---
High Urinals
A group of 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders, accompanied by two female teachers, went on a field trip to the local racetrack, (Churchill Downs ) to learn about thoroughbred horses and the supporting industry (Bourbon), but mostly to see the horses.
When it was time to take the children to the bathroom, it was decided that the girls would go with one teacher and the boys would go with the other. The teacher assigned to the boys was waiting outside the mens room when one of the boys came out and told her that none of them could reach the urinal.
Having no choice, she went inside, helped the boys with their pants, and began hoisting the little boys up one by one, holding on to their 'wee-wees' to direct the flow away from their clothes.
As she lifted one, she couldn't help but notice that he was unusually well endowed. Trying not to show that she was staring the teacher said, 'You must be in the 5th grade.'
'No, ma'am', he replied. 'I'm riding Silver Arrow in the seventh race, but I appreciate your help.'
The teacher was then dismissed by school authorities for touching her students. PC'ism wins again!
She is also being sued by OSHA for not washing her hands before helping the kids and parents have brought law suits claiming she is a pedagogue!
Just another day in the life of our education system.
Meanwhile SAT scores continue to decline. (See 1 below.)
---
When Obama campaigned he sold us 'hope and change.' Shortly after becoming president he shifted gears in order to ram his legislative agenda down our throats and resorted to fear mongering tactics. In order to get 'Obamascare' he told us millions, without health insurance, would die if the government did not take over our health care decisions and it would also save money.
That backfired.
Now unemployment is far above what Obama said it would be were he elected and our infrastructure needs refurbishing, Obama threatens, if we do not pass his new spending program(s), dire consequences will happen and bridges will collapse etc.
If you cannot sell your programs on their merit and must resort to demagoguery, fear, race baiting and whatever, then you are a flawed leader. What you are revealing is petulant immaturity and that you are out of your league. This is why Obama's poll figures are plummeting, Democrats lost an election they should have easily won and Americans have tired of listening to him.
The heat of the Oval Office kitchen is melting his wings. Icarus' Obama's wounds are virtually all self-inflicted because he has a tin ear and is so ideologically Socialistic he cannot see the trees for the forest.
He persists in taking the nation in the wrong direction and seeks to frighten us of the false consequences if we do not eat when he rings the bell. Anyone who disagrees is heartless and racially motivated. Anyone who disagrees is a do nothing unpatriotic obstinate Tea Partyer and the liberal press and media, who helped elect him, continue to cover and protect.
Well some 'nerdy' Liberal Jews in New York finally woke up after about 100 years and now the question is what motivated them to see the light ? Will the virus of clear independent thinking spread? Are there enough independent minded Americans capable of discerning fact from demagogic fiction willing to stand against Obama's scare tactics? Time will tell!
---
One man's thoughts cast in a humorous vein. (See 1 below.)
---
Would you have expected anything different? The man from Plains is a 'plain in the ass.' (See 2 below.)
Circling the wagons? Carter blamed the Jewish vote, which went heavily for Reagan, for his defeat. Is the Obama crowd now trying to staunch the flow of blood from their earlier positions, comments and alliances? I do not share all the author of this article has said but I find it intriguing, at the very least. (See 2a below.)
---
A politically conservative Rabbi asks the same questions I posed in a recent memo - would you want Obama in your foxhole? Will Obama respond effectively and timely should we be attacked? Why am I so absorbed with the theoretical? Because I believe we are fast moving from the theoretical to the actual. It is only a matter of time.
Will Obama go down as an American Chamberlain? (See 3 and 3a below.)
---
Israel is resorting to a block and tackle military approach by implementing its military alliance with Greece. Erdogan may not realize it but he is playing with fire and his misstep could ignite a fire that will be hard to put out, painful for those burned, tragically costly but avoidable if Erdogan quits pressing his questionable objective(s). (See 4 and 4a below.)
---
One of my oldest and closest friends e mailed these comments from his own college classmate and fraternity brother expressing his thoughts on what 'shovel ready projects' means. (See 5 below.)
---
Boehner makes a simple point - Obama seems willing to allow jobs to move overseas but not to South Carolina - Boehner was referring to the politically inspired decision by The NLRB preventing Boeing from relocating a plant to South Carolina. (See 6 below.)
---
My wife thinks I am nuts because I believe Romney should announce that Herman Cain will be his pick for V.P. Herman and Mitt are both businessmen, understand what needs to be done to get the economy back on track and our debt under control with assistance from a committed Congress.
Herman is trusted by white voters , appeals to the middle roaders and should not even be a threat to most black voters with half a brain and enough common sense to understand the Democrat Party has enslaved them and played them for fools. (See 7 below.)
---
Any 'change' is better than what we have .
Have a great weekend.
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)This Won't Have a Happy Ending
By Jeff Clark
Well, thank goodness that's settled.
Tuesday night, stock index futures were trading sharply lower because Greece was running out of money… again.
Little Papandreou got on the phone and called Papa Sarkozy and Mama Merkel from his dorm room and pleaded for more money. Nobody knows for sure exactly what was said, because the three speak three different languages.
But based on a statement released by Reuters just after the call ended, Mama and Papa agreed to send more money. Papandreou agreed not to blow the cash on pizza and beer and promised he'd try to get straight As next semester.
Global stock markets rallied on the news. Gold slumped. And the euro gained almost 1% versus the dollar.
At first glance, it looks like another happy ending to another wonderful story… But it's not. In the real world, financial catastrophes don't always turn out happily ever after. While the currency markets cheered the news that Greece would be saved again, we haven't closed the book on this fable.
Take a look at this chart of the euro…
The euro broke down from a several-month-long consolidating-triangle pattern. The MACD momentum indicator has been declining for the entire move, and there is no positive divergence. So the momentum behind the decline is strong… and it's unlikely to reverse before falling even further.
Yesterday's bounce in the euro is a short-term reaction that relieves the slightly oversold condition brought about by the sharp decline over the past month. It is not the start of a resurgent rally for the currency.
The euro is toast. We laid out the reasons for its destruction here and here. Any short-term bounce in the currency is an opportunity for aggressive traders to go short. The euro is ultimately headed much lower.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) immy Carter Backs PA Bid to United Nations
By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, the guiding hand behind the endangered Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, urges the United Nations to recognize the Palestinian Authority.
Contradicting the Obama administration’s insistence that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas return to direct talks with Israel, he said in Atlanta Tuesday, “As an alternative to a deadlock and a stalemate now, we reluctantly support the Palestinian move for recognition.”
A request from the Arab League to the United Nations to officially recognize the PA as an independent state and full member of the international body will not succeed because the United States has said it will cast a veto if it reaches the Security Council. However, the General Assembly, with its solid pro-Arab majority, can pass a symbolic resolution in favor of the Palestinian Authority.
Carter said such a step would be a “real step forward”.
Ignoring the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islamists, he continued:“The Arab Spring has brought hope for democracy and freedom to many of the people in the region,” he stated. “I hope that eventually it will potentially bring about a change in the prospects of a peace agreement to be negotiated between Israel and its neighbors. But it would require Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories and that’s something that so far the Israeli government has been unable to do."
Ex-President Carter is the author of the anti-Israel book “Palestine: Peace or Apartheid,” in which he misrepresents UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 336, erroneously citing them as proof that Israel must withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines. In the book, he calls the 1949 armistice lines international borders, says Israel has never “granted appreciable autonomy to the Palestinians” (ignoring the establishment and continued existence of the Palestinian Authority), and claims that Syria was prepared to accept a demilitarized Golan Heights which Syria specifically denied.
2a)PANIC SETS IN… Team Obama Passes Out Talking Points to Prove They Really Like Israel
By Jim Hoft
Do you remember when Jesse Jackson said that under Obama, Jews would lose all of their clout? He was right.
(Top left clockwise) Barack and Michelle Obama and radical Leftist anti-Israel Professor Edward Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Edward Said gave the keynote speech. (Bill Baar’s West Side), Former PLO operative and close friend of the Obama’s Rashid Khalidi, Barack Obama and his racist minister Jeremiah Wright, and close terrorist friend William Ayers.
In September 2010 the Obama Administration even joined in the UN’s ban of Israel.
U.S. Ambassador Eileen Donahoe and First Secretary Mark Cassayre, Geneva, attend a UN meeting on September 15, 2010 despite the fact that Israel was banned from the meeting. (EYE on the UN)
So, it’s no secret that Barack Obama is the most anti-Israel president in US history. But now that democrats lost a crucial race in a Jewish-dominated district and with an election coming up in a year the Obama Administration is passing out talking points on how much they appreciate Israel.
The New York Times reported:
Not since Jimmy Carter in 1980 has a Democrat running for president failed to win a lopsided majority of the Jewish vote. This has been true during times of peace or war, and even when there has been deep acrimony between the White House and the Israeli government.
Republicans see a chance to change that in 2012, with President Obama locked in a tense relationship with Israel’s leaders and criticized by many American Jews as being too tough on a close and favored ally. Tuesday’s Republican upset in New York’s Congressional election, they say, is a sign of bad things to come for Mr. Obama.
Sensing trouble, the Obama campaign and Democratic Party leaders have mobilized to solidify the president’s standing with Jewish voters. The Democratic National Committee has established a Jewish outreach program. The campaign is singling out Jewish groups, donors and other supporters with calls and e-mails to counter the Republican narrative that Mr. Obama is hostile to Israel.
Among those efforts is a multi-page set of talking points circulated last Friday with the title, “President Obama’s Stance on Israel: Myths vs. Facts.” David Axelrod, a close Obama adviser, has sent e-mails to Jewish voters, pointing them to a speech by the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, praising Mr. Obama and saying he had deepened the military cooperation between the United States and Israel.
And the White House is drawing attention to recent expressions of gratitude from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israelis after Mr. Obama intervened last Friday to help prevent violence after a mob attacked the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, threatening the Israeli diplomats inside.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)Would Obama Retaliate against a Nuclear Attack?
By Rabbi Aryeh Spero
What if a Muslim country, such as Iran, launched a nuclear attack against us, or if agents aligned with Pakistan using dirty bombs were to attack America? Would Barack Hussein Obama retaliate with nuclear force, as has been our stated policy since the 1950s? Would he even unleash a barrage of non-nuclear shock and awe that would level those countries so that they'd be incapable of striking a second time?
When queried in Japan in November 2009, Mr. Obama declined to defend President Harry Truman's nuclear attack on Hiroshima, despite it having saved hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who would have otherwise died trying to defeat the recalcitrant Japanese. Many on the left and in academia have gone so far as to characterize it as a display of American racism, questioning if we would have done so had the victims been British. They ignore the efficacy of how that one-time use of a nuclear weapon spared this country from ever being a victim of nuclear attack.
This is a question the president needs to be asked, given how he is a proponent of a doctrine labeled Responsibility to Protect, "R2P." The question is, though, what is Mr. Obama's conceptual understanding of the term "responsibility" and how will it influence the manner in which he wages war?
The past may be a guide. As with all references to "responsibility," domestic or foreign, Obama sees responsibility as a type of sacrifice by the more powerful to those less powerful, be it redistribution of wealth or sacrificing one's optimal protection when weighed against how it effects those he considers innocent. A nuclear response to a nuclear attack on us, or even a devastating shock and awe campaign, would certainly kill many non-combatants Obama would consider innocent.
The assumption that, as with all presidents, Mr. Obama would do what is best for America and Americans cannot be taken for granted. We've never before had a president who sees himself primarily as a citizen of the world and initiates policies not always in the best interests of America but in the interest of more important (to him) global goals: loans to Brazil for their offshore drilling, hundreds of millions to Palestinian Arabs and Muslim countries -- increasing an already unbearable debt on Americans to do so. Not to mention how he has tried every which way to stop Arizonans (Americans) from protecting themselves from murder, rape, thievery, and destruction of their property from mobs cascading into our open borders -- doing so, as he always does, by invoking some universalist "morality" and mission that, in his mind, supersede our parochial needs. He has reneged on our commitment for a space shield for our allies in Eastern Europe while offering it to Russia, a threat to America.
Indeed, Obama has spent much time traversing the globe apologizing to all those countries that he claims have been the target of "arrogant" American military power. Would he, then, be inclined to use the essence of American military power, its nuclear force? Many around the world will not be deterred from going nuclear against us unless it is unequivocally understood that they will be annihilated if they do so.
None of this is remotely to imply that the president would be sanguine if our country were attacked; rather, one wonders if he has the stomach to retaliate overwhelmingly against the attackers, especially since he could rationalize his reluctance in terms of a "higher morality" that says: we can't bring back our dead by killing citizens elsewhere who did not pull the trigger against us. His dilemma will be compounded if a dirty bomb or EMP were launched against us not by a government per se but by a group of terrorists independent of a government which nonetheless gives them sanctuary. After all, the Arab/Muslim cause has been very adept and successful in demanding that its territories and people be spared retaliation by claiming that terrorism is the work of individuals and not a particular state or government -- and Mr. Obama is part of that chorus.
Furthermore, are we certain that Mr. Obama considers American life more important than, say, Iranian life, or that there is something exceptional about America that warrants choosing it and its people over the exceptional nature he has equally granted other countries and peoples? Forget all these assumed notions that a president will always do what is best for Americans -- it boils down to Mr. Obama's moral compass. If he thinks the way I think he does, he may likely consider it immoral to kill Pakistanis in order to save Americans, or Canadians.
The question becomes more acute if the attack comes from a Muslim source. And that is because Mr. Obama demonstrates an unbreakable political and ethnic simpatico (though not necessarily religious) with Muslim causes and Muslim people to a degree not seen in any Western leader today or before. What president designates an entire government agency, NASA, to forgo its intrinsic purpose and changes it to Muslim Outreach?
Be it bowing to Saudi kings, funneling billions to Muslim causes around the world, ordering expanded immigration of Muslims into this country, waxing poetic about the "holy" Koran, instituting White House Ramadan Dinners, and re-writing American history to pretend some type of significant early historical relationship with Islam, as well as maneuvering to transform ancient Jerusalem, the Jewish spiritual capital, into an Islamic capital -- all of this shows a man whose identity and heart are very tied up with things Islamic. There is something operating within the bosom of Obama beyond so-called political even- handedness. It is a love affair.
Obama the Christian made his feelings clear in his book, The Audacity of Hope (pg.261), that if elected he would stand with Islam, no matter the prevailing winds against it. And why not? His family back in Africa is Islamic. In his Cairo speech he said America will never be at war with Islam and that he sees his duty as president of the United States to fight against any type of stereotyping of Islam, no matter where. Would he be willing, then, to use nuclear armaments against a society he endlessly keeps telling us is peace-loving and full of compassion and justice?
Deep down, Obama may consider such wholesale retaliation as racist, since its victims are of a darker skin color than Anglos. One cannot minimize the extent to which Obama and the left have expanded the definition of racism and how averting "racism" has become the centerpiece of all decision-making, overshadowing and surpassing even needs for defense. Even now, Obama leaves the country vulnerable to jihadist plans with his refusal to ever mention the name Islam or Islamic when forced to comment on the many attacks by young Islamists on this country during the past few years. He has done nothing to stop Iran from engineering its nuclear bomb and seems to be standing in the way of those who would like to protect us from a future nuclear inferno. Addressing the Manhattan Institute last week, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey warned of an Obama administration that implements policies that sacrifice an optimal protecting of Americans for what it considers even more important: making sure that there is no domestic backlash against Muslims.
There are those who point to his willingness to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Obama's new "rules of engagement," designed to save Muslim lives and honor Muslim sensitivities, have resulted in many unnecessary American deaths. This itself should prove the inverted priorities and danger inherent in his version of warfare -- it is American life which is sacrificed in the name of responsibility. Truth be told, in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama has not taken on Islamic governments, rather the Taliban, which he considers an enemy of Islamic regimes. It is unclear, however, if he would actually go to war against an actual Islamic regime or government when the need to do so is specifically American and does not accrue to the benefit of the Islamic world.
Can we rely on his constitutional obligation to defend America? He may very well consider the defense of America to be better served through threats of retaliation but not retaliation itself, or he may prefer negotiation as the better route to defense, more "consistent with our values," as he often intones. Nowhere is it written that he must constitutionally defer to his predecessors' notion of what constitutes an appropriate response. Perhaps he will bypass the Constitution, as he has so often done in domestic affairs, under the rationale that he inherited these problems from Bush. Will our military have to wait for a second round of attacks while the president wavers or consults with Samantha Power?
Campaigns provide that one season and window where a president can't hide in the White House and be shielded from the tough questions. But it only happens if his opponents raise the issues publicly since the media seem unwilling to make Mr. Obama uncomfortable.
Our candidates should pose this very question. And this time we need direct, clear answers -- no Obamaspeak, no bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. America needs to know, and so does the world.
Rabbi Spero is president of Caucus for America .
3a) Stop Iran’s madman now
World failed to stop Hitler while it was still possible; will it repeat the mistake with Ahmadinejad?
By Yigal Walt
The 20th Century’s worst mass murderers, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, were deranged lunatics. Both also cultivated a disturbing cult of personality to promote their own “greatness.”
Hitler’s megalomaniac tendencies were patently obvious long before the outbreak of World War II. Yet anxious world powers refrained from countering Nazi Germany while it was still building up its military force, thereby allowing its army to swell and develop new weapons. When war finally did break out, Germany’s massive military machine dragged the world into unimaginable carnage and bloodshed.
The lessons of World War II were etched into the minds and hearts of those who lived through the horror, yet 66 years later it seems the West is adopting similar complacency vis-à-vis a Hitler-like madman: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Will the world wake up before it’s too late?
The realization that Iran’s leader is a deranged, reckless man was further reinforced this week. In an interview with the Washington Post, Ahmadinejad shared his frighteningly twisted worldview, claiming among other things that Zionism was behind both world wars and that America was sacrificing its “whole population” for "the interests of a few hundred Zionists."
The fact that the leader of one of the world’s largest nations subscribes to such foolish, mind-boggling views attests to a deeply distorted way of thinking. No less worrying, the fact that he has no qualms about openly expressing these views highlights his own confidence and the little regard he holds for world leaders, realizing they will be doing nothing to counter him.
Meanwhile, an NBC journalist was permitted to accompany Iran’s president for a day, resulting in what can only be termed a propaganda film glorifying Ahmadinejad while resorting to all the familiar hallmarks of madman exaltation: Physical fitness, concern for the “little man of the street,” firmness combined with sensitivity for fellow countrymen and tireless efforts to advance the “mother land.”
The Obama factor
Following Hitler’s rise to power, Germany’s army was still greatly curbed by the Treaty of Versailles, limited to only 100,000 troops and lacking any real power. Yet the German dictator openly defied his foes, boosting his country’s military capabilities and creating powerful armored corps and an intimidating, advanced Air Force, the Luftwaffe.
Germany’s archenemies, France and Britain, could have easily defeated the Nazi army in the first years of Hitler’s rule, but their cowardice and desire to avoid war at any cost prompted them to resort to an endless string of excuses, denials, and appeasement efforts. We are seeing a similar scenario materializing before our eyes in this day and age, as the West fails to stand up to Ahmadinejad.
And so, Iran has been boosting its military capabilities by building new missiles and smart bombs, while tirelessly pursuing its nuclear program. The Ayatollahs’ army is still far weaker than the West’s military might, but with every passing day, month and year Tehran’s ability to inflict damage on its rivals grows. Acquiring nuclear arms would change the equation altogether, creating a balance of terror that would greatly limit the world’s ability to respond.
Yet despite Iran’s relative military weakness at this time and despite Ahmadinejad’s genocidal threats and vision of grandeur, the world chooses to adopt weak sanctions while constantly seeking to engage in “dialogue” and secure “understandings” with Tehran.
Just like Nazi Germany, current-day Iran has destructive potential should it adopt the path of aggression and belligerence. Tehran can greatly complicate matters in Iraq upon America’s withdrawal, threaten the world’s major oil supplier, Saudi Arabia, and mount a devastating attack on Israel, the West’s only reliable Mideastern ally and its frontal outpost in the face of Islamic radicalism.
Yet unlike the Germans, Iran is far weaker at this time and therefore more vulnerable to a decisive military campaign. Moreover, unlike the Nazis’ one-man show, Ahmadinejad is complemented by country’s ayatollahs, who are also susceptible to pressure and may very well decide to replace the mad ruler on their own should they pay a heavy price for his continued presence.
Unfortunately for the world, the US president at this tumultuous time is Barack Obama, a man who has made a career of empty rhetoric devoid of any substance or influence. Will history remember him as a modern-day Churchill, or rather, as a defeated Chamberlain? The probable answer should alarm all citizens of the Free World.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4)War Fever Mounts as Erdogan Pushes into E. Mediterranean
Erdogan heads for armed clash with Israel and Greece have invoked the mutual defense pact they signed secretly only 12 days ago in the light of heavy Turkish sea and air movements in the eastern Mediterranean. This was decided in a long nocturnal phone conversation Wednesday night Sept. 14 between the Israeli and Greek prime ministers, Binyamin Netanyahu and George Papandreou, and at Israel's expanded cabinet of eight, which was called into session over the Turkish threat to its off-shore oil and gas rigs.
The Greek Prime Minister added to the information recorded so far on Turkish fleet movements in the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas. He was particularly concerned by the observation flights suddenly increased in the past 48 hours over the Greek island of Kastelorizo in the southeast Mediterranean just two kilometers from the Turkish coast. Those flights are escorted by Turkish combat jets.
Athens fears a Turkish attack on the island, whose population is fewer than 1,000, and an attempt to damage or seize it. Israel suspects that a Turkish attack on the Greek island will be the signal for Turkish military aggression against its oil and gas platforms located in the Mediterranean between Israel and Cyprus. Papandreou said the Turks are capable of surprise attacks on additional Greek islands near the Turkish coast.
Ankara would be acting on the pretext that Israel and Cyprus have no right to mark out and exploit the gas and oil zones of the eastern Mediterranean – a fuel-rich region known as Block 12 – without the consent of Turkish Cyprus (the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus – TRNC). Turkey also backs Lebanon's complaint that Israel is robbing it of its natural resources. Talks between Lebanon and Cyprus to resolve this issue broke down. Beirut refuses any discussion with Israel.
Neither Jerusalem nor Athens has disclosed in what way they have invoked the new defense pact.
Military sources surmise that in the first stage, Israeli navy and air forces are to be posted at Greek Mediterranean bases. The two intelligence agencies are already sharing input.
Up until now, Israel could only respond to a Turkish threat from its own borders. With a presence at Greek military bases, Israel will be able to operate from the rear of Turkish forces in the event of an attack by those forces in the Mediterranean.
Monday, Sept. 12, Ankara dictated conditions for Israel to obey in order to keep its navy afloat free of Turkish aggression:
1. Israel vessels are prohibited from taking action against Turkish ships heading for the Gaza Strip. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has declared "null and void" the UN report confirming the legality of Israel's blockade of Gaza.
2. Israeli warships crossing the 12-mile line bounding its territorial waters will be challenged by Turkish warships, which are instructed to approach them to within 100 meters and "disable their weapons."
This threat covers not only shipping bound for Gaza but also Israel's oil and gas drilling platforms which are more than 60 miles out to sea.
Israel's political and military spokesmen have been trying hard to downplay the Turkish menace. On Wednesday, Sept. 14, they brushed aside reports of Turkish naval and air movements in the eastern Mediterranean. After the cabinet of eight's meeting, the official line was that Israel is practicing "restraint in contrast to Turkish wildness" and they should be given time to cool down. In any case, the US and NATO were closely monitoring the crisis Ankara is generating with Israel, Greece and Cyprus, and won't let it degenerate into Turkish military action.
But both Israel and Greece appear to know better: They decided to invoke their mutual defense pact – not before obtaining a green light from Washington – because they believe the Turkish threats indicated by its military movements are real and tangible.
4a)Erdogan: Warships can be in E. Med at any moment
Ankara PM's aggressive rhetoric towards Israel continues during visit to Tunisia, as he warns that Turkish Navy can deploy across eastern Mediterranean at moment's notice
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Thursday that Israel could not do "whatever it wanted" in the eastern Mediterranean, adding that Turkish warships could be there at any moment.
"Israel cannot do whatever it wants in the eastern Mediterranean. They will see what our decisions will be on this subject.
"Our navy attack ships can be there at any moment," Erdogan told a news conference on a visit to the Tunisian capital.
Erdogan also spoke of the diplomatic crisis between Israel and Turkey, saying that "Islam and democracy are not contradictory" and reiterating that the only way to normalize the situation is for Israel to offer an official apology for the 2010 raid on the Gaza-bound aid flotilla.
Turkey, he added, expects Israel to apologize, offer restitution to the fatalities' families and lift the Gaza blockade.
The Turkish prime minister's statement came on the heel of a recent announcement by Ankara officials, saying that Turkish warplanes now sport a new radar system which identifies Israeli targets as hostile, thus essentially allowing them to open fire.
The officials were quoted by Ankara's Star Gazette newspaper, which said that the orders to modify the system reportedly came directly from Erdogan's office.
Israel, meanwhile, has decided not to respond to Erdogan's boisterous rhetoric for the time being.
"We'll let Erdogan lash out some more," a State official said. "Israel has no intention of escalating the situation further, and the person doing this is Erdogan. His statements are a bully's slogans."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5)Hi, All,
I got so annoyed at the news coverage of the use of construction "shovel ready" projects for short term job creation that I wrote this essay. Feel free to comment or share it.
Jack
THE FALLACY OF USING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AS A SHORT TERM UNEMPLOYMENT SOLUTION
Riverside, California, September 12, 2011
The purpose of this essay is to point out the inherent problems that preclude the use of construction projects as a means of a short term solution to the high unemployment problem. As a beginning, there are virtually no such things as “shovel ready” projects. That concept shows a lack of knowledge of the construction process, particularly the competitive bidding process. Competitive bidding is essential to have the best price, and is legally required for most government funded projects. Competitive bidding requires a comprehensive set of bid documents to accurately describe the work to be done, and the conditions of the work site. Those documents require planning, detail site investigation, design by professional engineers or architects, who are also selected by a competitive procedure, and usually several outside reviews and public meetings. That process takes time, frequently a year or more. If those documents are more than a few months old when the project is fully funded for construction, they must be reviewed and the site conditions investigated again to ensure that the conditions defined in the documents are still accurate.
The project must be publically advertized so that interested bidders are aware of it, usually for a month. The prospective bidders must be given enough time to study the project documents, investigate the site and prepare their bids, also usually a month or two. When bids are opened, the successful bid must be evaluated, the bidder must be given time to get insurance and bonding, and then time to set up his on-site work facilities.
This design-review-advertize-bid-award process requires about two years for most projects, but could take much longer for more complex projects. Complex projects often require that another profession, such as a construction management firm, be hired to coordinate different specialty contractors, manufacturers and even design firms with unique abilities.
Only after that essential process is complete do the construction workers begin to be hired. How many, what trades, and for how long depend on the nature of the project. Some projects are labor intensive; others require large amounts of equipment.
In the engineering business projects are euphemistically referred to as horizontal or vertical construction. Roads, bridges, utilities, flood control, rail, and airport runways and taxiways are examples of horizontal construction. Buildings are vertical construction. Horizontal projects generally require very high levels of equipment but not much labor. Vertical construction is just the opposite – much less equipment, but much more labor.
A large portion of vertical construction is housing. That market is now flooded with an inventory overload. The existing inventory of retail and office space is equally large except for a few isolated areas. Evidence the number of “For Lease” and “For Sale” signs in shopping centers and residential neighborhoods. That means that the need for that type of construction is currently very low.
The type of labor in vertical construction varies greatly as the work progresses. For example carpenters may be required for a few days, then plumbers and electricians for another few days, then dry wall hangers, then painters. None of these tradesmen will be required constantly for the duration of the project, so there is not a secure or constant creation of jobs for individuals. By the very nature of vertical construction, every job is temporary; when the particular trade work is completed, the job ends. Construction workers have moved from project to project routinely, and most are unemployed between projects and in the interims of a project when their trade is not required. That is the nature of the construction business.
Renovation work is even more problematic. Often hazardous material, such as asbestos and lead paint, must be removed before other work can begin. Asbestos is present in much more than the usual items of insulation and fireproofing. Ceiling and floor tile, wall board and plaster frequently contain asbestos, and must be tested before removal. If a significant presence is found, special precautions and often specialized trades are required for removal and disposal. In a well designed and investigated project, that requirement will be shown in the bid documents. The result is that the normal construction trade jobs are delayed even more.
There is even some question about the creation of jobs in the manufacture of the material used, since much of it is now imported. For example, a light fixture made in China creates only a minor improvement in jobs for the dock workers and logistics workers that get the item to the project site.
All of these factors work against the effective use of vertical construction projects for short term job creation. Vertical construction is much more effective for mid-term job creation.
Horizontal construction projects are even more ineffective as methods to short term job creation for several reasons. First, they don’t create many jobs because they are usually equipment intensive, not labor intensive. Second there are many more time consuming factors to overcome before they can start. Several agencies must give approval: local, state, federal and special issue agencies; each with different interests. For example, the environment, endangered species, historic preservation and here in California coastal preservation each have the ability to stop or delay most projects. Third, the time required for the investigation and design is much greater than for vertical construction projects, which precludes quick creation of jobs. Repair of bridges or highways creates other problems. If the facilities are in use, and they should be if they are worthwhile candidates for funding, there is a problem of what to do with the traffic during the time the repairs are underway. Some projects require years to complete, and the traffic disruption is a major problem.
High speed rail, even if Government involvement is justified, is going to take decades to start creating construction jobs. In addition to the obstacles noted above, property and right of way acquisition is required. Route selection is complicated because of limitations on rail design criteria. Curves and grades are limited to a fraction of highway criteria. Bridges and overpasses are much more expensive because of the much greater loads, and are much more limited in route selection because the structural limitations preclude long spans – you can’t easily cross navigable waterways or large highways.
Air travel facilities do not require as much time as high speed rail, but do require too much time to make them feasible projects for short term job creation. Disruption of schedules, safety considerations and major inconvenience to the surrounding neighborhood slow the projects.
As a retired engineer, I would welcome an infusion of funds to start the planning and design process. However, the number of jobs created would be a fraction of the jobs that would be created by construction projects. The jobs would be pretty much limited to highly educated upper middle class professionals who are already employed.
Construction is not a quick solution to the immediate unemployment problem because there is inherently a significant time requirement to get a project to the point where construction workers who need work will be employed. “Shovel Ready” is a myth.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
I am a retired professional engineer with almost 50 years experience in design, construction management, and maintenance and repair projects.
Education: BS Architecture and MS Civil Engineering from Georgia Tech
Experience:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Savannah District
South Atlantic Division (Atlanta)
Eighth Army Facilities Engineer (Seoul, Korea)
South West Division (Dallas)
Saudi Arabia District (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)
Los Angeles District
National Training Center, Ft. Irwin, CA
Hercules Powder Company, Allegheny Ballistics Lab
Michael K. Johns, Structural Engineer (Washington, DC)
Eastern Engineering Co (Atlanta)
Prybylowski & Gravino Civil Engineers (Atlanta)
Abreu & Robeson Architects (Atlanta)
RMK-BRJ Joint Venture (Viet Nam)
DeMatteis Arabia (Riyadh)
CPL Enterprise (Los Angeles)
Lee & Ro Civil Engineers (Los Angeles)
City Engineering Department (Savannah)
Professional Association: ASCE and NSPE
Professional Registration: California, Georgia and West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Boehner slams Obama jobs plan as 'poor substitute' for growth
By Russell Berman
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) criticized President Obama’s jobs plan in an economic address in Washington on Thursday, calling it “a poor substitute for the pro-growth policies that are needed to remove barriers to job creation in America.”
In a speech to the Economic Club of Washington, Boehner outlined the Republican plan for job creation and urged the deficit-reduction supercommittee to lay the groundwork for an overhaul of the tax code. At the same time, he restated the GOP’s long-held opposition to tax increases to bring down the deficit, saying they are “off the table” and not “a viable option” for the supercommittee.
Boehner indirectly criticized the tax proposals in Obama’s jobs plan, saying they would only make the tax code “more complex” at a time when both parties want to simplify the system.
“It strikes me as odd that at a time when it’s clear that the tax code needs to be fundamentally reformed, the first instinct out of Washington is to come up with a host of new tax credits that make the tax code more complex,” Boehner said. “It’s probably not realistic to think the Joint Committee could rewrite the tax code by November 23. But it can certainly lay the groundwork by then for tax reform in the future that will enhance economic growth and enhance the environment for economic growth.”
“The committee can develop principles for broad-based tax reform that will lower rates for individuals and corporations while closing deductions, credits, and special carve-outs in our tax code,” Boehner said.
While opposing tax increases – including allowing the George W. Bush-era tax cuts to expire – he voiced support for closing tax loopholes, which could include tax breaks for oil and gas companies that Democrats have been clamoring to scrap for years.
Boehner couched his address in bipartisan rhetoric and said some of Obama’s proposals, which he didn’t specify, offered “opportunities for common ground.” But his speech is likely to significantly dim expectations for passage of many elements of the president’s plan. In pushing for comprehensive tax reform, Boehner criticized the kind of temporary tax credits that are central to Obama’s proposal.
Obama is proposing a combination of infrastructure spending, temporary tax cuts for businesses and individuals, free trade agreements and an extension of unemployment insurance as a way of boosting job growth, which slowed to a halt in August.
Acknowledging the economy had stalled, Boehner declared job creators across the country to be “basically on strike” and placed the blame for the nation’s economic woes squarely on Washington and the policies of the Obama administration.
“The problem is not confusion about the policies, ... the problem is the policies,” Boehner said. “The anger many Americans have been feeling in recent years is beginning to turn into fear ... fear of our future.”
“What we need to do is to liberate our economy from the shackles of Washington. Let our economy grow!” Boehner said. “The instinct in government, always, is to get bigger, more intrusive, more meddlesome. And that instinct is at direct odds with the things that make the American economy move.”
The Speaker cited excessive regulation, higher taxes and too much spending as a “triple threat” to job creation. He spoke at length about rolling back regulations, which is the cornerstone of the House GOP’s fall agenda. Boehner referenced the recent federal raid of the Gibson Guitar factories in Tennessee and touted the House passage on Thursday of a bill aimed at blocking a move by the National Labor Relations Board to prevent Boeing from relocating a plant to South Carolina.
Boehner urged Obama to call a Cabinet meeting and direct his secretaries to report to him on policies that are inhibiting job growth.
“The members of the president’s Cabinet are not doing their jobs if they aren’t constantly focused on removing impediments to job growth,” he said, drawing a rare round of applause from a lunchtime audience that listened quietly to most of his speech. “If they’re not focused on that, they should be fired.”
While acknowledging skepticism across Washington about the deficit supercommittee, Boehner said he was “optimistic” it could succeed in its charge of finding $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. He did not say whether he agreed with lawmakers and outside groups who are calling on the panel to expand its mandate, and he said it was too soon to say whether the committee would be involved in finding offsetting cuts to pay for a jobs bill, as Obama has proposed.
On taxes, Boehner stuck to his insistence that aside from closing loopholes, they should not be increased.
“Tax increases I think are off the table and I don’t think l they are a viable option for the Joint Committee,” he said. “It’s a very simple equation. Tax increases destroy jobs. And the Joint Committee is a jobs committee. Its mission is to reduce the deficit that is threatening job creation in our country.”
Democrats quickly criticized his speech, which lasted just longer than 20 minutes.
“Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans think the answer to our economic challenges is more of the same failed policies to protect the ultra wealthy at the expense of the middle class,” said Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Speaker Boehner and House Republicans refuse to make billionaires and Big Oil pay their fair share so we can help small businesses create real middle-class jobs.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)My Plan to Revive Economic Growth
It is inherently American to work, to risk and to dream. Our government's policies should encourage that.
By HERMAN CAIN
Last week, President Obama unveiled his eagerly anticipated jobs plan. After 43 minutes of his speechifying, Americans were left wondering: We waited 30 months for this?
Indeed, it seems Mr. Obama's first term has been spent advancing a legislative agenda that pays no mind to our ailing economy and the Americans whose sufferings are casualties in his ideological war. After a failed stimulus package, preferential industry bailouts, and the disastrous government overhaul of the health-care industry, it seems the plight of the American worker has remained an afterthought.
This is the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression. If the Obama administration's aim was to merely tie for last place with the previous worst recovery, it would have created eight million more jobs, based on comparative data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If our recovery were more typical of the postwar era, as former Sen. Phil Gramm reported on this page in April, we would have 14 million more jobs today.
As a longtime leader in the business community, I know firsthand that government does not create jobs. It can only create the conditions in which businesses operate. These conditions can spur growth, or they can suppress it. The conditions imposed by the current administration have suppressed growth.
Still, there is hope. That hope begins with economic certainty, a sort of assurance the president seems unwilling to provide. I, on the other hand, have proposed a plan that would stabilize and grow our economy:
"Cain's Vision for Economic Growth," also known as the 9-9-9 Plan, is founded upon three guiding economic principles: Production drives the economy. Risk-taking creates growth. Units of measurement must be dependable.
The plan begins with restructuring the tax code to include the broadest possible base at the lowest possible rate. The elements are:
• A 9% corporate flat tax. Businesses would deduct purchases from other businesses and all capital investment. The resulting gross income is taxed at 9%.
• A 9% personal flat tax. Individuals would deduct charitable contributions, then pay 9% on the rest of their income. Capital gains are excluded.
• A 9% national sales tax. This levy would be placed on the consumption of all new goods. Used goods purchased would be excluded.
My plan would also permanently eliminate taxes on repatriated profits, as well as payroll taxes and the estate tax.
All of these measures would free up capital, spur production, and incentivize risk-taking, thereby fueling the economy and creating jobs. The plan has been designed to be revenue neutral initially, and then revenues would grow in line with the economy.
Related Video
Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on whether Obama's jobs plan can pass the Senate.
..But these policies must be coupled with sound money. A dollar must be worth the same tomorrow as it is today. Stabilizing the dollar's value starts with the federal government taking significant measures to rein in its spending and pay down the national debt. Americans must be assured that the federal government will live within its means and get serious about eliminating our crippling debt. Repealing ObamaCare, Sarbanes-Oxley and the Dodd-Frank bank-regulation bill would be critical steps.
Finally, my plan promotes enterprise zones, also known as "empowerment zones." Coupled with tax reform and monetary stabilization, empowerment zones would revitalize inner cities by providing tax credits to businesses that hire workers living and working in underprivileged areas.
Some of the most tragic unemployment numbers can be found in minority communities and in urban centers around the country. Empowerment zones would create a whole new generation of wage-earners providing for their families. The late Jack Kemp, a secretary of the department of Housing and Urban Development and a dear friend, was one of the first lawmakers to propose empowerment zones. He understood the tremendous economic benefits they would provide.
Each job lost today is not merely a statistic. Americans are struggling to determine whether to pay their mortgages or buy groceries, whether to buy school uniforms or pay the electric bill.
Such despair is unfitting for the greatest nation the world has ever known. After all, it is inherently American to work, to risk and to dream. Our government's policies should encourage that, not stifle it.
Mr. Cain, a Republican, is running for president of the United States. He is a former chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza and a former chairman of the board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment