This is one of the city’s prettiest bakeries, with its chandelier-lit seating area and a fancy wrap-around display case packed with gorgeously decorated cupcakes and pastries. It’s also the place that will finally convince you that non-dairy kosher pareve desserts can be downright delicious (everything here falls into that category). Some standouts include dense apple-spice cupcakes with honey butter cream, terrific challah and lattice-topped fruit pies. Above all, the cookies—in flavors like chocolate chip, maple cranberry oatmeal, cinnamon sugar snicker doodle, ginger chewy and chocolate-filled peanut butter—will keep you coming back time and again.
6595 Hamilton Ave.; 412/450-8445, sweet-tammys.com"
---
Continuing SOTU commentary sent by fellow memo readers and other matters. (See 1,1a and 1b below.)
---
Obviously intended to embarrass but what impact will Ga. eligibility trial have in the real world of politics? Time will tell. (See 2 below.)
---
Warren Buffet has entered the dangerous world of politics and I would venture to say, before it is over, his record of financial achievements will become tarnished. He should not expect to retain his virtuous stance when he may benefit from his political actions and involvement. Whether justified or not stench has a way of finding and/or creating victims. (See 3 below.)
---
An explanation why politicians are not held in high esteem. (See 4 below.)
---
A warning of Capitalism's vulnerability from the man who did what he pens should be avoided, ie. do not meddle with the markets. (See 5 below.)
---
Narrowing the difference? (See 6 below.)
---
Caroline Glick's article describes the dichotomy many American Jews face when it comes to defending Israel while remaining faithful to America.
As for myself, unless Israel 's actions are so offensive as to be immoral I support their right to survive. (See 7 below.)
The simple point is, Israel favors economic and diplomatic sanctions against Iran but its calculus must, of absolute security necessity, be based on how much time is left for military strikes to be effective.
Go back to the confrontation we had with Russia over Cuba. Kennedy knew, after the Bay of Pigs disaster, he could not allow Russia to place nuclear weapons in Cuba. He may have consulted with various allies, even maybe the U.N. but JFK knew he could not be deterred from taking action once Russia moved to cross the 'red line.' So it will be with Israel.
In the final analysis, all nations act in their own self interest when their survival is threatened.
If America and/or the West wishes to prevent Israel from acting unilaterally, as it must and will once they conclude Iran has crossed the red line, then America and its allies must take effective and convincing action and discontinue their dalliance on the assumption Israel will submit to unending delays.
A line in the sand will be drawn from which, I am convinced, there will be no backing away.
Israel's Barack warned nations attending the Davos Conference today, time like sand, is rapidly shifting against Israel.
I continue to believe, it is not out of the question, that before the election 'PNF/F' will conclude he can lock up his re-election by taking on Iran and possibly by first provoking them in order to justify his actions.
---
Back to the Florida vote and some advice from Kim Strassel to Mitt. It was given prior to last night and may prove premature.
While Newt continues to attack Romney, Romney is now hitting back and Newt was unprepared for the response.
Meanwhile, Santorum effectively whacked Romney on the healthcare issue and Romney did not have an effective response.
It was hoped all the campaigning would harden the candidate ultimately selected but when they got engaged in a food fight they could have done irreparable harm to their prospects. Politics is a nasty business and often brings out the worst.
I have been fortunate to know two outstanding Senators - Sam Nunn and Paul Coverdell. Both epitomized the best in what one would expect of a public servant.
I am getting to know Rep. Jack Kingston and like what I see. He is a serious minded and dedicated person.
I also had the privilege of getting to know the elder President Bush. Already discussed how I came to know Newt. (See 4 and 8 below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Obama's Misstatements on the Union
BY DAVID LIMBAUGH
Only a president long shielded from criticism and accountability could make the kind of State of the Union speech President Obama did Tuesday night. It's hard to know where to begin, given his repetition of tired ideas from his previous SOTUs, his taking credit for successful policies he resisted and omitting failed ones he promoted, his numerous misrepresentations on issues big and small, and his glaring refusal to address the main issues that threaten the nation.
Let me touch on just a few highlights in this brief space.
Excessive spending is the primary threat to our nation's and Americans' financial future, yet Obama glossed over it and distorted his record.He said, "We've already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more." But everyone knows he's had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the cutting table. His unrelenting passion is spending. Even The Washington Post said, "Obama does not mention that Republicans forced him to accept $2 trillion in budget cuts during the debt-ceiling impasse."
Obama said, "I'm prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long-term costs of Medicare and Medicaid and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors." Well, that's mighty magnanimous of him, but why is he so grudging about it? As president, he should be singularly focused on entitlement reform. Yet he has obstructed and demagogued such reforms. His condition that the "programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors" is completely dishonest, because Paul Ryan's plan did just that and he rejected it while ridiculing and demonizing Ryan.
Obama said, again, that to avoid Warren Buffett's secretary's paying a higher tax rate than her boss, we should adopt the "Buffett rule," prescribing that "if you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes." The Heritage Foundation tells us that according to Congressional Budget Office data, the top 1 percent of income earners already pay 30 percent of their income in all federal taxes. In addition, when wealthy people pay a lower effective income tax rate, it's a result either of lawful deductions (often charitable) or of capital gains and dividends on property they've acquired with money that has already been taxed. Also, before the wealthy realize many of these gains, the businesses that produce these gains have already paid a corporate income tax rate of 35 percent (the highest in the world). This means that Buffett, on much of this income, pays an effective rate of 50 percent (35 percent corporate plus 15 percent capital gains). Indeed,99.4 percent of millionaires and billionaires pay far more in taxes in actual and relative terms than middle- and low-income earners, and for Obama to suggest otherwise is not only deeply deceitful but also damaging -- because of the class envy he constantly stokes -- to the social fabric of this country.
Obama said he wants to lure American companies home yet has steadfastly refused, notwithstanding his SOTU rhetoric, to agree to rectify the primary reasons they leave: punitive corporate income tax rates and onerous regulations.
Obama suggested that he is not only a pioneer in clean energy but also bullish on domestic energy. His record on the former is disgraceful, and both his claim and record on the latter are insulting. He has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on quixotic green-energy programs with Solyndra and its cousins, spending $5 million for every single "renewable energy" job he has created. He has defiantly refused to take responsibility and is continuing to pursue more. He has waged war on domestic coal, natural gas and oil. He not only imposed a punitive moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf but also lawlessly re-instituted another one after federal district and appellate courts shot down his initial moratorium. When he lifted this revised moratorium, drilling remained in limbo because of the administrative obstacles his administration had imposed on drilling permits. His actions caused devastating losses to the Gulf economy and jobs, which rippled throughout the nation's economy. Most recently, to placate his environmental extremist base, he blocked the job-producing Keystone XL pipeline for no legitimate reason.
Obama threatened to withhold federal subsidies to colleges unless they hold tuition costs down without recognizing that one of the main reasons they've skyrocketed is the profligate subsidies he continues to increase.
He railed against bailouts after having established a record as President Bailout. He blamed banks again for causing the housing crisis and economic meltdown by making loans to people who couldn't afford them, without admitting that government, mainly his party, was the primary culprit.
He said he'd established the closest military cooperation with Israel in history, but he has bullied that nation for three years, and our relationship has rarely been more strained.
Believe me, I could go on.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, "Crimes Against Liberty," was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks.
1a)15 Questions The Mainstream Media Would Ask Barack Obama If He Were A Republican
During the practically endless series of Republican debates, we have heard almost every question imaginable asked to Republican candidates – if by every question imaginable, you mean horribly slanted, often irrelevant questions designed to make them look bad and help Obama. We've heard questions about contraceptives, religion, Newt's angry ex-wife, Gardasil, etc., etc., etc. So, what would happen if the mainstream media treated Barack Obama the exact same way that they treat Republicans? The questions might sound a little something like this.
1) Numerous Mexican citizens and an American citizen have been killed with weapons knowingly provided to criminals by our own government during Operation Fast and Furious. If Eric Holder was aware that was going on, do you think he should step down as Attorney General? Were you aware that was going on and if so, shouldn’t you resign?
2) In 2010 you said Solyndra, which gave your campaign a lot of money, was "leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future." Today, Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost $500 million on loans that your administration was well aware might never be paid off when you made them. What do you say to people who say this is evidence of corruption in your administration?
3) Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In return, they gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost 14 billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special 45 billion dollar tax break. What do you say to people who view this as corruption on a scale never before seen in American history?
4) Through dubious means, you and your allies in Congress managed to push through an incredibly unpopular health care bill that helped lead to the worst election night for the Democratic Party in 50 years. Since the bill has passed, many of your claims about the bill have proven to be untrue. For example, we now know the bill won't lower costs and despite your assurances to the contrary, big companies like McDonald's say they may drop health care because of the health care reform. Since the American people have rejected your health care reform and it doesn't do what you said it would, shouldn't you work with the Republicans to repeal it?
5) When you took office, gas was $1.79 per gallon. Since then, you've demonized the oil industry, dramatically slowed offshore drilling, blocked ANWR, and killed the Keystone Pipeline. Now, gas is $3.54 per gallon. How much higher do you anticipate driving gas prices?
6) Occupy Wall Street has been protesting against Wall Street and the richest 1 percent in America. You are in the top 1 percent of income earners in America and you have collected more cash from Wall Street than any other President in history. So, aren't you exactly the sort of
politician that Occupy Wall Street wants to get rid of?
7) How do you decide which foreign leaders to submissively bow towards and why do you think that's appropriate for an American President?
8) If they could, don't you think the Nobel Committee would take back the Nobel Peace Prize that you were awarded?
9) You made bipartisanship one of the central themes of your campaign in 2008. Yet, you've worked to push bills through Congress with almost no Republican support, spent much less time negotiating with Congress than George Bush, and you've said things like, "But, I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking." Why did you decide to break your campaign promise to pursue bipartisanship?
10) America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time under your watch. What do you think you should have done differently to have prevented that historic failure?
11) You cut more than 500 billion dollars out of Medicare to fund your wildly unpopular health care reform bill. Given that Medicare is running in the red already, don't you think it's irresponsible to cut money out of one entitlement program, that millions of seniors depend on -- to put it into a risky new entitlement program?
12) Back in July, you said, "Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years." Since you plan to raise taxes if you're elected and you've had kind words for a value added tax, shouldn't every American expect a tax increase if you're reelected?
13) Why should the American people reelect you when your 10 year budget saddles America with more debt than all previous Presidents combined?
14) Your stimulus bill cost more in real dollars than the moon landing and the interstate highway system combined. What do we have to show for all of that money spent?
15) Members of your administration promised that the trillion dollar stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, we've had 35+ months of 8% and above unemployment. Doesn't that mean we wasted a trillion dollars on nothing?
1b)Go to: "Familiar Rhetoric, Failed Record - YouTube" and "Do watch Peter Schiff’s response to BHO’s SOTU."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW
By Craig Andresen
Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.
The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.
Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.
The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.
With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.
Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.
Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.
After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.
Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.
Game on.
5 minutes.
10 minutes.
15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.
20 minutes.
It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.
Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?
Certainly not.
Court is called to order.
Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.
Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.
Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.
Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.
June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.
Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.
It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.
Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.
Carl Swinson takes the stand.
Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.
2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.
Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.
Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.
RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.
DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.
Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.
Dreams From My Father entered.
Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.
Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.
This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.
At this point, the judge takes a recess.
The judge returns.
David Farrar takes the stand.
Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.
Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strunk.
Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.
State Licensed PI takes the stand.
She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that the true owner of the number was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.
Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
Next witness takes the stand.
This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.
Linda Jordan takes the stand.
Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.
Next witness.
Mr. Vogt.
Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.
Mr. Vogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.
States this is a product of layering.
Mr. Vogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.
Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.
Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.
Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of Connecticut . Obama never resided in that state. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.
Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.
Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.
Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.
Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.
Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.
Taitz takes the stand herself.
Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.
Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.
Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.
And with that, the judge closes the hearing.
What can we take away from this?
It’s interesting.
Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.
One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.
WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?
Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.
One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.
What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.
It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.
Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Buffett would profit from Keystone cancellation
By Dave Boyer
Warren Buffett, whom President Obama likes to cite as a fair-minded billionaire while arguing for higher taxes on the wealthy, stands to benefit from the president’s decision to reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.
Mr. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. owns Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC, which is among the railroads that would transport oil produced in western Canada if the pipeline isn’t built.
“Whatever people bring to us, we’re ready to haul,” Krista York-Wooley, a spokeswoman for Burlington Northern, a unit of Buffett’s Omaha, Neb.-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc., told Bloomberg News. If Keystone XL “doesn’t happen, we’re here to haul,” she said.
The Obama administration rejected TransCanada’s request for a permit on Jan. 18, saying there was not enough time to review the proposal by Feb. 21, the deadline imposed by congressional Republicans eager to see the pipeline built. The decision came from the State Department, although Mr. Obama said he agreed with it.
TransCanada said it plans to submit another proposal that would avoid an environmentally sensitive route through Nebraska. The State Department had been reviewing the pipeline project tor three years when it rejected the permit.
If completed, the $7 billion Keystone XL would deliver 700,000 barrels a day of crude from oil sands in Canada to Texas refineries on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. It would traverse about 1,600 miles.
The State Department’s review of the project said shipping oil via rail is more costly than delivering it to refineries by pipeline.
Mr. Obama often cites Mr. Buffett as an example of a civic-minded billionaire because the entrepreneur has said he should pay a higher tax rate than his secretary. Mr. Buffett and the president like to tell the story of how Mr. Buffett pays a 15 percent effective tax rate, while his secretary pays a higher rate even though she earns only a fraction of what he does.
The president has called his push for higher taxes on the wealthy the “Buffett rule.”
The secretary, Debbie Bosanek, will sit with first lady Michelle Obama in her box in the House gallery at Tuesday night’s State of the Union speech.
Republicans, labor unions and even some Democrats have criticized the administration’s rejection of the pipeline permit, saying it would create up to 20,000 jobs. Critics accuse the president of buckling to pressure from environmentalists who oppose the project and are important to Mr. Obama’s re-election effort.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Why America Hates Its Politicians So Much
By Monty Pelerin
Another State of the Union speech has come and gone. These speeches are predictable, useless, boring, and purely political.
Supporters of the party in power rave about matters such as "vision," "compassion," "fairness," and "the future." Detractors focus more on reality -- the present and the distortions, contradictions, and, yes, outright lies contained in the message. So it was with the recent SOTU by President Barack Obama.
In the heated political divide, partisan supporters and detractors know no bounds in terms of their defense or attacks. Party and politics, not truth, are what matters. Both sides spin, distort, and lie in their efforts to gain advantage. The spoils for the victor in politics have become so great as to trump integrity and other sacred values. Truth is the biggest victim. To practice truth in modern-day politics is verboten. Loyalty to party and ideology trumps everything else. Truth is a disqualifier in this racket.
With a president who feels unconstrained by law, the Constitution, economic reality, or the truth, interpretations of what he said and its relationship with reality are especially useful. Little of that comes from the so-called mainstream media who put him in office and now desperately seek to defend and re-elect their tragic mistake. For the most part, the media are interested in maintaining their integrity by continuing to distort the truth. Political outcome to them has replaced fact-checking and truth.
This quote from Warren Meyer writing in Forbes expresses the frustration of many Americans:
Had Barack Obama given this State of the Union speech at the beginning of his Presidency, I probably would have been supportive of many of his proposals. Today, though, I am simply dumbfounded at the mismatch between his words last night and his policies and actions over the last three years. The portion that really floored me was Obama's taking credit for the increase in US oil and gas production over the last several years. Oil and gas companies are once again proving Julian Simon's [adage] that the only true scarcity is human brain power, and they should be given a lot of credit for the recent production boom. The one person who deserves no credit for this boom is Barack Obama. In fact, this Administration has bent over backwards to make oil and gas production and exploration as difficult as possible.
Other non-establishment views of Obama's speech can be found here:
The Cato Institute Fact-Checks, Responds to President Obama's State-of-the-Union Address
Alarming Thoughts On The SOTU from Clark Judge
ACTION TRUMPS HOPE
Today, American Idol appears to be the litmus test for electing a president. Is someone cool, hip, and exciting? Is he/she good-looking?
On that basis Obama is eminently qualified. He is good-looking and smooth-talking (with a teleprompter), and he exudes confidence. These characteristics, coincidentally, are the same ones necessary for a successful career as a charlatan or confidence man. What is not coincidental is the overlap between a successful politician and a successful criminal! Success in either of these two fields is dependent upon duplicity, fraud, and coercion.
Based on the substance of our politicians, would we not be better drawing them from the professional acting class? Brad Pitt and/or other talented Hollywood celebrities would be ideal. They are more attractive than the current crop of politicians. Certainly they can handle themselves better in front of a camera. Some puppet-master could write their scripts, which they would regurgitate flawlessly.
Hollywood has enough talent that it could supply both parties. Let's not use rank amateurs to staff our political class. Hollywood should be the training base. Surely this crop of actors exceeds our current politicians in every superficial characteristic that seems to matter.
As we approach the upcoming election, the country appears to have narrowed down the choices to three -- Obama, Romney, and Gingrich. Is there anything more demonstrative as to why people are turned off by politics and politicians? Surely a country of 300 million people, many of whom are laden with talent, character, and integrity, should be capable of producing a better selection than these three. Is this the best that our political system can deliver? Was it any better in prior elections? Of course not.
Gresham's Law in economics explains why bad money drives out good money. Something like that law is at work in our political system. "Bad" people drive out "good" ones. Quality people are repelled by politics.
Truly talented people don't enter politics. They don't need to make a living as a member of the parasite class. Hypocrisy, character assassination, and money-begging are requisites for success in the political world. These qualities are anathema to people of character. Men and women of integrity and talent make their way through life the old-fashioned way. As intoned in the old Smith Barney commercial, they "earn it." They have no need to subject themselves to the filth of politics, where the way to success is to "steal it."
That doesn't mean that quality people don't find it necessary to support politicians. When an economy has been overly politicized and run from Washington, it is important to pretend to like even slimeballs if they are the difference between your success and failure. Political support is not necessarily motivated by respect. Often it is driven by either bribery or extortion. It is a cost of doing business in today's statist world.
One must pretend to worship the wise and sage Washington if one wants to operate successfully in the U.S., a lesson Bill Gates learned the hard way. Gates, a true genius and loner, had no use for Washington or lobbying. As he grew, the pile of riches represented by Microsoft became too large for Washington not to notice. Gates soon found his company under attack by the Justice Department on questionable anti-trust charges.
Gates quickly saw the light and began to worship at Washington's altar. Apparently he recognized that being extorted was more costly than joining the bribery side. Now he, like all other major corporations, lobbies and contributes to the political coffers in Washington, usually both sides. He has had no U.S. anti-trust problems since.
A loser, at least in terms of being able to contribute productively to society, is what defines most politicians. For the less talented and less scrupulous, it is an easier route to wealth than that of markets. It is the same motivation that draws the less talented toward organized crime. Coercion and force make for an easier way to make a living than success in free markets, where cooperation, mutual consent, and value-creation are the essentials for success.
If you are unfortunate enough to meet one of these (political or Mafia) creatures, count your fingers after shaking hands. Then apply liberal amounts of antiseptic soap for as long as it takes for you to sing "Happy Birthday" -- twice! Then get religion and pray that you have not been fatally infected by your encounter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Greenspan: Battle for Capitalism 'Far From Won'
By Julie Crawshaw
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says meddling with markets invites disaster.
"Capitalism, since it was spawned in the Enlightenment, has achieved one success after another," Greenspan writes in the Financial Times.
"Standards and quality of living, following millennia of near stagnation, have risen at an unprecedented rate over large parts of the globe," he wrote.
"Poverty has been dramatically reduced and life expectancy has more than doubled. The rise in material well-being – a tenfold increase in global real per capita income over two centuries – has enabled the earth to support a six-fold increase in population," he wrote.
While central planning may no longer be a credible form of economic organization, the intellectual battle for its rival – free-market capitalism – is far from won, says Greenspan.
He asks if there is a simple trade-off between civil conduct, as defined by those who find raw competitive behavior deplorable, and the material life most people nonetheless seek.
"During the past century, for example, competitive-market-driven economic growth created resources far in excess of those required to maintain subsistence," Greenspan says.
"That surplus, even in the most aggressively competitive economies such as America’s, has been mainly employed to improve the quality of life: advances in health, greater longevity and pension systems that go with it, a universal system of education and vastly improved conditions of work."
"We have used much of the substantial increases in wealth generated by our market-driven economies to purchase what most would view as greater civility."
He says that “whatever the imperfections of free-market capitalism, no regime that has been tried as a replacement .. has succeeded in meeting the needs of its people.”
“Yet I fear that, in response to the crisis, innumerable ‘improvements’ to the capitalist model will be enacted. I am very doubtful those ‘improvements,’ in retrospect, will appear to have been wise.”
Meanwhile, a four-year economic crisis has left societies battered and widened the gap between the haves and have-nots, financial leaders conceded Wednesday — with one suggesting that Western-style capitalism itself may be endangered, the Associated Press reported.
As Europe struggles with its debt crisis and the global economic outlook remains gloomy at best, there's a sense at the heavily guarded World Economic Forum that free markets are on trial.
Many at the elite economic gathering in the Swiss Alps accept that more must be done to convince critics that Western capitalism has a future and that it can learn from its massive failures.
For David Rubenstein, the co-founder and managing director of asset management firm Carlyle Group, leaders must work fast to overcome the current crisis or else different models of capitalism, such as the form practiced in China, may win the day.
"As a result of this recession, that's lasted longer than anyone predicted and will probably go on for a number more years ... we're going to have a lot of economic disparities," Rubenstein told the AP.
"We've got to work through these problems. If we don't do in three or four years ... the game will be over for the type of capitalism that many of us have lived through and thought was the best type."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)War of attrition brewing with Iran over Gulf oil routes
Strait of Hormuz
Military tensions in the Persian Gulf shot up again Thursday, Jan. 26, after Dubai police commander Gen. Dhahi Khalfan said on Al Arabiya television that an imminent Gulf war cannot be ruled out and first signs are already apparent. "The world will not let Iran block Hormuz but Tehran can narrow the strait to the maximum," he said.
He stated Iran will not shut down the Strait of Hormuz completely, but gradually cut down tanker traffic which carries 17 million barrels, or one-fifth of the world's daily consumption, through the waterway. Our Iranian sources report that the rule of thumb Tehran has devised for confront sanctions is to respond to the tightening of an oil embargo by having the Revolutionary Guards gradually narrow the tankers' shipping lanes through the strategic strait. This will progressively cut down the amount of oil reaching the markets.
Tehran will not go all the way and shut the channel down completely for fear of provoking a military showdown with the United States. But each time Washington manages to stop Iran supplying a given country, the IRGC will shut down another section of the strait.
General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff admitted on Jan. 8 that Iran has the capacity to block the Strait of Hormuz temporarily but the US would get it reopened within a short time.
Saudi Arabia and Dubai are skeptical about the ability of the American navy and Gulf forces to keep the Strait of Hormuz open at all times in the face of continuous Iranian attacks.
The prevailing view in Gulf capitals is that for the six months from February through July 1, when the European embargo on Iranian oil and the Iranian national bank freeze kick in, a war of attrition will unfold as Iran carries out sporadic strait closures, either by mining the waterway or firing missiles at tankers from unmarked speedboats.
These operations will push up the price of oil and so drum home to oil-dependent Asian and European governments the high cost to them of the alternate opening and closing of the Strait of Hormuz.
A Saudi official said Wednesday, Jan. 1, that Tehran's threats to punish Riyadh for offering to make up the shortfall incurred from the oil embargo against Iran "could be seen by Saudi Arabia as an act of war."
The Iranian threats followed the pledge made this week by Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi to raise daily production by up to 2.7 million barrels per day to supply the countries caught short of supplies from Iran.
However, the Saudi minister could not say how the oil would make its way out of the Persian Gulf to destination if the Strait of Hormuz were to be shuttered partially or fully.
Military and Gulf sources report Persian Gulf capitals are talking less these days about an outbreak of armed hostilities over Iran's nuclear program and more about the coming war over the oil shipping routes out to market.
The Dubai general's remarks Thursday about an imminent conflict referred not only to the flow of American reinforcements to the Gulf region but also to the new deployments of the armies of Gulf Cooperation Council states. They are moving into position in expectation of a military confrontation with Iran.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Obama: Of course I intend to prevent a nuclear holocaust . . . in a few months
By Caroline B. Glick
In truth, American Jewry's diffidence towards taking a stand on Iran, or recognizing Obama's dishonestly on this issue specifically and his dishonestly regarding his position on US-Israel ties generally, is not rooted primarily in American Jews' devotion to Obama. It isn't even specifically related to American Jewry's devotion to the political Left. Rather it has to do with American Jewish ambivalence to Israel
European and American perfidy in dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons program apparently has no end. This week we were subject to banner headlines announcing that the EU has decided to enact an oil embargo on Iran. It was only when we got past the bombast that we discovered that the embargo is only set to come into force on July 1.
Following its European colleagues, the Obama administration announced it is also ratcheting up its sanctions against Iran in two months. Sometime in late March, the US will begin sanctioning Iran's third largest bank.
At the same time as the Europeans and the Americans announced their phony sanctions, they reportedly dispatched their Turkish colleagues to Teheran to set up a new round of nuclear talks with the ayatollahs. If the past is any guide, we can expect for the Iranians to agree to sit down and talk just before the oil embargo is scheduled to be enforced. And the Europeans — with US support — will use the existence of talks to postpone indefinitely the implementation of the embargo.
There is nothing new in this game of fake sanctions. And what it shows more than anything is that the Europeans and the Americans are more concerned with pressuring Israel not to attack Iran's nuclear installations than they are in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
For his part Obama has a second target audience — American Jews. He is using his fake sanctions as a means of convincing American Jews that he is a pro-Israel president and that in the current election season, not only should they cast their votes in his favor, they should sign their checks for his campaign.
For their part, both Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were quick this week to make clear that these moves are insufficient. They will not force Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program. More is needed. As to American Jewry, the jury is still out.
In truth, American Jewry's diffidence towards taking a stand on Iran, or recognizing Obama's dishonestly on this issue specifically and his dishonesty regarding his position on US-Israel ties generally is not rooted primarily in American Jews' devotion to Obama. It isn't even specifically related to American Jewry's devotion to the political Left. Rather it has to do with American Jewish ambivalence to Israel.
The roots of that ambivalence — which is shared by other Western Jewish communities to varying degrees -- predate Obama's presidency. Indeed, they predate the establishment of Israel. And now, as the US and the EU have given Iran at least another six months to a year to develop its nuclear bombs unchecked, it is worth considering the nature and influence of this ambivalence.
Today's principal form of Jew hatred is anti-Zionism. Anti-Zionism is similar to previous dominant forms of Jew hatred such as xenophobic and racist anti-Semitism, and Communist anti-Jewish cosmopolitanism in the sense that it takes dominant, popular social trends and turns them against the Jews. Anti-Zionism's current predominance owes to the convergence of several popular social trends which include Western post-nationalism, and anti-colonialism.
The problem that anti-Zionism poses for American Jewry is that it forces them to pay a price for supporting Israel. This is problematic because Zionism has never been fully embraced by American Jewry. Since the dawn of modern Zionism, the cause of Jewish self-determination placed American Jewish leaders in an uncomfortable dilemma.
Unlike every other Diaspora Jewish community, the American Jewish community has always perceived itself as a permanent community rather than an exile community. American Jews have always viewed the United States as the new Promised Land.
With the formation of the modern Zionist movement in the late nineteenth century, American Jews found themselves on the thorns of a dilemma. Clearly, the state of world Jewry was such that national self-determination had become an existential necessity for non-American Jews.
But while supporting Jewish refugees and a scrappy little country was okay, support for the Zionist cause of Jewish national liberation involved an acceptance of the fact that Israel — not the US — is the Jewish homeland. Moreover, it involved accepting that there are Jewish interests that are independent of — if not necessarily in contradiction with — American interests. For instance, irrespective of the prevailing winds in Washington, and regardless of whether the US supports Israel or not, it is a Jewish interest that Israel exists, thrives and survives.
In a recent op ed in Haaretz, Hebrew University political science professor Shlomo Avineri contrasted world Jewry's massive mobilization on behalf of Soviet Jewry in the 1970s and 1980s and their relative silence today in the face of Iran's Holocaust denial and open calls for the annihilation of the Jewish state. Avineri is apparently confounded by the disparity between Western Jewry's behavior in the two cases.
But the cause of the disparity is clear. Supporting the right of Soviet Jews to emigrate was easy. Unlike Israel, Soviet Jews were powerless. As such, they were pure victims and supporting them cost Diaspora Jews nothing in terms of their position in their societies. Just as importantly, the cause of freedom for Soviet Jewry was perfectly aligned with the West's Cold War policies against the Soviet Union. The frequent Jewish demonstrations outside Soviet legations provided Western leaders with another tool to fight the Cold War.
In contrast, supporting Israel, and the cause of Jewish freedom and self-determination embodied by Zionism is not cost free for Diaspora Jews. At root, to support Israel and Zionism involves accepting that Jews have inherent rights as Jews. To be a Zionist Jew in the Diaspora means that you embrace and defend the notion that the Jews have the right to their own interests and that those interests may be distinct from other nations' interests. That is, to be a Zionist involves rejecting Jewish assimilation and embracing the fact that Jews require national independence and power to guarantee our survival. And this can be unpleasant.
Pro-Israel American Jews have historically tried to tie their support for Israel to larger, more universal themes in order to extricate themselves from the need to admit that as Jews and supporters of Israel they have a right and a duty to support Jewish freedom even if it isn't always pretty. Again, for Israel's first several decades, it was about helping poor Jews and refugees. In recent years, the predominant defense has been that Israel deserves support because it is a democracy.
Certainly, these are both reasonable reasons for supporting Israel. But neither support for Israel because it was poor nor support for Israel because it is free are specifically Zionist reasons for supporting Israel. You don't have to be a Zionist to support poor Jewish refugees and you don't have to be a Zionist to support democracy.
You do have to be a Zionist however, to defend the Jews in Israel and throughout the world in a coherent manner when the predominant form of Jew hatred is anti-Zionism. You have to be willing to accept and defend the right of the Jewish people to freedom and self-determination in our national homeland against those who deny that right. You have to be a Zionist to defend Israel's right to survive and thrive even though it is no longer poor and its democratically elected government is not liked by the Obama administration.
And you have to be a Zionist to realize that since Jewish survival is dependent on Jewish power, and anti-Zionists reject the right of Jews to have power, that anti-Zionists seek to bring about a situation where Jewish survival is imperiled.
The weakness of American Jewry's response to Iran's genocidal intentions towards Israel is of a piece with its weak response to the forces of anti-Zionism generally and to Jewish anti-Zionists particularly. Since 2007, the US government has effectively ruled out the use of force against Iran's nuclear weapons program and embraced a policy of pursuing negotiations with ayatollahs while enacting impotent sanctions to quell Congressional pressure. At least in part, this policy owes to the US's assessment that a nuclear Iran does not pose a high-level threat to US national security.
At the same time, both then president George W. Bush and Obama determined that an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear weapons program does pose a high-level threat to the US. As a consequence, both administrations have taken concerted steps to prevent Israel from attacking Iran.
On the merits, both of these policies are easily discredited. But the fact that they continue to be implemented shows that they are supported by a large and powerful constituency in Washington.
To oppose Iran's nuclear program effectively, American Jews are required to oppose these strongly supported US policies. And at some point, this may require them to announce they support Israel's right to survive and thrive even if that paramount right conflicts with how the US government perceives US national interests. That is, it may require them to embrace Zionism unconditionally.
No doubt, if they do so, their own conditions will improve. They will finally be able to speak coherently against the gathering forces of anti-Zionism — both from within the Jewish community and from without. This in turn will act as a lightning rod for inspiring American Jews to embrace their Judaism.
With their leaders to date having abjectly failed to contend with the most powerful form of Jew hatred, it is no wonder that so many Diaspora Jews are leaving the fold. If they reverse course and go after their attackers, American Jewish leaders will give community members a meaningful reason to proudly embrace their identity.
In a speech this week at the Knesset, Netanyahu explained the different lessons the Holocaust teaches the international community on the one hand, and the Jews on the other. As far as its universal lessons are concerned, Netanyahu said, "The lesson is that the countries of the world must be woken up, as much as possible, so that they can organize against such crimes. The lesson is that the broadest possible alliances must be forged in order to act against this threat before it is too late."
As for the Jews, Netanyahu embraced Zionism's core principle: "With regard to threats to our very existence, we cannot abandon our future to the hands of others. With regard to our fate, our duty is to rely on ourselves alone."
We must hope that world Jewry will recognize today that the fate of the Jewish people in Israel and throughout the world is indivisible and rally to Israel's side whatever the social cost of doing so. But even if they do not recognize this basic truth, the imperatives of Zionism, of the Jewish people, remain in place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8)
Mitt Keeps Missing the Message
If Romney wins Florida, it won't be because he's becoming a more effective candidate.
Newt Gingrich's South Carolina bump is fading, and polls show Mitt Romney again leading in Florida. A Romney victory in the Sunshine State could sew this up.
It won't be because Mr. Romney has become a better or more effective candidate. Primaries exist to help with that process, to let contenders read signals from the political landscape, to adapt, become stronger. Successful politicians absorb the signals and change up. Not Mr. Romney. If politics were evolution, the governor would still be swimming in the primordial soup.
That much was clear this week. The first signal was Mr. Gingrich's resounding victory in South Carolina. If Mr. Romney were listening, he'd have understood that vote was as much against him as it was for Mr. Gingrich. It took but one punchy Gingrich debate performance to have voters abandoning the front-runner in droves.
South Carolina voters also clearly explained why. Exit polls showed that Mr. Romney's two (and only) messages—that he is the best suited to turn around the economy and to defeat Barack Obama—aren't working for the majority of voters. Mr. Gingrich beat Mr. Romney on both issues. The electorate explained that they first and foremost want a candidate willing to passionately promote conservative ideals.
Mr. Gingrich then followed his victory with a week in which he all but goaded his opponent into voicing some bigger principles. He kept up the "Massachusetts moderate" label. He again went populist and accused Mr. Romney of not working for all his money and profiting from big banks. He compared Mr. Romney to Charlie Crist. Among Florida conservatives, there is no greater diss.
Mr. Romney had some strong moments in Thursday's debate, but on the Florida stump he's mostly been plodding on. As in Iowa, as in New Hampshire, as in South Carolina, he's still criticizing Mr. Gingrich. He's still running on his biography. He's still sending the media press releases announcing the latest Miami Dade politician to pronounce him most electable against Barack Obama.
Which gets to the other story of this week: the president's State of the Mitt Address. Mr. Gingrich might have some Republicans spooked, but Democrats are still hoping for the Massachusetts governor. They, too, have noticed that Mr. Romney is ducking the class-warfare debate, and that not even the Gingrich threat has moved him to engage. They take that as an invitation to make it the central theme of the Obama re-elect. The president's Tuesday speech was a direct assault on Mr. Romney's wealth and tax breaks for "the rich."
That challenge, coming on the back of Mr. Romney's tax release, was all the more reason for him to change the narrative by seizing on a big idea like comprehensive tax reform. He could have underlined how the tax code that Mr. Obama wants to further contort only undermines growth and leaves average Americans paying a higher effective rate than does Mr. Romney. Instead, he complained that Mr. Gingrich's tax simplification plan would let off rich guys.
Mr. Romney has his unscripted, inspired moments. Late in South Carolina, a feisty Mr. Romney chastised a heckler—who was slamming him for being the 1%—for seeking to "divide the nation . . . as our President is doing," and then riffed on America's great economic model. Romney strategist Eric Fehrnstrom boasted it was "Mitt Romney at his best." He was right. And it lasted all of 30 seconds. A few days later Mr. Romney was back to borrowing the heckler's language, telling Floridians "the 1% is doing fine. I want to help the 99%."
The Romney camp lives in terror of deviating from the months-old script. It did, and will, defend RomneyCare. It did, and will, stick with a 59-point economic plan. It did, and will, promote only the "middle class." Did. Will. No flip-flops here, folks. Move along.
Yet it is precisely Mr. Romney's past flips that now require him to adjust, to convince conservative voters that the convictions he today claims are real and strong. Mr. Romney likes to repeat that he is a free-market conservative. What voter is going to blame him for proving it by putting out a roaring tax reform? That's not a flip-flop. That's progress.
Mr. Romney isn't beating Mr. Gingrich in Florida on the arguments. He's barely eking ahead of a man whose own history and temperament are his hurdles to victory. Mr. Obama won't have that problem. If a Nominee Romney thinks he can win the White House with the sort of uninspired performance he put in this week, he's got a long 2012 ahead of him.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment