"A Conservative Capitalist Offers: Eleven Lessons and a Bonus Lesson for Raising America's Youth Born and Yet To Be Born"
By Dick Berkowitz - Non Expert
I wrote this booklet because I believe a strong country must rest on a solid family unit.Brokaw's "Greatest Generation" has morphed into "A Confused, Dependent and Compromised Generation."
I hope this booklet will provide a guide to alter this trend.
Please Buy My Booklet - Half The Proceeds Go To "The Wounded Warrior Project!"
You can now order a .pdf version from www.brokerberko.com/book that you can download and read on your computer, or even print out if you want.
The booklet only costs $5.99.
Also feel free to forward this to anyone on your own e mail list and encourage others to order a copy.
---
---
I am bemused by Obama's response to the attack in Libya and the assassination of four of our State department personnel. Amb. Rice's was ordered to respond in a manner that defied common sense. Then the administration trotted out Sec. Clinton who compounded the idiocy by pursuing their journey of lying. Then after some in the administration began to back away and tell us what any person with a pair of eyes knew all along our apologist president could not even bring himself to reality so he had to go to The U.N. and keep the spin going.
Romney has done such a poor job of making the case against Obama, I often think I could have done a better job. Well, in a few days we begin the debates and both sides have begun spinning that too.
Certainly the press and media bias has been as Pat Caddell alleged in a recent speech which I posted in my last memo and do so again because I believe it is that important. But also in that same speech he called out Romney for the poor job he has done .
For anyone worth his salt we have seen mounting evidence of a president who is lazy, who has little respect for the dignity of the office, who sees himself as 'eye candy.' who cannot bring himself to face up to the daunting challenge of Iran, Islamist terrorists and whose economic policies have created the most anemic recovery in modern history. And yet, he leads modestly in the polls because of his like-ability factor. Since when does like-ability trump competency? (See 1 below.)
What the hell is wrong with this nation? (See 1a and 1b below.)
---
I never denied Kissinger was not a brilliant person but I also never saw him eating a hot dog at a ball game and thus did not believe he should have been Secretary of State. He caved on Viet Nam and now has apparently caved on Israel. (See 2 below.)
Who knows, if there is no Israel in 10 years, four more years of Obama and even America could be under water. (See 2a below.)
---
Billy Daniels was a very charismatic black singer and his signature song was "That Ole Black Magic."
Part of the words of the song went 'down and down I go.' Billy could have been an economist. (See 3 below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) Barack Obama, slacker-in-chief
By Deroy Murdock
Concerning the fun parts of his job, Barack Obama resembles the Energizer Bunny. If there are crowds to wow, entertainers to schmooze or donors to pitch, Obama is Johnny on the spot. Too bad Obama's sparks stop flying when it comes time for the serious, heavy lifting of the presidency.
This phenomenon's most chilling example involves Obama's national security-related presidential daily brief (PDB). As the conservative Government Accountability Institute calculated, and Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen first reported Sept. 10, Obama attended only 43.8 percent of his daily briefings between Jan. 23, 2009 (three days after his inauguration) and May 31, 2012. Available nearly every day, the briefing allows the commander-in-chief to hear directly from top intelligence professionals about the latest threats to U.S. safety. These experts are on hand to answer questions, hear suggestions and otherwise help Obama foil America's enemies.
But Obama has had higher priorities.
According to the institute's data culled from the official White House calendar and Politico.com's news coverage of that schedule, Obama chose to skip his daily briefings and, instead, simply read his briefing book. This is a bit like studying one's chest X-rays at home while spurning a radiologist's offer to interpret them and answer pertinent questions. In this sense, Obama quietly reviewed his national security X-rays alone during 56.2 percent of the time the institute analyzed. Obama missed 61.6 percent of these briefings in 2011.
Obama skipped his briefings between last Sept. 4 and 11, the entire week before the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya suffered an Islamic terror attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, technical officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. Who knows if a briefer's classified utterance, or a particularly astute question from Obama, might have triggered tighter security in Benghazi and, perhaps prevented the murders of four Americans?
Even worse, as Thiessen reports, Obama postponed and eventually skipped his briefing on the day after these planned and deliberate assassinations. This liberated Obama for a truly indispensable responsibility that day. As American embassies burned brightly throughout the Islamic world, Obama jetted off on Air Force One for a campaign fundraiser in America's least solemn city -- Las Vegas.
At last, three days after the Benghazi bloodshed, and nine days after his previous briefing, Obama sat still for a proper briefing Sept. 14, the White House schedule shows. Perhaps the scrutiny of Thiessen and other critics finally has inspired Obama to attend his briefings with the regularity of his predecessors.
Obama this week met with exactly zero world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly, not least of them Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who wants to stop Iran from redecorating Jerusalem and Tel Aviv with mushroom clouds. Obama found time, however, to serve as "eye candy" for Whoopi Goldberg and the cast of "The View."
Obama has shirked his domestic obligations, too. He reportedly has held just two Cabinet meetings this year -- on Jan. 31 and July 26. While claiming to be totally focused on reducing naggingly high unemployment, Obama has not met with his Jobs Council since January. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney explained, "The president's obviously got a lot on his plate." This has included a $38,000-per-plate fundraiser at the Manhattan home of actress Sarah Jessica Parker and golf, of which Obama has enjoyed some 104 rounds as president.
Obama's dereliction of duty would be bad enough if he were a latter-day Eisenhower: a well-respected, perhaps feared, world leader enjoying prosperity at home and peace (or at least a manageable Cold War) overseas. Instead, Obama grows increasingly comical, the domestic economy languishes, and the American flag has become an alternative fuel source across the Middle East. Nonetheless, Ike Jr. parties like it's 1959.
Perhaps Obama has devolved from president to slacker-in-chief in an elaborate display of empathy for America's 12.5 million unemployed. With so many citizens not working, Obama may reckon, why should he?
1a)Mainstream media is threatening our country's future
Editor's note: The following text is from a speech delivered by Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor Patrick Caddell on September 21. It was delivered at Accuracy in Media's Conference: Obamanation: A Day of Truth. The title of the speech was “The Audacity of Corruption.
” For more on Accuracy in Media, click here.
” For more on Accuracy in Media, click here.
I think we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy or not. You know, when I first started in politics – and for a long time before that – everyone on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, despised the press commonly, because they were SOBs to everybody. Which is exactly what they should be. They were unrelenting. Whatever the biases were, they were essentially equal-opportunity people.
That changed in 1980.
There are a lot of reasons for it. It changed—an important point in the Dukakis-Bush election, when the press literally was trying to get Dukakis elected by ignoring what was happening in Massachusetts , with a candidate who was running on the platform of “He will do for America what he did for Massachusetts ”—while they were on the verge of bankruptcy.
Also the change from evening news emphasis to morning news by the networks is another factor that’s been pointed out to me.
Most recently, what I call the nepotism that exists, where people get jobs—they’re married to people who are in the administration, or in politics, whatever.
But the overwhelming bias has become very real and very dangerous. We have a First Amendment for one reason. We have a First Amendment not because the Founding Fathers liked the press—they hated the press—but they believed, as [Thomas] Jefferson said, that in order to have a free country, in order to be a free people, we needed a free press. That was the job—so there was an implicit bargain in the First Amendment, the press being the only institution, at that time, which was in our process of which there was no checks and balances.
We designed a constitutional system with many checks and balances. The one that had no checks and balances was the press, and that was done under an implicit understanding that, somehow, the press would protect the people from the government and the power by telling—somehow allowing—people to have the truth. That is being abrogated as we speak, and has been for some time. It is now creating the danger that I spoke to.
This morning, just this morning, Gallup released their latest poll on the trust, how much trust [the American people have in the press] —when it comes to reporting the news accurately, fairly, and fully, and [the level of their distrust] it’s the highest in history. For the first time, 60% of the people said they had “Not very much” or “None at all.” Of course there was a partisan break: There were 40% who believed it did, Democrats, 58% believed that it was fair and accurate, Republicans were 26%, independents were
on the trust, how much trust [the American people have in the press] —when it comes to reporting the news accurately, fairly, and fully, and [the level of their distrust] it’s the highest in history. For the first time, 60% of the people said they had “Not very much” or “None at all.” Of course there was a partisan break: There were 40% who believed it did, Democrats, 58% believed that it was fair and accurate, Republicans were 26%, independents were
31%.
So there is this contempt for the media – or this belief—and there are many other polls that show it as well.
I want to just use a few examples, because I think we crossed the line the last few weeks that is terrifying.
A few weeks ago I wrote a piece which was called “The Audacity of Cronyism” in Breitbart, and my talk today is “The Audacity of Corruption.” What I pointed out was, that it was appalling that Valerie Jarrett had a Secret Service detail. A staff member in the White House who is a senior aide and has a full Secret Service detail, even while on vacation, and nobody in the press had asked why. That has become more poignant, as I said, last week, when we discovered that we had an American ambassador, on the anniversary of 9/11, who was without adequate security—while she still has a Secret Service detail assigned to her full-time, at a massive cost, and no one in the media has gone to ask why.
” in Breitbart, and my talk today is “The Audacity of Corruption.” What I pointed out was, that it was appalling that Valerie Jarrett had a Secret Service detail. A staff member in the White House who is a senior aide and has a full Secret Service detail, even while on vacation, and nobody in the press had asked why. That has become more poignant, as I said, last week, when we discovered that we had an American ambassador, on the anniversary of 9/11, who was without adequate security—while she still has a Secret Service detail assigned to her full-time, at a massive cost, and no one in the media has gone to ask why.
The same thing: I raised the question of David Plouffe. David Plouffe, who is the White House’s Senior Adviser—and was Obama’s campaign manager last time, he and [David] Axelrod sort of switched out, Axelrod going back to Chicago for the campaign—and just after it was announced that he was coming, an Iranian front group in Nigeria gave him $100,000 to give two speeches in Nigeria.
Now, let me tell you: There’s nobody that hands—no stranger gives you $100,000 and doesn’t expect something in return, unless you live in a world that I don’t. And no one has raised this in the mainstream media.
He was on with George Stephanopoulos, on ABC, a couple of weeks ago, and they were going through all these questions. No one asked him whatsoever about that. He was not inquired. George Stephanopoulos, a former advisor to Bill Clinton—who every morning, while Rahm Emmanuel was Chief of Staff, had his call with Rahm Emmanuel and James Carville, and the three of them have been doing it for years—and he is held out as a journalist. He has two platforms. I mean, he’s a political hack masquerading as a journalist. But when you don’t ask the questions you need to ask of someone like David Plouffe, who’s going in the White House—when we’re talking about Iran .
I just finished surveys, some of you may have seen, with John McLaughlin this week, with Secure America Now, and found out just how strongly Americans are concerned with Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, what’s happening in the Middle East, and cuts in defense spending.
surveys, some of you may have seen, with John McLaughlin this week, with Secure America Now, and found out just how strongly Americans are concerned with Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, what’s happening in the Middle East, and cuts in defense spending.
This is not the place for that, but it strikes me as the American people identify, in the polling we’ve done over the last year, Iran as the single greatest danger to the United States . And here’s a man who’s being paid by an already named front group for that—for a terrorist regime, and is not asked about it, or queried about it!
The third thing I would say is that—then there’s of course [National Security Advisor] Tom Donilon, who I know very well from years back, who I caused a little bit of a stir over a few months ago when I said he was the “leaker-in-chief.”
I mean this ridiculous running around—“How did these secrets get out?”—when it is clear he has no credentials for foreign policy; who has been in the White House; who was a political operative for Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, and others; who was known to have, in my opinion, to be just the most amoral person I know in politics; and who is using and orchestrating national security. In Mr. [David] Sanger’s book [Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power], as a reviewer at [The New York Times] said, “The hero of this book, and the clear source of it, is Tom Donilon”—but let me just make a point. Neither does—and I would say this to the Congressman—“You know, all the Republicans have to do”—you know, I talk often about the “Corrupt Party” and the “Stupid Party,” but the Stupid Party couldn’t be stupider when it comes to things like this. They could have called Tom Donilon and other people down to the Congress, put them under oath, and asked them if they had leaked.
said, “The hero of this book, and the clear source of it, is Tom Donilon”—but let me just make a point. Neither does—and I would say this to the Congressman—“You know, all the Republicans have to do”—you know, I talk often about the “Corrupt Party” and the “Stupid Party,” but the Stupid Party couldn’t be stupider when it comes to things like this. They could have called Tom Donilon and other people down to the Congress, put them under oath, and asked them if they had leaked.
Instead you have Eric Holder, who runs the most political Justice Department since John Mitchell—only in John Mitchell’s administration did we have Justice Departments that were so politicized and so corrupted by politics—and he appoints someone who gave two people to do a study on the leaks, sometime in the next century will come out, and one of them is a, was a contributor to Barack Obama when he was a state Senator. That’s a really unbiased source! And the press, of course, won’t look into this.
It will not ask the question. But the Republicans could have called them down. Yes, the president could have extended Executive Privilege, but let him say “I will not answer that question, sir” on the question of “Did you leak these secrets that Dianne Feinstein, the Chairman, the Democratic Chairman, of the Senate Intelligence Committee said were endangering national security and American lives?” As she said when she read Sanger’s book, “My God, every page I turn I learn something that I don’t know!” I mean, these are serious matters but in Washington they’re playful, and the press does not pursue any of them.
when she read Sanger’s book, “My God, every page I turn I learn something that I don’t know!” I mean, these are serious matters but in Washington they’re playful, and the press does not pursue any of them.
Peter Schweizer has done a study talking about corruption. Sixty percent or 80%—it’s closer to 80% I think, now—of the money given under the stimulus to green energy projects—the president and this administration’s great project—has gone to people who are either bundlers or major contributors to Barack Obama.
—it’s closer to 80% I think, now—of the money given under the stimulus to green energy projects—the president and this administration’s great project—has gone to people who are either bundlers or major contributors to Barack Obama.
But nobody says a word.
Of course Republicans don’t raise it because in Washington , they simply want to do it when they get back in power. And, of course, the press doesn’t because they basically have taken themselves out of doing their job.
When we see what happened this week in Libya—and when I said I was more frightened than I’ve ever been, this is true, because I think it’s one thing that, as they did in 2008, when the mainstream press, the mainstream media and all the press, jumped on the Obama bandwagon and made it a moral commitment on their part to help him get elected in a way that has never happened, whatever the biases in the past.
To give you an example of the difference, I’ll just shortly tell you this: In 1980, when [Jimmy] Carter was running for reelection, the press—even though 80% of them, after the election, reporters said they voted for Carter over [Ronald] Reagan, or 70% percent of them, a very high percentage—they believed, so much, that the Carter campaign and the Carter White House had abused the Rose Garden against [Ted] Kennedy that they made a commitment, as they discussed, that they would not serve as the attack dogs on Reagan for the Carter White House because they thought it was unfair and they weren’t to be manipulated.
I totally disagree with their analysis, but that was when you actually had a press corps. Whatever their own personal feelings, they made judgments that were, “We’re not going to be manipulated.”
This press corps serves at the pleasure of this White House and president, led by people like Ezra Klein and JournoList, where
they plot the stories together. The problem here is that no one will name names.
But I want to talk about this Libyan thing, because we crossed some lines here. It’s not about politics. First of all we’ve had nine day of lies over what happened because they can’t dare say it’s a terrorist attack, and the press won’t push this. Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya .
Twenty American embassies, yesterday, were under attack. None of that is on the national news. None of it is being pressed in the papers.
If a president of either party—I don’t care whether it was Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or George Bush or Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush—had a terrorist incident, and got on an airplane after saying something, and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas , they would have been crucified! It would have been—it should have been the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush’s “flying over Katrina” moment. But nothing was said at all, and nothing will be said.
It is one thing to bias the news, or have a biased view. It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know, and I choose right now, openly, and this is—if I had more time I’d do all the names for it—but The New York Times, The Washington Post, or the most important papers that influence the networks, ABC, NBC, and, to a lesser extent—because CBS has actually been on this story, partly because the President of Libya appeared on [Bob Schieffer’s “Face the Nation”] and said, on Sunday, while [U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.] Susan Rice was out—the U.N. Ambassador has no portfolio on this matter—lying, said of the Secretary—you know why, notice the Secretary of State wasn’t out there doing this—was on national television, lying and promoting the White House line while the Libyan President, the very same moment, is saying “This is a premeditated attack.”
Nobody has asked that question. This morning—take a look at The New York Times this morning, it’s a minor reference. Oh, now we’ve decided that it was a terrorist incident. But this is—that would have changed, that should change the politics.
This is not without accomplices, because the incompetence of the [Mitt] Romney campaign, which I said a week ago is the—my God!—the worst campaign in my lifetime, and the Republican establishment in general’s inability to fight, has allowed these things to happen in part because they don’t do it. But I want to go through two other quick points.
[Mohamed] Morsi and Egypt : The President of Egypt, we find out now, that his whole agenda has been getting the “Blind Sheikh” [Omar Abdel-Rahman], who’s responsible for the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, out of jail. Prison. I’ve been told specifically, by a member of the intelligence community that the White House and State Department are negotiating that now.
They have now come out and denied it, but [Morsi] comes out, that they ordered—he’s the head of the Muslim Brotherhood! The American people know what they think of the Muslim Brotherhood: They are against them eleven to one, all right? And he’s the president of the Muslim Brotherhood, giving $2 billion to United States .
He tells them—we had advance warning because they had said they were gonna do this, attack our embassy. The president—after the incident, after 48 hours, Mr. Morsi does nothing and says nothing—picks up the phone, calls him, and demands that they call it off.
On Friday—last Friday, a week ago today—there was supposed to be a big demonstration. We thought that would be the big day—no, it disappeared, because Morsi called it off. But no press person has investigated this, just as no press person will go and ask the most obvious questions, when there are really good stories here, good media stories, and good news stories. They are in the tank and this is a frightening thing.
Another example has been the polling, which everyone wants to talk to me about. Look: There is no doubt that Romney is blowing an election he could not lose, and has done everything he can to lose it.
But the bias, the polling, it’s very complicated. Some of it is error, some of it is miscalculation, but some of it is deliberate, in my opinion—to pump up the numbers using the 2008 base to give a sense of momentum to the Obama campaign.
When I have polls that have the preference of Democrats over Republicans higher than it was in 2008, which was a peak Democratic year, I know I am dealing with a poll that shouldn’t be reported. And yet they are being done, and they are being done with that knowledge and with that basis for some people, and the answer, as I said, some of it is incompetence, some of it is they just don’t know, really know, how to handle it, and some of it is on purpose, and it’s purposeful.
But all of it is just to serve a basic point, just as JournoList was—Mr. Klein’s JournoList—but as I said there is no pushback.
We have a political campaign where, to put the best metaphor I can on it, where the referees on the field are sacking the quarterback of one team, tripping up their runners, throwing their bodies in front of blockers, and nobody says anything. The Republicans don’t.
The reason you will lose this battle is for one reason. Despite organizations like Accuracy In Media and others who are pointing this out, and the fact that 60% of the American people are in on the secret here—I mean, they’re no idiots—Republicans and those candidates who are not the candidates of the press refuse to call them out.
If I were the Romney campaign I would’ve been doing this for months! I’d have been looking at individual reporters! I would be telling the American people, “They’re not trying to stop me; they’re trying to stop you! And they are here to do this!” And I would have made the press themselves an issue because, until you do, what happens is, they are given the basic concession of authenticity and accuracy, or that they are credible, by not doing that.
Now too many reporters, too many political people in the Republican Party in this town, want to maintain their relationships with the press. This is how Sarah Palin got handed over to Katie Couric and to ABC before she was ready—because Steve Schmidt and others want to preserve their view, their relationships with the press.
You know, people have their own agendas, and often it’s not winning. But this not-pushing-back is a problem, and they don’t do it. And, you know what this is a different era: The old argument of “You don’t attack someone in the press”—or “You don’t get in a pissing match with someone who buys ink by the barrel”—doesn’t apply anymore. There are too many outlets, too many ways to do it, and the country doesn’t have the confidence in the press that they once had.
But all I want to conclude to this is that we face a fundamental danger here. The fundamental danger is this: I talked about the defense of the First Amendment. The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power. When they desert those ramparts and decide that they will now become active participants, that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people.
And it is a threat to the very future of this country if we allow this stuff to go on. We have crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about.
Delivered by Patrick Caddell on September 21 at Accuracy in Media's Conference --Obamanation: A Day of Truth.
.
Patrick Caddell is a Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor. He served as pollster for President Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Joe Biden and others. He is a Fox News political analyst and co-host of "Campaign Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on "FoxNews.com Live."
1b)The great media slide continues
By Wesley Pruden
The distrust of the media becomes total. That's hardly news to anyone, except to the clueless editors and publishers of the big newspapers and the big mules of the television networks, who see their audiences shrinking and wonder why.
A new survey by Gallup asked Americans how much trust and confidence they have in the mass media — newspapers, television and radio — when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly: a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all. The result shows that "trust" disappeared long ago. Trust becomes disgust.
Gallup has been taking this measurement over the past decade or so, and the erosion of trust has been consistent and steady since at least 1998. Twelve years ago, 53 percent of Americans told Gallup that they had "a great deal" or at least "a fair amount" of trust in the media. By this year, only 40 percent of Americans put their trust in newspapers, television and radio to tell them what's going on in the world. A remarkable 60 percent said they had "not very much" trust or "none at all."
This should frighten editors and publishers, but it won't. With few exceptions, they're locked in to their high-minded prejudices and the noble conceit that the role of the media is not to report the news but to tell readers, viewers and listeners what to think about the news. This trend is vividly illustrated by the coverage of the presidential campaign this year. This latest survey was taken in the second week of September, so it's hot off the press.
The results work out to a pretty miserable "favorable percentage." If the media were a baseball team, it would be mired so deep in the cellar that it couldn't even see next year. When Gallup asked these questions in the l970s, when the Watergate scandal was in full bloom with a new sensation across the front page every morning, the percentage of those who had a great deal of trust in the media was consistently in the high 70's. Even allowing for the usual partisan divide — Gallup finds that Democrats, enjoying the liberal stroking of their "good" prejudices, alone in their approval of the press — this is a disastrous portent for the future of the mainstream media.
Two examples from the week's news illustrate how and why. Mitt Romney finally released the awaited dump of information on his tax returns, after Sen. Harry Reid's fanciful accusation that Mr. Romney did not pay any taxes for six years obsessed the media for weeks. The dump revealed that Mr. Romney had actually paid more than his fair share of taxes and that he gave away nearly 30 percent of his earnings to charity.
This compares to President Obama's 21 percent for charity -- and only 1.5 percent from Joe Biden, the miserly old uncle in the attic. Joe's talent for squeezing every penny until Abe squeals recalls Bill Clinton's taking deductions for old underwear he gave to charity. (To be fair, Bubba's skivvies were little worn, since most of the time they were around his ankles.)
The reporters and pundits who were so obsessed with Mr. Romney's taxes mostly passed on "analyzing" these facts. But the far more serious sin the media ignored was the debacle in Libya, where Islamic terrorists killed the American ambassador who, despite fervent pleas, had been left stranded in a hostile land without sufficient security.
For days the president, his secretary of state and the ambassador to the United Nations scoffed at the notion that the terrorism was the work of terrorists, and insisted it was spontaneous rioting by devout Muslims angry about a video they had never seen. It couldn't have been the work of terrorists, because Mr. Obama had gone to Cairo as soon as he was inaugurated to bow to the imams and apologize for America being America. Nobody was any longer mad at us.
The big media had no interest in following the story; the celebrity journalists knew the president and they knew he was a stout fellow. He meant well and deserved a second term. Everybody knew that. When Philippe Reines, who holds Hillary Clinton's horse at the State Department, was questioned closely about why the administration thought it necessary to tell such whoppers about the death of an ambassador, he blew his stack and resorted to trite schoolyard vulgarity.
The Obama administration finally conceded that it had been trying to sell a lie about what really happened in Libya, exposed by a few brave dissenters to the media consensus. Dissent was the work that all reporters and pundits once did, back in the day when "the press" was trusted to do its job. The fatal slide continues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 )Kissinger: No More Israel in 10 Years
New York Post columnist Cindy Adams asserts that former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger predicted the end of the state of Israel within 10 years.
Adams does not specify when or where Kissinger made that statement. But she writes: “Middle East horror. Democratic Party dissing Jerusalem. DC’s anti-Israel mentality. Obama, busy raising re-election funds, no time for beleaguered Netanyahu. The Oval Office attitude versus the Red Line. Iran’s oath to destroy our only friend in that part of the world.
“Reported to me, Henry Kissinger has stated — and I quote the statement word for word: ‘In 10 years, there will be no more Israel.’
“I repeat: ‘In 10 years, there will be no more Israel."
2a)Obama's Biblical Rewrite
By Robert Parker
In an act of "the evil most pure," as Inspector Poirot might put it, Obama slipped poisonous "change" into the wording of the Biblical passage he abuses to add Godly gravitas to the black racial rant he published as Dreams from My Father. By his textual sleight-of-hand, he converted an expression of Biblical love and equality into race-baiting hate speech. Yes, the ambitious Obama changed an Old Testament verse from one recognizing the unity of all humanity before God into a Biblical endorsement of perpetual black racist separatism in the "alien" land of America. None of the talking heads who dominate the media noticed, of course, and now he is president.
In Obama's deceptive hand, the pitch-perfect new quotation sets the tone for his bitter, grudge-holding account of eternal racial alienation and of his visceral, burning rage at a white America he views as enemy number one in the world. Confidently, recklessly abusing the trust of his readers, Obama "informs" that 1 Chronicles 29:15 says, "For we are strangers before them [emphasis added -- the original is "thee" or "you," referring to God], and sojourners, as were all our fathers." "Sojourners," of course, means aliens in a foreign land, visitors who don't really belong.
Should any naïve soul actually doubt for a moment just whom Obama perceives as the "we," or who Obama thinks is the "them" in the verse, the answer is made perfectly clear by Obama on page four of his book. There, in the first of many remarkably revealing racial passages, he recalls how he and his roommate "enjoyed" verbally humiliating and "laughing at" white pedestrians who came alone down the sidewalk in front of their edge-of-Harlem apartment in Manhattan. His roommate would, with "rage," shout the "bastards," the "white people," into cleaning up after their dogs, and "watch them stoop to do the deed."
Over more than 400 pages of Dreams we learn how implacably alienated Obama and his various roommates, his beer and dope buddies, and his fellow super-cool black party animals are, and they all believe they have every right to be. Obama's alienation holds as constant as the Northern star, from Hawaii to New York and on to his life "organizing" blacks in Chicago. The alienation is endless, everlasting, and indelible. Not only is this the consequence of this star-kissed Punahou Academy/Occidental/Columbia/Harvard grad's perception of rampant white racism in numerous remarks made to him by white people with the best of intentions, but it is rooted more ominously in Obama's abiding anger at simply being a member of a racial minority in a white country.
Obama's racial anger, which he brags he can, by smiling, easily conceal, even from his own mother, disappears only when Obama goes to Africa. He describes how much more comfortable he felt when he went "home" to Africa, where he enjoys "the freedom of not being watched" and the similar "freedom" of "believing" that your "rump sways the way it is supposed to sway." This apparently relieves him of the stress of being watched from behind as he walks around in white America.
Obama's lifelong racial rage, documented so well in his own hand, combined with the reckless pleasure in he takes in deceiving "white people" (and blacks, too, as exemplified in his joining a Christian church specifically to deceive local black political prospects that he was one of them), poses a clear and present danger to our nation. America's most fateful election looms ahead. If, as the Greek Heraclitus warned, "character is destiny," lets us pray that the American people awake and thereby insure that Obama's destiny is to fail to grasp that second term, in which, as he promised the premier of Russia, he can be "more flexible" in his actions.
Barely constrained now by a Constitution he openly despises, an Obama re-elected will be capable of trying anything in his effort to finish off the old America and replace it with one more suited to his purposes. Is he, like the god Shiva, the "destroyer of worlds"? If Americans re-elect him, we shall soon find out, as we all set out on a darkling sea, on a voyage unimaginable to a once-shining nation all too confident that our beloved America will always be here for us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)Business Activity in U.S. Shrinks for First Time Since 2009
By Michelle Jamrisko
Uncertainties surrounding domestic fiscal policy and weakening economies in Europe and China may prevent companies from adding to headcount and ramping up production. Slow growth prospects prompted the Federal Reserve to announce more accommodation measures earlier this month in a bid to help spur the three-year-old expansion.
“The chain that links all this stuff together is just a loss of confidence as we head toward the end of the year in fiscal policy,” said Ward McCarthy, chief financial economist at Jefferies & Co. Inc. in New York, whose forecast of 50 was the closest in the Bloomberg survey. Businesses “have been cutting back on their investment spending.”
The median estimate of 57 economists surveyed by Bloomberg forecast the gauge would fall to 52.8. Projections ranged from 50 to 54.5.
Spending, Confidence
Other reports showed consumer spending barely rose in August after adjusting for inflation and household sentiment climbed in September to a four-month high.
Household purchases rose 0.5 percent, matching the median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg and the biggest gain since February, according to data from the Commerce Department. The gain mainly reflected a 0.4 percent jump in prices, the biggest since March 2011, leaving so-called real spending up 0.1 percent.
The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan final sentiment index rose to 78.3 this month from 74.3 in August. Economists projected a reading of 79 after a preliminary reading of 79.2 issued earlier this month, according to the Bloomberg survey.
Stocks dropped after the reports and as investors awaited results of stress tests on Spanish banks. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index fell 0.6 percent to 1,437.84 at 10:24 a.m. in New York.
The Chicago group’s gauge of new orders dropped to 47.4 from 54.8. The employment measure declined to 52, the weakest since March 2010, from 57.1 the prior month. The production gauge fell to 55.4 from August’s reading of 57.4, today’s report showed.
National Manufacturing
Economists watch the Chicago index and other regional manufacturing reports for an early reading on the national outlook. The Chicago group says its membership includes both manufacturers and service providers with operations in the U.S. and abroad, making the gauge a measure of overall growth.
Factory activity in the New York area contracted more than forecast in August, to its lowest level in more than three years, and production in the Philadelphia region shrank for a fifth month, Fed reports showed this month.
The ISM’s monthly national factory index probably climbed to 50 in September, the threshold of expansion and contraction, according to the median projection in a Bloomberg survey ahead of the Oct. 1 report. Like the Chicago survey, a reading above 50 signals expansion.
Elevated Joblessness
Unemployment exceeding 8 percent for 43 consecutive months -- the longest stretch in the post-World War II era -- remains a headwind for factory production while fiscal crises inEurope and slower growth in China are holding back demand.
Household spending increased at a 1.5 percent annual rate in the second quarter, the lowest in a year, Commerce Department data show. Companies’ spending on equipment and software rose at a 4.8 pace over the same period, the weakest since the third quarter of 2009.
The lack of progress in the labor market persuaded the Fed to announce further accommodation earlier this month. The policy makers said the Fed will expand holdings of long-term securities with open-ended purchases of $40 billion of mortgage debt a month as it seeks to boost growth and reduce unemployment.
Lackluster orders continue to damp manufacturers’ expectations. Shares of electronics supplier Jabil Circuit Inc. (JBL) of St. Petersburg, Florida, dropped by the most in more than a year after the company forecast fiscal first-quarter sales that fell short of analysts’ estimates.
Lingering concerns about the January “fiscal cliff” -- when more than $600 billion in automatic tax increases and spending cuts will take effect if Congress doesn’t act -- are restraining businesses such as AT&T Inc. (T) and their long-term planning.
“You have to plan on the known, and the known is that unless there is some kind of legislative fix, taxes are going to go up,” Randall Stephenson, the company’s chief executive officer, said at a Sept. 19 conference. “It’s manifesting itself in our top-line growth, it’s manifesting itself in orders on the fixed-line side.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
