Though the words Conservative and Capitalist are in the title, the booklet is non-political in nature.
If you find my Memo efforts of interest and maybe even challenging , whether you agree or not with what I write and/or post, then consider this a personal appeal to support my effort to raise money for The Wounded Warrior project. Buy my book expressing my thoughts on raising children.
Please make your check for $10.99/copy to Paul Laflamme for a soft cover version and deduct half the cost as a donation to The Wounded Warrior Project. (Add $2.50 for postage and handling.)
If you want a pdf version you can download the cost is $5.99.
Click on WWW.Brokerberko.com
---
Miriam Center has written a delightful play about her long relationship with Johnny Mercer while weaving into the sophisticated rhetoric some of his more memorable songs.
The actors are well suited in their roles.
The Savannah Community Theater has adequate parking, the seats are comfortable and the admission prices is reasonable.
I foresee a long run potential on Broadway for this entertaining play.
Go Miriam.
---
--
Alexander claims Obama might have won through fraud.
In the final analysis and in my opinion voters chose clever campaignship and ignored flawed leadership. The fact that Obama won through fraud might be plausible but not likely to sway many people. (See 2 below.)
---
America not only faces a fiscal cliff but an entitlement one as well. (See 3 below.)
---
A moral basis for self defense from the Jewish perspective. (See 4 below.)
---
The Petraeus matter has all kinds of twists and leads to all kind of questions. (See 5 below.)
---
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)Robert Wiedemer: We Will Have a Balanced Budget in 10 Years
With all the talk about the fiscal cliff and raising the debt ceiling, I thought it was worthwhile to make this point: We will have a balanced budget in 10 years. Why? Certainly not because Congress has agreed on how to balance the budget.
The fiscal cliff and debt ceiling political nonsense we are about to witness will prove that. Congress most assuredly will find a way to borrow more money. That will work fine to boost the economy temporarily and to get politicians re-elected, but it won’t balance the budget. Shockingly I don’t expect Congress to change next year or even in 10 years.
Then why will we balance the budget in 10 years? Because we will be forced to do so.
That’s right. It’s not under our control long term, only short term. Interestingly Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, recently made a similar comment to the Senate when asked whether bond markets would turn against the United States. “I can’t honestly tell you I know it’s going to be two years or five years, but it will happen,” Dimon said. “It is a matter of time and the United States can’t borrow indefinitely.”
Dimon is right. We really can’t borrow massively forever. The bond markets will revolt. Eventually they will freeze up, just as the massive markets for mortgage debt froze up when it was increasingly obvious that mortgage bonds were fundamentally bad loans and, hence, losing investments. Yes, the government saved the mortgage bond market by completely taking it over. But, when the government bond market freezes up, there is no one to take it over.
Well, you say, “Of course there is. The Fed can save us by buying our debt.” That’s true, but they can only do it using printed money. They have no authority or ability to tax or borrow money.
Once the government bond markets freeze up and the Fed has to buy all of our bonds instead of just part of our bonds, inflation will be enormous and the outcry from voters at the devastation to their investments and livelihoods will force Congress to stop borrowing and balance the budget. Since tax receipts (not tax rates) will be much lower then than they are today, it will be a far harder task. Nonetheless, they will do it. The voters will force them because the pain of continued massive inflation in a modern, highly developed economy is so great.
It might sound dumb, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Right now, massive borrowing and massive money printing produces nothing but positive benefits for the economy and investments. There is almost no current downside and a huge upside. So, most people support borrowing and money printing, as do most politicians.
When that changes and there is enormous devastation to the economy and investments from the massive money printing and borrowing, people and Congress will change. They will want a better economic environment, just as they do today. But today, a better economic environment means more money printing and borrowing.
In 10 years, a better economic and investment environment will mean no borrowing and very little money printing. In short, a balanced budget.
This is not as radical as it sounds. I am simply saying that people react to economic pressure in very predictable ways.
It would be best if people could foresee such problems and change to prevent them, but that is a very difficult choice. For most people, the much easier choice is to react to the current environment, not to predict the future.
If taking an action now helps the economy and their investments, they will do it. If taking the opposite action helps the economy and their investments in the future, they will do it.
It couldn’t be simpler or more predictable.
About the Author: Robert Wiedemer
Robert Wiedemer is a managing director of Absolute Investment Management, an investment-advisory firm for individuals with more than $200 million under management. He is a regular contributor to Financial Intelligence Report, the flagship investment newsletter of Newsmax Media.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Obama Likely Won Re-Election Through Election Fraud
There were many factors that hurt Mitt Romney and favored Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. The Democrats portrayed Romney in the worst light possible; as a wealthy, out of touch millionaire who wanted to return women to the 1800's. The left wing media predictably did everything it could to perpetuate that false caricature. Obama's race was an advantage; voters of all persuasions, particularly minorities, still cannot get over the allure of the first black president. The 47% of Americans on welfare were predisposed to vote for the food stamp president over Romney, wanting the free goodies to keep on giving, despite the long-term unsustainability.
In spite of those odds, polls indicated that Romney was going to win the election. The economy is close to Great Depression era conditions, and unemployment is almost as high as when Obama entered office. Economic conditions became so dire after Obama took office it prompted the rise of an entire new movement, the Tea Party. Presidents rarely win reelection when the economy is in the tank.
So how did Romney lose a race that numerous reputable polls and pundits predicted would be an easy win, based on historical patterns? The most realistic explanation is voter fraud in a few swing states. According to the Columbus Dispatch, one out of every five registered voters in Ohio is ineligible to vote. In at least two counties in Ohio, the number of registered voters exceededthe number of eligible adults who are of voting age. In northwestern Ohio's Wood County, there are 109 registered voters for every 100 people eligible to vote. An additional 31 of Ohio's 88 counties have voter registration rates over 90%, which most voting experts regard as suspicious. Obama miraculously won 100% of the vote in 21 districts in Cleveland, and receivedover 99% of the vote where GOP inspectors were illegally removed.
The inflated numbers can't just reflect voters who have moved, because the average voting registration level nationwide is only 70%. The vast majority of voters over the 70% level are not voting because they want to, they are voting because someone is getting them to cast a vote, one way or another. Those 31 counties are most likely the largest counties in Ohio, representing a majority of Ohio voters. This means the number of votes cast above the 70% typical voter registration level easily tops 100,000, the margin Obama won Ohio by.
Videographer James O'Keefe, known for his undercover videos exposing left wing fraud, caught a Virginia Democratic Congressman's son on video in October explaining how to commit voter fraud. Patrick Moran, the son of Rep. Jim Moran, told O'Keefe's videographer that in order to make a vote for someone else, you'd need two pieces of identification, such as a utility bill, explaining, "they can fake a utility bill with ease, you know?" He went on to advise the videographer that he should also call the voter and pretend to be a polling company in order to make sure the voter isn't intending to vote. He said that Democrat attorneys would be located in the polling places to assist him if challenged casting one of these illegal votes.
In another video, O'Keefe's videographer tells a DNC staffer from Obama's Organizing for America that she intends to vote in both Texas and Florida. The staffer laughs and says, "It's cool." The staffer then prints out a voter registration form for the undercover videographer and advises her on what to do if she gets caught.
These are just the known instances of attempted voter fraud. How many instances occurred that were not discovered? Obama's Organizing for America looked up voters in swing states – many who would not have bothered voting otherwise – and got them to vote. How did they get them to vote? They may have given them rides to the polls, they may have offered to fill out and return their ballots for them, or they may have voted ballots for the ones who were not going to vote.
Many on the left believe there is nothing wrong with committing fraud in order to ensure Obama's reelection. It is a common tenet on the left that the ends justify the means. Saul Alinsky, the 1960's radical who inspired Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, taught community organizers like Obama that dishonesty is acceptable if it achieves your political goals. And when caught, Alinsky teaches radicals to deny the wrongdoing and change the topic to put their accusers on the defensive. One Obama supporter brazenly posted on Facebook that he was voting four times for Obama, asserting that the ends justify the means.
Aiding Obama's win was a devious suppression of the conservative vote. The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.
Voter fraud has been in the works for years. At least 52 employees of the left wing group ACORN have beenconvicted of voter registration fraud. ACORN itself was convicted of the crime of "compensation," paying its registration canvassers bonuses to exceed their quotas. In 2008, 36% of ACORN's voter registrations were invalidated. Left wing political pundit Chris Matthews admitted last year that pretending to call someone from a polling company, then voting their ballot for them, has been happening in big cities since the 1950's. He admitted he knows that kind of voter fraud takes place in Philadelphia.
Strong-arming people into voting who really have no desire to vote undermines our form of government. People do not choose to vote because they are uninformed about the issues and candidates, are lazy, cynical, or are content with the status quo. Voting someone else's ballot for them is cheating the system and essentially giving yourself two votes.
When people claim that Obama won because the economy was improving, or because Americans generally think he is doing a good job, it is not true. He won through dishonest methods and rhetoric. Many of the votes cast in the swing states were cajoled, some legally and perhaps even more illegally, into supporting him. If voter fraud becomes acceptable, then maybe Donald Trump is right: it's time for a revolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3) Entitlement Cliff’ Threatens America
Much has been said about the “fiscal cliff” coming at the end of the year, when tax cuts are set to expire and automatic spending cuts begin, but that “pales in comparison” to the “entitlement cliff” looming for the country in coming years, a new report warns.
Entitlement spending is already so high that the cost of all entitlement programs plus interest on the debt is nearly equal to total federal revenue. That means virtually everything else the government does is being paid for with borrowed money, the report from the Institute for Policy Innovation discloses.
Entitlements include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and means-tested welfare programs, plus veteran benefits, unemployment pay, disability pay, and more.
A number of these programs have grown substantially since President Obama took office. Medicaid has grown from 46.9 recipients to 56 million, disability beneficiaries have increased from 7.5 million to 8.8 million, and the food stamp program has grown from 32 million beneficiaries to 47 million.
All told, more than 120 million Americans receive entitlements of some kind, according to the Institute, a Texas-based think tank. Add to that an estimated 16 million new Medicaid beneficiaries resulting from Obamacare, and some 18 million people who enter the health insurance exchanges beginning in 2014.
The bottom line: For fiscal 2012, the federal government spent about $2.2 trillion of its $3.7 trillion budget on entitlement programs, while gross annual revenues stood at $2.6 trillion. Add interest on the federal debt of $220 billion to the entitlement payout, and that leaves less than $200 billion to pay for everything else, including defense, transportation, education, and homeland security. So the government makes up the shortfall by borrowing, or printing, money.
The problem will only get worse in coming years. Since 1980, Medicare and Medicaid have grown at more than 9 percent annually, and an estimated 77 million baby boomers are beginning to retire and collect Social Security.
At the same time, the pool of workers who pay for these programs is not growing. The Tax Policy Center reports that only 53 percent of households now pay both income and payroll taxes.
The Institute observes: “Attempting to collect enough money to sustain this level of entitlement spending will only result in a reduction in work effort, reduced employment opportunities, and more people moving onto entitlements.”
The Institute offers several steps necessary to deal with the growing entitlement problem. One way is to reform entitlements into real safety-net programs that help those most in need and don’t encourage continued reliance on welfare.
Another is to encourage economic growth by lowering personal and corporate income tax rates while eliminating loopholes, and lowering taxes on investment income.
Also, several programs could be transitioned into prefunded personal accounts.
The Institute’s conclusion: “Any solution that maintains the current defined-benefit structure — unless it is for a small number of the poorest Americans — is only postponing the inevitable financial day of reckoning.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)If Someone Comes to Kill You, Rise Up and Kill Him First
Questions to ponder:
I. Is there a Jewish concept of self-defense?
II. How might classic Jewish principles apply to the behavior of modern nations?
III. Are the State of Israel's actions consistent with Jewish tradition?
Several days before the horror of September 11, 2001, Israel's Foreign Minister Shimon Peres spoke to Conservative rabbis in an international conference call. Responding to a concern expressed about Israel's policy of preemptive targeted killings of suspected terrorist leaders and the inevitable collateral damage, Mr. Peres defended the practice, citing an oft-quoted rabbinic legal dictum, "Im ba l'hargekha, hashkem l'hargo," "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him (first)."
I. Is there a Jewish concept of self-defense?
II. How might classic Jewish principles apply to the behavior of modern nations?
III. Are the State of Israel's actions consistent with Jewish tradition?
Several days before the horror of September 11, 2001, Israel's Foreign Minister Shimon Peres spoke to Conservative rabbis in an international conference call. Responding to a concern expressed about Israel's policy of preemptive targeted killings of suspected terrorist leaders and the inevitable collateral damage, Mr. Peres defended the practice, citing an oft-quoted rabbinic legal dictum, "Im ba l'hargekha, hashkem l'hargo," "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him (first)."
The uproar last July by Israel-bashers and, more credibly, by the Israeli Jewish public after the Israeli army bombed a Gaza apartment building, inadvertently killing fourteen civilians, including nine children, along with arch-terrorist Salah Shehada, again focused attention on the issue of collateral damage in the implementation of "Im ba l'hargekha."
It is important to understand the text and context of the Jewish "im ba l'hargekha" directive cited by Mr. Peres and to ask (more than answer) what the parameters of its implementation should be today. The principle originates in the Talmudic discussion of a profoundly realistic and relevant passage, Exodus 22, which refers to a case of self-defense by a homeowner against an intruding burglar. The Torah makes a clear distinction between a nighttime and daytime robbery. As the text states,
[If] the thief is seized while tunneling, and he is beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt [for the homeowner]. If the sun has risen on him [and he is beaten to death], there is bloodguilt [for the homeowner].
"Tunneling" is understood by most scholars to imply an event that occurred at night, under the cover of darkness, in contrast to one that occurred during daylight hours, described by the phrase, "If the sun has risen on him." If one defends oneself against a nighttime intruder by killing him, no guilt is incurred by the person who committed the killing. The reasoning behind this determination is based on the rabbinic interpretation of the intruder's presumed intent. By entering a home at night, when he is likely to encounter the home's occupants, the burglar indicates a willingness to use force against them, and is, therefore, presumed to have homicidal intent. Since he has, moreover, created an imminent threat to the residents, the burglar exposes himself to the risk of being killed by a member of the household, who is acting in legally sanctioned self-defense. The household member, therefore, will not be held liable and subject to punishment for killing the intruder.
In contradistinction, a would-be thief who enters during the day signals his reluctance to use force against a home's occupants. A homeowner in this case is held accountable if he kills the intruder.
The Talmudic discussion of this Exodus passage introduces the classic Jewish principle of self-defense, "Im ba l'hargekha, hashkem l'hargo," "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him (first)." If there is homicidal intent, self-defense is more than permitted; it is required. This is a common principle of all legal systems, America's included.
The implementation of this principle in a modern context, in the geopolitical reality of nation-states, creates a challenge for contemporary leaders. Is it reasonable to base a country's foreign or defense policy on an ancient legal code designed to apply to criminal acts committed by individuals against other individuals? In reality, there are no specific Jewish laws governing the response of states to acts of terrorism by individuals. There are biblical guidelines for wars conducted by Jews which distinguish between battles to defend the Land of Israel and other "voluntary" battles, but these laws challenge modern sensibilities because they include specific commands to eradicate the non-Israelite inhabitants of the Land of Israel. Fundamentalists have misused these isolated biblical texts for their malevolent agendas.
Nonetheless, it is appropriate to apply the foundational ethics of the Bible and Talmud regarding the sanctity of human life to the actions of modern nations. Among those ethics is preservation of one's own life, and self-defense is a necessary corollary of that, making it an essential component of any policy for a nation dedicated to the protection of the lives of its citizenry. The state can be said to assume the role of "homeowner" writ large.
That said, how imminent does a threat have to be to justify lethal force in preemptive self-defense? From the perspective of a modern state, if one waits until the terrorists "tunnel" into our homes in the middle of the night - that is, invade territory through stealth means, as they have - it is obviously too late to conduct effective measures of self-defense. In fact, citizens justifiably hold their governments accountable if everything within their power isn't done (including invoking the use of lethal force) to prevent terrorist attacks from occurring. This concept was dramatically articulated at a recent meeting of the American Jewish Committee's Board of Governors. In a debate over the appropriate balance between civil liberties and national security, a participant forcefully advocated prioritizing national security over civil liberties, declaring, "The first civil liberty is the right to live." The most sacred task of any government is to protect its citizens from physical harm.
But that is the relatively easy question. Nearly all embrace the concept of self-defense. Today's unsettling dilemma is the issue of unintended innocent victims and collateral damage in the implementation of preemptive self-defense. What if anything is an acceptable level of collateral damage in the pursuit of self-defense? Can one justify the deaths of innocent bystanders in an action designed to prevent terrorist attacks? This is a values conflict without a simple answer, but the criteria of intent, as framed by the Talmudic argument, offers a cogent guidepost for understanding and reflection.
With regard to intent, there is a moral chasm that exists between the targeting of civilians by suicide bombers and the inevitable accidental deaths of civilians during preemptive strikes against proven terrorists. This distinction has been casually and conveniently overlooked by many pundits, including Caleb Carr, a military historian and author of an op-ed piece that appeared in the New York Times. In his polemic, Carr unfairly equated the Gaza bombing in which Shehada was killed with the World War II German bombardment of British civilian areas, the Allied bombing campaign of German cities, the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Palestinian suicide bombings. As one letter to the editor correctly pointed out,
There is a world of difference between the civilian deaths that occurred during the Israeli assassination of the Hamas military leader and the civilian deaths that occur when buses or pizza parlors or discos or restaurants are blown up.
Ultimately, the acceptability of unintended innocent victims' deaths in the pursuit of a state's legitimate goal - defense of its citizenry against homicidal insurgents - remains a difficult judgment. The Jewish and democratic values inherent in Israeli society have succeeded in forcing public debate on this defining topic, even as the horrific pressure of casualties resulting from the suicide bombing attacks mounts. To their eternal credit, Israelis understand that the way a country balances legitimate defense needs against concern for the lives of its enemy's civilian population can characterize the soul of a nation. Notwithstanding the hypocritical criticism of many, Israel's soul is indeed reflected in its sincere efforts to adhere to a Jewish and democratic ethical code that values human life and to retain its national integrity in unprecedentedly challenging circumstances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5)Why Did FBI Keep White House and Congress in the Dark About Petraeus Investigation?
When FBI investigators interviewed then-CIA director David Petraeus around two weeks ago over a probe that was launched in the spring, he came clean to having an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. At the time there was no suggestion he was going to resign. Once Director of National Intelligence James Clapper found out though, he immediately told Petraeus he should step down. But that didn’t happen until Election Day. And it remains unclear why the FBI waited so long to tell Clapper there was an ongoing investigation, points out Reuters.
Leaders in Congress area none too happy they were also left in the dark for so long. Clapper found out about the affair Tuesday night, and told the White House Wednesday. Yet Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who leads the intelligence committee, said she found out about Petraeus’ affair through the media. "It was like a lightning bolt," Feinstein told Fox News on Sunday. “We will investigate why the committee didn’t know,” the California Democrat said. “We should have been told.”
For his part, House Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Peter King told CNN that at least the president should have been told earlier, reports the Hill. “The FBI should have had an obligation to tell the president,” King said. “It just doesn’t add up.”
Unnamed sources who defend the lack of notification to lawmakers insist the situation would have been different if investigators had uncovered security breaches. Yet it all began as a possible criminal investigation and Petraeus wasn’t the subject of the inquiry in the first place.
"This investigation wasn't about the CIA director, it was about what looked like a cyber crime," an official tells the Wall Street Journal. "There are strict rules, there is a wall, about sharing information on ongoing criminal investigations."
One expert explains to Politico that although, by law, Congress must be informed about “significant intelligence activities or failures” what “significant” means is “left undefined and in the eye of the beholder.” In this case it’s not clear whether it really made sense for the FBI to inform lawmakers of an investigation before they knew where it was headed first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment