Can a Georgia Judge resolve the issue of 'PNF/F's' legality? (See 1 below.)
---
Islam and the Arab Spring, like the song in Casablanca:' It's still the same old story a fight for hate and gory and this cannot be denied!' (See 2 below.)
---
New word:Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy): A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
About explains the gist of "PNF/F's SOTU address we will be hearing tomorrow evening.
---
Being someone who takes advantage of chaos no doubt Soros would love to see this happen. (See 3 below.)
---
Meanwhile Europe votes for sanctions. (See 4 below.)
However, has the beginning of the end of the dollar as a medium of exchange in world trade begun? You decide. India already has when it comes to paying for oil from Iran . Now what about 'PNF/Fs' sanctions? (See 4a below.)
---
That 'buck' is lost in more ways than one and it no longer stops anywhere either. (See 4a and 5 below.)
---
The Fourth Estate's self destruction and it cannot all be blamed on the computer, 0ther technology and the Internet. (See 6 below.)
---
You have to hand it to 'PNF/F.' He is the personification of chutzpah. He used the celebration of Woe Vs Wade as signifying his concern that the family be protected from government. (See 7 below.)
---
Being someone who takes advantage of chaos no doubt Soros would love to see this happen. (See 3 below.)
---
Meanwhile Europe votes for sanctions. (See 4 below.)
However, has the beginning of the end of the dollar as a medium of exchange in world trade begun? You decide. India already has when it comes to paying for oil from Iran . Now what about 'PNF/Fs' sanctions? (See 4a below.)
---
That 'buck' is lost in more ways than one and it no longer stops anywhere either. (See 4a and 5 below.)
---
The Fourth Estate's self destruction and it cannot all be blamed on the computer, 0ther technology and the Internet. (See 6 below.)
---
You have to hand it to 'PNF/F.' He is the personification of chutzpah. He used the celebration of Woe Vs Wade as signifying his concern that the family be protected from government. (See 7 below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Natural-born’ mess may soon be cleared up
By Frank Miele
Court's words were published in 1910 in “The Constitutional Law of the United States” by Westel W. Willoughby. So far as anyone knows, the statement remains as true one century later as it was then.
Of course, the only reason why the phrase “natural born citizen” has any import is because it is one of three qualifications established by the U.S. Constitution to determine eligibility for the presidency of the United States.But with any luck — and the strong backbone of an administrative judge in Georgia — the 223-year quest for clarity may soon be over.
The other two qualifications are straightforward requirements regarding age (35 years) and residency (14 years) and have never resulted in any national unpleasantness.
But the question of just who is a natural-born citizen, and thus eligible to serve as president, has been a matter of consternation and concern for well over a hundred years. Indeed, you can see the matter playing out in the Constitutional Convention itself, as the Founding Fathers tried to decide how to ensure that the powerful presidency did not fall into the hands of someone whose loyalty might be questioned.
Probably the most relevant historical reference on this point comes from John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States and a co-author of the Federalist Papers.
Jay wrote a letter in 1787 to George Washington, then serving as president of the convention, in which he took up the issue of who should serve as president — in particular in the president’s role as commander in chief:
“Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.”
The logic of such a stricture should be apparent to anyone. The presidency enjoys considerable powers over the well-being of the nation and the lives of the citizenry, and thus those powers should not be granted to anyone with divided loyalty, or even the appearance thereof.
Jay’s “hint” was heeded by the Constitutional Convention, and though any citizen may serve in the House or Senate, it was established that only a “natural born citizen” may serve as president. So it was written in 1787, and so it remains today.
What is funny is that many people think this eligibility issue only surfaced when Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, or when he was inaugurated in 2009. Quite often, the charge of racism is leveled against anyone with the temerity to question whether Obama, whose father was a British citizen born in Kenya, is himself a natural-born citizen.
But the issue is not racism; the issue is the quote that we started this column with: “... no fully satisfactory definition of the term ‘natural-born citizen’ has yet been given by the Supreme Court.”
In other words, since the matter has never reached the high court of the land in a case of direct relevance, there has never been established once and for all a rule about who is, and more importantly who is not, a natural-born citizen.
And because there is no rule, we have been left with uncertainty and doubt. Indeed, the matter has come up repeatedly in American history, but rarely with enough significance or import to merit a case being presented to the judicial system for review and determination, and in those few cases where court challenges were mustered, they were thrown out long before reaching the high court.
A few of the famous instances where the right of natural-born citizenship has been questioned in prior presidential campaigns include John McCain, the 2008 standard-bearer for the GOP, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 while his father was stationed there as a naval officer; Barry Goldwater, who was born in the Territory of Arizona before it became the 48th state in 1912; Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, who was a potential candidate for the presidency in 1964 and 1968 and who was born in Mexico to two American citizens; and Franklin Delano Roosevelt Jr., the president’s son, who was born at the family’s famous summer estate at Campobello in New Brunswick, Canada, and who was considered as a possible candidate to succeed Harry Truman in 1952.
Most relevant to the question of Barack Obama’s own eligibility is the case of Chester A. Arthur, who ascended to the presidency after President James Garfield was assassinated in 1881. Like President Obama, Arthur had a father who was a British citizen. Even more remarkable as a parallel, just as President Obama’s birth in Hawaii has been called a cover-up for a foreign birth, so too was Arthur’s birth in Vermont doubted by those who said he was actually born across the border in Quebec.
Now, you might think that the precedent of Arthur serving as president would have put the issue to rest once and for all, but of course it did not — because like President Obama’s citizenship, Arthur’s birthright was only a matter of public speculation not court proceedings.
Since the Supreme Court did not rule on Arthur’s case, or any other bearing on the issue, in the 223 years since the Constitution was ratified, we remain blissfully ignorant about who is eligible to be president.
But that may soon change, thanks to an obscure hearing scheduled for Thursday in Atlanta.
It turns out that Georgia has a state law requiring that every candidate for federal office “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” Seems reasonable enough. The law also permits any “elector” (which in common parlance means any person eligible to vote in Georgia) to raise a challenge to any candidate’s qualifications.
This is significant because, although there have been challenges in court to President Obama’s eligibility before, there has never been a case yet where evidence was presented and a verdict reached. If Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings actually allows the case to proceed to a verdict, it is almost inevitable that it will be appealed by one side or the other all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we can get a ruling — finally — on just what the Founding Fathers meant when they restricted the presidency to “natural born citizens.”
President Obama certainly can make a strong case that he meets the definition of a “natural born citizen,” especially if he presents a hard copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate instead of the digital copy released last year.
Yes, there are those who — taking their argument from Emerich de Vatell’s “The Law of Nations” of 1758 — insist that natural born citizens “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens,” but there have been many others who have drawn the opposite conclusion as well.
William Learned Marcy, the secretary of state under President Franklin Pierce, for instance, opined that “every person born in the United States must be called a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien at the time of his birth.”
Marcy even went on to declare that in his opinion such a person, even though born of alien parents, “would be considered a natural born citizen of the United States, so as to make him eligible to the presidency.”
This opinion had been written in a letter to a New York attorney by the name of Joseph B. Nones and was published, probably at Nones’ request, in several newspapers in 1854, including the Watertown (Wis.) Weekly Register. It has little or no evidentiary value, and as Marcy himself declaimed, “doubts may be entertained of the expediency of making answer” to Nones on a matter of law by the secretary of state.
But what cannot be doubted is that the Supreme Court has itself never resolved the issue either. Even when it has dealt with the citizenship issue, it has done so with ambiguity rather than finality. In the “Minor v. Happersett” ruling of 1875, for instance, the court noted that, “it was never doubted [in common law] that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
This seems pretty straightforward until you read the rest of the paragraph:
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Yep, doubts there were, and doubts remain. Let’s see what happens Thursday in Judge Malihi’s court, and then revisit the issue with a fresh mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)'Islam Is Islam, And That's It'
The Arab Spring was not hijackedBY ANDREW C. McCARTHY
The tumult indelibly dubbed "the Arab Spring" in the West, by the credulous
and the calculating alike, is easier to understand once you grasp two
basics. First, the most important fact in the Arab world - as well as in
Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other neighboring non-Arab
territories - is Islam. It is not poverty, illiteracy, or the lack of modern
democratic institutions. These, like anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and an
insular propensity to buy into conspiracy theories featuring infidel
villains, are effects of Islam's regional hegemony and supremacist tendency,
not causes of it. One need not be led to that which pervades the air one
breathes.
The second fact is that Islam constitutes a distinct civilization. It is not
merely an exotic splash on the gorgeous global mosaic with a few
embarrassing cultural eccentricities; it is an entirely different way of
looking at the world. We struggle with this truth, which defies our
end-of-history smugness. Enthralled by diversity for its own sake, we have
lost the capacity to comprehend a civilization whose idea of diversity is
coercing diverse peoples into obedience to its evolution-resistant norms.
So we set about remaking Islam in our own progressive image: the noble,
fundamentally tolerant Religion of Peace. We miniaturize the elements of the
ummah (the notional global Muslim community) that refuse to go along with
the program: They are assigned labels that scream "fringe!" - Islamist,
fundamentalist, Salafist, Wahhabist, radical, jihadist, extremist, militant,
or, of course, "conservative" Muslims adhering to "political Islam."
We consequently pretend that Muslims who accurately invoke Islamic scripture
in the course of forcibly imposing the dictates of classical sharia - the
Islamic legal and political system - are engaged in "anti-Islamic activity,"
as Britain's former home secretary Jacqui Smith memorably put it. When the
ongoing Islamization campaign is advanced by violence, as inevitably
happens, we absurdly insist that this aggression cannot have been
ideologically driven, that surely some American policy or Israeli act of
self-defense is to blame, as if these could possibly provide rationales for
the murderous jihad waged by Boko Haram Muslims against Nigerian Christians
and by Egyptian Muslims against the Copts, the persecution of the Ahmadi
sect by Indonesian and Pakistani Muslims, or the internecine killing in Iraq
of Sunnis by Shiites and vice versa - a tradition nearly as old as Islam
itself - which has been predictably renewed upon the recent departure of
American troops.
The main lesson of the Arab Spring ought to be that this remaking of Islam
has happened only in our own minds, for our own consumption. The Muslims of
the Middle East take no note of our reimagining of Islam, being, in the
main, either hostile toward or oblivious to Western overtures. Muslims do
not measure themselves against Western perceptions, although the shrewdest
among them take note of our eagerly accommodating attitude when determining
what tactics will best advance the cause.
That cause is nothing less than Islamic dominance.
'The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism," wrote
Samuel Huntington. "It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are
convinced of the superiority of their culture." Not convinced merely in the
passive sense of assuming that they will triumph in the end, Muslim leaders
are galvanized by what they take to be a divinely ordained mission of
proselytism - and proselytism not limited to spiritual principles, but
encompassing an all-purpose societal code prescribing rules for everything
from warfare and finance to social interaction and personal hygiene.
Historian Andrew Bostom notes that in the World War I era, even as the
Ottoman Empire collapsed and Ataturk symbolically extinguished the
caliphate, C. Snouck Hurgronje, then the West's leading scholar of Islam,
marveled that Muslims remained broadly confident in what he called the "idea
of universal conquest." In Islam's darkest hour, this conviction remained "a
central point of union against the unfaithful." It looms more powerful in
today's Islamic ascendancy.
Of course, conventional wisdom in the West holds that the Arab Spring
spontaneously combusted when Mohamed Bouazizi, a fruit vendor, set himself
ablaze outside the offices of the Tunisian klepto-cops who had seized his
wares. This suicide protest, the story goes, ignited a sweeping revolt
against the corruption and caprices of Arab despots. One by one, the dominos
began to fall: Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya - with rumblings in Saudi Arabia
and Jordan as well as teetering Syria and rickety Iran. We are to believe
that the mass uprising is an unmistakable manifestation of the "desire for
freedom" that, according to Pres. George W. Bush, "resides in every human
heart."
That proclamation came in the heady days of 2004, when the democracy project
was still a Panglossian dream, not the Pandora's box it proved to be as
Islamic parties began to win elections. Like its successor, the Bush
administration discouraged all inquiry into Islamic doctrine by anyone
seeking to understand Muslim enmity, indulging the fiction that there is
something we can do to change it. Inexorably, this has fed President Obama's
preferred fiction - that we must have done something to deserve it - as well
as the current administration's strident objection to uttering the word
"Islam" for any purpose other than hagiography. In this self-imposed
ignorance, most Americans still do not know that hurriya, Arabic for
"freedom," connotes "perfect slavery" or absolute submission to Allah, very
nearly the opposite of the Western concept. Even if we grant for argument's
sake the dubious proposition that all people crave freedom, Islam and the
West have never agreed about what freedom means.
The first count of contemporary Muslims' indictment of Middle Eastern
dictators is not that they have denied individual liberty, but that they
have repressed Islam. This is not to say that other grievances are
irrelevant. Muslims have indeed been outraged by the manner in which their
Arafats, Mubaraks, Qaddafis, and Saddams looted the treasuries while the
masses lived in squalor. But the agglomerations of wealth and other regime
hypocrisies are framed for the masses more as sins against Allah's law than
as the inevitable corruptions of absolute power. The most influential
figures and institutions in Islamic societies are those revered for their
mastery of Islamic law and jurisprudence - such authorities as top Muslim
Brotherhood jurist Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Cairo's al-Azhar University, the
seat of Sunni learning for over a millennium. In places where Islam is the
central fact of life, even Muslims who privately dismiss sharia take pains
to honor it publicly. Even regimes that rule by whim nod to sharia as the
backbone of their legal systems, lace their rhetoric with scriptural
allusions, and seek to rationalize their actions as Islamically appropriate.
If you understand this, you understand why Western beliefs about the Arab
Spring - and the Western conceit that the death of one tyranny must herald
the birth of liberty - have always been a delusion. There are real
democrats, authentically moderate Muslims, and non-Muslims in places such as
Egypt and Yemen who long for freedom in the Western sense; but the stubborn
fact is that they make up a strikingly small fraction of the population:
about 20 percent, a far cry from the Western narrative that posits a sea of
Muslim moderates punctuated by the rare radical atoll.
The Muslim Brotherhood is the ummah's most important organization,
unabashedly proclaiming for nearly 90 years that "the Koran is our law and
jihad is our way." Hamas, a terrorist organization, is its Palestinian
branch, and leading Brotherhood figures do little to disguise their
abhorrence of Israel and Western culture. Thus, when spring fever gripped
Tahrir Square, the Obama administration, European governments, and the
Western media tirelessly repeated the mantra that the Brothers had been
relegated to the sidelines. Time had purportedly passed the Islamists by,
just as it was depositing Mubarak in the rear-view mirror. Surely the Tahrir
throngs wanted self-determination, not sharia. Never you mind the fanatical
chants of Allahu akbar! as the dictator fell. Never mind that Sheikh
Qaradawi was promptly ushered into the square to deliver a fiery Friday
sermon to a congregation of nearly a million Egyptians.
With a transitional military government in place and openly solicitous of
the Brotherhood, there occurred the most telling, most tellingly
underreported, and most willfully misreported story of the Arab Spring: a
national referendum to determine the scheduling of elections that would
select a new parliament and president, with a new constitution to follow. It
sounds dry, but it was crucial. The most organized and disciplined factions
in Egyptian life are the Brotherhood and self-proclaimed Muslim groups even
more impatient for Islamization, collectively identified by the media as
"Salafists" even though this term does not actually distinguish them from
the Brothers, whose founder (Hassan al-Banna) was a leading Salafist
thinker. By contrast, secular democratic reformers are in their infancy.
Elections on a short schedule would obviously favor the former; the latter
need time to take root and grow.
Egypt being Egypt, the election campaign was waged with the rhetoric of
religious and cultural solidarity. A vote against a rapid transition was
depicted as a vote "against Islam" and in favor of the dreaded Western hands
said to be guiding the Christians and secularists. The vote was the perfect
test of the Arab Spring narrative.
Four-to-one: That's how it went. The democrats were wiped out by the Muslim
parties, 78 percent to 22 percent. While Western officials dismissed the
vote as involving scheduling arcana, it foretold everything that has
followed: the electoral romp in the parliamentary elections, a multi-stage
affair in which the Brotherhood and the Salafists are inching close to
three-fourths control of the legislature; the ongoing pogrom against the
Copts; and the increasing calls for renunciation of the Camp David Accords,
which have kept the peace with Israel for more than 30 years.
Four-to-one actually proves to be a reliable ratio in examining Islamic
developments. In a 2007 poll conducted by World Public Opinion in
conjunction with the University of Maryland, 74 percent of Egyptians favored
strict application of sharia in Muslim countries. It was 76 percent in
Morocco, 79 percent in Pakistan, and 53 percent in moderate Indonesia.
Before American forces vacated Iraq, roughly three-quarters of the people
they had liberated regarded them as legitimate jihad targets, and, given the
opportunity to vote, Iraqis installed Islamist parties who promised to
hasten the end of American "occupation." Three out of four Palestinians deny
Israel's right to exist. Even in our own country, a recently completed
survey found that 80 percent of American mosques promote literature that
endorses violent jihad, and that these same mosques counsel rigorous sharia
compliance.
The Arab Spring is an unshackling of Islam, not an outbreak of fervor for
freedom in the Western sense. Turkey's third-term prime minister Recep
Erdogan, a staunch Brotherhood ally who rejects the notion that there is a
"moderate Islam" ("Islam is Islam, and that's it," he says), once declared
that "democracy is a train where you can get off when you reach your
destination." The destination for Muslim supremacists is the implementation
of sharia - the foundation of any Islamized society, and, eventually, of the
reestablished caliphate.
Rachid Ghannouchi is swarmed by supporters in Tunis.
Nicolas Fauque/abacausa.com/Newscom
The duration of the ride depends on the peculiar circumstances of each
society. Erdogan's Turkey has become the model for Islamist gradualism in
more challenging environments: Slowly but steadily bend the nation into
sharia compliance while denying any intent to do so and singing the
obligatory paeans to democracy. Erdogan came to this formula after no
shortage of stumbles - it is now rare to hear such outbursts as "The mosques
are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the
faithful our soldiers," the sort of thing he used to say in the late
Nineties when he was imprisoned for sedition against Ataturk's secular
order. His banned Welfare party eventually reemerged as the new and
democracy-ready AKP, the Justice and Development party. Ever since a quirk
in Turkish electoral law put these Islamists in power in 2002, Erdogan has
cautiously but demonstrably eroded the secular framework Ataturk and his
followers spent 80 years building, returning this ostensible NATO ally to
the Islamist camp, shifting it from growing friendship to open hostility
toward Israel, co-opting the military that was Ataturk's bulwark against
Islamization, and salting the country's major institutions with Islamic
supremacists.
The Turkish model will be the ticket for Brotherhood parties that have just
prevailed in Tunisian and Moroccan elections. In Tunisia, Rachid Ghannouchi,
a cagey Islamist of the Erdogan stripe, heads the Ennahda party,
convincingly elected in October to control the legislature that will replace
ousted ruler Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. In Morocco, an Islamist party whose
namesake is the AKP won the fall elections, but further Islamization is apt
to be slower. Far from being driven from power, King Mohammed VI remains
popular, having balanced his affinity for the West with deference to sharia
norms. Moroccan Islamists are making significant inroads, though, as are
their neighbors to the east. Algerian Islamists are poised to accede to
power this spring after being thwarted by a military coup that blocked what
would have been their certain electoral success in 1991.
Egypt, by contrast, will go quickly. There, the most salient development is
not the weakness of secular democrats but the impressive electoral strength
of the Salafists. Their numbers are competitive with those of the
better-known Brothers, and they will tug their rivals in a more aggressively
Islamist direction. Vainly, the West hoped that the country's
American-trained and -equipped armed forces would serve as a brake. But the
Egyptian military, from which several top al-Qaeda operatives have hailed,
is a reflection of Egyptian society, especially as one descends to the
conscripts of lower rank. The undeniable trend in Egyptian society is toward
Islam. That trend is more blatant only in such basket cases as Libya, where
each day brings new evidence that today's governing "rebels" include
yesterday's al-Qaeda jihadists, and in Yemen, the ancestral home of Osama
bin Laden, where even the New York Times concedes al-Qaeda's strength.
Led by the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic parties have become expert at
presenting themselves as moderates and telling the West what it wants to
hear while they gradually ensnare societies in the sharia web, as slowly or
quickly as conditions on the ground permit. They know that when the West
says "democracy," it means popular elections, not Western democratic
culture. They know the West has so glorified these elections that the
victors can steal them (Iran), refuse to relinquish power when later they
lose (Iraq), or decline to hold further elections (Gaza) without forfeiting
their legitimacy. They know that seizing the mantle of "democracy" casts
Islamists as the West's heroes in the dramas still unfolding in Egypt,
Libya, and Syria. They know that the Obama administration and the European
Union have deluded themselves into believing that Islamists will be tamed by
the responsibilities of governance. Once in power, they are sure to make
virulent anti-Americanism their official policy and to contribute materially
to the pan-Islamic goal of destroying Israel.
We should not be under any illusions about why things are shaking out this
way. The Arab Spring has not been hijacked any more than Islam was hijacked
by the suicide terrorists of 9/11. Islam is ascendant because that is the
way Muslims of the Middle East want it.
Mr. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the
author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage
America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)George Soros: Collapsing US Economy to Spark Street Violence
India is the first buyer of Iranian oil to agree to pay for its purchases in gold instead of the US dollar, intelligence and Iranian sources report exclusively. Those sources expect China to follow suit. India and China take about one million barrels per day, or 40 percent of Iran's total exports of 2.5 million bpd. Both are superpowers in terms of gold assets.
By trading in gold, New Delhi and Beijing enable Tehran to bypass the upcoming freeze on its central bank's assets and the oil embargo which the European Union's foreign ministers agreed to impose Monday, Jan. 23. The EU currently buys around 20 percent of Iran's oil exports.
The vast sums involved in these transactions are expected, furthermore, to boost the price of gold and depress the value of the dollar on world markets.
Iran's second largest customer after China, India purchases around $12 billion a year's worth of Iranian crude, or about 12 percent of its consumption. Delhi is to execute its transactions, according to our sources, through two state-owned banks: the Calcutta-based UCO Bank, whose board of directors is made up of Indian government and Reserve Bank of India representatives; and Halk Bankasi (Peoples Bank), Turkey's seventh largest bank which is owned by the government.
An Indian delegation visited Tehran last week to discuss payment options in view of the new sanctions. The two sides were reported to have agreed that payment for the oil purchased would be partly in yen and partly in rupees. The switch to gold was kept dark.
India thus joins China in opting out of the US-led European sanctions against Iran's international oil and financial business. Turkey announced publicly last week that it would not adhere to any sanctions against Iran's nuclear program unless they were imposed by the United Nations Security Council.
The EU decision of Monday banned the signing of new oil contracts with Iran at once, while phasing out existing transactions by July 1, 2012, when the European embargo, like the measure enforced by the United States, becomes total. The European foreign ministers also approved a freeze on the assets of the Central Bank of Iran which handles all the country's oil transactions.
However, the damage those sanctions cause the Iranian economy will be substantially cushioned by the oil deals to be channeled through Turkish and Indian state banks. China for its part has declared its opposition to sanctions against Iran.
Intelligence sources disclose that Tehran has set up alternative financial mechanisms with China and Russia for getting paid for its oil in currencies other than US dollars. Both Beijing and Moscow are keeping the workings of those mechanisms top secret.
For the past forty years the mainstream media has become increasingly liberal and more overt in promoting the policies of the Democratic Party. This evolutionary process reached its zenith in 2008 when the media were instrumental in Barack Obama being elected President. Many journalists dropped any pretense of objectivity and became not only cheerleaders but active de facto members of the campaign. What has their loyalty and prostration achieved for the journalism community? During the past two decades no other sector of the economy has experienced such overwhelming financial and employment devastation.
Yet the vast majority of the media do not understand why theirs is a declining and failing business model. They are still in denial and cannot accept the reality of the marketplace, as their actions have prompted the American public to lose all confidence in their objectivity and integrity.
The 2012 election season has begun and this same media finds itself in the position of having to defend and reinforce the man they chose to sleep with. They have willingly opted to do exactly that. The mainstream media is systematically pulling out all the stops to destroy any and all viable Republican challengers in an undeclared but understood alliance with the Obama re-election machine.
Rather than objectively analyze the folly of the Obama class warfare strategy and its potential to undermine and destroy societal cohesion, the mainstream media has trumpeted and encouraged this divisive and dangerous strategy. The Occupy Wall Street movement, conceived by Friends of Obama and encouraged by the White House, as well as blessed by many in the media, was intended to further reinforce the war against the rich and redirect the anger and blame for all of America's woes away from the statist policies of the Obama regime. Mitt Romney, who since last summer has been the presumptive opponent to oppose Obama, is in the process of being cast as the capitalist villain in this stage production.
Herman Cain was destroyed by unproven and salacious allegations of sexual harassment. Michele Bachmann was portrayed as wild-eyed and unstable religious fanatic, and Rick Perry was painted as an ignorant, incoherent and unreliable cowboy from Texas. Characterizations that would never be applied to any Democratic candidate.
When it comes to Newt Gingrich there is no ethical barrier too high for the media to tear down in an attempt to marginalize him. Now the specter of an acknowledged bitter ex-wife being given access to a national stage two days before a crucial primary vote in order to vent her side of an emotional and vitriolic divorce saga is considered acceptable, as well as any innuendo or accusation created out of whole cloth. A scenario that would never be contemplated were Newt a liberal Democrat.
What has this loyalty to progressive group-think and the Democratic Party wrought for the members of this once-proud profession? The landscape of the once mighty journalism community is one of utter devastation.
Since 2001 American newsrooms have lost more than 25 per cent of their full time journalists resulting in a level of employment not seen since the mid-1970's. Just since 2007 over 14,000 have lost their jobs.
Among other examples of this decline and fall are:
The New York Times Company, often considered the bellwether of the national media, has reduced its labor force by 47% (6,600 jobs) since 2000. The average daily circulation for the Times has dropped by over 21% (234,000 readers) during the same period. The Company has been liquidating as many assets as possible in order to stay afloat; they now have few viable assets left to sell and will soon be facing bankruptcy
The Washington Post, the other most influential newspaper in the country, has seen its average daily circulation drop by 33% (263,000 readers) since 2000. More devastating has been the plummet in print advertising revenue which has dropped by over 60% since 2000. They too have made major reductions in their labor force.
Among the largest chains of newspapers in the country, the McClatchy Company has experienced a similar downturn. Since acquiring the Knight-Ridder chain in 2006, the Company has seen its average daily circulation decline from 2.84 million readers to 2.05 (a drop of 28% in only four years). Many of the individual papers within the group have resorted to massive layoffs and selling assets as not only circulation but ad revenue has dropped precipitously.
The Gannet family of newspapers (the largest in the country) has lost over 2 million in paid circulation since 2000 (28%) while their ad revenue has dropped by 48%.
Since 2000 total U.S. newspaper circulation has fallen by nearly 11 million readers with no end to this freefall in sight.
The traditional news magazines (Time, Newsweek and US News & World Report) have experienced even more devastating results since 2000. Their readership has declined by over 3.6 million (40%). Advertising revenue has dropped by nearly 70%. A clear indicator of the demise of this media sector is the sale of Newsweek by the Washington Post Company for $1.00.
The three network evening news broadcasts have suffered a similar fate. Since 1991 they have lost 12.6 million viewers (34%).
In an attempt to offset the drastic decline in their core businesses all the various media companies have made a late foray into the internet; however the revenue generated by that sector does not begin to make up for the ongoing financial hemorrhaging.
The mainstream media is first and foremost a business. Like any business it must generate revenue, pay its bills and make a profit for its shareholders. To produce income it must attract customers (advertisers and subscribers) to buy its product (the news as well as viewers or readers). Based on the results over the past ten years it is obvious that the product the mainstream media is promoting is not selling.
Rather than understanding the basics of the free market and how capitalism has enabled many of the old guard in the mainstream media to live extremely comfortable lives, the most important and fashionable matter for the vast majority of the journalism community has been to be part of the in-crowd, which requires little independence of thought or even the ability to generate an original thought.
Thus many in the media are still caught up in the old paradigm of good versus evil wherein conservatives are evil and liberals are good. Despite the fact that many have experienced or know of others in their profession with first-hand knowledge of layoffs, salary reductions and virtually no job prospects, they never seem to ask why or what will the future be for their chosen profession much less the country as a whole.
A cursory examination of history reveals the catastrophic failure of nations composed of a massive central government siphoning off the wealth of the people in order to reward those the governing regime deems to be acceptable. The media is never among the chosen; in fact it is often the first profession to be marginalized.
Yet like so many on the Left, a majority of the members of the mainstream media are incapable of recognizing their error in blindly supporting the liberal/socialist agenda over the years. Regardless of the evidence at hand, either historic or contemporary, their egos and narcissism so dominate their psyche that admitting a mistake is tantamount to the apocalypse. Thus they appear willing to sacrifice their own future and standard of living by actively campaigning for Obama's re-election rather than honestly report on the lies and machinations of this regime and their devastating impact on future generations. The only outcome the media has guaranteed is the continued decline and degradation of their once noble profession.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) OBAMA’S GOVERNMENT VS. YOUR FAMILY
BY JOHN HINDERAKER
Today Barack Obama released a proclamation commemorating the 39th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the low water mark of American constitutional jurisprudence since the Dred Scott case. Obama’s proclamation was not widely noted, except in circles that take (as Scott put it long ago) the sacramental view of abortion. But I happened to read it, and was struck by this brazen bit of Obama BS:
As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.
If that doesn’t provoke hollow laughter, you haven’t been paying attention. Do President Obama and his fellow Democrats seriously believe that “government should not intrude on private family matters?” Let us count the ways! First, compare Obama’s declaration today with what he said when Michelle Obama announced her anti-childhood obesity project. Did you think that how much your kids weigh is a “private family matter,” in which “government should not intrude?” Don’t be silly:
I have set a goal to solve the problem of childhood obesity within a generation so that children born today will reach adulthood at a healthy weight. The first lady will lead a national public awareness effort to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity. She will encourage involvement by actors from every sector — the public, nonprofits, and private sectors, as well as parents and youth — to help support and amplify the work of the federal government in improving the health of our children.
So the future weight of your minor children is a “goal” of the federal government. Of course, that is just one example out of many. For example, do you think it is a “private family matter” whether you feed your children Cheerios and corn flakes for breakfast? Think again.
Is it an imposition on “private family matters” when a pediatrician cross-examines your child about whether you own a gun? The liberals don’t think so.
You might be so silly as to believe that teaching your children about sex is a “private family matter.” I won’t even bother to provide a link for this one.
The subject of Obama’s declaration was abortion. But suppose your teenage daughter can get an abortion without your even finding out about it: is that a government intrusion on “private family matters?” Sure, but one that liberals like Obama favor.
How about the electricity that your family uses? If you have a large family, or one with a lot of computers and other electronic equipment, you probably use more electricity than your neighbors, and are willing to pay for it. But in many communities, there is a sliding scale for usage, so that if you consume, say, 20% more electricity than your neighbors, you pay a 40% higher bill. This is because liberals believe it is their business how we live, and how much power we consume.
Electric power reminds me of light bulbs. Did you think that your choice of light bulbs is a “private family matter?” Until a few years ago, it would not have occurred to anyone to disagree with you. But not today, as President Obama and his allies in Congress now dictate what light bulbs your family can use to illuminate your house.
Disposing of garbage used to be a “private family matter.” Not anymore. Every community has laws and regulations about recycling that inject the government into your garbage.
One might have said that providing for your family’s health was the quintessential “private family matter.” But that was before Obamacare, which not only will require you to buy health insurance, but will require it to be in a form dictated not by you and the insurance company, but by the federal government, so that you pay for dozens of coverages that your family doesn’t want or need.
Did you think that how your children plan their futures is a “private family matter?” That isn’t what the Democrats believe. If you have children in public schools, you are aware that they are constantly bombarded with global warming propaganda. Several years ago, when my youngest child was in the 4th or 5th grade, she had a homework assignment in which a series of questions hectored her as to what she intended to do in her future life to combat global warming. I was proud of her when she wrote answers like, “I will never fly in more private aircraft than Al Gore,” and “I will never live in a bigger house than John Edwards.” (That, by the way, was before we suspected that Edwards was destined for the Big House.)
Speaking of school: is where you send your children to school a “private family matter?” Of course not! The District of Columbia had a school choice scholarship program that allowed parents some discretion in selecting schools for their children, but Barack Obama and the Democrats killed it.
When parents think about private family matters, one thing that comes to mind is babysitters. Until now, you could negotiate a reasonable fee with a 16-year-old neighbor and, if you live in a neighborhood like ours, feel confident that your kids will be well cared for. No longer; not here in Minnesota, anyway: Minnesota’s Democrats are pressing for unionization of all child care workers! If they have their way, you and your wife won’t be able to go out to dinner without dealing with union bosses–not because of your free choice, but because of government intervention into private family matters.
The idea that liberal Democrats like Barack Obama regard anything as a “private family matter” is ludicrous. As far as they are concerned, every single thing that you and your family do is a proper subject for government regulation. The doctrine of “choice” ends once your child is born. If you think that there is some other aspect of your life, or your family’s that is so personal and so private that the Democrats couldn’t possibly want to regulate and control it–well, then, you are a fool.
But Barack Obama utters bullshit like today’s Roe v. Wade proclamation, secure in the knowledge that no one will call him on it except for a few amateurs like us, who, for whatever reason, are willing to spend our Sunday evenings calling the president on his whoppers, rather than pursuing private family matters.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)George Soros: Collapsing US Economy to Spark Street Violence
As the U.S. economy worsens, protests such as those carried out by the Occupy Wall Street movement will turn ugly, breaking down into waves of violent unrest across the nation, says billionaire financier George Soros.
"It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States," Soros tells Newsweek.
Unrest in the United States will serve as one of many symptoms of a worsening global economy, which makes wealth preservation a priority over getting rich.
"At times like these, survival is the most important thing," Soros tells Newsweek.
"I am not here to cheer you up. The situation is about as serious and difficult as I’ve experienced in my career," says Soros, made famous by betting against the pound in 1992 and pocketing $1 billion in the process, he said.
"We are facing an extremely difficult time, comparable in many ways to the 1930s, the Great Depression. We are facing now a general retrenchment in the developed world, which threatens to put us in a decade of more stagnation, or worse," he said.
"The best-case scenario is a deflationary environment. The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the financial system."
European policymakers have no choice but to keep all the currency zone alive in its present form.
A messy default and exit from the block from even one country would send major shockwaves across the world.
"The euro must survive because the alternative — a breakup — would cause a meltdown that Europe, the world, can’t afford," says Soros, who owns $2 billion in European government debt he bought from MF Global, the securities firm run by former Goldman Sachs chief John Corzine that went bankrupt in October.
"The collapse of the Soviet system was a pretty extraordinary event, and we are currently experiencing something similar in the developed world, without fully realizing what’s happening."
At the heart of the global uncertainty lie countries like Greece and Italy, who are carrying such hefty debt burdens that many fear they will default and abandon the euro as its currency, which would roil financial systems worldwide similar to the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008.
While some see default as inevitable, avoiding a messy one while allowing Greece to stay in the currency zone is the best option.
Others point out that they aren't hoping for a best-case scenario out of the crisis and just want to avoid total disaster.
European policymakers owe the world just that.
"It's not that the market needs Europe completely solved," says John Gerspach, Citigroup's chief financial officer, according to The Telegraph.
"It's just that they need assurance it won't be a complete disaster." Until then, investors are likely to avoid risk, Gerspach says.
While Soros agrees that a Greek default is likely, a messy one needs to be avoided at all costs.
"If you have a disorderly collapse of the euro, you have the danger of a revival of the political conflicts that have torn Europe apart over the centuries — an extreme form of nationalism, which manifests itself in xenophobia, the exclusion of foreigners and ethnic groups," Soros says.
"In Hitler’s time, that was focused on the Jews. Today, you have that with the Gypsies, the Roma, which is a small minority, and also, of course, Muslim immigrants."
Soros adds he's staying out of U.S politics despite his arguably well-known Democratic tendencies — and donations.
"I would prefer not to be involved in party politics. It’s only because I felt that the Bush administration was misleading the country that I became involved," Soros says.
"I was very hopeful of a new beginning with Obama, and I’ve been somewhat disappointed. I remain a supporter of the Democratic Party, but I’m fully aware of their shortcomings."
Can Obama be re-elected?
"Obama might surprise the public. The main issue facing the electorate is whether the rich should be taxed more. It shouldn’t be a difficult argument for Obama to make.
4) Iran steps up threats to close Strait of Hormuz after EU imposes oil embargo
Warning comes as EU nations agree in Brussels on sanctions over the country's controversial nuclear program; Netanyahu says embargo is 'step in the right direction.'
By The Associated Press
Two Iranian lawmakers on Monday stepped up threats their country would close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's crude flows, in retaliation for oil sanctions on Tehran.
The warnings came as EU nations agreed in Brussels on an oil embargo against Iran as part of sanctions over the country's controversial nuclear program. The measure includes an immediate embargo on new contracts for Iranian crude and petroleum products while existing ones will be allowed to run until July.
Iran has repeatedly warned it would choke off the strait if sanctions affect its oil sales, and two lawmakers ratcheted up the rhetoric on Monday.
Lawmaker Mohammad Ismail Kowsari, deputy head of Iran's influential committee on national security, said the strait "would definitely be closed if the sale of Iranian oil is violated in any way."
Kowsari claimed that in case of the strait's closure, the U.S. and its allies would not be able to reopen the route, and warned America not to attempt any "military adventurism."
Another senior lawmaker, Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, said Iran has the right to shutter Hormuz in retaliation for oil sanctions and that the closure was increasingly probable, according to the semiofficial Mehr news agency.
"In case of threat, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is one of Iran's rights," Falahatpisheh said. "So far, Iran has not used this privilege."
Monday's EU measure also includes a freeze on the assets of Iran's central bank as part of sanctions meant to pressure Tehran to resume talks on its uranium enrichment, a process that can lead to making nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the decision, calling it "a step in the right direction."
According to Netanyahu, who spoke at an afternoon Likud faction meeting, it is still too early to predict the outcome of the sanctions, but he emphasized the importance of continual pressure on Iran in light of "its continual, uninterrupted development of nuclear weapons."
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle on Monday called for other countries to join the European Union in its boycott of Iranian oil. China imports a lion share of Tehran's crude. Other major importers include India, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan and Turkey.
"Oil embargo is a word easily said," Westerwelle told reporters after a meeting with his EU counterparts in Brussels. "But if the message to the Iranian leadership is to be clear, then it needs more than just a Western voice. It needs an international voice."
Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was critical on Monday of planned new European Union sanctions against Iran, saying they would push Tehran away from the negotiating table and do little to increase regional security.
"These unilateral steps are not helpful," Lavrov said at a press conference in the Russian Black Sea port of Sochi, the Interfax news agency reported.
For its part, the United States has enacted, but not yet put into force, sanctions targeting Iran's central bank and, by extension, the country's ability to be paid for its oil.
Some 80 percent of Iran's oil revenue comes from exports and any measures or sanctions taken that affect its ability to export oil could hit hard at its economy. With about 4 million barrels per day, Iran is the second largest producer in OPEC.
Reflecting the uncertainties, on Monday the Iranian currency, the rial, fell to a new low, trading at nearly 21,000 to the dollar, a five percent drop since Saturday and 14 percent since Friday, currency dealers said. A year ago the rial was trading at 10,500 to the dollar.
Tensions over the strait and the potential impact on global oil supplies and also the price of crude have weighed heavily on consumers and traders. Both the U.S.¬ and Britain have warned Iran over any disruption to the world's oil supply through the strait.
Another Iranian lawmaker, Ali Adyani, sought to downplay the latest EU move, describing it as a "mere propaganda gesture," according to the semiofficial Fars news agency.
Former intelligence minister, Ali Falahaian, suggested Iran should stop all its crude exports "so that oil prices would go up and the Europeans' sanctions would collapse."
Threats to close the strait escalated during Iran's naval exercises in the Persian Gulf in January. Iran plans more naval war games in February.
4a)India to pay gold instead of dollars for Iranian oil. Oil and gold markets stunned
4) Iran steps up threats to close Strait of Hormuz after EU imposes oil embargo
Warning comes as EU nations agree in Brussels on sanctions over the country's controversial nuclear program; Netanyahu says embargo is 'step in the right direction.'
By The Associated Press
Two Iranian lawmakers on Monday stepped up threats their country would close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's crude flows, in retaliation for oil sanctions on Tehran.
The warnings came as EU nations agreed in Brussels on an oil embargo against Iran as part of sanctions over the country's controversial nuclear program. The measure includes an immediate embargo on new contracts for Iranian crude and petroleum products while existing ones will be allowed to run until July.
Iran has repeatedly warned it would choke off the strait if sanctions affect its oil sales, and two lawmakers ratcheted up the rhetoric on Monday.
Lawmaker Mohammad Ismail Kowsari, deputy head of Iran's influential committee on national security, said the strait "would definitely be closed if the sale of Iranian oil is violated in any way."
Kowsari claimed that in case of the strait's closure, the U.S. and its allies would not be able to reopen the route, and warned America not to attempt any "military adventurism."
Another senior lawmaker, Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, said Iran has the right to shutter Hormuz in retaliation for oil sanctions and that the closure was increasingly probable, according to the semiofficial Mehr news agency.
"In case of threat, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is one of Iran's rights," Falahatpisheh said. "So far, Iran has not used this privilege."
Monday's EU measure also includes a freeze on the assets of Iran's central bank as part of sanctions meant to pressure Tehran to resume talks on its uranium enrichment, a process that can lead to making nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the decision, calling it "a step in the right direction."
According to Netanyahu, who spoke at an afternoon Likud faction meeting, it is still too early to predict the outcome of the sanctions, but he emphasized the importance of continual pressure on Iran in light of "its continual, uninterrupted development of nuclear weapons."
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle on Monday called for other countries to join the European Union in its boycott of Iranian oil. China imports a lion share of Tehran's crude. Other major importers include India, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan and Turkey.
"Oil embargo is a word easily said," Westerwelle told reporters after a meeting with his EU counterparts in Brussels. "But if the message to the Iranian leadership is to be clear, then it needs more than just a Western voice. It needs an international voice."
Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was critical on Monday of planned new European Union sanctions against Iran, saying they would push Tehran away from the negotiating table and do little to increase regional security.
"These unilateral steps are not helpful," Lavrov said at a press conference in the Russian Black Sea port of Sochi, the Interfax news agency reported.
For its part, the United States has enacted, but not yet put into force, sanctions targeting Iran's central bank and, by extension, the country's ability to be paid for its oil.
Some 80 percent of Iran's oil revenue comes from exports and any measures or sanctions taken that affect its ability to export oil could hit hard at its economy. With about 4 million barrels per day, Iran is the second largest producer in OPEC.
Reflecting the uncertainties, on Monday the Iranian currency, the rial, fell to a new low, trading at nearly 21,000 to the dollar, a five percent drop since Saturday and 14 percent since Friday, currency dealers said. A year ago the rial was trading at 10,500 to the dollar.
Tensions over the strait and the potential impact on global oil supplies and also the price of crude have weighed heavily on consumers and traders. Both the U.S.¬ and Britain have warned Iran over any disruption to the world's oil supply through the strait.
Another Iranian lawmaker, Ali Adyani, sought to downplay the latest EU move, describing it as a "mere propaganda gesture," according to the semiofficial Fars news agency.
Former intelligence minister, Ali Falahaian, suggested Iran should stop all its crude exports "so that oil prices would go up and the Europeans' sanctions would collapse."
Threats to close the strait escalated during Iran's naval exercises in the Persian Gulf in January. Iran plans more naval war games in February.
4a)India to pay gold instead of dollars for Iranian oil. Oil and gold markets stunned
Iranian oil for India
By trading in gold, New Delhi and Beijing enable Tehran to bypass the upcoming freeze on its central bank's assets and the oil embargo which the European Union's foreign ministers agreed to impose Monday, Jan. 23. The EU currently buys around 20 percent of Iran's oil exports.
The vast sums involved in these transactions are expected, furthermore, to boost the price of gold and depress the value of the dollar on world markets.
Iran's second largest customer after China, India purchases around $12 billion a year's worth of Iranian crude, or about 12 percent of its consumption. Delhi is to execute its transactions, according to our sources, through two state-owned banks: the Calcutta-based UCO Bank, whose board of directors is made up of Indian government and Reserve Bank of India representatives; and Halk Bankasi (Peoples Bank), Turkey's seventh largest bank which is owned by the government.
An Indian delegation visited Tehran last week to discuss payment options in view of the new sanctions. The two sides were reported to have agreed that payment for the oil purchased would be partly in yen and partly in rupees. The switch to gold was kept dark.
India thus joins China in opting out of the US-led European sanctions against Iran's international oil and financial business. Turkey announced publicly last week that it would not adhere to any sanctions against Iran's nuclear program unless they were imposed by the United Nations Security Council.
The EU decision of Monday banned the signing of new oil contracts with Iran at once, while phasing out existing transactions by July 1, 2012, when the European embargo, like the measure enforced by the United States, becomes total. The European foreign ministers also approved a freeze on the assets of the Central Bank of Iran which handles all the country's oil transactions.
However, the damage those sanctions cause the Iranian economy will be substantially cushioned by the oil deals to be channeled through Turkish and Indian state banks. China for its part has declared its opposition to sanctions against Iran.
Intelligence sources disclose that Tehran has set up alternative financial mechanisms with China and Russia for getting paid for its oil in currencies other than US dollars. Both Beijing and Moscow are keeping the workings of those mechanisms top secret.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) CURL: The truly dismal state of the union
By Joseph Curl -
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
There is one person — one American among the 300 million of us — who is not to blame for the state of the union. Everyone else, each of you, in some small or large way, bears some share of the blame, but not this guy. Not one little bit.
This guy is Barack Obama. He is not the least bit to blame for the dismal state of the U.S. economy. George W. Bush is, for sure, and that evil Dick Cheney, oh, no doubt. House Speaker John A. Boehner — evil, too — is, of course, to blame. But guess what? So is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and every Democrat in the House and Senate.
Now, President Truman made it very clear: The buck stops with him. No passing the buck for that guy. But Mr. Obama blames everyone but himself. Mr. Bush, he says, left the nation in a ditch, a deep ditch, and he's been digging out since he took office. And Congress? Those guys are just plain awful, he says. So mean. Wah, they won't do anything I want done! Mr. Obama feels so sure about it that he's basing his re-election campaign on bashing Capitol Hill.
But with the president delivering his State of the Union speech to Congress Tuesday night, let's pause here to take as hard look at the real state of America, by the numbers, using only cold, hard facts.
The unemployment rate when Mr. Obama was elected was 6.8 percent; today it is 8.5 percent — at least that's the official number. In reality, the Financial Times writes, "if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11 percent."
In addition, there are now fewer payroll jobs in America than there were in 2000 — 12 years ago — and now, 40 percent of those jobs are considered "low paying," up 10 percent from when President Reagan took office. The number of self-employed has dropped 2 million to 14.5 million in just six years.
Regular gasoline per gallon cost $1.68 in January 2009. Today, it's $3.39 — that's a 102 percent increase in just three years. (By the way, if you're keeping score at home, gas was $1.40 a gallon when George W. Bush took office in 2001, $1.68 when he left office — a 20 percent increase.)
Electricity bills have also skyrocketed, with households now paying a record $1,420 annually on average, up some $300.
Some 48 percent of all Americans — 146.4 million — are considered by the Census Bureau either as "low-income" or living in poverty, up 4 million from when Mr. Obama took office; 57 percent of all children in America now live in such homes.
Since December 2008, a month before Mr. Obama took office, food-stamp use has increased 46 percent. Total spending has more than doubled in just four years to a record high of $75 billion. In 2011, more than 46 million people — about one in seven Americans — got food stamps. That's 14 million more than when Mr. Obama took office.
Median household income has dropped nearly 7 percent in the last six years, taking inflation into account. What's more, nearly 20 percent of males age 25 to 34 now live with their parents.
Low- and middle-income Americans 65 and older now hold more than $10,000 in credit card debt, up 26 percent since 2005. The average age of the American car is 10 years; in 1990, it was 6.5 years old (by the way, in 1985, Americans bought 11 million cars; in 2009, less than half that, 5.4 million).
On the macro side, America's annual budget has jumped to $3.8 trillion — and yet the United States brings in only about $2.1 trillion in revenue. The U.S. trade deficit for 2011 was $558 billion. America's total public debt stands at $15.23 trillion; in January 2009, the debt was $10.62 trillion. Mr. Obama is on pace to borrow $6.2 trillion in just one term — more debt than was amassed by all presidents from Washington through Bill Clinton combined. The debt is rising by $4.2 billion every day — $175 million per hour, nearly $3 million per minute.
So, America, that is the State of Your Union. But remember, Mr. Obama had not one thing to do with it. So don't blame him when you go to the polls. Blame everyone else, especially yourself.
• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at jcurl@washingtontimes.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Steve McCann-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the past forty years the mainstream media has become increasingly liberal and more overt in promoting the policies of the Democratic Party. This evolutionary process reached its zenith in 2008 when the media were instrumental in Barack Obama being elected President. Many journalists dropped any pretense of objectivity and became not only cheerleaders but active de facto members of the campaign. What has their loyalty and prostration achieved for the journalism community? During the past two decades no other sector of the economy has experienced such overwhelming financial and employment devastation.
Yet the vast majority of the media do not understand why theirs is a declining and failing business model. They are still in denial and cannot accept the reality of the marketplace, as their actions have prompted the American public to lose all confidence in their objectivity and integrity.
The 2012 election season has begun and this same media finds itself in the position of having to defend and reinforce the man they chose to sleep with. They have willingly opted to do exactly that. The mainstream media is systematically pulling out all the stops to destroy any and all viable Republican challengers in an undeclared but understood alliance with the Obama re-election machine.
Rather than objectively analyze the folly of the Obama class warfare strategy and its potential to undermine and destroy societal cohesion, the mainstream media has trumpeted and encouraged this divisive and dangerous strategy. The Occupy Wall Street movement, conceived by Friends of Obama and encouraged by the White House, as well as blessed by many in the media, was intended to further reinforce the war against the rich and redirect the anger and blame for all of America's woes away from the statist policies of the Obama regime. Mitt Romney, who since last summer has been the presumptive opponent to oppose Obama, is in the process of being cast as the capitalist villain in this stage production.
Herman Cain was destroyed by unproven and salacious allegations of sexual harassment. Michele Bachmann was portrayed as wild-eyed and unstable religious fanatic, and Rick Perry was painted as an ignorant, incoherent and unreliable cowboy from Texas. Characterizations that would never be applied to any Democratic candidate.
When it comes to Newt Gingrich there is no ethical barrier too high for the media to tear down in an attempt to marginalize him. Now the specter of an acknowledged bitter ex-wife being given access to a national stage two days before a crucial primary vote in order to vent her side of an emotional and vitriolic divorce saga is considered acceptable, as well as any innuendo or accusation created out of whole cloth. A scenario that would never be contemplated were Newt a liberal Democrat.
What has this loyalty to progressive group-think and the Democratic Party wrought for the members of this once-proud profession? The landscape of the once mighty journalism community is one of utter devastation.
Since 2001 American newsrooms have lost more than 25 per cent of their full time journalists resulting in a level of employment not seen since the mid-1970's. Just since 2007 over 14,000 have lost their jobs.
Among other examples of this decline and fall are:
The New York Times Company, often considered the bellwether of the national media, has reduced its labor force by 47% (6,600 jobs) since 2000. The average daily circulation for the Times has dropped by over 21% (234,000 readers) during the same period. The Company has been liquidating as many assets as possible in order to stay afloat; they now have few viable assets left to sell and will soon be facing bankruptcy
The Washington Post, the other most influential newspaper in the country, has seen its average daily circulation drop by 33% (263,000 readers) since 2000. More devastating has been the plummet in print advertising revenue which has dropped by over 60% since 2000. They too have made major reductions in their labor force.
Among the largest chains of newspapers in the country, the McClatchy Company has experienced a similar downturn. Since acquiring the Knight-Ridder chain in 2006, the Company has seen its average daily circulation decline from 2.84 million readers to 2.05 (a drop of 28% in only four years). Many of the individual papers within the group have resorted to massive layoffs and selling assets as not only circulation but ad revenue has dropped precipitously.
The Gannet family of newspapers (the largest in the country) has lost over 2 million in paid circulation since 2000 (28%) while their ad revenue has dropped by 48%.
Since 2000 total U.S. newspaper circulation has fallen by nearly 11 million readers with no end to this freefall in sight.
The traditional news magazines (Time, Newsweek and US News & World Report) have experienced even more devastating results since 2000. Their readership has declined by over 3.6 million (40%). Advertising revenue has dropped by nearly 70%. A clear indicator of the demise of this media sector is the sale of Newsweek by the Washington Post Company for $1.00.
The three network evening news broadcasts have suffered a similar fate. Since 1991 they have lost 12.6 million viewers (34%).
In an attempt to offset the drastic decline in their core businesses all the various media companies have made a late foray into the internet; however the revenue generated by that sector does not begin to make up for the ongoing financial hemorrhaging.
The mainstream media is first and foremost a business. Like any business it must generate revenue, pay its bills and make a profit for its shareholders. To produce income it must attract customers (advertisers and subscribers) to buy its product (the news as well as viewers or readers). Based on the results over the past ten years it is obvious that the product the mainstream media is promoting is not selling.
Rather than understanding the basics of the free market and how capitalism has enabled many of the old guard in the mainstream media to live extremely comfortable lives, the most important and fashionable matter for the vast majority of the journalism community has been to be part of the in-crowd, which requires little independence of thought or even the ability to generate an original thought.
Thus many in the media are still caught up in the old paradigm of good versus evil wherein conservatives are evil and liberals are good. Despite the fact that many have experienced or know of others in their profession with first-hand knowledge of layoffs, salary reductions and virtually no job prospects, they never seem to ask why or what will the future be for their chosen profession much less the country as a whole.
A cursory examination of history reveals the catastrophic failure of nations composed of a massive central government siphoning off the wealth of the people in order to reward those the governing regime deems to be acceptable. The media is never among the chosen; in fact it is often the first profession to be marginalized.
Yet like so many on the Left, a majority of the members of the mainstream media are incapable of recognizing their error in blindly supporting the liberal/socialist agenda over the years. Regardless of the evidence at hand, either historic or contemporary, their egos and narcissism so dominate their psyche that admitting a mistake is tantamount to the apocalypse. Thus they appear willing to sacrifice their own future and standard of living by actively campaigning for Obama's re-election rather than honestly report on the lies and machinations of this regime and their devastating impact on future generations. The only outcome the media has guaranteed is the continued decline and degradation of their once noble profession.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) OBAMA’S GOVERNMENT VS. YOUR FAMILY
BY JOHN HINDERAKER
Today Barack Obama released a proclamation commemorating the 39th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the low water mark of American constitutional jurisprudence since the Dred Scott case. Obama’s proclamation was not widely noted, except in circles that take (as Scott put it long ago) the sacramental view of abortion. But I happened to read it, and was struck by this brazen bit of Obama BS:
As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.
If that doesn’t provoke hollow laughter, you haven’t been paying attention. Do President Obama and his fellow Democrats seriously believe that “government should not intrude on private family matters?” Let us count the ways! First, compare Obama’s declaration today with what he said when Michelle Obama announced her anti-childhood obesity project. Did you think that how much your kids weigh is a “private family matter,” in which “government should not intrude?” Don’t be silly:
I have set a goal to solve the problem of childhood obesity within a generation so that children born today will reach adulthood at a healthy weight. The first lady will lead a national public awareness effort to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity. She will encourage involvement by actors from every sector — the public, nonprofits, and private sectors, as well as parents and youth — to help support and amplify the work of the federal government in improving the health of our children.
So the future weight of your minor children is a “goal” of the federal government. Of course, that is just one example out of many. For example, do you think it is a “private family matter” whether you feed your children Cheerios and corn flakes for breakfast? Think again.
Is it an imposition on “private family matters” when a pediatrician cross-examines your child about whether you own a gun? The liberals don’t think so.
You might be so silly as to believe that teaching your children about sex is a “private family matter.” I won’t even bother to provide a link for this one.
The subject of Obama’s declaration was abortion. But suppose your teenage daughter can get an abortion without your even finding out about it: is that a government intrusion on “private family matters?” Sure, but one that liberals like Obama favor.
How about the electricity that your family uses? If you have a large family, or one with a lot of computers and other electronic equipment, you probably use more electricity than your neighbors, and are willing to pay for it. But in many communities, there is a sliding scale for usage, so that if you consume, say, 20% more electricity than your neighbors, you pay a 40% higher bill. This is because liberals believe it is their business how we live, and how much power we consume.
Electric power reminds me of light bulbs. Did you think that your choice of light bulbs is a “private family matter?” Until a few years ago, it would not have occurred to anyone to disagree with you. But not today, as President Obama and his allies in Congress now dictate what light bulbs your family can use to illuminate your house.
Disposing of garbage used to be a “private family matter.” Not anymore. Every community has laws and regulations about recycling that inject the government into your garbage.
One might have said that providing for your family’s health was the quintessential “private family matter.” But that was before Obamacare, which not only will require you to buy health insurance, but will require it to be in a form dictated not by you and the insurance company, but by the federal government, so that you pay for dozens of coverages that your family doesn’t want or need.
Did you think that how your children plan their futures is a “private family matter?” That isn’t what the Democrats believe. If you have children in public schools, you are aware that they are constantly bombarded with global warming propaganda. Several years ago, when my youngest child was in the 4th or 5th grade, she had a homework assignment in which a series of questions hectored her as to what she intended to do in her future life to combat global warming. I was proud of her when she wrote answers like, “I will never fly in more private aircraft than Al Gore,” and “I will never live in a bigger house than John Edwards.” (That, by the way, was before we suspected that Edwards was destined for the Big House.)
Speaking of school: is where you send your children to school a “private family matter?” Of course not! The District of Columbia had a school choice scholarship program that allowed parents some discretion in selecting schools for their children, but Barack Obama and the Democrats killed it.
When parents think about private family matters, one thing that comes to mind is babysitters. Until now, you could negotiate a reasonable fee with a 16-year-old neighbor and, if you live in a neighborhood like ours, feel confident that your kids will be well cared for. No longer; not here in Minnesota, anyway: Minnesota’s Democrats are pressing for unionization of all child care workers! If they have their way, you and your wife won’t be able to go out to dinner without dealing with union bosses–not because of your free choice, but because of government intervention into private family matters.
The idea that liberal Democrats like Barack Obama regard anything as a “private family matter” is ludicrous. As far as they are concerned, every single thing that you and your family do is a proper subject for government regulation. The doctrine of “choice” ends once your child is born. If you think that there is some other aspect of your life, or your family’s that is so personal and so private that the Democrats couldn’t possibly want to regulate and control it–well, then, you are a fool.
But Barack Obama utters bullshit like today’s Roe v. Wade proclamation, secure in the knowledge that no one will call him on it except for a few amateurs like us, who, for whatever reason, are willing to spend our Sunday evenings calling the president on his whoppers, rather than pursuing private family matters.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment