Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Mother Takes pride and One of Brett's Best! 2016!



 From a proud mother/author about her son's project! (See 1 below)
Absolutely one of Bret's best. He nailed him! (See 2 below.)
Believe it or not believe it but do watch the film and make up your own mind:


By now you have learned, that when I say I am off and this is the last memo, I too cannot be trusted.

 1) Announcing: Unbucket! June 12, 2012 at 7:52 am · Filed under Good News to Know News and tagged: Eli Sussman, Elliot Darvick, Max Sussman, Roberta's pizza, unbucket.com

 Yep, that’s our boy in front of that screen! He was addressing a crowd of 300 members of the Los Angeles technology community at an event where Unbucket and two other start ups were invited to present. What’s Unbucket?

 Read on. After a long year of planning, coding, designing, testing, strategizing, and now launching, Elliot and his co-founder Brian Berman (also from Detroit) are in the beta testing phase of Unbucket.com.

 Those of you who know Elliot, know what a people person he is. For him, staying close to those he loves is among his highest priorities. Unbucket.com represents the pinnacle of what Elliot wants for people – to pledge to connect in real time and do fun things together.

 With Unbucket, Elliot and Brian have turned that whole limned-by-death bucket list on its wooden head, creating a 21st century way for folks to finally get around to all the things they say they’re going to do, with life as the catalyst.

Their tag line: “List. Life. Together.” Here’s how it works. Up to five people create an Unbucket list; call it The Family Takes on Brooklyn. Anyone on the list can start adding things they want to do together. “Take a walk on The Promenade in Brooklyn Heights” Or “Check out the pizza at Roberta’s.”*

 Your Unbucket list keeps options in one place, so you’re not scrolling through dozens of emails while you’re planning your adventure. Upload photos, videos, music, and/or links to the places you visited,and you have a living album of where you were and what you did.

 So check it out. Go to unbucket.com and use the invite code “dogwoods” to gain access.

That’s our boy and that’s the essence of Unbucket. *Why Roberta’s? Another Detroiter, Max Sussman, works as a chef there. He and younger bro’ Eli are about to launch their second cookbook, this one with Williams-Sonoma. So all you Brooklynites, when you sign up with Unbucket, put Roberta’s on your list, too!
 2)A Presidency of Excuses
Why's growth at 1.9% and unemployment still firmly above 8%? Apparently the buck stops in Berlin. By Bret Stephens

In 1997 Asia's economy imploded. Currencies collapsed, countries had their ratings downgraded to junk, millions of people lost their jobs, governments were replaced, regimes fell.

In October a jittery Dow, fearing the effects of "Asian contagion," lost 7.2% of its value in a single day. Trading had to be halted twice. And yet the American economy was unscathed.

In 1997 GDP grew by 4.5%. In 1998 it grew again by 4.5%, this time despite the Russian ruble crisis.

In 1999, annual growth reached 4.9%, a pace it hasn't exceeded since. Unemployment fell to 4.2%. The government ran a surplus. Bear this not-so-ancient history in mind as the Excuse-Maker-in-Chief cites another imploding region to explain 1.9% growth and 8.2% unemployment.

"Right now, one concern is Europe, which faces a threat of renewed recession," Mr. Obama said Friday, rehashing one of his preferred economic alibis. "Obviously this matters to us because Europe is our largest trading partner." 

So now you know: In the Age of Obama, the buck stops in Berlin.

 Still, it's worth taking a closer look at the Blame Europe school of economic analysis. Start with some basic facts: Europe is not our largest trading partner. Canada is. Followed by China. Followed by Mexico. Followed by Japan. "Europe" only counts as America's largest trading partner in an aggregate sense. An honest apples-to-apples comparison would find that U.S. trade with North America or East Asia dwarfs trade across the Atlantic.

 Now take the question of how much trade matters to America. In 2009, foreign trade accounted for 24.3% of the U.S. economy. By contrast, the foreign-trade-to-GDP ratio was 51.9% for China, 71.1% for Canada and 89.2% for Germany.

When it comes to foreign trade, the U.S. is the world's least dependent major economy. That's not to say that trade isn't vital to U.S. prosperity. But that only makes it more noteworthy that the only free-trade agreements Mr. Obama has signed were those initiated by his predecessor (over stiff Democratic objections).

A free-trade agreement between the U.S. and the EU could, according to a 2010 analysis by economists Fredrik Erixon and Mattias Bauer, add as much as $181 billion, or 1.3%, to U.S. GDP. Yet the administration has barely paid lip service to the idea. The real kicker, however, is that even as Mr. Obama points the finger at Europe for America's economic woes, trans-Atlantic commerce is flourishing as never before.

According to the Census Bureau, U.S. exports of goods to Europe have risen every year of Mr. Obama's administration. They are now on course to exceed the 2011 record of $328 billion. The overall volume of U.S.-EU trade jumped 14% from 2010 to 2011.

 That's something for which Mr. Obama might take credit—like the credit he takes for other achievements of his era to which he was dragged kicking and screaming: the fracking revolution, for instance, or Iran sanctions.

But why tout a small victory when it exposes the larger falsehood on which so much of the president's re-election strategy depends? Then there is another great Obama excuse: Republicans in Congress.

Again, a little history is in order.

 The Bush tax cuts of 2001 passed the Senate 58-33 in an evenly split chamber.

Bill Clinton managed to do business with a GOP that controlled both houses of Congress for six of his eight years in office.

Ronald Reagan passed all of his economic agenda through a House that was under constant Democratic control. Somehow it is only Barack Obama—whose party, in an inconvenient truth for his campaign, still runs the Senate—who seems incapable of working with any Congress not under full partisan control. (And even then he had trouble.) Americans expect their presidents to be able to assemble coalitions of the politically willing in order to achieve pragmatic and relatively popular results.

The Obama administration method, by contrast, has been to shove what it can down the public throat, then act surprised when the public gags, or throws up. Which brings us to the impending Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare.

 This year alone the government has managed to lose three high-profile Supreme Court cases 9-0, meaning even Mr. Obama's own appointees voted against him.

Yet an unchastened administration soldiers along, on the theory that losing cases like Citizens United energizes the base and provides a ready-made excuse for its political routs, most recently in Wisconsin.

 Now it hopes an adverse ruling on ObamaCare will relieve it of the burden of defending the law while also creating another Emmanuel Goldstein in the person of the chief justice.

 How classy. As president, Mr. Obama has attempted to make scapegoats of bankers, bondholders, private-equity firms, insurance companies, energy companies, ATMs, the Chamber of Commerce, the Catholic Church, opponents of illegal immigration, European politicians, Supreme Court justices and even Japanese tsunamis. Next, perhaps, it will be solar flares. At least tsunamis, solar flares, ATMs and Europeans don't vote. The rest of the list might eventually amount to 270 electoral vote.

Monday, June 11, 2012

Could Not Resist One Last Before Leave For Europe!

I sent "The Amateur" to my son and this was his reaction: "Read 'The Amateur' over the weekend...Devastating and frightening. How this country let this guy past out gates is astounding. I'd be smug too if I had pulled the greatest con on the US the world had ever seen." (See 1 below.) More comments from my son speaking about writer for Forbes: "He parroted you this morning on Romney's strategy to win. 1. Truman/ Regan plain speak. 2. Be blunt and upfront about our problems and the pain we no necessarily must self inflict to get out of this mess 3. Dial back government 4. Keep a positive optimistic message as the other side attacks and eventually melts 5. Use Obama's own words and feeds to attack him, don't do anything subjective." --- So you want to be a Socialist, a supposed do gooder? (See 2 below.) --- I took it and got 25 but I should have done better: "Supposedly 96% of all High School Seniors FAILED this test. AND if that's not bad enough, 50+% of all individuals over 50 did too! Take the test and be surprised at what Americans don't know about their nation. http://games.toast.net/independence/" --- Cyber attacks have become a weapon of choice by the Obama Administration. (See 3 below.) --- When you think about all the attention paid to green jobs it makes you green with envy. "This is a must watch video. Only takes two minutes but but exposes the "green" job scam perfectly. http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2012/06/11/issa_exposes_green_jobs_scam" --- Dick ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1)Gallup Poll: Jewish Support for Obama Plummets In the first significant drop in Jewish support for a Democratic Party candidate in over two decades, President Barack Obama has seen a 10-point plunge in support among Jewish voters, according to the Gallup polling agency. To put the decline in perspective, Obama is pulling in the same support among Jews as Michael Dukakis, the former Massachusetts governor who lost to George H. W. Bush in 1988. Gallup notes the 10-point drop is "five points worse than his decline among all registered voters compared with 2008.” Specifically, Obama currently has the support of 64 percent of Jewish registered voters, according to Gallup. This is 10 percent less than the percentage of Jews who voted for Obama in 2008. Republican Mitt Romney enjoys 29 percent support among Jews. The move is significant because American Jews have been bedrock supporters of the Democratic Party for decades. Often regarded as instinctively liberal but hawks on support for Israel, Jews are a key voting bloc in Florida, one of a handful of high electoral vote “swing” states Obama must win to defeat Romney. Their votes also could make a difference in a close race in Ohio or Pennsylvania. The Republican Jewish Coalition notes the 29 percent of Jewish voters who support Romney, represents the “highest level of Jewish support for a Republican presidential candidate in 24 years.” RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said that if the numbers hold in November, they would spell "a disaster" for Obama and his party. Gallup noted that while Jews are only 2 percent of the general population, Jews tend to vote in higher numbers than other groups – 83 percent of Jewish registered voters said they definitely would vote in comparison to 78 percent of the general public. Though the organization pointed out that Jewish voters “typically are not critical groups in deciding presidential election outcomes,” given the tight race between Romney and Obama to date, “every additional bit of support they can muster among [Jewish voters] could be valuable to their winning the election.” The Gallup survey of 576 registered Jewish voters between April 11 and June 5 with a +/- 5% margin of error. A recent poll by the liberal Jewish Workman's Circle has shown even worse numbers for Obama, yet how the numbers are to interpreted depends on the interpreters. Some Democrats see the latest Gallup poll as a sign Obama's support among Jews is now rising, reports Arutz Sheva, an Israeli national news website. And the Gallup numbers were actually up from a 61-28 margin found by an American Jewish Committee survey from March of this year. But conservatives, sensing a very crucial trend, strongly disagree that Jewish support for Obama has leveled off. Since 1988, all Democratic nominees have received more than 64 percent of the Jewish vote: "…Kerry, Gore, and Clinton all cracked 75 percent, and Jimmy Carter raked in 71 percent when he was elected in 1976." the conservative Hot Air blog recently wrote. "The only nominees who failed to reach 70 percent in the past 35 years were, er, Dukakis, Mondale, and Carter in 1980, the last of whom nearly lost the Jewish vote to Reagan." There is a hint of good news for Obama, though. Gallup polls also indicate that Obama held only 62 percent of the Jewish vote in June of 2008, before the final number rose to 74 percent in November. A similar dynamic could kick in this year, too. In June, a poll conducted by Public Religion Research Institute a plurality – 35 percent – of Jewish voters rated themselves as “disappointed” with the Obama presidency, while 33 percent rated themselves as “satisfied.” And 46 percent of Obama’s Jewish supporters reported that, while they support him, they’re “not excited” about casting a ballot for him. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2)Socialism (Why do They Call it "Socialism"?) By Jason Hommel I have a 3 year old boy. I love him tremendously. He is very verbal, quite a thinker, very funny, sweet and thoughtful and considerate of others. He'll be 4 in less than two months, and his mom and I know that we have to increase his social skills, so this past week, I enrolled him into preschool. The goal is to aid his socialization, to help him to learn to get along with other children his age. He will learn to not hit, not push, not bite others. And he'll learn to play well and talk with other kids. He'll learn how to be social with kids his own age. We are not sending him to preschool to learn how to steal. There's no specific instruction there on how to extort others. He's not going there to learn how to bully others. He's not going to learn how to oppress others. Those are all anti-social behaviors. Why then do we call a certain kind of political belief, "socialism"? When it's nothing of the sort? Is theft social? No? Right. It's not. I think we can all agree on the definition here that theft is anti social behavior. Socialism is institutionalized theft. Why then don't they call it "anti-socialism"? That would be the more literal and more accurate description. Ah. I have an answer to my own question. I think that the ones who name it, control the press, and gave it the improper name on purpose, to make it sound good. Nobody would be for "anti-socialism", because that sounds bad. And IS BAD! (And to communicate effectively, I must play along, and use the same term, they way they do, in the normal sense, most of the time.) Now, before you criticize my political beliefs, be careful to understand what I do believe. The opposite of socialism is not "George Bush neo con Republicanism". I've been writing for over ten years. Not once will you ever find where I wrote a single nice thing about Bush. The opposite of statist totalitarian socialism would be libertarianism, free market laissez faire (hands off) capitalism and freedom. This brings up another topic. The mainstream press tends to label those who advocate free trade as "individualists" or "isolationists". I believe Ayn Rand's objectivism was called individualism. They have called Ron Paul an isolationist. It's a nonsense label. How can an individual trade with others in isolation? Those labels make no sense for people who believe in the value of trading with other people or nations. In actual fact, the political advocacy of principles such as "leave us alone" and "don't steal from me" and "let me trade with others in peace" should be called socialism. After all, it's good and social to believe that oppression and theft are wrong. It's a very social skill to learn how to get along well with others, such as by trading with them. There is only one political philosophy that actually cares about the good for all people, that could actually and legitimately be called "socialism". It's Ron Paul Republicanism, libertarianism, it's free market laissez faire capitalism, and it's true freedom. People will either thrive under freedom (that's social), or wither under slavery and government oppression (that's anti-social). The correct political opposites are really that simple. Now, I'm not saying this in order to change the dictionary definition of the words we use in discussions. That would lead to confusion. No, I write because I know that once truth gets into a person's brain, it is never lost again, and you can't shake it out, and it becomes useful forever. I don't know yet exactly how this truth will be useful, but there it is for your wonder and enjoyment. I also bring this up, because I'm surprised I never remember reading it anywhere else. Why is that? I find that fascinating. I'm amazed by the entire process of insights. I'm sitting here myself a bit flabbergasted, wondering why I never thought of this before now. It seems so obvious. Socialism is completely anti-social. It makes perfect sense. Freedom is the only system that benefits people and is actually social. Of course! I also think that it's worthy to point out a clear example that so clearly illustrates that we live in a society that is hell bent on brainwashing us through the misuse of words, on purpose, to confuse us. As a final example, the "dollar" used to be a measure of silver. Then, a "dollar" became a promise to deliver that measure of silver on demand. Then, a "dollar" meant nothing at all. Today, silver is measured in troy ounces. And a real silver dollar now costs about $24, showing again, how deceivers and bankers do their work by mis-defining and re-defining terms as they go along, as they have always done. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)What Obama isn’t telling us One of the biggest books to come out yet about the Obama administration has been "Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power." Beyond the myriad scoops, the book has prompted a debate in Washington about leaks, specifically, the one about President Obama approving and accelerating the use of cyber war against Iran to stop its nuclear program. "It is so Washington that the argument is not about the American use of a new weapon, whose utility is as broad as the drone or the intercontinental missile," said David Sanger, author and the New York Times' chief White House correspondent. "Washington spent most of the last week debating the question of who leaked the fact America uses this weapon." Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told ABC's This Week that cyber attacks, cyber spying, are "acts of war," begging the question -- has the United States declared war on Iran with this cyber code - this cyber attack on their nuclear program? "I don't know," said Sanger. "That was one of the reasons it was very important to get out and begin to discuss the fact that the United States uses cyber weapons as well, because we need a big debate within the U.S. on how you use this weapon." Sanger's book also details how the Obama administration handled a bomb scare from a Taliban faction in Pakistan, and what they learned from the experience. Around the same time, the president fielded one last phone call from the former President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak. "President Mubarak says to president Obama, 'Give me 10 days. President Nasser, 40 years before, put down an uprising like this, I can too.' It was code word for give me a few days, I can kill everyone in the streets and drive them out of the streets and I'll be back in control then," said Sanger. Check out this week's Political Punch to hear how Obama responded to Mubarak, and for more on the "remarkable effort" to hunt down Osama bin Laden. _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Feldstein - One Third Chance of Recession! Syria and October?

Just some parting images before I leave for Europe, which is a cartoon in itself.


Obama and the "Green Zone." No where to go but dialing for dollars among the Hollywood stars and New York Wall Street monied moguls!

Every once in a while he pops in to his DC Office .   (See 1 below.)
Obama and the private sector.  (See 2, 2a and 2b below.)
What The Tea Party is all about. (See 3 below.)
Last memo before we leave for several extended trips and a few parting thoughts because much campaigning will happen while we are away as well as resolutions involving the fate of the Euro!

First of all, Romney, has now gained some traction and the key is to stay on message and not get over confident.

Second, Romney must select a ticket mate that resonates with voters because it will be his first serious decision  the public will have by which to judge him. Romney's selection must be a candidate who is serious in terms of competence, one sans of any type of personal blemish and someone with whom he will be compatible in terms of philosophy.

Third, Romney must outline some basic views that give us insight into his key  core beliefs.

Fourth, he must not sugar coat the problems we face if we are to get our train back on track.  He should not overreach by making promises.  Discussing what he proposes to do by way of serious efforts should suffice.  Promises come back to haunt.  Anything shy of this, in my opinion, fails to credit  voters as being adults and who desire to be treated accordingly.  This is what won the vote in Wisconsin.

Finally, Romney should go after Obama by articulating clearly where the president has failed and explain, in simple language, why these are important and significant failures.

While we are away, I also suspect Romney will receive another boost from 'The Supremes' who will probably strike down  'Obamascare' in its entirety because they have the Constitutional basis to do so and doing anything less will boomerang on our nation in an economic sense.

'The Supremes' often make legal rulings, it seems to me, as if they never consider the economic impact of their decisions and consequently, though the law may be right the cost equation is horrendous.

I believe the desegregation decision was both right and long overdue. However, the consequences were bad because busing caused white flight which resulted in cities losing tax revenue. It would have been far better to have instructed states they would have to rectify the wrongs by allocating school funds more equitably, letting people move to better neighborhoods, if they so chose, and observe the consequences for a five year period.  What happened was far too many of the burdens were  placed upon innocent young people, far too many schools eventually re-segregated and I believe, in the early years after the decision, far too much discord was created,

Fortunately, until Obama came along, I believe race relations were on the upswing, black Americans were making progress in the work force and our nation was better for the progress.

I believe Obama has set back relations  and his actions have awakened resentments that maybe smoldered beneath the surface  but were on their way to being relegated to the dust bin of history because contact helps allay misplaced fears and prejudices. Basically people are the same, their wants and desires are similar.  There are cultural differences and how they may go about achieving their goals may differ but in the end most everyone wants a fair shake and an opportunity.

I also believe affirmative actions overstayed its time and also helped to perpetuate racial discord.

As for the problems in the Middle East,ignoring repeated delays by Iran will only serve to signal to Israel sanctions are likely to fall short of their goal and this could well force Israel's hand. Anyone who misreads Netanyahu's willingness to defend his nation is a fool. Netanyahu may make mistakes in judgement but he will defend his people and he will do whatever he must .

Will the evil wind blow from Syria? (See 6 below.)

In terms of the stock market, as long as Germany is willing to keep funding  nations that line up at the Central Euro Bank with outstretched hands a significant impediment to a market rise will have been laid aside until another bump in the road surfaces.  Funding Spain's banks will be seen as a positive sign.  Of course the monetary spigot can eventually run dry.. (See 4 below.)
This is the story of the American  entrepreneur and it is similar to the one my own kids can tell regarding Sweet Tammy's. July 1, could be the turning point for them.

Their own sweat, blood, learning and  finally a good staff of hard working people is what it has taken. (See 5 below.)
Does the October surprise actually come from Syria and Assad.  This same source warned about this earlier.

Contained conflicts have a way of developing into wider wars when tolerated  and thus it may happen in Syria.(See 6 and 6a below.)
Have a great rest of the summer.

1)Mark Steyn: Obama redefines 'Green Zone'

Queen Elizabeth II celebrated her Diamond Jubilee a few days ago – that's 60 years on the throne. Just to put it in perspective, she's been queen since Harry S. Truman was president. At any rate, her jubilee has been a huge success, save for a few churlish republicans in various corners of Her Majesty's realms from London to Toronto to Sydney pointing out how absurd it is for grown citizens to be fawning over a distant head of state who lives in a fabulous, glittering cocoon entirely disconnected from ordinary life.
Which brings us to President Obama.

Last week, the republic's citizen-president passed among his fellow Americans. Where? Cleveland? Dubuque? Presque Isle, Maine? No, Beverly Hills. These days, it's pretty much always Beverly Hills or Manhattan, because that's where the money is. That's the Green Zone, and you losers are outside it. Appearing at an Obama fundraiser at the home of "Glee" creator Ryan Murphy and his fiancé David Miller, the president, reasonably enough, had difficulty distinguishing one A-list Hollywood summit from another. "I just came from a wonderful event over at the Wilshire or the Hilton РI'm not sure which," said Obama, "because you go through the kitchens of all these places, and so you never are quite sure where you are."
Ah, the burdens of stardom. The old celebrities-have-to-enter-through-the-kitchen line. The last time I heard that was a couple of decades back in London when someone was commiserating with Sinatra on having to be ushered in through the back. Frank brushed it aside. We were at the Savoy, or maybe the Waldorf. I can't remember, and I came in through the front door. Oddly enough, the Queen enters hotels through the lobby. So do Prince William and his lovely bride. A month ago, they stayed at a pub in Suffolk for a friend's wedding, and came in through the same door as mere mortals. Imagine that!
So far this year, President Obama has been to three times as many fundraisers as President George W. Bush had attended by this point in the 2004 campaign. This is what the New York Post calls his "torrid pace," although judging from those remarks in California he's about as torrid as an overworked gigolo staggering punchily through the last mambo of the evening. According to Brendan J. Doherty's forthcoming book, "The Rise of the President's Permanent Campaign," Obama has held more fundraisers than the previous five presidents' re-election campaigns combined.
This is all he does now. But, hey, unlike those inbred monarchies with their dukes and marquesses and whatnot, at least he gets out among the masses. Why, in a typical week, you'll find him at a fundraiser at George Clooney's home in Los Angeles with Barbra Streisand and Salma Hayek. These are people who are in touch with the needs of ordinary Americans because they have played ordinary Americans in several of their movies. And then only four days later the president was in New York for a fundraiser hosted by Ricky Martin, the only man on the planet whose evolution on gayness took longer than Obama's. It's true that moneyed celebrities in, say, Pocatello or Tuscaloosa have not been able to tempt the president to hold a lavish fundraiser in Idaho or Alabama, but he does fly over them once in a while. Why, only a week ago, he was on Air Force One accompanied by Jon Bon Jovi en route to a fundraiser called Barack On Broadway.
Any American can attend an Obama event for a donation of a mere $35,800 – the cost of the fundraiser hosted by Dreamworks honcho Jeffrey Katzenberg, and the one hosted by Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, and the one hosted by Will Smith and Jada Pinkett, and the one hosted by Melanie Griffith and Antonio Banderas, and the one hosted by Crosby, Stills and Nash. $35,800 is a curiously nonround figure. Perhaps the ticket cost is $36,000, but under Obamacare there's a $200 co-pay. Those of us who grew up in hidebound, class-ridden monarchies are familiar with the old proverb that a cat can look at a king. But in America only a cool cat can look at the king.
However, there are some cheap seats available. A year and a half ago, big-money Democrats in Rhode Island paid $7,500 per person for the privilege of having dinner with President Obama at a private home in Providence. He showed up for 20 minutes and then said he couldn't stay for dinner. "I've got to go home to walk the dog and scoop the poop," he told them, because when you've paid seven-and-a half grand for dinner nothing puts you in the mood to eat like a guy talking about canine fecal matter. And, having done the poop gag, the president upped and exited, and left big-shot Dems to pass the evening talking to the guy from across the street. But you've got to admit that's a memorable night out: $7,500 for Dinner With Obama* (*dinner with Obama not included).
And here's an even better deal, for those who, despite the roaring economy, can't afford even $7,500 for non-dinner with Obama: The president of the United States is raffling himself off! For the cost of a $3 nonrefundable online-application processing fee, you and your loved one can have your names put in a large presidential hat from which the FBI background-check team will pluck two to be ushered into the presence of their humble citizen-executive. That's to say, somewhere across the fruited plain, a common-or-garden non-celebrity will win the opportunity to attend an Obama fundraiser at the home of "Sex And The City" star Sarah Jessica Parker, co-hosted by Vogue editor Anna Wintour, the British-born inspiration for the movie "The Devil Wears Prada." I wish this were a parody, but I'm not that good. But I'm sure Sarah-Jessica and Anna will treat you just like any other minor celebrity they've accidentally been seated next to due to a hideous faux pas in placement, even if you do dip the wrong end of the arugula in the amuse-bouche.
If you're wondering who Anna Wintour is, boy, what a schlub you are: She's renowned throughout the fashion world for her scary bangs. I'm referring to her hair, not to the last sound Osama bin Laden heard as the bullet headed toward his eye socket on the personal orders of the president, in case you've forgotten. But that's the kind of inside tidbit you'll be getting, as the Commander-in-Chief leaks highly classified national-security details to you over the zebra mussel in a Eurasian-milfoil coulis. For a donation of $35,800, he'll pose with you in a Seal Team Six uniform with one foot on Osama's corpse (played by Harry Reid). For a donation of $46,800, he'll send an unmanned drone to hover amusingly over your sister-in-law's house. For a donation of $77,800, he'll install you as the next president-for-life of Syria (liability waiver required). For a donation of $159,800, he'll take you into Sarah Jessica's guest bedroom and give you the full 007 while Carly Simon sings "Nobody Does It Better."
There are monarchies and republics a-plenty, but there's only one 24/7 celebrity fund-raising presidency. If it's Tuesday, it must be Kim Cattrall, or Hootie and the Blowfish, or Laverne and Shirley, or the ShamWow guy ... .
I wonder if the Queen ever marvels at the transformation of the American presidency since her time with Truman. Ah, well. If you can't stand the klieg-light heat of Obama's celebrity, stay out of the Beverly Wilshire kitchen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)Clueless appeal to aid gov’t workers
By John Podhoretz

A startlingly listless President Obama appeared in the White House press room yesterday morning, spoke some dull preliminaries about the European financial crisis — and then slipped and tumbled headfirst into re-election quicksand from which he will find it very difficult to extricate himself.

Now, it is not the case that the president is finished because he said, “The private sector is doing fine” — even though those were the very words he spoke yesterday, the week after a jump in the unemployment rate and a downward revision of the GDP.

It’s just one quote, after all, and a lot can happen in five months. And while it’s inarguably a huge gift to the Romney campaign — one worth approximately three George Clooneys and six Sarah Jessica Parkers — the president’s rival is certainly capable of making blunders that will hand back some of the advantage

No, “The private sector is doing fine” may prove to be the pivotal moment for the 2012 campaign because of what it demonstrates about the president’s ideas as he heads into the fight of his life.
First, the assertion indicates the president has fallen prey to the temptation to believe in macroeconomic generalities that make him feel good, rather than facing the practical realities of life outside the White House bubble.

Obama said there’s been significant private-sector job growth since the start of the year. That is a very arguable proposition; 800,000 new jobs in five months is not an especially impressive figure for anything that deserves to be called a “recovery.”

In any case, the health of the private sector can’t be measured solely or even primarily by job creation. Most people, after all, haven’t gone through the horror of unemployment.

What they have gone through is a period in which they have almost no job mobility, and a period in which their wages haven’t grown much — even as the inflated cost of gas and food has eaten away at what little gain they have enjoyed.

And that doesn’t even get into the discomfiting anxieties that come with working in America in 2012 — the sense that many jobs are tenuous, that maybe your employer can get by with one worker instead of two and that the one who gets laid off will be you.

In part, Obama needs to be able to say, “The private sector is fine,” because a healthy private sector is essential for his plans to increase the size of government — after all, the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere.

Indeed, he said, “The private sector is fine,” to provide what he thought would be a sobering contrast to the condition of the public sector. But this is the point that really shows the tone-deafness behind those five extremely unfortunate words.

Obama’s explanation for the slowdown in economic growth is that the public sector is hurting, and that’s where Washington must step in and act.

“Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes, cuts initiated by, you know, governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government,” he said. “And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments.”

The president seriously wants to go before the American people and argue in an election year that the wildly unpopular $860 billion stimulus of 2009 needs to be supplemented this year by more direct federal support of state and local government workers?

I’m trying very hard to think of a way this argument is not politically insane for Obama in his quest to win over independent voters who will make the difference in November.

I’m thinking. Give me a second.
Still thinking. And . . .

I got nothing.

And that may be what Barack Obama has got, too.

2a)The dark side of the moonbats
By Howie Carr

It’s no fun being a moonbat anymore.

You didn’t get invited to Barney Frank’s wedding in Newton. That “Elizabeth Warren for Massachusetts” bumper sticker on your Prius has become a magnet for roadway ridicule.

But worst of all is what’s happened to your hero, Barack Hussein Obama. The emperor has no clothes. Mighty Casey has struck out.
Everything was so much simpler when George Bush was president.
Was it a mere four years ago when Barack modestly predicted that just his nomination alone would be the moment “when the rise of the oceans began to slow?” On Friday — exactly four years and four days after the seas started receding — the modern Moses conceded that housing in the U.S. is “underwater,” and that he hasn’t done squat about it.
But hasn’t he brought down the gas prices to $3.50 a gallon? Only $1.61 more to go and they’ll be back to where they were on Bush’s last day in office.

How can Barack be trailing the vulture capitalist Mitt Romney in Michigan? Don’t these bitter clingers read The New York Times [NYT]?
Even Chris Matthews’ leg has stopped tingling.

In 2008, everything was, you’ll pardon the expression, black and white. Predator-drone attacks under Bush — unconstitutional genocidal terrorism. Five times as many Predator-drone attacks under Barack — brilliant strategy by our wartime president.
Whatever happened to anti-war candlelight vigils? You see them on TV about as often as you watch military coffins being unloaded at Dover AFB.

Which is to say, never.

Campaign spending was never an issue in 2008 when Barack was grinding McCain’s moneymen into the dust. Then money was the mother’s milk of politics. Now, this George, er Mitt Romney, is lowering the boom on His Wonderfulness.
A national scandal is what these super-PAC’s are. Somebody call George Soros.

As a loyal moonbat, you’d love to respond to Jim Messina’s endless email money grovels. But the trust funds Pater and Mumsy set up for you just aren’t getting nearly the returns they did in the bad old days when Dick Cheney was unleashing hurricanes to ravage New Orleans.

The economy is “unexpectedly” sliding yet again, as the network anchors always say, but it’s not Barack’s fault. It can’t be. He went to Harvard. It’s all caused by those “headwinds” from Europe, that’s what Jim Cramer blamed it on this week. And before that it was the warm winter, or the Japanese tsunami, and don’t forget the early Easter, or was it the late Easter and, and ... George Bush!

Doesn’t anyone remember Bush’s jobless recovery — when unemployment was 4.5 percent? Now 3 million citizens have vanished from the workforce and unemployment is 8.2 percent. It’s the new normal.

Whatever happened to “9/11 — An Inside Job?” Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan have vanished into the Witness Protection Program. Nancy Pelosi is babbling about ghosts in the White House. Guys in white coats are chasing the vice president with a net as he raves about “crops that don’t depend on soil, water or fertilizer.”
What a drag it is, being a moonbat.

2b)What do historians really think of Obama?
  • obama.JPG

On the evening of Tuesday, June 30, 2009—just five months into his administration—Barack Obama invited a small group of presidential historians to dine with him in the Family Quarters of the White House. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, personally delivered the invitations with a word of caution: the meeting was to remain private and off the record. As a result, the media missed the chance to report on an important event, for the evening with the historians provided a remarkable sneak preview of why the Obama presidency would shortly go off the rails. 

Today, with Mr. Obama in full campaign mode, that event—as well as two more unreported White House dinners with the historians—is worth examining. Together, they shed light on the reason this president is likely to find it much harder than he expects to connect with the public and win reelection to the White House.

At the time of the first dinner, the new president was still enjoying a honeymoon period with the American people; according to Gallup, 63 percent of Americans approved of the job he was doing. Brimming with self-confidence, Mr. Obama had earlier confided to David Axelrod, his chief political strategist: “The weird thing is, I know I can do this job. I like dealing with complicated issues. I’m happy to make decisions.…I think it’s going to be an easier adjustment for me than the campaign. Much easier.”

That the adjustment from campaigner to chief executive would prove harder—much harder—than anticipated had still not dawned on Mr. Obama when he sat down to dine with the historians. He was in an expansive mood as he tucked into his lamb chops and went around the table addressing each historian by name—Doris Kearns Goodwin, Michael Beschloss, Robert Caro, Robert Dallek, Douglas Brinkley, H. W. “Billam” Brands, David Kennedy, Kenneth Mack, and Garry Wills. 

During the presidential campaign, most of the evening’s dinner guests, like their liberal counterparts in the media, had dropped any pretense at objectivity. For instance, Michael Beschloss ('Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America, 1789-1989') described Obama as “probably the smartest guy ever to become president,” which appeared to put Thomas Jefferson in his place.

Judging from Mr. Obama’s questions, one subject was uppermost in his mind: how could he become a “transformational” president and bend the historic trajectory of America’s domestic and foreign policy? 

When one of the historians brought up the difficulties that Lyndon Johnson, another wartime president, faced trying to wage a foreign military venture while implementing an ambitious domestic agenda, Mr. Obama grew testy. He implied that he was different, because he could prevail by the force of his personality. He could solve the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, put millions of people back to work, redistribute wealth, withdraw from Iraq, and reconcile the United States to a less dominant role in the world.

It was, by any measure, a breathtaking display of grandiosity by a man whose entire political curriculum vitae consisted of seven undistinguished years in the Illinois senate and two mostly absent years in the United States Senate. That evening Mr. Obama revealed the characteristics—arrogance, conceit, egotism, vanity, hubris and, above all, rank amateurism—that would mark his presidency and doom it to frustration and failure.

These characteristics had already set the pattern of his administration. Mr. Obama personally conducted his own foreign policy more than any president since Richard Nixon. He made all the decisions, because he believed that only he truly understood the issues. He spent his evenings writing decision papers on foreign affairs when, instead, he should have delegated that chore to experts and devoted his time to schmoozing members of Congress and convincing them to support his programs. He still loved making speeches to large, adoring crowds, but he complained to foreign leaders on the QT that he had to waste precious hours talking with “Congressmen from Palookaville.” 

“Since the beginning of his administration, Obama hasn’t been able to capture the public's imagination and inspire people to follow him. Vision isn't enough in a president.
- Anonymous Historian

The senior people in his administration proved to be just as inexperienced and inept as Mr. Obama when it came to the business of running the government. Members of his inner circle—David Axelrod, campaign manager David Plouffe, press secretary Robert Gibbs, and √©minence grise Valerie Jarrett—had proven their mettle in the dark arts of political campaigning, but they had no serious experience in dealing with public-policy issues. If they could be said to have any policy exposure at all it was their ideological enthusiasms for the left. 

Over the two-hour dinner, Mr. Obama and the historians discussed several past presidents. It wasn’t clear from Mr. Obama’s responses which of those presidents he identified with. At one point, he seemed to channel the charismatic John F. Kennedy. At another moment, he extolled the virtues of the “transformative” Ronald Reagan. Then again, it was the saintly Lincoln…or the New Deal’s “Happy Warrior,” Franklin Roosevelt….

Mr. Obama told the historians that he had come up with a slogan for his administration. “I’m thinking of calling it ‘A New Foundation,’ ” he said.

Doris Kearns Goodwin suggested that “A New Foundation” might not be the wisest choice for a motto. 
“Why not?” the president asked.

“It sounds,” said Goodwin, “like a woman’s girdle.”

In the wake of the shellacking the Democrats took in the midterm elections in 2010, Mr. Obama held a second dinner with the historians, which was devoted to the question of how he could “reconnect with the public.” 

A third dinner took place in July 2011, shortly after Mr. Obama and his team botched the budget-deficit negotiations with Congress, and the United States government lost its Triple-A credit rating for the first time in history. It revolved around the theme “the challenge of reelection.”

That fall, I spoke to one of the historians who attended all three of the dinners. We met in a restaurant where we were unlikely to be seen, and our conversation, which lasted for nearly two hours, was conducted under the condition of anonymity. 

I wanted to know how this liberal historian, who had once drunk the Obama Kool-Aid, matched the president’s promise with his performance. By this time, most of Mr. Obama’s supporters were puzzled by the sense of disconnect between the sharply focused presidential candidate of 2008 and the dazed and confused president of the past three years. The satirical TV show "The Onion News Network" had broadcast a faux story that the real Barack Obama had been kidnapped just hours after the election and replaced by an imposter.

“There’s no doubt that Obama has turned out to be a major enigma and disappointment,” the historian told me. “He waged such a brilliant campaign, first against Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and then against John McCain in the general election. For a long time, I found it hard to understand why he couldn’t translate his political savvy into effective governance. 

“But I think I know the answer now,” he continued. “Since the beginning of his administration, Obama hasn't been able to capture the public's imagination and inspire people to follow him. Vision isn't enough in a president. Great presidents not only have to enunciate their vision; they must lead by example and inspiration. Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the individual. He and Ronald Reagan had the ability to make each American feel that the president cared deeply and personally about them.

“That quality has been lacking in Obama. People don’t feel that he’s on their side. Obama doesn't connect. He doesn't have the answers. The irony is that he was supposed to be such a brilliant orator. But, in fact, he’s turned out to be a failure as a communicator."

If the verdict of this historian is correct, and Barack Obama’s fundamental failure as president is his inability to connect with people, he is in far more serious trouble than most people realize as he seeks a mandate for a second term in office. Or, as this historian put it: “I wouldn’t bet the ranch on his getting reelected.”

"More than that, Obama might not have the place in history he so eagerly covets. Instead of ranking with FDR and Reagan and other giants, it seems more likely that he will be a case-study in presidential failure like Jimmy Carter." 

Edward Klein is the former editor in chief of The New York Times Magazine. His latest book is "The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House." (Regnery 2012)

3)This Is What the Tea Party Movement Is About
By Mona Charen
Though it hasn't been celebrated as such, Scott Walker's victory in Wisconsin represents the full flowering of the tea party movement. It is also a sign -- among others -- that the Republican Party has recaptured its ideological core.
The tea partyers are often mischaracterized as extreme right-wingers. Thus, proponents of same-sex marriage or unrestricted abortion will invoke "tea party" elements as those most opposed to their efforts. That's off target. Though many in the movement may have conservative social views, those weren't the issues that spurred them to organize, demonstrate and vote.
No, the tea partyers -- judging by their signs, speeches and writings -- were alarmed about irresponsible government spending, bailouts of the undeserving and spiraling debt. The tea partyers are actually the 21st century "goo-goos" -- good government types -- the label that was attached to progressives in the early 20th century. They aren't anarchists, racists (as in the more febrile accusations of their opponents) or culture warriors. They simply want to see government scale back and perform its essential functions fairly, efficiently and honestly.
For some time, Republican office holders were little better than Democrats when it came to spending, accountability and reform. The size of government seemed to grow inexorably under both parties. Some Republicans earned and deserved tea party disdain.
But we are now in an era of true Republican reform. The reformers are Republican governors who, like Scott Walker, have chosen to tackle the bloated budgets and corrupt bargains of state governments. At least a half dozen Republican governors -- Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, Chris Christie in New Jersey, Mitch Daniels in Indiana, Susana Martinez in New Mexico, Bob McDonnell in Virginia, and Walker himself -- have taken on the public sector unions frontally.
The word "corrupt" is not too strong for a system that worked like this: Unions worked to elect Democrats. Once elected, Democrats passed laws that permitted states to withhold union dues from state employee paychecks, further enriching and entrenching public sector unions. State governments then signed contracts with the unions giving far more generous pay, work rules (like teacher tenure) and benefits than the average taxpayer receives. Unions thus elected the people who sat across the table from them in contract negotiations. As Victor Gotbaum, a New York City union leader boasted, "We have the ability to elect our own boss." That mutual backscratching has burdened taxpayers with pension and other liabilities mounting into the trillions.
On his first day in office, Chris Christie signed an executive order forbidding public sector unions from making political contributions (corporations were already barred). He then embarked on the grueling, but necessary, battle to require unionized teachers to accept slightly less generous pensions and to make tiny contributions to their own health insurance.
In New Mexico, Susana Martinez has cut spending by $150 million without raising taxes, reduced the state workforce by 5 percent, eliminated duplicative taxes on small businesses, and increased local control of schools by opting out of No Child Left Behind.
Indiana's Mitch Daniels ended collective bargaining for public sector unions early in his tenure. He balanced budgets without raising taxes, earned the state a AAA bond rating for the first time, reduced the number of state workers to the lowest in the nation, improved the business climate, transformed a $700 billion deficit into a $1.3 billion surplus, and earned Indiana the Tax Foundation's "First in the Midwest" award for business climate. Indiana's government is also more efficient: child support collections are up, wait times for child services have been halved, 150 state troopers have been added, and the Healthy Indiana Plan provides health insurance to 50,000 low-income Hoosiers. Among participants, emergency room use has declined. Perhaps the most emblematic of all Indiana's accomplishments is that wait times at the Department of Motor Vehicles have been reduced to less than eight minutes.
Both Bobby Jindal in Louisiana and Bob McDonnell in Virginia have pushed for reform of teacher tenure. McDonnell, like the other Republican reform governors, has reduced state spending. Jindal has also passed a balanced budget, ethics reform, tax cuts, and one of the most sweeping school voucher laws in the nation.
Scott Walker is in good company. He and his fellow reform Republicans are the vanguard of a refreshed and confident Republican Party. It's a party that, unlike the Democrats, is confronting the looming threat of government debt. That is what the tea partyers have been demanding. All of the Republican reformers are popular. Who knows -- if this continues, we may even escape bankruptcy. 
4)Harvard’s Feldstein: US at 33% Chance of Recession and Fed Can't Help
By Forrest Jones

The chances of the U.S. falling back into recession stand about one-in-three and more stimulus from the Federal Reserve won't do much good either, says Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist and head of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan.

In May, the economy added a net 69,000 jobs, far less than expected, while gross domestic product (GDP) grew 1.9 percent in the first quarter, down from a initial estimate of 2.2 percent.

Will the country slide back into a recession?

"You can't rule it out. The economy is weak, weaker than many of the forecasters have been saying. We had less than 2 percent growth in the first quarter and roughly 1.5 percent last year. I think we'll be lucky if we have 2 percent growth in the rest of this year," Feldstein tells Reuters.

"At this point I would say one chance in three, or maybe less than that."

Market talk is abuzz the Federal Reserve will stimulate the economy by purchasing bonds held by banks, a policy tool known as quantitative easing (QE) that floods the economy with liquidity and pushes long-term interest rates down to encourage investment and hiring.

The Fed has rolled out two such measures so far, injecting $2.3 trillion worth of expansionary liquidity into the economy in the process.

The Fed has also shuffled its Treasury holdings in way to better ensure long-term interest rates such as mortgages stay low, a move known dubbed by Wall Street as Operation Twist.

More action by the Fed won't work, Feldstein says.

Rates are already low, the economy brimming with liquidity but demand still remains soft and hiring at bay.

"My sense is that further easing, whether it's QE or Operation Twist, whether it's helpful to the long-term bond market, whether it's helpful to the stock market, it really hasn't done anything for actual economic activity."

Addressing spending and tax reforms will help the economy.

"That's going to require fiscal reforms, and we're not going to see that until after the elections," Feldstein says.

Turning to Europe, the debt crisis there does pose a threat to the United States in that exports to the continent may suffer, especially considering that once red-hot Asian economies are cooling.

"It's significant, because it affects our financial markets and it affects our exports. Exports played an important part in the GDP growth in the beginning of the year, and this will clearly be a drag together with what's happening in China and elsewhere in Asia. That's further reason why the economy will have a hard time getting up to 2 percent GDP growth."

While events abroad are crimping growth at home, so are President Barack Obama's policies marked by increased government spending and regulation, though the president would prefer to cast blame elsewhere.

"It allows the president to say it's not his policies, it's Europe, it's Republicans. But the truth is that the policies of the last three-plus years have not boosted this economy and have discouraged both businesses and potential consumer spenders."

Meanwhile, talk of a coordinated response among the world's top 20 economies, known as the G-20, won't ease the European debt crisis either.

The problem is not uniform, as a recipe for recovery in Greece won't work in Spain or Italy.

"On something like this, when you need different policies for Greece, for Spain, for the United States, that's not something that's going to get worked out in a G-7 or G-20 meeting."

Let Greece exit the eurozone, but do work to keep Spain and Italy in, Feldstein recommends. 

A Greek exit will be messy, but after a few years, the country will be better off.

"I think that it will be painful in the short run, but Greece has been going through a very painful process for several years now, with falling GDP and rising unemployment," Feldstein says. 

"I think after they go through a couple of years of adjustment, a new drachma, devaluation will drive Greek consumers to spend more at home and spend less on imports and that will start to boost the economy of Greece."

Fed officials will gather at a June 19-20 meeting to discuss monetary policy, though some senior policy officials have already said intervention may be needed.

"I am convinced that scope remains for the FOMC to provide further policy accommodation either through its forward guidance or through additional balance-sheet actions," Federal Reserve Vice Chair Janet Yellen says in prepared remarks delivered at the Boston Economic Club Dinner.

"There are a number of significant downside risks to the economic outlook, and hence it may well be appropriate to insure against adverse shocks that could push the economy into territory where a self-reinforcing downward spiral of economic weakness would be difficult to arrest," Yellen adds.
5)Who Will Stand for Hard Work?
By Dera Enochson

What does it mean to be a business owner today in America?  It means you take all the risk, put in all the effort.  In return, you get the trophy of supporting all the people able to fill out paperwork, giving them entitlements and endless excuses to destroy their own destiny, along with ours.
My husband and I took a big risk eight years ago.  We took all our money and invested in ourselves.  We started our own business, and we put 10- to 15-hour days in, seven days a week, in order to make it a success...for eight years...nonstop...with no vacations...or even weekends off.  Believe me: plenty of my friends thought this was foolish on our part.  We missed out on many opportunities for fun.  Why?
Because that is what successful Americans do.  They work and work, to create something no one else has created before them.  We also employ decent, hardworking people, who pay their taxes and contribute to society.  These good people and members of society also function side by side with us as piggy banks for those who choose not to work. 
We have seen repeatedly that people will choose unemployment even when handed a perfectly good job.  My staff has had the phone conversations with people when we tried to hire them for $20 an hour.  Our jobs require simple selling skills that can be honed anywhere and do not require even a high school diploma.  We do ask that they dress in proper business attire and speak respectfully and acceptably to clients, but we do not ask for proof of education.  We are also willing to train viable candidates for these positions.  We have been turned down repeatedly when offering jobs to people who say they have found out that working violates their unemployment checks.
Darn right, it does!  And before you decide that the job must be unacceptable for most, let me tell you that it is working in an elegant store with perfectly polite people and customers, with air-conditioning and heat aplenty, along with delicious food items within footsteps.  Not exactly as hard as working in a mineshaft, or other truly tough jobs that people do every day.
When will one of our presidential candidates get it right?  Stick up for the working people of America.  Whether we are rich now, or hoping to become rich, that is America's promise.  In our country, you get a fighting chance to be what you want to be.  It's a fighting chance, not a handout.  Not everyone will achieve his or her dreams.  But you have the chance to do it.  It requires extra effort. 
Like many business owners, I went to public schools for my own education -- the same public education available to anyone in this country.  We did nothing that any other ordinary citizen of American is deprived of the opportunity to do.  We put in ridiculous hours of hard work.  Why then must we support an endless stream of non-workers with the hours of my life we burned away to create a living and something for our children?  And of course, when we die, the government gets to take half of all that hard-earned (previously taxed) money again.
We are created equal.  When I was young, there were plenty of people who were convinced that I would not do anything significant with my life.  It was voiced to me regularly as a young adult.  Somehow I didn't believe that -- and that is exactly what the magic of the American spirit is all about.
It is time for a candidate who will show us all the way to succeed.  Not cringe and hide from any discussion of wealth and opportunity.  Wealth and opportunity are the name of the game, and we all want it!  My company genuinely wants to see our employees move on to bigger and better things, either within our company or at another company if they move on.  We make sure they have the skills to do that so they can create a better life for themselves.
Plenty of business owners all over the U.S. are doing the same thing.  That should be the same attitude we see in our government.  Instead, they cringe at any mention of wealth and go back to discussing entitlements.  Entitlements are the path to destruction and despair.  Let's not pretend any different any longer.  We are not different sets of victims, all meant for self-destruction, poverty, and despair without government handouts.  We are creating a world of co-dependent people scared to find out how powerful they can be if they only try.
And don't even get me started on presidential vacations.  If I can go eight years without one, then they can, too.  I understand a weekend or two off when you have a high-tension job.  Certainly most of us business owners can't afford that ourselves, but we wouldn't begrudge it of our leader.  However, I'd like to see our president treat this job with a little respect.  Using up ten year's worth of vacation time while the country crumbles around you isn't inspirational.  It smacks of that lack of respect created by the entitlement mentality, too!  And I guess I know who is paying for that sense of entitlement...my fellow workers.
We have made this country great.  Now stick up for us and our country, and give us someone we can vote for easily because we know he or she is cheering for success for all of us.
6)-Chemical warfare feared raising its head in the Syrian civil war

Chemical warfare looms over Syria
Chemical warfare looms over Syria
Tehran pumped out a report Early Sunday June 10 accusing Syrian rebels of arming themselves with chemical weapons originating in Libya and acquiring training in their use from an unknown source in their use. The report sent shudders of alarm through Western capitals and Israel and fears that Tehran and Damascus were preparing the ground for the Assad regime to resort to chemical warfare to finally crush its foes.

Iran claimed, “Any report released on the Syrian Army’s alleged use of the chemical weapons is meant to pave the ground for the terrorists to use these weapons against the people and accuse the Syrian army and government of that crime.”

Three days earlier, on June 7, Syrian rebel sources charged that the Syrian air force planes had dropped poisonous substances over Deraa, Hama and Idlib which knocked people unconscious. This later proved unfounded.

Western military sources watching Syria’s flashpoint areas warn that the fact that both sides of the conflict are now talking openly about chemical warfare attests to their seriously getting ready for this deadly escalation - and the ultimate game-changer. If they indeed go through with it, say sources Washington, European capitals, Riyadh and Jerusalem, US President Barack Obama cannot possibly stick to his refusal to take military steps in Syria and will have to step in with limited force to stop the escalating horror.

In that case, the US would almost certainly be joined by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and possibly other Arab nations.

Official spokesmen in the West, Moscow and the UN are still warning that Syria is on the verge of civil war, refusing to admit that a sectarian war which they failed to avert is already fully fledged – certainly between Sunni Muslims and Assad’s Allawite minority.

The Christians are also involved because some members of that community occupy high-ranking positions in the military command. Defense minister Dawoud Rajiha, who manages government action against the revolt, is a Christian.

The conflict is no longer clear-cut between the Syrian army and the various armed rebel groups. The al Houla massacre in the last week of May was a tragic turning-point:  Armed groups of Alawites and Sunnis living in the same neighborhoods are now turning on each other. Their battles go largely unreported. One of the most disastrous episodes of this kind erupted last week between Sunni and Alawite neighbors in Latakia. Many parts of southern, eastern and northern Syria had consequently spiraled out of control of military and security forces. Western and Israeli military sources report that regional commanders and the general staff in Damascus have lost track of the violence plaguing those regions and more massacres on the scale of al-Houla and Al Qubeir are feared.

The rebel Syrian National Council’s choice of a Kurdish exile Abdel Basset Sayda Saturday as its new head is a bad omen: More than a step toward resolving the differences among the various factions and unifying ranks, the appointment brings the Kurdish community, one-fifth of the Syrian population, squarely into the revolt. Syrian Kurds have stayed out of it until now.

A major concern for Jerusalem was sparked by recent comments in Iranian Revolutionary Guards publications. Friday and Saturday, the official IRGC mouthpiece Mashregh quoted a warning by Brig. Gen. Massoud Jazaeri that in the event of any Western or Arab force interfering in Syria, Assad’s allies in the resistance “would ensure that aggressors do not survive the conflict. The Zionist regime and the interests of the enemies of Syria are all within range of resistance fire.”

Saturday night, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov underlined Moscow’s hard line on Syria: “Moscow would support the departure of President Bashar al-Assad, but only if Syrians agreed to it,” he stressed. He ruled out outside force and sanctions against the regime and proposed another international conference.

Moscow has now ranged itself solidly behind Assad and the pyramid that keeps him in power – family, Alawites and the top military echelon. Even if the ruler was himself ousted in a coup by his own army, the general who seized power could count on Russian backing.

Syria endured another day of slaughter Saturday with the numbers of dead in double digits and the Red Cross warning that more than a million Syrians are in dire need of aid. The Syrian tragedy is more intractable than ever.


Situation in Syria - Statement by Amb Ron Prosor

Prosor to UN General Assembly: "No decent human being can stay silent in
the face of what is happening in Syria. The people of Syria are the
deliberate targets of a brutal regime that will commit any crime to cling to

Thank you, Mr. President for convening this important discussion.
Eli Wiesel once said, "We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the
oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the
tormented." His words call to us at moments like this.

It doesn't matter where you come from, or what politics you preach, or what
faith you belong to - no decent human being can stay silent in the face of
what is happening in Syria.

The people of Syria are not the indiscriminate victims of a natural
disaster. They are not the tragic fatalities of a famine. They are not the
accidental casualties of war. They are the deliberate targets of a brutal
regime that will commit any crime and cross any line to cling to power.
We hear the words spoken in today's debate, but the appalling images and
stories coming out of Syria are what stick in our minds. This morning I hear
the cries of the infants massacred in Houla. I see the pleading eyes of the
children of Homs, desperate and terrified beyond belief. I try to put myself
into the shoes of the families whose loved ones have disappeared into
Assad's torture chambers - and will never be heard from again.

Today I urge this Assembly to think of each man, woman, and child
slaughtered by the Syrian Government in the past 15 months. It grows larger
month by month, day by day, hour by hour. More than 4,000 have been killed
since the General Assembly last discussed this issue. How many more
innocents must die before the world acts?

The pictures coming out of Syria serve as a moral call to every person and
every nation in the world. Nowhere is that call more clear than here at the
United Nations, which was founded primarily to safeguard the principles of
human rights, dignity and life.

Today, on behalf of the Israeli people and the Jewish people, I say directly
to the Syrian people: we hear your cries. We are horrified by the crimes of
the Assad regime. We extend our hand to you.
Mr. President,

Assad is not the only one with the blood of the Syrian people on his hands.
Iran and Hizbullah sit on his advisory board, offering guidance on how to
butcher the Syrian people more efficiently. They direct an army of
mercenaries that work on his behalf. Today Iranian Revolutionary Guards are
funneling weapons to his troops. Hezbollah operatives are firing at his

Before our eyes we see a trio of brutality. Assad, Ahmadinejad, and
Nasrallah are joined by an extremist and hateful ideology. The future of
this trio of brutality depends on crushing the hopes and dreams of millions
throughout the region. The international community cannot allow them to
continue operating with impunity. The costs of further delay and division
are clear. With each day that passes, the unbearable price for the Syrian
people rises. The trio of brutality must be held to account.

I have said it before and I'll say it again: Bashar al-Assad has no moral
authority to govern. The international community must recognize that the
hourglass of the Assad regime has run out - and seize this as an hour of
action. It is high time for the voices of the victims in Syria to finally
unite the voices of the world against the tyrant of Damascus. Our common
humanity binds us to them. Their fate is in our hands.
Thank you, Mr. President.