---
While I was away several significant events happened that deserve comments.
First, we had the shameful ad by Obama suggesting Romney was a wimp when it came to the challenge of taking out Osama and Obama's boasting he was the real hero.
Then we had the China episode involving a blind Chinese lawyer whose protests against his nation's policies got him and his family beaten and how naive our Embassy's belief he and his family would not be at risk if he was allowed to leave the refuge our Embassy provided.
Fortunately, the world's media and press revelations and exposure forced China's hand and, perhaps, China will allow them to leave. No doubt Obama and Clinton may take full credit for this should it come to pass.
Third, we have the employment reports which continue to point out the pitiful recovery we are experiencing, the increasing number of unemployed no longer seeking work etc.
Fourth, we have Obama's political posturing trip to Afghanistan and the agreement he and Karzai signed which, I believe, will eventually prove Obama's entire Afghan episode to be a total waste of money and lives. (See 2 below.)
We have increasing evidence Israel is getting edgy about Iran's persistent move toward nuclear status and the growing likelihood Israel will act alone.
Then we have the continuing slaughter in Syria.
But don't fret, Obama has established a new commission to look into these matters. (See 2a below.)
Meanwhile, some Jews are beginning to see through Obama but not enough. (See 2b below.)
---
Sound advice from Sven and Ole? (See 3 below.)
---
Shameless spending and pay increases. (See 4 below.)
---
Better do what I say or else! (See 5 below.)
---
Last night I watched an interview of a self-appointed spokesperson for The Occupy Crowd. What a pathetic anarchist who believes everything under the sun should be free and made available to him and his ilk by government.
He claims to be enrolled in a Masters Degree program and is attending college on borrowed education money.
Obama needs the youth vote to win so it would not surprise me if he proposes some form of student loan forgiveness and the massive debt incurred be assumed by government on the premise we need an educated work force. (See 6 below.)
I have a dear friend and fellow memo reader, who owned and ran for profit schools, arguing American Colleges and Universities have priced themselves out of reach and are, therefore vulnerable to alternative competition..
He believes the problems their out sized tuition costs and government loans have created may well create the next financial bubble.
---
Today's market action demonstrated much of what I have been thinking and writing.
Would a true investor and/or consumer want to be overly optimistic in view of:
a) A president whose spending is out of control and its impact continues to weigh on any recovery? (See 7 below.)
b) Europe with eleven nations in recession?
c) An America with a weakened foreign policy and a dollar that eventually will erode and cause high inflation?
d) An anarchist youth movement which Pelosi and Obama sanction as evidence of credible political involvement?
e) A president whose political pandering has created more racial discord than we have experienced in decades?
f) A president, whose lying, boasting and endless list of created enemies characterizes his style of divisive leadership?
Obama's split personality leads him to believe you win by splitting society. (See 8 below.)
g) An unemployment level at depression level and which government statistics fails to capture.
h) Iran moving towards nuclear status, Syrian slaughtering out of control and effectively unchallenged along with Egypt in political and economic turmoil and an Israel feeling threatened and inevitably will be forced to respond.
And the list runs beyond letters in our alphabet.
---
Pat Condell at it again:
John McCain
Republican John McCain refused to raise the issue of voter fraud after learning Democrats stuffed ballot boxes in Ohio and Pennsylvania on the night of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, according internal Stratfor e-mails published by WikiLeaks.
In an email sent on November 7, 2008, and titled “ Insight – The Dems & Dirty Tricks ** Internal Use Only – Pls Do Not Forward **,” Stratfor vice president of intelligence Fred Burton wrote:
1) The black Dems were caught stuffing the ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio as reported the night of the election and Sen. McCain chose not to fight. The matter is not dead inside the party. It now becomes a matter of sequence now as to how and when to “out”.
In an email sent two days earlier and titled “Insight – McCain #5 ** internal use only – Pls do not forward **,” Burton wrote:
After discussions with his inner circle, which explains the delay in his speech, McCain decided not to pursue the voter fraud in PA and Ohio, despite his staff’s desire to make it an issue. He said no. Staff felt they could get a federal injunction to stop the process. McCain felt the crowds assembled in support of Obama and such would be detrimental to our country and it would do our nation no good for this to drag out like last go around, coupled with the possibility of domestic violence.
Jesse Jackson
The November 7 e-mail also alleges Democrats paid a six-figure sum to the Rev. Jesse Jackson to shut him up, after he said “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” would lose political power should Obama become president.
2) It appears the Dems “made a donation” to Rev. Jesse (no, they would never do that!) to keep his yap shut after his diatribe about the Jews and Israel. A little bird told me it was a “nice six-figure donation”. This also becomes a matter of how and when to out.
The November 7 e-mail also charges the Obama campaign with taking money from Russian sources, conjuring up a 1996 scandal where China made sizable donations to the Democrat National Committee during Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign:
3) The hunt is on for the sleezy Russian money into O-mans coffers. A smoking gun has already been found. Will get more on this when the time is right. My source was too giddy to continue. Can you say Clinton and ChiCom funny money? This also becomes a matter of how and when to out.
Although the Strafor e-mails do not explain why McCain did not raise the issue of voter fraud, one reason may have been threats of riots and civil disobedience made by Jackson and other Democrats if Obama lost.
Fred Burton
Burton is a former Deputy Chief of the Department of State’s counterterrorism division for the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). The DSS assists the Department of Defense in following leads and doing forensic analysis of hard drives seized by the U.S. government in ongoing criminal investigations.
Stratfor provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations and government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency.
WikiLeaks has published 973 out of what it says is a cache of 5 million internal Stratfor emails (dated between July 2004 and December 2011) obtained by the hacker collective Anonymous around Christmas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)US-Afghan Security Deal has Loopholes
By Anne Gearan
Obama called the agreement historic, and said it "defines a new kind of relationship between our countries - a future in which Afghans are responsible for the security of their nation, and we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states."
2a)Bowles: US Faces ‘Most Predictable Economic Crisis’ Ever
2)US-Afghan Security Deal has Loopholes
By Anne Gearan
WASHINGTON -- The 10-year security compact that President Barack Obama signed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai contains promises the United States and Afghanistan cannot guarantee they will keep, and loopholes for both nations.
The deal signed Tuesday also allows either nation to walk away on a year's notice. That could allow the next U.S. president, or the next Afghan leader, to scuttle a deal negotiated by his or her predecessor.
For Obama, the agreement represents a compromise with Karzai after messy negotiations over U.S. military detention of Afghan suspects and raids on Afghan homes that offend Afghans.
U.S. concessions were relatively small, however, and the deal Obama signed in Kabul is probably the best one he could get on a tight deadline. He wants to showcase a long-term commitment to Afghan stability when he hosts NATO leaders for a summit in Chicago later this month. U.S. officials said the deal is legally binding, but it does not carry the force of a treaty as Afghanistan originally wanted.
Obama called the agreement historic, and said it "defines a new kind of relationship between our countries - a future in which Afghans are responsible for the security of their nation, and we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states."
The deal pledges Afghanistan to fight corruption, improve efficiency and protect human rights, including women's rights. All are areas where the United States already finds fault with Afghan performance, and Afghanistan has promised improvement on corruption many times before. The nine-page agreement spells out no consequences if those or other goals are not met.
The agreement uses even looser language to address the production and trafficking of illegal drugs in Afghanistan, a major opium producer. Both nations affirm that illicit drugs undermine security and legitimate economic growth but promise only to cooperate to confront the threat.
The United States promises to seek annual funding to train and equip the Afghan armed forces but gives no dollar figure. That money must be approved by Congress, which has so far supported the Obama administration's plan to build up the Afghan forces. There is growing concern in Congress, however, about the quality of those forces, and the billions of dollars they would need over 10 years is not assured.
The agreement promises ongoing U.S. investment in a variety of development, health, education and support projects aimed at helping the poor nation one day support itself, and it commits the United States to seek annual funding from Congress "commensurate with the strategic importance of the U.S.-Afghan partnership."
U.S. officials said they cannot make a more specific pledge because Congress controls the purse strings.
The agreement, which takes effect when U.S. and other foreign combat forces leave in 2014, also is not the last word on whether the United States leaves a much smaller contingent of troops in Afghanistan after that date.
Both of the current leaders want such a residual force. But if Iraq is a guide, the rationale for a continued U.S. military presence on the soil of a Muslim nation could change, or new leadership in Washington or Kabul could decide on a different path.
Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby said the "strategic partnership agreement" is not intended to address the specific terms of an ongoing military relationship. The agreement pledges the two nations to begin work on a more detailed pact, and sets a goal of one year to complete it.
"Clearly if you're going to have troops remaining in Afghanistan, you're going to have to have some guidelines that govern that," Kirby said. "What form it takes and what title it has ... we're just not there yet."
The U.S. promises to name Afghanistan a "major non-NATO ally," a loose term meant to underscore U.S. commitment to Afghan stability but not one that would automatically bind the U.S. to come to Afghanistan's defense if it were attacked. The deal does say that the United States would "regard with grave concern any external aggression against Afghanistan," and promises urgent consultation on a diplomatic, military or other response.
The agreement also sets in writing previous assurances from U.S. leaders that the United States will not build permanent military bases in Afghanistan or use its soil to launch hostile attacks on its neighbors. That does not preclude U.S. military and intelligence units from sharing space at Afghan bases, but if honored would prevent the United States from launching any future strike on Iran from inside Afghanistan.
Karzai had sought the deal as a measure of U.S. dedication to protect and underwrite his poor but strategically located country. He is worried about a political and military resurgence of the Taliban insurgency once tens of thousands of foreign forces leave, and U.S. officials share that concern.
Karzai, however, is scheduled to leave office in 2014, probably just before the new agreement would take effect.
His successor is unclear, as is the future of a political outreach to the Taliban that might draw the movement or its surrogates into some kind of power-sharing arrangement. All are factors that could affect whether Afghanistan continues to want such a deal with the United States.
Either nation can quit the agreement with one year's written notice. If both parties want to cancel it they can do so by mutual agreement at any time.
The deal was announced the same day the Pentagon said in a new report that the counter-insurgency campaign is making good progress on the military side, but little progress on issues that depend on cooperation from the Afghan and Pakistani governments.
"The Afghan government continues to face widespread corruption that limits its effectiveness and legitimacy and bolsters insurgent messaging," the semi-annual report to Congress said.
It identified safe havens in Pakistan where insurgents hide and re-arm for attacks on U.S. and Afghan forces as "the most critical threat" to the war effort.
Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor and Pauline Jelinek contributed to this artilce.
2a)Bowles: US Faces ‘Most Predictable Economic Crisis’ Ever
By Forrest Jones
The United States is facing a massive economic crisis that is both predictable and avoidable, says Erskine Bowles, co-chairman of President Barack Obama’s deficit-reduction commission.
According to Bowles, 100 percent of the tax revenue coming into the Treasury in 2011 went right out the door to pay for mandatory spending — such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — and to pay the interest on the country's massive $15.6 trillion national debt, Bowles says, according to Bloomberg View.
Money spent on everything else, including the military, homeland security, education, infrastructure, research and elsewhere was borrowed, largely financed by foreign countries.
Once rates rise, the U.S. could feel the pain.
"We’ll be spending over $1 trillion on interest alone before you know it,” Bowles tells the Council on Foreign Relations, Bloomberg View adds.
"I think today we face the most predictable economic crisis in history," said Bowles, a former White House Chief of Staff under President Bill Clinton.
"Fortunately, I think it’s also the most avoidable. I think it’s clear, if you do simple arithmetic, that the fiscal path that the nation is on is simply not sustainable."
To make matters worse, the U.S. is driving full speed ahead towards the edge of a so-called fiscal cliff, a term markets use to describe a year-end event when the Bush tax cuts expire while automatic spending cuts kick in, a combination that will suck hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy.
Add in other expiring tax cuts and let the problem drag on, the economy will suffer.
"It’s probably $7 trillion worth of economic events that are going to occur in December. And there’s been little to no planning for that," Bowles says.
Bowles, a Democrat from North Carolina, and former Wyoming Republican Senator Alan Simpson delivered a 2010 proposal to narrow deficits that called for a blend of tax hikes and spending cuts that would gradually ease the country's debt burdens by $4 trillion over a decade.
President Barack Obama rejected the plan, which former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says was a costly mistake.
"The worst mistake the president made was not embracing that vehicle right away," Greenspan said at the Bloomberg Washington Summit, The Wall Street Journal reports.
Greenspan added he liked the Simpson-Bowles plan because it allowed for political compromise and laid the framework for progress even if it wouldn't fully resolve the country's deep-rooted fiscal woes.
"It's the ideal vehicle, which won't get us fully out of this," Greenspan says.
© 2012 Moneynews. All rights reserved.
The latest survey of Jewish Americans, conducted March 14-27 by a firm called Knowledge Networks for the American Jewish Committee, shows Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney by a 61%-28% margin. That’s significantly behind Obama’s 78%-21% margin over John McCain among Jewish voters in the 2008 exit poll. But it’s an improvement for Obama over a poll conducted in September 2011 for the AJC in which he led Romney 50%-32%, which I mentioned in an April 3 Beltway Confidential blogpost.
Obama gets 72% of the votes of those most concerned with the health care issue, according to the current AJC survey, and 62% among those most concerned about the economy. But Romney leads Obama among those Jews whose major concern was national security issues (44%-42%) and U.S.-Israel relations (44%-42%). Clearly Obama is losing some Jewish voters on foreign policy issues.
According to the 2008 exit poll, Jews made up 2% of the national electorate, with higher numbers in New Jersey (7%), Massachusetts (5%), Connecticut (5%), Pennsylvania (4%), Florida (4%), California (4%), Maryland (3%), Illinois (3%) and New York (3%). That New York percentage seems clearly low; in the 2004 exit poll it was 8%, the highest of any state. No Jewish percentage was shown for the District of Columbia, but the exit pollster (who apparently has a sense of humor) did reveal that 2% of D.C. voters were white evangelical Protestants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
Advice from Sven & Ole:
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Remember: NO Cost of Living Adjustment for seniors for THREE years!
  |
5) Dictator Obama Issues New Threat to Supreme Court over ObamaCare
 | - Sher Zieve |
Fox News’ Martha McCallum advised Thursday that the Obama Administration has been quietly sending missives to the Supreme Court threatening that if it doesn’t rule in his favor on ObamaCare, Medicare will face disruption and “chaos.” Therefore, if SCOTUS rules in favor of the US Constitution, Obama & Co will begin its campaign to either destroy Medicare or make those on it suffer greatly. The Obama syndicate is said to be threatening to hold off Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals if SCOTUS does not comply with Obama’s demands and submit to him.
As an additional example of Obama’s illegal and (I believe) highly treasonous behaviors, on 1 May and 2 May Obama issued two additional unconstitutional and illegal Executive Orders. The first E.O., issued 1 May 2012, makes the USA subject to “international regulations” as opposed to looking to and following the US Constitution. Also, with this new E.O., the US FDA will now be able to be bypassed by International committees—thus, replacing the FDA with any international group which may be chosen. In essence, Obama is quickly eliminating US Sovereignty and selling the USA to the international “community.”
The second E.O. issued in 2 days was signed by Obama on 2 May 2012. This E.O. instructs the USA to bow to international regulations instead of the US Constitution and Businessweek reports: “Obama’s order provides a framework to organize scattered efforts to promote international regulatory cooperation, the chamber’s top global regulatory official said today.
“Today’s executive order marks a paradigm shift for U.S. regulators by directing them to take the international implications of their work into account in a consistent and comprehensive way,” Sean Heather, vice president of the chamber’s Center for Global Regulatory Cooperation, said in an e-mailed statement.” This also brings the USA closer to becoming a “North American Union” and—also—eliminating its sovereignty—in toto.
Suffice it to say, no one in Congress has issued even the proverbial “peep” over either of these illegal “orders.” Do the American people really want to continue to live under this blatant tyranny?
The second question is “Will the Supreme Court of the United States of America bow to Obama and give up its co-equal status to the dictator as the US Congress has already done?” If so, perhaps its time for We-the-People to recruit the Honduran Supreme Court who, along with their military, ousted its then President Manuel Zelaya who had become a dictator. Oppression under the Obama syndicate becomes worse each and every day, folks. Will we ever choose to go back to the sunshine?
“And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?”—Revelation 13:4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6)America's Two-Faced Liberals
President Barack Obama and Wall Street occupiers, along with their allies in the mainstream media and on college campuses, have maintained an ongoing attack on high-income earners, people they call 1 percenters. Listening to their deceitful demagoguery, you would naturally think of them as 99 percenters, but you'd be dead-wrong.
Last week, MSN Money posted a report titled "The richest counties in America." According to the report, residents of those 15 wealthiest counties "have median household incomes that are double the national average." Three of those counties have a median income of more than $100,000. The report goes on to say, "While many Americans struggle to find jobs, balance their budgets and get by with less, some folks are living high on the hog." Let's look at some of those counties.
Loudoun County, Va., has a median household income of $119,540, making it the nation's richest county. Virginia's Fairfax County is next, with a median household income of $103,010; the median price of a house is $507,800. Third is Howard County, Md., where the median household income is $101,771. These three richest counties have seven nearby high-income neighbors, which include Arlington and Montgomery counties. The nation's richest counties are close to Washington, D.C., where people come to do good and wind up doing well for themselves.
These 1 percenters are not wealthy right-wing Republicans; they are Obama's liberals. How can one tell? It turns out that seven of the 10 wealthiest counties in the Washington area voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008. These liberals portray themselves as 99 percenters when they are really 1 percenters. They're simply running a deceitful rope-a-dope, aided by the mainstream media, on the American people.
During last year's Occupy movement, truly seedy-looking characters camped out on the streets and in the parks of several of our cities, causing millions of dollars of property damage. They committed robberies, thefts and sex crimes. Some of their lowlife acts, such as defecating and urinating in public and on police vehicles, were filmed. These people also portrayed themselves as 99 percenters. It turns out that they weren't that at all.
Will Rahn, deputy editor for The Daily Caller, wrote an article titled "NYC arrest records: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters live in luxury" (Nov. 2, 2011). Nearly 1,000 protesters were arrested in New York between Sept. 18 and Oct. 15. Police collected information on each arrestee's name, age, sex, criminal charge, home address and -- in most cases -- race. The median value of the homes of the arrestees was $305,000 -- a far higher number than the $185,400 median value of owner-occupied homes of the rest of us. Ninety-five of the arrestees lived in homes valued at more than $500,000. Those who rented paid a median rent of $1,850 per month. Of the 984 protesters arrested, at least 797 are white. One Occupy Wall Street protester arrested -- presumably, if you listen to the mainstream media, penniless and from a blue-collar family -- lived in an $850,000 home in the nation's capital.
Recall that while on the campaign trail, Obama promised, "We will stand up in this election to bring about the change that won't just win an election but will transform America." Along with progressives, who formerly called themselves liberals, Obama wants to transform America into a European-like socialist nation. The Occupy protesters and their useful idiots in the media and on college campuses proudly display signs and banners revealing their preferences and affiliations, such as "Communist Party USA," "Democratic Socialists of America" and "Fight for Socialism." The American Nazi Party has issued an official endorsement of Occupy. The movement is also supported by White House leftist allies such as the Working Families Party, the Service Employees International Union -- as well as most other labor unions -- ACORN, the New Party and the Democratic National Committee.
During the forthcoming elections, we can be assured that these people will do all they can, including violent protests, to help Obama have an additional four years to continue his transformation of our nation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7)WSJ: US Home Market in ‘Prolonged Bottom’
By Dan Weil
The U.S. housing market appears to have hit bottom, but hasn’t staged much of a rebound yet, making this period “a prolonged bottom,” according to The Wall Street Journal.
“A full-fledged recovery is still years off for many housing markets — as well as for millions of people who purchased homes or took cash out during the bubble,” the Journal reports.
On the plus side, new home construction should increase 24 percent this year from 2011’s record low, according to Zelman & Associates.
Sales of new and previously-owned homes also are showing impressive gains. Home prices continue to slide, but at a slower rate than before.
The S&P/Case-Shiller home price index dropped 3.5 percent in February from a year earlier, the smallest drop since February 2011.
Probably the biggest problem for the market is foreclosures that loom ahead. Banks owned about 450,000 properties as of March 31, but there were another 2 million loans in some stage of foreclosure.
"That'll be like a ball and chain," Mark Fleming, chief economist at CoreLogic, tells the Journal. "It won't prevent a recovery, but it could drag it out over several years."
Others see a long, hard slog for housing too.
“Mortgage rates are very, very low, but you really need to see strong job growth,” Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James, tells Bloomberg. “It’s still a very long way to go before we get a full recovery.”
© 2012 Moneynews. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8)Divider in chief
By Charles Krauthammer
Poor Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.Once again he’s been pilloried for fumbling a historic Supreme Court case. First shredded for his “train wreck” defense of Obamacare’s individual mandate, he is now blamed for the defenestration in oral argument ofObama’s challenge to the Arizona immigration law.
8)Divider in chief
By Charles Krauthammer
Poor Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.Once again he’s been pilloried for fumbling a historic Supreme Court case. First shredded for his “train wreck” defense of Obamacare’s individual mandate, he is now blamed for the defenestration in oral argument ofObama’s challenge to the Arizona immigration law.
The law allows police to check the immigration status of someone stopped for other reasons. Verrilli claimed that constitutes an intrusion on the federal monopoly on immigration enforcement. He was pummeled. Why shouldn’t a state help the federal government enforce the law? “You can see it’s not selling very well,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
But Verrilli never had a chance. This was never a serious legal challenge in the first place. It was confected (and timed) purely for political effect, to highlight immigration as a campaign issue with which to portray Republicans as anti-Hispanic.
Hispanics, however, are just the beginning. The entire Obama campaign is a slice-and-dice operation, pandering to one group after another, particularly those that elected Obama in 2008 — blacks, Hispanics, women, young people — and for whom the thrill is now gone.
What to do? Try fear. Create division, stir resentment, by whatever means necessary — bogus court challenges, dead-end Senate bills and a forest of straw men.
Why else would the Justice Department challenge the photo ID law in Texas? To charge Republicans with seeking to disenfranchise Hispanics and blacks, of course. But in 2008 the Supreme Court upheld a similar law from Indiana. And it wasn’t close: 6 to 3, the majority including the venerated liberal John Paul Stevens.
Moreover, photo IDs were recommended by the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by Jimmy Carter. And you surely can’t get into the attorney general’s building without one. Are Stevens, Carter and Eric Holder anti-Hispanic and anti-black?
The ethnic bases covered, we proceed to the “war on women.” It sprang to public notice when a 30-year-old student at an elite law school (starting private-sector salary upon graduation: $160,000) was denied the inalienable right to have the rest of the citizenry (as co-insured and/or taxpayers — median household income: $52,000) pay for her contraception.
Despite a temporary setback — Hilary Rosen’s hastily surrendered war on moms — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will resume the battle with a Paycheck Fairness Act that practically encourages frivolous lawsuits and has zero chance of passage.
No matter. Its sole purpose is to keep the war-on-women theme going, while the equally just-for-show “Buffett rule,” nicely pitting the 99 percent vs. the 1 percent, is a clever bit of class warfare designed to let Democrats play tribune of the middle class.
Ethnicity, race, gender, class. One more box to check: the young. Just four years ago, they swooned in the aisles for Obama. No longer. Not when 54 percent of college graduatesunder 25 are unemployed or underemployed.
How to shake them from their lethargy? Fear again. Tell them, as Obama repeatedly does, that Paul Ryan’s budget would cut Pell Grants by $1,000 each, if his domestic cuts were evenly distributed. (They are not evenly distributed, making the charge a fabrication. But a great applause line.)
Then warn that Republicans would double the interest rate on student loans. Well, first, Mitt Romney has said he would keep them right where they are. Second, as The Post points out, this is nothing but a recycled campaign gimmick from 2006, when Democrats advocated (and later passed) a 50 percent rate cut that gratuitously squanders student aid by subsidizing the wealthy as well as the needy.
For Obama, what’s not to like? More beneficiaries, more votes.
What else to run on with 1.7 percent GDP growth (2011), record long-term joblessness and record 8 percent-plus unemployment (38 consecutive months, as of this writing). Slice and dice, group against group.
There is a problem, however. It makes a mockery of Obama’s pose as the great transcender, uniter, healer of divisions. This is the man who sprang from nowhere with that thrilling 2004 convention speech declaring that there is “not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.”
That was then. Today, we are just sects with quarrels — to be exploited for political advantage. And Obama is just the man to fulfill Al Gore’s famous mistranslation of our national motto: Out of one, many.
No comments:
Post a Comment