Friday, April 13, 2012

Gutter Politics Will Backfire !

Just came in from taking a stroll with Dagny and her other grnadmother is taking care of her needs so took the time to e mail this out and, again, hope you have a pleasant weekend.  80 here in sunny Winter Park.
The DNC's attack on Ann Romney epitomizes the utter gutter nastiness of Liberals and progressives.

Ann Romney happens to be a wonderful role model for wives, mothers and women in general as was Sara Palin,though  a more earthy version, until the same Liberal long knives 'Zoroed' in on her because she was a threat to them.

I suspect these attacks on women, and most particularly Ann Romney, will backfire as they should.

Women who vote for Obama will prove the anatomical fact  I have long held as a stark possibility
---
Poof  goes the The Magic Liberal Dragon? (See 1 below.)
---
Now The Home Depot approach towards the birthing issue.  (See 2 below.)
---
Response from family member and fellow memo reader to my AARP comments and posting: "

Agree 100% with your friend AARPis a for profit group. income from healthcare,insurance and banking..everybody they
are SELLING to their members.who get no dividends.....
Winners, board members and very highly paid executives regulating their own perks and income. I suspect the supporting cast also does very well financially..I left years ago for the same reason."
---
Iran plans on continuing bait and switch approach and will turn their nuclear guns on Israel's nuclear program.  Of course, Israel has not threatened to wipe nations off the map. (See 3 below.)
---
While away I received these e mails that I concluded were worth posting.  (See 4, 4a, 4b and 4c below.)
---
As previously noted Shilling remains circumspect.  (See 5 below.)

Mark Mobius, a former institutional client, stil believes Bernanke has his foot on the  QE accelerator.  (See 5a below.)
---
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)What? The Magic Words Aren't Working!
By Gary Horne




The awful truth is beginning to dawn on the left.  The magic words on which they have relied to make government grow may not work anymore.  The consequences could be catastrophic for progressives.  So it isn't hard to understand why the progressives would visualize a Supreme Court ruling against ObamaCare as "unprecedented."
The case of Wickard v. Filburn is one of the most ludicrous decisions in the history of the Supreme Court.  Secretary of Agriculture Wickard attempted to enforce the Agriculture Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1938, which set quotas on the amount of wheat put into interstate commerce and established penalties for overproduction.  The secretary levied a fine on Roscoe C. Filburn for exceeding his quota despite the fact that none of Mr. Filburn's wheat was sold outside his state, and the portion sold (he used some himself) did not exceed the quota.  The Supreme Court ruled in wartime 1942 (overturning a lower court ruling) that Congress could regulate the production of wheat intended for personal use and not placed in interstate commerce.  In other words, the court defined non-commerce (personal consumption) as interstate commerce.
Thus, it is not surprising, then, that the lawyer arguing for ObamaCare might expect the court to redefine a non-tax as a tax (wink).  After all, the court's predecessors redefined non-commerce as interstate commerce.  Fortunately, the justices didn't seem to buy it.
From the 1942 ruling on, the progressives discovered that all they had to do was simply repeat the magic words, "The Commerce Clause," and the courts would approve nearly everything the Congress wanted.  With the oral arguments on ObamaCare, the left had every reason to expect the same result they had seen for the last 70 years.  Any other result for them would of course seem "unprecedented."
Another reason why the progressive sees an overturn of ObamaCare as "unprecedented" is because the Court may actually consider the Constitution more important and undo the legal precedent (overturn, or "unprecedent" the precedent).  Once a court ruling like Filburn sets a "precedent," the words in the Constitution are tossed into the background.  It is almost as if precedent erases portions of the Constitution.  To the extent that that happens, we become not a nation of laws, but a nation of men who have ruled contrary to the law. 
What has truly been "unprecedented," compared to the first 150 years of general adherence to the principles of the Constitution, is the massive growth and intrusion of the federal government based largely on the three magic words.  The abuse of the Commerce Clause has become so entrenched that it is likely that several of the Supreme Court Justices will rule that individuals can be forced into commerce they don't want.
What is truly "unprecedented" is a 2,700-page coercive law delegating the powers of Congress to the executive branch. 
Even a cursory reading of the Founders' writings and the Constitution should be enough to understand that this is not what the Founders had in mind.  In fact, it is precisely what the Constitution was supposed to have prevented.  The Constitution is for the most part clearly written and does not require a law degree to be understood.  The law degree seems to be needed to pretend that we are still adhering to the Constitution.
Some progressive members of the Supreme Court do not seem to hold the Constitution worthy of adherence.  When Obama-nominated Elena Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she dropped the requirement that Harvard Law School students study constitutional law.  As was widely reported, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in an Egyptian TV interview that "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012."
The same Supreme Court justice took the following oath of office:                                        
I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God.
The justices who ruled against Filburn had taken the same oath.
Had the ghost of Roscoe Filburn watched the oral arguments on ObamaCare, he might have thought the magic words were no longer working, having been stretched to the breaking point.  That is exactly what the progressives are afraid of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)

o-It-Yourself Proof of the Obama Birth Certificate Fraud

By Giuseppe Gori






























I think the work of Nick Chase, simplifying "for the masses" the analysis of the forged copy of the Obama long-form birth certificate circulated a year ago by the White House, is absolutely brilliant.  I suggest that you read his articles in the American Thinker.
In his first article, "Oblivious to the Obvious," Nick explains pitch in typewriters.
In his second article, "How I Learned to Love Savannah Guthrie," Nick explains how he obtained an original picture and how he used "cut and paste" to move things around.
I do not mind "getting my hands dirty," and so I decided to try it out myself.
Proving that there is a serious problem of authenticity with this document was easier than I expected.
You can do the same, using the same source picture, but using an even a simpler procedure than what Nick Chase described.  You can do it on a PC, without having to rotate or touch the images at all.  Here is how:
First, I went to the original site showing the copy from Savannah Guthrie: http://lockerz.com/s/96540721.
The following is the original picture of the paper certificate that Savannah Guthrie took on April 27, 2011, as you can find in the above-mentioned site:
I right-clicked on the picture and chose "Copy Image."
Then I opened Microsoft Image Composer and pasted the picture in a new file:
Then I used the "cut out" function to select and cut out the word "Highway".
 
 Then I placed the word "Highway," as cut, above the word "Hospital," precisely aligning vertically the two as.  The aim here is to look for differences in alignment, as Nick Chase says:
[A]ll of the typed characters in a row of text would, if placed over another typed row of text, be in perfect vertical alignment (including typed spaces), because each typed character occupies exactly the same horizontal space in its row. That's what "monospace" means[.]





Looking at the above pictures, you can then see that the pitch of the two words is different, as the H of "Highway" is well to the right of the o of "Hospital."  You can clearly see that the two words were typed by different typewriters (In addition to having a degree in computer science, I was a typist in the Italian Army).  Even the size of the letters is visibly smaller in the word "Highway" than in the word "Hospital."
The above proves that at least two different typewriters were used to type the same certificate.
Is this a conclusive proof? As Nick Chase says:
If you think that the reason why there are two different typewriter typefaces in the document is because two typewriters were used in its preparation, the second typewriter being used because the first broke down -- forget it. ...
First, three different typewriter typefaces (and likely more) appear in the document.
Second, remember that the proof of forgery in Figure F is not a unique proof [of forgery.] ... Researchers have conclusively demonstrated that the "birth certificate" is fake in many different ways, and that it was digitally constructed.  [The above proof] is simply an additional proof of forgery that more people are able to understand because it requires very little technical expertise to comprehend it.
Of course, none of the above has anything to do with where Mr. Obama was born, but it all has everything to do with a forged document released by the White House.  I think this is pretty relevant, when such a document is required during the nomination process for the election of the president of the United States, to verify that the qualifications of the candidates comply with the requirements of the law.
If I have a doubt, it is the following: will the non-technical people in the media understand, or accept, this simple demonstration?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Exclusive: Iran’s “new initiatives” place Israel at center of nuclear talks

 The head of Iran’s National Security Council Saeed Jalili suggested enigmatically Wednesday, April 11, that its representatives would present “new initiatives” at the negotiations with six world powers starting in Istanbul next Saturday. “We hope,” he said, “that the powers will also enter talks with constructive approaches; the language of threat and pressure against the Iranian nation has never yielded results.”

Although Jalili, who will lead the Iranian negotiating team, did not divulge the nature of the new initiatives, debkafile’s Iranian and intelligence sources have obtained their content:

1. Iran will continue to enrich low-grade 3.5 percent uranium but not consent to a cap on quantities;

2. The removal of enriched uranium outside Iran’s borders is not open to discussion and will not be permitted;

3. Iran is prepared for a deal whereby the six powers endorse Iran’s right to enrich as much high-grade 20-percent enriched uranium as it wishes according to a three-part fomula:

a) A joint panel of the six powers and Iran will determine the amounts required to meet the needs of its reactor and the production of isotopes for medical research; b) Iran will sell the surfeit on the international market and become the world’s No. 1 exporter of 20-percent enriched uranium; c) Excess quantities over and above a) and b) will be downgraded by a reverse process from 20 to 3.5 percent.

4. Iran will reject demands to shut down the underground enrichment plant at Fordow, near Qom, but agree to signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s Additional Protocol - which would permit IAEA inspectors to make spot checks at all suspect nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow - with one proviso: The six powers must also require Israel to sign the NPT plus the Additional Protocol. If Israel doesn’t sign both parts of this treaty, neither will Iran endorse the AP.

5. The “Israeli dossier” tops the tactical agenda set out by Iran’s top strategic team for the forthcoming nuclear negotiations Istanbul.

Its representatives will be briefed to turn aside every demand the world powers make of Tehran by twisting it around and pointing it at Israel’s alleged nuclear program. They will argue that they are acting to promote President Barack Obama’s avowed vision of a nuclear-free Middle East. By using this stratagem, the Iranians expect to come away from the negotiating table sitting pretty, having extracted international permission both for enriching as much high-grade uranium as they want and for keeping the Fordow facility in full operation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)In my opinion, this is the MOST SIGNIFICANT DEMONSTRATION of INTENTIONAL DIVISIVE RACEISM by ANY PRESIDENT in the history of OUR COUNTRY that I recall having seen—I personally believe it is DESPICABLE!

Whose President IS HE?


Subject: Obama Announces the 2012 Launch of African Americans for
Obama

This is a Dangerous Video..

Obama Announces the 2012 Launch of African Americans for Obama
this is what racism smells like. It can't be explained away.

Would you vote for a white person who did this? I wouldn't and I
think they would be run right out of town if they tried it.
This is just some food for thought if you're pondering your vote in
November.

Can you imagine Santorum or Romney or Newt or Paul putting out a
call for all the white brothers and sisters to vote for him because
he's white and so are they?

If this video is not alarming to you, simply delete. If you are
offended by what's taking place, please pass it on.

> > >
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU#




4a) 12 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT













When your family or friends cannot explain why they voted Democrat, give them this list. Then they can then pick a reason from this "TOP 12".
1. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
2. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
3. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
4. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.
5. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
6. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
7. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the social security from those who paid into it.
8. I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.
9. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
10. I voted Democrat because I think that it's better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, redheaded cockeyed woodpecker, or fish.
11. I voted Democrat because while we live in the greatest, most wonderful country in the world, I was promised "HOPE AND CHANGE".
12. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass, it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.



4b) Limbaugh on Buffett's Tax Evasion

Warren Buffett owes $1 billion in back taxes. He is fighting it. He doesn't think he should pay it, but publicly he's out there saying, 'I'm not paying enough in taxes'
Rush Limbaugh


RUSH: I think Obama's losing it, folks. I honestly think that there's a problem. Things have not gone as planned. The adulation -- and Obama is totally dependent on adulation, when you talk about these millionaires and their secretaries and other wealthy people who publicly support tax increases because it inoculates them from criticism. It keeps the people with pitchforks away. Warren Buffett doesn't worry about his house being stormed by people because he's out there, "Yeah, I make too much. Yeah, I don't pay enough taxes. Yeah, my secretary is getting ripped off." Oh, Warren, he's one of us. Meanwhile, Buffett owes a billion dollars in back taxes. Do you know that?
Warren Buffett owes $1 billion in back taxes. He is fighting it. He doesn't think he should pay it, but publicly he's out there saying, "I'm not paying enough in taxes." And people go, "Oh, Warren Buffett, man, he understands our plight. He is one of us." And so Warren Buffett's inoculated from any criticism. He doesn't have to worry about the poor storming his compound trying to take his property away from him or revolting against him. It's the same thing with Bill Gates. It's the same thing with all of them. It's the same thing with the Kennedy family.

No comments: