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
---
This afternoon a local physician spoke about Iran at our house. He traces his family back some 2500 years. He left Iran in 1967, came to America where he practices medicine. He has returned on several occasions , the last to bring an ailing brother to America in 1980. He keeps up with what is going on via the internet and by connecting with many Iranians who travel back and forth and who currently live mostly in California etc. .
He does not believe Iran's leaders are likely to initiate the use of an atomic device even if they perfect one in the near term.
From a long term viewpoint he believes the current control of the country will change from within but does not know what will be the catalyst.
He acknowledges the ayatollahs who currently rule are committed to their cause but are rational enough not to bring devastation to their country. However, allowing Iran to develop and posses nuclear power is neither in the best interest of the region nor a positive factor for world peace.
He agrees that, difficult as it may be, Israel can penetrate Iran and cause a set back in their nuclear program but does not believe Netanyahu will undertake such unilaterally.
---
This was sent to a dear friend of long standing who forwarded it to me. (See 1 below.)
---
Adelson says what I am sure my father would be saying were he alive. (See 2 below.)
---
I share Barone's sentiments for the following reasons:
Why Romney should win hands down:
1) 30 newspapers have switched their endorsement from Obama to Romney - 4 major ones.
Three have switched to Obama from Romney,
I believe this reflects voter sentiment.
2) Obama over promised and undelivered. All key metrics are worse
3) Obama's policies have failed both domestically as well as in the foreign arena.
4) Obama has been a divisive president pitting citizen against citizen.
5) Obama has proven to be an inveterate liar and the most recent evidence is the Benghazi cover-up.
6) Obama has no plan to resolve problems, many of which he either created or made worse, whereas, Romney has a proven track record and has offered realistic and practical solutions.
7) Obama's recent comment that voting can be vindictive lands outside the American spirit of positive thinking.
8) Finally, Obama's thin resume pales against Romney's accomplishments and that is now evident. (See 3 and 3a below.)
The one caveat that also concerns John Fund !:
| WHAT'S NEW ON PJTV | |
|
Could the outcome of the 2012 election be determined by voter fraud? PJ Media contributor and former Department of Justice lawyer J. Christian Adams thinks incidents will be at an all-time high this year. Hear what groups like True the Vote are doing to ensure fairness at the ballot box. And don’t miss any of PJTV’s election coverage -- click here for full coverage.
|
---
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) To all
First of all, if you haven't voted early , vote your conscience and convictions on Tuesday. I think you will know by my comments which way I will vote. Before you delete this email, please at least read, reflect and ponder on my comments, observations, concerns and questions. I likewise will read any returned counter thoughts and observations.
I. I am concerned about the direction our country is going. Our government is getting bigger and bigger with increased deficit spending, more government employees, more regulations and more entitlements including substantial payments to illegal aliens, and more and more intrusion into our lives. As this trend continues we travel down the path toward socialism.
If you take a look at the income tax rates of socialistic countries, they are substantially higher than our current tax rates.
The current government is deficit spending at a rate that has increased our national debt by 30% in just 3 years, to a level of over $16 trillion, with a substantial portion financed by borrowing from foreign countries, including China. At that rate our national debt will substantially exceed $20 trillion in a few short years and at some point will bankrupt the country. The only way to balance the budget, and to stop going down the road to financial disaster, even with reasonable growth in our economy, is reduced government spending, including reduction of entitlements, AND higher taxes. This is placing a huge burden on our children and grandchildren. Is that a legacy you want to leave to them?
With over 40% of our population on some form of government subsidy, we have a country that is becoming increasingly polarized, with a proportionately increasing number of takers and fewer makers/payers. Over time this is untenable. We are evolving from a nation of opportunity to a nation of entitlement.
To quote Thomas Jefferson; "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
"It is incumbent upon every generation to pay its debts as it goes. A principle if acted upon would save one half the wars of the world."
"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall otherwise leave them free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement , and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."
" I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Food for thought !
Food for thought !
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)-I Didn't Leave the Democrats. They Left Me
2)-I Didn't Leave the Democrats. They Left Me
There is an anti-Israel movement among the rank and file, and the party no longer appears to value self-reliance, charity and accountability.
By SHELDON G. ADELSON
When members of the Democratic Party booed the inclusion of God and Jerusalem in their party platform this year, I thought of my parents.
They would have been astounded.
The immigrant family in which I grew up was, in the matter of politics, typical of the Jews of Boston in the 1930s and '40s. Of the two major parties, the Democrats were in those days the more supportive of Jewish causes.
Indeed, only liberal politicians campaigned in our underprivileged neighborhood. Boston's Republicans, insofar as we knew them, were remote, wealthy elites ("Boston Brahmins"), some of whose fancy country clubs didn't accept Jews.
It therefore went without saying that we were Democrats. Like most Jews around the country, being Democrat was part of our identity, as much a feature of our collective personality as our religion.
So why did I leave the party?
My critics nowadays like to claim it's because I got wealthy or because I didn't want to pay taxes or because of some other conservative caricature. No, the truth is the Democratic Party has changed in ways that no longer fit with someone of my upbringing.
One obvious example is the party's new attitude toward Israel. A sobering Gallup poll from last March asked: "Are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?" Barely 53% of Democrats chose Israel, the sole liberal democracy in the region. By contrast, an overwhelming 78% of Republicans sympathized with Israel.
Nowhere was this change in Democratic sympathies more evident than in the chilling reaction on the floor of the Democratic convention in September when the question of Israel's capital came up for a vote. Anyone who witnessed the delegates' angry screaming and fist-shaking could see that far more is going on in the Democratic Party than mere opposition to citing Jerusalem in their platform. There is now a visceral anti-Israel movement among rank-and-file Democrats, a disturbing development that my parents' generation would not have ignored.
Bettmann/Corbis
President Truman holds the Torah presented to him by Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the first president of Israel, May 25, 1948.
Another troubling change is that Democrats seem to have moved away from the immigrant values of my old neighborhood—in particular, individual charity and neighborliness. After studying tax data from the IRS, the nonpartisan Chronicle of Philanthropy recently reported that states that vote Republican are now far more generous to charities than those voting Democratic. In 2008, the seven least-generous states all voted for President Obama. My father, who kept a charity box for the poor in our house, would have frowned on this fact about modern Democrats.
Democrats would reply that taxation and government services are better vehicles for helping the underprivileged. And, yes, government certainly has its role. But when you look at states where Democrats have enjoyed years of one-party dominance—California, Illinois, New York—you find that their liberal policies simply don't deliver on their promises of social justice.
Take, for example, President Obama's adopted home state. In October, a nonpartisan study of Illinois's finances by the State Budget Crisis Task Force offered painful evidence that liberal Illinois is suffering from abject economic, demographic and social decline. With the worst credit rating in the country, and with the second-biggest public debt per capita, the Prairie State "has been doing back flips on a high wire, without a net," according to the report.
Political scientist Walter Russell Mead summed up the sad results of these findings at The American Interest: "Illinois politicians, including the present president of the United States, have wrecked one of the country's potentially most prosperous and dynamic states, condemned millions of poor children to substandard education, failed to maintain vital infrastructure, choked business development and growth through unsustainable tax and regulatory policies—and still failed to appease the demands of the public sector unions and fee-seeking Wall Street crony capitalists who make billions off the state's distress."
At times, it seems almost as if President Obama wants to impose the failed Illinois model on the whole country. Each year of his presidency has produced unsustainable deficits, and he takes no responsibility for his spending. Worse still, unemployment has become chronic, and many Americans have given up on looking for work.
Whenever President Obama deplores the wealthy ("fat-cat bankers," "millionaires and billionaires," "at a certain point you've made enough money," and so on), it tells me that he has failed to learn the economic lessons of Illinois, and that he still doesn't understand the vital role entrepreneurs play in creating jobs in our society.
As a person who has been able to rise from poverty to affluence, and who has created jobs and work benefits for tens of thousands of families, I feel obligated to speak up and support the American ideals I grew up with—charity, self-reliance, accountability. These are the age-old virtues that help make our communities prosperous. Yet, sadly, the Democratic Party no longer seems to value them as it once did. That's why I switched parties, and why I'm now giving amply to Republicans.
Although I don't agree with every Republican position—I'm liberal on several social issues—there is enough common cause with the party for me to know I've made the right choice.
It's the choice that, I believe, my old immigrant Jewish neighbors would have made. They would not have let a few disagreements with Republicans void the importance of siding with the political party that better supports liberal democracies like Israel, the party that better exemplifies the spirit of charity, and the party with economic policies that would certainly be better for those Americans now looking for work.
The Democratic Party just isn't what it used to be.
Mr. Adelson is an entrepreneur and philanthropist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)Going Out on a Limb: Romney Beats Obama, Handily
Fundamentals usually prevail in American elections. That's bad news for Barack Obama. True, Americans want to think well of their presidents, and many think it would be bad if Americans were perceived as rejecting the first black president.
But it's also true that most voters oppose Obama's major policies and consider unsatisfactory the very sluggish economic recovery -- Friday's job report showed an unemployment uptick.
Also, both national and target state polls show that independents -- voters who don't identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans -- break for Romney.
That might not matter if Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 39 to 32 percent, as they did in the 2008 exit poll. But just about every indicator suggests that Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting -- and about their candidate -- than they were in 2008, and Democrats are less so.
That's been apparent in early or absentee voting, where Democrats trail their 2008 numbers in target states Virginia, Ohio, Iowa and Nevada.
The Obama campaign strategy, from the beginning, has recognized these handicaps, running barrages of early anti-Romney ads in states that Obama carried narrowly. But other states, not so heavily barraged, have come into contention.
Which candidate will get the electoral votes of the target states? I'll go out on a limb and predict them, in ascending order of 2008 Obama percentages -- fully aware that I'm likely to get some wrong.
Indiana (11 electoral votes). Uncontested. Romney.
North Carolina (15 electoral votes). Obama has abandoned this target. Romney.
Florida (29). The biggest target state has trended Romney since the Denver debate. I don't see any segment of the electorate favoring Obama more than in 2008, and I see some (South Florida Jews) favoring him less. Romney.
Ohio (18). The anti-Romney auto bailout ads have Obama running well enough among blue collar for him to lead most polls. But many polls anticipate a more Democratic electorate than 2008. Early voting tells another story, and so does the registration decline in Cleveland's Cuyahoga County. In 2004, intensity among rural, small town and evangelical voters, undetected by political reporters who don't mix in such circles, produced a narrow Bush victory. I see that happening again. Romney.
Virginia (13). Post-debate polling mildly favors Romney, and early voting is way down in heavily Democratic Arlington, Alexandria, Richmond and Norfolk. Northern Virginia Asians may trend Romney. Romney.
Colorado (9). Unlike 2008, registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats, and more Republicans than Democrats have voted early. The Republican trend in 2010 was squandered by weak candidates for governor and senator. Not this time. Romney.
Iowa (6). The unexpected Romney endorsements by the Des Moines Register and three other newspapers gave voice to buyer's remorse in a state Obama carried by 10 points. Democrats' traditional margin in early voting has declined. Romney.
Minnesota (10). A surprise last-minute media buy for the Romney campaign. But probably a bridge too far. Obama.
New Hampshire (4). Polls are very tight here. I think superior Republican intensity will prevail. Romney.
Pennsylvania (20). Everyone would have picked Obama two weeks ago. I think higher turnout in pro-coal western Pennsylvania and higher Republican percentages in the Philadelphia suburbs could produce a surprise. The Romney team evidently thinks so too. Their investment in TV time is too expensive to be a mere feint, and as this is written, Romney is planning a Sunday event in Bucks County outside Philly. Wobbling on my limb, Romney.
Nevada (6). Democratic early voting turnout is down from 2008 in Las Vegas' Clark County, 70 percent of the state. But the casino unions' turnout machine on Election Day re-elected an unpopular Harry Reid in 2010, and I think they'll get enough Latinos and Filipinos out this time. Obama.
Wisconsin (10). Recent polling is discouraging for Republicans. But Gov. Scott Walker handily survived the recall effort in June with a great organizational push. Democrats depend heavily on margins in inner-city Milwaukee (population down) and the Madison university community. But early voting is down in university towns in other states. The Obama campaign is prepared to turn out a big student vote, but you don't see many Obama signs on campuses. Romney.
Oregon (7), New Mexico (5), New Jersey (14). Uncontested. Obama.
Michigan (16). Romney chose Pennsylvania, where there's no auto bailout issue. Obama.
Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals.
Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com), is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2012 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
3a)The Election Will Not Be Close
By Monty Pelerin
The election is tomorrow. The entire buildup to this point has been somewhat surreal. The pollsters tell us that the election is too close to call, but that does not conform with reality.
3a)The Election Will Not Be Close
By Monty Pelerin
The election is tomorrow. The entire buildup to this point has been somewhat surreal. The pollsters tell us that the election is too close to call, but that does not conform with reality.
It is easy to distort reality based on predispositions and desires. For that reason, I state mine. I have no interest in Romney winning other than that he is not Obama. I am not a Republican, although I generally believe that their ideas are less bad than those of Democrats. In a real sense, I am what you might call an "equal-opportunity hater" with respect to politics. I don't want to be ruled by either party, or anyone else for that matter.
Why does it seem impossible to call this race? My eyes tell me things either that pollsters cannot see or that people are unwilling to tell them. Here are a few of them:
• The country is stuck in a recession which Obama has made worse. After four years, he has no plan to remedy matters.
• Foreign policy, arguably less understandable to voters, is disintegrating in front of their eyes. Benghazi is exploding all over Obama and is something he is unable to blame on someone else.
• More people are on food stamps and welfare than ever before. People sense that Obama is not displeased with this condition.
• Incomes are falling, and unemployment is not. College graduates cannot get jobs commensurate with their education. Despair is everywhere.
• Net worth is falling, and prices are rising. People's standard of living has declined for four straight years.
• Retirement is no longer an option for large segments of the population.
These are relatively objective measures which people see and feel.
Facts matter, especially to those concerned about the country, their futures, and the futures of their grandchildren. The electorate may not be the brightest, as H.L. Mencken always reminded us. But they do feel pain and do not relish it. Cats who jump on a hot stove are smart enough never to jump on a stove again. That may be the driving motivation in this election.
Even the so-called parasite class (dependents living at the expense of others) understand what is in their best interest. They will vote for whoever promises to extend their benefits. Yet the so-called parasite class is much smaller than the class who receive government assistance. Many are there not by choice, but by circumstance. Some have never been in this position before. They want a job again, where they can have a purpose, a role, and respect. Most who paid into the social insurance programs understand that these programs are not sustainable. They have been offered a choice that allows them to retain their current benefits or to pretend there is no problem. They will vote to protect what they have.
Given these obvious conditions, it doesn't seem that this election should even be close. The country is not that far gone! Arguably, Barack Obama has surpassed Jimmy Carter as the worst president of anyone alive today. Only the Kool-Aid drinkers and the infatuated mainstream media are so far gone as to not understand that.
There is not one person who voted for John McCain last time who will switch and vote for Obama this time. There are many previous Obama supporters who plan to vote for Romney. Republicans who stayed home four years ago rather than vote for McCain are not going to stay home again. Many will vote not because of Romney, but in spite of Romney. They want no more of Obama and his policies.
Crowd comparisons between Romney and Obama reveal Obama as a fad whose time has passed. There is energy and enthusiasm in the Romney campaign. There is anger and pettiness in the Obama campaign.
Early voting suggests a tsunami for Romney, at least when compared to the corresponding numbers four years ago. Women are breaking for Romney. States that were never thought to be in play by pollsters suddenly look even or even trending toward Romney. Pennsylvania and Michigan are two examples. Nothing is moving toward Obama. Everything is moving away.
Newspaper endorsements reflect the mood of their readers. The Des Moines Register endorsed Romney. Ditto the NY Daily News and many other papers who routinely endorse Democrats. Ben Shapiro reports:
According to the University of California, Santa Barbara American Presidency Project study of the top 100 newspaper editorial endorsements, Mitt Romney has seen a vast wave of switches from 2008 Obama endorsers. Obama, meanwhile, has seen only one newspaper that endorsed John McCain come around to endorse him. At the same time, many newspapers have also switched from Obama to "no endorsement."
There is not one constituency group that reasonably can be seen increasing its support for Obama. Hardcore Democrat groups are uninspired. Turnout among them will be lower. Obama will win these groups by overwhelming majorities, but the groups will be much smaller this time around.
Doug Ross presented some interesting results that support my contentions. A survey commissioned by the Washington Post is the source of these numbers. Mr. Ross's summary included the following (my emphasis):
Overall, the Post-ABC poll found that 13 percent of 2008 Obama voters have decided to back Mitt Romney.
Survey results are summarized in this table:
Michael Barone has predicted that Romney will win big (315 electoral votes). I agree with Mr. Barone, although I have no feel for the number of electoral votes.
This survey, Barone, and other obvious signs indicate that there is little doubt as to what will happen tomorrow. Romney is headed for an easy win, a big win.
The media will utilize their Claude Rains defense -- "shocked, shocked" at the "unexpected" outcome. Pundits will blame the results on late-breaking voters all going toward Romney. They will dissect the data in the most profound but useless ways. All of it will be for the purpose of maintaining what little credibility they have left.
Reality has been apparent to anyone willing to look. Even the Obama campaign sensed their problem. In order to win, they had to make their opponent appear worse than their candidate. Their only hope was to portray Mr. Romney as some uncaring, evil monster. That portrait vanished after the first debate. Romney crossed the only threshold that was necessary -- he was a living, breathing human being, not a monster. And, by the way, he was caring and competent.
This country may be down and its people hurting, but it is not out. People understand that conditions need not be this way and they are about to impose their remediation on Washington. I hope the Romney team is worthy of this support.
Sleep well tonight and look forward to the results rolling in tomorrow evening. I don't think it will be necessary to stay up late to know the outcome. Only hardcore political fanatics will do so.
But don't get too cocky. Rasmussen, whom I think is the best pollster in the lot, has yet to provide definitive numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment