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.)
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 (www.DanielPipes.org) 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?.
By KARL ROVE
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment