I would steer clear from this. I believe that the White House version of the Obama birth certificate is a forgery -- I can download it and see that for myself by manipulating it in Adobe. But I cannot for the life of me understand why they would do something like that.
Some of the messages below are fraudulent -- the enrollment form for Obama in Indonesia indicates he was born August 4, 1961 in Honolulu. His book, Dreams from my Father, records (page 26 I think) that he found some clippings about his father near his birth certificate. So I think there is a birth certificate. It just must have something on it that is embarrassing. I wonder.
Maybe Obama just likes playing with the minds of the birthers. Maybe there is something more sinister at work here. The states have control over the evidence required to be eligible to be on the ballots in the states. If a lawsuit were brought in a purple state like Colorado or Oregon, perhaps you could keep Obama's name off a ballot or two if they won't reveal the true birth certificate. But it ius unlikely to be meaningful. We just have to slog through and beat him.
In that regard, 91% of the eligible voters in south Fulton are registered; 62% in north Fulton are. A lot of good decent potentially Republican voters do not register in this state over the fear -- mostly ill-placed -- that registering will make you more likely to be called for jury duty. Good citizens need to stand for the right.
All the best,"
I do not know whether this was written by the aggrieved party but whether it was or not, it aptly states my own position and why I quit AARP eons ago.
AARP reminds me of a Foundation whose benefactor wanted his money to serve one purpose and, over the years, the board changed and now serve their own and have totally forgotten their fiduciary responsibility to the original founder and his intent.
Princeton all over again etc. (See 1 below.)
Princeton all over again etc. (See 1 below.)
--
Mona moans! (See 2 below.)
Mona moans! (See 2 below.)
----
My fiend Avi explains why Russia is helping solve the Iranian puzzle. The downside costs of sanctions are beginning to threaten Russia's economic relationships elsewhere and Russia is also concerned about rising Islamic flames on its borders etc.
Avi has insights few others have. Very interesting article and suggests the wheels of U.N. actions grind slowly but may have an effect.
I would like to speculate Avi might show up in the Romney Administration if there is one and Romney would be well advised to seek Avi's talents.(See 2 below.)
---
Finally cooler heads seem to be prevailing and the yahoos can now go home as the Governor of Florida's special prosecutor makes her decision to charge Zimmerman.
The law often takes time because evidence must be substantiated in order for a case to be effectively prosecuted and no doubt public pressure helps keep the matter in the public eye but the lynch mob atmosphere and inflamed rhetoric was overboard and has no place in the public arena. Throwing oil on a fire does not calm anything and Sharpton, Jackson and Obama can now move on to some other pursuit, shakedown or playing the race card as they no doubt will.
As for Zimmerman,one would hope he obtains adequate counsel and is emotionally stable enough to place his life in their hands so 'justice,' whatever that means, will be the final result and this sordid tragic event will become another chapter in our history of distorted race relations.
---
More White House hypocrisy? (See 3 below.)
And what goes out one door emerges in another. Just more Obama hypocrisy. (See 3a below.)
---
This from a very bright, very sensitive friend and fellow memo reader who has begun to see the light: "I see a clear path to conservatives grabbing and holding power in this country for decades. I say conservatives and NOT Republicans for a reason. The naughties and the era of President Bush (W) proved that both parties can spend liberally. But my belief is true fiscal conservatism is the ONLY path out of our national malaise.
My fiend Avi explains why Russia is helping solve the Iranian puzzle. The downside costs of sanctions are beginning to threaten Russia's economic relationships elsewhere and Russia is also concerned about rising Islamic flames on its borders etc.
Avi has insights few others have. Very interesting article and suggests the wheels of U.N. actions grind slowly but may have an effect.
I would like to speculate Avi might show up in the Romney Administration if there is one and Romney would be well advised to seek Avi's talents.(See 2 below.)
---
Finally cooler heads seem to be prevailing and the yahoos can now go home as the Governor of Florida's special prosecutor makes her decision to charge Zimmerman.
The law often takes time because evidence must be substantiated in order for a case to be effectively prosecuted and no doubt public pressure helps keep the matter in the public eye but the lynch mob atmosphere and inflamed rhetoric was overboard and has no place in the public arena. Throwing oil on a fire does not calm anything and Sharpton, Jackson and Obama can now move on to some other pursuit, shakedown or playing the race card as they no doubt will.
As for Zimmerman,one would hope he obtains adequate counsel and is emotionally stable enough to place his life in their hands so 'justice,' whatever that means, will be the final result and this sordid tragic event will become another chapter in our history of distorted race relations.
---
More White House hypocrisy? (See 3 below.)
And what goes out one door emerges in another. Just more Obama hypocrisy. (See 3a below.)
---
This from a very bright, very sensitive friend and fellow memo reader who has begun to see the light: "I see a clear path to conservatives grabbing and holding power in this country for decades. I say conservatives and NOT Republicans for a reason. The naughties and the era of President Bush (W) proved that both parties can spend liberally. But my belief is true fiscal conservatism is the ONLY path out of our national malaise.
The New Deal as we have known it for 70 years is DEAD. It is best we all recognize it like Paul Ryan has recognized it and embrace changes and limitations of some form so support will be there when my children age. To pretend the system can exist as currently mandated is a farce. That the New Deal is of the Democratic Party leads me to believe they will not be able to accept this reality and they are, therefore, a secularly challenged party.
So, barring a new party forming, that leaves us with Republicans. The current impediment to Republicans winning the support of a long-lasting national majority is their alliance with moral extremists. This alignment by definition alienates (or at the very least puts off) the less morally rigid centrists that would otherwise embrace the party’s fiscal conservatism.
Given the landscape I strongly believe that if the Republican Party were to divorce the “religious right” it would clear the path for decades of power in D.C. The simple fact is that the nation needs fiscal conservatism and they are the party that is primed to take advantage of this. What holds them back is the legislation of moralism. It is an unfortunate farce and if they continue to embrace it they will have missed a huge opportunity. Or, perhaps, they will allow for the creation of a new party founded on the ideals of centrism and fiscal conservatism.
Just some thoughts."
My Response: "Total agreement. If you are right, and I believe you are, then history is moving to my/now your way, of thinking with some modifications glad you are aboard. me" (See 4 and 4a below.)
---One foot out the door on the way to Winter Park. Have a nice weekend.
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Thought provoking.
SHRINKING AARP IS LOSING PLENTY OF SENIORS -This letter was sent to Mr. Rand, who is the Executive Director of AARP.THIS LADY NOT ONLY HAS A GRASP OF ‘THE SITUATION’ BUT AN INCREDIBLE COMMAND OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE!
Dear Mr. Rand, Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. This isn't what you were looking for, but it's is the most honest response I can give you. Our coverage gap is a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith. While we have proudly maintained our membership for years and long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse its abdication of our values. Your letter stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours. Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace. We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP once gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama Regime and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there! We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces that we expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities and values.
This Obama Regime scares the living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage. But more importantly for our children and grandchildren. Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic. I have never endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them. I don't have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist Mindset in power. Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities.Your website generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING??? The illegal perpetrators have broken into our 'house', invaded our home without invitation or consent. The President insists we keep these illegal perpetrators in comfort and learn the perpetrator's language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them. I DON'T choose to welcome them, to support them, to educate them, to medicate them, or to pay for their food or clothing. American home invaders get arrested. Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans do not get? Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break and enter to be welcomed? We travel for a living. Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current Regime. One of us is out of touch with mainstream America. Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than ones that are driven by a need to yield AMNESTY (aka-make voters out of the foreign lawbreakers so they can vote to continue the government's free handouts). This addition of 10 to 20 million voters who then will vote to continue Socialism will OVERWHELM our votes to control the government's free handouts. It is a "slippery slope" we must not embark on! As Margret Thatcher (former Prime Minister of Great Britain) once said "Socialism is GREAT - UNTIL you run out of other people's money".We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the same. With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible statement to you.
I am disappointed as all getout! I am more scared than I have ever been in my entire life! I am ANGRY! I am MAD as hell, and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!Walt & Cyndy Miller, Miller Farms Equine Transport
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Obama's Contempt for Law
BY MONA CHAREN
Last month the Obamas hosted a White House conference on bullying. It was intended as a show of support for victims, but watching this president in action, it might just as easily have been a tutorial.
We’ve gotten glimpses of Obama’s intimidating instincts from the beginning. Now, as his administration flounders, his aggressiveness is becoming less and less veiled.
His first targets, as so often with bullies, were unpopular figures few were inclined to defend. At a 2009 meeting with bankers, Mr. Obama arranged the atmospherics to convey his displeasure. According to Politico , whereas White House meetings are usually comfortable affairs, with snacks and beverages offered, the bankers got different treatment. There was one glass of water at each place — no refills. Obama pressured those present to reduce executive salaries and warned: “I’m the only thing between you and the pitchforks.” Thanks, Evita.
This president rewards his friends and punishes his enemies (his words) — with little concern for the rule of law. In the bailouts and restructurings of General Motors and Chrysler, the president forced some of the companies’ secured creditors to take 30 cents on the dollar while giving much more generous terms to the United Auto Workers. Secured creditors are those who lend money to a strapped company only because they are guaranteed to be paid off first in the event of bankruptcy. But the Obama administration has contempt for such economic realities, to say nothing of the law. The obvious consequence will be that companies will find it harder to find financing in future. It was also an early signal that this administration respects few boundaries.
Contempt for law and procedure characterized Obama’s response to the Gulf oil spill as well. After the well was capped, a swaggering president described his intentions toward BP: “I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness.” Twenty billion was the amount the president demanded. The president never described by what authority he was requiring BP to set aside this funding — presumably it was the same authority implied in the case of the bankers — the “pitchforks.”
That BP should have been held responsible for the damage it caused is not in question. But we have laws and procedures for this sort of thing. Or we once did. We are not accustomed to presidents’ arbitrarily ordering private actors to make restitution. You might have expected this high-handedness to alarm civil libertarians among the press corps. No, all of the press’s outrage was expended on a Texas congressman who mentioned that BP was the target of a “shakedown.” It was.
At the same time, the president used the spill as an excuse to shut down drilling in the Gulf altogether for an extended period. A federal judge issued an injunction against the moratorium and later declared the Obama administration to be “defiant.” “Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium,” wrote Judge Martin Feldman, “provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt.” Undeterred, the administration switched tactics and simply stopped issuing new permits — a clear abuse of regulatory discretion.
The economic effects have been severe to a region already damaged by Katrina and the spill itself. The industry group Greater New Orleans, Inc. reports that 50 percent of businesses have laid off employees because of the moratorium, 76 percent have lost cash reserves, and 46 percent have moved all or some of their businesses away from the Gulf region.
What, except overweening contempt for law, can explain President Obama’s decision to give Charles Cordray a recess appointment as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, when the Senate was not in recess? “What I’m not going to do is wait for Congress,” Obama told 60 Minutes. “Whenever I see an opportunity and have executive authority . . . we’re just going to go ahead.” Or even without executive authority, apparently.
Last week, the president returned to bullying the Supreme Court (he had done so once before, during a State of the Union address). The president warned the Court that its legitimacy was suspect because its members are “unelected.” This is brutish talk from any political figure, all the more from one who preens that he taught constitutional law. What’s next? Warning that Obamacare is all that stands between the justices and the pitchforks?
Hugo Chavez is ailing. But his spirit is thriving in the White House.
— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2012 Creators Syndicate, Inc
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)How Moscow is Helping Solve the Iran Problem
Though news reports generally give a very different impression, Russia is actually playing a constructive role in dealing with the multifaceted issue of Iran's nuclear program. One hint came last month, when Russia's second-largest financial institution closed the accounts of Iran's Embassy in Moscow. While given little attention by the media on either side of the Atlantic, this move signals the Kremlin's willingness to confront Iran on its march toward nuclearization.
Russia's irritation with Iranian policy was underlined by the manner in which the management of VTB 24 — the retail banking arm of the state-controlled behemoth, VTB — dismissed these particular clients. Teheran's diplomats were reportedly given three hours to physically withdraw or wire out their funds or their "accounts would be blocked and money confiscated." Explaining itself, the bank's top management is said to have informed Iranian Ambassador, Seyed Mahmoud-Reza Sajjadi that the embassy's business was no longer profitable and that his credit card would also beblocked.
What moved Russia to take action at this particular juncture? The answer most likely lies in Moscow's appreciation that what once passed as "business as usual" is becoming an increasingly risky bet. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia and Iran have had very strong industrial and military ties, which have included financial aid and technical assistance on nearly all nuclear-related issues. The implicit understanding until now appears to have been that Iran would not further fan the flames of Islamic radicalism across its vast southern belt and that both countries would collaborate selectively in frustrating aspects of U.S. foreign policy in their shared neighborhood.
Read through the darkest lens, this relationship has been a profitable one for Russia, with Iran's pursuit of the bomb boosting the price of the Kremlin's principal cash export, oil, while encouraging states in the region to purchase ever larger amounts of its military equipment. A more benign view is the one offered by the Russians themselves: By staying engaged with the Iranian program, Moscow retains influence no one else possesses, while keeping a significant part of its potentially footloose cadre of Cold War-era nuclear engineers employed.
Until now, Iran's supporters in the Kremlin have been able to make a persuasive argument for continuing, if not strengthening, ties with Iran, perennially ranked as one of Russia's top 10 trading partners. But in fact, the relationship is starting to demonstrate diminishing returns. As the international community ramps up the sanctions regime pushing Iran ever closer to pariah status, countries that continue to do business with it are getting shut out of lucrative markets. The United States and Europe are now systematically identifying companies, financial institutions and individuals doing business with Iran and are aggressively cutting them out of their home markets.
Having finally completed a torturous 19-year journey to accede to the World Trade Organization, Russia has no wish to be subject to robust new third-party sanctions. Despite periodic rhetoric to the contrary, its entrenched leadership has followed a consistent course of deepening the once-isolated country's integration into the global economy. This commitment comes despite the reality that the architecture of global governance was designed by, and is still substantially dominated by, the United States.
Indeed, the move against Iran's Embassy in Moscow followed a series of international decisions: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 in 2010 that imposed further sanctions on Iran after it had failed to comply with previous resolutions concerning its nuclear program; Iran's blacklisting as a "high risk and noncooperative jurisdiction" by the Financial Action Task Force, which Russia is a member of; and U.S. President Barack Obama's signing, in February, of an Executive Order tightening existing sanctions.
The gloomiest estimates are that Iran may get its nuclear bomb within 18 months. For Russia, the risks of that threshold being crossed are growing more starkly clear, and they include even greater instability among its nearest neighbors, emboldened radicals within its own borders and new barriers to the investment and trade vital to maintaining Russia's economy. While Iranian possession of nuclear weapons would likely lead to higher prices for oil, the additional volatility liable to occur in commodities markets would complicate the Kremlin's task of restructuring its economy and restoring predictability to management of the federal budget.
To help itself and support the efforts of the international community, Russia can take two more steps within the financial industry. First, VTB has traditionally maintained a correspondent banking relationship with the Export Development Bank of Iran, a state institution that has been blacklisted for its role in proliferating weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. Second, the Bank Melli Iran, which has been sanctioned by the UN and European Union and cited by the U.S. Treasury Department for involvement in money laundering, continues to finance Iranian and Russian business through its Moscow branch. Russia should shut down both of these banking operations now. This would not only protect its own banking system from illicit activity but would also signal Russia's determination to head off Tehran's gambit for a nuclear weapon.
Helping Iran in its march toward nuclearization puts Russian companies, individuals and financial institutions squarely in the crosshairs of the international sanctions regime. As Russia tries to negotiate the delicate dance of short- versus long-term financial gain, continued close relations with Iran will almost certainly have an economic cost and loss of face that the Kremlin is unwilling to bear. Doing business with a state that is increasingly becoming both a political and a financial pariah will have consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Report: Obama White House Pays Women Less Than Men
President Obama has been outspoken in his criticism of “paycheck discrimination” that has women earning less than men for the same jobs, but a new report shows that female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues.
According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, while the median salary for male employees was $71,000 — about 18 percent more, the Washington Free Beacon reports.
“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” former Bill Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Meyers told the New York Times.
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved
3a)Subject: Where are Jim, Tim, and Franklin now?
Just in case you might have wondered how their ineptitude affected their
lives after they ruined so many dreams and lives.
Where are Jim, Tim and Franklin now?
Here's a quick look into the three former Fannie Mae executives who
brought down Wall Street.
Franklin Raines - was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie
Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when
auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting
activities. Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million
in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth
of the accounting scandal became clear.
Tim Howard - was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was
a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would
ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. Investigations by federal
regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that
management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and
Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute
was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later
forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. Investigators found that
Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998
compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million
and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under
investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as
CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at
$28 Million
****************************************************************************
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES?
Raines works for the Obama Campaign as his Chief Economic Advisor.
TIM HOWARD?
Howard is a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama under Franklin Raines.
JIM JOHNSON?
Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee.
Kinda makes you sick to your stomach.
Obama's government is rotten to the core !
Are we stupid or what? Vote in 2012..it is the most important election of our lives...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)-
Henninger: Demolishing Paul Ryan
The Left launches on warning against any challenge to its ideological fortress.
With the presidential battle begun, the Obama campaign has revived the Cold War nuclear strategy of launch on warning. At any suggestion that a conservative idea might be threatening its ideological fortress, the American left now launches ICBMs of rhetorical destruction.
So it was after the Supreme Court's hearings on the Obama Affordable Care Act, which put in jeopardy the federal command to buy health insurance. After the president green-flagged the assault, the Supreme Court's "legitimacy" was in play. The Roberts Court, wrote one blogger, is "on trial."
On current course, House GOP Budget Chairman Paul Ryan himself may exhaust their entire thermonuclear arsenal before November. Once again, the Campaigner in Chief threw the switch himself, calling the Ryan House budget "social Darwinism," "a Trojan horse" and "antithetical to our entire history." Rev. Samuel Rodriquez of the Hispanic Evangelical Association said the poor would be "budget-war collateral damage."
On Tuesday, Mr. Ryan pushed back. In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, he said that in fact the Catholic Church's "social magisterium" had informed his House budget. One goal of that teaching, he said, is to prevent the poor from staying poor. Nor, he added, should individuals become lifelong dependents of their government.
Just as the left thought the regulating reach of the Commerce Clause was beyond serious challenge, it long ago decided that none dare question the moral case for public spending. That social Darwinism speech Barack Obama is giving now in defense of federal programs isn't merely a public-policy statement. It's a Democratic encyclical. Paul Ryan's ideas are worse than wrong. They are heresy.
Associated Press
Within the hour of the Ryan CBN interview, the blogospheric left went ballistic. "Ryan is shilling for the Catholic Church," said Democrats for Progress, folding in another recently identified group of ObamaCare heretics. And: "Mr. Ryan has drunk the libertarian Kool-Aid." A pro-spending religious coalition, the Faithful Budget Campaign, emailed, "The differences in what the organized religious community is calling a Faithful Budget and what Rep. Ryan refers to could not be more stark."
What Mr. Ryan actually said is worth quoting, because it should revive the debate over the proper relationship between individual citizens, including the poor, and the national government:
"A person's faith is central to how they conduct themselves in public and in private. So to me, using my Catholic faith, we call it the social magisterium, which is how do you apply the doctrine of your teaching into your everyday life as a lay person?
"To me, the principle of subsidiarity . . . meaning government closest to the people governs best . . . where we, through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities, through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community, that's how we advance the common good. By not having big government crowd out civic society, but by having enough space in our communities so that we can interact with each other, and take care of people who are down and out in our communities.
"Those principles are very, very important, and the preferential option for the poor, which is one of the primary tenets of Catholic social teaching, means don't keep people poor, don't make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck at their station in life. Help people get out of poverty out onto a life of independence."
Related Video
Deputy Editorial Page Editor Dan Henninger on the Obama campaign's war of rhetorical destruction.
Subsidiarity—an awful but important word—attempts to discover where the limits lie in the demands a state can make on its people. Identifying that limit was at the center of the Supreme Court's mandate arguments.
The first major use of subsidiarity as a basis for public policy was in Pope Leo XIII's famous 1891 encyclical "Rerum Novarum" (though the word itself doesn't appear). Leo was seeking a way to protect the dignity of human beings caught during those years in the tension between unfettered capitalism and unfettered government. "The State," he wrote, "must not absorb the individual or the family." Arguments over where the balance sits have raged since.
The American left thinks this debate is settled. So, for example, any hint of Supreme Court dissent from settled doctrine justifies questions about its "legitimacy."
Paul Ryan insists the debate isn't over and that its locus is the federal budget, which isn't just numbers. The budget is the national government's formal justification for the scale of the demands it makes now and unto eternity on the nation's citizens.
This is the debate Barack Obama hopes mockery and rhetorical carpet-bombing can kill before the fall campaign. It's only a guess, but I'm betting his opponent is looking forward to forcing the president to come up with a better argument for establishing a government in the U.S. that is subordinate to no one.
4a)Karl Rove: Obama's Campaign Will Take the Low Road
The 2008 pledge not 'to pit Red America against Blue America' is no longer operative.
By Karl Rove
Rick Santorum's decision Tuesday to suspend his campaign effectively ends the GOP nomination fight. But it doesn't mark the start of the general election between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. That contest has long been under way. Mr. Obama's speech to the Associated Press last week and two appearances in Florida on Tuesday provide a glimpse of the low road the president and his campaign likely will take.
He will distort beyond recognition his opponent's arguments. For example, he explained to news executives at the AP that Republicans want to "convert more of our investments in education and research and health care into tax cuts—especially for the wealthy." Actually, no one has suggested that.
No honest differences are possible with Mr. Obama. He will impugn the motives of any who disagree with him. As he told the AP, his opponents want to "let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity." His agenda "isn't a partisan feeling . . . [it]isn't a Democratic or Republican idea. It's patriotism." To disagree with him is unpatriotic. That's to be expected from Republicans, whom Mr. Obama says stand for "thinly veiled social Darwinism . . . [that is] antithetical to our entire history."
Mr. Obama will build entire edifices on top of one fake premise, all dressed up in one big phony assumption. Take the House GOP budget plan. It increases federal outlays from roughly $3.6 trillion this year to nearly $4.9 trillion in 2022. In the AP speech the president called this a "cut" because he wants to increase spending to $5.8 trillion in 2022.
He warned that if the GOP's "cuts . . . were to be spread out evenly across the budget," then "Alzheimer's and cancer and AIDS" research would be slashed, 10 million college students denied assistance, and "thousands" of researchers and teachers "could lose their jobs." But Republicans don't cut across the board. Instead, their focus is on waste, duplication, programs that do not work, and on reform.
As he did Tuesday at Florida Atlantic University, Mr. Obama will attack "these same trickle-down theories" about taxes that almost led to "a second Great Depression." But if the Bush tax cuts were so evil, why didn't Mr. Obama repeal them during his first two years, when his party controlled both houses of Congress? Instead, in December 2010 Mr. Obama agreed to extend them for two more years.
To divert attention from his administration's many failures, Mr. Obama will also offer poll-tested nuggets that pit the many against the few. Take Tuesday's demands for the so-called "Buffett Rule," a new 30% tax on anyone making $1 million a year.
He claimed at a California fund raiser last fall that this would "stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade." But Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation projects it will only raise $47 billion in the next 10 years while Mr. Obama's budget spends $46.9 trillion and adds $9.6 trillion to the debt during that time. The Buffett Rule would cover 17 days of the president's next decade of deficits.
What Mr. Obama calls a "loophole" is the policy of taxing capital gains and dividends at a lower rate than income. He favors penalizing savings and investment when America needs more of both.
Getty Images
Among Mr. Obama's more appealing 2008 campaign lines were his pledge not "to pit Red America against Blue America" and his promise to "resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."
Mr. Obama gave into that temptation the moment he was inaugurated. His harsh attacks, angry misrepresentations and outright falsehoods are light years away from the message of unity and post-partisanship that propelled him into the Oval Office.
Mr. Romney will need to tap into the disappointment and regret that many Americans, even the president's supporters, feel about Mr. Obama. Yet while setting the record straight about the last three dismal years and Mr. Obama's attacks is important, it is not enough. Winning candidates for the American presidency offer a positive, optimistic agenda that reassures voters about what they will do once in the White House.
Mr. Romney also should remind Americans of Mr. Obama's lofty words from his 2008 acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention in Denver. There he said, "If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from."
Mr. Obama attacked such a strategy then. Lacking any fresh ideas or a record to run on, it's the strategy he's adopted now.
4a) We Still Haven't Seen Romney's A-Game
To defeat the president, he'll have to perform at a higher level than he did in the primaries.
By FRED BARNES
With Rick Santorum's exit, Mitt Romney's path to the Republican presidential nomination is clear. But his road to the White House is hazy. To defeat President Obama and capture the presidency, Mr. Romney will have to make significant changes in his campaign.
He's already improved his campaign in important ways. For a Republican, the usual strategy has been to run as a conservative in the primaries, then move toward the center in the general election. Mr. Romney has done the opposite, starting in the center before gradually latching on to conservative positions on taxes, spending, entitlements, social issues and foreign policy.
He's better off for having become specific. Sticking to generalities, as he once did, made him look evasive and shifty. And Mr. Romney no longer relies on his business background as his chief talking point. His résumé alone wasn't enough to qualify him for the presidency.
Now there's no turning back. He's embraced the election as a stark choice between right (him) and left (Barack Obama). After winning the Wisconsin primary last week, he said the president has "spent the last four years laying the foundation for a new government-centered society. I will spend the next four years rebuilding the foundation of an opportunity society led by free people and free enterprises."
His first task is to secure the Republican Party's conservative base. Mr. Romney would be foolish to think that fear of Mr. Obama's election to a second term is sufficient to galvanize conservative support for him. It won't be.
Mr. Romney is the favorite of conservative elected officials, but he trailed Mr. Santorum, and occasionally Newt Gingrich, among conservative voters in the primaries. He desperately needs the Republican grass roots. They're as important to him as the liberal Democratic base is to Mr. Obama. They're the ground troops in any GOP presidential campaign.
"If he loses four, five, six percent of the conservative base, that's the election," says former Reagan White House official Gary Bauer. "We'll lose Virginia, Missouri and North Carolina." Mr. Bauer, like dozens of conservative and tea party leaders, has qualms about Mr. Romney.
Some of their misgivings were eased by Mr. Romney's adoption of strong conservative positions. After initially issuing a bland 59-point economic plan, he proposed a 20% across-the-board cut in individual income tax rates. Mr. Romney also backed both the 2013 budget and the Medicare reform plan drafted by Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee and the GOP's leading thinker on domestic policy.
There are other ways to rally conservatives. One is to elicit Mr. Santorum's endorsement as soon as possible. Promising to help reduce Mr. Santorum's campaign debt would spur this process. Another is to persuade conservatives that he will run against Mr. Obama as aggressively as he has against his Republican rivals—and especially not balk at attacking the president because of his supposed likabililty, or because of fear he'll be accused of racism.
The Republican convention in August offers three critical opportunities to woo conservatives: the platform, the choice of a vice presidential running mate, and the acceptance speech. "I see those as ways to attractively present your conservative ideas," Mr. Bauer says.
Mr. Romney paid more attention to conservative leaders in 2008 than he has this year. He has repeatedly been invited by, but has neglected to meet with, a group of former officials of the Reagan and both Bush administrations, conservatives all. He hasn't accepted yet, but there's still time.
He's been a more effective campaigner this year than in 2008, better even than in the early stage of this year's primary campaign. But he hasn't quite gotten over what an ally calls the "awkward guilty capitalist stuff." His first tax plan provided nothing for the rich because, he said, they were doing fine. The problem is that he was playing on Mr. Obama's ideological turf.
One way to deal with his affluence is to joke about it. Clearly, Mr. Romney is no Will Rogers. But he's comfortable when he talks about his family's rags to riches story, as he did in his victory speech after the Illinois primary in March. So more of that is called for.
It's an appealing story: His father, as he says, didn't go to college and his grandfather "was a contractor and never quite made it but never gave up." From their experiences Mr. Romney learned the "unique genius of the American free enterprise system."
"Later I helped start companies that began just as an idea and somehow made it through all the inevitable difficulties to create thousands of jobs," Mr. Romney said. "Those jobs helped families buy their first homes, put kids through school, live better live, dream a little bigger."
A unified Republican campaign—House, Senate, presidential candidate—also would be an asset to Mr. Romney's campaign. Not another Contract for America or set of pledges but, as Mr. Ryan puts it, "everybody gets on the same page."
Mr. Ryan and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, the Senate Republican liaison with the Romney campaign, are working with Mr. Romney and his aides on this. For Mr. Romney to win, they should be "talking about the same things with the same words at the same time," Mr. Johnson says.
On one issue—immigration—Mr. Romney would be wise to move away from his harsh position in the primaries. He can't afford to lose the Hispanic vote as decisively as John McCain—who won just 31% of it—did in 2008. According to a Romney adviser, his private view of immigration isn't as anti-immigrant as he often sounded. Emphasizing reform of the dysfunctional legal immigration system makes sense.
Mr. Ryan, who has spent considerable time with Mr. Romney, has three words of advice: "Offense, offense, offense." If he's not on offense, he'll be on defense. "Don't be afraid," Mr. Ryan says. "Be confident. Be on offense."
To defeat Mr. Obama on Nov. 6, Mr. Romney must perform at a higher level than he did in the primaries. Presidential candidates—Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Bill Clinton in 1992—have done this before. If Mr. Romney wants to take occupancy in the White House, he'll have to do the same.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment