking who you wanted to answer the phone during a crisis at 3AM.
Today, it is apparent that our nation desperately needs someone with experience, decisiveness, and leadership to navigate these troubled economic waters.
Efforts to blame Secretary Geithner and demand his resignation are misplaced. While the secretary is not blameless, responsibility for this crisis rests with the congressional leadership in the 1990s that led to the efforts to make home ownership a national right and not a concurrent responsibility. Blame is due for failing to address critical funding issues with Social Security and Medicare which pose an equally similar risk to our economy. Blame lies in so many areas.
Blame at 3AM is not the issue. The issue in time of crisis is the response and only the response.
Thus far, our nation's response has been to increase the debt ceiling and provide a tepid response to critical spending issues.
It's now 3AM and the world is wondering who is going to answer the phone.
The experienced leader must be willing to sacrifice his or her current position to make tough decisions, to be decisive, and to provide strong leadership during the crisis.
In the case of Ford Motor Company which was hemorrhaging cash, Bill Ford was, in 2006, chairman, CEO, COO, and president. When asked what he needed, Bill Ford replied, "I really don't much care. What I want is the right person."
The right person was Alan Mulally, but it was also Bill Ford. Alan Mulally was the right person because he was decisive. He was a leader. He worked with the UAW, with the dealers, with suppliers, and with customers to transform a dying company in a dying industry.
Bill Ford was the right person as well. The leadership of knowing when someone else was needed is powerful. Ford placed his ego aside and did the right thing at the right time for the right reasons.
IBM faced a similar crisis in 1992. In an equally brilliant move, IBM hired Lou Gerstner, Jr. to turn around "an elephant." IBM was bleeding cash. Gerstner, in his book Who Says Elephants Can't Dance?, describes his first priority as restoring solvency to IBM.
Ford and IBM stand as but two examples of leadership, decisive and deliberate, that saved two mature companies from extinction.
In much the same way, our federal government needs such an historic decision to remain solvent.
Temporary fixes and blaming S&P are pure nonsense. The blame game must stop and decisive action must be taken.
The cure to fiscal irresponsibility is incredibly simple but it is equally incredibly tough.
In a turnaround, pleasing everyone is impossible. Everyone must feel the pain. Everyone will share in the gain.
Popularity cannot be the objective for the turnaround to be effective and permanent.
In the turnaround, many people will often deny that there is a problem. The naysayers will demonize anyone who attempts to stop their spending spree. In reality, in a troubled organization, someone other than the company will eventually call the shots.
In much the same way as the European Union is dictating to Greece, the buyers of our nation's debt will shortly dictate to us what they will and will not accept. President Obama has yet to realize that it is no longer his decision. He has abdicated his power but is not yet aware of what he has happened to his presidency and our Nation.
Our crisis will come when interest rates go higher, deficits increase to fund interest costs, and program cuts become mandated by lack of funds. Those days are coming.
Now is the time for decisive leadership from our president. A great leader is willing to make very tough decisions. It is time to tell the world that we understand the severity of our crisis and that we are willing to do what is needed to save the nation from financial disaster.
In reality, the president has but two choices. Either answer the phone or resign!
If the president decides to answer the phone during this time of crisis, he must be prepared to make very tough choices. He must be willing to sacrifice reelection for the good of the nation. He must be a diplomat. He must place service before self and principle before politics.
Mr. President, it is 3AM. Answer the phone.
Frank Ryan, CPA, a retired colonel in the Marine Corps Reserves, specializes in corporate restructuring and lectures on ethics for the state CPA societies. He is on numerous humanitarian boards and corporate boards of directors.
4b)A Leaderless Nation
By Peter Heck
It's a well-known political axiom that presidents will often be credited with accomplishments they did not earn and be criticized for failures that were out of their control. But just as often, particularly in our modern era where we have -- against the wise counsel of our Founders -- consolidated more and more power in the hands of our federal executive, presidents own the failures that happen on their watch. The disastrous and nationally humiliating downgrade of our country's credit rating was not an inevitable consequence of uncontrollable misfortune. It wasn't the result of gridlock or political wrangling between two parties that have bickered over our national debt and credit since the days of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. It was a remarkable failure of leadership by the man chosen to be the country's economic caretaker.
For a full three days following the unprecedented embarrassment, the leader of the free world remained silent. Perhaps he was recovering from an exhausting, multi-day birthday bash and political fundraiser that he threw for himself in two separate cities. Or maybe his delay was to give his senior staff time to come up with more meaningless platitudes that he could dispassionately read from the TelePrompter, ostensibly to reassure a panicked nation. But as the president nonchalantly waltzed out to his podium 53 minutes (and 3 days) late, the disquieting sensation had already begun to settle in on even his most ardent supporters: Obama is simply not up to this job.
The substance of his press conference did little to change that increasingly obvious conclusion. Once again, the man who once campaigned as a visionary of the future retreated behind his now comedic refrain: it's all Bush's fault. Don't misunderstand: no one would disagree with Obama that the need to reduce our deficit "was true the day [he] took office." But why this argument falls flat is because far from reducing the Bush deficits, when it comes to spending more money than we're taking in, President Obama has outpaced Bush by a jaw-dropping trillion dollars a year. Or consider this staggering reality: "In just four days last week, President Barack Obama's administration increased the national debt by more in inflation-adjusted dollars than the administrations of Presidents Truman and Eisenhower increased the national debt over the entire decade of the 1950s." This kind of runaway spending makes George Bush look like a penny-pincher.
Perhaps realizing that pointing his finger at his predecessor wasn't going to cut it, President Obama also dispatched his underlings to start spreading the deranged talking point that this is a "Tea Party downgrade." Let's see if I understand...the only group of people in the country who have, for the last two years, been warning of the need to make drastic spending cuts to avoid a catastrophe like this are responsible for the fact that our political leaders didn't make drastic spending cuts to avoid a catastrophe like this? That the left is attempting such a delusional accusation is a clear indication of the level of desperation they feel.
And why wouldn't they? The man who once promised to turn back the rise of the oceans and heal the planet was there on national television actually saying, "No matter what some agency might say, we've always been and always will be a AAA country." The irresponsibility of that statement is difficult to fully grasp. Obama is two and a half years into the job and is yet to realize that the full faith and credit of the United States is not something that can be maintained with juvenile taunts towards "some agency," or that our AAA rating can be regained just by a presidential pronouncement.
His mindless press conference, in which he offered no ideas or plans on how to regain our superior credit rating and in which he exhibited a bizarre lack of urgency reflective on someone fundamentally unserious about the gravity of the moment, left even sycophantic supporters like Chris Matthews questioning whether he was up to the task.
Matthews isn't alone. Obama supporter Drew Westen wrote in the New York Times:
Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago...and that...he had voted 'present' (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.
It's sadly apparent that he's still dodging difficult issues -- which is why after bond rating agencies warned us in July that we must come up with a plan to get our borrowing and spending under control or risk a credit downgrade, Obama offered no such plan, instead asking Congress to allow him to borrow and spend another 2.5 trillion dollars.
The conclusion is incontrovertible: Obama owns this downgrade, and the country is undeniably worse off due to his failed stewardship of our nation's finances. At a time begging for leadership, America has found itself a leaderless nation.
Peter is a public high school government teacher and radio talk show host in central Indiana.
4c)Obama's No Good, Very Bad Week
There was opportunity in some of last week's bad news, but the president failed to seize it.
By KARL ROVE
Following the passage of the unpopular debt-ceiling bill and a barrage of awful economic numbers, the Standard & Poor's downgrade of America's credit rating capped the worst week of Barack Obama's presidency.
Every president faces bad news. Not every one becomes smaller and weaker as he does. Character makes itself known in moments of hardship.
Americans respect presidents who are strong leaders, decisive and credible. In recent months, Mr. Obama hasn't shown strength.
Some of this comes from his compulsive need to blame others. For example, in response to the unprecedented downgrading, his administration lashed out at Standard & Poor's and the tea party movement. Implying—as he did in remarks to veterans at the Washington Navy Yard last week—that the economy's poor performance was related to the Arab Spring and the Japanese tsunami made him look foolish.
Then there was the president's Monday speech that, rather than calming fears, stirred them up. The stock market declined as he spoke.
What might he have done instead? First, he should have spoken over the weekend, so his words could sink in before markets opened. But after deciding to remain silent until Monday, he should have waited until U.S. markets closed. And instead of another robotic teleprompter speech, he might have brought in the press at the end of a lengthy meeting with business leaders for informal comments.
There, surrounded by Warren Buffett and other business allies, Mr. Obama could have signaled, without having to say so explicitly, that he had learned from his policies' shortcomings. After HillaryCare failed and the GOP took control of the House in November 1994, President Bill Clinton made clear he was pivoting to the center: no abject apology, but it worked.
Mr. Obama could have acknowledged the urgent need for more fiscal discipline and outlined how to get to the $4 trillion in deficit reduction required to put the debt on a downward path. And he could have brought up reforming entitlements, whose skyrocketing costs are increasingly the source of America's fiscal problems.
He might have started with proposals many Democrats as well as Republicans support. These include raising the age at which people are eligible for Medicare, modestly increasing deductibles and co-pays for wealthier seniors, and changing how benefit increases are calculated for inflation. Indeed, these were all proposals the Obama administration favored at one time or another.
Rather than holding out for a "grand bargain" on entitlements, Mr. Obama could have proposed passing reforms one or two at a time, building confidence inside Congress for even more difficult actions. As his own outgoing Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Austan Goolsbee said Sunday, "Can't we wait on the things that we're going to yell at each other about and start on the things that we agree on?"
The president could have pledged to reform the tax code to produce more robust growth that will create jobs and raise more revenue without hiking rates. Everyone knows Mr. Obama wants higher tax rates. Everyone knows the Republican House won't pass them. So why not focus on what is possible?
Off-camera, Mr. Obama could have taken two other important steps. First, stop teeing off on congressional Republicans whose help he needs to accomplish anything this year. And second, attend far fewer fundraisers until Congress goes out in December. He must rescue his presidency by spending more time on his job, not his politics. These steps, however, are probably beyond the president. This West Wing is almost completely focused on the president's re-election, not on policy.
Because they cannot defend his record, Team Obama will attempt to "kill" their political opponents, as one Democratic strategist told Politico.com this week. These are difficult days for our president. Buffeted by events, he looks weak, dazed and over his head. And in 15 months, unless he finds some way to turn things around, he will be voted out of office.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Syria goads Turkey by attacking towns along their border
than 24 hours after Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu handed Bashar Assad in Damascus "a final warning," to stop the bloodshed or else, Assad demonstrated coolly that he is not scared by the prospect of military intervention or deterred by Ankara's caution that he risks the same fate as Muammar Qaddafi – i.e. NATO attack. The day after his Turkish guest departed, Wednesday, Aug. 10, he launched military assaults on three towns in the Turkish border region.
Tanks, armored vehicles and motorized infantry units pushed into Taftanaz and Sermin in Idlib province, less than 30 kilometers from the border, while troops entered Binnish, a town squarely on the border.
This exercise was also Assad's reply to the Obama administration's leaked report of Tuesday night that within the coming hours Washington would for the first time explicitly call on Bashar Assad to step down, like the marching orders the US gave the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.
This strategy is so far in the red, with only one down (Mubarak) and two (Qaddafi and Yemeni President Abdullah Ali Saleh) still to go. Assad expects to join the latter group after outdoing them all in brutal repression.
He not only brushed aside the Davutoglu's demand on behalf of Turkey as a NATO member to cut down on his military operations against civilians, he expanded them Wednesday in the most provocative manner.
The five-month conflict between the Syrian army and rebels is now in its bloodiest week, raging on three fronts: In the north from Wednesday on the Turkish border, in the east, where Syrian tanks and artillery forces are knocking over the towns of Deir al-Zour and Abu Kamal near the Iraqi border and in two protests centers in the Damascus suburbs of Duma and Kharasta.
Assad was cheered on, debkafile's military and intelligence sources report, by the apparent weakness he noticed in the Turkish foreign minister when they conversed Tuesday. The Syrian ruler gained the impression that Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan is still wavering over whether to order his army to cross the border into Syria and he therefore decided to strike while the iron was hot.
By concentrating units so close to the Turkish border, Assad also gained an advantage in the event of Erdogan deciding to invade.
Assad found another sign of weakness in Erdogan's report that his foreign minister had obtained in Damascus a promise of political reforms and seen for himself that Syrian tanks had pulled out of Hama. There was no mention of the number of civilians killed before that or the public executions in the city's main square. The Turkish prime minister seemed to have forgotten that all Assad's past promises of reforms had proved hollow.
According to our sources, the Syrian president received new Iranian guarantees Tuesday night of a missile shield in the event of an attack by Turkey or NATO forces. This is tantamount to a promise that Iranian missiles would target Middle East air bases from which the assault planes took off and send troops to the aid of the Syrian army.
Assad therefore feels safe in discounting the new sanctions the US slapped down Wednesday night, Aug. 10 on Syria's biggest commercial bank, the Commercial Bank of Syria, and its Lebanon-based subsidiary, under a presidential executive order that targets proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and their supporters. A separate order designated Syriatel, the country's largest mobile phone operator, for supporting human rights abuses in Syria.
He was not bothered by his increasing isolation in the Arab world after Saudi Arabia led the Gulf States in recalling their ambassadors from Damascus in protest against the unbridled blood-letting - any more than he moved by a possible NATO strike.
He views NATO as having failed in its six-month air Libyan campaign either to dislodge Qaddafi or destroy his army. It had the reverse effect of strengthening his regime. As for Western aid to Syrian rebels, government forces have managed to seize most of the weapons and logistical aid shipments they shipped into Syria.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) Obama in Michigan: House Republicans play politics ‘at the expense of our country’
By David Nakamura
HOLLAND, Mich. -- President Obama used an appearance at an automobile battery manufacturing plant here Thursday afternoon to paint the nation’s sluggish economy as a byproduct of Washington gridlock caused by a Congress that is unwilling to compromise with him.
Speaking before an estimated 400 employees and guests at the new Johnson Controls factory, Obama took the offensive in his standoff with Republican rivals in the House by accusing them of trying to score political points “at the expense of our country.”
“There is nothing wrong with our country. There is something wrong with our politics,” Obama told the crowd. “The only thing keeping us back … is the refusal of some in Congress to put country ahead of party. Some in Congress would rather see their opponents lose than the country win. That has to stop, got to stop. We’re supposed to all be on the same team. … Tell them you’ve had enough theatrics, enough politics. Tell them to stop sending out press releases and start passing some bills to help our economy right now.”
In his first trip outside the Washington area aside from his birthday fundraiser in Chicago last week and a visit to Dover Air Force Base on Tuesday, Obama aimed to refocus his attention away from the messy partisan politics that consumed Washington during the month-long debt ceiling negotiations and turn it to a message of job creation. His appearance here came just hours before his Republican presidential rivals were set to hold a debate in Iowa in advance of this weekend’s straw polls. Some Democrats have become worried about what they see as Obama’s lack of boldness on promoting job creation and economic growth.
On Thursday, Obama’s motorcade drove past a large red sign reading “Liberty all the Stimulus we Need.” A crowd of several dozen supporters, some holding banners reading “Thank you for the jobs” and “Hang tough, you’re right,” cheered as the motorcade turned into the Johnson Controls complex. The president delivered his remarks after a brief tour of the new facility, which employs 320 people in the development of advanced batteries for hybrid and electric automobiles
Obama seemed reinvigorated in his criticism of his congressional adversaries, after delivering what was widely considered an under-whelming public address Monday at the White House. As he has over the past several weeks, Obama called on Congress to approve several of his proposals that he says will boost the economy, such as extending the payroll tax cut that was enacted in January.
Polls show sharp disapproval of both the president and Congress in the wake of the debt fight. Throughout the speech, the president attempted to cast himself as being as exasperated as the public is about Washington’s shenanigans and called on his audience to help him convince Congress to become more reasonable.
“In the aftermath of the debt ceiling debacle, with the markets going up and down, there’s a lot of talk in Washington that I should call Congress back early” from its summer recess, Obama said. “The last thing we need is Congress spending more time arguing in D.C. What I figure is, they need to spend more time out here listening to you and hearing how fed up you are. That’s why I’m here. If Congress goes back home and listens to people’s frustration about all the gridlock, how frustrated people are about the constant bickering and unwillingness to compromise … if they listen hard enough maybe they’ll come back to Washington ready to compromise, create jobs and reduce the deficit.”
Summing up, Obama added: “There’s lots of work to do. The only way we’ll get it done is to find a way to put country head of party. That what I’m fighting for. I’m here to enlist you in the fight.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment