---
---
Italian Cruise ship captain, Francesco Schettino,
began his new job as a bus driver yesterday.....
Do the two above pictures have a correlation?
---
One of my fraternity brothers receives some articulate e mails from his friend and I thought this was worth posting. (See 1 below.)
---
This also from a friend and memo reader. Her Marine son just shipped out to Afghanistan. (See 2 below.)
---
Gov Brewer's explanation of what happened on the tarmac. Go Brewer. (See 3 below.)
---
President Polarization now officially recorded. (See 4 below.)
Meanhile, Investor's Business Daily editorializes Obama is smothering the recovery with his regulations etc. (See 4a below.)
---
America's lumbering high profile fleet 's vulnerability. (See 5 below.)
---
Not to be an alarmist but please read this. I don't even own a cell phone. Might be forced to get one. (See 6 below.)
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) OBAMA’S VISION FOR AMERICA
THE NEXT FOUR GREAT YEARS
FIRST, LET’S LOOK AT THE REAL STATE OF THE UNION:
· A FEDERAL DEFICIT WHICH IS FORCING A MASSIVE REDUCTION IN OUR DEFENSE CAPABILITIES…AT A TIME WHEN THERE ARE MORE HOT CONFLICTS AROUND THE WORLD THREATENING OUR SECURITY THAN AT ANY TIME IN OUR HISTORY
· FEDERAL SPENDING OF MONIES WE DON’T HAVE WHICH CONTINUES UNABATED IN ALL OF THE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS
· A TAX CODE WHICH DEFIES DEFINITION, PREVENTS FEDERAL REVENUE PROJECTIONS AND LITERALLY OBSTRUCTS TAX COLLECTION
· AN UNYIELDING UNEMPLOYED BASE OF 15 MILLION AMERICANS
· A DECLARED ENEMY NATION – IRAN – WHICH IS SOON TO HAVE ATOMIC BOMBS…IN ABSOLUTE DEFIANCE OF WORLD OPINION AND U.S. POLICY
· A STRATEGIC REGION OF THE WORLD (MIDDLE EAST) WHICH IS ENGAGED IN BLOODY STRUGGLES FOR SELF-DETERMINATION (THE ARAB SPRING) AND WHICH SEEMS TO BE MIGRATING TO ISLAMIST DOMINATION AND A RESULTANT ABROGATION OF ALL UNDERSTANDINGS WITH AMERICA
· A RENEWAL OF TERROR AND MURDER IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
· AN ALLEGED ALLY (PAKISTAN) WHOSE SECURITY APPARATUS CONTINUALLY SUPPORTS TERRORIST ACTIVITIES AGAINST THE U.S.
· AN AMERICAN ECONOMY WHICH CONTINUES TO WALLOW IN A NON-GROWTH MODE
· AN ALMOST TOTAL LOSS OF DOMESTIC AMERICAN MANUFACTURING FACTORIES…THE BLUE COLLAR IS NOW THE FRAYED COLLAR…OUT OF WORK, OUT OF HOPE AND OUT OF SIGHT
· AN UNSTOPPABLE, RUN-AWAY FREIGHT TRAIN…MEDICAL CARE COSTS…WITH NO PLAN TO BRING IT UNDER CONTROL
SO HOW DOES PRESIDENT OBAMA PLAN TO DEAL WITH THIS MENU OF THREATS TO THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE? HERE ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS OF OBAMA’S STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE…HERE IS HIS GREAT VISION OF THE NEXT FOUR YEARS:
· TAX CODE ADJUSTMENTS TO ENCOURAGE HIGH-TECH MANUFACTURING LIKE SOLYANDRA
· NEW WATCH-DOG AGENCIES TO CHASE CHINESE DVD PIRATES
· A PRESIDENTIAL MANDATE TO ALL HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS TO “STAY IN SCHOOL OR ELSE”!
· FAIRNESS…NOT JOB CREATION TO BE THE DRIVER IN NEW TAX CODE REVISIONS…A MODIFICATION OF THE LENIN/MAO MANIFESTO FOR INCOME REDISTRIBUTION.
· HERE IS OBAMA’S RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION,”WOULD YOU SUPPORT INCREASING THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX IF IT RESULTED IN DECREASED GOVERNMENT REVENUES?” OBAMA SAID “YES…IN THE NAME OF FAIRNESS”.
· HIS SPEECH DID NOT MENTION OBAMA CARE, THE STIMULUS, IRAN, A PROGRAM FOR REAL ECONOMIC GROWTH, REDUCING THE DEFICIT…OTHER THAN TAXING THE RICH…WHO ARE NOT PAYING THEIR “FAIR SHARE”. NO MENTION OF THE FACT THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT CONFISCATED 100% OF INCOME OF THESE FAT CATS IT WOULDN’T AMOUNT TO A DECIMAL POINT IN OUR NATIONAL DEBT!
· IT’S ALL ABOUT FAIRNESS…NOT GROWTH AND NOT SECURITY
· IT’S NOT ABOUT A PRESERVATION OF THE AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM WHICH BUILT THIS NATION
· IT WAS ALL ABOUT GETTING VOTES BY CREATING A TARGET FOR AMERICAN FRUSTRATIONS
THAT IS OBAMA’S GREAT VISION FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS! IF THE REPUBLICANS CANNOT BETTER THAT VISION, THEY SHOULD ALL SEEK A CAREER CHANGE!
ABE BERNSTEIN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Obama to the nation: Onward civilian soldiers
By George F. Will
War, said James Madison, is “the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.” Randolph Bourne, the radical essayist killed by the influenza unleashed by World War I, warned, “War is the health of the state.” Hence Barack Obama’s State of the Union hymn: Onward civilian soldiers, marching as to war.
Obama, an unfettered executive wielding a swollen state, began and ended his address by celebrating the armed forces. They are not “consumed with personal ambition,” they “work together” and “focus on the mission at hand” and do not “obsess over their differences.” Americans should emulate troops “marching into battle,” who “rise or fall as one unit.”
Well. The armed services’ ethos, although noble, is not a template for civilian society, unless the aspiration is to extinguish politics. People marching in serried ranks, fused into a solid mass by the heat of martial ardor, proceeding in lock step, shoulder to shoulder, obedient to orders from a commanding officer — this is a recurring dream of progressives eager to dispense with tiresome persuasion and untidy dissension in a free, tumultuous society.
Progressive presidents use martial language as a way of encouraging Americans to confuse civilian politics with military exertions, thereby circumventing an impediment to progressive aspirations — the Constitution and the patience it demands. As a young professor, Woodrow Wilson had lamented that America’s political parties “are like armies without officers.” The most theoretically inclined of progressive politicians, Wilson was the first president to criticize America’s founding. This he did thoroughly, rejecting the Madisonian system of checks and balances — the separation of powers, a crucial component of limited government — because it makes a government that cannot be wielded efficiently by a strong executive.
Franklin Roosevelt agreed. He complained about “the three-horse team of the American system”: “If one horse lies down in the traces or plunges off in another direction, the field will not be plowed.” And progressive plowing takes precedence over constitutional equipoise among the three branches of government. Hence FDR’s attempt to break the Supreme Court to his will by enlarging it.
In his first inaugural address, FDR demanded “broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.” He said Americans must “move as a trained and loyal army” with “a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.” The next day, addressing the American Legion, Roosevelt said it was “a mistake to assume that the virtues of war differ essentially from the virtues of peace.” In such a time, dissent is disloyalty.
Yearnings for a command society were common and respectable then. Commonweal, a magazine for liberal Catholics, said that Roosevelt should have “the powers of a virtual dictatorship to reorganize the government.” Walter Lippmann, then America’s preeminent columnist, said: “A mild species of dictatorship will help us over the roughest spots in the road ahead.” The New York Daily News, then the nation’s largest-circulation newspaper, cheerfully editorialized: “A lot of us have been asking for a dictator. Now we have one. . . . It is Roosevelt. . . . Dictatorship in crises was ancient Rome’s best era.” The New York Herald Tribune titled an editorial “For Dictatorship if Necessary.”
Obama, aspiring to command civilian life, has said that in reforming health care, he would have preferred an “elegant, academically approved” plan without “legislative fingerprints on it” but “unfortunately” he had to conduct “negotiations with a lot of different people.” His campaign mantra “We can’t wait!” expresses progressivism’s impatience with our constitutional system of concurrent majorities. To enact and execute federal laws under Madison’s institutional architecture requires three, and sometimes more, such majorities. There must be majorities in the House and Senate, each body having distinctive constituencies and electoral rhythms. The law must be affirmed by the president, who has a distinctive electoral base and election schedule. Supermajorities in both houses of Congress are required to override presidential vetoes. And a Supreme Court majority is required to sustain laws against constitutional challenges.
“We can’t wait!” exclaims Obama, who makes recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess, multiplies “czars” to further nullify the Senate’s constitutional prerogative to advise and consent, and creates agencies (e.g., Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board and Dodd-Frank’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) untethered from legislative accountability.
Like other progressive presidents fond of military metaphors, he rejects the patience of politics required by the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Gov. Brewer On Her Tarmac Encounter with President Obama
By Elise Cooper
On January 25th of this year President Obama showed just how unpresidential he is with the confrontation of Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ). She had every intention to hand him a letter suggesting they meet to discuss Arizona and to welcome him to her state. American Thinker interviewed the Governor about the incident.
The Governor waited on the tarmac as the President approached. Shortly into the conversation, instead of warm wishes, the President brought up her quote about him in her book, Scorpions For Breakfast. She stated in the book,
"But after a few minutes the president's tone got serious -- and condescending. He proceeded to lecture me about everything he was doing to promote 'comprehensive immigration reform'...he didn't mention the violence on the border, the drug cartels, or the enormous costs being borne by the citizens of states like Arizona...It wasn't long before I realized I was hearing the president's stump speech...His mind seemed made up...He was patronizing...He thinks he can humor me and then get rid of me. I listened to about ten minutes of this. Finally, the president's lecture ended and it was my turn...But now I was ready to give him a piece of my mind..."
The Governor told American Thinker that she was disappointed that she could not tell the President what she had intended, that "Arizona rose in job growth from 47th to the top ten, and balanced the budget. I wanted to explain how we did this by putting a moratorium on rules and regulations to turn the state around. I was hoping to tell him I was grateful he came to see us. Unfortunately, I did not get to talk with him about any of that. He turned immediately to my book and told me he didn't like the way he was portrayed in it. It unnerved me to say the least. It is my book and my opinion and I have not been challenged on any of the data," including by the President who had over two months to comment on it since its release date.
Because there are those in his administration who criticize without even reading the document, American Thinker wondered if the Governor asked the President, had he read her book? The answer she received from him was "I read excerpts." Governor Brewer continued, "The book is about border security. He has not come to the border with me and frankly he appeared more concerned with talking about what I said about him in the book and how he was offended. Its all about him, not our national security."
Of course some in the media as well as the President are trying to spin it that the Governor was the disrespectful one since she pointed her finger at him. She described herself as being "animated and I speak with my hands. I was not disrespectful, he was. He walked away from me in mid-sentence. I felt brushed aside."
She was obviously not disrespectful when in the hand-written letter of January 25th, given to the President, she wrote "respectfully," and in her book she states, "I hadn't interrupted the president because I respect the office, and I was determined to show respect." She commented directly that, "I would always be respectful to the office of the President of the US."
She should not be concerned about the criticism since it appears that there is a pattern here. As reported in the Washington Post: President Obama snapped at Congressman Eric Holder (R-VA) during a debt-ceiling discussion and abruptly walked out; and Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) noted that he felt accosted by the President regarding a letter he had sent. He was quoted, "President Obama had personalized this and he was upset. There was not a word about the oil spill. He was concerned about looking bad because of the letter."
On Friday, January 27th President Obama on Diane Sawyer's ABC interview, commented about the incident, "Its always good publicity for a Republican to get in an argument with me." Actually, Mr. President you have it wrong: it's you that likes to get into arguments with Republicans, not so much for the publicity but because you are petty, thin-skinned, and way too sensitive about criticism. Governor Brewer summarized it best, "The President's feelings were hurt because of what I said in my book. Instead, he should be thinking about the economy, about jobs, and about border security." Maybe instead of reading excerpts the President should take the time to read all of her book, Scorpions For Breakfast
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s official now. Barack Obama’s ratings are “historically polarized,” according to a new Gallup survey.
Jeffrey Jones of the Gallup organization writes, “The historically high gap between partisans’ job approval ratings of Barack Obama continued during Obama’s third year in office, with an average of 80 percent of Democrats and 12 percent of Republicans approving of the job he was doing… The 68-point gap between partisans’ approval ratings of Obama last year is nine points higher than that for any other president’s third year.” Obama, by the way, holds the record for the most polarized first and second years in office, too. Which means Obama has set a record for polarization every year he’s been in office.
So now is as good a time as any to remind people one of the core claims made by Barack Obama during his presidential campaign wasn’t simply that he would heal the planet; he would also heal the nation’s political breach. He would elevate the national debate. Reason would prevail over emotion. He would do away with what he called the “50 plus one” style of governing. Obama would “turn the page” on the “old politics” of division and anger. He would end a politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.” He would help us to “rediscover our bonds to each other and … get out of this constant petty bickering that’s come to characterize our politics.” He would “cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past.”
“I will listen to you,” Obama said on a stage in Grant Park on the night of his election, “especially when we disagree.”
His election, he informed us, was a sign we had “chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.” On the day of his inauguration he came to proclaim “an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.”
“The time has come to set aside childish things,” he told us on the day of his inauguration. And to paraphrase the Book of Isaiah, a community organizer shall lead us.
Where Obama has led us, it turns out, is to as much polarization as we have ever seen. Our divisions are deeper than they were. Our common ground is less than we could have imagined. Conflict and discord prevail over unity of purpose. Petty bickering characterizes our politics. Obama has wrapped himself in worn-out ideas and the politics of the past. And we have not even fully engaged in the 2012 presidential campaign, which will make our present disunity look like the land of milk and honey.
Whatever the cause of our divisions – and they are many and complicated – it was Barack Obama who said he would bind up the wounds. This promise was at the centerpiece of his campaign, the heart of his appeal, the meaning behind “hope and change.” And now it lies in ashes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------4a)The $1.2 Tril Gap: Obama's Subpar Recovery Continues
Economy: The latest economic data make it clear that President Obama's policies aren't helping the country get stronger. Rather, they're smothering what should have been a solid recovery.
Real GDP climbed a less-than-expected 2.8% in final quarter of 2011, and just 1.7% for the entire year, down from 3% in 2010. The trend of subpar growth under Obama continues.
To get a better sense of how bad Obama's recovery is, consider this: Under Obama, real GDP has climbed a total of just 6% in the two-and-a-half years since the recession ended in June 2009.
By comparison, real GDP had grown 16% by this point in the Reagan recovery, after the very deep and painful 1981-82 recession.
Had Obama's recovery been as powerful as Reagan's, the economic pie would be $1.2 trillion bigger today.
And had job growth under Obama kept pace with job growth during the Reagan recovery, there would be 10 million — yes 10 million — more people with jobs today.
So what explains the difference between these two recoveries? Obama and his legion of liberal defenders claim the last recession was so deep that we're just now getting back on our feet.
Plus, they claim that a financial crisis invariably causes a slow recovery.
But even that didn't stop a rip-roaring comeback.Neither excuse holds water. First, the 1981-82 recession was almost as long (16 months vs. 18 months), and as deep (unemployment was actually higher, peaking at 10.8% in that earlier recession).
Second, a recent Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta report found: "U.S. history provides no support for linking low employment and high unemployment in the current recovery with the financial crisis of 2007-2008."
Plus, nobody at the time expected the Reagan recovery to be as fast and as powerful as it was.
So what's different? The presidents' policies.
Reagan enacted sweeping and permanent tax cuts, aggressively eliminated or reduced regulations, reined in domestic spending, and championed the private sector.
Obama's approach has been the opposite — a huge increase in regulations; meager, targeted and temporary tax cuts; a massive increase in size and scope of the federal government; and a barrage of invective against businessmen and the wealthy. Obama has bashed Reagan's approach, saying that cutting taxes and regulations "has never worked" to spur growth.
Obama might think the U.S. is "getting stronger," as he put it in his State of the Union speech, and maybe it is, a little. But if he keeps choking it with his misguided policies, it will never be as strong as it could be, or should be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5) From Christian Science Monitor:
How Iran Could Beat Up On America's Superior Military.
America's defense budget is roughly 90 times bigger than Iran's. But Iran has a well-honed strategy of asymmetric warfare.
By Scott Peterson, Staff writer
No comments:
Post a Comment