---
Dear friend and fellow memo reader's response to my last memo: "It’s simple. The problem is not money…it’s spending. We have all had good paying jobs. We only get into trouble when we spend more than we make. That’s why the banking institutions invented ChargeX (Master Card) and BankAmericard (VISA). Buy now…pay later…if you can! And government has followed suit nicely. Oh, and if you can’t pay off that debt…file bankruptcy, get bailed out, and start again. Oh yeah…cut up those cards and get a few others. In the old days (before credit cards) you would write a bad check knowing you didn’t have enough money to cover it and deposit that money in your account to cover the last one. You could do that several times until pay day. It was called check kiting and it was (is) illegal. Unless you are the government. The truest definition of Paying It Forward!!!
Also, we need a media candidate if we ever hope to take it back! If you can’t be a musician on the late night shows or SNL or an egotistical narcissist on “The View”, you ain’t gotta prayer in the voting booth! This nation puts too much emphasis on media and we all know who’s wagon they are riding on?"
---
What next for Israel vis a vis Iran? (See 1 below.)
---
In the last several weeks we have read about a football player shooting his wife and then himself, then another driving in an inebriated condition and killing his friend, Syria's Assad seems he might gas his own people and Obama issue another meaningless warning etc. so I thought you might enjoy this refreshing video at what should be a joyous time of the year: http://videos2view.net/shag-dance.htm
---
Worth repeating. (See 2 below.)
It is pretty obvious from Hollis' article (See 2 below) that strategy, helped by available technology, is far more imprtant than critical analysis when it comes to what impacts voters.
We seem to have reached the point where zombie like follow the crowd mentality is far more determinative than individuals able to analyze a situation and reason it out in a logical and systematic manner.
Emotion and self serving interests trump concern for the nation and a degree of passionate patriotism.
Obama may win the near term skirmishes but eventually economic reality will overwhelm the nation. He may escape blame for his part because he is walled off by the over protective press and media. When the pain begins to hit Obama's own worshipers, however, then, perhaps, reality will dawn.
Meanwhile, the coronation of Hillary has begun by the same press and media dolts who dissed her for their new messiah.
Notwithstanding the fact she has proven to be ineffective and perhaps one of the worst Secretary's of State, despite tireless efforts, the press and media have decided she is the one, the first female who must become president. Why? Because they first need to atone for having dumped her and second, because she will sell newspapers and air space. As the press and media rally to her cause she will be a formidable opponent and most likely will win regardless of what dire straits our nation is in because 'Ole" Bill, if he is still alive, will be there making sure it happens. (See 2a below.)
Once again Pogo was right - "The enemy is us!"
---
Does Obama care? You decide. (See 3 below.)
And then this. (See 3a below.)
Finally, this by an Egyptian writer who believes his country is on the way to Nazism. (See 3b below.)
---
Employment improvement is basically all government:
"73% of New Jobs Created in Last 5 Months Are in Government
Seventy-three percent of the new civilian jobs created in the United States over the last five months are in government, according to official data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In June, a total of 142,415,000 people were employed in the U.S, according to the BLS, including 19,938,000 who were employed by federal, state and local governments.
By November, according to data BLS released today, the total number of people employed had climbed to 143,262,000, an overall increase of 847,000 in the six months since June.
In the same five-month period since June, the number of people employed by government increased by 621,000 to 20,559,000. These 621,000 new government jobs created in the last five months equal 73.3 percent of the 847,000 new jobs created overall."
---
Sowell and Christmas reading of Stossel et. al.. (See 4 below.)
---
Calling bluff time? (See 5 below.)
Now getting serious. After all Obama wants nothing to interfere with his Hawaiian vacation. (See 5a below.)
---
When it comes to the Middle East and his fellow Arab/Muslim travelers, Obama has demonstrated repeatedly he has cataracts. (See 6 below.)
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)For Israel, What Next In The Matter Of Iran? (2 of 3)
Louis Rene Beres
Associate Professional Specialist and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law at University of Notre Dame. Past Director at Gigot Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Associate Director and Clinical Professor at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Education: University of Notre Dame Law School, University of Notre Dame.
I am already reading so many pundits and other talking heads analyzing the
disaster that was this year's elections. I am adding my own ten cents.
Here goes:
1. We are outnumbered.
We accurately foresaw the enthusiasm, the passion, the commitment, the
determination, and the turnout. Married women, men, independents, Catholics,
evangelicals - they all went for Romney in percentages as high or higher
than the groups which voted for McCain in 2008. It wasn't enough. What we
saw in the election on Tuesday was a tipping point: we are now at a place
where there are legitimately fewer Americans who desire a free republic with
a free people than there are those who think the government should give them
stuff. There are fewer of us who believe in the value of free exchange and
free enterprise. There are fewer of us who do not wish to demonize
successful people in order to justify taking from them. We are outnumbered.
For the moment. It's just that simple.
2. It wasn't the candidate(s)
Some are already saying, "Romney was the wrong guy"; "He should have picked
Marco Rubio to get Florida/Rob Portman to get Ohio/Chris Christie to get
[someplace else]." With all due respect, these assessments are incorrect.
Romney ran a strategic and well-organized campaign. Yes, he could have hit
harder on Benghazi. But for those who would have loved that, there are those
who would have found it distasteful. No matter what tactic you could point
to that Romney could have done better, it would have been spun in a way that
was detrimental to his chances. Romney would have been an excellent
president, and Ryan was an inspired choice. No matter who we ran this year,
they would have lost.See #1, above.
3. It's the culture, stupid.
We have been trying to fight this battle every four years at the voting
booth. It is long past time we admit that is not where the battle really is.
We abdicated control of the culture - starting back in the 1960's. And now our
largest primary social institutions - education, the media, Hollywood
(entertainment) have become really nothing more than an assembly line for
cranking out reliable little Leftists. Furthermore, we have allowed the
government to undermine the institutions that instill good character -
marriage, the family, communities, schools, our churches. So, here we are,
at least two full generations later - we are reaping what we have sown. It
took nearly fifty years to get here; it will take another fifty years to get
back. But it starts with the determination to reclaim education, the media,
and the entertainment business. If we fail to do that, we can kiss every
election goodbye from here on out. And much more.
4. America has become a nation of adolescents
The real loser in this election was adulthood: Maturity.
Responsibility. The understanding that liberty must be accompanied by self-restraint. Obama is a spoiled child, and the behavior and language of his followers and their
advertisements throughout the campaign makes it clear how many of them are,
as well. Romney is a grown-up. Romney should have won. Those of us who
expected him to win assumed that voters would act like grownups.
Because if we were a nation of grownups, he would have won.
But what did win? Sex. Drugs. Bad language. Bad manners. Vulgarity.
Lies. Cheating. Name-calling. Finger-pointing. Blaming. And irresponsible
spending.
This does not bode well. People grow up one of two ways: either they
choose to, or circumstances force them to. The warnings are all there, whether
it is the looming economic disaster, or the inability of the government to
respond to crises like Hurricane Sandy, or the growing strength and
brazenness of our enemies. American voters stick their fingers in their ears
and say, "Lalalalalala, I can't hear you.";
It is unpleasant to think about the circumstances it will take to force
Americans to grow up. It is even more unpleasant to think about Obama at the
helm when those circumstances arrive.
5. Yes, there is apparently a Vagina Vote
It's the subject matter of another column in its entirety to point out, one
by one, all of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the Democrats this
year. Suffice it to say that the only "war on women" was the one waged by
the Obama campaign, which sexualized and objectified women, featuring them
dressed up like vulvas at the Democrat National Convention, appealing to
their "lady parts," comparing voting to losing your virginity with Obama,
trumpeting the thrills of destroying our children in the womb (and using our
daughters in commercials to do so), and making Catholics pay for their birth
control. For a significant number of women, this was appealing. It might
call into question the wisdom of the Nineteenth Amendment, but for the fact
that large numbers of women (largely married) used their "lady smarts"
instead. Either way, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are rolling
over in their graves.
6. It's not about giving up on "social issues";
No Republican candidate should participate in a debate or go out on the
stump without thorough debate prep and a complete set of talking points that
they stick to. This should start with a good grounding in biology and a
reluctance to purport to know the will of God. (Thank you, Todd and
Richard.)
That said, we do not hold the values we do because they garner votes. We
hold the values we do because we believe that they are time-tested
principles without which a civilized, free and prosperous society is not
possible.
We defend the unborn because we understand that a society which views some
lives as expendable is capable of viewing all lives as expendable.
We defend family - mothers, fathers, marriage, children - because history
makes it quite clear that societies without intact families quickly descend
into anarchy and barbarism, and we have plenty of proof of that in our inner
cities where marriage is infrequent and unwed motherhood approaches 80
percent. When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, many thought that the
abortion cause was lost. Forty years later, ultrasound technology has
demonstrated the inevitable connection between science and morality.
More Americans than ever define themselves as "pro-life." What is tragic is that
tens of millions of children have lost their lives while Americans figure
out what should have been obvious before.
There is no "giving up" on social issues. There is only the realization that
we have to fight the battle on other fronts. The truth will out in the end.
7. Obama does not have a mandate. And he does not need one.
I have to laugh - bitterly - when I read conservative pundits trying to
assure us that Obama "has to know" that he does not have a mandate, and so
he will have to govern from the middle. I don't know what they're smoking.
Obama does not care that he does not have a mandate. He does not view
himself as being elected (much less re-elected) to represent individuals. He
views himself as having been re-elected to complete the "fundamental
transformation" of America, the basic structure of which he despises.
Expect much more of the same - largely the complete disregard of the will of half
the American public, his willingness to rule by executive order, and the
utter inability of another divided Congress to rein him in. Stanley Kurtz
has it all laid out.
8. The Corrupt Media is the enemy
Too strong? I don't think so. I have been watching the media try to throw
elections since at least the early 1990's. In 2008 and again this year, we
saw the media cravenly cover up for the incompetence and deceit of this
President, while demonizing a good, honorable and decent man with lies and
smears. This is on top of the daily barrage of insults that conservatives
(and by that I mean the electorate, not the politicians) must endure at the
hands of this arrogant bunch of elitist snobs. Bias is one thing.What we
observed with Benghazi was professional malpractice and fraud. They need to
go.
Republicans, Libertarians and other conservatives need to be prepared to
play hardball with the Pravda press from here on out. And while we are at
it, defend those journalists (Jake Tapper, Sharyl Atkisson, Eli Lake) who
actually do their jobs. As well as Fox News & talk radio. Because you can
fully expect a re-elected Obama to try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in
term two.
9. Small business and entrepreneurs will be hurt the worst
For all the blather about "Wall Street versus Main Street," Obama's statist
agenda will unquestionably benefit the biggest corporations which - as with
the public sector unions - are in the best position to make campaign
donations, hire lobbyists, and get special exemptions carved out from
Obama's health care laws, his environmental regulations, his labor laws. It
will be the small business, the entrepreneur, and the first-time innovators
who will be crushed by their inability to compete on a level playing field.
10. America is more polarized than ever; and this time it's personal
I've been following politics for a long time, and it feels different this
time. Not just for me. I've received messages from other conservatives who
are saying the same thing: there is little to no tolerance left out there
for those who are bringing this country to its knees - even when they have
been our friends. It isn't just about "my guy" versus "your guy." It is my
view of America versus your view of America - a crippled, hemorrhaging,
debt-laden, weakened and dependent America that I want no part of and resent
being foisted on me. I no longer have any patience for stupidity, blindness,
or vulgarity, so with each dumb "tweet" or FB post by one of my happily
lefty comrades, another one bites the dust, for me. Delete. What does this
portend for a divided Congress? I expect that Republicans will be
demoralized and chastened for a short time. But I see them in a bad
position. Americans in general want Congress to work together. But many do
not want Obama's policies, and so Republicans who support them will be
toast. Good luck, guys.
11. It's possible that America just has to hit rock bottom
I truly believe that most Americans who voted for Obama have no idea what
they are in for. Most simply believe him when he says that all he really
wants is for the rich to pay "a little bit more." So reasonable! Who could
argue with that except a greedy racist? America is on a horrific bender. Has
been for some time now. The warning signs of our fiscal profligacy and
culture of lack of personal responsibility are everywhere - too many to
mention. We need only look at other countries which have gone the route we
are walking now to see what is in store. For the past four years -certainly
within the past campaign season - we have tried to warn Americans. Too many
refuse to listen, even when all of the events that have transpired during
Obama's presidency - unemployment, economic stagnation, skyrocketing prices,
the depression of the dollar, the collapse of foreign policy, Benghazi,
hopelessly inept responses to natural disasters - can be tied directly to
Obama's statist philosophies, and his decisions.
What that means, I fear, is that they will not see what is coming until the
whole thing collapses. That is what makes me so sad today. I see the country
I love headed toward its own "rock bottom," and I cannot seem to reach those
who are taking it there.
Previously, a few House members led by Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) have also suggested the party give Obama the tax deal he wants and fight over those tax cuts later.Elsewhere, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said he would accept such a deal.
Limbaugh was commenting on Obama’s push for tax increases as Republicans continue to negotiate with the Obama administration on how to prevent plunging off the so-called “fiscal cliff.”“He’s got two years here to double down, triple down, max out on it – and that’s if he cares about the 2014 midterms. But if you listen to Democrats talk, they don’t care about that.”
3b)Egypt – on the path to Nazism
1)For Israel, What Next In The Matter Of Iran? (2 of 3)
Louis Rene Beres
Steadily, Israel is strengthening its plans for ballistic missile defense, most visibly on the Arrow system and also on Iron Dome, a lower-altitude interceptor that is designed to guard against shorter-range rocket attacks from Lebanon and Gaza.
Unavoidably, these defensive systems, including certain others, which are still in the development phase, would have leakage. Because system penetration by even a single enemy missile carrying a nuclear warhead could, by definition, be intolerable, their principal benefit would not lie in supplying added physical protection for Israeli populations. Instead, this still-considerable benefit would have to lie elsewhere – that is, in critical enhancements of Israeli nuclear deterrence.
If still rational, a newly nuclear Iran would require incrementally increasing numbers of offensive missiles. This would be needed to achieve or to maintain a sufficiently destructive first-strike capability against Israel. There could come a time, however, when Iran would become able to deploy substantially more than a small number of nuclear-tipped missiles. Should that happen, all of Israel's active defenses, already inadequate as ultimate guarantors of physical protection, could cease functioning as critically supportive adjuncts to Israeli nuclear deterrence.
In the case of anticipated Iranian decisional “madness,” a still timely preemption against Iran, even if at very great cost and risk to Israel, could prove indispensable. Yet, at least in itself, this plainly destabilizing scenario is insufficiently plausible to warrant defensive first strikes. Israel would be better served by a bifurcated or two-pronged plan for successful deterrence. Here, one “prong” would be designed for an expectedly rational Iranian adversary, the other for a presumptively irrational one.
In broadest policy contours, we already know what Israel would need to do in order to maintain a stable deterrence posture vis-à-vis a newly nuclear Iran. But what if the leaders of such an adversary did not meet the characteristic expectations of rational behavior in world politics? In short, what if this leadership, from the very start or perhaps more slowly over time, chose not to consistently value Iran's national survival as a state more highly than any other preference, or combination of preferences?
In such acutely threatening circumstances, Israel's leaders would need to look closely at two eccentric and more-or-less untried nuclear deterrence strategies, possibly even in tandem with one another. First, these leaders would have to understand that even an irrational Iranian leadership could display distinct preferences, and associated hierarchies or rank-orderings of preferences. Their task, then, would be to determine precisely what these particular preferences might be (most likely, they would have to do with certain presumed religious goals), and, also, how these preferences are apt to be ranked in Tehran.
Second, Israel's leaders would have to determine, among other things, the likely deterrence benefits of pretended irrationality. An irrational Iranian enemy, if it felt Israel's decision-makers were irrational themselves, could be determinedly less likely to strike first. Years ago, General Moshe Dayan, then Israel's minister of defense, declared: “Israel must be seen as a mad dog; too dangerous to bother.” With this warning, Dayan revealed an intuitive awareness of the possible long-term benefits, to Israel, of feigned irrationality.
Of course, pretending irrationality could also be a double-edged sword, frightening the Iranian side to a point where it might actually feel more compelled to strike first itself. This risk of unwittingly encouraging enemy aggression could apply as well to an Iranian adversary that had been deemed rational. In this connection, it is worth noting, Israel could apply the tactic of pretended irrationality to a presumptively rational Iranian leadership, as well as to an expectedly irrational one.
On analytic balance, it may even be more purposeful for Israel to use this tactic in those cases where Iran had first been judged to be rational.
The dialectics of such multi-factorial calculations are enormously complex, and also potentially bewildering. Still, they must be studied and worked through meticulously, and by all seriously concerned strategists and decision-makers. For Israel, there is no rational alternative.
There is, however, a relevant prior point. Before Israel's leaders could proceed gainfully with any plans for deterring an irrational Iranian nuclear adversary, they would first need to be convinced that this adversary was, in fact, genuinely irrational, and not simply pretending irrationality.
The importance of an early sequencing for this vital judgment cannot be overstated. Because all specific Israeli deterrence policies must be founded upon the presumed rationality or irrationality of prospective nuclear enemies, accurately determining precise enemy preferences and preference-orderings will have to become the very first core phase of strategic planning in Tel Aviv.
Finally, as a newly nuclear Iran could sometime decide to share some of its fissile materials and technologies with assorted terrorist groups, Israel's leaders will also have to deal with the prospect of irrational nuclear enemies at the sub-state level. This perilous prospect is more likely than that of encountering irrationality at the national or state level. At the same time, at least in principle, the harms suffered from any such instances of nuclear terror would probably be on a tangibly lower order of magnitude.
Soon, if it has already decided against preemption, Israel will need to select appropriately refined and workable options for dealing with two separate, but interpenetrating, levels of danger. Should Iranian leaders be judged to meet the usual tests of rationality in world politics, Israel will then have to focus on reducing its longstanding nuclear ambiguity, or, on taking its bomb out of the “basement.” It will also need to operationalize an adequate retaliatory force that is recognizably hardened, multiplied, and dispersed.
Recognizability is critical, because the only reality that will be real in its deterrence consequences is perceived reality. In the language of philosophy, we would call this a “phenomenological” as opposed to a “behavioral” or “positivist” perspective.
Now, this visibly second-strike nuclear force should be made ready to inflict “assured destruction” against certain precisely identifiable enemy cities. In military parlance, therefore, Israel will need to convince Iran that its strategic targeting doctrine is “counter value,” not “counterforce.” It may also have to communicate to Iran certain partial and very general information about the sea basing of selected Israeli second-strike forces.
Ironically, an Iranian perception of Israeli nuclear weapons as uniformly too large, or too powerful, could conceivably weaken Israel's nuclear deterrence posture. For example, Iranian perceptions of exclusively mega-destructive Israeli nuclear weapons could effectively undermine the credibility of Israel's nuclear deterrent. Though counter-intuitive, Israel's credibility in certain confrontational circumstances could actually vary inversely with the perceived destructiveness of its nuclear arms.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) By Laura Hollis
Associate Professional Specialist and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law at University of Notre Dame. Past Director at Gigot Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Associate Director and Clinical Professor at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Education: University of Notre Dame Law School, University of Notre Dame.
I am already reading so many pundits and other talking heads analyzing the
disaster that was this year's elections. I am adding my own ten cents.
Here goes:
1. We are outnumbered.
We accurately foresaw the enthusiasm, the passion, the commitment, the
determination, and the turnout. Married women, men, independents, Catholics,
evangelicals - they all went for Romney in percentages as high or higher
than the groups which voted for McCain in 2008. It wasn't enough. What we
saw in the election on Tuesday was a tipping point: we are now at a place
where there are legitimately fewer Americans who desire a free republic with
a free people than there are those who think the government should give them
stuff. There are fewer of us who believe in the value of free exchange and
free enterprise. There are fewer of us who do not wish to demonize
successful people in order to justify taking from them. We are outnumbered.
For the moment. It's just that simple.
2. It wasn't the candidate(s)
Some are already saying, "Romney was the wrong guy"; "He should have picked
Marco Rubio to get Florida/Rob Portman to get Ohio/Chris Christie to get
[someplace else]." With all due respect, these assessments are incorrect.
Romney ran a strategic and well-organized campaign. Yes, he could have hit
harder on Benghazi. But for those who would have loved that, there are those
who would have found it distasteful. No matter what tactic you could point
to that Romney could have done better, it would have been spun in a way that
was detrimental to his chances. Romney would have been an excellent
president, and Ryan was an inspired choice. No matter who we ran this year,
they would have lost.See #1, above.
3. It's the culture, stupid.
We have been trying to fight this battle every four years at the voting
booth. It is long past time we admit that is not where the battle really is.
We abdicated control of the culture - starting back in the 1960's. And now our
largest primary social institutions - education, the media, Hollywood
(entertainment) have become really nothing more than an assembly line for
cranking out reliable little Leftists. Furthermore, we have allowed the
government to undermine the institutions that instill good character -
marriage, the family, communities, schools, our churches. So, here we are,
at least two full generations later - we are reaping what we have sown. It
took nearly fifty years to get here; it will take another fifty years to get
back. But it starts with the determination to reclaim education, the media,
and the entertainment business. If we fail to do that, we can kiss every
election goodbye from here on out. And much more.
4. America has become a nation of adolescents
The real loser in this election was adulthood: Maturity.
Responsibility. The understanding that liberty must be accompanied by self-restraint. Obama is a spoiled child, and the behavior and language of his followers and their
advertisements throughout the campaign makes it clear how many of them are,
as well. Romney is a grown-up. Romney should have won. Those of us who
expected him to win assumed that voters would act like grownups.
Because if we were a nation of grownups, he would have won.
But what did win? Sex. Drugs. Bad language. Bad manners. Vulgarity.
Lies. Cheating. Name-calling. Finger-pointing. Blaming. And irresponsible
spending.
This does not bode well. People grow up one of two ways: either they
choose to, or circumstances force them to. The warnings are all there, whether
it is the looming economic disaster, or the inability of the government to
respond to crises like Hurricane Sandy, or the growing strength and
brazenness of our enemies. American voters stick their fingers in their ears
and say, "Lalalalalala, I can't hear you.";
It is unpleasant to think about the circumstances it will take to force
Americans to grow up. It is even more unpleasant to think about Obama at the
helm when those circumstances arrive.
5. Yes, there is apparently a Vagina Vote
It's the subject matter of another column in its entirety to point out, one
by one, all of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the Democrats this
year. Suffice it to say that the only "war on women" was the one waged by
the Obama campaign, which sexualized and objectified women, featuring them
dressed up like vulvas at the Democrat National Convention, appealing to
their "lady parts," comparing voting to losing your virginity with Obama,
trumpeting the thrills of destroying our children in the womb (and using our
daughters in commercials to do so), and making Catholics pay for their birth
control. For a significant number of women, this was appealing. It might
call into question the wisdom of the Nineteenth Amendment, but for the fact
that large numbers of women (largely married) used their "lady smarts"
instead. Either way, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are rolling
over in their graves.
6. It's not about giving up on "social issues";
No Republican candidate should participate in a debate or go out on the
stump without thorough debate prep and a complete set of talking points that
they stick to. This should start with a good grounding in biology and a
reluctance to purport to know the will of God. (Thank you, Todd and
Richard.)
That said, we do not hold the values we do because they garner votes. We
hold the values we do because we believe that they are time-tested
principles without which a civilized, free and prosperous society is not
possible.
We defend the unborn because we understand that a society which views some
lives as expendable is capable of viewing all lives as expendable.
We defend family - mothers, fathers, marriage, children - because history
makes it quite clear that societies without intact families quickly descend
into anarchy and barbarism, and we have plenty of proof of that in our inner
cities where marriage is infrequent and unwed motherhood approaches 80
percent. When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, many thought that the
abortion cause was lost. Forty years later, ultrasound technology has
demonstrated the inevitable connection between science and morality.
More Americans than ever define themselves as "pro-life." What is tragic is that
tens of millions of children have lost their lives while Americans figure
out what should have been obvious before.
There is no "giving up" on social issues. There is only the realization that
we have to fight the battle on other fronts. The truth will out in the end.
7. Obama does not have a mandate. And he does not need one.
I have to laugh - bitterly - when I read conservative pundits trying to
assure us that Obama "has to know" that he does not have a mandate, and so
he will have to govern from the middle. I don't know what they're smoking.
Obama does not care that he does not have a mandate. He does not view
himself as being elected (much less re-elected) to represent individuals. He
views himself as having been re-elected to complete the "fundamental
transformation" of America, the basic structure of which he despises.
Expect much more of the same - largely the complete disregard of the will of half
the American public, his willingness to rule by executive order, and the
utter inability of another divided Congress to rein him in. Stanley Kurtz
has it all laid out.
8. The Corrupt Media is the enemy
Too strong? I don't think so. I have been watching the media try to throw
elections since at least the early 1990's. In 2008 and again this year, we
saw the media cravenly cover up for the incompetence and deceit of this
President, while demonizing a good, honorable and decent man with lies and
smears. This is on top of the daily barrage of insults that conservatives
(and by that I mean the electorate, not the politicians) must endure at the
hands of this arrogant bunch of elitist snobs. Bias is one thing.What we
observed with Benghazi was professional malpractice and fraud. They need to
go.
Republicans, Libertarians and other conservatives need to be prepared to
play hardball with the Pravda press from here on out. And while we are at
it, defend those journalists (Jake Tapper, Sharyl Atkisson, Eli Lake) who
actually do their jobs. As well as Fox News & talk radio. Because you can
fully expect a re-elected Obama to try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in
term two.
9. Small business and entrepreneurs will be hurt the worst
For all the blather about "Wall Street versus Main Street," Obama's statist
agenda will unquestionably benefit the biggest corporations which - as with
the public sector unions - are in the best position to make campaign
donations, hire lobbyists, and get special exemptions carved out from
Obama's health care laws, his environmental regulations, his labor laws. It
will be the small business, the entrepreneur, and the first-time innovators
who will be crushed by their inability to compete on a level playing field.
10. America is more polarized than ever; and this time it's personal
I've been following politics for a long time, and it feels different this
time. Not just for me. I've received messages from other conservatives who
are saying the same thing: there is little to no tolerance left out there
for those who are bringing this country to its knees - even when they have
been our friends. It isn't just about "my guy" versus "your guy." It is my
view of America versus your view of America - a crippled, hemorrhaging,
debt-laden, weakened and dependent America that I want no part of and resent
being foisted on me. I no longer have any patience for stupidity, blindness,
or vulgarity, so with each dumb "tweet" or FB post by one of my happily
lefty comrades, another one bites the dust, for me. Delete. What does this
portend for a divided Congress? I expect that Republicans will be
demoralized and chastened for a short time. But I see them in a bad
position. Americans in general want Congress to work together. But many do
not want Obama's policies, and so Republicans who support them will be
toast. Good luck, guys.
11. It's possible that America just has to hit rock bottom
I truly believe that most Americans who voted for Obama have no idea what
they are in for. Most simply believe him when he says that all he really
wants is for the rich to pay "a little bit more." So reasonable! Who could
argue with that except a greedy racist? America is on a horrific bender. Has
been for some time now. The warning signs of our fiscal profligacy and
culture of lack of personal responsibility are everywhere - too many to
mention. We need only look at other countries which have gone the route we
are walking now to see what is in store. For the past four years -certainly
within the past campaign season - we have tried to warn Americans. Too many
refuse to listen, even when all of the events that have transpired during
Obama's presidency - unemployment, economic stagnation, skyrocketing prices,
the depression of the dollar, the collapse of foreign policy, Benghazi,
hopelessly inept responses to natural disasters - can be tied directly to
Obama's statist philosophies, and his decisions.
What that means, I fear, is that they will not see what is coming until the
whole thing collapses. That is what makes me so sad today. I see the country
I love headed toward its own "rock bottom," and I cannot seem to reach those
who are taking it there.
2a)What Hillary wants
Never has so much been written (and spoken) about a politician so unknowable.
Over the weekend, the New York Times published a lengthy piece about soon-to-be-former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and whether she might run for president. Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who is regarded as a likely 2016 candidate in his own right, said Sunday that Clinton would be a “great president” if she decides to run. Democratic strategist James Carville took the praise a step further, insisting that “90 percent” of people in his party want Clinton to be a candidate in 2016.
Lost somewhat in all of the hype around Clinton is a very simple question: What does she want?
The answer is virtually impossible to glean since a) Clinton is a decidedly private and cautious person, particularly as it relates to her future plans, b) those who actually know what she may be thinking don’t talk publicly about it, and c) Clinton seems to be genuinely undecided about what’s next.
Here’s how Jodi Kantor described Clinton’s mindset in the Times story:
“Right now, aides and friends say, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s plan looks like this: exit the State Department shortly after Inauguration Day and then seclude herself to rest and reflect on what she wants to do for the next few years. Those who have invited her for 2013 engagements have been told not to even ask again until April or May.”
Publicly, Clinton has been resolute if not Sherman-esque about her lack of plans to seek the presidency again. In 2011, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked her if she would like to be president; Clinton responded “no.” She added: “I had a wonderful experience running, and I am very proud of the support I had and very grateful for the opportunity, but I’m going to be, you know, moving on.” (Wordsmiths — and the Fix — will note that denying that you would like to be president in 2011 is not close to the same thing as saying you won’t run for president in 2016.)
Privately, there seems little question that Clinton has yet to turn her mind to whether she wants to run again and/but those around her — up to and including her husband — want badly for her to make the race. (Bill Clinton cannot — and will not — ever get enough of politics. God love him.)
But again, what those around her want is not the same thing as what Clinton wants. And, in truth, no one — or damn close — really knows what she is thinking about a second bid for president in four years time. Clinton has lived so long — and at times so painfully — in the public eye that she is a closed book for almost everyone. She has a first-class political poker face.
Here’s what we do know. Clinton would enter the 2016 race as the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination — buoyed by stratospheric poll numbers and the hard-won wisdom of her unsuccessful 2008 bid. She likely wouldn’t clear the field, but it’s hard to imagine a candidate like New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, perhaps the frontrunner if Clinton doesn’t run, staying in to challenge her.
To be clear: A 2016 bid for Clinton is far from a sure thing; her numbers would drop the moment she re-entered the political sphere, and she would be subject to many of the same critiques she faced in 2008. But if she retains any desire to be president, it would be very difficult to pass up a race that looks tailor-made for her.
Does she have that desire lurking somewhere in her? We probably won’t find out for another year (or so). In the meantime, we’ll write — and wait.
Corker urges GOP to give up on tax cuts for wealthy: Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) became the first Republican senator to publicly suggest letting tax cuts for the wealthy expire, saying Sunday that Republicans should agree to the president’s deal and then focus on entitlement reform.
“A lot of people are putting forth a theory, and I actually think it has merit, where you go ahead give the president the 2 percent increase that he is talking about — the rate increase on the top 2 percent — and all of a sudden the shift goes back to entitlements,” Corker said on “Fox News Sunday,” adding that shifting to focus on entitlements is “the best route for us to take.”
Previously, a few House members led by Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) have also suggested the party give Obama the tax deal he wants and fight over those tax cuts later.Elsewhere, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said he would accept such a deal.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), notably, has not embraced that idea, and voting for such a deal would violate the anti-tax pledges signed by almost every Republican in Congress.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Obama at 'max damage potential' right now
By Joe Kovacs
Barack Obama is in a perfect position right now to do “maximum damage” to the U.S. economy, according to radio giant Rush Limbaugh, who believes the president has no intention of improving the financial state of the nation.
“He’s at maximum damage potential right now, max damage. He can inflict the greatest damage possible for the purpose of transforming the country from capitalism to Western European socialism,” Limbaugh said Monday afternoon.
Limbaugh was commenting on Obama’s push for tax increases as Republicans continue to negotiate with the Obama administration on how to prevent plunging off the so-called “fiscal cliff.”“He’s got two years here to double down, triple down, max out on it – and that’s if he cares about the 2014 midterms. But if you listen to Democrats talk, they don’t care about that.”
In 2010, Obama said taxes should not be raised, fearing it would harm the economy.
“That’s because he still had another election to worry about. Now he doesn’t for at least two years,” Limbaugh said.
The topic was discussed as the Associated Press reported that hovering in the background of the “fiscal cliff” debate is the prospect of 2 million people losing their unemployment benefits four days after Christmas.
“This is the real cliff,” said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. “Many of these people are struggling to pay mortgages, to provide education for their children.”
Limbaugh says neither political party wants to be blames for the loss of jobless benefits during the holiday season, so he expects them to be extended without a fight.
“The real irony is, unemployment benefits are ending because unemployment rates are falling. It’s the way the law was written,” said Limbaugh. “States with jobless rates below 9 percent are losing their extended benefits. It was originally written, and this made perfect sense, that the unemployment compensation extensions would end as the employment situation improved. Well, statistically, the unemployment situation is improving. The unemployment rate nationally, 7.7 percent, down from 8.3, down from 8.2, down from 8.1, down from 7.9.”
But while on paper it may seem the employment picture is showing improvement, Limbaugh noted, “you and I both know that the job situation is really not improving, but reality doesn’t matter. Perception is what matters here. The perception is it’s getting better.”
The AP reported that “since the collapse of the economy in 2008, the government has poured $520 billion – an amount equal to about half its annual deficit in recent years – into unemployment benefit extensions.”
Limbaugh said no matter how much is spent on unemployment, it’s still never enough, and thus, the continuous push for extensions.
“And don’t forget this,” he concluded.
“From [Nancy] Pelosi to Chuck Schumer to Obama and to all the Democrats, unemployment benefits are now an economic stimulant. Every dollar of unemployment benefits generates $1.73 of economic growth, you see.
“And the people who voted for Obama believe that crock. But they believe it, and so we have arrived at the point where the recipient of unemployment benefits is told that he or she is helping to grow the economy! So we’ve even turned the morality aspect of this upside down. Now it is perfectly moral to extend unemployment benefits because those are growing the economy, without jobs. It’s magical! It’s a beautiful thing.”
3a)Obama to start sending US F-16 fighter jets to Egypt – on Israel’s election-day
The Obama administration took a careful look at the political calendar before announcing that the first four F-16 fighter planes - of the 20 approved in a $1 billion US foreign aid package to Egypt - would be delivered Jan. 22.
The announcement came Tuesday, Dec. 11, as Cairo and other Egyptian towns were set for massive rival demonstrations for and against President Mohamed Morsi’s decision to hold a referendum on a pro-Islamist constitution Saturday. It therefore came in for rising criticism in Washington of the wisdom of sending the jets to an unstable Egypt in the grip of a strong political confrontation.
A broad range of opposition groups – pro-democratic, liberal, secular, women and Christian – are demanding that President Morsi cancel the referendum. The Muslim Brotherhood is mobilizing its supporters to counter this protest. As the first anti-Morsi groups began gathering in Tahrir Square Tuesday, nine were hurt by masked gunmen.
The opposition has clipped President Morsi’s wings once by making him annul the near-dictatorial powers he gave himself. Forcing him to forego the referendum would further undermine his authority.
So the president fought back by authorizing the military to secure state buildings and arrest civilians in the incendiary days leading up to Saturday’s referendum. Military sources report that Monday, six Egyptian Air Force F-16 fighters flew symbolically over Cairo.
However, the 2nd and 9th Divisions stationed around Cairo stayed in their barracks and the only uniformed personnel visible on the street were the Republican Guard troops on permanent duty in the capital’s center.
By approving another 20 F-16 jets for Muslim-ruled Egypt on the day of the competing demonstrations, President Obama showed the Egyptian people that he stands foursquare behind President Morsi and that more US military aid is on the way.
The first four jets will arrive in Egypt the day after Barack Obama’s Jan. 21 swearing-in for a second term as US president at the Capitol – and not by chance. That date also coincides with Israel’s Jan. 22 general election.
Obama is therefore using those warplanes as a signpost for the Muslim-Arab Middle East – and the Israeli voter – to show them that he is sticking unswervingly to his policy of support for the region’s Muslim Brotherhood – and especially the Egyptian president - even if Morsi did slip up by a grab for sweeping powers that alienated most of the opposition.
The US promise of new fighter planes was also a recommendation to the Egyptian army to pick the right side and opt for President Morsi if they wanted US military assistance to keep coming. Washington was also ready to consider providing them with more high-tech items in addition to those already supplied.
At all events, President Obama has made his choice, opting for Egypt’s Islamists against the pro-democracy and liberal opposition – a choice that he might have found embarrassing when he campaigned for his second term.
At all events, President Obama has made his choice, opting for Egypt’s Islamists against the pro-democracy and liberal opposition – a choice that he might have found embarrassing when he campaigned for his second term.
Israel had a dark premonition of what was coming. Obama began laying the background for his strong alignment with Islamist Egypt last month with the dramatic announcement of a ceasefire in Cairo on Nov. 20, that was delivered jointly by Morsi and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
By this announcement – and by maneuvering Israel into abstaining from a ground operation in the Gaza Strip to complete its air operation against Palestinian terrorist targets – Obama pulled the Egyptian president out of his hat as a fully-fledged international figure ready to jump to the top of his newly-minted Sunni Muslim Middle East coalition. In addition to Egypt, its chosen members were to be Turkey, Qatar and the Palestinian Hamas. Israel was to be a secret partner and contributor of high-grade intelligence.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was ready to fit into the role cast Israel by the US president. He therefore chose to hold back from a ground incursion in the Gaza Strip and then agreed to the radical Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal visiting Gaza last week.
His reward came at the same time as Washington’s announcement of the 20 F-16 fighters for Egypt: The US has appropriated $650 million worth of ordnance to refill the Israeli arsenals depleted by the massive Pillar of Defense air offensive in Gaza.
Under this deal, the US will supply the Israeli Air Force with 6,900 satellite-guided “smart bombs;" 10,000 mixed bombs - including 3,450 one-tonners and 1,725 bombs weighing 250 kilograms - as well as two kinds of buster-bunkers - 1,725, GBU-39 bombs and 3,450 BLU-109s.
By MOHAMED GADALA
The political atmosphere in Egypt today closely resembles that experienced in Germany 1933 after the accession to power of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party in an equally narrow democratic electoral victory.
Both Hitler and ex-inmate Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi show the same desire for revenge against the established social order and intolerance toward adversaries. During the past six months Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood have taken all necessary measures to consolidate his grasp on power, matching similar measures taken by Hitler in 1933 including controlling all media, the army, local municipalities, police force and jurisdictional institutions, appointing allies to key positions while viciously removing technocrats and bureaucratic employees who do not show complete obedience.
Accusations of corruption and loyalty to the old regime (of Honsi Mubarak) are readily used whenever the Brotherhood wishes to assert control, in an intense purging campaign. Most of these public employees accept the new reality silently to avoid public humiliation.
EVERY TREE is known by its fruit, and no matter how much the Muslim Brotherhood portrays itself as benevolent and compassionate, the actions taken by its leaders and members parallel those of the Nazis. These include disrespect for political opponents; discrimination against minority groups; immediate subjection of vocal opponents to vicious defamation campaigns (in the modern era, via an Internet army of holy warriors) to publicly humiliate the unfortunate victim in every possible way, including accusations of betrayal, atheism, dishonesty, espionage, allegations of corruption and defamation of family members.
Prominent leaders of society such as Amr Mussa (former diplomat), Hamdin Sadahi (left wing) and Mohamed el-Baradi (liberal) have been constantly targeted by these holy e-warriors. Additionally, on the ground mosque Imams are instructed to engage in propaganda campaigns favoring the new regime, in a battle between the Holy and the Evil.
Mass rallies and assemblies organized by paramilitary groups in green shirts linked to the Islamists take over the streets whenever there is any political debate, stretching the political muscle of the Brotherhood and intimidating adversaries, a tactic very well known in Nazi Germany, widely used first by the SA and later by the SS.
The leader and sponsor of these paramilitary wings is Khairat al-Shater, a businessman who spent 20 years in prison on terrorism-related charges. These groups have the additional duty to sabotage any demonstrations organized by political opponents, to accomplish which they resort to all possible means, including firebombs and sexual harassment of female opponents.
Since the Islamists are motivated by a holy ideology and are ready for personal sacrifice, while their opponents lack such motivation, the streets belong to Islamists and their paramilitary wings.
During the current political turmoil the president gave himself complete power, decreeing judicial immunity for his “holy” decisions and ordering the unilateral drafting of a new constitution.
Many intellectual Egyptians think that the content of the proposed document is not the main cause of concern, but rather the complete indifference and disregard for all other political movements and aspirations demonstrated by claims this unilateral declaration represents 90% of the Egyptian people. Opponents, meanwhile, are portrayed as “a bunch of morally dishonest traitors,” an expression coined by Safwat Hegazi, the Brotherhood’s fanatic propaganda mastermind, whose speeches and tactics show an astonishing similarity to those of Joseph Goebbels.
Unfortunately, a narrow majority of the impoverished and deprived Egyptian people still hope that this new regime will change their fortunes, and the Muslim Brotherhood is taking advantage of this fact by promising them a better life on Earth and a prominent place in Heaven.
History has shown that fascist and fanatic ideologies flourish in times of chaos and depression, and after securing complete internal authority, their savage hunger for power leads them to engage in disastrous military adventures, which finally cause their downfall and collapse.
In fact, Safwat Hegazi has publicly declared in an emotional speech that the ultimate goal of the Brotherhood is to establish the “United Muslim State” with Jerusalem as its capital. The astonishing silence of the US administration and Western democracies regarding these critical developments painfully reminds us of Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement.
I can only hope that the modest and ordinary Egyptian people read more and learn from the lessons of history, and take a shortcut to avoid this catastrophe, but unfortunately this is not likely, and our nation is heading for the abyss.
Aides to the president asked Boehner and other Republicans to be more precise about higher taxes on wealthy Americans, while Boehner's representatives said they’re awaiting more details from Obama on spending reductions.
"We continue to wait for the president to identify the spending cuts he's willing to make," said Brendan Buck, a Boehner spokesman. "Discussions with the White House are taking place."
The House Speaker’s proposed plan includes $800 billion over 10 years in new tax revenues by closing loopholes and ending deductions.
But what is perhaps most striking — unlike in recent weeks — is that is that neither side is saying much publicly about what’s being discussed, longtime Washington observers tell The Wall Street Journal.
One congressional Republican said that, as in union negotiations, the most progress is made when the parties are not speaking before microphones.
Boehner and Obama met privately on Sunday for the first time in more than three weeks — and four days after they had last talked by telephone.
They have just 21 days to reach an agreement. If not, as much as $600 billion in drastic tax hikes and spending cuts will take place via sequestration on Jan. 2.
Recent posturing has centered mainly on what changes should be made to tax policy, while leaders last week discussed how to address the country's borrowing limit.
"Discussions with the White House are taking place, but we have no detail to share about the substance of those conversations,” Michael Steel, another Boehner spokesman, said on Monday.
“The Republican offer made last week remains the Republican offer, and we continue to wait for the president to identify the spending cuts he's willing to make as part of the 'balanced' approach he promised the American people."
For his part, White House spokesman Jay Carney declined to characterize the Obama-Boehner meeting, or how it would affect current negotiations. He was, however, optimistic about the prospects for a deal.
"The president does believe that we can reach an agreement," Carney said on Monday. "Our interest is in seeing if we can reach an agreement and not trying to negotiate an agreement through the media."
Obama also met with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California on Friday — and spoke with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada that same day. The president and Reid also talked on Monday.
And Obama only but briefly mentioned his proposed fiscal plan in a speech to workers on Monday at the Daimler Detroit Diesel plant in Redford, Mich. His plan seeks to raise top tax rates for high-income earners.
If no deal is reached, all of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts would expire on Dec. 31 — and the average family of four would see their tax bills go up by about $2,200, Obama said.
"That's a hit you can't afford to take," he said.
The president has long said that the government needs more revenue to help reduce the nation’s more than $16 trillion in debt.
Boehner and other Republicans say they oppose any increase in tax rates, and have proposed more revenues through ending loopholes and certain tax deductions.
But in calling for more details on tax revenues, Obama and aides questioned whether closing loopholes and ending deductions would raise the $800 billion claimed in the Republican plan without touching such popular deductions as for charitable contributions and home mortgage payments.
Republicans, meanwhile, still hope to find out how much the White House might agree to in spending cuts — and some GOP senators have said they would back higher tax rates on the very wealthy substantive cuts occur to programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Still, neither side appears sure a deal will be reached. Boehner and Obama met extensively in summer 2011 to try to reach a deal on a broad-based plan to cut the deficit as part of an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, but those efforts collapsed.
"We can solve this problem," Obama said on Monday, a day after his private session with Boehner at the White House.
!---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both Hitler and ex-inmate Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi show the same desire for revenge against the established social order and intolerance toward adversaries. During the past six months Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood have taken all necessary measures to consolidate his grasp on power, matching similar measures taken by Hitler in 1933 including controlling all media, the army, local municipalities, police force and jurisdictional institutions, appointing allies to key positions while viciously removing technocrats and bureaucratic employees who do not show complete obedience.
Accusations of corruption and loyalty to the old regime (of Honsi Mubarak) are readily used whenever the Brotherhood wishes to assert control, in an intense purging campaign. Most of these public employees accept the new reality silently to avoid public humiliation.
EVERY TREE is known by its fruit, and no matter how much the Muslim Brotherhood portrays itself as benevolent and compassionate, the actions taken by its leaders and members parallel those of the Nazis. These include disrespect for political opponents; discrimination against minority groups; immediate subjection of vocal opponents to vicious defamation campaigns (in the modern era, via an Internet army of holy warriors) to publicly humiliate the unfortunate victim in every possible way, including accusations of betrayal, atheism, dishonesty, espionage, allegations of corruption and defamation of family members.
Prominent leaders of society such as Amr Mussa (former diplomat), Hamdin Sadahi (left wing) and Mohamed el-Baradi (liberal) have been constantly targeted by these holy e-warriors. Additionally, on the ground mosque Imams are instructed to engage in propaganda campaigns favoring the new regime, in a battle between the Holy and the Evil.
Mass rallies and assemblies organized by paramilitary groups in green shirts linked to the Islamists take over the streets whenever there is any political debate, stretching the political muscle of the Brotherhood and intimidating adversaries, a tactic very well known in Nazi Germany, widely used first by the SA and later by the SS.
The leader and sponsor of these paramilitary wings is Khairat al-Shater, a businessman who spent 20 years in prison on terrorism-related charges. These groups have the additional duty to sabotage any demonstrations organized by political opponents, to accomplish which they resort to all possible means, including firebombs and sexual harassment of female opponents.
Since the Islamists are motivated by a holy ideology and are ready for personal sacrifice, while their opponents lack such motivation, the streets belong to Islamists and their paramilitary wings.
During the current political turmoil the president gave himself complete power, decreeing judicial immunity for his “holy” decisions and ordering the unilateral drafting of a new constitution.
Many intellectual Egyptians think that the content of the proposed document is not the main cause of concern, but rather the complete indifference and disregard for all other political movements and aspirations demonstrated by claims this unilateral declaration represents 90% of the Egyptian people. Opponents, meanwhile, are portrayed as “a bunch of morally dishonest traitors,” an expression coined by Safwat Hegazi, the Brotherhood’s fanatic propaganda mastermind, whose speeches and tactics show an astonishing similarity to those of Joseph Goebbels.
Unfortunately, a narrow majority of the impoverished and deprived Egyptian people still hope that this new regime will change their fortunes, and the Muslim Brotherhood is taking advantage of this fact by promising them a better life on Earth and a prominent place in Heaven.
History has shown that fascist and fanatic ideologies flourish in times of chaos and depression, and after securing complete internal authority, their savage hunger for power leads them to engage in disastrous military adventures, which finally cause their downfall and collapse.
In fact, Safwat Hegazi has publicly declared in an emotional speech that the ultimate goal of the Brotherhood is to establish the “United Muslim State” with Jerusalem as its capital. The astonishing silence of the US administration and Western democracies regarding these critical developments painfully reminds us of Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement.
I can only hope that the modest and ordinary Egyptian people read more and learn from the lessons of history, and take a shortcut to avoid this catastrophe, but unfortunately this is not likely, and our nation is heading for the abyss.
The writer is an Egyptian citizen. His name has been changed to protect his identity.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Christmas Books
During the holidays, a shopping mall can be more like a shopping maul. One way to avoid that scene is to give books as Christmas gifts, since books can be bought on-line, painlessly.
A book that fits in with the holiday spirit is "No, They Can't!" by TV show host John Stossel. It is written with a light touch, but gets across some pretty heavy stuff about economics. The title is a take-off on Obama's old slogan, "Yes, we can!"
It is the first book I have read that asks a question about electric cars that should have been asked long ago: How much pollution do they cause?
Electric car enthusiasts may say, "None." But the electricity that runs these cars has to be generated somewhere, and much of that electricity is generated by burning coal. The fact that no pollution comes out of the car itself is irrelevant, when the pollution comes out of a smokestack somewhere else.
Similar common sense analysis punctures many other puffed-up ideas, on subjects ranging from health care to education to government bailouts of failing businesses. "No, they Can't!" is a book that makes what used to be called "the dismal science" of economics more lively, and even humorous, as it reveals what nonsense so much of the lofty rhetoric of our time is.
Anyone who wants an honest look at the hard facts about racial preferences in admissions to colleges and universities will find it-- perhaps for the first time-- in a book titled "Mismatch" by Richard Sanders and Stuart Taylor, Jr.
The central concern of "Mismatch" is how racial preferences harm blacks and other minorities. Black students with all the qualifications for success can be turned into failures by being admitted to institutions geared to students with even higher qualifications than theirs.
I saw this happen at Cornell, years ago, when black students with test scores substantially above the national average were nevertheless in deep academic trouble, at an institution where the other students were in the top one percent. Those same black students would have made the dean's list in most other colleges. But they were mismatched at Cornell, and many failed bitterly.
"Mismatch" thoroughly analyses the effects of racial preferences in numerous contexts, showing how what is called "affirmative action" has very negative consequence for its supposed beneficiaries. For example, the data strongly suggest that there are fewer black lawyers when there are racial preferences in admissions to law schools. Racial preferences put more minority students on campus, but in ways that reduce the number who graduate.
Conversely, when racial preferences were banned in the University of California system, the number of black students who graduated actually increased substantially, as did their grade point averages. Instead of failing at Berkeley or UCLA, these students graduated from other good quality universities in the system. The careful analysis of documented facts makes "Mismatch" a rare and valuable book for people who want to think.
The time is long overdue to discuss racial issues in general in plain, honest words. A new book that does that is titled "Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama" by Ann Coulter.
In this book, readers will learn many truths for the first time, unfiltered by the mainstream media. For example, they will belatedly learn the truth about how an ex-con and hoodlum was turned into a sympathetic victim by the clever editing of the Rodney King videotape.
My own new book this year is an expanded and much revised edition of "Intellectuals and Society." Among its new features is a debunking of murky catch phrases like "social justice" and "tax cuts for the rich" that have spread so much confusion and mischief. Four new chapters have also been added on intellectuals and race. Among the things they reveal is how the political left promoted racism on both sides of the Atlantic during the early decades of the 20th century, even though today the left has swung to the other end of the spectrum and now claim to find racism everywhere in other people.
Merry Christmas-- if we are still allowed to say that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Fiscal Cliff Poker: Call Obama's Bluff!
By Jeffrey L. Scribner
The president and the speaker of the House are playing poker. The imagined stakes are whether we go over the "fiscal cliff" on January 1, 2013. The actual stakes are the direction of the country -- whether we will see any GDP growth, put our people to work, and get out of the doldrums of the past four years, and whether the president will be able to demoralize the Republican Party and make it easier to take the country farther left.
There have been several good suggestions for compromise along the lines of Simpson-Bowles. (See for example Glenn Harlan Reynolds's advice in USA Today.) However, even if the suggested strategy worked, which is not a sure thing, deficits would continue for many years into the future.
Some pundits think the president will gain most of what he wants by "going over the fiscal cliff." Taxes will go up for just about everyone, and sequestration cuts Defense more than any other part of the budget. The theory is that the president then gets to blame the tax hike on the Republicans. He can then propose a "tax cut" for those making less than $200K per year and blame any failure to pass that on the Republicans, too! Meanwhile, the sequestration budget cuts amount to only three percent of spending over the next decade, so we have almost status quo ante with a little more tax revenue for a year or so if the economy doesn't take a nosedive.
Some other pundits say that the president can't risk going over the fiscal cliff because the shock to the economy will be too great and may leave him mired in recession and/or very slow growth for the bulk of or the whole of his second term, ruining his chances of a positive legacy. Moreover, it is not clear that everyone or even a large minority will agree that it is the Republicans that are at fault for going over the fiscal cliff.
The speaker is unable to produce a majority (even with Democrats) that will agree to the president's demand that tax rates be raised on those making more than $200K per year. The speaker probably could produce a majority to close loopholes, lower tax rates, and bring in more revenue. This becomes even more of a problem because the president proposes that the corresponding spending cuts are pushed off and spread out over several years in the future. So even if the speaker wanted to give in on the raising tax rates point, he realistically can't.
So it looks like the president's hole card can be played only if the Republicans do not surrender and we go over the fiscal cliff. He then proposes a "tax cut," as described above.
But the speaker has a better hole card, and he can show it before we go over the fiscal cliff and play it for keeps afterward. The president already suspects that this hole card exists, and he is already nervous about it.
The hole card is the debt ceiling. The play before the cliff is to outline what things will look like if the president refuses any compromise on tax rates, loopholes, and spending cuts. There will be sequestration affecting defense, in particular, and "discretionary spending." There will be a tax hike for everyone. The "payroll tax holiday" will end, the tax rates for all brackets will rise, and other adjustments will increase the effective tax even on the lowest-paid workers. In addition, all of the new taxes in ObamaCare will become effective. All this additional drag on the economy will tend to further reduce the currently anemic growth rate and may result in a return to recession as the new year develops.
At this point, the House of Representatives will refuse to extend the debt ceiling. This will implement the spending cuts that the president wants to avoid, and while he will win some new revenue -- if the economy doesn't contract further -- he will experience the inability to do anything else for the remainder of his term in office, or at least until after the next midterm election.
Refusing to extend the debt ceiling will stop deficit spending. It will force the president and Congress to cooperate to decide how to allocate shortages.
Contrary to what Democrats might say, it is in fact possible to run the government, defend the country, and even pay Social Security without borrowing any money and loading our excess on our children and grandchildren. Not increasing the debt ceiling will make us be more responsible. And most of all, it will send a message to domestic and foreign markets that we intend to be responsible. This will tend to increase GDP even in the face of the tax hikes that will take place on January 1, 2013. It provides an end-run around the tax hike vs. spending cut impasse that has plagued us for the past four years. Moreover, it will effectively put an end to bailouts and other misuses of federal money, since there won't be any excess for that kind of expenditure.
It has become apparent to even the casual observer that absent a drastic measure like capping the debt ceiling, we are going to continue spending beyond our means. We are going to continue selling our birthrights and those of our children and grandchildren because of our own timidity in the face of the failure of our federal elected officials to do the job they were elected to do.
We need to draw a line in the sand and prevent ourselves from crossing it. We can do it in a few months by actually capping the debt ceiling. I ask the speaker to count his votes in the House. If there is support for this course, he can send it to the president and see if the president wants to compromise. One way or another, spending is going to have to go down.
Jeff Scribner is president of ASI Enterprises, Inc. (www.asienterprises.com), an investment bank serving small and medium sized businesses.
5a)Aides: Boehner, Obama Talks Ramping Up, Are 'More Serious'
By Todd Beamon
Talks between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner on a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff have turned more “serious,” aides said on Monday — but each side wants the other to be more specific about tax revenues and entitlement cuts.
Aides to the president asked Boehner and other Republicans to be more precise about higher taxes on wealthy Americans, while Boehner's representatives said they’re awaiting more details from Obama on spending reductions.
"We continue to wait for the president to identify the spending cuts he's willing to make," said Brendan Buck, a Boehner spokesman. "Discussions with the White House are taking place."
The House Speaker’s proposed plan includes $800 billion over 10 years in new tax revenues by closing loopholes and ending deductions.
But what is perhaps most striking — unlike in recent weeks — is that is that neither side is saying much publicly about what’s being discussed, longtime Washington observers tell The Wall Street Journal.
One congressional Republican said that, as in union negotiations, the most progress is made when the parties are not speaking before microphones.
Boehner and Obama met privately on Sunday for the first time in more than three weeks — and four days after they had last talked by telephone.
They have just 21 days to reach an agreement. If not, as much as $600 billion in drastic tax hikes and spending cuts will take place via sequestration on Jan. 2.
Recent posturing has centered mainly on what changes should be made to tax policy, while leaders last week discussed how to address the country's borrowing limit.
"Discussions with the White House are taking place, but we have no detail to share about the substance of those conversations,” Michael Steel, another Boehner spokesman, said on Monday.
“The Republican offer made last week remains the Republican offer, and we continue to wait for the president to identify the spending cuts he's willing to make as part of the 'balanced' approach he promised the American people."
For his part, White House spokesman Jay Carney declined to characterize the Obama-Boehner meeting, or how it would affect current negotiations. He was, however, optimistic about the prospects for a deal.
"The president does believe that we can reach an agreement," Carney said on Monday. "Our interest is in seeing if we can reach an agreement and not trying to negotiate an agreement through the media."
Obama also met with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California on Friday — and spoke with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada that same day. The president and Reid also talked on Monday.
And Obama only but briefly mentioned his proposed fiscal plan in a speech to workers on Monday at the Daimler Detroit Diesel plant in Redford, Mich. His plan seeks to raise top tax rates for high-income earners.
If no deal is reached, all of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts would expire on Dec. 31 — and the average family of four would see their tax bills go up by about $2,200, Obama said.
"That's a hit you can't afford to take," he said.
The president has long said that the government needs more revenue to help reduce the nation’s more than $16 trillion in debt.
Boehner and other Republicans say they oppose any increase in tax rates, and have proposed more revenues through ending loopholes and certain tax deductions.
But in calling for more details on tax revenues, Obama and aides questioned whether closing loopholes and ending deductions would raise the $800 billion claimed in the Republican plan without touching such popular deductions as for charitable contributions and home mortgage payments.
Republicans, meanwhile, still hope to find out how much the White House might agree to in spending cuts — and some GOP senators have said they would back higher tax rates on the very wealthy substantive cuts occur to programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Still, neither side appears sure a deal will be reached. Boehner and Obama met extensively in summer 2011 to try to reach a deal on a broad-based plan to cut the deficit as part of an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, but those efforts collapsed.
"We can solve this problem," Obama said on Monday, a day after his private session with Boehner at the White House.
!---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Barry Rubin Interviewed on the Latest Middle East Developments
Do you have anything remotely hopeful to say about the trajectory of the Arab Spring today?
Laugh. Aha! Fishing for optimism. Okay. First, the anti-Islamist opposition in Egypt and Tunisia has coalesced. There's hope for autonomy for a moderate Kurdish area in Syria. And more people in the West have woken up to the situation and the danger. That's about it for optimism about the region. I am far more optimistic about Israel's strategic situation but that's another issue.
Seriously, though, in Egypt and Tunisia there is a battle and the Islamists face serious opposition. The issue is not to get bound up in the details of the demonstrations but to ask what actual impact this will have. The Islamist timetable for fundamentally transforming their countries is going to be slower though there's no reason to believe the effort will stop, much less be reversed. Nor will the West rally to the opposition's support. The moderate democratic forces are very much alone, just as they are in Iran and to a very real extent in Syria, too.
As for Syria, 2013 is probably going to be the year of a rebel victory, even though they might not control the entire country until 2014. So what kind of government is going to rule Syria? It's an open question but the Muslim Brotherhood is the best bet.
As for Syria, 2013 is probably going to be the year of a rebel victory, even though they might not control the entire country until 2014. So what kind of government is going to rule Syria? It's an open question but the Muslim Brotherhood is the best bet.
And the Obama Administration, which is still in office, has not changed any of its basic positions on these issues.
--Should the U.S. have some bottom lines to try to influence the upcoming constitutional referendum in Egypt?
Shrug. The Constitution will pass. The U.S. government won't say a word of criticism or do anything. Thus, the United States has no influence on the referendum. What will happen as the Brotherhood will continue to intimidate the courts and the Egyptian president rules by decree? Will the White House seriously condition aid on the treatment of women and Christians? .Obama is doing the absolute minimum to criticize the new regime which is, let's face it, now a U.S. client.
--Is there anything we or anyone else the United States can do to help influence things in Egypt?
--Is there anything we or anyone else the United States can do to help influence things in Egypt?
There's a lot but nothing will be done. It's a matter of the Obama Administration's ideology and policies.
--Is Syria going to use chemical weapons? The U.S. says we’ll take action if they do. What could that look like?
--Is Syria going to use chemical weapons? The U.S. says we’ll take action if they do. What could that look like?
I think that the rebels will capture Aleppo within 3-4 months and Damascus some time in 2013. Then the regime will retreat to the northwest, the world will recognize a rebel regime as ruling the country, and there will be a bloodbath. Expect the Obama Administration to take little or no action. Whether or not the regime uses chemical weapons on a few occasions won't help it and would probably hasten its fall.
--What happens when Assad goes, one way or another?
--What happens when Assad goes, one way or another?
It's very complex because there are so many players: Sunnis, Alawites, Christians, and Druze; Kurds; Brotherhood people, Salafists of many different groups, professional soldiers, warlords, and liberals. A lot of the powerbrokers are local.
Experience generally shows us that the winner is the side that is the best-armed, most organized, knows what it thinks and wants, and perhaps has the most international backing. That's the Brotherhood.
--It was a brutal November between Israel and Palestinians – how long is the ceasefire likely to hold?
--It was a brutal November between Israel and Palestinians – how long is the ceasefire likely to hold?
Hamas will escalate at some point in the future and Israel will wait as long as possible to respond. The fact that Egypt doesn't want another confrontation will postpone that day from, say, six months to three years. We're probably talking about two to three years for anything big but of course Hamas will attack on a lower level. It's main incentive, of course, is that it knows ultimately the world will protect it from total defeat by Israel. We've actually reached the point, as shown by the last five years, when a repressive terrorist group is kept in power by Western democratic states backing that status quo.
Are the Palestinians emboldened by its change in U.N. status? What long term effect does that vote have?
Are the Palestinians emboldened by its change in U.N. status? What long term effect does that vote have?
It's the end of any hope for a peace process. Why should the Palestinians negotiate when they believe they can get whatever they want from the international community? Why should Israel make agreements or concessions when it knows it will get nothing and the world will abrogate the other side's obligations?
Also, with the UN General Assembly decision on granting Palestine non-member state status, the Palestinian leadership will rush to claim any Israeli counter-attack is an assault on a sovereign state, and there are those who would buy that argument.
Also, with the UN General Assembly decision on granting Palestine non-member state status, the Palestinian leadership will rush to claim any Israeli counter-attack is an assault on a sovereign state, and there are those who would buy that argument.
One of the most amazing things is that this decision is so destructive and there is no awareness of this fact in Western governments and so little in the mass media. I think one reason why so many countries voted for this proposal, I think, is they said that it would make the Palestinians happy and do no harm. We are faced with a conflict without diplomatic resolution for this entire generation, say 30 to 50 years.
What worries you most in the Mideast? In the world?
What worries you most in the Mideast? In the world?
In the Middle East, the effect of a radical regime in the most important Arabic-speaking country, Egypt, and in the world the fact that not only is the West generally blind to the threats but its governments are actually furthering the danger.
If you could offer President Obama any advice for his second term, what might it be?
If you could offer President Obama any advice for his second term, what might it be?
Revolutionary Islamist groups are not America's friends. Form and lead a broad alliance of forces against them. It is not too late. Otherwise, you are creating a Middle East situation of war, dictatorship, and the utmost damage to U.S. interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment