PoliticsPolitics for Pros- moderated

Previous 10 Next 10 
From: LindyBill5/21/2012 4:32:49 AM
   of 660922
The Growth Canard in Europe

Posted By David P. Goldman On May 20, 2012 @ 4:42 pm In Uncategorized | 11 Comments

Everyone has ganged up on the Germans for demanding austerity in the southern European economies that they are called upon to bail out, and President Obama enjoined the Group of Eight summit this weekend to focus on growth and jobs instead of austerity. Obama lined up with the new French Socialist President Francois Hollande to beat up Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Germans aren’t too popular in Greece at the moment. Two thugs beat up a Dutch tourist in Greece last week. He protested that he wasn’t German, but Dutch, and the thugs said, “Close enough.” A joke has a German getting off the plane in Athens; when the immigration officer asks “Occupation?,” he answers, “Nein, vacation.” It’s quite unfair. I’m with Chancellor Merkel on this one.

The problem with Greece, Spain, Italy, and so forth is not that they lack fiscal stimulus (more government spending), but that stealing from the public till is their principal occupation. Germans are asking why they should reduce spending at home in order to spend more on their feckless southern neighbors. During decade 2000 to 2010, German unit labor costs remained unchanged. But they rose by 37% in Greece and by 30% in Italy and Spain. Southern Europe went into debt, in effect, to overpay workers. The Germans worked cheaper and harder (which is why Germany has nearly full employment). Spanish unemployment is at 25%.

What do you with a country where a third of economic activity is off the books? According to the World Bank, the proportion varies from 60% in Zimbabwe and Peru to 6%-8% in the USA and Canada. Italy and Greece are just below 30%.


Everyone cheats the government in southern Europe, and everyone arranges their lives so as not to pay taxes. Wonder why you can’t buy shares in all those wonderful Italian brands you know? Italy has hundreds of excellent companies, but they are all family owned, because few Italian businessmen will trust their books with anyone but a blood relative. Tax evasion? Never heard of it. Good Italian companies stay small and family-controlled rather than go public to allow predatory families to evade the depredations of a predatory state.

Greece is worse. The country lives on tourism, and rents properties for cash or bank wire to Liechtenstein. Greeks simply do not declare their income. Greek government employment is ridiculously overstaffed and overpaid.

With the exception of Germany and a couple of others, the European nations have priced themselves out of the world labor market. Germany’s economy is still growing while the rest of Europe is shrinking. Throwing more subsidies at structurally inefficient and corrupt economies won’t help. The people of southern Europe have to decide that guaranteed jobs might mean no jobs at all, and that excess pay might mean no pay at all. Until the Europeans are willing to accept the risk and mobility that made the American economy so strong (at least until the Obama administration got control of it), they will languish.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany is magnificently right to insist that deficit reduction is a precondition for growth. It’s not just deficit reduction. The southern Europeans want a nanny state, but they don’t want to pay taxes. They want Germany to pay their taxes for them. Maybe Germany will cover Obama’s $1.4 trillion federal budget deficit, too. Hey, it doesn’t hurt to ask, does it?

Article printed from Spengler:

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: LindyBill5/21/2012 4:46:09 AM
   of 660922
Majority population: Aborigine

Cultural system: Spanish

Economic System: Socialism

Chance to change everything in the foreseeable future? Zilch

Time for a Reset between the U.S. and Mexico By Silvio Canto Jr

It looks like Mexico will elect Sr. Pena-Nieto this summer. It looks like the U.S. will elect Gov. Romney this fall.

If this turns out to be the case, let's hope that these two men bring some fresh ideas, because the U.S.-Mexico relationship desperately needs a new "reset."

It's fair to say that Pres. Calderón and Pres. Obama did not get much done. Theirs was not a fruitful relationship for three reasons:

1) Pres. Obama was never really interested in Mexico. He was, and continues to be, a Chicago Democrat more in tune with the labor unions and crony capitalism than with free trade with Mexico or Latin America.

As we recall from the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama ran against free trade agreements and promised to renegotiate NAFTA.

Even The Washington Post could not believe the level of pandering from candidate Obama.

He demonstrated his incredible ignorance of our southern neighbor when he said that Mexico does not have "labor laws." The opposite is true; in fact, Mexico needs to reform its labor laws and make itself more attractive to employers rather than make it impossible for companies to fire people.

2) The Obama-Calderón relationship was poisoned from day one when Pres. Obama and Dems dumped the "truck agreement" that Pres. Bush had negotiated. This was done without consulting Mexico. It was the Dem majority pandering to the labor unions. It's not a good day for diplomacy when the new president of the U.S. pulls the rug out from a major economic partner like Mexico.

3) Finally, Pres. Calderón made the foolish mistake of carrying Pres. Obama's water on SB 1070, the Arizona immigration law. It made Calderón the face of the Arizona law and killed any chance of getting anything done. (Let's not forget that a lot of those Dems who applauded Pres. Calderón's Arizona-bashing speech lost in 2010.)

Furthermore, Pres. Calderón stabbed the Republicans who had fought for the Mérida Plan and criticized the aforementioned "truck decision." Someone in the Mexican embassy forgot to tell Pres. Calderón that he had more friends in the GOP than in "the union controlled" Dem party.

At the same time, Pres. Calderón got nothing from Pres. Obama -- i.e. no immigration reform was ever submitted to Congress when the Dems had majorities.

I have never seen a Mexican president used so cynically by a U.S. president. I hope that Pres. Pena-Nieto will refresh the political team in the Washington embassy; after all, I don't think that these "experts" gave Pres. Calderón good advice.

We knew that the Calderón-Obama talks were not very productive when the biggest headline from a recent visit was that the Mexican first lady loves the NY Jets and their QB, Matt Sanchez.

But back to the present and the near future. We've reached an important point, and a new relationship is desperately needed.

For one thing, the killing in Mexico is horrific. We get one headline after another. For another, the press has been targeted! How can Mexicans understand what is happening in their country when journalists are being shot and intimidated? And then there's the news regarding the tragedy of Central Americans crossing Mexico.

In short, Pres. Romney and Pres. Pena-Nieto need to sit down and speak bluntly to each other.

1) Border security is a matter of national security for both countries. Unfortunately, Pres. Obama's border policy was all based on pandering to the Mexican vote in the US. He was never serious! He was interested just in scaring Hispanics into believing that the GOP would send their "abuela back to Durango." Actually, it is the Obama economy sending "abuela" and lots of others back to just about every state in Mexico (including Durango!).

2) If we're going to address the Mexican cartels, it's time to let U.S. soldiers tackle them directly. Let the cartels understand that they will face a division of the U.S. Army rather than border agents on bicycles. I understand that the border patrol does a great job, but they are no match to gangs with high-powered weapons.

Bottom line? Pres. Romney should declare that Mexican cartels are a threat to our security and label them terrorists! We need to escalate our game and drive home the point that breaches of our border will not be tolerated. Romney should authorize commanders on the ground to use whatever tactics are necessary, from pre-emptive attacks to drone strikes. In other words, we need to start using our technology to kill leaders!

Why U.S. soldiers? The Mexican Army is exhausted and stretched too thin. U.S. soldiers will bring a new seriousness to the mission and welcome relief to a Mexican army drained from five years of a very heavy war.

The Mexican army has done a great job. But at the same time, Mexico's army was never created to fight a war of this kind. It has to be retrained, like in Colombia under Plan Colombia.

Will Mexicans support U.S. troops? I was surprised to read that "[m]ost Mexicans want U.S. to take a bigger role in fighting violence[.]" And I think that more and more Mexicans understand that their army is not capable of fighting this war. Again, the violence has reached a point where people want security rather than abstract discussions of sovereignty. (Sovereignty means nothing if cartels are killing people and journalists all over.)

Of course, we understand that the military option is not a magic bullet. Mexico needs to make some internal changes, such as improving its police force and enforcing the rule of law. However, you have to have security before you have honest policemen and a judicial system that works for all, not just those who have connections.

3) Pres. Romney needs to remind U.S. voters that they are funding the drug wars with their illegal drug purchases. We are contributing to the killing south of the border every time we casually smoke marijuana or try cocaine. We are the consumers, and that needs to be said over and over again.

It's important for Pres. Romney, and Anne Romney, to talk about drug consumption as a threat to our children and a deposit in the cash register of the Mexican cartels.

4) Pres. Pena-Nieto needs to tell Mexicans, and their political class, to stop blaming U.S. immigration laws for all of Mexico's problems. Mexicans should be reminded that Mexico has immigration laws, too. It's time for Mexico to reform itself so that the country is more attractive to young people. Mexico is still living in the 1930s when it comes to PEMEX, and in the 1920s when it comes to land management. Let's hope that the "new PRI" will reform two of the "old PRI's" sacred cows -- i.e., the incredibly inefficient and corrupt PEMEX, plus the unproductive agricultural sector.

5) Pres. Romney and Pres. Pena-Nieto need to revive the old " brasero" program killed by the Dems in the late 1960s. It was not perfect, but it did create a legal mechanism for employers and employees to work together.

I know that I'm getting ahead of myself because the elections are still in the future. But regardless of who's in office, Mexico and the U.S. need a tough and frank discussion about some mutual, and very serious, problems.

We did not have it with Pres. Calderón and Pres. Obama.

We need it now!

I am confident that Pres. Romney will tell the new Mexican president some things that Pres. Calderón never heard from Pres. Obama.

My guess is that most Mexicans in Mexico will be happy to hear that we have a president of the U.S. who will kill people with AK-47s rather than one who engages in "coqueteo" and gives meaningless "Cinco de Mayo" speeches to entertain the "si se puede" crowd.

Page Printed from:

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: LindyBill who wrote (487928)5/21/2012 4:59:51 AM
From: unclewest
   of 660922
EU (European Union) anti-piracy forces attacked Somali pirates on land.

Another whack-a-mole experiment
I'd like to know what rules of land warfare and laws of land warfare authorize such direct attacks by foreigner militaries on civilians.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: unclewest who wrote (487945)5/21/2012 5:19:03 AM
From: LindyBill
   of 660922
Nations have always gone after Pirates and their bases. One of our first Naval Ops was one of those in the Med, back when we were first formed as a Nation.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: LindyBill5/21/2012 5:26:45 AM
3 Recommendations   of 660922
The Media Mess of Pottage? By Steve McCann

The 2012 election season has begun in earnest, and the mainstream media find themselves in the position of having to defend and reinforce a failed president, Barack Obama -- the man they chose to sleep with in 2008. The media are systematically pulling out all the stops to destroy Mitt Romney, the Tea Party movement, and major Republican financial contributors in an undeclared but understood alliance with the Obama re-election machine.

The two pre-eminent pillars of the mainstream media, The Washington Post and The New York Times, have put all Republicans on notice that the media will hunt down rumors of anything untoward, even as far back as from when these Republicans were in high school, and feature it on their front page regardless of its veracity. Further, any conservative thinking of speaking out against Barack Obama, even if he plans to spend his own money, will be publicly labeled as a racist and a bigot, and his business will be the target of left-wing pressure groups.

The Washington Post, the day after President Obama declared his approval of same-sex marriage, published a front-page hit piece on Mitt Romney's supposed bullying of a fellow high school student who years later declared himself gay, and is now deceased and unable to provide his own account. That the story quoted someone as upset for years who had just learned of the incident months before and was denounced by the family of the deceased victim did not hobble the mission. The entire point of the article was to cast a shadow of doubt on Mitt Romney and insinuate that he was a bully who hated gay people. Once propelled into the media ether, the story became a national topic of conversation for a week during a period of heavy Obama campaign fundraising within the gay community.

Yet the Post denied any coordination with the Obama re-election campaign, claiming that the timing of the story and Obama's cynical and nakedly opportunistic "evolution" into supporting gay marriage was a merely a coincidence.

The New York Times ran a front-page story on May 17 accusing Joe Ricketts, the founder of TD Ameritrade, of commissioning a $10-million plan to run commercials linking Obama to Rev. Wright's past incendiary comments. These comments have been brought back to national attention by Wright's recent interview with Ed Klein for the latter's biography, The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House. But the Times story was a complete fabrication.

While Joe Ricketts and his super-PAC, Ending Spending Action Fund, are planning to attack Obama's fiscal record, there was never any consideration of an off-the-cuff proposal by a media consultant to run an ad campaign centered on Rev. Wright. Mr. Ricketts's only "crime" was that he announced plans to spend up to $10 million to highlight the abysmal economic record of President Obama. Yet the New York Times story was dutifully picked up by other media outlets and highlighted on various sympathetic broadcast and cable networks.

At 5:42 am on the same day the article appeared, the Obama campaign and the left-wing noise machine, including MSNBC, immediately called on Mitt Romney to denounce this "smear" and condemn "the purveyors of slime" that were doing this on his behalf. The ever-vigilant and impartial Center for American Progress ran an article with a headline screaming: "Revealed: The Racist GOP Campaign to Smear the President." There will be, without doubt, denials of any coordination.

Ideology plays a major role, as an overwhelming majority of journalists and editors are politically left of the majority of the American people. But this craven cheerleading for and knee-jerk defense of the president raises the question: is there another more practical and base factor behind this unprecedented sycophancy?

It is no secret that the mainstream media, as a business, is on the verge of bankruptcy and collapse, as virtually all sectors are hemorrhaging red ink -- with no end in sight.

The New York Times Company, often considered the bellwether of the national media, has reduced its labor force by 47% (6,600 jobs) since 2000. The average daily circulation for the Times has dropped by over 21% (234,000 readers) during the same period. The Company has been liquidating as many assets as possible in order to stay afloat -- it now has few viable assets left to sell, as the stock price has dropped from $41.00 in 2000 to $6.26 today (-85%).

The Washington Post, the other most influential metropolitan newspaper in the country, has seen its average daily circulation drop by 37% (294,000 readers) since 2000. More devastating has been the plummet in print advertising revenue, which has plunged by over 60% since 2000. The newspaper division had an operating loss of $23 million in the first quarter of 2012.

Among the largest chain of newspapers in the country, the McClatchy Company has experienced a similar downturn. Since acquiring the Knight-Ridder chain in 2006, the Company has seen its average daily circulation decline from 2.84 million readers to 2.0 million (a drop of 30% in only four years). Many of the individual papers within the group have resorted to massive layoffs and selling assets, as not only circulation, but ad revenue has dropped precipitously. McClatchy stock has fallen from $30.88 in 2000 to $2.40 (-93%) today.

The Gannet family of newspapers (the largest in the country) has lost over 2 million in paid circulation since 2000 (-28%), while their ad revenue has dropped by 48%. Their stock has also fallen dramatically from $64.94 in 2000 to $13.04 today (-80%).

The traditional news magazines (TIME, Newsweek, and US News & World Report) have experienced even more devastating results since 2000. Their readership has declined by over 3.9 million (-46%). Advertising revenue has dropped by nearly 70%. A clear indicator of the demise of this media sector is the sale of Newsweek by the Washington Post Company for $1.00.

The three network evening news broadcasts have suffered a similar fate. Since 1991 they have lost nearly16.0 million viewers (-44%).

The mainstream media is first and foremost a business. Like any business, it must generate revenue, pay its bills, and make a profit for its shareholders. To produce income, it must attract customers (advertisers and subscribers) to buy its product (the news as well as viewers or readers). Based on the results over the past twelve years, it is obvious that the product the mainstream media are promoting is not selling.

Yet there is no willingness to change their biased reporting and editorial policies -- one of the major factors in the loss of readership and viewers, as more people each year are turning to the new media as an alternative source of news.

But there has been a willingness to openly discuss the very real possibility of government bailouts, permanent subsidies, and use of the regulatory process to cripple their competition. This discussion began not long after Barack Obama was inaugurated.

Per Ezra Klein at The Washington Post: "My long held belief is that newspapers should be funded by direct government subsidies" (July 2009).

Per U.S. News: "The idea of a media's something that has been discussed for a little while, but support for the idea seems to be building all the time" (August 2009).

Jon McTaggart, CEO of the American Media Group, openly stated that as a civil society, we don't trust the free market to provide valuable services, and neither should the media be allowed to suffer because of market forces (December 2009). Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, said that the country has no choice but to move in that direction in order to halt the "significant erosion of the fourth estate" (December 2009).

This was discussed not just on the media side of the fence, but on the government side as well. In June 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a draft proposal on bailing out the media as well as potentially using antitrust and copyright laws to shut down the alternative media.

In December of 2009, the then-chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, Henry Waxman (D-California), delivered a message to the FTC and the media stating that they needed to work out a consensus so the government could put a package together to bailout the struggling news industry. Barack Obama in September of 2009 told the media he was open to a newspaper bailout bill.

The Democrats in Congress and the White House made clear their willingness to bail out the media. Unfortunately, the Republicans captured the House of Representatives in November of 2010, forcing the president to focus solely his re-election. The bailout and any punitive action toward the alternative media would have to wait until after the 2012 election.

Barack Obama in a second term would be free, through executive orders and manipulating the regulatory agencies such as the FTC and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to grant the media permanent subsidies and de facto bailouts, or to place potentially devastating restrictions on the alternative media regardless of who controls Congress. As revealed during his first term, despite facing re-election, Obama has not been reluctant to use his usurped executive power, regardless of public opinion, to bypass and ignore a spineless and nearly irrelevant legislative branch.

It is difficult for Americans to accept the possibility that the media have become so craven that they would sell their souls to the government they are supposed to monitor. One's livelihood and future are of paramount importance for far too many, and throughout the history of mankind, the overriding factor in selling out for not for the proverbial pot of gold, but for dependence on handouts and government favor is a form of indentured servitude. The media are gaining only a mess of pottage.

There has been no summit held by the mainstream media outlets where they decided to cast their lot with the Democrats in the hope of financial and regulatory support. Nor has there been overt coordination among these entities. But there need not be; the handwriting is on the wall, and in keeping with the leftist mindset of the vast majority of the members of the media, they look to the government as the solution to all problems, including theirs.

By not accepting responsibility for their plight, the mainstream media are apparently willing to surrender their independence and become a wholly owned mouthpiece for a regime determined not only to control all aspects of American society, but to bankrupt the country.

Page Printed from:

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: LindyBill5/21/2012 5:27:54 AM
5 Recommendations   of 660922
Obama the Inchoate Kenyan By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

It is reasonable to believe that someone attempted to commit fraud in a commercial context when Barack Obama's literary agency published that he was born in Kenya. The few known facts seem to provide enough to constitute probable cause to probe whether an unlawful act occurred. Regardless of whether this is probed at law, and depending on what other underlying facts may come to light, there appear to be troubling legal and moral issues involved.

The free market depends on honest quid pro quo. Fraud is generally defined as misrepresenting a material fact to induce another person to part with something of value.

The quid pro quo between private parties to a transaction need not be equal in the eyes of others, or government regulators, but just fair to the parties to the transaction.

It may be of more value to me than to others to acquire what you have or do, so that I may be willing to pay more than the market price. However, if you were to intentionally deceive me about your goods or services to lead me to believe that they have a higher value, you have committed a fraud.

There are mutual incentives for honesty in the free market, because once someone is exposed as dishonest, fewer if any people will transact business with that person. Just as mutual honesty is incentive to play fair in the free market, the free market is an incentive to mutual honesty.

The free market does not always result in honest transactions because people are not perfect. Penalties for fraud developed under the law to punish those who intentionally disrupt the integrity of honest transactions.

The law was originally designed to punish those who violated, whether intentionally or by lack of care, the covenants of civil society, and make whole those who were harmed by the wrongful conduct of others. That system goes back to the Old Testament, and the English common law on which American law was first based. Unlike many laws developed under liberal big government since then, the system was quite logical.

Without knowing all the facts yet, there at least appears to be cause to believe that Barack Obama, or someone acting directly on his behalf, misrepresented that Obama was born in Kenya, and that the statement was more than just a fact-checking error by his literary agent.

Such a false statement in the context of trying to obtain a contract for a book -- a commercial transaction -- might make the misrepresentation punishable at law. On the other hand, the misrepresentation may have been designed to induce more people to buy the prospective book, which would be another legal no-no.

To be punishable at law, the misrepresented fact needs to be what the law calls "material," meaning important to the formation of transaction. The fact that the book transaction was not consummated makes the misrepresentation what the law calls "inchoate," meaning incomplete but nevertheless attempted. We've all heard of inchoate lawbreaking such as attempted larceny, and so on.

One of the most important rules of successful marketing is to distinguish your product from others. Merely heading the Harvard Law Review is not a story worthy of a book. Being the first Kenyan-born person to do so, well, that's more of a story to sell. The pre-birther claim of Obama's Kenyan birth fits clearly the marketing rule of distinguishing your product or services. It enhanced the value of the proposed book to both the literary agent and the prospective purchasing public.

The fact that a false narrative of Obama's Kenyan birth was created and remained in the public domain for so long is not evidence per se that a fraud was committed. It is, however, cause to believe that someone in the chain of his literary efforts perpetrated a fraud for the purpose of enhancing the value of his story for sale.

Also, it is generally the rule that the unlawful acts of an agent are attributed legally back to the principal, who in this matter was Obama. A well-known example is that it is no excuse that your tax return preparer filed a tax return with incorrect information.

It is not credible that Obama was not aware that his literary agent published a false statement about his place of birth. Even if those defending him were to claim that he was unaware, Obama had a duty of care to ensure the accuracy of facts material to the sale of his story. He did so over a decade later, but only when he was preparing to run for president.

Compared to the big lies Obama tells regularly about policy and politics, a literary fraud from 1991 is small potatoes. Then again, Obama was relatively small potatoes at the time it first surfaced.

Page Printed from: at May 21, 2012 - 04:26:17 AM CDT

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: LindyBill5/21/2012 5:34:46 AM
   of 660922
Ex-Israeli Spy Chief Backs Netanyahu on Iran
by P. David Hornik
Over the weekend Amos Yadlin, formerly Israel’s chief of Military Intelligence, had words of praise for the Iran policy of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. He said the government’s discussions of the issue were “very serious” and called the nine members of its highest policymaking forum—which would ultimately take the decision for a strike on Iran—“very serious people.”

Yadlin—who now heads Israel’s leading defense think-tank, the Institute for National Security Studies—also said that while serving in his former post, “We expressed ourselves straightforwardly, with a great deal of integrity and professionalism.”

His words are significant because they contrast with those of two other ex-Israeli spy chiefs who served at the same time. Former Shin Bet (internal security) chief Yuval Diskin and, particularly, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan have made large international media waves by publicly trashing Netanyahu and Barak’s Iran policy and portraying the two as irresponsible extremists if not, in Diskin’s term, “messianic.”

Yadlin, indeed, slammed Dagan and Diskin in his weekend interview on Israeli TV, saying that “when we are regular citizens, we should impose on ourselves a cooling-off period, and not come out with explosive statements.” He could have added that it is Dagan and Diskin’s irresponsible behavior that threatens the viability of Israeli governance. Top-echelon security officials cannot function if they fear that in a few months their colleagues will be slandering them on CNN.

Nor was this the first time Yadlin has made important pronouncements on the Iranian issue. Speaking earlier this month at a conference of the Washington Institute in Virginia, he said Iran had a “sophisticated” strategy to pursue nuclear weapons that was “unfortunately” working. He added that, while he favored exhausting all other options before using military force, a

nuclear Iran is more dangerous than attacking Iran.

If they can’t be contained when they don’t have nuclear weapon[s], how can they be contained when they do?…

I am sure they won’t launch a nuclear bomb the moment they get it, but the possibility [that] as a result of miscalculations and lack of stability, they will launch [a] nuclear missile—it’s not a possibility you can ignore. The flying time of a missile from Tehran to Tel Aviv is seven minutes and the temptation for a first strike is huge.

If you really want all options on the table, you need to be very credible with the military option.

These, clearly, are dramatic words—but to say they didn’t get as much play as Dagan and Diskin’s claims that international diplomacy is indeed working, and Israel should take a back seat to it, is a great understatement. Which can be easily demonstrated by Googling: the result totals for “Meir Dagan,” “Yuval Diskin,” and “Amos Yadlin” came out at 608,000, 297,000, and 120,000 respectively.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: LindyBill5/21/2012 5:36:37 AM
5 Recommendations   of 660922
The Potemkin President Disintegrates
by Bruce Thornton
After nearly four years in office, the tinsel and cardboard persona of Barack Obama is starting to fall apart. The political unifier who claimed, “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America––there is the United States of America,” has been exposed as one of the most divisive and partisan presidents of modern times. The post-racial candidate who supposedly transcended our racial divisions has intensified them, whether by crudely racializing incidents like the Trayvon Martin shooting, or by allowing the Justice Department to facilitate race-industry attacks on state voter-identification laws, or by calling his own grandmother “a typical white person” for fearing black criminals. The decrier of how money has corrupted our politics has spent more time at the campaign contribution trough than he has governing. The “centrist” who set aside partisan politics for the greater national good has been exposed as a doctrinaire progressive adept at bare-knuckled class warfare. And the “smartest guy ever to become President,” as one historically challenged historian put it, has turned out to be remarkably ignorant about a multitude of issues from the economy to foreign policy.

Yet we didn’t need the past three years to learn the truth about Obama. The evidence was all there from the start. What allowed the fantasy Obama to gain the White House was the collusion of a corrupt mainstream media that failed to ask the hard questions or follow through on stories that had managed to get the nation’s attention. The recent revelation from the Breitbart outfit that a publisher’s promotional booklet in 1991 bragged that Obama had been “born in Kenya” is just the latest evidence of how stubbornly and willfully indifferent the media have been to asking the penetrating questions of the sort that have dogged every president, especially those since Lyndon Johnson. The media’s dereliction of duty has allowed Obama to construct ad hoc identities that suit his political agenda and obscure his unsavory past and ideology.

For example, the continuing questions about Obama’s birth-country renewed by the Breitbart discovery are significant for exposing his long history of fabricating an identity to suit his careerist needs. The Hawaii prep-schooled, white-raised Barry Dunham discovered on getting to college that the exotic name Barack Hussein Obama, like the Indonesian childhood, was more useful for sending a diversity thrill down the leg of liberal white professors and admissions committees. So too with publishers, eager to display their multi-culti bona fides by promoting a Third-World author “born in Kenya,” who would chronicle his struggles against neo-colonial racism. Like many other hustlers “of color,” Obama was no doubt happy to oblige and collude in the deception––until national political ambitions required that he tone down the “other” vibe, at least until after the election.

So too with the unasked questions about Obama’s radical past. The media saw nothing to report about Obama starting his political career in the living room of ex-terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. You remember Ayers, the ex-Weatherman who bragged in his memoirs about getting away with his terrorist violence and being “free as a bird.” Obama assured us that Ayers was “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” despite serving on two foundation boards and appearing at conferences with him. As is the media’s wont, perfunctory “investigations” revealed that there was nothing to the stories, taking on faith Obama’s incredible assertion that there was no significance to the fact that one of America’s most notorious terrorists was a part of his life and political development. The same media that ran with a hit-piece on George Bush supported only by an obviously fabricated letter, and that currently is intensely picking over the past history of Bain Capital, Romney’s treatment of the family dog, and his alleged high-school bullying––that same media four years ago didn’t think there was anything newsworthy in the Democratic candidate for president having ties with an unrepentant left-wing terrorist. Instead, they helped construct Obama’s new identity as a pragmatic centrist beyond partisan politics.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: LindyBill5/21/2012 5:39:27 AM
5 Recommendations   of 660922
NEWLY DISCOVERED VIDEO Previously Scrubbed From YouTube Shows Trayvon Martin Participating in Local Fight Club
by Jim Hoft
The Wagist and Conservative Tree House exposed video of Trayvon Martin attending and possibly refereeing a local fight club brawl in Miami.

The video was uploaded on Trayvon Martin’s YouTube Channel.
At least, the video “Anthony vs. Curtis” was there last month.

But, after his death the video was later scrubbed from his YouTube Channel. Here is the YouTube account today.

The video “Anthony vs. Curtis” has since been re-uploaded to YouTube. The video shows Trayvon engaged in actual and intentional violent conduct. You’ll notice Trayvon in the video, wearing a white cap with the striped shirt. You can hear his name called out about 5 seconds into the video.

You can also see Trayvon’s tattoo in the video.

The address of the home pictured in the other videos is linked to Trayvon’s mother Sybrina Fulton. I will not post the family’s home address here but it is clear that this is Trayvon’s YouTube account and his mother’s home. It appears that Trayvon was involved in and enjoyed underground fights. Certainly, he was not the little angelic child the MSM made him out to be.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: LindyBill5/21/2012 5:47:31 AM
   of 660922
Romney Inching Up in Presidential Race
from Walter Russell Mead's Blog by Walter Russell Mead

The 2012 presidential election continued to tighten in May. President Obama still leads both in the polls and in our electoral college map, but his lead — within the margin of error — continues to slip.

No new states have flipped into the GOP column; if the election were held today and the national swing away from Obama since 2008 worked out evenly among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, President Obama would win a narrow 285-253 vote in the electoral college.

In practical terms, that means that President Obama’s current level of support is enough to keep Virginia and Colorado in his camp. But a further swing of only 1.92 percent would hand those states, and the election, to Governor Romney.

With the numbers this close and more than five months to go until the election, the only thing we can say now is that both the Democrats and the GOP have a good chance of winning the White House next November. On balance, that is slightly worse news for the incumbent than for the challenger; ideally a sitting president would want a bigger electoral cushion than Obama now has. Undecideds tend to break toward the challenger; our methodology currently divides them evenly between the two.

On the other hand, Romney’s slow rise in the polls looks more as if disgruntled backers of other GOP primary candidates are making up their mind to stick with the party; Romney is rebuilding his base at this point rather than cutting into Obama’s. He won’t win unless he starts taking independents and even some Democrats out of the Obama camp.

As the Romney campaign and the various super PACs assembling on that side of the aisle make their plans, we are going to see how firm the President’s support really is. Since President Obama had no opposition in his own party for the nomination this time around, he has been able to stay in the Rose Garden and hold events that highlight the sides of his presidency and personality he believes will appeal to key groups of voters. But now the Republican artillery is about to launch its first real anti-Obama ad barrages in a spring tryout of themes GOP operatives hope will work in November.

We should soon start to see whether these ads are having an impact, but there are still several months to go before the presidential race really starts.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.