Don't miss this...it is exceptionally good information...An extremely important movie is coming this summer - Dinesh D'Souza - Obama & 2016Dinesh D'Souza is author of many New York Times best sellers. The movie is from Gerald R. Molen, producer of Academy Award Winning Schindler's List.It explains in plain language who Barack Obama really is, what he stands for, and the dangers of him being reelected for another four years.Watch this short informative videopreview of this movie which came out only yesterday and share it with others. It has already been seen by over 18,000 people. Within a very short time it will have been seen by millions!
---
Nothing 'flukey' about media lying again:
"Sandra Fluke is NOT a 23-year old "Coed” ... she is really a 30 Year-Old Women’s Rights Activist ... the Liberal Media lied again to the American public. It was all a STAGED PRODUCTION! This supposedly over-sexed abused college coed (who couldn't afford all of the contraceptives that she needed), is actually a 30 year-old hardcore liberal democratic lobbyist and past president of "Law Students for Reproductive Justice. This was just a big dishonest Democratic ploy (probably organized and played out by the media) to take the attention off of Barack Obama’s assault on our First Amendment religious freedoms and his war on the Catholic Church." .  |
And Here: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/05/sandra-fluke-a-self-described-professional-pro-abortion-activist/
---
Obama usually a day late but never a dollar short! (See 1 below.)
--
Backtracking? He did it before when he said the U.S. would move its embassy to Jersualem and so it goes. (See 2 below.)
And then there is always that back bencher - Tom Friedman, who believes the world is flat and who leaves me flat!
He has become the cheer leader for J Street!(See 2a below.)
---
Home Depot and Bernie Marcus' banker sees high permanent unemployment with Obama. (See 3 below.)
---
---
E mail from long time friend and fellow memo reader regarding previous memo: "Obviously, there is no longer a strong Party Boss that can get those 4 in a smoked filled room and tell them that for the good of the Country and the Party they should stop this war of attrition. Every day passing is a notch on Obama’s belt……………………like as usual the Republicans are screwing up their chances…….there is no excuse"
My response: "That's Democracy versus boss rule."
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Iran and Obama
What are we to make of President Barack Obama's latest pronouncements about Iran's movement toward nuclear bombs? His tough talk might have had some influence on Iran a couple of years ago, when he was instead being kinder and gentler with the world's leading terrorist-sponsoring nation. Now his tough talk may only influence this year's election -- which may be enough for Obama.
The track record of Barack Obama's pronouncements on a wide range of issues suggests that anything he says is a message written in sand, and easily blown away by the next political winds. Remember the "shovel-ready projects" that would spring into action and jump-start the economy, once the "stimulus" money was available? Obama himself laughed at this idea a year or so later, when it was clear to all that these projects were going nowhere.
Remember how his administration was going to be one with "transparency"? Yet massive spending bills were passed too fast for the Congress itself to have read them. Remember the higher ethics his administration would practice -- and yet how his own Secretary of the Treasury was appointed despite his failure to pay his taxes?
If you were an Israeli, how willing would you be to risk your national survival on Obama's promise to stand by your country? If you were a leader of Iran, what would you make of what Obama said, except that an election year might not be the best time to attack Israel?
Members of the Obama administration have been pointing out how hard it would be to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, now that they have been built deep underground and dispersed.
That would have been something to consider during the time when President Obama was taking leisurely and half-hearted measures to create the appearance of trying to stop the Iranian nuclear program, while vigorously warning Israel not to take military action.
Time was never on our side. The risks go up exponentially the longer we wait. When the Iranian nuclear program was just getting started, it could have been destroyed before it became so big, so dispersed and so deeply dug in underground. Now, if we wait till they actually have nuclear bombs, the same kinds of arguments for inaction will carry even more weight, when the price of an attack on Iran can be the start of a nuclear Holocaust.
Nor should we assume that we can remain safe by throwing Israel to the wolves, once the election is over, as might well happen if Obama is re-elected and no longer has any political reasons to pretend to be Israel's friend.
That kind of cynical miscalculation was made by France back in 1938, when it threw its ally, Czechoslovakia, to the wolves by refusing to defend it against Hitler's demands, despite the mutual defense treaty between the two countries. Less than two years later, Hitler's armies were invading France -- using, among other things, tanks manufactured in Czechoslovakia.
This was just one of the expedient miscalculations that helped bring on the bloodiest and most destructive war the world has ever known. Dare we repeat such miscalculations in a nuclear age?
At the end of the Second World War, Winston Churchill said, "There never was in all history a war easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe." It might even have been prevented "without the firing of a single shot," Churchill said.
Early in Hitler's career as dictator of Germany, the Western powers -- indeed, France alone -- had such overwhelming military superiority that an ultimatum to Hitler to stop rearming would have left him little choice but to comply. But the price of stopping him went up as time went by and he kept on rearming.
When Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland in 1936, in defiance of two international treaties, he knew that Germany at that point had nothing that would stop the French army if it moved in. But France was too cautious to act -- and caution can be carried to the point where it becomes dangerous, as France discovered when a stronger Germany conquered it in 1940.
Churchill warned, "Do not let us take the course of allowing events to drift along until it is too late." But that is what expediency-minded politicians are always tempted to do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)On second thought
President Obama spent Sunday night reassuring Jewish voters that when it comes to Israel’s confrontation with Iran, he’ll always “have Israel’s back.”
But things change quickly in Obamaland — so yesterday he tried stabbing it in the back instead.
At a White House press conference, Obama disavowed his Sunday address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, calling his pledge to backstop the Jewish state merely a “broad statement” having nothing to do with its self-evident subject: Israel’s increasingly likely strike on Iran’s nuclear program.
“What it means is that historically we have always cooperated with Israel,” he said. “Just like we do with a whole range of other allies.”
In other words, don’t hold him to his word when he’s just trying to win over some big-time donors in an election year.
And don’t expect much help in preparing an assault on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
This must be setting off alarms in Israel, after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s own AIPAC speech on Monday, in which he explained his role in more stark terms:
“I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation,” he said.
Who can blame him?
Americans need no reminder of what it feels like to live in the shadow of an existential threat: The US spent 40-plus years in just such a circumstance with a nuclear-armed Soviet Union.
But next to Iran, the USSR looks positively reasonable: There’s a yawning gulf between the cold, calculating, secular Soviets and the martyrdom cult that runs Iran.
The ruling doctrine there is a radical brand of Shiism that seeks to bring about an apocalyptic end-time in which the world is redeemed by a messianic savior.
Obama was pressed on this point last week by The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg in a telling exchange. Goldberg asked point-blank: “Do you think they are messianic?”
Obama’s naive response: “I think it’s entirely legitimate to say that this is a regime that does not share our world-view.”
Huh? A difference in world-view?
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has asserted that Iranian nukes are areligious obligation. In the eyes of the ayatollahs, the best and final treatment for what ails Iran — they call the malady “Westoxification” — is a nuclear cure.
Pure, simple, deadly and disastrous.
Regardless of what Obama told AIPAC, it’s clear he’s willing to let the Iran problem metastasize. But Israel can’t afford much delay and has zero room for error here.
Let’s hope Obama gets that point. Soon.
2a)Israel’s Best Friend!
The only question I have when it comes to President Obama and Israel is whether he is the most pro-Israel president in history or just one of the most.
Why? Because the question of whether Israel has the need and the right to pre-emptively attack Iran as it develops a nuclear potential is one of the most hotly contested issues on the world stage today. It is also an issue fraught with danger for Israel and American Jews, neither of whom want to be accused of dragging America into a war, especially one that could weaken an already frail world economy.
In that context, President Obama, in his interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg and in his address to Aipac, the pro-Israel lobby, offered the greatest support for Israel that any president could at this time: He redefined the Iran issue. He said — rightly — that it was not simply about Israel’s security, but about U.S. national security and global security.
Obama did this by making clear that allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons and then “containing” it — the way the U.S. contained the Soviet Union — was not a viable option, because if Iran acquires a nuclear bomb, all the states around it would seek to acquire one as well. This would not only lead to a nuclear Middle East, but it would likely prompt other countries to hedge their commitments to the global Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The global nuclear black market would then come alive and we would see the dawning of a more dangerous world.
“Preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon isn’t just in the interest of Israel, it is profoundly in the security interests of the United States,” the president told The Atlantic. “If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, this would run completely contrary to my policies of nonproliferation. The risks of an Iranian nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorist organizations are profound. ... It would also provide Iran the additional capability to sponsor and protect its proxies in carrying out terrorist attacks, because they are less fearful of retaliation. ... If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, I won’t name the countries, but there are probably four or five countries in the Middle East who say, ‘We are going to start a program, and we will have nuclear weapons.’ And at that point, the prospect for miscalculation in a region that has that many tensions and fissures is profound. You essentially then duplicate the challenges of India and Pakistan fivefold or tenfold.” In sum, the president added, “The dangers of an Iran getting nuclear weapons that then leads to a free-for-all in the Middle East is something that I think would be very dangerous for the world.”
Every Israeli and friend of Israel should be thankful to the president for framing the Iran issue this way. It is important strategically for Israel, because it makes clear that dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat was not Israel’s problem alone. And it is important politically, because this decision about whether to attack Iran is coinciding with the U.S. election. The last thing Israel or American friends of Israel — Jewish and Christian — want is to give their enemies a chance to claim that Israel is using its political clout to embroil America in a war that is not in its interest.
That could easily happen because backing for Israel today has never been more politicized. In recent years, Republicans have tried to make support for Israel a wedge issue that would enable them to garner a higher percentage of Jewish votes and campaign contributions, which traditionally have swung overwhelmingly Democratic. This has led to an arms race with the Democrats over who is more pro-Israel — and over-the-top declarations, like Newt Gingrich’s that the Palestinians “are an invented people.”
And it could easily happen because money in politics has never been more important for running campaigns, and the Israel lobby — both its Jewish and evangelical Christian wings — has never been more influential, because of its ability to direct campaign contributions to supportive candidates.
As such, no one should want domestic electoral politics mixed up with the Iran decision, which is why it was so important that the president redefined the Iran problem as a global proliferation threat and grounded his decision-making in American realism, not politics.
Reports from the Aipac convention this week indicated that those advocating military action were getting the loudest cheers. I’d invite all those cheering to think about all the unintended and unanticipated consequences of the Iraq war or Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. That’s not a reason for paralysis. It’s a reason to heed Obama’s call to give diplomacy and biting sanctions a chance to work, while keeping the threat of force on the table.
If it comes to war, let it be because the ayatollahs were ready to sacrifice their whole economy to get a nuke and, therefore, America — the only country that can truly take down Iran’s nuclear program — had to act to protect the global system, not just Israel. I respect that this is a deadly serious issue for Israel — which has the right to act on its own — but President Obama has built a solid strategic and political case for letting America take the lead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Langone: US Faces 13% ‘Hardcore Unemployment’ Because of Obama’s ‘Punitive’ View of Business
Billionaire investor Ken Langone warns that the United States faces “hardcore unemployment” as high as 13 percent because President Barack Obama’s "punitive" view of business is dividing the country by punishing those who work hard and succeed with excess regulations.
The Home Depot co-founder told CNBC he is “bothered by the fact that we aren’t creating a massive number of jobs in America. I think we are going to have a hardcore unemployment in America, and what do you do about that?"
Langone says the unemployment rate is higher than the official figure of 8.3 percent because of the many people who have given up looking. If those people were included, the unemployment rate could be as high as 13 percent, he said.
"To me it’s purchasing power. If they can’t get a job they don’t have the money to spend," he said.
Langone also said the Obama administration has a "punitive" view of business.
"You don’t lift someone else up by tearing me down. I take umbrage with talking about wealthy people and that we’re takers," Langone tells CNBC.
"We’re at a point in time when...we’re creating regulations to punish people. When I’m getting punished for doing something, guess what happens? I’m gonna do nothing."
That means hiring will remain at bay, says Langone, the chairman of Invemed Associates.
"We’ve got a lot of work ahead of us. We’ve got to worry about the deficit. We’ve got to worry about restoring respect for business in America. Let’s not look at the jobs that government creates. That costs money. Let’s look at the jobs that businesses create. That generates money."
Langone said he sees "a lot of opportunity" despite the market's declines "but I’m a long-term investor. I think there can be some bumps along the way."
He said he'd "buy the banks" because they've "cleaned their act up" and have low valuations.
Meanwhile, don't expect unemployment rates to improve should gasoline prices stay high, other experts say.
"If oil prices stay where they are at the end of February [close to $107 a barrel], it means gasoline prices in April and May will be about $4.25 a gallon nationwide," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, according to the Christian Science Monitor.
"If we stayed there for the year, it would shave about 0.5 [percent] off of gross domestic product growth."
Such a scenario would translate into a loss of 500,000 jobs.
"It basically means we don't make any progress on reducing unemployment this year," Zandi says.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment