Beat Obama With His Own Words And Failed Policies!

Obama spent almost one trillion dollars buying shovels for projects that were not ready. Then he plopped another half trillion and sent it down the drain of a green company which went belly up and 1100 people were out on the street. Now he wants another half trillion to do the same thing he has already done and which did not work then and is not likely to work again.

Yet, he tells those who disagree they are not being American. To be American used to mean being somewhat frugal and it certainly meant not being stupid. America was not founded by the dumb nor made great by the dumb. I would rather suggest it was founded and made great by the exceptional, the brave and the good hearted.

This president gets testy when people do not snap to, when they do not put on their booties and jump over the rope he is using to hang himself.

Some young female Obama supporter on MSNBC recently acknowledged Obama was not ready for the job. She sought to use that to justify her belief that Gov. Christie should not run for the same reason. No one challenged her but I would have had I been there. First, I would have told her there is no job equal to being president but there are things that one can do to prepare themselves. They could have worked at a real job and gotten their hands dirty, they could have met a payroll and they could have run a large entity with an overseas component. They even could have served in the military and they could also have had some political experience.

But most important of all they need character. Truman was not qualified to become president but he was a pretty darn good one because he was decisive, had read history and had a world of self discipline except when some rag critic criticized the sounds emanating from his daughter, Margaret's lungs.

When you stack Obama's achievements against Truman's, Reagan, both Bushes, Romney, Perry and/or even Clinton's he pales by comparison. Even Carter and Johnson looked better on paper than Obama. Kennedy's record was mostly Camelot glitter but at least he did not need a teleprompter, he had a sense of humor and a charming elegant wife who spoke French.

Last week the head of Hewlett Packard was fired because the board felt he was not executing the way they wanted. I see a message there, what about you?
---
Christie gave a great speech last night and stood by his word that he is not running.
Down the road with Rubio maybe but not now.

If you heard what Christie had to say it was a 'right on the mark' speech. He said what needed saying and he did it in a serious and forceful manner and he sprinkled it with humor. If speeches give insight then Christie would be good for the nation but we know with Obama it takes more than speechifying.

Christie's address, however, provides a 'road map,' as it were, with meaningful and instructive sign posts among which are: be yourself, get rid of the handlers and tell the truth because the nation hungers for it and can relate. We are adults. Secondly, in order to do this you must be comfortable within your own skin.

I still see a Romney-Cain ticket as the best choice from among the field. They both have executive experience, Romney has political experience. They both seem to have no serious skeletons and/or character flaws in their closet and they have proven they can improve and learn from their campaign experiences. Cain on the ticket would send a message to those who claim Republicans are bigots they are better than their accusers and it might weaken even Obama's hold on the slave like minorities.

The best way to beat Obama still remains - beat him with his own words. Compare his past rhetoric with his current words and failed accomplishments. (See 1 below.)
---
Being a Conservative people always assume I am that way about everything and
they do not understand you can be a quilt work but proscribed by your fiscal conservatism.

An example is my view of 'gays' serving in the military. I am all for anyone who wishes to serve his country doing so assuming they meet the standards applicable to all. If they, or anyone violates the military code then they should be subject to its rules. I would add that I might look askance supplanting the salute with a curtsy.
---
My response to a local Rabbi whose LTE was published. My response may not be published so here it is:

Rabbi Belzer mischaracterizes Conservatives who also support Israel. Our support of Israel is in keeping with our support of all democracies. His selective expressions are narrow and biased and fail to recognize the conduct of this president, not only with respect to Israel and its current leader, but his overall inept mishandling of most of his foreign policy initiatives.

There is nothing right wing about wanting our nation's fiscal matters balanced, there is nothing right wing about supporting a people who are willing to live side by side with neighbors who have attacked them in wars, slaughtered them through terrorism, and demanding Abbas accord Israelis the same rights Palestinians seek.

Netanyahu does not seek to annex the West bank. That is a Belzer ruse. Netanyahu has legitimate security issues and a moral obligation to protect his citizens. He is willing to discuss all issues with the Palestinians but the question is will Abbas be able to deliver on his commitments? Witness Egypt, Turkey etc. And what of Hamas, Hezballah and Iran?

More importantly, why will Abbas not negotiate? Because Western leaders know they can extract concessions from Israel and Palestinians have thus been encouraged to constantly raise the ante. Feed a bully and you increase his appetite.

And what of the U.N's attitude towards Israel. The peace organization which has been hijacked by the most radical of nations. Not a peep from the learned Rabbi.

It is a sad commentary that Rabbi Belzer, who served his congregation for twenty years, was dismissed because of his constant attacks on Israel and overboard and biased support of the Palestinian cause.

His recent LTE is clear evidence his Congregation had a legitimate point.

As the Jewish New Year approaches I hope it will bring good health, happiness and peace to all peoples and that they will conduct themselves as world citizens and fore swear terror.

I am not naive enough to believe it will happen.
---
The new definition of liquidity:

Liquidity is when you look at your retirement funds and wet your pants.
---
This is the kind of anti-democratic lunatic Czars Obama appoints. Yes, we need less democracy and fighting for principles so fascists can take over and impose their progressivism. (See 2 below.)
---
Is what I fear and have suggested, getting closer to reality? I noted earlier it would not be out of the realm of conjecture for Obama to attack Iran if for no other reason than to regain political momentum under thelegitimate cover of relieving the world of Iran's nuclear threat. (See 3 and 3a below.)
---
Victor Davis Hanson concurs in what I have been writing about Obama's efforts to divide and most particularly between the races. Sad indeed. (See 4 below.)

---
One the eve of 5772, I again extend to you and your all the best wishes for a happy, healthy and peaceful New Year.
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Christie: US Fails to Live Up to 'Tradition of Exceptionalism’

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, in a much-anticipated speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, slammed President Barack Obama for being a “bystander in the Oval Office,” and said the gridlock in Washington is ineffective and embarrassing to the rest of the country.

Christie addressed domestic and international issues important to Americans, but did not do what many supporters had hoped — announce a bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

“We watch a president who once talked about the courage of his convictions, but still has yet found the courage to lead,” Christie said. “We watch a Congress at war with itself because they are unwilling to leave campaign style politics at the Capitol’s door.”

Christie warned that America's promise is being menaced from within, as a troubled U.S. economy, shaky leadership, and political gridlock diminish the nation's ability to solve its problems.

"At one time in our history, our greatness was a reflection of our country's innovation, our determination, our ingenuity," the Republican governor said in remarks during his speech Tuesday night.

"When there was a crisis at home, we put aside parochialism and put the greater public interest first. And in our system, we did it through strong presidential leadership," he said.

"Unfortunately, through our own domestic political conduct of late, we have failed to live up to our own tradition of exceptionalism. Today, our role and ability to affect change has been diminished because of our own problems and our inability to effectively deal with them," Christie added.

Christie talked at length about the importance of democracy, and of spreading democracy worldwide, of national security, and the nation's troubled economy.

“There is no better way to reinforce the likelihood that others in the world will opt for more open societies and economies than to demonstrate that our own system is working,” he said. “Without strong leadership at home, without our domestic house in order, we are taking ourselves out of the equation.”

On domestic issues, Christie hit recurring GOP themes of controlling rising costs of entitlements and creating jobs, saying Obama “insists we must tax and take and demonize those who have already achieved the American Dream."

“That may turn out to be a good re-election strategy, Mr. President, but is a demoralizing message for America,” Christie said. “There is, of course, a different choice.”

Christie's speech, given at the shrine to America's 40th president, comes on a three-day trip in which the governor is raising money for Republicans and networking with party rainmakers in several states.

It also took place as national figures are encouraging the firebrand governor to run for the 2012 Republican nomination.

Christie has said he's not running for president next year, but his speech marks another sign of his rising status within the national GOP and will keep his name on vice-presidential lists.

In his remarks, the governor warned that the United States will be able to sustain its global leadership place only with resources for defense and homeland security, but he questioned whether those funds will be available

The speech puts the governor on the same stage graced by other prominent conservatives such as former President George W. Bush, former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly.

His speech, titled “Real American Exceptionalism,” is part of the library’s Perspectives in Leadership series, and has attracted widespread interest amid speculation that Christie is considering bowing to Republican donors' wishes and enter the GOP presidential contest.

Although some sources, including Christie's brother, Todd, say he won't run, others, including former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean, say he is seriously considering changing his mind and running.

At the least, Christie may affect the party’s choice, said Ben Dworkin, director of the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University in Lawrenceville.

“He’s a major influence in his party and when the Republicans settle on a nominee, that person is going to have to go to Chris Christie and make sure he’s on board,” Dworkin said in an interview. “Every speech the governor gives ends up at some point with him offering his views on what his party should be doing and what the candidates for president should be doing.”

The first Republican elected governor in New Jersey since 1997 began a national round of speeches and fundraising Monday even as aides attempted to quash speculation that he’s reconsidering his decision to sit out the Republican primary.

The address at the Reagan Library gives Christie, who has urged Republican presidential candidates to take a harder line on entitlement spending and debt, an opportunity to expand his influence in national politics and shape the race, according to political observers.

Still, supporters were not letting it go. In a brief question-and-answer session after his speech, it was the number two question from supporter. Christie joked that he had expected the "are you running" question to be the first.

Again, after another audience member pressed Christie, he directed people to go to a website that compiled a video version of all his no answers back-to-back.

"Click on it, those are the answers," Christie said.

A few minutes later, another questioner pleaded with him to run.

"It's extraordinarily flattering but by the same token, that heartfelt message you gave me is not a reason for me to do it," Christie said. "That reason has to reside inside me."

He continued, "I take it in and I'm listening to every word of it and feeling it too. It’s a great great honor and I really appreciate it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Too Much of a Good Thing
Why we need less democracy.
By Peter Orszag

In an 1814 letter to John Taylor, John Adams wrote that “there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” That may read today like an overstatement, but it is certainly true that our democracy finds itself facing a deep challenge: During my recent stint in the Obama administration as director of the Office of Management and Budget, it was clear to me that the country’s political polarization was growing worse—harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of governing. If you need confirmation of this, look no further than the recent debt-limit debacle, which clearly showed that we are becoming two nations governed by a single Congress—and that paralyzing gridlock is the result.

So what to do? To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)France: Iran faces high risk of military strike. Russia practices Iranian reprisal


UN Ambassador Gerard Araud warned Wednesday, Sept. 28 that Iran runs a high risk of a military strike if it continues on the path to nuclear proliferation. "Some countries won't accept the prospect of Tehran reaching the threshold of nuclear armament," he said. "Personally I am convinced that it would be a very complicated operation …with disastrous consequences in the region."

Ambassador Araud's comment confirmed reports from military sources in recent months that US and European sanctions against Iran had been ineffectual and the ayatollahs had no intention of slowing down on their drive for a nuclear weapon.
The French diplomat was not the only one to raise the alarm this week about regional war clouds circling over Iran.

Sept. 9-26, the Russian army, joined by Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, deployed 12,000 troops in a huge combined military exercise code-named Center-2011 which simulated an Iranian attack on Caspian oil fields operated by American firms in reprisal for a US strike against Iranian nuclear sites.

Russian intelligence postulated an instantaneous Iranian reprisal for this strike and based the war game staged by Russian-led Collective Rapid Force and the Collective Rapid Deployment Forces of the Central Asian Region –CSTO – on this assumption.

The forces taking part in the exercise were briefed for a two-stage scenario:

Stage One: An naval attack on the Caspian Sea coast coming from the south (Iran).
Stage Two: A large-scale air and ground attack from the south by 70 F-4 and F-5 fighter-bombers, namely, the bulk of Iran's air force, along with armored divisions, marine battalions and infantry brigades landing on the northern and eastern shores of the Caspian Sea.

The Russian briefing conjectured that the Iranian offensive would single out the Kazakh oil field at Mangustan on the Caspian coast, a field which Exxon Mobile is operating.

Moscow clearly attached the highest importance to the exercise and extreme credibility to the hypothetical scenario. Russian chief of staff Gen. Nikolai Makarov personally commanded the drills and on Monday, Sept. 26, President Dmitry Medvedev toured the field commands and units.

Tehran was not idle: Tuesday, the day before the war game ended, Adm. Habibollah Sayyari, commander of the Iranian Navy, stated that Iranian warships would be deployed "close to US territorial waters," since the Islamic Republic of Iran considers the US presence in the Persian Gulf "illegitimate and makes no sense."

After Tehran rejected a recent US request to establish a "red phone" link between the countries to avoid unwanted confrontation between their armed forces in the Gulf region, Ali Fadavi, Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) Navy chief, commented enigmatically: "When we are in the Gulf of Mexico, we will establish direct contact with the United States."

A significant remark on the intentions of another nuclear rogue government came from Peter Hughes, the British Ambassador to North Korea, when he stopped over in Seoul on his way home from a three-year tenure in Pyongyang.

"I have had discussions with high-level officials, who have made clear to me their view that if Colonel Qaddafi had not given up his nuclear weapons, then NATO would not have attacked his country," he said.

The ambassador therefore held out little hope of the long-stalled US-South Korea talks with the North resumed lately getting anywhere on Pyongyang's denuclearization.

All these ominous events – pointed comments by French and British diplomats and the large-scale Russian-Central Asian war game – add up to widespread skepticism about any chance of halting Iran's race for a nuclear weapon or disarming North Korea.



3a)Report: Iranian Navy gets new cruise missiles

Tehran says its marine forces now possess domestically-developed cruise missiles with a range of 200km and dual offshore, onshore homing capabilities

Iran says it has started the large-scale production of a domestically-developed cruise missile designed for sea-based targets and capable of destroying warships.

Iranian Defense Minister General Ahmad Vahidi was quoted by the state-run news agency Fars on Wednesday, as saying that an unspecified number of "Qader" cruise missiles were delivered to the Revolutionary Guard's Navy.

The announcement was made in an official ceremony, also attended by Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari and Commander of the IRGC Naval Force Brigadier General Ali Fadavi.

Vahidi stressed that production of the missiles "showed that the Iranian Defense Industries are able to satiate the Iranian Armed Forces' missile needs."

The Iranians claim that the Qader cruise missiles have a range of 200km, can reportedly travel at low altitudes and are able to home-in on both offshore and onshore targets.

On Tuesday, Iran's Navy Chief Sayyari said that the Islamic Republic now possessed the ability to send its warships to the United States' Atlantic coast. Sayyari gave no details of when such a deployment could happen or the number or type of vessels to be used.

Also on Wednesday, Vahidi dismissed the need for Iran to establish a "military hotline" with the United States, and called on Washington to pull out its forces from the Persian Gulf, warning their continued presence may trigger a possible confrontation with Iran.


"They want to have a hotline so that in case of tension, we can settle it but we believe that if they are not deployed in the region, no tension will occur," Vahidi told Fars.

He also stressed that any US warships which seek to pass through the Persian Gulf's Strait of Hormuz must respond to the questions asked by the Iranian Navy, as "the Strait of Hormuz... are under the intelligence control and domination of our Navy."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Obama’s Racial Crisis
Our post-racial president has set race relations back decades.

By Victor Davis Hanson

In the current racial circus, the president of the United States, in addressing an assembly of upscale black professionals and political leaders, adopts the style of a Southern Baptist preacher of the 1960s. He alters his cadences and delivery to both berate and gin up the large audience — posing as a messianic figure who will “march” them out to speak truth to power. In response, the omnipresent Rep. Maxine Waters goes public yet again, to object that the president has no right to rally blacks in this way, when he does not adopt similar tones of admonishment with Jews and gays. (Should Obama try to emulate the way he thinks gays and Jews talk in his next address to them?)

Hope-and-change has now sunk into little more than a tawdry spectacle of racial spoils, as the president of the United States desperately cobbles together squabbling special-interest racial, ethnic, and gender groups in lieu of restoring the nation’s prosperity. Before the age of Obama, I don’t recall that some members of the Black Caucus were so ready to invite political opponents to “go straight to hell,” or to allege that they were veritable murderers eager to lynch blacks and restore slavery.

Unspoken, of course, is the truth that Obama’s statism, deficits, interferences in the private sector, and spread-the-wealth rhetoric have frightened business owners into stasis — and the resulting slowdown hurts blacks most of all. But in this fantasy world of racial spoils, Obama’s profligate spending and borrowing can be faulted only for not being profligate enough. To suggest any other diagnosis would be to call into question the entire federal racial industry of the last 50 years — and those who have benefited the most by administering it.

Instead, a new insidious racism is supposedly energizing opposition to Obama, most expressly on the part of the Tea Party. Generally beloved actor Morgan Freeman alleged just that: Racism, not stupid policies, is what is hurting Obama — and by extension blacks in general.

But does the charge that racism is the basis for Obama’s current unpopularity have any empirical foundation? Barack Obama, himself half white, and a graduate of prep school and Ivy League universities, defeated Hillary Clinton in part because of the help and money of white liberals. He could not have defeated John McCain without sizable white support. The white vote, incidentally, split far more evenly than did the black vote, which went overwhelmingly for Obama, at well over 90 percent.

When presidential approval polls dipped below 40 percent, was the treatment accorded Barack Obama less charitable than that accorded his predecessor, George W. Bush? Freeman, like nearly all those who now level charges of racism, was quiet when a novel, an award-winning documentary, and an op-ed in the Guardian all speculated about assassinating the president of the United States. So far Al Gore and Sen. John Glenn have not suggested that Obama is adopting Nazi or Brownshirt tactics, as they alleged of Bush.

In fact, some of the most savage takedowns of Barack Obama have started to appear on the pages of the New York Times and the Huffington Post, where he is alleged to be an incompetent and weak purveyor of liberal values. It is almost as if some of these progressives relish critiquing Obama, in assurance that their liberal bona fides guarantees that no one will charge them with racism.

Indeed, there is something curious in the liberal argument that Obama, once deified as the ideal megaphone for progressive agendas, is now to be faulted for the current unpopularity of liberalism, given that he remains a far more effective advocate than Jimmy Carter and a far more doctrinaire leftist than Bill Clinton. It is almost as if liberal scapegoating of Obama is an attempt to shift responsibility for progressive failure from the message onto the hapless messenger — an unfairness that a Freeman would never discuss.

At almost the same time as Freeman made his divisive charges, Herman Cain won the Florida straw poll, largely because of the presence of tea-partiers, who felt the entrepreneurial Cain was more conservative than either Perry or Romney, and perhaps more authentic as well. Cain, remember, unlike Obama, is a product of the Southern black experience. His accent and cadences are real and not the studied product of self-described tutorials from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He knew racism in an era and place that were a world away from the 1970s Honolulu of Obama’s middle-class white upbringing. How can Herman Cain’s broad white support substantiate Freeman’s charges of a widely racist America, other than by resorting to some strange condescending notion of false consciousness: i.e., that a hapless Cain is being used by white capitalists in a way Barack Obama — the largest recipient of Wall Street cash in the history of presidential campaigns and the first general-election candidate since public campaign financing was instituted to renounce it — most surely is not?

To criticize Obama endangers the historical nexus between government entitlements and those who ensure them. So powerful and lucrative is this relationship that whites who question both its utility and its intent, and blacks who are vocal about its unintended destructiveness, are labeled respectively racists and Uncle Toms. Indeed, that paradox is at the heart of Obama’s racial crisis: It is his own orthodox leftist agenda that has stalled the recovery and decimated black America. Yet for those who are invested in a crumbling Great Society, the remedy of unleashing the private sector and downsizing government would be worse than the recessionary malady itself.

Charging racism has psychological components as well. For left-wing blacks, it serves as a sort of preemption. When Freeman charges Obama’s opponents with abject racism, they, not he, must prove that they are not racially obsessed — at least until the next slur triggers the confessional process all over again. Of course, no one is allowed to accuse Freeman of racial tribalism for suggesting that criticism of Obama is racially motivated. Yet he sees racial hope only when a person of his race is elected by a largely white electorate, and sees racism when that same person does not succeed in convincing that same electorate that he can ameliorate hard times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------