A bright young man came with his grandfather to visit. He is interested in politics and was told by a mutual friend he should chat with me. He was also told by our mutual friend that I am constantly on Obama's case.
My young friend asked me could I find anything Obama has done that I thought was positive? I responded I thought Obama lacked the character to be president, any executive accomplishments to handle the job and his upbringing and associations were also unsuitable for a man serving as our president.
That said, I agreed with his grandfather that recognizing Cuba was a noteworthy idea but, as usual, I believed Obama gave away the store, extracted nothing in return and I would l love to play poker with Obama because he always seems prone to reveal his entire hand. Reagan would have cleaned his clock on that point alone.
After he and his grandfather left I got to rethinking why Obama gives me heartburn and I did the following:
1) I promise to quit lying to advance my political desire to transform America.
2) I promise to quit beating up on Netanyahu and Israel. (See 1, 1a and 1b below.)
3) I promise to stop suggesting all police persons are racists.
4) I promise to switch from blaming GW to blaming others for all my mistakes.
5) I promise to quit attributing all the bad weather on coal.
6) I promise to quit saying The Taliban have been defeated.
7) I promise to stop taking credit for the economic recovery, which would have occurred three years earlier, had I not been so stubborn and ideologically stupid.
8) I promise to quit believing Putin is America's friend, Cuba will flourish now that I decided we needed to have better relations and Iran's Ayatollah can be trusted.
9) I promise to think before I open my mouth and say stupid things like you did not build that etc.
10) Finally, I promise to realize the world does not revolve around me, I am not a monarch and I must stop believing I can drink my own bathwater. (See 2 below.)
BONUS Resolution:
I promise to conduct my presidency according to the Constitution which I swore to uphold!
===
As Obama begins the last two years of his term in office his focus is on his legacy and it will not be on what is best for America because his ideology is hide bound in uncompromising concepts. Obama's goals are theoretically in sync with what our nation is conceptually all about but are unobtainable, impractical and defy nature. That is why they sound good but are dangerous.
Obama ,de Blasio, Ted Kennedy are cut from the same radical leftist thinking mold. They profess to be for the little people, for social justice, for fairness, for redistribution of wealth and against the very freedoms that allowed them to prosper, politically speaking.
Yes, we must continue to strive for improvement and betterment. However, to suggest, propose and implement policies whose goals are social perfection and nirvana are achievable, by taking from the rich, turning citizen against citizen and preaching populism, is destructive nonsense.
===
When you wonder why your cost of living went up in 2015 , basically wiping out any gasoline reduction benefit, you can begin here:
Reminder for those who forgot or for many that didn't know - here is what happened on January 1, 2015 :
Top Medicare tax went from 1.45% to 2.35%
Top Income tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6%
Top Income payroll tax went from 37.4% to 52.2%
Capital Gains tax went from 15% to 28%
Dividends tax went from 15% to 39.6%
Estate tax went from 0% to 55%
Remember this fact:
These taxes were all passed only with democrat votes, no republicans voted for these taxes.
These taxes were all passed under the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.
Thirty of the sixty Democrats who passed this atrocious legislation are no longer in office!
And then three other things to ponder:
Three short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our
current government and cultural environment:
1. We are advised not to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
2. We constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. But we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money?
current government and cultural environment:
1. We are advised not to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
2. We constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. But we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money?
What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but
many of the second didn't.
3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens.
many of the second didn't.
3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens.
This is a model that defies logic but fits the pattern of Progressive bleeding heart ideology and turns citizens against government which, of course, is the idea. The objectives of Progressives and Anarchists are much the same, Create chaos because that leads to radical change!
Meanwhile clock on and watch: View Video Clip Here!!
====Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)--. The Age of Bibi
By David Brooks
METULA, Israel — If I were a political novelist, I’d try to write a novel about Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel.
The story would be partly Nixonian. Netanyahu is surpassingly brilliant, as even his opponents here concede. He knows the minute guts of Israeli politics and has read deeply into big history and grand strategy. He is also said to be suspicious, solitary and insular. It is hard to stay on good terms with him, whether you are on his staff, or his nation’s closest ally.
The story would be partly Kennedyesque. The Netanyahu clan was presided over by Benjamin’s brilliant father Benzion, the great medieval historian. The eldest brother Jonathan was the golden child. When Jonathan died in the raid on Entebbe in 1976, hopes shifted to Benjamin, who is known as Bibi. Political analysts have spent decades psychoanalyzing the family dynamic, with mixed results, but a novelist who studied Sophocles or Tolstoy might be able to make some sense of it.
Like Churchill, he is wisest when things are going wrong. He has been a pessimist about the Arab world. As the Arab Spring has deteriorated, as Palestinian democracy led to Hamas, as run of the mill extremists have lost ground to the Islamic State, Bibi’s instincts have basically been proved correct.The story would be partly Churchillian. Netanyahu sees himself in world historical terms, and admires Theodor Herzl and Winston Churchill — two men who saw dangers ahead of other people. Netanyahu obviously lacks many of Churchill’s qualities, like playful charm, but he has a profound nationalist passion and a consuming historical consciousness.
The story would be part Shakespearean. Nearly every political leader has one close friend or spouse, often female, who is widely hated. People can’t blame the leader for slights, so they blame her. In Israel, the role is played by Netanyahu’s wife, Sara, who has been the subject of fascination and scorn for decades: She is often described as Lady Macbeth. Few know her exact role, but, it is said, she exiles the disloyal, shapes his politics, mistreats servants and distracts him when he is supposed to be running the country. Obviously, any novel about Netanyahu and modern Israel would have to be told from her vantage point. The narrative voice would be electric.
The story would be part “Citizen Kane.” Netanyahu rose to fame via CNN. His rise and survival are intertwined with changes in media, with the decline of old newspapers that are generally hostile, and the rise of new cable networks and outlets that are often his allies. Ferociously tending his image, his wars with his foes in the Israeli press have been epic.
Finally, the story would be part Machiavelli. The great Renaissance philosopher argued that it is best to be both loved and feared, but if you have to choose one, it is better to be feared. Netanyahu is not loved, especially by those in his party. But he is feared and acknowledged, the way any large, effective object is feared and respected.
No one has a simple view of him. To some, he is a monster who has expanded the settlements on the West Bank, which are a moral stain and do calamitous damage to Israel’s efforts to win support around the world. To some, he is the necessary man in hard times, the vigilant guardian as the rest of the Middle East goes berserk.I’m visiting Israel for the 18th or 19th time (my son is currently a member of the Lone Soldiers Program, which allows people from around the world to serve in the Israeli military). I asked a couple of smart Israelis what their coming elections are about. They said that the elections are about one thing: What do you think of Netanyahu? Such is the outsized role he plays in the consciousness of this nation.
Both viewpoints have some truth. To me, his caution is most fascinating. For all his soaring rhetoric and bellicosity, he has been a defensive leader. He seems to understand that, in his country’s situation, the lows are lower than the highs are high. The costs of a mistake are bigger than the benefits of an accomplishment. So he is loath to take risks. He doesn’t do some smart things, like improve life for Palestinians on the West Bank, but he doesn’t do unpredictable dumb things, like prematurely bomb Iran. He talks everything through, and his decisions shift and flip as the discussions evolve.
If you think trends in the Middle East will doom Israel unless it acts, then this defensiveness is a disaster. If you think, as I do, that Israel has to wait out the current spasm of Islamist radicalism, then this caution has its uses.
Israeli voters haven’t warmed to Netanyahu over the past quarter-century. But they have come to think more like him, accepting that this conflict will endure, digging in for a dogged struggle. For good and ill, he has refashioned the national mind.
1a)
WASHINGTON — THE president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, insists on using international institutions to pressure Israel, even after he was rebuffed in the United Nations Security Council, where he sought a resolution mandating Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Mr. Abbas has now announced that he will turn to the International Criminal Court — a move that will produce Palestinian charges and Israeli countercharges but not alter the reality on the ground.
A European official I met recently expressed sympathy for the Palestinians’ pursuit of a Security Council resolution. I responded by saying that if he favors Palestinian statehood, it’s time to stop giving the Palestinians a pass. It is time to make it costly for them to focus on symbols rather than substance.
Since 2000, there have been three serious negotiations that culminated in offers to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Bill Clinton’s parameters in 2000, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer in 2008, and Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts last year. In each case, a proposal on all the core issues was made to Palestinian leaders and the answer was either “no” or no response. They determined that the cost of saying “yes,” or even of making a counteroffer that required concessions, was too high.
Palestinian political culture is rooted in a narrative of injustice; its anticolonialist bent and its deep sense of grievance treats concessions to Israel as illegitimate. Compromise is portrayed as betrayal, and negotiations — which are by definition about mutual concessions — will inevitably force any Palestinian leader to challenge his people by making a politically costly decision.
But going to the United Nations does no such thing. It puts pressure on Israel and requires nothing of the Palestinians. Resolutions are typically about what Israel must do and what Palestinians should get. If saying yes is costly and doing nothing isn’t, why should we expect the Palestinians to change course?
That’s why European leaders who fervently support Palestinian statehood must focus on how to raise the cost of saying no or not acting at all when there is an offer on the table. Palestinians care deeply about international support for their cause. If they knew they would be held accountable for being nonresponsive or rejecting a fair offer or resolution, it could well change their calculus.
Unfortunately, most Europeans are focused far more on Israeli behavior and want, at a minimum, to see Israel’s continuing settlement policy change.
But turning to the United Nations or the International Criminal Court during an Israeli election is counterproductive. It will be seen in Israel as a one-sided approach, and it will strengthen politicians who prefer the status quo. These candidates will argue that the deck is stacked against Israel and that the country needs leaders who will stand firm against unfair pressure.
Why not wait? If a new Israeli government after the elections is prepared to take a peace initiative and build settlements only on land that is likely to be part of Israel and not part of Palestine, there will be no need for a United Nations resolution.
If not, and the Europeans decide to pursue one, it must be balanced. It cannot simply address Palestinian needs by offering borders based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps and a capital in Arab East Jerusalem without offering something equally specific to Israel — namely, security arrangements that leave Israel able to defend itself by itself, phased withdrawal tied to the Palestinian Authority’s performance on security and governance, and a resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue that allows Israel to retain its Jewish character.
In all likelihood the Palestinians would reject such a resolution. Accepting it would require compromises that they refused in 2000, 2008 and 2014. There is, of course, no guarantee that the next Israeli government would accept such a resolution. But the Israelis are not the ones pushing for United Nations involvement. The Palestinians are. And if their approach is neither about two states nor peace, there ought to be a price for that.
Peace requires accountability on both sides. It’s fair to ask the Israelis to accept the basic elements that make peace possible — 1967 lines as well as land swaps and settlement building limited to the blocks. But isn’t it time to demand the equivalent from the Palestinians on two states for two peoples, and on Israeli security? Isn’t it time to ask the Palestinians to respond to proposals and accept resolutions that address Israeli needs and not just their own?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
The Obama-McConnell Dance Begins
The new Senate leader says he’ll seek common ground, but it won’t be easy, given Obama’s ‘view of America.’
President Obama invited Mitch McConnell , soon to become Senate majority leader, to the White House on Dec. 3. At Mr. McConnell’s insistence, they met one-on-one. They discussed trade, tax reform and infrastructure, the three issues on which they believe compromises are possible in 2015.
This sounds promising. In reality, it doesn’t bode well for a season of bipartisanship and an end to “dysfunction” in Washington. Even on the three negotiable issues, reaching agreement will be difficult. And beyond them, “it’s hard to find anything we agree on,” Mr. McConnell told me in an interview. Mr. Obama has a “different view of America” than Republicans do, he said.
When the new Congress convenes on Tuesday, Mr. Obama will find himself in an unfamiliar role. Republicans will control the Senate and House. And for the first time in Mr. Obama’s presidency, “he’s not in charge of setting the agenda,” Mr. McConnell said.
Since Republicans captured the House in 2010, Democrats and the media have blamed them for blocking the president’s agenda and creating gridlock. “Factually, we know the dysfunction was in the Senate,” Mr. McConnell insisted, referring to then Majority Leader Harry Reid shelving hundreds of House-passed bills without debate or a vote.
Messrs. Obama and Reid are now positioned to be obstructionists-in-chief, starting with the Senate vote this week to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada. It came within a single vote of passing in November. But three Democrats who voted “no” have retired and a fourth was defeated. Now there are at least 60 votes to overcome another Reid-led filibuster, though probably not 67 votes to override the president’s veto.
Mr. McConnell believes that voters choose divided government, as they did in the midterm election, when “they want us to look for areas of agreement.” President Clinton “didn’t have the House or the Senate for six of his eight years,” Mr. McConnell noted at a postelection news conference. Yet welfare reform and three balanced budgets were achieved during the Clinton administration.
Mr. Obama is less kindly disposed to divided government. Dealing with Republicans is not his strength. Nonetheless, his aides have said he plans to spend more time courting members of Congress and less on executive actions. The White House touted this approach before, in 2013. At the time, after several meetings, Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) told reporters that the president’s overtures were not “ever in earnest, it was optics.”
The most noteworthy feature of earlier negotiations was the president’s reluctance to make concessions. And now the left-wing base of the Democratic Party is pressing him to resist Republicans rather than compromise.
But the president is the biggest impediment to bipartisan deal-making. He is a clumsy negotiator. In 2011 Mr. Obama botched a $4 trillion agreement on raising taxes and cutting spending by demanding more in taxes at the last minute. That same year, when a deal on increasing the debt limit seemed out of reach, Vice President Joe Biden had to arrange a compromise with Mr. McConnell, then Senate minority leader.
Mr. Obama isn’t likely to defer to Mr. Biden in 2015. With the improved economy and with buzz about a “liberated” president on the brink of a comeback, his job-approval rating has inched up to the high 40s. In his weekly radio address before Christmas, Mr. Obama declared that “America’s resurgence is real.”
At the same time, his criticism of Republicans and veto threats have toughened. Republicans will have to change their tactics, he said in an NPR interview last week. “It’s not enough for them simply to grind the wheels of Congress to a halt and then blame me,” he said, adding: “They have to show they can responsibly govern.” After vetoing only two bills in six years, he said, “now I suspect there are going to some times where I’ve got to pull that pen out.”
On an important trade bill—the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—the question is whether Mr. Obama will be as aggressive in seeking “fast track” authority as he is in attacking Republicans. The treaty would eliminate tariffs and generally harmonize the economies of the U.S., Mexico and Canada with those of nine mostly Asian countries. Fast track is crucial because it would allow a vote in Congress on the treaty without amendments. TPP negotiations are said to be near completion.
The Democratic base is a serious problem for the president, because fast track is poison to the left, especially labor unions and environmental groups. But without fast track, the treaty will die. Other countries will balk for fear TPP as negotiated would be altered later by Congress. When Mr. Obama called for a fast-track vote a year ago, Mr. Reid refused. This raised suspicions that his rebuff was prearranged to let the president off the hook. Mr. McConnell won’t be so helpful. “He’s going to have to step up and sell that to Democrats,” the senator said. “I can’t believe he’d want [TPP] to fail.”
On tax reform, the president and Republicans are far apart. The GOP model is the 1986 reform bill, which killed tax preferences and special breaks, broadened the tax base and lowered rates. Mr. McConnell said this year’s version must be revenue-neutral and treat small businesses the same as big companies. If the corporate income-tax rate drops, he said, the rate should also be cut for small business owners taxed as individuals.
Mr. Obama wants to take $1 trillion from tax reform and spend it on infrastructure—that is, he wants a tax increase. But he appears to understand that this won’t fly. “I think an all-Democratic Congress would have provided an even better opportunity for tax reform,” he said in his year-end news conference. It would have if raising taxes is your goal.
Is there a middle ground? Both sides want to repair roads and bridges. One way is to raise the federal gas tax, currently 18.4 cents a gallon. Mr. McConnell says no. “We all know we’re not going to pass a gas-tax increase,” he told me. So much for the supposedly easy-to-negotiate issues.
The harder GOP tactics will stir slugfests. Mr. McConnell intends to use what he calls “the single best tool we have” to cut spending and curb Obama policies. So-called riders will be attached to appropriations bills that Democrats may be eager to pass. One example: defining full-time work as 40 hours a week, instead of the current 30 hours, when ObamaCare kicks in and an employer is required to provide health insurance. To kill this rider, would the president veto a bill that funds student loans? Maybe not.
With 247 votes in the House, Republicans can attach riders whenever they like. With 54 votes in the Senate, Republicans are constrained. They are six short of stopping Democratic filibusters.
But Mr. Mitchell told me that “a pool of Democrats” has contacted him privately since the election. “They do not
seem to want to take orders” from the president, he said. If he can round up a handful of them—perhaps two handfuls—to break filibusters, Mr. Obama may have to use his veto pen more than he expected. And conciliation and compromise will be put off for another day.
Mr. Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard, is a Fox News commentator.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment