He further points out the dangers of running a campaign asking people to cast a less than hopeful vote
Henninger writes Obama is grim and sees dark forces working to shaft America's middle class.
Let's face it, Obama can be sprightly as he hops up onto a stage, displays that wide toothy grin but then launches into rather dispiriting attacks of bleakness. He does not inspire me. In fact the sound of his voice makes me grimace.
He has become a complete turn off.(See 1 below.)
---
Congress cannot pass a budget but 'umpteen' committees can rush to investigate the GSA and Secret Service because that produces sensational headlines and gives the media and press folks red meat. What nonsense. Why can't the various committees consolidate? Ah, but that would mean some chairpersons would have to swallow their pride and give up their front seats as they look into the camera and engage in histrionics..
---
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent,
non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle
East.
Memri is one of the most reliable sources for tracking virtually everything written and/or broadcast that emanates from The Middle East.
In this report Memri suggests a so called fatwa never existed regarding Iran and it nuclear program and was simply a ruse.
If Obama doing the snow job once again by conceding and pacifying in order to ward off a confrontation before the election?
Israel enjoys direct links to U.S. satellite intelligence information. It is the interpretation of this information that is the wedge issue! (See 3 and 3a below.)
---
Twelve events, according to this analyst, could sink the market. (See 4 below.)
---
Norman Augustine's Laws is something everyone should read. He was one of Sam Nunn's most admired friends.
A very sad commentary regarding our current education gap that must be changed or our country will continue the decline outlined by recent reports. Our 'political mess,' in part, can be attributed to these facts ---savvy politicians now have the ability to identify how a given group will vote at any point in time.. Many feel eighty per cent of our voting population are clueless in current events as well as political matters that will impact their lives and generations that follow. Sad indeed! (See 5 and 5a below.)
---
Dick-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Henninger: It's 1936 All Over Again
The Obama 2012 campaign is channeling the ghost of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the Depression.
With a small group of credulous millionaires joining him at a White House séance the other day to support the Buffett Rule, the Conjurer-in-Chief called forth the spirit of Ronald Reagan, who the president averred would have supported his magic tax on "millionaires." There have been 43 other presidents of the United States. The last one you would associate with Barack Obama is Ronald Reagan.
But faced with the rather unhappy challenge of mounting a re-election campaign coincident with three years of rampant unemployment and next-to-no growth, little wonder Mr. Obama is looking for help from afar. And so it is that the ghost of a president past is indeed haunting the Obama White House—the ghost of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
FDR ran his first re-election campaign in 1936 when the United States was mired in the Great Depression. Barack Obama is running for the last time amid what he himself immortalized as the Great Recession. No surprise that Mr. Obama in his campaign speeches is channeling the master of Depression-era politics.
It worked back then. FDR walloped a somnambulant Republican candidate, Alf Landon, of whom the columnist Westbrook Pegler wrote: "Considerable mystery surrounds the disappearance of Alfred M. Landon of Topeka, Kansas." But will Roosevelt's politics work against Mitt Romney, who we presume will report for duty?
Martin Kozlowski
Franklin Roosevelt kicked off the 1936 campaign with an Oct. 31 speech to the Democratic faithful in New York's Madison Square Garden. The Obama re-election campaign began April 3, with the president's now-famous "Social Darwinism" speech at the Associated Press luncheon in Washington.
The similarity between the two speeches—both in tone and targets—is striking.
FDR: "Nine mocking years with the golden calf . . . "
Obama: "It was a decade . . . when profits for many of these companies soared."
FDR: "We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking . . ."
Obama: "Our entire financial system was nearly destroyed."
FDR: "I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match."
Obama: "The share of national income flowing to the top 1% of people in this country has climbed to levels last seen in the 1920s. That is not fair. It is not right."
FDR: "Of course we will continue our help for the crippled, for the blind, for the mothers . . . "
Obama: "Two million mothers and young children would be cut from a program that gives them access to healthy food."
FDR: "Their solution for the relief problem is to end relief—to purge the rolls by starvation."
Obama: " . . . a cut that, according to one nonpartisan group, would take away health care for about 19 million Americans—19 million."
In nearly every significant address since the AP speech—on the Buffett Rule, on the manipulators of the oil markets—Mr. Obama has revisited these themes.
The differences between America in 1936 and America 76 years later hardly matter. In a time of genuine economic anxiety, as now, Team Obama has chosen a plausible strategy: During tough times, the government will be there for you.
Related Video
The Obama 2012 campaign is channeling the ghost of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the Depression. Photo: Getty Images
However, the differences between Barack Obama and Franklin Roosevelt as retail politicians do matter in 2012. The Obama campaign can borrow Roosevelt's content, but they can't teach Barack Obama how to be FDR.
FDR's 1936 speech, however tough and accusatory, had Roosevelt's natural personal buoyancy. Barack Obama has no such gift for popular uplift. Reagan and Bill Clinton had it, and it was an underestimated piece of George W. Bush's two successful presidential runs.
Barack Obama is, frankly, a pretty grim guy. He does try to mitigate the downer mood—"This is also about growth"—but ultimately his audiences always hear about the ditch someone else put them in and the superhuman effort "we" have to make to pull out of this deep hole.
Barack Obama is grim because he believes, and has always believed, that dark forces are actively at work in America to shaft the middle class. So do his closest supporters. So you run on anger and antipathy.
Can you re-run Roosevelt's Depression strategy without Roosevelt? In tough times, some voters will buy it. But I don't think enough will to produce a majority of the beleaguered.
Barack Obama is asking people to cast a less-than-hopeful vote in November. Resentment is not something most people in 21st-century America carry around in the front of their heads. Once Barack Obama stirs it up, as he's doing now, he has to sustain it for six months. He is asking people to vote out of something resembling, well, depression.
Incidentally, of the final four Republican primary candidates, three were about as personally grim and earnest as the incumbent. Only one ran with unmistakable personal optimism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
| MEMRI : Renewed Iran-West Nuclear Talks Part II: Tehran Attempts to Deceive U.S. President Obama, Secy of State Clinton With Nonexistent Anti-Nuclear Weapons Fatwa By Supreme Leader Khamenei |
| MEMRI : Renewed Iran-West Nuclear Talks Part II: Tehran Attempts to Deceive U.S. President Obama, Sec'y of State Clinton With Nonexistent Anti-Nuclear Weapons Fatwa By Supreme Leader Khamenei By: A.Savyon and Y. Carmon* Introduction An important element in the renewal of nuclear negotiations with Iran in the talks in Istanbul April 13-14, 2012 was an alleged fatwa attributed to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, according to which the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons. Indeed, U.S. leaders – among them Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and even U.S. President Barack Obama – along with 5+1 representatives to the talks, the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors, and even highly respected research institutes considered the fatwa as an actual fact, and examined its significance and implications for the nuclear negotiations with Iran that began in Istanbul. However, an investigation by MEMRI reveals that no such fatwa ever existed or was ever published, and that media reports about it are nothing more than a propaganda ruse on the part of the Iranian regime apparatuses – in an attempt to deceive top U.S. administration officials and the others mentioned above. Iranian regime officials' presentation of statements on nuclear weapons attributed to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as a fatwa, or religious edict, when no such fatwa existed or was issued by him, is a propaganda effort to propose to the West a religiously valid substitute for concrete guarantees of inspectors' access to Iran's nuclear facilities. Since the West does not consider mere statements, by Khamenei or by other regime officials, to be credible, the Iranian regime has put forth a fraudulent fatwa that the West would be more inclined to trust. This paper will review Iran's attempt at deception with regard to the existence of such a fatwa. U.S. Officials Laud Nonexistent Fatwa U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton clarified that she had discussed the fatwa with "experts and religious scholars" and also with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. At the NATO conference in Norfolk, VA, in early April, she stated: "The other interesting development which you may have followed was the repetition by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei that they would – that he had issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, against weapons of mass destruction. Prime Minister Erdogan and I discussed this at some length, and I’ve discussed with a number of experts and religious scholars. And if it is indeed a statement of principle, of values, then it is a starting point for being operationalized, which means that it serves as the entryway into a negotiation as to how you demonstrate that it is indeed a sincere, authentic statement of conviction [emphasis added]. So we will test that as well." During his visit to Tehran in late March, in an interview with Iranian state television IRIB, Prime Minister Erdogan said, "I have shared the Leader's [Khamenei's] statement with [U.S. President Barack] Obama and told him that in face of this assertion I do not have a different position and they (Iranians) are using nuclear energy peacefully." On April 7, 2012, Kayhan International reported, citing Press TV, that Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had told the Turkish Kanal D TV that there is no possibility that "Khamenei's fatwa forbidding the possession and use of nuclear weapons might be disobeyed in Iran." According to the report, Davutoglu "said that since the fatwa against the possession and pursuit of nuclear weapons was issued by Velayat-e Faqih (the rule of the jurisprudent), it is binding, and obeying it is a religious obligation." Also according to the report, also citing Press TV, Khamenei said on February 22, 2012: "There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous." The report went on to state that "Davutoglu also said that if the Western powers are really interested in interacting with the Middle Eastern states, they should deepen their understanding of religious discourse, adding that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had previously instructed U.S. President Barack Obama on the issue." American Iranian Council (AIC) president and dual Iranian-U.S. citizen Hooshang Amirahmadi, who is close to elite regime circles in Iran, said: "Fortunately, President Obama has decided to tentatively trust the Supreme Leader on his words that '[the] nuclear bomb is forbidden in Islam.'" However, MEMRI's investigation reveals that no such fatwa ever existed or was ever issued or published, and that media reports about it are nothing more than a propaganda ruse on the part of the Iranian regime apparatuses – in an attempt to deceive top U.S. administration officials and the others mentioned above. What does exist are Iranian reports starting in 2005, on statements by an Iranian representative, Sirus Naseri, at a meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors on August 11, 2005 that Khamenei had issued such a fatwa (See Appendix II for documents.) After 2005, there are additional statements by senior regime representatives about the existence of the fatwa, for example on April 12, 2012 by Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi in an op-ed in the Washington Post on the eve of the talks. He wrote: "We have strongly marked our opposition to weapons of mass destruction on many occasions. Almost seven years ago, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made a binding commitment. He issued a religious edict – a fatwa – forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons." Also, the Iranian news agency Mehr reported on April 11, 2012, that Iranian judiciary head Ayatollah Sadeq Amoli Larijani had said: "The fatwa that the Supreme Leader has issued is the best guarantee that Iran will never seek to produce nuclear weapons." Mehr itself also noted in the same report that Khamenei had issued a fatwa banning the use of nuclear weapons: "Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa declaring that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are all haram (prohibited in Islam)." In contrast, a review published April 8, 2012 by Iran's official news agency IRNA giving in detail Supreme Leader Khamenei's past mentions of the ban on the use of nuclear weapons does not mention any fatwa by him. This, even though in August 2005 IRNA had already reported that Iran's special representative to the IAEA Board of Directors had handed a report on Khamenei's alleged fatwa, and that this report – though not the fatwa itself – had been submitted to the IAEA board as an official Iranian document (see Appendix II). It should be noted that this August 2005 IRNA report on the fatwa was reported by other websites, such as mathaba.net but that the original report in IRNA, at http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm , can no longer be accessed (see Appendix III). These reports were designed to, and apparently did, elevate Iran's status vis-à-vis the West, despite Iran's refusal to allow inspections of its nuclear sites. Iranian regime officials' presentation of statements on nuclear weapons attributed to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as a fatwa, or religious edict, when no such fatwa existed or was issued by him, is a propaganda effort to propose to the West a religiously valid substitute for concrete guarantees of inspectors' access to Iran's nuclear facilities. Since the West does not consider mere statements, by Khamenei or by other regime officials, to be credible, the Iranian regime has put forth a fraudulent fatwa that the West would be more inclined to trust. No Such Fatwa On Official Websites of Supreme Leader An exhaustive search of the various official websites of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei turned up no such fatwa, either on his fatwa website or on his personal website. (for images, see Appendix I). Khamenei's websites post fatwas issued by him in response to questions submitted to him. Online submission of questions is an accepted and official means; all his websites offer readers options for doing so. Fatwas are issued by jurisprudents in standard question-and-answer format, and are published publicly in writing. They can also include the reasoning behind them, but not always. Today, fatwas are generally concise and limited to a yes or no answer – but always in question-and-answer form, including a summary by the jurisprudent, as follows: "I was asked a question on a certain matter. My answer is such and such." This can be seen in the following. On March 15, 2012, the following question on the possession and use of nuclear weapons and referring to the alleged fatwa was submitted to Supreme Leader Khamenei, via Facebook, by a group called The Light of Freedom (Cheragh-e Azadi): (for images, see Appendix I). "Q: Your Excellency has announced a ban on the use of nuclear weapons, and considering that nuclear weapons are a requirement for deterrence and that the aim of obtaining them is to intimidate the enemies in order to prevent them from acting aggressively, and in light of what is written in Surat Al-Anfal, Verse 60... is it also forbidden to obtain nuclear weapons, as per your ruling that their use is prohibited? "A: Your letter has no jurisprudential aspect. When it has a jurisprudent position, then it will be possible to answer it. "Summary: No answer was given." This particular question and answer on Facebook do not appear on Khamenei's fatwa website or on his personal website. It is notable that in his response he did not confirm, or even mention, any fatwa that he allegedly issued in the past – and that his summary notes that no response was given. This question-and-answer format is mandatory for fatwas, so that any position on a particular religious question will be recognized as a fatwa. Even if the jurisprudent refers to an issue verbally, his words do not constitute a fatwa unless it is later issued in this format. Any expression of a position in any matter that is not issued in writing in the format of "I was asked a question on a certain matter. My answer is such and such..." is not a fatwa and does not carry the religious significance of one; it is merely a statement. Report On Fatwa Stating "Shari'a Does Not Prohibit the Use Of Nuclear Weapons" On February 16, 2006, the Rooz website reported that "Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of [Ayatollah] Mesbah Yazdi" had noted the existence of a fatwa stating that shari'a did not prohibit the use of nuclear weapons (see MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1096, "Reformist Iranian Internet Daily: A New Fatwa States That Religious Law Does Not Forbid Use of Nuclear Weapons," February 17, 2006 http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1614.htm ) The website reported that for the first time, extremist clerics from Qom had issued what the daily called "a new fatwa," which states that "shari'a does not forbid the use of nuclear weapons." Could Iranian Regime Officials Lie? The Principle of Taqiyya Iran's efforts to deceive the West about the alleged Khamenei fatwa raises the question of whether Khamenei and the rest of the senior regime officials could actually lie about this matter to world leaders. One of the foundations of Shi'ite Islam is the principle of taqiyya –"the obligation to be cautious" – as manifested in the use of lies for self-defense purposes. Doing so is completely legitimate in Shi'ite Islam, and has been employed throughout Shi'ite history. The website of the Vali-e Asr Research Institute, which was founded 20 years ago in Qom by Ayatollah Khazali and which deals with answering religious questions on various matters, is considered an important research institution in the Shi'ite religious establishment. The institute explains the principle of taqiyya and sets out the categories of circumstances under which its use is required. One of these categories deals with taqiyya by (Shi'ite) Muslims towards non-Muslims. The publication of a false report on the alleged existence of such a fatwa by Khamenei, and Iranian officials' use of such a fatwa for the purpose of Iran's self defense, is an example of the application of the principle of taqiyya. To read the full report, visit http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6291.htm. |
MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials may only be used with
proper attribution.
3a) Barak to Panetta: What is your bottom line for Iran?
Notwithstanding the hugs and personal friendship, Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak arrived in Washington Thursday April 19 to tax his host, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, with tough questions about the administration’s dialogue with Iran. They followed the lines of, “What’s going on? Is there a deal? Don’t tell me what you have settled with the Iranians, just your minimal demands, your bottom line.”
The questions reflected Israel’s concern at being kept in the dark about US-Iranian back-track negotiations and American concessions, including President Barak Obama’s willingness to yield on full transparency and international nuclear watchdog inspections at Iran’s nuclear sites.
The Israeli minister had come to ask for the truth from Panetta’s own lips on the urgent instructions of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who himself had just received worried phone calls from French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron. They wanted to find out how far Washington had gone in concessions to Iran. You Israelis have more clout in Washington than us, they said. You have to try and stop the downhill decline. Concern was also registered from Berlin.
The two defense chiefs talked for more than an hour, joined for some of their conversation by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.
According to sources, they focused on the fresh intelligence reaching the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran had begun moving military nuclear facilities to secret locations not covered in the confidential deal evolving between the Obama administration and Tehran. Military sources assert Irani's action indicates on the one hand that a deal with the US is within sight but, on the other, Tehran is already taking advantage of the US concession on oversight and transparency - for concealment.
Shortly after their conversation, Panetta and Barak spoke in separate media interviews. The US Secretary said that plans for a military operation against Iran were in place and he is sure that in the event of a clash, the American military would prevail.
Barak stated Israeli and U.S. intelligence findings regarding the objectives of the Iranian nuclear program are aligned, the comment he makes routinely after talking to American officials. The inference is that the two governments are aligned on intelligence but not on how to translate it into action for Iran.
He added that Iran was “clearly heading towards the objective” of building a nuclear weapon.
The Pentagon bulletin reported the Panetta-Barak meeting “to discuss the close US-Israel defense relationship including Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge, Iran, Syria and the Arab Awakening’s effect on the region. Secretary Panetta was honored to be joined by Minister Barak at the Department of Defense’s Commemoration of Holocaust Remembrance Day where they each lit a candle to commemorate the memories of the victims of the Holocaust.”
The meeting took place in the middle of a crisis hitting the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department over the president’s far-reaching concessions to Iran in another dispute, the one over three Persian Gulf islands close to the strategic Strait of Hormuz which the UAE accuses Iran of grabbing.
The UAE backed by the GCC is up in arms over the visit Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad paid to Revolutionary Guards bases on Abu Musa island on April 11 at the same time as Saudi Defense Minister Prince Salman was talking to the US president at the White House.
The UAE called the Ahmadinejad’s visit a violation of its sovereignty, while the Gulf bloc saw it as a cocky signal to the region that Tehran calls the shots these days – not America.
Yet, instead of backing its Gulf allies, the State Department on April 19, issued a mild statement urging Iran “to respond positively to the UAE’s initiative to resolve the issue through direct negotiations, the International Court of Justice or another appropriate international forum.”
The Gulf governments had expected Washington to respond to Iranian threats to use Abu Musa for attacks on the Strait of Hormuz and their oil terminals. They are deeply concerned by what they regard as the extreme lengths to which the Obama administration is willing to go to appease Iran, even to the point of giving ground on America’s own standing in the region.
Ehud Barak meets Leon Panetta in Washington
The questions reflected Israel’s concern at being kept in the dark about US-Iranian back-track negotiations and American concessions, including President Barak Obama’s willingness to yield on full transparency and international nuclear watchdog inspections at Iran’s nuclear sites.
The Israeli minister had come to ask for the truth from Panetta’s own lips on the urgent instructions of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who himself had just received worried phone calls from French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron. They wanted to find out how far Washington had gone in concessions to Iran. You Israelis have more clout in Washington than us, they said. You have to try and stop the downhill decline. Concern was also registered from Berlin.
The two defense chiefs talked for more than an hour, joined for some of their conversation by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.
According to sources, they focused on the fresh intelligence reaching the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran had begun moving military nuclear facilities to secret locations not covered in the confidential deal evolving between the Obama administration and Tehran. Military sources assert Irani's action indicates on the one hand that a deal with the US is within sight but, on the other, Tehran is already taking advantage of the US concession on oversight and transparency - for concealment.
Shortly after their conversation, Panetta and Barak spoke in separate media interviews. The US Secretary said that plans for a military operation against Iran were in place and he is sure that in the event of a clash, the American military would prevail.
Barak stated Israeli and U.S. intelligence findings regarding the objectives of the Iranian nuclear program are aligned, the comment he makes routinely after talking to American officials. The inference is that the two governments are aligned on intelligence but not on how to translate it into action for Iran.
He added that Iran was “clearly heading towards the objective” of building a nuclear weapon.
The Pentagon bulletin reported the Panetta-Barak meeting “to discuss the close US-Israel defense relationship including Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge, Iran, Syria and the Arab Awakening’s effect on the region. Secretary Panetta was honored to be joined by Minister Barak at the Department of Defense’s Commemoration of Holocaust Remembrance Day where they each lit a candle to commemorate the memories of the victims of the Holocaust.”
The meeting took place in the middle of a crisis hitting the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department over the president’s far-reaching concessions to Iran in another dispute, the one over three Persian Gulf islands close to the strategic Strait of Hormuz which the UAE accuses Iran of grabbing.
The UAE backed by the GCC is up in arms over the visit Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad paid to Revolutionary Guards bases on Abu Musa island on April 11 at the same time as Saudi Defense Minister Prince Salman was talking to the US president at the White House.
The UAE called the Ahmadinejad’s visit a violation of its sovereignty, while the Gulf bloc saw it as a cocky signal to the region that Tehran calls the shots these days – not America.
Yet, instead of backing its Gulf allies, the State Department on April 19, issued a mild statement urging Iran “to respond positively to the UAE’s initiative to resolve the issue through direct negotiations, the International Court of Justice or another appropriate international forum.”
The Gulf governments had expected Washington to respond to Iranian threats to use Abu Musa for attacks on the Strait of Hormuz and their oil terminals. They are deeply concerned by what they regard as the extreme lengths to which the Obama administration is willing to go to appease Iran, even to the point of giving ground on America’s own standing in the region.
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Dirty DozenBy Doug Kass04/19/12 - 12:30 PM EDT A gathering storm for the U.S.: 'Innovate or evaporate' He was voted one of the "50 Great Americans," holds 28 honorary degrees, and received the Defense Department's highest civilian decoration (Distinguished Service Medal) not just once, but five times. At different times, Norman R. Augustine was CEO of Martin Marietta; CEO of Lockheed Martin; chairman of the Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program; chairman of the National Academy of Engineering; chairman of the Aerospace Industries Association; chairman of the Defense Science Board; and chairman of the American Institute of Aeronautics. He has modestly given his book the title "Augustine's Laws." And when he has something to say, the powers that be listen carefully. This week in Washington, Mr. Augustine triggered alarm bells about America's continuing decline in the global educational sweepstakes. Since 2000, he said, "one-third of U.S. manufacturing jobs - 5.5 million jobs - have disappeared. 42,000 factories have closed. Further, it is no longer simply factories that are moving abroad. The list now includes research laboratories, administrative offices, financial offices, prototype shops, and more." What to do? Six years ago, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine formed a 20-member committee of public and private university presidents, Nobel laureates, CEOs, former presidential appointees and the head of a state public school system - and produced a document that became known as the "Gathering Storm" report, after the first line in its title. The message: "Innovate or evaporate." Some of its recommendations were included in Congress' stimulus bill, but the "problem," as Mr. Augustine sees it, "is that this is not a Sputnik, 9/11 or Pearl Harbor moment. It is the proverbial frog being slowly boiled." Steve Jobs, he said, told President Obama the reason Apple employs 700,000 workers abroad is "because he can't find 30,000 engineers in the U.S." In China, seven of its eight top leaders hold degrees in engineering. One of them, Premier Wen Jiabao, said, "Scientific discovery and technological inventions have brought about new civilizations, modern industries, and the rise and fall of nations. I firmly believe science is the ultimate revolution." Between the initial "Gathering Storm" report and the recent update, "another 6 million American youths dropped out of high school - condemning themselves to a life of poverty and hardship," said Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Thirty years ago, 10 percent of California's general fund went to higher education and 3 percent to prisons. "Today," said Mr. Augustine, "nearly 11 percent goes to prisons and 8 percent to higher education." California recently released 30,000 prisoners because of lack of space, he added, and according to the Atlantic magazine, "one year at Princeton costs $37,000 while one year at a New Jersey prison costs $44,000." And "several states use 8th-grade scores to predict how many prison cells they will need in the future." In the "Nation's Report Card," said Mr. Augustine, "67 percent of U.S. fourth graders were scored 'not proficient' (the lowest ranking) in science. By eighth grade the fraction had grown to 70 percent, and by twelfth grade it reached 79 percent. Seemingly, the longer our young people are exposed to America's K-12 education system, the worse they perform." At the present rate of improvement, it will take about 150 years for public school students to catch up with their private school counterparts in the U.S., he said, "and this says nothing about catching up with the children of China, Finland, Taiwan and India. Craig Barrett, the former CEO of Intel and a "Gathering Storm" committee member, says more than 90 percent of the revenues Intel realizes on the last day of any given year come from products that did not exist on the first day of that same year. This couldn't be done without non-American brainpower. Mr. Augustine's explanation: Almost 70 percent of fifth- to eighth-grade students in U.S. public schools are taught math by teachers who possess neither a degree nor a certificate in math. And fully 93 percent of students are taught physical sciences by teachers with neither a degree nor a certificate in the physical sciences. "In fact," he adds, "over half the nation's science teachers have not had a single college course in the field they teach." After a major study of the ever-widening education gap, Management Consultant McKinsey & Co. concluded that "if U.S. Youth could match the academic performance of students in Finland, our economy would be between 9 and 16 percent larger." That, says Mr. Augustine, "is about two trillion dollars."
5a)Obama: The Lying King By Lloyd MarcusI confess to being amongst those who have said, "Obama voters are stupid." Unquestionably, Obama's re-election campaign strategy is designed to appeal to the stupid, our "sin" nature, and the lowest common denominator of our character. Obama thrives on pitting the have-nots against the haves. Obama divides Americans by demonizing the haves. Obama's rhetoric proclaims that the masses have too little because the rich have too much. Can we get real for a moment? The so-called "poor" in America live pretty darn well; two TVs, cable, and two cars. Alongside race (black hate and white guilt), Obama is exploiting the sin of covetousness to get re-elected. On Liberty Island in New York Harbor stands a lady, a worldwide icon of freedom and of the United States. Engraved on a bronze plaque at her feet for those legally seeking a better life, she welcomes: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" For re-election, Obama is perverting Lady Liberty's message: Give me your stupid, class-envious, your trifling masses seeking (for free) the fruit of other peoples' labor, the illegal refuse invading our shore. Send these, the racist, entitlement-minded to me, I lift my voice promising government freebies forever more. However, now that I think about it, calling "all" Obama voters stupid may not be fair. I suspect that my fellow Tea Party patriots are like me. Though I read as much as possible, time does not permit me to keep up with the Obama administration's daily trashing of our Constitution and attacks on our freedoms which flood my inbox. Most Americans are like my relatives. They go to work, church, bowling; take the kids to soccer; and get their news from the three major networks -- thus leaving them clueless as to what is really going on in our country. So it probably isn't fair to call those who think Obama is doing a great job or that every problem is Bush's fault "stupid." Ill-informed, yes -- stupid, no. The real problem is that Obama lies! For the first time in U.S. history, we have a president who boldly and arrogantly lies about everything, and his lies go unchallenged by the mainstream media. How the heck do we deal with that? Obama said we are drilling for oil. Obama is lying. Obama said the rich do not pay their fair share. Obama is lying. Obama said that under ObamaCare, if you like your current health care plan, you can keep it. Obama is lying. Obama's administration says Republicans want to ban contraception. Obama's minions are lying. Obama's lies are too numerous to list in this article. Obama lies and lies and lies and lies. Not only does the media never confront him, but they protect and provide cover for his lies. Is it disrespectful to the office of the presidency to call Obama a liar? Yes. But it pains me to have such a dishonest man occupying the Oval Office. I have always naively believed that it takes an extraordinary person to become president of the United States. So what are we patriots supposed to do when our president displays such extraordinary unprecedented disdain and disrespect for the American people by looking into the camera and lying to us -- in essence, urinating on us and telling us it is raining? Again I ask you: how do we deal with a commander-in-chief who is a shameless liar, with the majority of the media covering for him? Frankly, I do not know. All I know to do is to keep writing articles, keep recording my songs, keep touring the country -- speaking out, singing, and inspiring the troops (Tea Party patriots). And yes, keep on praying. To all of you, keep organizing, meeting, rallying, writing books, producing videos, social-networking, and doing your part. That's the Tea Party! I like what Ted Nugent instructed patriots to do. Ted asked every patriot to get everyone in his life to vote for Mitt Romney in November. Ted's passionate rant was a call to vote Obama out and nothing more. And yet the Secret Service is investigating Nugent. Meanwhile, Minister Farrakhan's frightening rant, which could easily be interrupted as a threat against Obama, gets a yawn. This is the media bias and Obama administration bully tactics we are up against, folks. Brother Ted Nugent's strategy is excellent. Every patriot must enlighten everyone in his or her sphere of influence to how vital everyone's vote for the Republican nominee is to saving America as we know it.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment