From a California Democratic friend to my friend and a fellow member reader: "Romney present and future:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI"
Let's face it, we know what Obama is about . Yes, there are some things the press and media want to keep out of view but overall we know who Obama is. therefore, my suggestion is we take a page from Pelosi, elect Romney and then find out about him.
Let's face it, we know what Obama is about . Yes, there are some things the press and media want to keep out of view but overall we know who Obama is. therefore, my suggestion is we take a page from Pelosi, elect Romney and then find out about him.
---
The Obama Administration seems to be relying upon two courses of action that will determine the ultimate outcome for Iran's nuclear endeavors. Either the Ayatollahs will come to realize the economy is at risk and could result in their overthrow so they will suspend production of their nuclear program or they will continue to pursue their nuclear program and run the ultimate risk of wrecking their economy which could result in their ultimately being overthrown.
In the interim, the U.S. and Israel are continuing to pursue a variety of continued efforts at impeding Iran's technological progress with assassinations of key scientists and or more advanced Stuxnet type worms and attacks.
Talk of a deal is real but the question remains: a) Can you trust Iran to do what they say and will an effective monitoring program be stitched together that is reliable? and b) Will the agreement be of such nature that it will be found acceptable by Israel as being reliable?
The prospect of an attack by Israel prior to the U.S. election has been downgraded as if there ever was such a plan.
Is all this a pre-planned election strategy ruse? In the previous memo I posted the Ignatius article and this is a repeat as well. Time will tell. (See 1 below.)
---
Lasky on why Obama lies.
And contrasting two Ann's and the politics of envy. (See 2 and 2a below.)
---
Generally an administration is blamed for what happens on its watch. Will the shenanigans by GSA members and certain Secret Service personnel stick to Obama's?
Can the administration's loose spending habits and other peccadillo's, large or small, have contributed ,in any way, to these abuses?
Will public/voter resentment become telling? Will voters in November even care? (See 3 below.)
---
It should not be and would not happen if responsible and less partisan heads prevailed. Since that is not the case over the cliff we go? (See 4 below.)
---
When all else fails and things are not as they should be resort to blaming the 'speculators.' Speculators are the cause of all our ills. They are the worm in our apple. (See 5 below.)
---
When, if ever, will it matter? (See 6 below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Reposting:
Obama ready to yield on Iran's nuclear transparency. Israel:Tehran will cheat
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: A nuclear weapon is a sin...
This concession paved the way for Tehran’s consent to discuss his framework proposal to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent, halt work at its underground facility for higher enrichment near Qom, and export its stockpile of highly enriched uranium for final processing to 20 percent for use in medical isotopes. This would be presented as a deal for settling the nuclear controversy.
The Iranians may find it worth their while to accept this framework. After all, once sanctions are lifted by the end of June - as Tehran demands - and they are freed of IAEA oversight, the Iranians can go forward with their plans for building a nuclear weapon undisturbed and Washington can celebrate a breakthrough.
Israel has not received word of this deal.
In contrast with the downbeat mood in Israel, Washington is already celebrating its success in resolving the Iranian nuclear conundrum and averting war.
Two points in this regard:
1. Tehran has not yet put pen to paper to approve the American proposal and agreed only to move forward in their back-door negotiations without prejudice:
2. Obama will eventually have to level with Israel, the American people and the rest of the world on his deal with Iran.
There is no chance of Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu going along with agreements on the lines under discussion between Washington and Iran, because they would allow Iran to develop nuclear armaments relieved of the hindrances of international oversight and sanctions.
The Israeli prime minister, when he addressed the state ceremony marking the annual Holocaust Remembrance Day Wednesday night, spoke at length of the mortal danger a nuclear Iran for the Jewish state. He said those who maintained Israel lacked the military capacity for dealing with the Iranian menace were wrong.
“We can and will defend ourselves,” he said.“I won’t stop stating the truth (about Iran) at the UN, in Washington and in Jerusalem.”
Officials in Jerusalem angrily dismissed reports of a breakthrough in last Saturday’s nuclear negotiations in Istanbul between six world powers (P5+1) and Iran and most emphatically the claim that “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played his expected role in this choreography” by criticizing the negotiators for giving Iran a five-week freebie for continuing enrichment without limitation, as cited in a Washington Post article on Wednesday, April 18, by the columnist David Ignatius.
Iran is presented as ready to agree to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent and halt work at its underground facility for higher enrichment near Qom, and export its stockpile of highly enriched uranium for final processing to 20 percent for use in medical isotopes. Israeli sources say this report is false: Far from this being the shape of an eventual settlement, it was the shape of American demands relayed to Tehran in side-channels going via Paris and Vienna. Israel was never informed of Iran accepting this formula or its presentation to the Istanbul meeting.
Above all, they stressed, Netanyahu has not and will not play a role in any choreography of this kind staged by the Obama administration.
The Americans appear to have been taken in by the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s public pledge in February not to commit the “grave sin” of building a nuclear weapon as representing the Islamic regime’s face-saver for caving in to US pressure. The WP article is indeed captioned” “The stage is set for a deal with Iran.” According to Iranian sources, there is no sign of the Iranians caving.
The article itself appears to represent Washington’s comeback for a radio interview aired a few hours earlier, Tuesday, April 17, by Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon, in which he sharply criticized the Obama administration for its handling of the nuclear dispute with Iran: "We (Israel) no longer believe in the Americans, and on the Iran issue, we are not in the same boat."
“Three years ago, Iran had 1,200 kilos of low enriched uranium; today it has five and a half tons,” he pointed out.
Ya'alon also warned that after the way the proceedings went in Istanbul, right after the second round of talks on May 23 in Baghdad, “Israel will review its steps,”
Citing the classical Hebrew adage: If I do not watch out for myself, who will? (אם אין אני לי מי לי?) , he noted: “Obama too has said Israel has the right to self-defense.”
The deputy prime minister was the first Israeli national figure to suggest that, after May 23, the Netanyahu government would approach a decision on the date for a countdown to an attack on Iran’s nuclear program.
Yaalon certainly said enough to cause some agitation in Washington, judging by the flood of phone calls coming in from Washington with requests for clarifications.
Earlier that Tuesday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in another radio interview that the“P5+1” group’s talks with Iran must result in a clear-cut resolution, the end of Iran’s nuclear program. He did not believe they would, although he hoped to be proved wrong.
The two Israeli ministers would not have delivered their downbeat comments if indeed US talks with Iran over and under the negotiating table had achieved, or even approached, the breakthrough depicted in Washington.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Why Obama Lies
By Ed LaskyGeorge Will writes that "Barack Obama's intellectual sociopathy -- his often breezy and sometimes loutish indifference to truth -- should no longer startle." But why do Obama and his supporters feel no compunction when they do so? And does this pattern provide an opportunity for Mitt Romney to gather votes in November?
As has often been commented, all of Barack Obama's promises come with an expiration date. They range from the relatively minor to the truly majestic such as his promise that he would not raise taxes for those families earning under $250,000 a year and that he would cut the deficit in half.
He peddled a world of wonders that would flow from passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The fabrications started early -- even in the very name of the act. Patients are not protected: not only will they not be able to keep their current plans if they like them, as he promised (businesses have been dropping company plans in reaction to Obamacare), but their care will fall under the control of the Independent Payment Advisory Board that may just decide that various medical procedures are not covered -- and, incidentally, the people on this board are "unelected." Where is the Patient Protection?
Nor is the Act "affordable". Obama pledges that the Act would cut the deficit and bend the cost curve downward have been shown to be false.
Bu the lies keep coming and will expand exponentially during the campaign at a far faster pace of growth than the economy has under Barack Obama's stewardship.
Often these falsehoods will focus on Medicare -- trying to play the politics of fear with the politically potent group of seniors who depend on Medicare. Barack Obama recently charged that Paul Ryan's plan to reform Medicare and ensure its future viability will "end Medicare as we know it." When this lie was first used by Democrats in 2011 it won the none-too-coveted "Lie of the Year" award from Politifact, the truth-checking outfit. Regardless of this dubious distinction, Obama recycled the lie once again.
The list can go on and on.
Oil companies do not get "subsidies" from taxpayers ; however, his green energy boondoggles and failures (I am being redundant here) do. He claimed that Solyndra was not funded under his program "per se" but under a program funded by the all purpose straw man, George Bush. That was false. He promised that his green energy push would create 5 million jobs by 2008, but that was a lie and the numbers of jobs actually produced despite the expenditure of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars have been miniscule, as has the actual production of kilowatts. He has truly hit a gusher with his string of lies claiming credit for oil production gains over the last three years, but he has a long history of claiming credit for the work of others.
The Supreme Court "Citizens United" decision does not permit foreign money to be donated to political campaigns, as he charged in the State of the Union address last year. It would not be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to find an act of Congress unconstitutional -- that is their role under our form of government and they have done so many times; nor was Obamacare passed by "strong majorities" (219-212 in the House; 60-39 in the Senate). Perhaps Barack Obama, the president of the Harvard Law Review and a lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, needs a remedial course not just on the basics of constitutional law but also in elementary school math.
Barack Obama has won numerous awards and prizes: the Grammy Award (twice) and the Nobel Peace Prize. But he has also won numerous Pinocchio Awards bestowed by Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post for his "stretching of the truth" over the years -- and those he has actually earned and deserved.
But why does he -- and his supporters -- feel they can so blithely lie to us?
There are obvious reasons and one not very obvious reason.
First, the obvious reasons.
One obvious reason is to distract us from his poor record as president. He is so confident of his oratory that he, as is true of many con men, can feel confident that whatever message is being peddles will be believed.
The liberal media will provide cover for them and will not judge the veracity of his claims. Journalists are overwhelmingly liberal and give the vast bulk of their donations to Democrats. He can rest assured that major media will not fact-check most of his claims or filter out the most obvious fabrications. The various fact-check groups are a small blip on the radar screen compared to such Obama-friendly media outlets as MSNBC or the New York Times.
He will use his vast war chest to flood the media with commercials filled with all sorts of fantastical claims regarding his record while demonizing Republicans -- especially his likely opponent, Mitt Romney. Interestingly, his campaign is making a truly unprecedented effort to tap the internet to tailor very specific and individualized messages to voters: the plan has been so aggressive that it has drawn complaints from privacy advocates (see Big Brother Obama is Watching ). These campaign efforts will be difficult to monitor for their veracity.
Barack Obama and his supporters apparently feel the end justifies the means -- as has been true of many despots throughout history, by the way. After all, one cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs (Hat Tip: Joseph Stalin) and if one is determined to "fundamentally transform America," such antiquated concepts as honesty and trust can be thrown under the bus. You can take the politico out of Cook County but you cannot take Cook County out of the politico.
A Cook County politician to the core, he plays hardball as much as he plays basketball. He revealed his modus operandi back in 2008: he brings a gun to a knife fight. Lying is just the way he plays the game. Winning is not only the most important thing- -- t is the only thing that matters. He has repeatedly shown his willingness to embrace ruthlessness when it comes to his career (this New York Times article provides insight to the methods and means he has used to defeat opponents; behind the big grin must be some very sharp incisors)
However, there may be a more fundamental reason we are so consistently lied to by Barack Obama and his allies: they just do not respect most Americans and have very little regard for our intelligence.
Where, one may ask, is the proof of this claim? Barack Obama and his closest advisers have in fact told us they don't think too highly of most Americans.
The tip off should have been Barack Obama's "gaffe" (Michael Kinsley's definition of a gaffe made by a politician is when he tells us how he truly thinks by accident) back in 2008 when he derisively described people who live in small-towns as bitter people who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them." Ah, yes, ignorant yokels sharing kinship if not genes with the Clampetts.
But his scorn is not reserved just for people who live in rural areas. He has also said that "I'm not interested in the suburbs. Suburbs bore me," so it may be a fair assumption that he does not have much respect for suburban dwellers either (though if the zip code is ritzy enough he may drop by for a fundraiser or two or two dozen).
Bu his condescension is as big as his ego and it doesn't stop with suburbia or small towns; it is as big as our nation.
He has said we have become "lazy" and grown "soft" over the years. He has mocked Republicans as being too dumb to understand a jobs bill he was trying to pass, so Democrats were going to have to break up the Jobs Bill into bite-sized pieces that were easier to understand.
A leader who has no respect for the people "below" him becomes emboldened to make all sorts of claims, confident that the dullards will not fathom they have been had.
But he is not alone in his derogatory remarks about Americans. Michelle Obama has called us a "mean" country; Attorney General Eric Holder has called us a "nation of cowards" when it comes to discussions of race. But even more revealing were comments made by his closest adviser, Valerie Jarrett, who said that Obama and his officials might have to use "simpler words" when addressing supporters of the so-called Tea Party.
Undoubtedly, Obama's chief speechwriter Jon Favreau (here seen groping and shoving a beer into the mouth of a cardboard cut-out of Hillary Clinton, so take that War on Women propagandists!) would agree with this condescending sentiment. When asked about the victory address following the last Democratic primary Favreau just responded "Hope. Change. Y'know" How revealing that the man vested with the power by Obama to put words in his mouth thinks so little of the American people that he just thought a few words were all that was needed -- repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseam -- would propel Obama to the Presidency. Unfortunately, he was right with many voters, particularly among young voters.
The Republicans therefore have a target-rich environment for future commercials starring Barack Obama and his leading team members. One can dream up some visuals: a list of claims made by Barack Obama and show them to be false-one after another. Then ask a question: why does Barack Obama lie to us so often?
Cue up some choice comments, such as those mentioned above, revealing how little regard he has not only for the truth but for his fellow Americans. Reveal not only his dishonesty but also his disrespect for so many of us. Perhaps, there can also be a reference to the media giving him a free-ride on any obligation to be honest. Mitt Romney, taking a page from Newt Gingrich, has criticized the media for its favoritism towards Barack Obama -- a smart move on several levels. Romney shores up conservative support while reinforcing the view of many Americans that Obama has been blessed with a cheering section in most media outlets
The Obama campaign has recently given the Romney campaign a gift by announcing that "Trust" will be a feature of their attacks against Romney ("Hope" and "Change" have clearly outlived their usefulness). Jujitsu-like, Romney can turn that word around and ask why Americans should trust Barack Obama given his record of lies and the disregard he has for so many millions of Americans.
Hope springs eternal that the GOP and its more wily supports in the super-PAC world (that would include you, Karl Rove) will focus their firepower on Barack Obama in ways-- such as the one suggested herein -- that escaped John McCain a few trillions of dollars of debt ago.
The future of our nation is at stake.
2a)
Why Do They Want to Pick on Ann Romney?
By Karin McQuillanWhat President in his right mind would authorize an attack on any mom as a woman who "never worked a day in her life"? How could the brilliant campaign strategist Obama shoot himself in the foot when the War on Women was going so well for him?
Ann Romney's oldest son Tagg was baffled why anyone would attack his mom when he was interviewed by Hugh Hewitt about growing up in the Romney home. Ann stayed home and raised their five sons and now has the joy of 16 grandkids.
In a word: the White House decision to attack Ann Romney was personal. To understand it, we need to look at two Anns: Ann Romney, and Obama's mother, Ann Dunham.
First, Ann Romney.
Tagg Romney: (laughing) I don't remember my mom ever eating a bon bon, or honestly, I don't remember her ever sitting down and watching TV. She was, I mean, I remember changing diapers, cleaning messes, cooking food, shopping for food, trying to get laundry done, make beds, driving kids to soccer practices. But I mean, we never had a nanny. We never had someone that was doing that stuff for us. A big part of her day was getting us to do jobs. And I think a lot of things would have been easier for her to do on her own, but she worked hard to make sure we learned how to work. So a lot of her work was teaching us how to work, whether it was teaching us how to clean bathrooms or mop the kitchen floor, or do the dishes, or set the table and those types of things. But she, her...my dad would always tell her that what he did was important, but what she did was much more important than what he was doing. ...HH: And you didn't have a nanny?TR: No, we did not have a nanny.... listen, Hugh, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't think my mom was a great mom and a hard-working person, and someone who cares deeply about other people. And in addition to working for our family, she was always busy in her community, whether it was working with United Way, or with at risk youth. She was busy volunteering and helping and doing what she could to give back to the community, and working in the church as well, and giving back to people in the church. Listen, she...I don't understand why they picked this fight. Of all the people, I think, you know, the reaction's been pretty positive from everybody saying leave Ann alone, she's a great person, and don't know why they'd want to pick on her.
Somehow Ann Romney also found time and energy to do non-paid work helping children in need. Her work outside the home has been devoted to at-risk youth, inner city girls, third world children, equine therapy programs for physically challenged children, literacy for children, the American Red Cross and the Perkins School for the Blind. She has also worked outside the home promoting advocacy and research for a cure for cancer and multiple sclerosis (two terrible illnesses she has suffered from herself). She is also a national prize-winning athlete as an equestrian, her personal lifelong passion. An admirable, good woman.
So why would the Obama campaign want to pick on her?
It was certainly purposeful. The White House chose a top political operative to attack Ann Romney. Hillary Rosen is somebody. She has visited the White House 35 times. She has had five personal work sessions with Obama, as well as meeting with Valerie Jarret and David Axelrod. Note that General Petraeus, former Commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, now CIA director, has only visited the White House nine times. Rosen is in the same league as Geithner, our Secretary of the Treasury, who has been to the White House 40 times. She is a top Obama operative.
So there is no question that sending Rosen out to bad mouth Ann Romney was a calculated political move. Not entirely dumb -- attacking stay at home Moms does, indeed, appeal to Obama's loyal liberal base. The attack has been picked up and amplified by Bill Maher ("what she meant to say, I think, was that Ann Romney has never gotten her ass out of the house to work"), by the head of NOW, by Democratic columnists. (They're probably genuinely regretful to learn that a third of the nations' Moms do not work in paying jobs, have a lower middle median family income of $64,000 and are likely to be Hispanic.)
As Rush Limbaugh points out:
The Romney's are the kind of people that Obama and Hilary Rosen and Democrat elitists just resent the heck out of. They look at them and think life has been easy for 'em, they're boring, they're nerds, they are Ward Cleaver. ...They see it in every traditional conservative: old-fashioned, fuddy-duddy, unhip, judgmental, moral, all those things that just scare the heck out of 'em.
Obama is not just any liberal whose teeth are set on edge by traditional family values, or by individuals that have succeeded in business. For Obama, the politics of envy is more than a campaign strategy. Envy gnaws at his core. Envy is alive and personal. As we hear in speech after speech, Obama sees America as an unfair place where the fortunate live at the expense of the unfortunate. Envy and grievance give his life meaning, they give him a cause. He is here to lead America to a better future, where people like the Romney's are vilified instead of admired. He wants them to pay. He dresses envy up in prettier words such as fairness, but underneath the idealism is a well of darker feelings, stemming from his life with his own mother.
Think of Ann Romney -- a woman remarkably blessed with a loving husband, a large flourishing family, rooted in her church and community, living the injunction to do good unto others. These qualities are obvious even from a bare bones biography as the most important values in her life. She is a woman of strength, character, love, discipline and charity. She is an admirable and enviable woman. For people who suffer from the sin of envy, their worst emotions are aroused by so much goodness and good fortune.
Ann Romney can even be envied because she has suffered and survived two of the greatest health scourges that afflict women in America -- cancer and multiple sclerosis -- and has turned both to the good, in promoting advocacy and research to save other women. As if that isn't enough, she is a national class athlete in her personal passion -- horses. (Horses! Every little girl's dream.) And perhaps most of all, she is a women dearly beloved. Ann and Mitt Romney were high school sweethearts who first met in grade school when he was a Cub Scout. She rode by on a horse and he threw pebbles at her. He proposed when she was 16, they were married when she was 19.
Ann Romney made her children her priority. But they were not the only thing in her life. Ann Romney has also devoted herself to other people's children, through organizations she founded, through the United Way, the Red Cross, her church. She could be the prototype of the old fashioned mother who is the backbone of her family and community through her hard work and big soul.
One thing Ann Romney cannot be envied for is a lazy, spoiled life.
This is the person Obama sent his minions out to discredit as a symbol of the spoiled, selfish people who make up the Republican Party.
How odd. Unless you suffer from envy as from a disease, as our President does. To understand, you must look at the first Ann in Obama's life, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. Ann Dunham's marriages and mothering couldn't be more different from the other Ann. No wonder Obama feels some people are haves and others are have-nots. As a child, he had no father, and barely had a mother. The main caregiver in his life was one weird grandfather.
According to Jack Cashill's research, published in many articles in The American Thinker, there never was an Obama family. Obama often says his father abandoned him when he was two, but this is not true. Ann Dunham took the baby and left for Seattle within a few weeks of Obama's birth, leaving Obama Sr. behind in Hawaii. When she returned a year later, Obama's father was gone, already at Harvard and dating other women, with a wife back in Kenya.
In short, Obama's parents never lived together. There was no Obama family. Nor does it sound like there was ever a marriage:
Obama writes in Dreams, "In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I've never quite had the courage to explore. There's no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride."In his fair-minded biography, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage, Christopher Andersen concedes, "There were certainly no witnesses -- no family members were present; and none of their friends at the university had the slightest inkling they were even engaged."Another conflicting bit of evidence is that at the time of his alleged marriage to Ann Dunham, Barack Sr. had a pregnant wife and a son back in Kenya. There is more. In July 2008, speaking at a university roundtable, Michelle Obama said of Barack's mother that she was "very young and very single when she had him." This could well have been a slip of the tongue, but it may not have been.
What could be sadder for a little boy than to have a father who doesn't even want to lay eyes on you? Obama's deprivation didn't end there. Obama had no one making sure he was safe.
According to the New York Times, Ann Dunham did hire a nanny to care for her young son, the 'tranny nanny.'
His nanny was an openly gay man who, in keeping with Indonesia's relaxed attitudes toward homosexuality, carried on an affair with a local butcher, longtime residents said. The nanny later joined a group of transvestites called Fantastic Dolls, who, like the many transvestites who remain fixtures of Jakarta's streetscape, entertained people by dancing and playing volleyball.
Ann Dunham was too interested in being an anthropologist to be a stay at home Mom in Indonesia, with her overweight, lonely son. At the age of ten, when his new step-sister was one year-old, Obama moved to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Here's how Obama describes his new family life:
"Obama had this to say about moving in with his grandparents: "I was to live with strangers." And: "I'd arrived at an unspoken pact with my grandparents; I could live with them and they'd leave me alone so long as I kept my troubles out of sight."
Cashill comments: "Feel the love?"
Obama's neglect and perhaps abuse as a child didn't end there.
Obama's grandfather chose a black male father figure for him: Frank Marshall Davis. Obama discusses Frank numerous times in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father," but he leaves out some of the most interesting details. Davis was a drinking buddy, who shared the same politics as Obama's grandfather. Davis was a member of the Communist Party. He wrote a fictionalizedmemoir boasting of his bisexual and pedophile exploits. In his memoir, Marshall describes how he and his white wife sexually abuse a 13-year-old girl entrusted to their care.
He and his wife would have sex with the girl. Anne came up many times the next several weeks, her aunt thinking she was in good hands. Actually she was. She obtained a course in practical sex from experienced and considerate practitioners rather than from ignorant insensitive neophytes....I think we did her a favour, although the pleasure was mutual."
This same Frank Marshall Davis, according to Obama's memoir, counseled Obama not to trust white people.
At one point in 1979 Mr. Davis described university as "an advanced degree in compromise" that was designed to keep blacks in their place. Mr. Obama quoted him as saying: "Leaving your race at the door. Leaving your people behind. Understand something, boy. You're not going to college to get educated. You're going there to get trained." He added that "they'll tank on your chain and let you know that you may be a well-trained, well-paid nigger, but you're a nigger just the same."Obama writes that "Frank" told him that college was merely "an advanced degree in compromise," and cautioned him not to "start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh--." Davis also told Obama: "What I'm trying to tell you is your [white] grandma's right to be scared.... She understands that black people have a reason to hate. That's just how it is. For your sake, I wish it were otherwise. But it's not. So you might as well get used to it."
Pop takes another shot, neat,Points out the same amberStain on his shorts that I've got on mine, andMakes me smell his smell, comingFrom me...Stands, shouts, and asksFor a hug, as I shrink, myArms barely reaching aroundHis thick, oily neck..."
To say that Obama had a tough childhood is putting it mildly.
When you compare Ann Romney and Ann Dunham, it is easy to understand Obama's gnawing envy. He should have worked on his problems long ago with the help of a minister or therapist.
Instead he was directed along a far left political path by his grandfather, his mother, his lonely dreams of impressing his absent African socialist father, and the teachings of his black Communist father figure, Frank Marshall Davis. Every single adult Obama depended on let him down then taught him the politics of envy.
Now Obama is trying to teach envy to the whole country; his reelection strategy is based on envy of the rich. He has projected his private demons of unfairness and deprivation onto America at large and is determined to fix us. With the media at heel, he is turning his Democrat followers into a nasty mob, which loyally attacks each Republican target in turn.
This week it was Ann Romney's turn to be demeaned and vilified. Obama calls it fairness. Let us hope the majority of the American public, who truly are fair, will see that underneath Obama's charming smile is a lot of pain that is dangerous to the health of this country.
We deserve better. We deserve the Romney's.
Karin McQuillan is a retired psychotherapist and author, and served in the Peace Corps in Senegal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The GSA and Secret Service scandals: A political problem for President Obama?
It’s been a rough few weeks for the federal government.
First, the lavish spending of the General Services Administration on a wild Las Vegas retreat came to light. Then came the Secret Service scandal where a number of agents advancing the President’s trip to Colombia were caught with prostitutes.
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 18: Members of Bankrupting America dress as a clown and a mindreader as they hand out "resumes" to make fun of a hearing on General Services Administration (GSA) today in front of Dirksen Senate Office Building April 18, 2012 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)The question that’s largely been left out of the coverage of the twin scandals — in which new details seem to emerge daily if not hourly — is whether they carry any political danger for the man at the head of the federal government: President Obama.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is starting to ramp up his rhetoric on the subject, suggesting that President Obama needs to take more forceful action.
“I’d clean house,” Romney told conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham on Wednesday morning. “The right thing to do is to remove people who have violated the public trust and have put their play time and their personal interests ahead of the interests of the nation.”
(Romney was more measured on the Secret Service during another radio interview in Ohio today; “We are a nation, after all, under law and the president has confidence in the head of the Secret Service, as do I,” Romney said.)
Romney’s comments come less than 24 hours after White House press secretary Jay Carney addressed the twin scandals. Said Carney:
“The President believes that everyone who serves the American people by working for this government needs to hold themselves to the highest standards of public service. And there’s no point in comparing the singular incidents of one agency to another, but that principle is one he made clear during the campaign that he would bring to the office. It is a principle that he clearly set forth early on his presidency both in the words that he spoke and the actions that he took, and it is a principle, as I think was made clear in the wake of the GSA incident, that he believes should be enforced.”
White House officials note that the GSA Administrator resigned, her two top deputies were fired and four other officials were put on leave in the immediate aftermath of the Inspector General’s report detailing the agency’s wrongdoing — moves that leave little room for Romney to criticize.
Obviously, both scandals are too recent — and the full scope of each remains too unclear — to draw concrete conclusions about what they might mean (or not mean) to President Obama’s political prospects this fall.
But it is worth noting that one of the central pillars of Obama’s election in 2008 was competency.
After eight years of President Bush — and the debacle over FEMA director Michael Brown in the wake of Hurricane Katrina — Obama sold the idea of his Administration as a meritocracy from top to bottom.
His embrace of the “Team of Rivals” idea for his Cabinet — most notably in his selection of Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State — affirmed that idea. As we wrote during the early days of Obama’s presidency:
“Obama seems far more focused on ensuring that his nominees have impeccable credentials and a readiness for the job rather than that they fit into a specific ideological box or share a particular vision on the issue (or issues) they will oversee in his Administration.”
“The American public, long weary of the perceived mismanagement and incompetence of Bush (Katrina, war in Iraq, the economy), is reacting well to Obama’s approach to the transition thus far.”
Since that time, there’s been a relative paucity of polling that allows us to track with any certainty whether there has been any significant erosion in the public’s trust in Obama as a competent manager.
In a national poll released on Tuesday, CNN did ask whether people trusted Obama or Romney more to “manage the government effectively”; 46 percent chose Obama while 38 percent opted for Romney.
Romney will, undoubtedly, spend most of his time between now and November making the case that he is the ultimate turnaround artist (Winter Olympics, Bain etc) and that the last four years have made clear that President Obama lacks the experience to make the economy work again.
Competence is at the core of that argument. If Romney can use the GSA and Secret Service scandals to erode confidence in Obama’s ability to competently manage the affairs of the federal government — the most basic task of any president — his challenge of unseating the incumbent becomes considerably easier.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)US barrels toward a fiscal cliff
Partisan gridlock and an unwillingness to administer tough medicine have produced a long history of fiscal irresponsibility. A new debacle is at hand.
Anthony Mirhaydari
For all the well-paid analysts and sophisticated computer systems that dominate trading, Wall Street still can't seem to focus on more than one thing at a time.
For now, the focus has returned to the European debt crisis, as the issues that cut down Greece, Portugal and Ireland have hit Spain hard.
But very soon, as Election Day approaches, the attention will turn back to U.S. debt and deficit issues, which, as in Spain, are caused by too much debt and a government trying to avoid its budget-cutting duties. Remember last summer's debt-ceiling debacle and the market meltdown caused partly by the loss of the Treasury's AAA credit rating? Get ready for the sequel.
This time, however, Washington will have to contend not only with its new $16.4 trillion debt ceiling, but with the expiration of a long list of revenue measures (Bush tax cuts, payroll tax holiday and more) and automatic spending cuts that add up to a drag on growth of around 4% of the gross domestic product.
And unless something is done, it would all happen at once -- risking a new recession outright, since the International Monetary Fund is looking for the U.S. economy to expand by only 2.1% this year and 2.4% in 2013.
This is the "fiscal cliff" Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has been warning about. It's real. It's coming. And soon, it will be all that Wall Street's chatterboxes are talking about.
No more can-kicking
The problem is that we can no longer avoid the hard fiscal choices we've been avoiding -- a topic I've written about frequently.
We needed meaningful stimulus to boost short-term growth and slash the "cyclical" portion of the deficit related to our mediocre recovery. Not only would more vigorous growth cut the deficit by increasing tax revenues and cutting expenditures on things like food stamps, Medicaid and unemployment benefits, it would also clear the way to address the deeper "structural" deficit.
This is the real crux of the problem. And there are no easy answers. What do we do about out-of-control health care costs? Or a bloated Pentagon budget? Or a share of tax revenue, as a percentage of GDP, that has returned tolevels not seen in 60 years?
The problem is worsened by demographics. More older Americans and fewer young workers to support them will put additional strain on the federal budget. Any increase in interest rates if the Federal Reserve loses control of inflation will compound the problem via higher payments on existing debt. It's an untenable position.
The White House and Congress have had their chance over the last few years to thread this policy needle, mixing short-term stimulus with medium-term austerity and essential reforms. Instead, political bloodlust killed any chance of mindful bipartisanship. The recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission were ignored, and the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction -- the "supercommittee" -- simply failed to produce results.
A big part of the reason analysts at Standard & Poor's pulled our AAA rating back in August was our dysfunctional politics. Democrats and Republicans didn't address the issues. And they didn't merely kick the can down the road -- they held all of us hostage to 11th-hour brinkmanship as the debt ceiling approached to score points with far-left and the far-right extremists.
You see, after years of fiscal irresponsibility, we face an inescapable dilemma: We fly off the fiscal cliff, cutting the deficit by crushing the economy and, like Europe now, repeating the mistakes of the 1937 Great Depression double-dip; or we swerve, keep our tax cuts and benefits but watch in horror as a lingering deficit doubles the national debt over the next 10 years.
Economic research suggests both higher debt and deep short-term austerity limit economic growth. So we can pick our poison. You want the hurt now or later?
What's worse is that the choice must be made with a gun to the head. The chart above shows that we're fast approaching the new, raised debt ceiling.
A decision on all of these issues -- the deficit, the debt ceiling, tax cuts and unemployment benefits -- will need to be made in the context of a fierce, polarized presidential election, the lame-duck congressional session that will follow and an even-more-divided government in 2013. Prediction markets suggest President Barack Obama will win re-election and Republicans will hold the House and retake the Senate.
A rudderless ship of state
Here we are, barreling toward the edge, and the two parties are pulling in opposite directions. The two camps couldn't be more divided.
In March, Republicans in the House passed their 2013 budget proposal, dubbed "The Path to Prosperity," combining tax cuts with dramatically lower spending. In it, the free-for-all smorgasbord that is now Medicare would end in 2022 for those born after 1956, to be replaced by a private-insurance-premium-support system. Seniors would be on the hook for the difference between the government vouchers and their insurance premiums.
Other government spending, save Social Security and defense, would also be slashed.
Obama, for his part, unveiled a more middle-of-the-road budget featuring new taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year, extension of payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits, and cuts in areas such as agricultural subsidies and health care payments.
The contrasts are stark. The Republicans would cut the public debt to 10% of GDP by 2050. Current law, the fiscal cliff, would cut the debt to 42% of GDP. Obama's plan would see debt increase to 124% of GDP. And, the Congressional Budget Office's "alternative fiscal scenario" -- which would see expiring tax cuts extended, Medicare payments to doctors held steady and Bush tax cuts kept -- would put the debt at more than 200% of GDP. I'll dub this the KTC option, for kick the can.
Even the KTC option could be considered overly optimistic.
It assumes that the economy revs up and returns to full employment by 2015 and stays there. In other words, KTC assumes the new recession in Europe and the "hard landing" in China don't translate into a slowdown here. In fact, it assumes no recession through 2022. Given the issues we face -- higher inflation, crimped consumers and a poor job market -- this isn't realistic.
Lower debt is good, obviously -- but not at the expense of growth. The Europeans are beginning to realize this, which explains why Madrid and Rome are beginning to chafe at budget austerity demands out of Berlin. Indeed, Italy announced Tuesday that it will delay by a year its current plan to balance its budget in 2013 as the eurozone tips into a new recession.
As a rule of thumb, each percentage point of deficit reduction takes a percentage point off of GDP growth. So the Republican plan would cut growth by 2.6% next year and 2% in 2014; the fiscal cliff would take 3.7% off next year and 1.5% in 2014; Obama would see 1.9% taken off this year and next; and the KTC option would see 1.4% taken off next year and 0.5% in 2014.
Compare that with the near-5% tail wind we enjoyed in 2009 as the stimulus kicked in and stocks rocketed higher.
Entitlement spending is the problem. According to Credit Suisse, spending on Social Security and health care programs will amount to nearly 13% of GDP in 2022 versus an average of 7.3% between 1972 and 2011. All other spending will fall to 7.8% from 11.4%.
My solution is to take the Republicans' desire to insulate the Treasury from incipient health care cost inflation while, mindful of the lessons of the 1937 double-dip and the eurozone's current woes, adopt the Democrats' desire for short-term economic stimulus on things like infrastructure and research-and-development credits.
But I'm not holding my breath that consensus can be found without another confidence-sapping, market-shaking showdown. That would likely encourage Fitch and Moody's to follow S&P's example by calling out the obvious: America just isn't the credit risk it used to be as the elephants and donkeys in Washington bicker, posture and bloviate all while coddling the most important voting bloc of all, senior citizens.
Last November, I warned that the dynamics of democracy will likely prevent any meaningful progress on the structural deficit without a bond market revolt. I think it's worth repeating:
"In the months to come, if the two parties battle as the economy burns, the solution embraced in Italy and Greece -- unelected technocrats -- may look more and more attractive as the deus ex machina to get us out of this mess.
"Greek philosopher Plato warned of this more than 2,400 years ago in ancient Athens, claiming that the absolute freedom of democracy and the freedom of speech and license to do as one wishes can devolve into an unmanageable state. He compares such a place to a dilettante with no discipline; a hedonist with neither order nor necessity nor an appetite for sacrifice and self-control.
spending.
"The country, drunk on the insatiable desire to have no master in any facet of life, becomes intolerant of any whiff of elitism, fiscal responsibility or denial of any earthly desire. Leaders aren't allowed to place the least bit of austerity on their people. To stay in power, they must be pliable and provide plenty of what the people want -- namely, low taxes and lots of government
"Otherwise, they are punished. Think about that when the 2012 elections roll around."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)
| |||
| President Obama is right. Evil speculators are pushing up the price of gasoline. What else can explain it? Demand for gasoline is way down. Inventories are way up. So common sense argues the price should be lower. But it's not. Clearly, it must be the evil speculators. Those same demons were causing us pain at the pump last year as well. Take a look at this chart of unleaded gasoline…  The springtime price hikes last year and this year are almost identical. It was only after the president pointed an accusatory finger at speculators last year that gas prices started to fall. This year, he gave them the finger a month earlier. So maybe we'll have lower gas prices this Memorial Day. Of course, the speculators aren't just hanging out at gas stations. Those evil-doers are all around us. Look at the stock market…  The S&P 500 is 9% higher so far this year – which makes no sense at all. Retail investors have pulled $25 billion out of mutual funds so far in 2012, and stock exchange volume is 20% lower than where it was last year. How can stock prices be going up when demand is falling? It must be the evil speculators. Precious metals prices are higher, too. Gold is up 6% so far in 2012. And the evil speculators have pushed silver prices 10% higher in the past four months. But the worst part is those little demons haven't been confined to just the financial markets. They're everywhere. My health insurance premium is 15% higher today than it was last year – even though I haven't been to the doctor in the past 12 months. My water bill is 12% higher this year, too – even though my usage is down. The local dog groomer charges $7 more to clip Fido's nails. My wife's hairdresser hiked prices by 10% last month. And just last night, I shelled out $85 for a sushi dinner for two that didn't even include alcohol. Those evil speculators are pushing up the prices of everything… -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- … Except interest rates. Apparently, the little devils like cheap money. That explains why global interest rates look like this…  Only the combined efforts of the world's central banks can keep interest rates this low while the price of everything else is rising. So we know who the real evil speculators are… It isn't the traders and investors of the world who are scrambling to buy real assets with rapidly depreciating currencies… It's the central banks who are trying to paper over their debts and print their way to economic prosperity. As long as interest rates remain artificially low, pricing pressures on everything else will continue to rise. At least we know where the president should really be pointing his finger. Best regards and good trading, Jeff Clark ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6) |
WHEN - he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan, Muramar Kaddafi and Hugo Chavez, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - it was pointed out that he was a total newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - his voting record in the Illinois Senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he refused to wear a flag lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he surrounded himself in the White House with advisors who were pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he said he favors sex education in kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - his personal background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco - a man of questionable character and who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home - people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he started appointing White House Czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist /Communists, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he stood before the Nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this Nation" into something else, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he appointed cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialists, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he appointed a Science Czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he appointed Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar who believes in "Explicit Consent," harvesting human organs without family consent and allowing animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual and organizer of a group called Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network as Safe School Czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he appointed Mark Lloyd as Diversity Czar who believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth, who supports Hugo Chavez, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - Valerie Jarrett, an avowed Socialist, was selected as Obama's Senior White House Advisor, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he appointed Carol Browner, a well known socialist as Global Warming Czar working on Cap and Trade as the nation's largest tax, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as Green Energy Czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for Health and Human Services Secretary could not be confirmed because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - as President of the United States, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, people said it didn't matter..
WHEN - he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - his actions concerning the Middle East seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel, our long time ally, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops early-on when the Field Commanders said they were necessary to win, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions, and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc., people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade, people said it didn't matter.
But they will 'when' it is too late to matter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment