Monday, October 31, 2011

After All It Is Halloween So Trot Out Anita Hill Again!

Michelle apparently not a happy camper unless, like her husband, she is trashing someone.

Scare them 'honkies,' cause them guilt and they will fork over as the 'rich white slaves' they are. (See 1 below.)

But then, neither am I a happy camper when it comes to her husband. (See 1a below.)
It is Anita Hill time so the Far Left racist slime brigade is out witch hunting again. After all it it Halloween! This time their target is another black man named Herman but they will find Herman is equal to them and will respond as did a black jurist named Thomas.

Like McCarthyism, the big lie is created out of fluff and therefore hard to refute because you can't grab hold.

Obama will run the dirtiest campaign ever because winning is more important to him than anything else and Obama knows Republicans generally back down but Herman will prove different because he is a fighter. He licked cancer so far and will lick his attackers.

Meanwhile, the Obama crowd is out attacking Romney claiming he will say anything to get elected. The Obama crowd are masters at engaging in the very accusations they make against others. They are good. Got to hand it to them. Nothing is too dirty, nothing is too slimy and no lie too big as long as it serves their nefarious purposes. (See 2 and 2a below.)

We have reached the point where baseless charges have become worth money. Why? Because defending baseless assertions are so costly it is easier to simply settle for a sum far less.

It is possible employing women will backfire and possibly cause them to lose some of the gains they have made.

I created one of the best institutional sales and research teams in the Southeast and at its peak we had seven members four of whom were women. Being a Southerner, by birth, I hugged them, always gave them cheek kisses and called them 'shug' and honey and always included them in my jokes - some were downright locker room variety. I relished in their success, their spirit, loyalty, integrity and hard work. They helped make the vicissitudes of work a pleasure. To this day they remain memo readers. This year two visited us and all will be friends for life. I adore them all and I believe they me.

There probably was never a day that went by that I could not have been accused of improper behaviour based on the lunacy of today's work place idiocy where teachers can't hug a child, a co-worker can't tell a woman she is lovely.

I hired 'my girls', helped train them and eventually learned from them. All I can say is that I am glad I am not part of today's PC work force. All the fun and respect is gone. It is mechanical and tip toe on glass time. How sad.
Avi and the Iranian banker. (See 3 below.)
1)The very angry first lady Michelle Obama
By Joseph Curl

Michelle’s back, and she’s madder than ever. She was already pretty angry, seemingly unhappy with just about everything. As her husband wrapped up the Democratic nomination in 2008, she let fly her real feelings: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.” A few months into her job as first lady, her French counterpart asked how she liked the gig: “Don’t ask!” she reportedly spat. “It’s hell. I can’t stand it!”

She even seems to be mad at her silver-tongued husband. When the two were to set off on a luxurious 10-day vacation to Martha’s Vineyard, she left early - four hours early - and flew up alone. And those private vacations. She’s traveled to some of the world’s most plush resorts, taking 42 days off in the past year - that’d be eight weeks of vacay time if she held down a normal job.

Now, she is ready to spew her bilious disgust with America on the campaign trail. A dignified, transcendent first lady? No chance. Michelle is going to break with a hundred years of tradition and play the role of attack dog, heaping derision on her husband’s political opponents like no other first lady before her.

And it’s already begun. Mad Michelle this week popped down to Davis Island, Fla., to hobnob with the very people her husband despises - the 1 percent. At a massive mansion on the bay, filled with the wealthiest of the wealthy, America’s first lady launched into a tirade about “them” - the Republicans.

“Let’s not forget about what it meant when my husband appointed two brilliant Supreme Court justices, and for the first time in history, our daughters - and our sons - watched three women take their seats on our nation’s highest court. But more importantly, let’s not forget the impact their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come - on our privacy and our security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly and love whomever we choose. That is what’s at stake here,” she said to applause.

Yes, Republicans hope to regain the White House so they can install Supreme Court justices who will trample Americans’ privacy, ignore the nation’s security, crush free speech and persecute the religious.

Oh, and they’re rich and racist to boot. “Will we be a country where opportunity is limited to just the few at the top? Who are we? Or will we give every child a chance to succeed no matter where they’re from, or what they look like or how much money their parents have. Who are we?”

That’s right, rich people (white, of course) certainly don’t want black people to succeed. They want to squelch success based on what people look like, how much money they have. “Are we going to let them succeed?” the first lady yelled. “Nooo!” the rich white people screamed.

Just as her husband’s re-election strategy is inanely simplistic - blame the Republicans for thwarting his brilliant, economy-saving policies - so too is the first lady’s. She will go to the opulent homes of rich people across the country to tell them how rich people are to blame for America’s woes and guilt them into giving millions for her husband’s campaign.

And the Princeton graduate will tell supporters they simply can’t comprehend the significance of what’s occurring today in America.

“It can be hard to see clearly what’s at stake - because these issues are so complicated, and quite frankly, folks are busy and they’re tired. We’re raising families and working full-time jobs, and many helping out in their own communities on top of all that. So many of us just don’t have the time to follow the news and to sort through all the back-and-forth, and to figure out how all of this stuff connects to our daily lives.”

Yes, only Michelle and her husband can truly understand, although she often tells those uninformed people that when the president returns from one of his campaign trips, “He says, ‘You won’t believe what folks are going through.’ ” So maybe she is the only person in America who understands.

So, America’s first lady will travel the country this election season to tell her fellow Americans just how bad it is out there (between lavish vacations, of course). Unlike President Ronald Reagan, who saw morning in America - that great shining city on a hill - Michelle will tell all who will listen that Republicans want to poison the air and water, stifle free speech, oppress the religious. She will offer not an uplifting vision of what her husband’s America could be but only a vapid view of what Republicans’ America would be.

That is the America she lives in, and by campaign’s end, it will be clear that she’s no longer “proud of my country.” Maybe she never really was.

• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at

1a)The enemy is inside the wire
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

What would have happened if, during the Cold War, Soviet intelligence had been responsible for training Americans charged with countering communist aggression? Surely, we would not have defeated the USSR. Perhaps, instead, Kruschev's boast that his nation would dance on our graves would have been realized.

It should, therefore, be profoundly alarming that, today, the Obama administration is entrusting to agents of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB or Ikhwan in Arabic) the responsibility for approving who and what is used in "countering violent extremism" training for our military, law enforcement, intelligence personnel.

The use of the term "countering violent extremism" (or CVE) is, of course, the first clue that the enemy is inside the wire. That euphemism is the term Team Obama allows to be employed in lieu of phrases that actually describe the nature of the principal enemy we face at the moment: Muslims who engage in holy war-- jihad-- to compel the rest of us to submit to the totalitarian, supremacist political-military-legal doctrine they call shariah.

"Countering violent extremism" is problematic for reasons beyond its lack of clarity about the threat. It also explicitly excludes a facet of the menace posed by shariah that is at least as dangerous to an open, tolerant liberal democracy as the violent sort of jihad: the stealthy insinuation of this doctrine in ways that are non-violent or, more accurately, pre-violent.

The Muslim Brotherhood specializes in this sort of covert warfare, which it has dubbed "civilization jihad." Its skills were honed during decades of operations under a succession of hostile Egyptian governments. Now that the Brothers have achieved-- with no little help from President Obama-- the overthrow of the last of these under Hosni Mubarak, their true colors are becoming evident. Ask the Coptic Christians who are now being massacred by the putatively "non-violent" Ikhwan.

Make no mistake: Stealthy civilization jihad is every bit as toxic and has precisely the same goals as the sort of holy war we have come to associate with murderous hijackers and suicide bombers of MB spin-offs like al Qaeda.

We know, for example, from evidence introduced uncontested by federal prosecutors in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism-funding trial that the Brotherhood's mission here is "a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying... Western civilization from within... by their hands [read, ours] and the hands of the believers so that God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." We also are on notice that the MB has a five-phased plan for achieving this mission in the United States; the first four phases are stealthy and pre-violent.

Which brings us to the alarming guidelines recently promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security for countering violent extremism training. Under the heading "Trainers should be expert and well-regarded," the DHS directs that a "prospective trainer's resume be "check[ed] with knowledgeable community leaders." Unfortunately, it appears that, as far as the Obama administration is concerned, such "leaders" are exclusively those associated with organizations that the federal government and the Muslim Brotherhood itself have identified as Ikhwan fronts.
The DHS guidelines also direct that "training should be sensitive to constitutional values." To that end, it requires that "federal, state and local government and law enforcement officials organizing CVE the training program to ensure that:

•"It uses examples to demonstrate that terrorists and violent extremists vary in ethnicity, race, gender, and religion.
• "Training should focus on behavior, not appearance or membership in particular ethnic or religious communities.
•"Training should support the protection of civil rights and civil liberties as part of national security. Don't use training that equates religious expression, protests, or other constitutionally protected activity with criminal activity."

In other words, Muslim Brotherhood-associated individuals are being afforded the opportunity to veto the use of trainers who might actually understand the nature of the danger its operatives and organizations pose to our country. And those who are allowed to train are not permitted to focus their students on the actual threat emanating from a subset of the Muslim community. Rather, they must promote the notion that there are really no indicators in belief or nationality that can help the authorities apply limited security resources in a sensibly prioritized manner.
Some try to excuse this behavior as nothing more than being "sensitive," "tolerant" or "politically correct." The danger is that shariah-adherent Muslims regard such conduct as submissive-- and, according to their doctrine, they are obliged to redouble their efforts to, as the Koran puts it, make us "feel subdued." That means more violence, not less.

That prospect becomes all the greater when one adds into the mix the presence of government officials who are themselves tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and/or its shariah doctrine - including in senior positions in the White House, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Such individuals are products of and greatly facilitate the Brothers' influence operations and contribute greatly to our failure to date to recognize, let alone counteract, them.

If we would not have won the Cold War had the KGB been able to call the shots here, we surely will not prevail if we allow the Muslim Brotherhood to do the same in the struggle against today's totalitarian ideology, shariah-- a doctrine some have dubbed "communism with a god." Congressional oversight is urgently needed to prevent that from happening.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.
2)Cain: We have ‘no idea’ who fed Politico the sexual harassment story
By Chris Moody

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, responding to a recent Politico story that included anonymous charges of sexual harassment while he was chairman of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, said he has "no idea" who fed the press the story.

"We have no idea about the source of this witch hunt," Cain said during a speech at the National Press Club Monday.

Cain Campaign Manager Mark Block told reporters he didn't think the story came from one of his rivals, but left the possibility open.

"I find it hard to believe that anybody from another campaign would do that," Block said. "But this is politics, isn't it?"

Cain spent much of his day Monday addressing the charges in the story, which he called "totally false," although he affirmed that allegations were made and an investigation found no wrong doing. At least one of his accusers received a settlement, according to an NBC News report.

2a)Rush: Cain Accusations Amount to 'Gutter Partisan Politics'
By Amy Woods

The mainstream media are using “the ugliest racial stereotypes they can to attack a black conservative” in coverage of alleged sexual harassment by Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show Monday.

“This story appears to me to be a close relative of the hit job that The Washington Post is doing on [Republican Florida Sen.] Marco Rubio,” Limbaugh said, referring to a story claiming that the Florida senator might have embellished his family’s Cuban-exile status to gain political points.

“This is gutter partisan politics," Limbaugh insisted.

Reports that Cain was the subject of complaints about 15 years ago of inappropriate behavior by female employees at the National Restaurant Association is “the politics of minority conservative personal destruction,” he said.

Blacks and Hispanics “are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the Democrat Party, and anything good that happens to any black or Hispanic in American politics can only happen via the Democrat Party,” he said.

What would the media do if the same allegations were made against President Barack Obama? Limbaugh said.

“They would be going after the women,” he said. “They would name names, and they would destroy them. They would call these women racists for trying to destroy a black politician.”

For Cain's part, the former businessman acknowledged today that he was accused of sexual harassment more than a decade ago but insisted that the claims were “baseless.”

Speaking on Fox News, the Republican presidential candidate said he was unaware that payments had been made to two women who claimed that he had harassed them when he headed the National Restaurant Association.

And Cain told Fox’s Jenna Lee that there are no more skeletons in his closet. “If more allegations come, I assure you, people will simply make them up,” he said. “The only other allegations will be trumped-up allegations. There’s nothing else."
3)Iran's Mystery Banker in Canada
By Avi Jorisch
Jerusalem Post
October 31, 2011

Send RSS Share: Be the first of your friends to like this.
As details of the Iranian terror plot to blow up the Saudi Embassy in Washington DC become clearer, the U.S. and other Western allies will look to punish Iran. One of the most powerful ways to influence Iran is through the banking sector. Through an interesting turn of events, Canada is in a position to exert significant financial leverage through one individual in particular.

One of the world's most important international bankers is currently residing in Toronto after fleeing his country of origin. Mahmoud Reza Khavari was until recently the head of Iran's Bank Melli, an institution notorious for assisting in Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and financing of terrorism. Canadian authorities have yet to take action against Mr. Khavari, who represents a potential gold mine of information regarding how Iranian banks raise and move money around the globe.

According to Iran's semiofficial Mehr News Agency, Khavari flew to Canada on September 28 after Iran issued arrest warrants for 22 top-level bankers in what appears to be the largest embezzlement scheme in the country's history. Khavari is accused of facilitating fraudulent payments—totaling over USD 2.6 billion—on behalf of Bank Melli. Others linked to the scandal consist of a who's who of Iran's political elite, including President Ahmadinejad himself.

Khavari's banking career has been nothing short of brilliant. According to international press and Khavari's own resume, available online at Bank Melli's website, he has been with the bank since 2009. Before that, he held a variety of positions, including chairman of Bank Sepah's board of directors from December 2003 until at least March 2005. He has also worked at Iran's Bank of Industry and Mine and served as a member on the Tehran Stock Exchange board of directors. Many of the companies and financial institutions Khavari has been affiliated with have been blacklisted by the United Nations and members of the international community.

Beginning in 2007, the UN ordered member states to cease doing business with Bank Sepah and its affiliates under any circumstances. It later placed restrictions on two other banks, Melli and Saderat. The EU and countries around the world followed suit, including Canada, Australia, and the United States, and they have published their own list of blacklisted Iranian banks. For example, Canada has blacklisted four Iranian financial institutions, including the Melli, Mellat, and Saderat banks and the Export Development Bank of Iran (but not Bank Sepah, in seeming contradiction to international law).

Banks Sepah and Melli—two financial institutions where Khavari held senior posts—are particularly guilty of involvement in illicit international activity. The UN Security Council blacklisted Sepah and its subsidiaries under resolution 1747 and placed restrictions on Melli under resolution 1803. Both financial institutions were implicated in contributing to the proliferation of sensitive nuclear activities or to the development of Iranian nuclear-weapon delivery systems. These banks have also reportedly been involved in providing banking services in support of Iran's nuclear drive and its elite Revolutionary Guards.

Khavari's connections to Canada are noteworthy. To begin with, he and his immediate family are reportedly Canadian citizens. As recently as 2007, he purchased a CAD 2.93 million home in one of Toronto's most exclusive neighborhoods, Bridle Path. In 2001,he bought a home with his wife in Toronto's North York neighborhood, taking out a mortgage of CAD 615,000. At a certain point, Khavari also owned a Toronto-based company called Soaring Properties (it is unclear if he still owns it).

There are a number of steps Canadian authorities can take immediately. First, Khavari is apparently in violation of the Special Economic Measures (Iran) Regulations for having worked and provided financial services on behalf of a designated Canadian entity. In all likelihood, Khavari is also in violation of Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act, along with Part II.1 of the Criminal Code (Section 83.05). This section has provisions that prohibit the financing of terrorism. It also lists individuals or entities which, there are reasonable grounds to believe, have participated in or facilitated terrorist activity, or knowingly acted on behalf of, or associated with, an entity involved in terrorism.

Under Section 83.05, Canadian authorities may even have the right to freeze Khavari's assets.

Canada should make a legal determination regarding whether to freeze his assets in the country. Once they have done this, authorities might be able to uncover the full extent of Bank Melli's involvement in Iran's proliferation of nuclear weapons and terrorism financing. Khavari possesses critical information on Iran's banking network and the extent to which Iran abuses the international financial sector for illicit purposes. The intelligence gathered from Khavari should be shared with international partners both on a bilateral basis and at the UN Security Council.

While Canada has certainly been a staunch ally of members of the international community that have tried to implement sanctions against Iran to stop its nuclearization, it does appear that Canada is out of compliance with international law. According to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, all member states are obligated to blacklist Bank Sepah. Canadian lawmakers, and in particular, the governor in council, should rectify this loophole as quickly as possible; Bank Sepah was blacklisted by the UN as far back as March 2007.

Through existing legislation, the Canadian government has made it clear that there is a cost for doing business with Iran. Going forward, Canadian policymakers should move expeditiously in regard to Khavari. As one of Iran's top bankers, he could be of great use to any nation that is intent on stopping Iran from getting the bomb.

Saturday, October 29, 2011


My elegant mother in law, Frances, in her better days.

If all mother in laws were like Frances, comedians would have far less jokes.

Now for some serious stuff! Stratfor on the European banking crisis. (See 1 below.)

Progressivism, Fabianism and the direction it is taking us! (See 1a below.)
LTE quoting Tom Sowell. One of our nation's finest minds. (See 2 below.)
Now for some humor. Some church blooper bulletins:

"Ladies, don't forget the rummage sale. It's a chance to get rid of those things not worth keeping around the house. Bring your husbands."

"Irving Benson and Jessie Carter were married on October 24, in the church. So ends a friendship that began in their school days."

"A bean supper will be held on Tuesday evening in the church hall. Music will follow..."

"At the evening service tonight, the sermon topic will be 'What Is Hell?' Come early and listen to our choir practice."

"The church will host an evening of fine dining, super entertainment and gracious hostility."

"Potluck supper Sunday at 5:00 PM - prayer and medication to follow."

"This evening at 7 PM, there will be a hymn singing in the park across from the Church. Bring a blanket and come prepared to sin."

"The pastor would appreciate it if the ladies of the Congregation would lend him their electric girdles for the pancake breakfast next Sunday."

"Low Self Esteem Support Group will meet Thursday at 7 PM. Please use the back door."

"The eighth-graders will be presenting Shakespeare's Hamlet in the Church basement Friday at 7 PM. The congregation is invited to attend this tragedy."

"The Associate Minister unveiled the church's new campaign slogan last Sunday: 'I Upped My Pledge - Up Yours."
1) STRATFOR: This is the second installment in a two-part series on the European banking crisis.

Risks to Recapitalization

Because of the politicized nature of European banking, European governments often require their banks to have a smaller cash cushion than banks elsewhere in the world. For example, when the European Banking Authority ran stress tests in July to prove the banks’ stability, the banks were only required to demonstrate a capital adequacy ratio (the percentage of assets held in cash to cover operations and losses) of 5 percent — half the international standard. Even with such lax standards, eight European banks still failed the tests. Since banks need cash to engage in the business of making loans, there is very strong resistance among European banks to valuing their assets at market values. Any write-downs force them to redirect their free cash from making loans to covering losses. The lower capital requirements of Europe mean that their margin for error is always very thin.

Increasing that margin requires more cash reserves, a process known as recapitalization. Recapitalization can be done any number of ways, but most of the normal options are currently off the table for European banks. The preferred method is to issue more good loans so that profits from new business can eat away at the losses from the bad. But in a recessionary environment, new high-quality loans are hard to find. Banks also can raise money by issuing stock or selling assets. However, few in Europe, much less elsewhere, want to increase their exposure to the European banking sector, largely because of banks’ gross exposure to Europe’s sovereign debt crisis. European banks in particular, which are in the best position to know, are reluctant to become more entangled in each other’s affairs and often shy away from lending to one another, even for terms as short as overnight.

Even in good times, any serious recapitalization efforts would flood the market with stock shares and assets for sale. These are not good times. Remember that banks are the primary purchasers of European sovereign debt and Europe is already in a sovereign debt crisis. Adding more assets for banks to buy would create the near-perfect buyer’s market: rock-bottom prices. There are indeed some would-be purchasers— Sweden from within the European Union and Turkey and Russia from without — but their combined interest adds up to merely billions of euros, when hundreds of billions are needed.

Which brings us to the sheer size of the problem. The Europeans are leaning toward a new regulation that would force all European banks to have a capital adequacy ratio of 9 percent, hoping that such a change would decisively end speculation that Europe’s banks face problems. It will not.

According to the European Banking Authority, the institution that is responsible for carrying out stress tests, two-thirds of Europe’s banks are currently below the 9 percent threshold — and that assumes no past or future reduction in the value of sovereign bonds for any European governments, no new sovereign bailouts that damage investor confidence or asset values, no mortgage crisis, no new bank collapses in Europe akin to that of Franco-Belgian bank Dexia and no renewed recession. Simply increasing capital adequacy ratios to 9 percent will cost about 200 billion euros (about $270 billion). The regulation also assumes that all European banks have been scrupulously honest in their reporting; Dexia, for example, shuffled assets between its trading and banking books to generate a misleading capital adequacy ratio of 12 percent, when the reality was in the vicinity of 6 percent. Forcing the banks to have a thicker cushion is certainly a step in the right direction, but the volume is insufficient to resolve any of the problems outlined to this point, and the latest rumor out of Europe’s pre-summit negotiations is that perhaps only 80 billion euros is actually needed.

If the banks cannot recapitalize themselves, the only remaining options are state-driven recapitalization efforts. Here, again, current circumstances hobble possible actions. The European sovereign debt crisis means many governments are already facing great stresses in meeting normal financing needs — doubly so for Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Belgium and Spain. No eurozone states have the ability to quickly come up with several hundred billion euros in additional funds. Keep in mind that, unlike the United States, where the Federal Reserve plays a central role in bank regulation and remediation, the European Central Bank has no role whatsoever. The individual central banks of the various eurozone states lack the control over monetary policy to build the sort of highly liquid support mechanisms required to sequester and rehabilitate damaged banks. Such central bank actions remain in the arsenal of the non-eurozone states — the United Kingdom, for one, has been using such monetary policy tools for three years now. However, for the eurozone states, the only way to recapitalize is to come up with cash — and as Europe’s financial crises deepen, that’s becoming ever harder to do.

There is one other option that the eurozone states do have: the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), better known as the European bailout fund, which manages the Greek, Irish and Portuguese bailouts. With its recent amendments, the EFSF can now legally assist European banks as well as European governments. But even this mechanism faces three complications.

First, the EFSF has yet to bail out a bank, so it is unclear what process would be followed. The French have indicated they would like to tap the facility to recapitalize their banks because they see it as being politically attractive (and not using just their money). The Germans have indicated that should a bank tap the facility then the sovereign that regulates the bank must commit to economic reforms; the EFSF, therefore, should be a last resort. Not only is there not yet a process for EFSF bank bailouts, but there also is not yet an agreement on who should hold the process. Even if the Germans get their way on the EFSF, remediation and supervisory structures must first be built.

Second, the EFSF is a very new institution with only a handful of staff. Even if there were full eurozone agreement on the process, the EFSF is months away from being able to implement policy. And if the EFSF is going to have the ability to restructure banks, that power is, for now, directly in opposition to EU treaties that guarantee all banking authority to the member-state level.

Finally, the EFSF is fairly small in terms of funding capacity. Its total fundraising ceiling is only 440 billion euros, 268 billion of which it has already committed to the bailouts of Greece, Ireland and Portugal over the course of the next three years. Unless the facility is significantly expanded, it simply will not have enough money to serve as a credible bank-financing tool. To handle all of the challenges the Europeans are hoping the EFSF will be able to resolve, STRATFOR estimates the facility will need its capacity expanded to 2 trillion euros. Finding ways to solve that problem likely will dominate the European summits being held during the next few days.

1a) The Fabian society exists throughout the world and is very active in the US. Probably, my main reason is that its members consist of intellectual elitists from our universities, ie Harvard, etc. As an engineer, I have not traveled in that sphere of abstract studies and ideas. I strongly suggest that we all do a bit of reading offered by simply punching a few buttons – it has been very revealing to me. I will try to summarize a little below, but it is best to go back and browse through the internet.

Around the year 1883, another group of anti-establishment intellectuals decided that socialism will finally be the economic model of the world. They also recognized that the world was not ready for an abrupt change as advocated by Marxism or Fascism, but could only be accomplished by a gradual degradation of the Capitalistic system. They called their group the Fabian Society after the Roman General, Quintus Fabius Maximus, who advocated the weakening the opposition by harassing operations rather than becoming involved in pitched battles. The clever artifice of feigning “respectability,” while at the same time subverting society for revolutionary purpose is a Fabian tactic that has had phenomenal success through out the world especially in the US. It has given the Fabians easy entry into government, banks, stock exchanges and universities. This policy of conscious deception allowed Fabian Socialists to have their cake and eat it too. While extremists, overt Marxists, with a franker policy have been barred from ordinary social intercourse, Fabians have been welcomed because they had a velvet glove approach accompanied by fine intellectual manners.

They did have a problem as they had no coherent economic model to replace capitalistic economics and floundered with their overt negativism. That is until the mid 30’s John Maynard Keynes published his The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. It could not have come from a better source for an anti-establishment group; Keynes is an Agnostic and a social deviate preferring young boys. However, Keynes did have extraordinary organization skills and was used extensively by FDR in his pursuit of extending the depression through the 30’s. They also had the assistance of the Harvard School of Economics, including Kenneth Galbreath. The Harvard Fabian Socialists group was very active in particular indoctrinating their students in Socialism. One of Keynes favorite projects was the IMF that was brought to fruitation by Harry Dexter White, a highly placed FDR economic advisor eventually prosecuted as a Soviet spy. White and Keynes were good friends to the very end. The World Bank was another of his favorite projects that eventually became a reality. The Fabians during this period had the time to infiltrate the government cadres across the board like Felix Frankfurter, Walter Lippmann and Dean Acheson.

Leaping to the present, while Fabians still insist that Keynesian economics will work, it has been a consistent failure in the US and throughout the world. It has been a dismal economic failure; however, it permits government to maintain full control of the economy – which is very bad in itself. It is the same old refrain as used by Communists “They just did not do it right – we can”. The Occupy groups are still the same old anti-establishment group, with all of the same social deviates, complaining, but having no real solutions. Their smoke gets in their eyes. Individual responsibility is no longer accepted as part of their philosophy or that of corporate structure. While they complain vigorously about corporate power, they fail to realize the government is actively rendering corporations impotent as fast as they can write regulations and furnish stimulus and bail out funds. It is this subtle process of nationalizing corporations that has slowed economic growth in the US needed to sustain a high quality of life. Taxes, from whatever source, are decimating the ability of the private sector for recapitalization to improve productivity with better working conditions. The sum total is a concerted effort to destroy corporate power and replace it with government control, an avowed mission of progressives. Of course, this means that our constitution has to go.

However, I have been totally amazed with the ability of well managed corporations to restructure in this adverse environment obtaining productive growth and good earnings. These are mainly strong stand alone corporations without government involvement. Poorly managed corporations have not been allowed to fail and will continue to be a drag on the economy. Nobody is too big to fail – ENRON, the ex-largest corporation in the US, is a good example. Corporations simply do not disappear when they fail – they go into receivership and redistributed to those who can manage them or different parts of them successfully. Lehman Brothers are another example; the corp. went down over the weekend and everybody still went to work on Monday morning. It took about a week to change the letter head on the stationary and in some cases; the Lehman Brothers name was retained. I am sure if Goldman hadn’t made such a wise investment in the last election, they would have also gone down. There is no excuse for AIG to exist – they were blatant in their abuse of the system. GE still flaunts their ability to have the taxpayer support them. This is where the problem exists and it is simply promulgated by big government. There is no reason, except for the government wanting control, to support these examples of poor management with taxpayer money.

A comparison of the Tea Party to the occupiers should be obvious. The Tea Party clearly wants to stop the creeping Socialism and growth of big government. The occupiers want to jump start an acceleration of Fabian Socialism. The Tea Party knows what they want and it has been demonstrated to be historically successful. The occupiers when confronted with requests about what should be done, simple reiterate their grievances with no clear cut plan. It is reminiscent of the French revolution and the mob shouting “off with his head”.

George Bernard Shaw, an early member and an avid supporter of the Fabian Society wrote:

“I also made it quite clear that Socialism means equality of income or nothing, and that under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.”

He suggests that the main difference between Communism and Fabianism is opponents would be executed in a nice way.

Why should we be concerned? There are now over 80 members in the progressive caucus in Congress – self avowed to destroy our capitalistic economic structure, eliminate corporate power and replace it with huge government. Back as far as 2008 Obama was called out as a Fabian Socialist by Forbes – there has been no denial. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is giving full support to the Occupy Wall Street Movement, again blaming corporations, with no consideration for the government role in our economic troubles. If we do not call a halt to this creeping socialism very quickly, the US will go bankrupt – the US simply can not support itself without the productivity of a capitalistic economy. You can complain all you want, but the productivity created by corporate power management is second to none in the world. Nationalize our productivity as in Venezuela to have all your nieces and nephews run the business and see how fast wealth distribution totally eliminates the middle class leaving only very rich and a huge population of extremely poor people. About 40%, the very poor, are supporting the rich and government – if this is what you want, just keep putting these Fabians and Progressives in control of government.
2)The current Occupy Wall Street movement is the best illustration to date
of what President Barack Obama's America looks like. It is an America
where the lawless, unaccomplished, ignorant and incompetent rule. It is
an America where those who have sacrificed nothing pillage and destroy
the lives of those who have sacrificed greatly.

It is an America where history is rewritten to honor dictators, murderers
and thieves. It is an America where violence, racism, hatred, class warfare
and murder are all promoted as acceptable means of overturning the American
civil society.

It is an America where humans have been degraded to the level of animals:
defecating in public, having sex in public, devoid of basic hygiene. It is an
America where the basic tenets of a civil society, including faith, family, a
free press and individual rights, have been rejected. It is an America where
our founding documents have been shredded and, with them, every person's
guaranteed liberties.

It is an America where, ultimately, great suffering will come to the American
people, but the rulers like Obama, Michelle Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi,
Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, liberal
college professors, union bosses and other loyal liberal/Communist Party members
will live in opulent splendor.

It is the America that Obama and the Democratic Party have created with the
willing assistance of the American media, Hollywood , unions, universities, the
Communist Party of America, the Black Panthers and numerous anti-American
foreign entities.

Barack Obama has brought more destruction upon this country in four years than
any other event in the history of our nation, but it is just the beginning of what he
and his comrades are capable of.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is just another step in their plan for the
annihilation of America .

"Socialism, in general, has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual
could ignore or evade it."

Thomas Sowell

Friday, October 28, 2011

My Mother in Law!

Frances, in her better days.

My mother in law, of almost 40 years, passed away quietly yesterday. Frances was a take charge person but never interfered in my marriage and was non-critical. She was a remarkable, stylish woman and more than my mother in law. She was a supportive friend.

She died to the day of the first anniversary of her husband of 64 years.

France, like her husband Julie, was indeed loved and will indeed be missed.



Frances Perl Rudikoff, passed away Friday evening, Oct. 28. She was the loving wife of Julius Rudikoff. Born in Romania, she immigrated to the US in 1921 as an infant, and lived in The Bronx, New York until moving to Savannah with her husband in 1946. She was non-judgemental, devoted to her family and strived to keep everyone closely connected.

She is survived by her sister, Fay Perl Schaffer of Queen's New York, her daughter, Lynn Rudikoff Berkowitz of Savannah, her son Stuart Rudikoff of Bethesda, MD and their respective spouses Dick Berkowitz and Eva Rudikoff.

Frances is also survived by seven grandchildren: Daniel Berkowitz (Tamara), Abby Berkowitz Nelson (Brian) , Craig Rudikoff, Lisa Rudikoff Flaherty (Matthew), Debra Darvick (Martin), Amy Trager (Steve), Lisa Thaler (Martin), and five great grandchildren: Elliot and Emma Darvick, Kevin and Emily Trager and Henry Thaler.

Also surviving Mrs. Rudikoff are various nieces and nephews.
Mrs. Rudikoff was the long time manager of Punch and Judy. Although retired for 25 years, many still remember her for her uncanny ability to 'dress' their children and her courteous service.

She was very active in the AA Synagogue’s Sisterhood and was honored for her dedication and service.

Funeral will be Sunday at Bonaventure Cemetery, Rabbi Kenneth Leitner presiding. The family will receive visitors at Buckingham South, 5450 Abercorn St. following the service until 7 PM.

The family requests no flowers . Contributions can be made to The Julius Rudikoff Athletic Foundation at The JEA, Hospice Savannah, The AA Sisterhood, 9 Lee Blvd., Savannah, GA 31405, or charity of your choice.

The family wishes to extend a special thanks to her faithful caregivers under the guidance of Denice Collins and Hospice Savannah.

We still have a choice.

We still have a choice.

We can either continue drifting left and lose our nation or reject the nonsense we have allowed, suffer the pain of getting the Capitalist engine back on track and save our Republic.

This is what the next 14 months is all about.

We can either buy the garbage of the Schumer's, Frank's, Pelosi's, Durbin's and their misguided ilk who are walking around zombie-like and, while at it, re-elect Obama, our Socialist Saviour, or go with a candidate who may not be everything to everyone but one with whom we can at least start the rebuilding and restoration process.

With the kind of deficits we have accumulated, the road ahead will be painful and difficult but if we return to common sense policies, have the tenacity to cast off the excessive and restrictive burdens we allowed to be placed on our backs by progressive lunacy and embrace old fashioned American ingenuity, we stand a chance - a slim chance but a chance.

To do this, we need to overhaul our tax system, restore tough curriculum and standards in our schools and colleges and commit ourselves to returning to the societal model that made us a great nation and peoples. That means rejecting PC'ism, soft headed thinking and disregard Nay saying messages from the media spewed by those who have contempt for our nation.

Basically we must reverse the entire course we have followed for well over 40 years.

This from a friend and fellow memo reader: "Paul Ryan used this Reagan quote in his speech this week.... Where has this belief gone? Have the Open Society 'Sorosists', the OWS anarchists, the corrupted academicians all finally succeeded in convincing the majority that America is the enemy?

"Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes – one rich, one poor – both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other? Since when do we in America accept this alien and discredited theory of social and class warfare? Since when do we in America endorse the politics of envy and division?”
Though several weeks old it is still worth reading because it reminds us of the type of human animals we are dealing with no matter how benign Obama seeks to portray them. (See 1 below.)

Paul Ryan to the rescue. Noonan sees him as the real thinker in the crowd of political pygmies and Obama is there leading the pack. (See 1a below.)
Frazier is right, there is much we do not know about Obama but we know enough to know he needs to be thrown out of office. His style of leadership is divisive, his philosophy of change is dangerous. Need I say more. Need we know more? (See 2 below.)
Iran's threat will not go away. Maybe Iran needs to go away! (See 3 below.)
1)The Shalit Defining Moment
By Victor Davis Hanson
NRO’s The Corner

The Palestinians have just shown the entire world their collective values — and the result is creepy beyond belief. Every once in a while a single incident crystallizes almost everything — all the cry-of-the-heart moral equivalence, all the special pleading, all the revisionism, all the national-liberationist cant. The crude and coerced Egyptian interview of Gilad Shalit says it all. He looked emaciated and short of breath, like the old film clips of those who had just emerged from Dachau; his Egyptian inquisitor, the repulsive Shahira Amin (lately a heartthrob of the Western media, who drew praise in the past from Secretary Clinton), preened like some sort of Lady Haw-Haw reading a script from Goebbels’s Ministry of Propaganda — with a masked Hamas thug in the background, rounding out the cast, perfectly playing the part of a cowardly killer from the SS Einsatzgruppen.

As if a chorus on cue, the released killers immediately boasted that they would murder again. Then, there was the vow to kidnap more soldiers, the anger that the 1,000-to-1 ratio of exchange was not enough, the usual anti-Semitic Hitlerian communiqués boasting of “victory” over the “apes and pigs,” and the mass deification on the West Bank of freed mass killers who looked far better than did Shalit. So all that raises a question in this supposed morally equivalent conflict: Why in the world are we giving one cent in foreign aid to Palestinian groups of any sort? The entire sordid spectacle of the Shalit interview was one of the more repulsive video moments in memory — right up there with the Palestinian street’s cheering on news of 3,000 Americans murdered on 9/11. No other supposedly aggrieved clique has such a talent in moments of its jubilation and exultation for reminding the world why so many can find it so utterly repellent.

On a final practical note: Be careful for what you wish. Now the Palestinian community will at long last have their bombers in their midst and must live with the retaliatory consequences when their heroes go back to what they habitually do.

1a)The Divider vs. the Thinker While Obama readies an ugly campaign, Paul Ryan gives a serious account of what ails America.

People are increasingly fearing the divisions within, even the potential coming apart of, our country. Rich/poor, black/white, young/old, red/blue: The things that divide us are not new, yet there's a sense now that the glue that held us together for more than two centuries has thinned and cracked with age. That it was allowed to thin and crack, that the modern era wore it out.

What was the glue? A love of country based on a shared knowledge of how and why it began; a broad feeling among our citizens that there was something providential in our beginnings; a gratitude that left us with a sense that we should comport ourselves in a way unlike the other nations of the world, that more was expected of us, and not unjustly—

"To whom much is given much is expected"; a general understanding that we were something new in history, a nation founded on ideals and aspirations—liberty, equality—and not mere grunting tribal wants. We were from Europe but would not be European: No formal class structure here, no limits, from the time you touched ground all roads would lead forward. You would be treated not as your father was but as you deserved. That's from "The Killer Angels," a historical novel about the Civil War fought to right a wrong the Founders didn't right. We did in time, and at great cost. What a country.

But there is a broad fear out there that we are coming apart, or rather living through the moment we'll look back on as the beginning of the Great Coming Apart. Economic crisis, cultural stresses: "Half the country isn't speaking to the other half," a moderate Democrat said the other day. She was referring to liberals of her acquaintance who know little of the South and who don't wish to know of it, who write it off as apart from them, maybe beneath them.

To add to the unease, in New York at least, there's a lot of cognitive dissonance. If you are a New Yorker, chances are pretty high you hate what the great investment firms did the past 15 years or so to upend the economy. Yet you feel on some level like you have to be protective of them, because Wall Street pays the bills of the City of New York. Wall Street tax receipts and Wall Street business—restaurants, stores—keep the city afloat. So you want them up and operating and vital, you don't want them to leave—that would only make things worse for people in trouble, people just getting by, and young people starting out. You know you have to preserve them just when you'd most like to deck them.

Where is the president in all this? He doesn't seem to be as worried about his country's continuance as his own. He's out campaigning and talking of our problems, but he seems oddly oblivious to or detached from America's deeper fears. And so he feels free to exploit divisions. It's all the rich versus the rest, and there are a lot more of the latter.

Twenty twelve won't be "as sexy" as 2008, he said this week. It will be all brute force. Which will only add to the feeling of unease.

Occupy Wall Street makes an economic critique that echoes the president's, though more bluntly: the rich are bad, down with the elites. It's all ad hoc, more poetry slam than platform. Too bad it's not serious in its substance.

There's a lot to rebel against, to want to throw off. If they want to make a serious economic and political critique, they should make the one Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner make in "Reckless Endangerment": that real elites in Washington rigged the system for themselves and their friends, became rich and powerful, caused the great cratering, and then "slipped quietly from the scene."

It is a blow-by-blow recounting of how politicians—Democrats and Republicans—passed the laws that encouraged the banks to make the loans that would never be repaid, and that would result in your lost job. Specifically it is the story of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage insurers, and how their politically connected CEOs, especially Fannie's Franklin Raines and James Johnson, took actions that tanked the American economy and walked away rich. It began in the early 1990s, in the Clinton administration, and continued under the Bush administration, with the help of an entrenched Congress that wanted only two things: to receive campaign contributions and to be re-elected.

The story is a scandal, and the book should be the bible of Occupy Wall Street. But they seem as incapable of seeing government as part of the problem as Republicans seem of seeing business as part of the problem.

Which gets us to Rep. Paul Ryan. Mr. Ryan receives much praise, but I don't think his role in the current moment has been fully recognized. He is doing something unique in national politics. He thinks. He studies. He reads. Then he comes forward to speak, calmly and at some length, about what he believes to be true. He defines a problem and offers solutions, often providing the intellectual and philosophical rationale behind them. Conservatives naturally like him—they agree with him—but liberals and journalists inclined to disagree with him take him seriously and treat him with respect.

This week he spoke on "The American Idea" at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. He scored the president as too small for the moment, as "petty" in his arguments and avoidant of the decisions entailed in leadership. At times like this, he said, "the temptation to exploit fear and envy returns." Politicians divide in order to "evade responsibility for their failures" and to advance their interests.

The president, he said, has made a shift in his appeal to the electorate. "Instead of appealing to the hope and optimism that were hallmarks of his first campaign, he has launched his second campaign by preying on the emotions of fear, envy and resentment."

But Republicans, in their desire to defend free economic activity, shouldn't be snookered by unthinking fealty to big business. They should never defend—they should actively oppose—the kind of economic activity that has contributed so heavily to the crisis. Here Mr. Ryan slammed "corporate welfare and crony capitalism."

"Why have we extended an endless supply of taxpayer credit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, instead of demanding that their government guarantee be wound down and their taxpayer subsidies ended?" Why are tax dollars being wasted on bankrupt, politically connected solar energy firms like Solyndra? "Why is Washington wasting your money on entrenched agribusiness?"

Rather than raise taxes on individuals, we should "lower the amount of government spending the wealthy now receive." The "true sources of inequity in this country," he continued, are "corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless." The real class warfare that threatens us is "a class of bureaucrats and connected crony capitalists trying to rise above the rest of us, call the shots, rig the rules, and preserve their place atop society."

If more Republicans thought—and spoke—like this, the party would flourish. People would be less fearful for the future. And Mr. Obama wouldn't be seeing his numbers go up
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2)Who is Barack Obama?
By Mondo Frazier

There are so many things the public does not know about the man who sits in the White House. Who is Barack Obama? In my search to find out the answers I embarked on a journey that has lasted three years and counting -- and nearly made my head explode.

As usual, when Obama is the subject, Americans can't count on the progressives in the Corporate Mainstream Media (CMM) for much help. So, what's one to do? The foreign press proved helpful. Therefore, gleaned from the foreign press: a few stories which didn't rate any coverage from the U.S. CMM.

In 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama went on a mission to Russia with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN). The newly-minted U.S. senator was invited to be part of a Russian fact-finding tour that inspected a nuclear weapons site in Perm, Siberia. The base Lugar and Obama visited was where mobile launch missiles were being destroyed under the Cooperative Threat Reduction program (CTR), which also went by the name of the Nunn-Lugar program.

What happened next -- after the inspections were over -- was at the time reported by several foreign news sources but was never reported in the USA by the CMM. The Russians detained Obama and Lugar for three hours at the airport, demanding to examine both Obama's and Lugar's passports and search their plane. Some sources reported that the Russians accused Barack Obama of being a spy.

But wait -- there's more!

According to an Italian source, the Russians did not accuse Obama of being an American spy; they accused him of being a spy for the British! The report went on to say that the incident ended up involving the White House, the U.S. State Department, and military officials, along with their counterparts in Moscow.

Strangely enough, an official report from Lugar's office about the trip never mentioned the incident. Neither did Barack Obama in 2008 when he was desperate to exhibit some foreign policy chops.

One other oddity: in the fall of 2008, Obama admitted on his site that he had held dual citizenship with both the United States and Great Britain (the site explained that this was due to Barack Obama, Sr. being a foreign national) until 1982. Did the Russians know something about Obama's citizenship in 2005 that ordinary Americans don't know in 2011?

Another story no one has seen fit to ask about: Obama's Most Excellent Pakistani Adventure.

In the summer of 1981, 20-year-old Barack Obama embarked on a two-week trip to Pakistan. At least what little reporting that has been done claimed the length of the trip was two weeks. The only proof that the trip didn't turn into a longer stay is that we (supposedly) have records which show that Barack Obama enrolled at Columbia University later that same summer. Of course, the public hasn't seen those records, but that's what we've been told. Anyone in doubt will be directed to Obama's autobiography, Dreams from My Father.

Obama clearly gave the impression in DFMF that he was this penniless, somewhat confused young man, in search of an identity. Obama makes sure readers don't miss the point by writing that he was forced to wear "thrift store clothing" during this time. Yet he somehow managed to find the cash to finance a two-week trip to Pakistan.

Which he never wrote about. Which in itself is odd: here's a guy who wrote two autobiographies that explored events real, imagined, and totally fictional that supposedly forged the modern-day Barack Obama from humble beginnings. That's according to the Obama NarrativeTM -- which gets most of its facts from Dreams from My Father.

Not only did a poor, nearly destitute Obama manage to afford the trip to Pakistan, but once there he somehow financed two weeks in the Lahore Hilton International. In addition, Obama was introduced to the future prime minister and president of Pakistan -- and went bird-hunting with him. Which the prime minister mentioned in the Pakistani press in 2008. There's so much more, including one question the CMM never asked Obama: who arranged all of this? For a 20-year-old nobody.

Another curious piece to the queer Obama puzzle is the connection -- which hasn't been made in the CMM (attention, Fox News!) -- between illegal foreign contributions to the Obama campaign and subsequent billions in Stimulus money to foreign companies and banks. During and after the 2008 election, accusations of illegal foreign contributions -- which flowed into the Obama campaign when credit card safeguards were disabled on the campaign's website -- were documented in the conservative press and elsewhere.

Who were these mysterious donors, and in what countries did they live? Unfortunately, due to the chicanery of Team Obama, we may never know. Fast-forward to 2009. Obama's multi-billion-dollar Stimulus is rushed through Congress, and billions of dollars in Stimulus money are doled out to foreign companies and banks. Finland, China, Brazil, and India are just a few of the beneficiaries of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars. Might these have been payoffs for those shady, unknown donations?

Bill Clinton was the first president to benefit from a foreign spoils system, but Barack Obama has made Clinton look like an amateur.

One more coincidence in shady fundraising. The lady involved with Obama's fundraising in the Caribbean? None other than Vera Baker, who packed up and hurried left the country after the National Enquirer started exploring a possible tryst between her and Obama in a Washington hotel.

Barack Obama can only hope that ObamaCare covers "extreme stress" -- because whoever on his staff is responsible for keeping track of all of the weird stuff in the president's life is definitely a candidate for burnout.

One final item involves that most elusive of documents: Obama's long-lost long-form birth certificate.

A Chicago-area activist, Sherman Skolnick, writing for a radio show/website (now defunct) by the name of Cloak and Dagger uncorked this headline on his readers. It referred to another story he'd written in 2005 -- three years before anyone in the media coined the term "birther" to tamp down curiosity about our 44th president's past. (All-caps headline in the original story.)


Just another day in the life of anyone attempting to pierce the shroud of mystery that surrounds our 44th president. The final result is the publication of The Secret Life of Barack Hussein Obama.

Mondo Frazier is the editor/founder of the website DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts and the author of The Secret Life of Barack Hussein Obama, published by Threshold Editions/Simon & Schuster.
3)Amos Gilad: Iran is massive threat that must be dealt with
By Yoav Zitun

In response to Yedioth Ahronoth article claiming Netanyahu, Barak seemingly pushing for military action against Iran, policy and political-military affairs director stresses importance of prioritizing Iran threat

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are extremely concerned by the Iranian threat, and Defense Ministry Director of Policy and Political-Military Affairs Amos Gilad believes the matter must be a top priority.

"You need to know what issues to prioritize. In my opinion – it's the Iranian front," he told students at the Ashkelon College. His statements were made in response to a Yedioth Ahronoth article claiming that Netanyahu and Barak were seemingly pushing for action against Iran.

According to Gilad, Netanyahu "was the first who heard of Iran's forecasted move on the nuclear missile path and he sees it as a massive threat. The defense minister understands the depth of the threat as well."

According to a Nahum Barnea article in Yedioth Ahronoth, published on Friday, the heads of the armed forces – Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz, Mossad Chief Tamir Pardo, Military Intelligence Chief Maj.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi and Shin Bet Chief Yoram Cohen share the opinion of their predecessors and are opposed to taking action against Iran at this time.

Former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan had previously stated that a strike against Iran was "a foolish idea" and warned against the disastrous consequences that would follow such action – an all out regional war.

Gilad believes that "Israel's main threat is Iran" and warned against complacency: "We have experience with Israel arrogance when it comes to foreign statements. Khamenei said that there was no room for Israel; He said Iran needs to be treated like an empire equal in power to superpowers like the US. That motivation drives Iran to develop ballistic capabilities."

Gilad noted that while in 1999-2000 Iran did not have even one missile that could reach Israel, today Tehran has hundreds of missiles capable of crossing a 1,500 kilometer radius within 10 minutes, as well as missile that can carry nuclear warheads.

"At the moment, there is no immediate nuclear threat, but there is definitely a great deal of motivation and determination for it," he stressed. Until now, he noted, the Iranians were enriching uranium. "Today the status is that they are at the starting point – they have uranium, they have the knowledge but they don't create (missiles) because of media publicity which is not initiated by them."

'Major game changer'
According to Gilad, the attempt to develop secret nuclear sites within Iran failed because the locations were published.

The good news, said Gilad, was that "the whole world is against the Iranians, the sanctions are effective, but it doesn't change Iran's strategic direction or their motivation. Iran is determined to obtain nuclear weapons and that is a major threat to Israel. If they achieve their goal it would be major game changer".

Asked about the time frame of the Iranian threat, Gilad answered: "The balance of power changed the moment the Iranians decide to pursue it." As for the question of whether Israel should attack Iran, Gilad noted that "all options remained open."

Gilad then spoke about the Arab Spring and stressed the strategic importance of the peace treaty with Egypt. "It has a huge significance security wise," he said, adding: "This is the first time where there is a situation in which elections are being held in Egypt in 30 days and we don't know who will rise to power and how it will affect our relations with them."

The policy and political-military affairs director made it clear that the Arab Spring poses many threats to Israel. "The question is what will happen on the day after, in Egypt the results of the first elections are still unclear.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Diaper Legislation - Just in Time For Protesters!

Wonder what Herman thinks about 1 below?
This Congressperson is serious about a 'diaper law.' Its passage would be just in time for the college graduates protesting all over the nation.

Another ranking liberal with another rank idea.(See 1 below.)
Soon the 'joint' committee of Congress will come up with a solution to our deficit problem. If they do not, then the approach is to cut spending across the board proportionately. It is the one size fits all solution that we pay big bucks to our legislators for to come up with these brilliant ideas.

My point is, according to Congress, the defense of our nation is equally important as roads, health care is equally important as foreign aid, operating federal parks is equally important as helping Indians build casinos etc. Get the idea?

What we could do is follow Greece and get some rich sugar daddy to bail us out. Maybe China would be willing to cancel the debt we owe them. After all the rumor is that China seems ready to buy Euro bonds. Maybe we could sell China, California and call it even. Actually, given the opportunity, I would pay China to take California and take the Hollywood types off our hands or maybe we could put the Michael Moore's , Susan Sarandon's etc, types up for auction.
Pipes on Libya. My thoughts as well. We consider victories the replacement of dictators we know for radicals we do not know but who have stated they will introduce some form of conservative religious society. That's progress?

I seriously doubt Egypt, Tunisia, Libya etc. are going to become tolerant societies as Obama has suggested. (See 2 and 2a below.)
Several months ago I said it was now time to think about what could go right in terms of the market. I pointed out that Nov - April were the best 6 months, chronologically speaking, that PM's would like to finish the year up if possible and thus, would begin to see the glass half full and the market, technically speaking, could have possibly bottomed for the time being.

Finally, evidence of the possible bottoming could have been those recent reports about how many investors had fled the market.Once selling pressure has abated the market has nowhere to go but up and then squeezing the shorts moves it even higher.

Fundamentally, nothing of real substance has changed. Corporate earnings are decent, valuations are reasonable, Europe struggles to solve its debt problems by eating Greek debt without olive oil, the U.S. political system remains in gridlock, Obama remains the demagogue and China is slowing its economy in order to avoid inflation and its own potential credit risk problems.

The market rallied today on the news that Europe put another band aid on Greece in hopes of staving off more problems from Italy. Spain etc. This is a band aid folks because solving the systemic problem means slower growth and pain. Same for us.

That said, even in a down market year over year the market has up months and so this shall be as well. Never met a rally I did not like and I am happy to sell into it as it probes higher as no doubt it will.

For the near term we could be in a secular rally within what still could be a bear market.
A dear friend and fellow memo reader sent me a quote from Norman Thomas, America's avowed Socialist, who stated 'Americans would never accept Socialism but would buy it under the guise of liberalism.' Thomas' has proved to be prophetic and now we have a president who believes he can move us further in that direction through revolution. (See 3 and 3a below.)
He campaigned to govern so he could campaign. (See 4 below.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1)DELAURO INTRODUCES DIAPER AID LEGISLATION

Recent reports indicate more and more families struggling to afford diapers—without which children cannot attend day care

New Haven, CT — Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-3), Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, introduced the Diaper Investment and Aid to Promote Economic Recovery Act (DIAPER) Act today to provide diapers and diapering supplies to needy families through child care providers.

Millions of American families are struggling in today’s tough economy. For many, even the cost of keeping a child in diapers, about $4 a day, or $100 a month, is too much. But without an adequate supply of diapers, a child cannot attend day care—meaning that working mothers have a harder time getting to work, and can fall even further behind. And for the child, infrequent diaper changes can lead to diaper rash, increased risk of urinary tract and skin infections, and can even cause outbreaks of viral meningitis, dysentery, and Hepatitis A.

This legislation will simply amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, and will help to relieve some of the stress on families facing hardship in this economy by allowing diapers to be provided as a direct service, instead of as an administrative cost.

“No family should have to choose between buying diapers for their child or buying groceries—but that is exactly what is happening today. Diapers are expensive, but necessary, to keep children healthy and in daycare, giving their parents the freedom they need to work. The DIAPER Act is a simple, straight-forward proposal to change the current law to allow diapers and diapering supplies to be provided to families in need,” said Congresswoman DeLauro. “I applaud the work of Joanne Goldblum, who has been operating a Diaper Bank in Connecticut for years now, and whose good work has served as the inspiration for this legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with Joanne to make this bill a reality.”

“It is so thrilling that Congresswoman DeLauro is taking the lead on recognizing this very important basic need, which has become more pressing as the economic downturn continues to put more families at risk,” said Joanne Goldblum, President and Executive Director of The Diaper Bank.
2) Obama's misplaced Middle East optimism.
By Daniel Pipes

Commenting with confidence on the execution of Libya's long-time dictator, Barack Obama stated that "the death of Moammar Gadhafi showed that our role in protecting the Libyan people, and helping them break free from a tyrant, was the right thing to do." About his own decision to pull all U.S. troops from Iraq in two months' time, Obama asserted that "In Iraq, we've succeeded in our strategy to end the war." He then drew triumphant conclusions from these developments, bragging that they show "The tide of war is receding" and "We've renewed American leadership in the world."

How handy: As Obama's unpopular domestic policies (especially concerning health care and employment) sink his ratings, he now claims foreign policy successes. Democratic Party flacks tout his international achievements: "Terrorists and dictators," says one, "lacking the filibuster, have no effective defense against Barack Obama."

But the Middle East teaches caution; much will probably go wrong in Libya and Iraq. Obama, I predict, will rue his rash braggadocio.

In Libya, it is unclear who will emerge dominant in the National Transitional Council attempting to rule the country. Two figures represent the likely alternatives. Mahmoud Jibril (b. 1952; also known as Mahmoud Gebril El Warfally) has served as the NTC's interim prime minister. He earned a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Pittsburgh, where he taught strategic planning. He has published 10 books, including the well-received "Imagery and Ideology in U.S. Policy Toward Libya, 1969-1982," and founded an eponymous professional training and management consulting company.

In contrast, Abdel-Hakim Belhaj (b. 1966), Tripoli's military leader, went to Afghanistan in 1988 to fight the Soviets, served as leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, was arrested in 2004 by the CIA which turned him over to Gadhafi, who jailed him until 2010.

Differences between the two could hardly be starker: One Libyan leader held a prestigious academic post in the U.S. while the other claims to have been tortured by the CIA. One wants to integrate Libya into a Western-led order, the other dreams of a revived caliphate.

While Belhaj has stated his loyalty to the TNC under Jibril, he has also resisted its efforts to take control of the military units. As Patrick J. McDonnell of the Los Angeles Times delicately put it, "How exactly the relationship between the civilian leadership and the disparate military units will work remains unclear." More troubling yet, Jibril announced hisresignation on Sunday, just as the NTC chairman called for a constitution "based on our Islamic religion." If Libya goes Islamist, Obama will pine for Gadhafi.

In Iraq, Obama's claim about ending the war reminds one of George W. Bush's much-ridiculed "Mission Accomplished" speech of May 1, 2003, when he prematurely announced that "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed" just as the real war had just begun. With U.S. forces now pulling out, Tehran can begin in earnest to take over the country and turn it into a satrapy (the ancient Persian word for a subordinate polity).

Despite U.S. warnings, Tehran already interferes in Iraq's politics, sponsors militias, supports terrorism, and has sent its own forces into the country – and is preparing to do more. As Max Bootwrites, the withdrawal of U.S. troops means that the "risks of a catastrophic failure in Iraq now rise appreciably. The Iranian Quds Force must be licking its chops because we are now leaving Iraq essentially defenseless against its machinations." Baghdad tries to appease Iranian threats; for example, its chief of staff proposed a regional security organization with Tehran.

If Iranian efforts succeed quickly, they might do significant damage to Obama's electoral prospects a year from now. "Who lost Iraq?" could become a potent Republican battle cry. That Obama declared U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq a "complete failure" already in 2007 sets him up to take the blame for that very failure.

Even if Iraq holds until the U.S. elections in 2012, I predict that in five to 10 years, the U.S. effort in Iraq (and, similarly, in Afghanistan), with all those expenditures and lost lives, will have been for naught. When future analysts seek what went wrong, they might well focus on Obama's clueless statements.

As Belhaj will likely prevail over Jibril, so will Iran over Iraq. If so, Obama and the Democrats will regret today's myopic overconfidence.

Daniel Pipes ( is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2011 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

2a)Did the Libyan Leadership Deceive the West?
By Jonathan D. Halevi (Institute for Contemporary Affairs-Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)

•On October 23, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Chairman of the National Transitional Council (NTC) that is the temporary power in Libya replacing the Gaddafi regime, announced: "We, as an Islamic state, determined that Islamic law is a major source for legislation, and on this basis any law which contradicts the principles of Islam and Islamic law will be considered null and void."

•The NTC has the support of the West and NATO countries, which helped it militarily to bring down the Gaddafi regime, hoping to establish a democratic regime in Libya.
•In early October, Dr. David Gerbi, who was born in Libya and fled to Italy in 1967, arrived in Tripoli and asked to repair the synagogue. The NTC was quick to remove him, while demonstrations were held in Tripoli calling to prevent any Jewish presence in Libya or the establishment of synagogues. The NTC did not condemn this expression of anti-Semitism, nor was there any objection by any other political factions in Libya.

•NTC and Western officials have already stated their growing concerns that Qatar is trying to interfere in the country's sovereignty, and the rebels are said to have received about $2 billion from the Qatari government. Qatari involvement is likely to produce a regime in Libya that follows the political orientation of Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, thereby giving the Muslim Brotherhood an open door in the new Libya.
•The political debate in Libya will be within an essentially Islamist universe, with different leaders distinguished by the degree to which they seek to implement their Islamism. It seems that the strategy of the democratic states that trusted the promises of the rebel forces to adopt and implement the principles of democracy has collapsed, and that Western aid to overthrow Gaddafi's tyrannical regime prepared the groundwork for the establishment of an Islamic state, which eventually may become hostile to the West.

The writer, a senior researcher of the Middle East and radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is a former advisor to the Policy Planning Division of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3)Is the POTUS Stirring Up a Revolution?
By Mercer Tyson

Obama was hailed as a healing president, promising peace and harmony. What we have seen, however, is a president distinctively divisive on racial issues, and instigating class warfare. His actions are a prescription for a violent revolution.

During his campaign Obama gave the highly acclaimed speech on race (excerpt):

"Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans."

My, how things have changed; and it didn't take long. Shortly after Obama took office there was Obama's reaction to the incident involving Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the Cambridge Police Department: "President Obama said that police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 'acted stupidly' in arresting a prominent black Harvard professor last week after a confrontation at the man's home." He never should have stuck his nose into this. And if he were going to say something, he should have understood the situation prior to butting in. Instead, he routinely took the professor's side, showing his real and sincere bias, and managing to anger folks on both sides of the debate.

More recently the POTUS told a group of Hispanics, "And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, we're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends..." Punish? Enemies? Not exactly harmonious, peace-inspiring words.

Then in his speech before the Congressional Black Caucus he said, "I expect all of you to march with me and press on. Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes."

And let's not forget the work of Eric Holder when his Justice Department went easy in a Philadelphia voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party because they are African American.

This is our post-racial president.

And then there's the class warfare.

In 2008, then-candidate Obama's remarks in his interview with Charles Gibson should have been a clue. When Gibson pointed out that recently when tax rates were increased government revenues decreased and when tax rates decreased revenues increased, Obama replied "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." He has accusingly said ad nauseam that wealthy Americans should pay their "fair share," which means that no matter how much they are paying, they should pay more.

Mr. Obama's repetitive attacks on the wealthy have led to growing divisions between them and the less fortunate, such as the current Occupy Wall Street protestors who "want to see the rich pay a fair share of their profits in wages, wealth and income in taxes..." When asked about the protestors, Obama replied: ""I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel."

Usage of words such as greed, selfish, and mean, while always a part of the liberal description of Republicans, has escalated more in recent years.

While most pundits seem to think of this as just another chapter in American politics, albeit somewhat intense, I'm less blasé about it. I see this as a potential beginning of serious violence in our streets and neighborhoods. At worst, problems could escalate to a point requiring national action -- possibly a declaration of a state of emergency with military involvement. Is it possible we could have martial law imposed on us around next November, and, coincidentally, have the elections postponed? Not likely, but possible.

More certain, however, is the extended racial and class tension that will exist for decades. While I never expected racism to go away completely, racial harmony in this country has been gaining momentum and is, essentially, more of a problem to the left-wing media and certain race-baiting politicos than to folks on the ground. I'm afraid the actions of this administration may reverse the positive course that people of all races have worked so hard to establish. Barack Obama has done his best to delay racial harmony.

And class warfare? The vociferous screams from the left have prompted normally silent, tax-paying Americans to denigrate those who don't pay taxes: adding their voices to the argument and elevating hostilities.

I don't generally subscribe to conspiracy theories, and I'm not postulating such right now. However, you have to wonder, given Rahm Emanuel's remarks at the beginning of Obama's administration: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Do what? Fully implement socialism? Create a fascist-left country? Simply elevate the problems with our economy and instigate tension between the people, and you have the perfect storm for such a scenario. Even if this isn't being done by design, it could happen anyway.

This is one reason why so many on the right believe it is absolutely critical that we remove Mr. Obama from office in 2012. A GOP president will certainly stir up anxiety on the left, and the cries of foul play that existed during George Bush's administration will resume.

Certainly a Republican will not be able to do much to mend recent wounds. But the GOP is never as hostile in its criticism of the left, and the dissention will slow down and possibly stop. Maybe after a few years and if the economy improves progress in this area will again move forward.

And yes, while there are not many high-profile, moderate Dems, a more moderate and sensible Democrat could lessen the problem as well. However, it is highly unlikely that any Democrat (even Hillary) will challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination. And if one did, of course, additional hostilities would generate from that.

Thanks to Barack Obama (with help from the media and left-wing pundits) hostility in America is a high as I can recall, and close to a breaking point. With regard to this situation, the 2012 election represent a break even or lose situation. If Obama wins, we lose. If any Republican wins, we break even.

3a)The Risk of Revolution Grows
By Dean Stephens

Our world is coming apart. The reactions to this are daily becoming more ridiculous. The reactions to this are daily becoming more serious. Are we in a repeat of the dichotomy once summarized "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times"?

Like this opening to the famous tale about the French Revolution with its anarchist extremes and brutal bloodletting, the world is reaching a crisis, and the world's people are confused and angry. The dichotomies identified in that opening paragraph are being repeated today, "... it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity.[.]" The rich are adamant that the world is perfect as it is. The poor are adamant that the world must be torn apart. Neither is right. Neither is wrong.

It is happening globally.

China has created a self inflicted demographic and cultural crisis with its "one child policy." It faces a growing chasm between the excessive number of male children in the nation and the limited number of women those males can marry. War has long been the final solution for nations facing such cultural pressure. Which is why China is making noises about invading Vietnam and Taiwan. War by China is coming. Yet experts on China remain oblivious. Amazingly, our mainstream media ignore the signs as if such a war will not affect America.

Huge wage pressure has nearly eradicated China's cost of labor advantage of 20 years ago. The currency manipulation which cleverly hid the eradication is about to collapse. At the same time, Greece considers unilaterally wiping out debt, something unheard of since the end of World War II. China faces the reality that their huge surpluses in owning debt around the world could become a massive problem if write-downs become epidemic. They would really like to reduce exposure to American debt, yet where else can they safely go? How does China grow its economy at the rate needed to keep its population happy while facing cultural and economic catastrophe? Are the Chinese prepared to face serious blowback from the United States, China's number-one trading partner? It happened before and would likely happen again. China's heretofore strengths are rapidly becoming its weaknesses. It may thus perceive only one rational choice. War!

At the same time, Americans are slowly waking up to the open warfare from La Raza extremists who are intent on tearing America apart. They are invading us in numbers they hope will force a vote for secession by many Western states. "It can't happen here" is starting to become an obvious farce as the reality sinks in. Yes, "it can happen here." It is happening. Others in South America are recognizing our weakness. Argentina is saber-rattling -- threatening to invade the Falklands over a two-hundred-year old wound to its national pride. America would not be immune to the consequences of such action, regardless of whether it were Britain or Argentina that prevailed. Instability in the Americas is surging as Cuba and Venezuela work to undermine their age-old enemy, the U.S.

The massive growth of Islamic extremists around the world is being fueled by a deluded foreign policy initiative from the Obama administration. Muslims are reacting aggressively, seizing control of every major nation in the pan-Arabian region: Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Turkey. Nation by nation, we are facing an increasingly hostile Islamist world. Sharia law is being pressed everywhere, even in America. It will rapidly get worse. Israel is about to become a victim of the first nuclear world war. It will not be the last. America may soon be a target as well.

Simultaneously, the global socialist movement is organizing "Occupy Wall Street" actions to destabilize America's financial system. The failure of most Americans to accept the visceral hatred by certain elements in the world against any semblance of free enterprise still shocks me. The socialists have openly planned to destroy free enterprise, what they call capitalism, for over a hundred years. Yet most Americans are still oblivious. These enemies may be aligned with foreign movements, but they are internal enemies, and they currently control our government. The Obama regime is a part of the global socialist movement.

With all these crises around the globe and here at home, the campaign for the Republican primary is superficial and irrational. What political party of sanity can leap from Donald Trump to Mitt Romney to Michele Bachmann to Rick Perry to Herman Cain to whoever is the next hero of the moment and pretend that it is going to unite to win an election? Each candidate in turn has temporarily led by large margins. Huge numbers of the Republican base still support Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich, two narcissists who have long since proved that their shortcomings are incompatible with governing our nation. Clarity remains elusive, while rage continues to grow.

At the same time Republicans are wasting their energy on smears of each other, Obama continues to accumulate a huge war chest that he will use in a "battle to the death" general election campaign that will be the dirtiest in history.

As in the age of the French Revolution, "it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness[.]" History appears to be repeating itself. The only question that remains is which idea will prevail. The French chose "foolishness" and chopped off each other's heads. Will we choose wisdom?
4)The President Who Hates to Govern
The president now says he wants to rebuild our roads. So why has he been stalling on the highway bill since 2009?.

According to Mark Knoller, CBS Radio News White House Correspondent, President Obama has attended 60 campaign fund-raisers this year. That's one every four days since he kicked off his re-election on April 4. By comparison at this point in 2003, President George W. Bush had appeared at only 28 fund-raisers.

Mr. Obama has done more than lap Mr. Bush in raising campaign cash. He's also already eagerly barnstorming critical battleground states via Air Force One or Bus One. His goal is another term, though his ostensible reason for the trips is to push for passage of Stimulus II.

His renewed enthusiasm shows that nothing rejuvenates this president more than leaving Oval Office duties behind to reprise his role as stump speaker. We're even seeing snappy new slogans: the latest is "We can't wait," a clever way to hide Mr. Obama's discomfort with the business of convincing Congress to pass his bills.

This slogan unintentionally showcases an essential truth about the Obama presidency: comfortable on the political hustings, he's uncomfortable doing the job. Energetic at campaigning, he's lethargic at governing. From the start of his administration, he has left the policy details and heavy lifting to others.

Which brings us to this week's campaign appearances. The topic was infrastructure. In Las Vegas on Monday, Mr. Obama called for "funding to rebuild our roads and our bridges and our airports." At a Los Angeles fund-raiser on Tuesday, the president was more expansive, saying "Let's get construction workers . . . and let's put them back on the job rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our hospitals and our schools." By week's end, Mr. Obama could be promising to rebuild corner gas stations and ugly backyard storage sheds in swing states.

The problem with the president's pitch is that it's disconnected from reality. Where exactly has Mr. Obama been the last several years? Washington pays for highway and airport construction through multiyear bills—normally six and four years in length, respectively. This makes it possible for states and highway contractors to know how many dollars will be available for the foreseeable future.

The highway bill lapsed shortly after Mr. Obama took office in 2009. That June, his transportation secretary announced with great fanfare that the administration opposed the renewal being introduced the next day by the Democratic chairman of the House Transportation Committee. Fair enough. There can be disagreements about legislation even among political allies.

But the Obama administration then failed to work with the Democratic Congress to reach an accommodation. Though Democrats had big majorities in both houses, the highway bill renewal has languished since then with only eight temporary extensions keeping the program alive.

There is a price for Mr. Obama's failure in 2009 to get it renewed for six years. State officials would have had the confidence to commit to projects. Contractors would have the incentive to purchase more equipment and hire more people, providing more certainty for one important part of the economy.

Mr. Obama's indifference to governing has led him to outsource the drafting of the key legislation. That happened with both the Stimulus I and ObamaCare, resulting in ineffective, unpopular and unworkable laws. This also explains his diffidence towards the government's incompetence in arenas as different as lending to Solyandra and curing the housing markets. There are exceptions here and there, of course, but the pattern is unmistakable.

It's an odd, even jarring, combination: Mr. Obama embraces hyperkinetic government spending and a powerful and all-intruding federal state while having a hands-off attitude toward its workings. More and more, Mr. Obama looks like a one-trick pony—a man who is good at giving campaign speeches but very little else. He would much rather talk about legislation than have a hand in crafting it. He's much more comfortable attacking political opponents than negotiating with them.

That might be fine if he were the challenger in 2012. But Mr. Obama's problem is he's the incumbent. To paraphrase what Joe Louis said of Billy Conn, he can run from his record but he can't hide from it. Mr. Obama is past the point of being judged mostly on words. This time around, he'll be judged mostly on competence. Americans expect more of their chief executive than a passion for the campaign stump.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.