Doubt The White House will buy Sweet Tammy's items for two reasons.
a) Their products do not fit White House Food dictates per the above, and
b) Sweet Tammy's is a small business which the administration's policies make life difficult for entrepreneurs and are designed to crush them and their spirits!
That said, Sweet Tammy's will succeed despite the Obama Administration because the owners are hard working, make a fabulous and delicious product that is gaining local acceptance and their desire is to create a national brand.
If you do not believe me, order some of their cookies by going to Sweet-Tammys.com
Sweet Tammy's New East End Retail Outlet
The move to Larimer has been icing on the cake for Sweet Tammy's expanding
wholesale kosher bakery business—and you can buy retail there, too.
The new bright pink shop---yes, we're talking about its exterior—at 6596
Hamilton Avenue is open weekdays, at the same time bakers are turning out treats for
Giant Eagle and its Market District stores, McGinnis Sisters, Whole Foods, Prime
Kosher, and Community Supermarket both locally and in Cleveland.
Sweet Tammy's closed its Murray Avenue outlet in Squirrel Hill because the site
was simply too small to meet the growing demand for dairy-free cakes, pies, cookies,
doughnuts, brownies, and breads, says Tammy Berkowitz, who founded the kosher
bakery with her husband, Daniel.
"Our new location gives us a lot more room," she explains. "Our customers have
ample parking, and we're still close to the neighborhoods we serve."
People with dairy allergies seek out Sweet Tammy's products, and the doughnuts
have a following because they are baked, not fried. "We're in places where there really
aren't a lot of kosher consumers," Berkowitz says. "People love our egg challah because
it's great for sandwiches and dipping and makes fabulous French toast. People also like
that there are no artificial preservatives or trans fats in our baked goods, and we use
unbleached flour."
Info: Sweet Tammy's, 8596 Hamilton Avenue, Larimer, 412-450-8445, www.sweettammys.com . Retail
hours are Monday through Thursday, 10 to 6• Friday 7 to 2.
---
Fool me once; shame on you.
Fool me twice; shame on me.
Fool me three times; I'm a voter for Obama!
---
That's the anti-Colonialist plan. Wipe out the income of savers and make them more dependent on government.
---
Peace plan Abbas style. (See 2 below.)
---
Obama and Iran engagd in a conspiracy against Israel?
Obama will continue to obfuscate while creating the appearance of taking action. That's the Obama anti-Colonial plan.(See 3 below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------
1)Obama Dividend Tax Would Devastate Retirees
By Henry J. Reske
Buried within President Barack Obama’s 2013 budget is a proposal to triple the tax rate on corporate dividends which now stands at 15 percent, a move that would have a severe effect on retirees, The Wall Street Journal notes in an editorial.
Obama is proposing to raise the dividend tax rate to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6 percent, according to the Journal. The rate jumps to 41 percent with the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions and then hits 44.8 percent with the 3.8 percent investment tax surcharge in Obamacare.
“Of course, the White House wants everyone to know that this new rate would apply only to those filthy rich individuals who make $200,000 a year, or $250,000 if you're a greedy couple. We're all supposed to believe that no one would be hurt other than rich folks who can afford it,” the Journal wrote.
“The truth is that the plan gives new meaning to the term collateral damage, because shareholders of all incomes will share the pain. Here's why. Historical experience indicates that corporate dividend payouts are highly sensitive to the dividend tax. Dividends fell out of favor in the 1990s when the dividend tax rate was roughly twice the rate of capital gains.”
When the rate fell to 15 percent in 2003, dividends reported on tax returns nearly doubled to $196 billion from $103 billion the year before the tax cut, and by 2006, dividend income had grown to nearly $337 billion, The Journal wrote. Economists who examined dividend payouts came to the conclusion that the tax cut played a significant role in the increase in dividend payouts.
“If you reverse the policy, you reverse the incentives,” the Journal wrote. “The tripling of the dividend tax will have a dampening effect on these payments.
“Who would get hurt? IRS data show that retirees and near-retirees who depend on dividend income would be hit especially hard. Almost three of four dividend payments go to those over the age of 55, and more than half go to those older than 65, according to IRS data.”
The Journal concluded that “all American shareholders would lose” as the taxes would make stocks less valuable and prices would fall, causing a sell-off and noting that 51 percent of adults hold shares of stock today either directly or through mutual funds.
“Tens of millions more own stocks through pension funds. Why would the White House endorse a policy that will make these households poorer? Seldom has there been a clearer example of a policy that is supposed to soak the rich but will drench almost all American families.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Abbas's Peace Process
by Ayman Masri
http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2878/abbas-peace-process
Abbas's peace process will only lead to a Palestinian government or state controlled by Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood.
Who says there are no peace talks going on in the Middle East?
The peace process is underway in the Middle East, but not between Israel and the Palestinians. The only peace talks that are taking place these days are between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Abbas has chosen to talk to the enemies of peace who want to destroy Israel and replace it with an Iranian-backed Islamist state. On the one hand, he says he supports the two-state solution. On the other hand, however, he is seeking to form an alliance with all those who are vehemently opposed to the two-state solution.
Just last week Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, during a high-profile visit to his friends in Tehran, reiterated his wish to "liberate Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. Those who think that Hamas and Islamic Jihad would ever recognize the right of a Jewish state to exist are engaged in self-deception and are living in a world of fantasy.
Abbas spent the past few days in Egypt negotiating with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other radical Palestinian groups that are strongly opposed to any peace process with Israel. He held lengthy talks with Hamas's Khaled Mashaal and Islamic Jihad's Ramadan Shallah about ways of achieving "national reconciliation and unity" among Palestinians.
The peace talks between Abbas and the radicals will not bring about a two-state solution. This is a dangerous process that will facilitate Hamas's takeover of the Palestinian Authority, whether through violence or free elections.
Abbas is working hard to convince the radical Palestinian groups to agree to the formation of a Palestinian unity government under his leadership. He seems to be naive enough to think that Hamas or Islamic Jihad or the Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine would change their ideologies and strategies and abandon their dream of wiping Israel off the face of the earth.
Some Westerners also appear to be naive enough to support Abbas's peace process with radicals and terrorists. This is the same Abbas who for the past few years has refused to sit and talk with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas prefers to talk to Muslim fundamentalists instead of negotiating with Israel about achieving peace in the region.
But Abbas's peace process with the radicals will only embolden Hamas and Islamic Jihad. This is a peace process that will eventually lead to the creation of a Palestinian government or state that would be controlled by Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Muslim Brotherhood.
If the US and EU want peace, they should be urging Abbas to negotiate with Israel, not with those who openly call for the destruction of another state and have aligned themselves with Iran.
If Abbas truly wanted a two-state solution, he would be negotiating with Israel. By preferring to negotiate with the enemies of peace, Abbas is sending a message that he, too, does not want a two-state solution.
Tehran and Washington have discovered a surprising common bond: to pretend that they might be heading toward serious negotiations to curb Iran’s nuclear capacity. What’s more, they are pretending for the same reason: to ward off an Israeli attack on Iran.
Their moves are barely noticeable—vague diplomatic pronouncements, op-eds, lots of behind-the-scenes orchestration by Russia. They don’t want much attention—just enough to persuade Israel to wait on military action, to buy time. The American line is that the economic sanctions are working and weakening Tehran’s will. Iran’s line is we’re willing to compromise, but we’re not going to be pushovers.
Of course, there is no actual collusion between Iran and the United States; they don’t trust each other. But both have reached the conclusion that war is worse than continued uncertainty—at least for the time being, as far as the United States is concerned.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been driving the process. Moscow is one of Tehran’s last reliable friends, which makes Russia agreeable to Iran, but suspect in the West. Nonetheless, Lavrov has presented Iran with an unpublished, and perhaps vague, step-by-step proposal with reciprocity at each step. The idea is for both sides to move gradually toward Iran’s limiting (not eliminating) its nuclear capacity, plus extensive inspections and the West’s lifting economic sanctions against Iran plus giving security guarantees.
U.S. officials and other sources claim a breakthrough occurred in the Russian-Iranian talks last month. The big concessions, they said, were made by Tehran. Iran would hold its uranium enrichment to 5 percent, well below the threshold needed to make nuclear weapons, maintain only one uranium facility, and allow extensive inspections. These diplomatic mumblings were never spelled out in an official document. Instead, they were followed by a general and short letter sent from Saeed Jalili, head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. The addressee was EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, posting officer for the P-5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany).
Next comes a small, but consequential buy-in to this process by the United States. At a press conference last week with Ashton, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the letter “an important step.” Ashton pronounced herself “cautious and optimistic.” In diplomatic parlance, that’s not chicken feed. And remember, they were making nice to a mere 200 word letter that said practically nothing, suggesting they were really giving a nod to something else going on.
A variety of diplomats said that the hidden information was spelled out in a recent op-ed by Hossein Mousavian, a key figure on Iranian nuclear matters. In it, he urged each side to meet the other’s bottom line. The West would allow Iran to produce reliable civilian nuclear energy (in other words, continue uranium enrichment at low levels), and Iran would commit to intrusive inspections. Also, Iran would agree to provisions that would prevent its development of nuclear weapons or a short-notice breakout capability. In return, the West would remove sanctions, and normalize Iran’s nuclear standing at the U.N. Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Mousavian added that he regarded the Lavrov plan as well as statements by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (proposing to limit uranium enrichment to 20% in return for the West supplying fuel rods for Iran’s research reactor) to be “the most conducive path to reaching such a deal.” This, again, was a nice little link to the authenticity of the Russian plan, but still nothing official.
The players in this game awaited another positive signal earlier this week, when international inspectors arrived back in Iran. But they were denied access to a key military facility and publicly announced their disappointment and departure Wednesday. Those who say the game goes on insist this is just a temporary setback, part of an Iranian strategy to look tough at home even as they maneuver abroad. The chest-thumping for home consumption was further punctuated this week by a senior Iranian general threatening a preemptive military strike against any “enemy” who threatened Iran.
To look on the bright side of things, all the tough moves and talk could be aimed at Iran’s parliamentary elections set for next week. This will pit President Ahmadinejad’s “moderate” governmental party against even more conservative groups. (The reformers just don’t count this time.) It is said that Ahmadinejad doesn’t want to be outflanked on the right by the conservatives; thus the tough talk. Afterwards, he would resume positive negotiating steps toward the West. Or maybe Iran is just a political mess with no one really in control.
So, to see what Iran might be up to, the West will have to wait until April, at the earliest. However, this could have a devastating effect on the Iranian-American maneuvers to hold off an Israeli attack. It’s hard to convince Israel that the sanctions are working and that Iran is bending in the face of Tehran’s stone-walling the international inspectors and threatening pre-emptive assault. But that still appears to be the main play of the Obama administration. General Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN on Sunday that an Israeli attack would be “premature” and “destabilizing.” Those are fighting diplomatic words against fighting. But they come from America’s top general, and they undoubtedly reinforce National Security Adviser Tom Donilon’s private messages to Israeli leaders in Jerusalem last week.
Both sides have reached the conclusion that war is worse than continued uncertainty—at least for the time being, as far as the United States is concerned.
The mutual moves Tehran and Washington are making to convince Israel that serious negotiations are on the horizon are wearing thin. There isn’t enough happening in the diplomatic back channels. Thus, two choices remain: Ahmadinejad has to defy the conservatives and be more forthcoming publicly. Not likely. Alternatively, President Obama will have to suck it up in an election year and offer a comprehensive proposal of its own. Also unlikely. At this point, then, Tehran’s and Washington’s subtle maneuvering to buy time is less a strategy than a prayer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Iran-Washington Conspiracy?
By Leslie H. Gelb:
Both Washington and Tehran are maneuvering to head off an Israeli attack against Iran, a process of intriguing diplomatic gamesmanship.
Tehran and Washington have discovered a surprising common bond: to pretend that they might be heading toward serious negotiations to curb Iran’s nuclear capacity. What’s more, they are pretending for the same reason: to ward off an Israeli attack on Iran.
Their moves are barely noticeable—vague diplomatic pronouncements, op-eds, lots of behind-the-scenes orchestration by Russia. They don’t want much attention—just enough to persuade Israel to wait on military action, to buy time. The American line is that the economic sanctions are working and weakening Tehran’s will. Iran’s line is we’re willing to compromise, but we’re not going to be pushovers.
Of course, there is no actual collusion between Iran and the United States; they don’t trust each other. But both have reached the conclusion that war is worse than continued uncertainty—at least for the time being, as far as the United States is concerned.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been driving the process. Moscow is one of Tehran’s last reliable friends, which makes Russia agreeable to Iran, but suspect in the West. Nonetheless, Lavrov has presented Iran with an unpublished, and perhaps vague, step-by-step proposal with reciprocity at each step. The idea is for both sides to move gradually toward Iran’s limiting (not eliminating) its nuclear capacity, plus extensive inspections and the West’s lifting economic sanctions against Iran plus giving security guarantees.
U.S. officials and other sources claim a breakthrough occurred in the Russian-Iranian talks last month. The big concessions, they said, were made by Tehran. Iran would hold its uranium enrichment to 5 percent, well below the threshold needed to make nuclear weapons, maintain only one uranium facility, and allow extensive inspections. These diplomatic mumblings were never spelled out in an official document. Instead, they were followed by a general and short letter sent from Saeed Jalili, head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. The addressee was EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, posting officer for the P-5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany).
Next comes a small, but consequential buy-in to this process by the United States. At a press conference last week with Ashton, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the letter “an important step.” Ashton pronounced herself “cautious and optimistic.” In diplomatic parlance, that’s not chicken feed. And remember, they were making nice to a mere 200 word letter that said practically nothing, suggesting they were really giving a nod to something else going on.
A variety of diplomats said that the hidden information was spelled out in a recent op-ed by Hossein Mousavian, a key figure on Iranian nuclear matters. In it, he urged each side to meet the other’s bottom line. The West would allow Iran to produce reliable civilian nuclear energy (in other words, continue uranium enrichment at low levels), and Iran would commit to intrusive inspections. Also, Iran would agree to provisions that would prevent its development of nuclear weapons or a short-notice breakout capability. In return, the West would remove sanctions, and normalize Iran’s nuclear standing at the U.N. Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Mousavian added that he regarded the Lavrov plan as well as statements by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (proposing to limit uranium enrichment to 20% in return for the West supplying fuel rods for Iran’s research reactor) to be “the most conducive path to reaching such a deal.” This, again, was a nice little link to the authenticity of the Russian plan, but still nothing official.
The players in this game awaited another positive signal earlier this week, when international inspectors arrived back in Iran. But they were denied access to a key military facility and publicly announced their disappointment and departure Wednesday. Those who say the game goes on insist this is just a temporary setback, part of an Iranian strategy to look tough at home even as they maneuver abroad. The chest-thumping for home consumption was further punctuated this week by a senior Iranian general threatening a preemptive military strike against any “enemy” who threatened Iran.
To look on the bright side of things, all the tough moves and talk could be aimed at Iran’s parliamentary elections set for next week. This will pit President Ahmadinejad’s “moderate” governmental party against even more conservative groups. (The reformers just don’t count this time.) It is said that Ahmadinejad doesn’t want to be outflanked on the right by the conservatives; thus the tough talk. Afterwards, he would resume positive negotiating steps toward the West. Or maybe Iran is just a political mess with no one really in control.
So, to see what Iran might be up to, the West will have to wait until April, at the earliest. However, this could have a devastating effect on the Iranian-American maneuvers to hold off an Israeli attack. It’s hard to convince Israel that the sanctions are working and that Iran is bending in the face of Tehran’s stone-walling the international inspectors and threatening pre-emptive assault. But that still appears to be the main play of the Obama administration. General Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN on Sunday that an Israeli attack would be “premature” and “destabilizing.” Those are fighting diplomatic words against fighting. But they come from America’s top general, and they undoubtedly reinforce National Security Adviser Tom Donilon’s private messages to Israeli leaders in Jerusalem last week.
Both sides have reached the conclusion that war is worse than continued uncertainty—at least for the time being, as far as the United States is concerned.
The mutual moves Tehran and Washington are making to convince Israel that serious negotiations are on the horizon are wearing thin. There isn’t enough happening in the diplomatic back channels. Thus, two choices remain: Ahmadinejad has to defy the conservatives and be more forthcoming publicly. Not likely. Alternatively, President Obama will have to suck it up in an election year and offer a comprehensive proposal of its own. Also unlikely. At this point, then, Tehran’s and Washington’s subtle maneuvering to buy time is less a strategy than a prayer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment