Sunday, January 6, 2013

Obama Will Continue to Shoot From The Hip and Lip!

 
Obama and Congress' solution to our problems! (See 1 and 1a abbreviated below.)




 

---
Obama plans assault on NRA.  (See 2 and 2a below.)
---

John Fund is the SIRC President's Day speaker, Feb., 18, 2013

John Fund is currently a National Affairs Columnist for National Review magazine and a contributor to the  Fox News Channel. He is considered a notable expert on American politics and the nexus between politics and economics.
 
 John previously served as a columnist and editorial board member for The Wall Street Journal. He is the author of several books, including Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy (Encounter Books, 2012) and The Dangers of Regulation Through Litigation (ATRA Press, 2008). 

He worked as a research analyst for the California Legislature in Sacramento before beginning his journalism career  as a reporter for the syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak. 

 Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill, called John  "the Tom Paine of the modern Congressional reform movement." 

He has won awards from the Institute for Justice, The School Choice Alliance and the Warren Brooks award for journalistic excellence from the American Legislative Exchange Council.

The Board of SIRC is delighted to bring someone of John's caliber to The Landings for what promises to be a stimulating evening.
---
President paucity! (See 3 below.)
---

Imagine, someone forecasting this in 1948!

THIS IS A MUST SEE CARTOON

What can a cartoon, produced in 1948, teach us today, that's of any value? You will be very surprised!
PLEASE DON'T SAY YOU DON'T HAVE TIME TO WATCH THIS.  SOMEDAY YOU MIGHT HAVE TOO MUCH TIME!

This is one of the best I have ever seen and it was produced in 1948. This should be viewed by every person living in America 

This cartoon is timeless and is just as true today as it was in 1948!

Look at this:  1948 Cartoon


In four years Obama has:

Weakened us diplomatically and many of our allies no longer accord with our goals.

Weakened us economically so we can no longer support 

our diplomatic missions, whatever they happen to be.

Demonstrated total indifference to the slaughter of Syrians by their own government all the while suggesting he will be tough on Iran.

Pitted American against American and raised the level of national  discord. Through appointments and policies he has burdened the private sector with out sized costs  and taken away many of our personal freedoms and privacy.

I could go on and on but suffice it to say that after the next four years conservatives will not recognize our nation nor will our nation ever be the same nor will we be able to mend the damage done to our constitutional form of governance.

Then the press and media will make their concerted and possibly successful effort to shove Hillary Clinton down our throats as they did Obama on the premise she is the first qualified woman to be president, was a brilliant Secretary of State and due to her long public service deserves to be elected.

These are the same press and media dolts who dissed her in favor of Obama whom they fawned over and protected  because he  could do no wrong.

As for conservative Republicans they will probably continue their infighting thereby weakening any prospect of being an effect wall against the tide America will face as remaining the world's best hope.
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1)Obama digs in as debt ceiling fight looms
By Matea Gold

WASHINGTON — Fresh off this week’s last-minute “fiscal cliff” deal, President Obama on Saturday dug in as the prospect of another budget clash with congressional Republicans loomed, warning that he will not negotiate over raising the nation’s debt limit.
“One thing I will not compromise over is whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they’ve already racked up,” Obama said in his weekly address. “If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic. The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it. Our families and our businesses cannot afford that dangerous game again.” 
Obama’s stance puts him squarely at odds once again with newly reelected House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who told a closed-door meeting of Republican lawmakers Friday that he will insist on a dollar-per-dollar match between spending reductions and continued borrowing.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has expressed a similar sentiments.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner notified Congress earlier this week that the nation has already hit its $16-trillion debt limit, and Congress will be asked soon to raise the borrowing authority to continue paying the nation's bills.
The situation pits Obama and his congressional opponents in another tense showdown – this one with potentially even more serious economic consequences.
“Our economy can’t afford more protracted showdowns or manufactured crises,” Obama warned in his weekly address, adding that “the messy brinksmanship in Congress made business owners more uncertain and consumers less confident.”
The president said he was open to seeking spending cuts generally as part of an effort to reduce the country’s deficit, but he stressed that such reductions can be made “without shortchanging things like education, job training, research and technology all which are critical to our prosperity in a 21stcentury economy.” 
“Spending cuts must be balanced with more reforms to our tax code,” he said. “The wealthiest individuals and the biggest corporations shouldn’t be able to take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans.”
Obama cast the terms of the fiscal cliff compromise as a fulfillment of his campaign promise to create a more equitable tax system.
“Over the past year, as I traveled across the country campaigning for this office, I told you that if I was fortunate enough to be reelected, I’d work to change a tax code that too often benefited the wealthy at the expense of the middle class,” he said. “This week, we did that.”


1a)The Four-Year Honeymoon

Will the press ever give Obama tough coverage?

By Fred Barnes


President Obama never disappoints. When the monthly unemployment rate fails to drop, forget it. What’s important is the number of jobs created. But when the rate actually does drop, forget the growth (or lack of it) in jobs. It’s the rate that matters. And don’t blame Obama for the persistence of slow economic growth and high joblessness. That’s the “new normal.” As for the millions of dropouts from the job market, that’s no big deal, hardly worth more than a passing mention.
Full credit is due Obama for his role in the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi. He was cleverly “leading from behind.” But the killing of the American ambassador to Libya and three others in Benghazi—the president bears no responsibility for that. Perish the thought.
Meanwhile, in the months before his reelection in November, Obama doled out government favors to Demo-cratic interest groups like unions, Hispanics, teachers, and single women. This may have looked like shameless exploitation of his high office, but it really was unusually skillful politicking by a master of the game.
My drift here ought to be obvious. I’m referring to the way the media treat Obama. It’s not always adoring. It’s intermittently fair and even-handed. But overall, what’s distinctive about the press coverage of Obama is the absence of fault-finding, criticism, and dogged questioning. And when Obama makes excuses, as he often does, the media tend to echo them.
No president in my lifetime has been covered so favorably and so gingerly. Never has the press corps been so unwilling to pursue stories that might cast the president in an unflattering light. As a group, the media pride themselves on taking an adversarial approach to politicians and government officials. But in Obama’s case, the press acts like a helpmate.

Along with that, the media seem fearful of offending Obama. This is a new phenomenon in presidential coverage. To my recollection, Obama is the first president to instill coverage anxiety, conscious or unconscious.
Compare Obama’s coverage with that of President George W. Bush. The difference is startling. There was no fear of affronting Bush. He faced relentless scrutiny of his tactics in the war on terror: wiretaps, renditions, Guantánamo, the Patriot Act. The media raised questions about his motives, the constitutionality of his policies, and his brainpower. White House press conferences became tense and hostile events when national security issues were broached.
Obama’s adoption of these same policies has drawn minimal attention, much less the kind of media wrath that Bush endured. Last week, for example, Obama signed a bill extending the use of warrentless wiretapping to gather intelligence on -America’s enemies. Bush was harshly criticized by the media on this very issue. Obama got a pass.
Bush was also hassled for so-called signing statements citing provisions of a bill he might not enforce. Charlie Savage, then of the Boston Globe, won a Pulitzer Prize for “his revelations” about Bush’s practice. And, not surprisingly, Obama promised not to do signing statements. Yet he has continued the practice, eliciting some coverage, but none of the outrage that was directed at Bush.
In his efforts to combat terrorism, Bush was accused of exceeding presidential authority. But Obama has made recess appointments when the Senate wasn’t in recess and rewritten parts of immigration and welfare law by executive order, clearly stretching his authority beyond constitutional limits. The press praised the immigration change and winked at the others.
It doesn’t take much imagination to come up with actions that would have aroused the press if committed by Bush, but didn’t with Obama. The list is long. Both the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal and the Benghazi -killings would have led to months of stories, investigative reports, and outraged commentary. But the media proved to be largely incurious in Obama’s case.
Hurricane Sandy created damage in the billions in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. The role of Obama and his administration in handling the emergency was scarcely addressed. It’s doubtful Bush would have been let off so easily. He certainly wasn’t in 2005 after Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast.
What if Bush had claimed in speech after speech that Democrats who opposed his policies were putting “party before country”? The media response to an insinuation that Democrats were unpatriotic would have been along the lines of, “How dare the president make such a dastardly claim!” But repeated mentions of “party before country” by Obama have been treated as perfectly acceptable.

1b)Democratic Spectacle vs. Real Growth
By Ashish Advani
The fiscal cliff debate ended the way I had anticipated. I could not have scripted the cliffhanger any more acute than it played out to be. Technically we did go over the cliff, but actually averted it by backdating the acceptance clause.

If you are confused, don’t be. I would be tempted to call this a near subversion of democracy, but that might be considered as unpatriotic. 

First, both sides dilly-dallied without any purpose for 518 days to resolve this impasse. Then they scrambled in Hollywood style to work though nights and over New Year’s Eve to harangue about and yet not agree with each other anyway.

Finally, in sheer exhaustion and fear of retribution of the global financial markets (not necessarily because they care for the American people or want to do the right thing), late in the night of New Year’s Eve the Senate passed its bill and then nearly 24 hours later, the House passed the bill as well. 

The disheartening part is watching grown men pout and show such immaturity. The whole world is watching and laughing at the spectacle of how the two-democratic party was unable to agree on anything substantive for so long. 

As I predicted, the reluctant agreement that has been done actually kicks the can down the road. The next cliffs to come are the debt ceiling cliff around Valentine’s Day and then the real deficit-cutting cliff that will come around Easter. 

I am sure they will find another cliff to argue about by Memorial Day and then who knows how many more.

But for now, we have appeased the insatiable financial markets and will watch the euphoric rise to stocks and the decline of the dollar over the next few days. Then the worry clouds will gather again, dissipate when we kick the next can down the road just to gather again soon after that.

I predict a mediocre 2013 as far as real growth and real resolutions to jobless issues are concerned. That debate, unfortunately, is not even being framed, let alone being had.

On the other side, Singapore just announced a strong resurgence in its growth with its fourth-quarter gross domestic product, beating estimates and outpacing growth in the region. Their currency will gain due to real growth, as well as the overall decline in the U.S. dollar due to the dog-and-pony show that our politicians engage in rather than grow the country.

We are also seeing real gains in South Korea and Thailand, as well as Taiwan. I would anticipate some real growth numbers posted there very shortly as well.

I urge you to consider some investments in Asian currencies to enhance your diversification strategy. There are several exchange-traded funds that are available in all regular stock brokerage accounts that make access to such investments a few clicks away.

You cannot go wrong investing in Singapore dollars, the Chinese yuan, Taiwan dollars or the Thai baht.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)White House Plans To Overwhelm NRA With Rapid Victory

The White House and gun control supporters are gearing up for a whirlwind month, with plans to pass reform legislation before outrage over the Sandy Hook massacre has a chance to fade.
While the fiscal cliff has dominated Washington’s attention in recent weeks, lawmakers and activists are laying the groundwork for their big push. Vice President Joe Biden, tasked with heading a commission to investigate gun violence, has been quietly meeting with experts, interest groups, and public officials and is expected to release a set of recommendations within weeks. Boston mayor Thomas Menino, co-chair of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told the Boston Herald this week that an optimistic Biden had assured him that Obama would sign legislation “by the end of January.”
“We had been led to believe their report would come by end of January, but we’re hearing they may want to have something out by January 15, even quicker than expected,” Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told TPM.
House Democrats are moving ahead with their own plans as well. On Friday, Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA), chair of the newly created Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, announced the appointment of 12 vice chairs, including Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), the body’s leading voice on gun control. According to a Democratic aide, the group plans to release its recommendations in early February and is already organizing public hearings on the issue.
Obama has personally identified an assault weapons ban and limits on ammunition magazine size as top priorities. Other possible reforms could include background check requirements for purchases at gun shows, a loophole that’s helped create a huge market of off-record arms purchases.
Pro-gun groups have dominated Congress in recent years and, while lawmakers approved by the National Rifle Association have mostly kept their heads down in recent weeks, any legislation could face an difficult path to passage, or even a vote, especially in the Republican-led House.
Glaze said his group would work hard to build public support, hosting local events with various mayors, dozens of whom will descend on Washington later this month for The United States Conference of Mayors winter gathering.
Gun violence survivors are also planning trips to lobby lawmakers to support legislation. Former Rep. Gabby Giffords, who survived a mass shooting in 2011, could play a prominent role in that regard: on Wednesday she met with Bloomberg in New York and on Friday traveled to Newtown to comfort families who lost loved ones in the attack there.
But Glaze acknowledged the NRA has long held an advantage not only in its cash resources, but in its large and active grassroots membership, which has rallied in the past to whip members of Congress against gun control bills. For gun control advocates, they’ll have to offer a compelling case that lawmakers who squelch reforms will pay a price in the midterm elections and that means building their own active network of supporters. Glaze is confident they can do so, citing recent polls showing restrictions on extended ammunition clips and an expansion of background checks to be popular nationally.
“The broad solutions are there and if Congress doesn’t act I think theyre going to be digging themselves further into a big hole,” he said.
The Brady Campaign, the gun control group founded by former Ronald Reagan press secretary Jim Brady, is also expected to play a role in promoting legislation, but it’s an open question whether they can compete with the NRA’s experienced leadership. TPM reached out to the group’s staff in recent days for information on its plans, but received no response.


2a)Conscience, Not Guns
By Dennis Prager


From the moment Americans learned of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre last Friday, the entire left -- editorialists, columnists, broadcasters, politicians -- used the occasion to promote one idea: gun control.
For the left, the primary reason for just about all American gun murders is the availability of guns.

I have no interest in debating gun control here. I only wish to ask the left one question: We have a massive system of drug control laws. Yet, the left is the first to argue that the war on drugs has been a failure. And whether or not one deems it a failure, the war on drugs surely hasn't prevented tens of millions of Americans, including teenagers, from obtaining drugs illegally. Why, then, does the left believe that a war on guns would be any more effective than the war on drugs?

That question aside, what matters most here is the left's preoccupation with guns as the root of the murder problem in America.

It explains a great deal about the left's worldview. The moral values and the conscience of nations as well as individuals seem to play almost no role in the left's understanding of human behavior.

That is why the left wants all nations, including the United States, to destroy their nuclear weapons. The problem for the left is not the moral values nations hold, it is the weapons nations hold. American nuclear weapons were just as troubling to the left as Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War and just as troubling as Iran having nuclear weapons today. So, too, the problem of gun violence in America is not the moral values of gun owners, it is gun ownership.

And because leftist thinking dominates American society -- from elementary through graduate school and in virtually all the print and electronic news media -- there is one view that almost never gets a hearing: that the primary reason for gun violence in America is not gun ownership, but the lack of a functioning moral conscience.

Lack of conscience is the problem both for individuals and for nations. Among nations the problem is nuclear (and all other) weapons in the hands of bad regimes. And among Americans the problem is guns in the hands of bad people.

This is so obvious that one has to be propagandized his whole life by leftism not to immediately understand it. But leftism is the religion of the west, the most dynamic religion in the world for the last century. It is as hard to reject leftism in the west as it was to reject Christianity in Europe during the Middle Ages or Islam in the Arab world today.

Does one reader of this column -- including individuals on the left -- fear being massacred by a decent person? Of course not.

Then why isn't our emphasis on character development and the teaching of right and wrong?
Why is this never mentioned on the left? Why are guns, not the conscience, the root issue for the left?

We are lead to believe after almost every massacre that the murderer "snapped" or had mental problems. Why? Because it implies that the murderer was not morally responsible for what he did. We are told, for example, that Adam Lanza, who by all accounts was a brilliant student, suffered from a form of autism. Even if true, why is that important? Statistically, I would bet that those with autism commit far fewer violent crimes than the rest of population. Autistic people, like everyone else, can be taught the difference between right and wrong. My stepson is autistic, and is not capable of attending regular school (much less honors classes) or driving a car, things that Adam Lanza did fully normally. But my stepson is keenly aware of right and wrong, and believes that God punishes people who commit evil.

On some rare occasions mental illness may be the only possible explanation for evil. But when American schools emphasized character development, and when nearly all Americans believed that there is a God who forbids and punishes murder, such massacres rarely took place. When people "snapped" during the Great Depression some of them did kill ... themselves. Surely some European Jews who survived the Holocaust "snapped" after seeing their families murdered. Yet I know of no survivor of the Holocaust who massacred innocent Germans or Poles or Hungarians, or Frenchmen, let alone Americans. Why not?
Because until the contemporary period, religion and/or conscience development were ubiquitous.

Instead of teaching young Americans self-control, thanks to leftist influence, we now teach them self-esteem -- which has been worse than morally useless. It has been morally destructive. According to professor of psychology Roy Baumeister, one of the leading criminologists in America, few Americans have the high self-esteem that violent criminals have.

Want to know a major cause of criminal violence in America? Try leftism's denial of the importance of moral values among nations and individuals; its systematic destruction of character education; and its elimination of God as the source of moral law.

Not guns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)Just Seven Companies Offer to Finance Obama’s Inauguration
By Sandy Fitzgerald



Only seven companies have offered corporate cash to help fund President Barack Obama’s upcoming inaugural festivities.

In 2009, Obama banned corporate donors from paying for his inauguration, but he was still able to raise $53 million from private donors.

However, this month’s inauguration is being held after the most expensive presidential campaign in history, and even with the corporate donations will be a scaled-down event. This year, fewer people are expected to attend the inauguration and there are only two official balls planned.

There are a few reasons this year’s celebration has been scaled back. 

Organizers say the ceremonies reflect the nation is facing tough economic times, and fewer ceremonies will mean less of a burden on Washington’s law enforcement and residents, along with other security personnel.

According to the Inauguration Committee’s website, more than 400 people have donated toward the events. So far, though, the only corporate donors are AT&T, Microsoft, Centene, Financial Innovations, Genentech, Stream Line Circle, and Whittier Trust Co.

While some of the companies aren’t as well-known as AT&T and Microsoft, they’re still powerful in their own right. Genentech is a biotechnology company owned by Swiss drugmaker Roche, while Stream Line Circle is owned by billionaire Obama backer and gay-rights activist Jon Stryker, and Centene is a Medicaid administration company that is profiting highly through Obamacare, reports the Washington Post.

Financial Innovations, meanwhile, earned $1.8 million in business through making promotional products used in Obama’s 2012 campaign, the Post reports.

AT&T’s donation for the inauguration is kind of a turnaround a company whose PAC contributed $5,000 to Mitt Romney’s campaign against Obama in September. In addition, AT&T Chairman Randall Stephenson contributed $30,800 to the Republican National Committee last February, reports Bloomberg, marking his largest political contribution in at least 20 years.

However, Microsoft’s donation isn’t so surprising. The Redmond, Wash.-based company’s employees donated a total of $815,435 to the Obama campaign, more money than any other company, says the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group.

The Inauguration Committee hasn’t said how much each donor has given toward the inauguration ceremonies, but each person on the list has donated at least $200. However, while donations were capped off at $50,000 in 2009, this year’s committee is encouraging individual gifts of up to $250,000. Donations from lobbyists, political action committees or foreign donors are not being accepted.

And some of the private donors are people who donated heavily through an independent super PAC that spent millions tp get Obama re-elected. For example, Irwin Jacobs, founder of telecommunications giant Qualcomm, gave more than $2 million to the Priorities USA PAC during the election, and New York gardening book author Amy Goldman gave $1 million to the group.

In exchange for donating, contributors for the inauguration get special access behind the scenes. They hear special briefings and get tickets for the inaugural balls and swearing-in ceremony.

Obama’s second term begins, by Constitutional law, at noon on Jan. 20. However, since that falls on a Sunday, he’ll be sworn in privately at the White House on Jan. 20 and then celebrate his inauguration ceremonies on Jan. 21.

No comments: