Time to prosecute American gang members as terrorists? We think so.
Take a look at these headlines. They document the violence experienced and around Miami, this past Memorial weekend. . . . all because of "gangs gone wild."
UPDATE: MIAMI 'WAR ZONE' DURING URBAN WEEKEND...
'I was scared for my life'...
Poet 'Da Real One' Gunned Down In Front Of Miami Poetry Cafe...
Violent crime explodes in Myrtle during Black Bike Week; 8-hour hell...
Rib Fest At Rochester beach turns rowdy...
Riot On Long Island...
Urban Melee In Charlotte...
Chaos causes DNC concern for convention...
Unruly urban crowd shuts down Nashville water park...
People were killed, hundreds were harassed and feared for their lives and, even Democrat leaders are concerned for the their national convention, next year. . . . all because of gang violence.
There is no reason why these brain dead punks cannot and should not be tracked and persecuted as terrorists. The nation's chief donut eater, the fat Michael Moore, has a movie out that is all about his opinion that guns should be banned. He sites more than 11,000 murders by gun in a single year compared to 39 in Japan. What he does not fairly represent is that 90% of these gun deaths are at the hands of American gangs.
Point of post: it is time for change in the way we prosecute gang members.
UPDATE: MIAMI 'WAR ZONE' DURING URBAN WEEKEND...
'I was scared for my life'...
Poet 'Da Real One' Gunned Down In Front Of Miami Poetry Cafe...
Violent crime explodes in Myrtle during Black Bike Week; 8-hour hell...
Rib Fest At Rochester beach turns rowdy...
Riot On Long Island...
Urban Melee In Charlotte...
Chaos causes DNC concern for convention...
Unruly urban crowd shuts down Nashville water park...
People were killed, hundreds were harassed and feared for their lives and, even Democrat leaders are concerned for the their national convention, next year. . . . all because of gang violence.
There is no reason why these brain dead punks cannot and should not be tracked and persecuted as terrorists. The nation's chief donut eater, the fat Michael Moore, has a movie out that is all about his opinion that guns should be banned. He sites more than 11,000 murders by gun in a single year compared to 39 in Japan. What he does not fairly represent is that 90% of these gun deaths are at the hands of American gangs.
Point of post: it is time for change in the way we prosecute gang members.
President's Approval Rating: Looking at the wrong numbers.
Of course "we" all do it, try to get others to see the rose when there really is nothing but thorns. And in the case of Obama and his decreasing "major media," that is exactly what all the recent polling is about -- trying to convince the populace of his "rather remarkable popularity."
Not true. One recent poll had Obama "up" by 12 points !! Turns out the polling demographic was split 17 percentage points in favor of Democrats. . . . . of course, Obama came out the winning in that poll.
In terms of shifts in 2008 demographics, I give you just one of several pertinent examples: the approval rating of the Independent voting population. Understand that it was with this class of voter that Obama won the 2008 election. There are not enough of the youth vote, the Jewish vote and the Black vote to have made much of a difference in the 2008 results. To be sure, more votes were counted in each of those category than in years gone by but not in "record numbers" as was reported.
An important difference in the election was the Independent vote, where Obama garnered well over 50% of the Independent vote. Obama received a total vote count of approximately 70 million votes against 61 million for McCain . . . a difference of 9 million votes. Nearly 52% (8.3 million) of Independents voted for Obama in that election. Today, that number has fallen to 5.9 million (37%) and nearly all of the "dearly departed" (2.4 million) represent a swing vote total of nearly 5 million votes (4.8 million to be exact).
Confused? Look, a "swing vote" is recorded when a voter switches his vote from one to the other. In this case, if 2.4 million Obama 2008 voters switch to the GOP, that is a "swing vote total" of 4.8.
Add in the fact that nearly 5 million conservatives were so disappointed with McCain they did not vote, and you have a winner for the GOP as we consider just these two categories. There is more, much more, that favors a GOP victory.
A passing thought: the GOP should not allow national surveys to determine the size of the Independent vote or the outcome of the 2012 election in general. Any polling firm associated with the Left will "stack the deck" to get their particular poll to say what they want it to say. USA Today, NBC, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, most university polls and the Washington Post will all go out of their way to weight their poll in the favor of the Left. I, also, ignore Fox News, as well, but for a different reason. Their poll does not screen for likely voters. It is a general population poll and their results can lean Left or Right - trust, in this case, is not the issue, just poor polling strategies.
Not true. One recent poll had Obama "up" by 12 points !! Turns out the polling demographic was split 17 percentage points in favor of Democrats. . . . . of course, Obama came out the winning in that poll.
In terms of shifts in 2008 demographics, I give you just one of several pertinent examples: the approval rating of the Independent voting population. Understand that it was with this class of voter that Obama won the 2008 election. There are not enough of the youth vote, the Jewish vote and the Black vote to have made much of a difference in the 2008 results. To be sure, more votes were counted in each of those category than in years gone by but not in "record numbers" as was reported.
An important difference in the election was the Independent vote, where Obama garnered well over 50% of the Independent vote. Obama received a total vote count of approximately 70 million votes against 61 million for McCain . . . a difference of 9 million votes. Nearly 52% (8.3 million) of Independents voted for Obama in that election. Today, that number has fallen to 5.9 million (37%) and nearly all of the "dearly departed" (2.4 million) represent a swing vote total of nearly 5 million votes (4.8 million to be exact).
Confused? Look, a "swing vote" is recorded when a voter switches his vote from one to the other. In this case, if 2.4 million Obama 2008 voters switch to the GOP, that is a "swing vote total" of 4.8.
Add in the fact that nearly 5 million conservatives were so disappointed with McCain they did not vote, and you have a winner for the GOP as we consider just these two categories. There is more, much more, that favors a GOP victory.
A passing thought: the GOP should not allow national surveys to determine the size of the Independent vote or the outcome of the 2012 election in general. Any polling firm associated with the Left will "stack the deck" to get their particular poll to say what they want it to say. USA Today, NBC, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, most university polls and the Washington Post will all go out of their way to weight their poll in the favor of the Left. I, also, ignore Fox News, as well, but for a different reason. Their poll does not screen for likely voters. It is a general population poll and their results can lean Left or Right - trust, in this case, is not the issue, just poor polling strategies.
No surprise here: Obama a very unpopular Commander in Chief.
May 30, 2011 Gallup
Younger, active-duty military less likely to have an opinion on Obama either way
PRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. military veterans and those currently on active military duty are less likely to approve of President Obama's job performance than are Americans of comparable ages who are not in the military.
By contrast, George W Bush was (and is) one of the more popular Commanders in modern times.
Understand that Obama has no clue as to how to fight a war, choosing to put our soldiers in harms way for the sake of popular Left Wing radical opinions. Our soldiers practice a "catch and release" policy in Afghanistan. They are not allowed to shot first, pursue the enemy into residential areas, ask for air support if "pinned down" near a civilian housing, and are often required to give Miranda Rights to captured combatants.
And this is why the military vote will be put in jeopardy in the coming 2012 election. You remember this post. There will be a huge voting scandal involving our military. They -- the Dems -- tried this in the Gore/Bush election and there is reason to believe they will, once again, tamper with the military vote in the coming national election.
After all, the ends justify the means.
Gallup and the gay population:
According to Gallup : WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian. More specifically, over half of Americans (52%) estimate that at least one in five Americans are gay or lesbian, including 35% who estimate that more than one in four are. Thirty percent put the figure at less than 15%.
Why Gallup published this survey is beyond me. How many gays the American people THINK exist in our country is as irrelevant a number as is the notion that we were visited by aliens from outer-space in the beginnings of our world - - - 12% of the population believes that fantasy. So what !!?
The Gallup article goes on to document the findings of Demographer, Gary Gates, who argues for a 3.5% total for gays, lesbos and bisexuals with bisexuals totally more than half the 3.5 figure. And then there are those who do not like be what they are, male or female, and believe that if they play "dress up," they have changed their biology. Understand that biological sex as a definition is different from a sexual proclivity. Chaz Bono has been making the rounds lately. She used to be "Chasty" Bono, but has "changed her sex" and is now a man. Nonsense. She is just playing very expensive game of "dress-up." Genetically, she is a woman. Her biological circumstance was written in stone, before she was born. She will age like a woman and never have the strength of a man. Does she have the right to play the game? Of course. Just don't make the rest of us accept this as "normal." There is no getting around genetics.
Most (95% ) children raised in gay homes are heterosexual. Genetics !!! And because of genetics, the general population will always be 97% heterosexual. Blame mother nature and stop pretending you are something you are not.
Why Gallup published this survey is beyond me. How many gays the American people THINK exist in our country is as irrelevant a number as is the notion that we were visited by aliens from outer-space in the beginnings of our world - - - 12% of the population believes that fantasy. So what !!?
The Gallup article goes on to document the findings of Demographer, Gary Gates, who argues for a 3.5% total for gays, lesbos and bisexuals with bisexuals totally more than half the 3.5 figure. And then there are those who do not like be what they are, male or female, and believe that if they play "dress up," they have changed their biology. Understand that biological sex as a definition is different from a sexual proclivity. Chaz Bono has been making the rounds lately. She used to be "Chasty" Bono, but has "changed her sex" and is now a man. Nonsense. She is just playing very expensive game of "dress-up." Genetically, she is a woman. Her biological circumstance was written in stone, before she was born. She will age like a woman and never have the strength of a man. Does she have the right to play the game? Of course. Just don't make the rest of us accept this as "normal." There is no getting around genetics.
Most (95% ) children raised in gay homes are heterosexual. Genetics !!! And because of genetics, the general population will always be 97% heterosexual. Blame mother nature and stop pretending you are something you are not.
The new jobless report is out: same old same old.
Here are two headlines that give us an extended picture of the past three years.
The "jobless" number is the weekly count of those who claimed unemployment benefits for the first time. Understand that the US population adds 240,000 people to the work force each and every month. We do not seriously gain on the net job count until the weekly number gets close to 350,000. In the current climate, the economy adds approximately 130,000 to 220,000 jobs per month. That number is "eaten up" by the 240,000 who come into the work force each month, leaving us with a negative gain. Aaaaahhh, anyway, this is all getting rather confusing.
The long and short of this sad tale is this: the "new zero" when applied to the weekly jobless total is 350,000. Total unemployment grows when first time benefits total more than that approximate 350,000 number.
As to the GDP -- For starters, that 1.8 figure is our growth in production compared to the previous month. Our "real" GDP since Obama has been president is very close to zero. That's right. There has been virtually no growth in our national product in terms of real GDP and that is why the unemployment totals remain very much the same month after month. The number given above is not the "real" GPD, which comes in later in the year and takes into account unreported positives and negatives relating to the GDP report. It is believed that real GDP for this year is 1.2%, an improvement over the previous year. Most analysts tell us that net job creation does not occur until the GDP monthly report(s) comes in at 2.8% and does so consistently.
Note: I am not the only one who makes "typos." In the headline above, "weak" should read "week." Its tough to catch all those typos when you are a one man show and work a real job some 60 to 70 hours per weak. . . . . I mean, week.
| JOBLESS FOR WEAK: 424,000... UPDATE: GDP 1.8%... |
The "jobless" number is the weekly count of those who claimed unemployment benefits for the first time. Understand that the US population adds 240,000 people to the work force each and every month. We do not seriously gain on the net job count until the weekly number gets close to 350,000. In the current climate, the economy adds approximately 130,000 to 220,000 jobs per month. That number is "eaten up" by the 240,000 who come into the work force each month, leaving us with a negative gain. Aaaaahhh, anyway, this is all getting rather confusing.
The long and short of this sad tale is this: the "new zero" when applied to the weekly jobless total is 350,000. Total unemployment grows when first time benefits total more than that approximate 350,000 number.
As to the GDP -- For starters, that 1.8 figure is our growth in production compared to the previous month. Our "real" GDP since Obama has been president is very close to zero. That's right. There has been virtually no growth in our national product in terms of real GDP and that is why the unemployment totals remain very much the same month after month. The number given above is not the "real" GPD, which comes in later in the year and takes into account unreported positives and negatives relating to the GDP report. It is believed that real GDP for this year is 1.2%, an improvement over the previous year. Most analysts tell us that net job creation does not occur until the GDP monthly report(s) comes in at 2.8% and does so consistently.
Note: I am not the only one who makes "typos." In the headline above, "weak" should read "week." Its tough to catch all those typos when you are a one man show and work a real job some 60 to 70 hours per weak. . . . . I mean, week.
michael barone's criticism of Barack Obama
Understand that Midknight Review sources 95% of its critical material in accepted Left Wing sources. This is such an article. Michael Barone is E
Who has benefited the most in the ebb and flow of GOP presidential politics?
Surprising, the answer to our headlined question is not Mitt Romney. Rather , it is Sarah Palin and Herman Cain. Understand that Cain is fighting for "name recognition" and has jumped in the polls from a 2% margin to the present 8%. Palin has experienced an equally gratifying rise in the polls, up from 9 to 11 percent to a very respectable 15% . I personally do not believe that Newt or Ron Paul have a chance at the GOP nomination, nor do I believe the conservative hero, Michele Bachmann, is in a good position although she may make a "go" of it. Time will tell. Jon Huntsman is no conservative and has no chance, either. No one knows who Gary Johnson is (previous conservative Governor of New Mexico as is Jon Huntsmann).
New York Times: Israelis Disappointed in Netanyahu / Jerusalem Post: Netanyahu was brilliant.
. . . . . . . Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has responded in a masterful manner to Obama’s unanticipated Middle East policy statement [on last Thursday - jds] – presented without prior consultation on the eve of the Israeli leader’s arrival in Washington – hardly how one would expect the US leader to relate to its “close ally,” an embattled nation.
Sensitive of the imperative to avoid antagonizing the American public by openly humiliating its president, Netanyahu exercised his diplomatic talent and communication skills by providing a restrained response, and outlining why Israel simply could not afford to adopt some of Obama’s recommendations. Our leader’s remarks to the press after meeting with the president, his address to AIPAC, and his brilliant presentation to the joint session of Congress represented a tour de force and made most Israelis feel extremely proud.
What made Obama’s “ambush” especially galling was that only a few days earlier, Netanyahu had delivered a major Knesset policy speech signaling to the US president that beyond the settlement blocs and Jerusalem, Israel was prepared to make further territorial concessions, subject only to the caveat that the Palestinians demonstrate a genuine willingness to negotiate toward a final settlement and disengage from their new genocidal partners. . . . . Read the full article here at the Jerusalem Post.
Contrast this article with a biased and Left leaning piece found in the NY Times (where else ?? !!) entitled "Israelis see Netanyahu trip as diplomatic failure." The fact of the matter is this: Netanyahu was absolutely brilliant. He was profoundly diplomatic with our novice president, not insulting as many radical Marxist Media types have claimed. And he was powerful in his rhetoric . . . . . . more so by far than Mr. Obama. And, more to point, he is fully supported by the Israeli people. Understand that only 6% of Israelis see Obama as pro-Israel.
Understand that while Netanyahu avoided humiliating the president of the United States, Obama did a bang up job of humiliating our country, on his own, as he spoke out against the Bush agreement regarding the Holy Land and the 67 borders. Know this: the so-called "right of return" is forever trumped by the "right of conquest." Israel did not start the 67 war. Not at all. In fact, the purpose of that war, from the Palestinian point of view, was to annihilate Israel. Israel smelled out the coming attack and defeated the three-nation alliance in 6 days. The land in question went to the victors -- Israel.
Israel should never give that land back and Obama should keep his mouth shut if he cannot do a better job of "conflict resolution." OF COURSE, Israel cannot negotiate with Hamas and the terrorist driven Palestinian forces seeking "recognition." One would think that Obama knows this, but, apparently not. Maybe he should just come back home before he further embarrasses our nation.
Ooooops, too late for that. Yesterday, Obama toasted the Queen of England while playing the American National Anthem in the background. Geeeeesh. Next thing you know, he will be giving her a rack of CD's that cannot be played in England and return Winston Churchill's bust without explanation or fanfare. Ooooops, he has already done this, as well.
OK !!! Someone just tell him to get his skinny little butt home, period. As long as he is campaigning, he is not humiliating our country in the eyes of the world.
Where does Glenn Beck go after Fox ? We have the answer
Outgoing Fox News host Glenn Beck and his company, Mercury Radio Arts, are developing a new service called “GBTV,” which will be a web-based TV channel, according to sources familiar with the matter as well as trademark applications filed by the company. GBTV will be based at GBTV.com, which Mercury acquired in January.
Mercury also filed a trademark on a tagline for the channel: “The Truth Lives Here,” as well as a logo (pictured after the jump), based on the logo for his “InsiderExtreme” subscription service.
The trademark applications are limited exclusively to programming delivered via the internet, so it is not likely that GBTV will become an actual TV network anytime in the near future. Mercury also filed the GBTV trademark for ancillary products, like DVDs, podcasts, mobile applications and video games. (Reported by TV Newser. Read the full article here.)
While Obama works to avoid a "surprise attack" from the right, Palin may have crafted such an attack, in plain sight.
Ever heard of Stephen Bannon? Me neither. But he has been working "behind the scenes" to craft a two hour pro-Palin movie that will be released next month in Iowa. Bannon put up the one million dollar cost and from all reports, it reports, it is a very well done presentation.Scott Conroy, at RealClearPolitics, tells us "Bannon originally titled his film "Take a Stand," which was the campaign slogan for Palin's 2006 gubernatorial run when she defeated incumbent Republican Frank Murkowski in the primary before cruising in the general election to become Alaska's youngest -- and first female -- chief executive. But in order to give it a more triumphant punch, the filmmaker changed the title to "The Undefeated."
Bannon acquired the audio rights to Palin's 2009 bestseller, "Going Rogue," and the former vice-presidential nominee's voice guides the film through the various stages of her career in Alaska.
Although Palin is not interviewed directly, the film features on-camera interviews and commentaries from 10 Alaskans who played different roles in her political rise, as well as six Lower 48 denizens who defend her in more visceral terms, including prominent conservative firebrands Mark Levin, Andrew Breitbart and Tammy Bruce.
Divided into three acts, the film makes the case that despite the now cliched label, Palin was indeed a maverick who confronted the powerful forces lined up against her to achieve wide-ranging success in a short period of time. The second part of the film's message is just as clear, if more subjective: that Sarah Palin is the only conservative leader who can both build on the legacy of the Reagan Revolution and bring the ideals of the tea party movement to the Oval Office.
Rife with religious metaphor and unmistakable allusions to Palin as a Joan of Arc-like figure, "The Undefeated" echoes Palin's "Going Rogue" in its tidy division of the world between the heroes who are on her side and the villains who seek to thwart her at every turn.
To convey Bannon's view of the pathology behind Palin-hatred, the film begins with a fast-paced sequence of clips showing some of the prominent celebrities who have used sexist, derogatory and generally vicious language to describe her.
Rosie O'Donnell, Matt Damon, Bill Maher, David Letterman, and Howard Stern all have brief cameos before comedian Louis C.K. goes off on a particularly ugly anti-Palin riff.
"I hate her more than anybody," C.K. says at the end of his tirade, the rest of which is unfit to print here.
Bannon intends to release two versions of the film. An unrated edition will contain some obscene anti-Palin language and imagery, while the other is targeted to a general audience and will seek a PG-13 rating from the Motion Picture Association of America. . . . end of quote.
If you know anything about the making of a "champion," especially when that champion is a considered "underdog," you know that the longer the "underdog" is allowed to play the game in a meaningful way, the more threatening he/she becomes to the Established Champ. Take football, for example. Florida State plays Fresno State and by the middle of the fourth quarter, the unlikely Fresno Bulldogs are [still] within 2 points of the national champions.
What is going on in the mind of the Florida State coach? Well, I guarantee that he has told at least one assistant, "We should have blown these guys out, by now." And, sure enough, with 5 seconds remaining, the upstart Bulldogs intercept a pass and run it back for a TD, winning the game. How many times have we seen this sort of scenario play itself out?
Every coach in the nation knows that if his/her team cannot put a weaker opponent "away" early in the contest, they are in "serious trouble" in terms of the "end game."
Palin, in her refusal to be "conventional" in her pursuit of the presidency, after nearly three years of exposure, should be nothing more than a glitch on a radar screen . . . but she is not only "still standing," her popularity has remained quite consistent.
In my opinion, where she stands in the polls, at this time, has little to do with the future of Sarah Palin. Most of us who follow this woman, are convinced as to her political instincts. Understand, that Palin is "standing on the 40 yard line with 4 minutes left in the game." If she loses, it will have little to do with the lies and thuggery of the Left. She is much more gifted than to allow that to be her legacy.
I have no idea how she can win, quite frankly. That being said, it is a good thing I am not her campaign manager . . . . and who is her campaign manager? She is !! And, that is precisely why she has more than a "chance" at becoming our 45th president.
She has a loyal base and is right on every issue that has been presented to her. Can she beat a fellow who has done little more than lie and cheat his way through the past two and half years and does not know if there are 57 states or 58, in the union? I think she can.
Obama begins his 2012 strategy of attrition.
It is clear to me at least, that Obama's campaign strategy is a "scorched earth" strategy. He intends to leave no GOP hopeful out of his campaign purview. In so doing, he prevents a "surprise attack" from the right and creates such a negative atmosphere with regard to the GOP at all levels, that his re-election is seemingly a no-brainer.
This morning, it was "news" that Obama is "digging up dirt" on the non-candidate, Chris Christy. The onslaught against Palin is well under way. The Marxist Media has decided to put Gingrich "on trial" for charging jewelry, of all things petty. Paul Ryan is busy killing grandma with his Medicare revisions. Romney is being billed as the Left's most acceptable right-wing candidate - a "death sentence" for his candidacy or so the Obama folks hope.
Get ready for the dirtiest campaign from the Left in our lifetimes. You are about to get a first hand view of Chicago politics, where dead people vote in droves, 32 city politicians have been indicted and jailed over the past 15 years, and lies are the pathway to success.
This morning, it was "news" that Obama is "digging up dirt" on the non-candidate, Chris Christy. The onslaught against Palin is well under way. The Marxist Media has decided to put Gingrich "on trial" for charging jewelry, of all things petty. Paul Ryan is busy killing grandma with his Medicare revisions. Romney is being billed as the Left's most acceptable right-wing candidate - a "death sentence" for his candidacy or so the Obama folks hope.
Get ready for the dirtiest campaign from the Left in our lifetimes. You are about to get a first hand view of Chicago politics, where dead people vote in droves, 32 city politicians have been indicted and jailed over the past 15 years, and lies are the pathway to success.
Obama begins his assualt on free political speech.
The White House has named Jesse Lee to a new position within its communications department titled Director of Progressive Media & Online Response. It is not known what Lee has actually been given "authority" to do, in this unique White House position, but a picture Lee posted on his White House twitter account is foreboding - to say the least.
The picture? It is one of the Terminator.
In making this appointment, the White House is sending a message to the opponents of Barack Hussein Obama.
The folks at The Fishbowl suggest that we all had better watch what we say and write.
Understand that Obama does not believe in "free political speech" if that speech includes statements and claims that he sees a false or troublesome. One of Lee's first responses to the opposition was a blast against Glenn
Beck, accusing the Fox News pundit of lying in order to raise his ratings.
Obama is the first president in history to appoint a Czar with the specific purpose of limiting free political speech.
Getting rid of this stranger in our White House has just become a little more difficult.
Obama is losing much of the radical black community. Here is a leading black intellectual, clearly expressing his displeasure with Obama
To the left is Professor Cornel West. I know he looks like a nutcase, but, honestly, he is anything but. He is much respected in both liberal and conservative camps. Of course he has a liberal/black bias but he must not be dismissed because of that fact. We all have bias; some call it a "world view."True Black Radicals and Barack Obama
John Smithson, editor
Cornel West is a Princeton University professor and leading black intellectual. Until fairly recently, he was a big-time supporter of Barack Obama. In fact, West made more than 60 campaigns appearances on behalf of Obama during the 2008 campaign season.
The two men seemed to have much in common. Obama had positioned himself as a black intellectual, himself, a constitutional professor, a man of letters and words . . . kind of like Cornel West. But in a posted interview, yesterday, with folks at Truthdig, West spoke out in the most critical of terms, branding Obama as “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats.”
In the end, Cornel West's chief complaint is that Obama has not been true to his acknowledged race (a black father and white mother - one a Muslim and the other an atheist). Understand that Obama was raised "white," but has apparently rejected the claim to being "white." Obama is one of a new class of black leaders coming onto the scene. He has never demonstrated for black causes, walked the streets of Birmingham and a hate filled white South, or, even crafted legislation that directly effects the black cause.
But, by rite of the presidency, he is the foremost black leader in America and Cornel West is telling folks who will listen that Obama has not been true to his race.
While at Princeton as Professor of African American Studies, West maintained a rather radical/militant presence supporting Malcolm X, the Black Panther Party and James Cone, the founder and, dare I say, the inventor of a thing called Black Liberation Theology. Understand that Obama sat at the feet of Jeremiah Wright for nearly 22 years, listening to a constant barrage of Black Liberation Theology.
West was convinced of Obama's radicalism. I think Obama, himself, considered himself a radical as defined by Liberation Theology.
In support of this notion, I give you three statements (there are many more):
July 2, 2008, Obama had this to say: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
On October 30, 2008, he told a cheering crowd, "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America. "
Finally, we have these words from Michelle Obama, talking about what her husband is about to do with regard to the United States: (May of 2008): "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."
One simply cannot read the above without sensing an intentional and well defined radicalism. Compare the words of Barack and Michelle with this Cornel West statement: "I arrived at Harvard unashamed of my African, Christian, and militant de-colonized outlooks. More pointedly, I acknowledged and accented the empowerment of my black styles, mannerisms, and viewpoints, my Christian values of service, love, humility, and struggle, and my anti-colonial sense of self-determination for oppressed people and nations around the world." (source: http://www.answers.com/topic/cornel-west)
Cornel West still talks the talk. Barack and Michelle have moved on and in the moving on, they have become more "white" than Cornel West can accept.
“I think my dear brother Barack Obama has a certain fear of free black men,” West said. “It’s understandable. As a young brother who grows up in a white context, brilliant African father, he’s always had to fear being a white man with black skin. All he has known culturally is white…When he meets an independent black brother, it is frightening.”
“Obama, coming out of [a] Kansas influence [with his]white, loving grandparents, coming out of Hawaii and Indonesia, when he meets these independent black folk who have a history of slavery, Jim Crow, Jane Crow and so on, he is very apprehensive,” West said in the Truthdig interview.
Finally, I leave you with these words from the Cornel West interview:
“He [Obama] has a certain rootlessness, a deracination. . . . ”
Many on the Left are telling the American people that Israel's Prime Minister publically disrespected our president. Not true and here is proof:
Here is 7 minutes of one of the most profound displays of statesmanship I have ever seen, and it came from the Prime Minister of Israel. The moment speaks for itself. Only the most partisan in our country would fault Netanyahu for the recent mess that is Israeli/U.S. relations. Before his Thursday time-bomb, Obama did not consult with the Prime Minister nor give the man a "heads up" regarding the Thursday speech. What is most surprising about that is this: Obama knew the Prime Minister was coming to America on Friday.
m
m
Watching the face of Obama is rather telling. It presents us with a man we have all seen before: angry and thinking of reprisals. Understand that the Palestinians and Hamas are joined at the hip and it is a part of the Hamas charter that Israel be wiped off the face of the earth. In 2009 and, again, in 2010, Obama gave financial aid to Hamas/Gaza to the tune of 1.3 billion dollars. In the Cairo speech, Obama named Israel as an "occupying nation" in the West Bank, terminology used exclusively by the anti-Zionist community. And now, he expects Israel to concede to the demands of those who seek its total destruction -- emphasis on "total."
You might have trouble understanding Obama's logic on this. I don't. I have said from the very beginnings of his administration, that he is a rather stupid man. There is nothing to "understand" except that Obama is a stupid man when it comes to the act of governance and international politics.
Lesson to be learned: expect more, much more, of the same from this stranger in our White House.
m
m
Watching the face of Obama is rather telling. It presents us with a man we have all seen before: angry and thinking of reprisals. Understand that the Palestinians and Hamas are joined at the hip and it is a part of the Hamas charter that Israel be wiped off the face of the earth. In 2009 and, again, in 2010, Obama gave financial aid to Hamas/Gaza to the tune of 1.3 billion dollars. In the Cairo speech, Obama named Israel as an "occupying nation" in the West Bank, terminology used exclusively by the anti-Zionist community. And now, he expects Israel to concede to the demands of those who seek its total destruction -- emphasis on "total."
You might have trouble understanding Obama's logic on this. I don't. I have said from the very beginnings of his administration, that he is a rather stupid man. There is nothing to "understand" except that Obama is a stupid man when it comes to the act of governance and international politics.
Lesson to be learned: expect more, much more, of the same from this stranger in our White House.
We have the first pictures of the two international love birds: Netanyahu and Hussein Obama
You see the picture; here is the headline: Netanyahu meets with Obama, rejects return to '67 borders...
One wonders why this clown we have as a president, does not believe in "diplomacy." Instead, he dreams up a solution and then runs around the planet, telling people what they must do to meet with his expectations.
Not a word of warning to the Israelis. In fact, they were told,"There will be no surprises on Thursday."
Somebody tell me why the American Jews vote "Democrat." I haven't a clue, except for their hatred of Christianity --- and lets all pretend that they do not hate Christianity, shall we?
Obama has done more harm to our historic friends than any president in history. He has outed the British, revealing some of their military secrets to the Russians, as a condition for the New Start Treaty. He threatened to do the same concerning Israel, but no one came to the meeting. and now, he has become public enemy number one in Israel. No wonder only 6% of the Jewish/Israeli population sees him as a friend.
And it is almost that bad in the Muslim foreign community. His popularity in most Muslim nations of the world is below 15%. He has double talked himself out of favor with just about everyone in the world . . . . an embarrassing joke of a president.
Understand that Obama has done what no other president has ever done, and this includes the moron, Jimmy Carter. Before we get his ignorant self out of office, he is going to get us all killed.
Geeeesh.
Obama continues to double talk his pledge to Israel and no one is believing it, any more.
Just in case you were wondering how Obama's challenge to the sovereignty of Israel was playing out -- well, not so good.OBAMA SIDES WITH THE PALESTINIANS...
Netanyahu fumes at call to return to '67 borders...
Abbas calls emergency Palestinian
Authority meeting...
Israeli Knesset member: Obama is the new Arafat...
Romney: Obama threw Israel 'under the bus'...
Jewish donors warn Obama on Israel...
Israel Expects Obama to Take Back ‘1967 Lines’ Demand
Jewish Donors Warn Obama on Israel
Will Obama actually drill in Alaska? The "futures" investors say, "Heck no !!!"
This is more significant that you might first imagine: "Crude futures rose Thursday but prices traded in a narrow range as the market continued to mull over the latest set of U.S. Department of Energy inventory data" (source: WSJ).
And the significance is? Last Friday, May 13, Obama announced that he planned to open up drilling in Alaska. In 2008, on a Friday in mid-July, president Bush announced off-shore drilling plans (which never materialized, btw), and the price of oil began a steady 6 month downward trend.
Obama attempted the same strategy, in an effort to drive "futures investors" into hiding. We suggested that if these investors decided to believe Obama's "Alaska threat," the price of oil would begin another downward trend . . . . immediately, as was the case nearly three years ago. While the price per barrel has dropped five or six cents since Obama's announcement, it is not the downward trend of 2008 and the futures market in oil continues its upward movement. The investors do not believe Obama; they do not believe that anyone will be drilling in Alaska anytime soon. We suspected as much.
And the significance is? Last Friday, May 13, Obama announced that he planned to open up drilling in Alaska. In 2008, on a Friday in mid-July, president Bush announced off-shore drilling plans (which never materialized, btw), and the price of oil began a steady 6 month downward trend.
Obama attempted the same strategy, in an effort to drive "futures investors" into hiding. We suggested that if these investors decided to believe Obama's "Alaska threat," the price of oil would begin another downward trend . . . . immediately, as was the case nearly three years ago. While the price per barrel has dropped five or six cents since Obama's announcement, it is not the downward trend of 2008 and the futures market in oil continues its upward movement. The investors do not believe Obama; they do not believe that anyone will be drilling in Alaska anytime soon. We suspected as much.
Catholic academics dare to criticize Speaker Boehner after allowing Obama to desecrate religious symbols at Georgetown.
In one of the most disturbing stories of the week, we have this report, a letter from a bunch of Catholics misfits complaining about Speaker Boehner's inconsistencies as a fellow Catholic, while ignoring one of the most egregious acts of arrogance committed by a sitting president in memory.
First, a quote from the story in view: by Michael Sean Winters on May. 11, 2011
Never mind the fact that Obama is an abortion freak, violating one of the most basic tenets of the Catholic faith. Never mind that Notre Dame and Georgetown Universities, both Catholic schools, invited the Chief Abortionist to speak on their campuses. Never mind that while at Georgetown, Obama ordered the name of "Jesus" covered over as a condition for his commencement speech on that campus - one of the most egregious and despicable actions of a president of the United States in my memory. Never mind the Catholic morons in charge, who surrendered to this secularist's demands.
Point of post: just documenting the extreme hypocrisy of a Leftist priesthood that cares more for its political positioning than for the truth of its historic orthodoxy.
First, a quote from the story in view: by Michael Sean Winters on May. 11, 2011
Breaking News.
UPDATE: More names have been added to the list of signatories below.
A group of prominent Catholic academics have signed a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, on the occasion of his forthcoming commencement address at the Catholic University of America. I will provide commentary later today, but the letter really speaks for itself, respectfully, clearly and in a way to challenge the Speaker to consider his policies. The letter will be delivered to Boehner's office personally by some of the signatories tomorrow morning.
[Editor's Note: Michael Sean Winter's first reaction is here: Initial Thoughts on Letter to Boehner.]
I will point out that the signatories do not call on Boehner to decline to give his address, nor on CUA to revoke its invitation, as many conservatives called on Notre Dame to revoke its invitation to President Obama in 2009. They understand that a university should be a place where all voices and viewpoints are heard. But, they are well within their right to ask Boehner to explain how his budgetary proposals do, or do not, conform to traditional Catholic social teaching. Here is the text of the letter:
Dear Mr. Speaker,We congratulate you on the occasion of your commencement address to The Catholic University of America. It is good for Catholic universities to host and engage the thoughts of powerful public figures, even Catholics such as yourself who fail to recognize (whether out of a lack of awareness or dissent) important aspects of Catholic teaching. We write in the hope that this visit will reawaken your familiarity with the teachings of your Church on matters of faith and morals as they relate to governance.
Mr. Speaker, your voting record is at variance from one of the Church’s most ancient moral teachings. From the apostles to the present, the Magisterium of the Church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor. Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress. This fundamental concern should have great urgency for Catholic policy makers. Yet, even now, you work in opposition to it. . . . read the full article here.Never mind the fact that Obama is an abortion freak, violating one of the most basic tenets of the Catholic faith. Never mind that Notre Dame and Georgetown Universities, both Catholic schools, invited the Chief Abortionist to speak on their campuses. Never mind that while at Georgetown, Obama ordered the name of "Jesus" covered over as a condition for his commencement speech on that campus - one of the most egregious and despicable actions of a president of the United States in my memory. Never mind the Catholic morons in charge, who surrendered to this secularist's demands.
Point of post: just documenting the extreme hypocrisy of a Leftist priesthood that cares more for its political positioning than for the truth of its historic orthodoxy.
Obama gives another speech and leaves us asking, Now, what the hell is he doing ???
Here is a headline that is simply not surprising to me: Obama ‘disrespected’ Israel, threw it ‘under the bus,’ says Romney. We agree with Mitt. I have repeatedly made this point: give Obama a couple of days and he will stick his foot back into his ignorant mouth. I had no concerns for his "bounce" after the Osama killing -- I knew that it would be just a matter of days before he would squelch any suggested bounce.
Today, Rasmussen has Obama's approval numbers hovering at 49% while Gallup sets his approval percentage at a startling 46%.
Since Osama, Barack has fumbled with classified information about the killing while having to correct his after-event description some 18 different times. He followed that up with the announcement that he planned on opening drilling in . . . . . . . . . . Alaska, of all places --- like we all believe that one. And now, he has decided to back Hamas and an Arab majority united in the destruction of Israel. What the hell he thinks he is accomplishing is beyond me, but it will enhance his pathetic approval numbers.
Understand this: I really do not care how the economy does -- Obama will be judged by Obama, complete with his foot in his mouth, his head up his rear, and the tough-guy persona as unbelievable as is his claim that he was a "Constitutional professor."
He has not kept a single promise including the public option in his health care reform law. In 2008, he talked a good game while surrounding himself in an esoteric mysticism that defied definition. Today, we know him as a double talking punk of a president, having divided the nation as never before in modern times. He is an absolute disgrace to the office of president, and his time is just about up.
Today, Rasmussen has Obama's approval numbers hovering at 49% while Gallup sets his approval percentage at a startling 46%.
Since Osama, Barack has fumbled with classified information about the killing while having to correct his after-event description some 18 different times. He followed that up with the announcement that he planned on opening drilling in . . . . . . . . . . Alaska, of all places --- like we all believe that one. And now, he has decided to back Hamas and an Arab majority united in the destruction of Israel. What the hell he thinks he is accomplishing is beyond me, but it will enhance his pathetic approval numbers.
Understand this: I really do not care how the economy does -- Obama will be judged by Obama, complete with his foot in his mouth, his head up his rear, and the tough-guy persona as unbelievable as is his claim that he was a "Constitutional professor."
He has not kept a single promise including the public option in his health care reform law. In 2008, he talked a good game while surrounding himself in an esoteric mysticism that defied definition. Today, we know him as a double talking punk of a president, having divided the nation as never before in modern times. He is an absolute disgrace to the office of president, and his time is just about up.
When Peter Fonda and Black Professor Cornel West resent your presidency, well, you know you are in deep do-do.
The following gives you a little more insight into the angst being expressed by the Uber Left, from whence Obama came. These folks thought Obama was on "their side," a fellow socialist, will to use the power of the presidency to "fundamentally transform" this country. He is a huge disappoint to these people, and they are beginning to make their disgust a public affair. He is being criticized by Ed Shultze and Keith Olbermann and even the Maddow woman. Oprah will not offer her public endorsement of Obama. Michael Moore has publicly excoriated the man on several occasions. There are articles in yesterday's paper documenting the anger of many established but left leaning journalist, angry with Obama's hateful treatment of anyone in the press who dares to off serious criticism.
AFP) – 13 hours ago
AFP) – 13 hours ago
CANNES, France — Peter Fonda launched a four-letter attack on US President Barack Obama at the Cannes film festival on Wednesday, calling him a traitor over the handling of the aftermath of the Gulf oil spill.
The star of the 1969 road movie "Easy Rider" was in Cannes for the premiere of "The Big Fix" by Rebecca and Josh Tickell, the only feature documentary in the official selection at the Cannes film festival this year.
Fonda -- a keen environmentalist and co-producer of the film which centres on the explosion of the BP oil rig Deepwater Horizon, the ensuing spill and its consequences -- accused Washington of trying to gag reporting on the issue.
"I sent an email to President Obama saying, 'You are a f(expletive) traitor,' using those words... 'You're a traitor, you allowed foreign boots on our soil telling our military -- in this case the coastguard -- what they can and could not do, and telling us, the citizens of the United States, what we could or could not do'."
Fonda, who said he sent the email last week, appears in "The Big Fix" trying to get on to Louisiana beaches to assess the impact of the biggest oil spill in US history, only to be turned away by BP clean-up personnel.
Speaking at a press event at the American Pavilion to promote the film, Fonda denounced BP as "a bunch of Brits -- I thought we kicked them out a long time ago. They tried to get back in in 1812, but they didn't make it." end of quote.
This headline, below, presents the debate over Obama within the Black community and especially, within Black Academia. I have included the link because of the debate it documents.
Obama bans another newspaper
The White House Press Office has refused to give the Boston Herald full access to President Obama’s Boston fund-raiser today, in e-mails objecting to the newspaper’s front page placement of a Mitt Romney op-ed, saying pool reporters are chosen based on whether they cover the news “fairly,” and who makes that decision? Why, Obama, of course.
“I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters,” Obama said, via his spokesman. “My point about the op-ed was not that you ran it but that it was the full front page, which excluded any coverage of the visit of a sitting US President to Boston. I think that raises a fair question about whether the paper is unbiased in its coverage of the President’s visits."
We have written much about the White House's policy of controlling the media. And Obama has done more in this line of endeavor than any president in modern history -- without exception.
Here is Anita Dunn, Obama's friend and press agent, talking about the policy of "media control," in late 2009. Just another reason why Obama cannot get his approval numbers above 50%.
m
Big surprise for everyone, apparently, except those of us who live in Caleeeefornia.
A love child from ten years ago? Oh, you betcha. And many of us knew this slick piece of work had fathered this child, years ago. And the woman lived in the house and continued as his "house keeper" for another TEN YEARS. So much for a "one night stand."Little wonder his wife took off after finding out that she had been living with his lover for a decade . . . under the same roof !!
Turns out he was as bad a husband as he was a governor.
Busting the myth of a "jobless" recovery:
The League of American Voters want you to consider the following points as you listen to the rhetorical nonsense that is the Obama/Biden claim that "the recession is over." Understand that industry is doing fairly well while housing related issues and employment are in the tank. Two out of three makes for darker days on the horizon.
- At Obama’s Inauguration, the price at the pump for gas was $1.83. It has more than DOUBLED since and now some say it could even TRIPLE to $5 or $6 a gallon!
- The official U.S. unemployment rate has jumped back up to 9%. But this pathetic number only puts a smiley face on the real misery. Unemployment spikes to a whopping 15.9% when one counts Americans who’ve grown so discouraged they’ve given up even looking for work or those who’ve settled for part-time work (Bureau of Labor Statistics).
- According to Zillow, home prices have plummeted “at their fastest rate since the Lehman collapse.” Now called “zombie homeowners” because they’re financially walking dead, an all-time record “16.3 million families are upside-down on their home loans.”
- A study by the New America Foundation finds “8.5 million people receiving unemployment checks and over 40 million receiving food stamps. At the current pace of job creation, the economy won't return to full employment until 2018.”
- Wal-Mart’s CEO says its customers are “running out of money” with purchases “dropping off by the end of the month even more than last year"
- The Wall Street Journal says “the dollar today is lower than at any time since major currencies began floating in 1973. It is 13% lower than it was 30 years ago and 28% below its 2002 recent peak.”
- Standard & Poor’s, the independent credit rating agency, downgraded the outlook for the United States to negative from stable, saying within two years there's at least a one-in-three chance it could lower its long-term rating.
Strike Three for Newt and he hasn't even gone to bat.
Strike one occurred back in the Clinton Daze, when the world was busy criticizing Billy Bob Clinton for the more than 60 oral visits to the White House by Monica. Of course he can do whatever he wanted to do . . . on his own time, but every single meeting with Monica was on "company time." Anyway, while the world was in the "Kill Bill" mode, Newt was busy doing his own thing, cheating on his critically ill wife. Disgustingly hypocritical.
Strike two happened after Pelosi became Speaker of the House. There they were, sitting on the park bench, like two little love birds, talking about the critical need to deal with global warming. We have no idea what Newt had in mind, but we all know what the committed socialist, Pelosi, was considering. Understand that Pelosi is a non-practicing Catholic, an abortion freak, who also brags about "saving the planet." And Newt was holding hands with this enemy of a free representative government.
Strike three? Well, it was his attack on Paul Ryan and his characterization of the Ryan budget as "radical conservatism." Whatever this intellectual meat head thought he is doing, he has proven to be as politically inept as Barack Obama. I won't give Newt one chance in 800 hells of winning the GOP nomination. Here is the report on his latest strike:
Surprising many conservatives, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich stirred a lively debate Sunday by slamming Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to reform Medicare on NBC's "Meet the Press." In what one popular conservative website described as Gingrich "tacking left," the now-declared presidential candidate dismissed a plan popular among many conservatives as "radical change" that he suggested was dangerous for Republicans to embrace heading into an election year.
The House budget chairman's plan is designed to move to a system where seniors receive vouchers to buy private insurance. It has been endorsed by the majority of House Republicans.
But Gingrich said it was "too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options." "I'm against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change," he continued. "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," Gingrich said. "I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate."
Strike two happened after Pelosi became Speaker of the House. There they were, sitting on the park bench, like two little love birds, talking about the critical need to deal with global warming. We have no idea what Newt had in mind, but we all know what the committed socialist, Pelosi, was considering. Understand that Pelosi is a non-practicing Catholic, an abortion freak, who also brags about "saving the planet." And Newt was holding hands with this enemy of a free representative government.
Strike three? Well, it was his attack on Paul Ryan and his characterization of the Ryan budget as "radical conservatism." Whatever this intellectual meat head thought he is doing, he has proven to be as politically inept as Barack Obama. I won't give Newt one chance in 800 hells of winning the GOP nomination. Here is the report on his latest strike:
Surprising many conservatives, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich stirred a lively debate Sunday by slamming Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to reform Medicare on NBC's "Meet the Press." In what one popular conservative website described as Gingrich "tacking left," the now-declared presidential candidate dismissed a plan popular among many conservatives as "radical change" that he suggested was dangerous for Republicans to embrace heading into an election year.
The House budget chairman's plan is designed to move to a system where seniors receive vouchers to buy private insurance. It has been endorsed by the majority of House Republicans.
But Gingrich said it was "too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options." "I'm against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change," he continued. "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," Gingrich said. "I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate."
Obama thinking about a third term ??
Take a look at this and tell me if he is really kidding, all that much. I have run articles detailing how someone like a Barack Obama can "take over" this country. Silly idea? Not if he believes he is the man for the season.
Here is an AP story that makes on stop and think:
Here is an AP story that makes on stop and think:
WASHINGTON – Eight years as president is enough, thank you. At least that's what Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says President Barack Obama told her the other day.
Clinton said Tuesday that she and Obama often marvel over foreign despots who want to stay in power for decades. She told a State Department forum that neither she nor Obama can understand leaders who refuse to transfer power and cling to office for 10, 20, 30 or 40 years.
She says she and the president joke: "Oh, my gosh. Can you imagine (if I tried to pass legislation that would allow be a third and fourth term -- editor) ?"
Clinton says Obama told her, "I'm going to win re-election, and then I'm done," a remark that drew laughter from the audience. U.S. presidents are constitutionally barred from a third term.
Understand that if Obama could get legislation passed that got rid of the two term Constitutional order for a president, he could actually use executive orders, signing statements, his czar appointments (over 50 and the most in history, beating out the record set by George W with 16) and his access to regulatory powers to run the congress without having to deal with congress. Congress should be embarrassed. Barack Obama has rendered the congress "irrelevant" and nothing can be done about it until we get his skinny butt out of there.
Obama and his rampant show of favoritism.
Yesterday, we were told that Obama has approved of another 204 waivers to his health care "reform" law. This brings the running collection of waivers to 1,372. Approximately 80% of these waivers have been given to union related entities. 20% of yesterdays total went to companies within Nancy Pelosi's San Fransisco congressional district. Per D favoritism is what we are looking at and nothing more.
Update: tell me that Obama is not into "favoritism" and while you are at it, explain, again, how it is that he is different.
Update: tell me that Obama is not into "favoritism" and while you are at it, explain, again, how it is that he is different.
Gallup has Obama back down to 46% approval. I might know why.
Want to know why Obama is back "in the tank?" Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Iran is financing and building rocket launching facilities in Venezuela. You think ??
Don't know what I am talking about? Maybe it is because the American Obama Press is not reporting on this matter. I found this news in the Jerusalem Post this evening.
Why is this happening? Beside the obvious, we have this comment in the Jerusalem Post article:
" . . . . . the clandestine agreement between Venezuela and Iran would mean the Chavez government would fire rocket at Iran’s enemies should the Islamic Republic face military strikes."
And what is Obama doing about this circumstance? Still running "victory laps," celebrating his killing of Osama bin Laden.
Maybe it is time to write a congressman or four.
Don't know what I am talking about? Maybe it is because the American Obama Press is not reporting on this matter. I found this news in the Jerusalem Post this evening.
Why is this happening? Beside the obvious, we have this comment in the Jerusalem Post article:
" . . . . . the clandestine agreement between Venezuela and Iran would mean the Chavez government would fire rocket at Iran’s enemies should the Islamic Republic face military strikes."
And what is Obama doing about this circumstance? Still running "victory laps," celebrating his killing of Osama bin Laden.
Maybe it is time to write a congressman or four.
Here is the Democrat argument against cutting expenses:
Their argument: if we do not increase the debt ceiling, it will be a disaster of monumental proportions.
Anyone see the disconnect? What does their response have to do with cutting spending?
But, let's think about their ridiculous comment. Refusing to increase the debt ceiling has nothing directly to do with paying our debt obligations. In fact, we will not forfeit on our debt obligation, period. There are no serious economist who disagree. It is exactly like your own budget crisis.
You do not have enough money to go around. You might have to sell the car and maybe a kid or two, but keeping the house payment current is critical and something that can be done, even if you have not increased your own, personal, debt ceiling.
Ditto for our national problem. WE decide what bills we will pay if we can no longer borrow money. WE make that decision. If we do not increase the debt ceiling, our ability to borrow money will come to an end. Why anyone honestly believes that this necessarily means that we must forfeit on our debt payments is beyond me; in fact, it is nothing short of a very stupid lie.
Anyone see the disconnect? What does their response have to do with cutting spending?
But, let's think about their ridiculous comment. Refusing to increase the debt ceiling has nothing directly to do with paying our debt obligations. In fact, we will not forfeit on our debt obligation, period. There are no serious economist who disagree. It is exactly like your own budget crisis.
You do not have enough money to go around. You might have to sell the car and maybe a kid or two, but keeping the house payment current is critical and something that can be done, even if you have not increased your own, personal, debt ceiling.
Ditto for our national problem. WE decide what bills we will pay if we can no longer borrow money. WE make that decision. If we do not increase the debt ceiling, our ability to borrow money will come to an end. Why anyone honestly believes that this necessarily means that we must forfeit on our debt payments is beyond me; in fact, it is nothing short of a very stupid lie.
Today we hit the debt ceiling and the sky did not fall down around us.
So, all that Democrat disaster speech was just so much crap. The truth of the matter is this: we do not lose our credit rating until we fail to cover our debt funding obligations. Understand that our credit rating is not tied directly to the "debt ceiling." Rather, it is tied to our management or mismanagement of expenses after the debt ceiling becomes a force of law . . . . . which is where we are at this very minute.
As things stand at this very moment, we cannot over spend the debt ceiling. What Geithner and others are doing, as we write, is plotting cuts in spending in venues other than debt management. This is a good thing.
We are being told by the Marxist Media that we have until August to pass an increased debt ceiling "or else." Actually, that is no more true for August than it is true for today. Again, it is not the "debt ceiling" that is the critical concern. Rather, it is how we manage the cuts necessary to continue payments on our debts.
As things stand at this very moment, we cannot over spend the debt ceiling. What Geithner and others are doing, as we write, is plotting cuts in spending in venues other than debt management. This is a good thing.
We are being told by the Marxist Media that we have until August to pass an increased debt ceiling "or else." Actually, that is no more true for August than it is true for today. Again, it is not the "debt ceiling" that is the critical concern. Rather, it is how we manage the cuts necessary to continue payments on our debts.
In short, the world will not come to an end if we fail to increase the debt ceiling.
Remember that Osama bin Laden bounce in favor of Barack Obama? Well. it's over.
Gallup and Rasmussen both have Obama's approval numbers back down to 48%. Maybe it has something to do with Obama and Biden revealing classified information about the Osama attack. Defense Secretary Gates complained about the revelations, publicly stating that everyone in the room, watching the killing on Sunday, May 1, had agreed to keeping classified information about the attack, secret.
Obama and Biden decided (the very next day, Monday, May 2) to capitalize on the killing by revealing this information. In doing so, SEALs say release of tactical info jeopardizes safety, future raids.... In the week that followed, Obama made appearances each and every day, all in the pretense of honoring those who won this victory. During that week, Obama and Biden issued statements that had to be corrected 18 different times (according to the WSJ). In the end, these two morons revealed the identity of the Special Forces division as well as the actual unit responsible for the killing of bin Laden.
These are the same two idiots who wanted civilian trials for KSM and his 4 accomplices. These are the same two clowns who have drawn out the trial of the Muslim Murderer at Fort Hood and his killing spree on NOVEMBER 6 OF 2009. Since that sad day a year and half ago, Major Hasan, the Muslim Murderer, has made just one court room appearance and his trial has yet to be scheduled. Understand that Major Hasan was shot and paralyzed while in the act of carrying out his assassination plot. 13 were killed but 45 were actaully shot. There are 32 surviving eye witnesses. If there was ever a prosecutory "slam dunk," this is it, yet, the Obama administration continues to hide emails of Hasan and is the only political force standing in the way of the prosecution. You tell me what is going on. I do not know -- just don't tell me it is about prosecutorial "fairness."
The Obama/Biden team is that which is responsible for our troops in Afghanistan being forced to read Miranda Rights on the battle field and suffer under a "do not shoot first" policy.
And, it is Obama/Biden who have taken down our CIA interrogation units (the Spring of 2009) without having anything in place (that means "up and running") as an interrogation alternative. In fact, we have not interrogated a single important terrorist leader since our two elected morons took office. Did you know that? What I am saying is this: until the Osama killing, we had no new, actionable information as to the "ins and outs" of international terrorism for more than two stinking years. None.
Point of post: to drive home the point that Obama does not suddenly "own" the national security debate because of the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Obama and Biden decided (the very next day, Monday, May 2) to capitalize on the killing by revealing this information. In doing so, SEALs say release of tactical info jeopardizes safety, future raids.... In the week that followed, Obama made appearances each and every day, all in the pretense of honoring those who won this victory. During that week, Obama and Biden issued statements that had to be corrected 18 different times (according to the WSJ). In the end, these two morons revealed the identity of the Special Forces division as well as the actual unit responsible for the killing of bin Laden.
These are the same two idiots who wanted civilian trials for KSM and his 4 accomplices. These are the same two clowns who have drawn out the trial of the Muslim Murderer at Fort Hood and his killing spree on NOVEMBER 6 OF 2009. Since that sad day a year and half ago, Major Hasan, the Muslim Murderer, has made just one court room appearance and his trial has yet to be scheduled. Understand that Major Hasan was shot and paralyzed while in the act of carrying out his assassination plot. 13 were killed but 45 were actaully shot. There are 32 surviving eye witnesses. If there was ever a prosecutory "slam dunk," this is it, yet, the Obama administration continues to hide emails of Hasan and is the only political force standing in the way of the prosecution. You tell me what is going on. I do not know -- just don't tell me it is about prosecutorial "fairness."
The Obama/Biden team is that which is responsible for our troops in Afghanistan being forced to read Miranda Rights on the battle field and suffer under a "do not shoot first" policy.
And, it is Obama/Biden who have taken down our CIA interrogation units (the Spring of 2009) without having anything in place (that means "up and running") as an interrogation alternative. In fact, we have not interrogated a single important terrorist leader since our two elected morons took office. Did you know that? What I am saying is this: until the Osama killing, we had no new, actionable information as to the "ins and outs" of international terrorism for more than two stinking years. None.
Point of post: to drive home the point that Obama does not suddenly "own" the national security debate because of the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Here is the most irrelevant hour in televised broadcasting, today, bar none.
This is a remarkable headline: Michael Moore to join Olbermann's CURRENT TV program... . WOW !! The fat and ugly Michael Moore, the guy who thinks "wealth" is a national treasure except for his 6 million bucks, and Keith Olbermann together on Current Television!!
I really don't have much to say about this ----- too busy laughing. Understand that the daily draw on Al Gore's Current TV is around 18,000 a day. Seriously. Could television be more irrelevant than this particular collection of morons, Gore, Olbermann and Meat Head?
If I do not tell you the time and day for the Olbermann program on Current TV, it will remain a secret for all time -- and my lips are sealed !!
I really don't have much to say about this ----- too busy laughing. Understand that the daily draw on Al Gore's Current TV is around 18,000 a day. Seriously. Could television be more irrelevant than this particular collection of morons, Gore, Olbermann and Meat Head?
If I do not tell you the time and day for the Olbermann program on Current TV, it will remain a secret for all time -- and my lips are sealed !!
Obama promises to drill for oil in Alaska!! Next he will bleach his skin and start talking with a drawl. And the dye is cast for 2012 !!
My site and others in "blogspot," were closed to editing for more than two days, ending yesterday. I trust Google as much as I trust the government, but, at least, I did not lose my blog as I did two years ago.
My first post since the Google "maintenance" episode is this little thing:
Two headlines that amount to, yet, another lie put out by Obama:
NYT 2010: Obama oil plan 'to open vast expanses of water along Atlantic coastline, eastern Gulf of Mexico, north coast of Alaska'...
NYT 2011: Obama oil plan 'expands drilling in Alaska and prospect of new exploration off Atlantic coast'...
Two thoughts: if the "futures" investors believe him, the barrel price for sweet crude will begin to come down next week, as it did when Bush decided to lift the executive order that prohibited offshore drilling back in mid-July of 2008. I will be using this as a gauge as to whether anyone believes Obama on this; I do not.
Which is my second point. Look, you can promise anything if you have worked out an agreement with your congressional buds to continue to block oil expansion and drilling in Alaska (anyone actually believe he will drill in Alaska !!? What a joke.).
Back to the strategy of all this: he becomes the good guy in favor of drilling and the Democrat Senate becomes the bad guy and all is well with radical environmentalism. Some will argue this: "Doesn't this make it more likely the Senate will be taken back by the Republicans?"
Of course, but if Obama wins a second term, nothing much will get done. Understand that the most important election issue of all is the re-election of Obama -- especially in the face of losing the Senate. If he wins a second term, he can block all legislation that would reverse ObamaCare -- all by his lonesome. After all, it is already funded for eight years (remember Bachmann's revelations on this ?), and four more years of ObamaCare will make it impossible to reverse. . . . . unless, of course, the High Court dumps the individual mandate next year.
Sooooo, Obama will go on with his lies, knowing that he controls the Marxist Major Media.
The headlines above are political theater, also known a c.r.a.p.
Update: Sunday -- understand that just a week ago, Mr. Obama, on one occasion, was telling us all, "Think about a trade in" and, on another, "There is little I can do about rising oil prices. " Of course, we all know that was nonsense and, yesterday, Obama admitted as much.
In putting together this update, I found it interesting that the second link, immediately above, was from the Chicago Tribune. Since reading the article and linking to it, the Tribune has taken down that article. Go ahead and try to convince me that the press is not squarely in Obama's camp, to a degree never seen before in American politics.
My first post since the Google "maintenance" episode is this little thing:
Two headlines that amount to, yet, another lie put out by Obama:
NYT 2010: Obama oil plan 'to open vast expanses of water along Atlantic coastline, eastern Gulf of Mexico, north coast of Alaska'...
NYT 2011: Obama oil plan 'expands drilling in Alaska and prospect of new exploration off Atlantic coast'...
Two thoughts: if the "futures" investors believe him, the barrel price for sweet crude will begin to come down next week, as it did when Bush decided to lift the executive order that prohibited offshore drilling back in mid-July of 2008. I will be using this as a gauge as to whether anyone believes Obama on this; I do not.
Which is my second point. Look, you can promise anything if you have worked out an agreement with your congressional buds to continue to block oil expansion and drilling in Alaska (anyone actually believe he will drill in Alaska !!? What a joke.).
Back to the strategy of all this: he becomes the good guy in favor of drilling and the Democrat Senate becomes the bad guy and all is well with radical environmentalism. Some will argue this: "Doesn't this make it more likely the Senate will be taken back by the Republicans?"
Of course, but if Obama wins a second term, nothing much will get done. Understand that the most important election issue of all is the re-election of Obama -- especially in the face of losing the Senate. If he wins a second term, he can block all legislation that would reverse ObamaCare -- all by his lonesome. After all, it is already funded for eight years (remember Bachmann's revelations on this ?), and four more years of ObamaCare will make it impossible to reverse. . . . . unless, of course, the High Court dumps the individual mandate next year.
Sooooo, Obama will go on with his lies, knowing that he controls the Marxist Major Media.
The headlines above are political theater, also known a c.r.a.p.
Update: Sunday -- understand that just a week ago, Mr. Obama, on one occasion, was telling us all, "Think about a trade in" and, on another, "There is little I can do about rising oil prices. " Of course, we all know that was nonsense and, yesterday, Obama admitted as much.
In putting together this update, I found it interesting that the second link, immediately above, was from the Chicago Tribune. Since reading the article and linking to it, the Tribune has taken down that article. Go ahead and try to convince me that the press is not squarely in Obama's camp, to a degree never seen before in American politics.
Even the Libs know Obama is in big big trouble. Osama, even in death, will not be Obama's savior.
Here is a story taken from The Hill. The point being made is something with which I fully agree, but some of the facts in the story or simply wrong. No big deal, really, but you would think the author would know better to write without checking out his facts.
Here is the story's opening thoughts:
Without doing any research of his own, Fabian blindly quotes (or is this a misquote) Gallup here: Gallup said the divide on Obama's poll numbers could be because the president's climbing approval rating is being driven by Republicans, who still would vote against Obama next year: Republicans' approval of the president jumped 11 points between late April and now, the highest among any political group.
The suggestion, of course, is that Obama has won over a fairly significant segment of Republicans and is poised -- because of this -- to win re-election. The problem with this conclusion is this: the 11 point "swing" in Obama's favor has nothing to do with his function as president. Rather, it reflects the conservative "11%" and their pleasure with the killing of bin Laden. That's it. The 60 million who voted against Obama in 2008 will vote against him in 2012; of that there is little doubt. The 5 million conservatives who despised McCain despite being love with Sarah Palin and did not vote in the presidential election, will vote in 2012. Add to this the fact that Obama has lost ground in every voting demographic including Blacks (down 5%), Academia (down 15%) and Hispanics (down 17 points). If he cannot recapture those whom he has lost, he will lose by a landslide. Right now, as things stand today, Obama would suffer one of the more humiliating election defeats in modern history, perhaps worse than the beating Jimmy Carter received from Ronald Reagan.
Why do you think Obama is in full campaign mode, right now? And do not worry about the billion dollars the man is going to raise for this election. He raised nearly the same amount the first time. Spent money will not get him elected, but hundreds of broken promises will send him down the tubes.
Here is the story's opening thoughts:
- 05/11/11 02:16 PM ET
President Obama did not receive a significant bump in support against a generic Republican opponent following the killing of Osama bin Laden, according to a new poll released Wednesday.
Despite a seven-point boost to a 54 percent approval rating in the latest Gallup poll, Obama leads an unnamed Republican 43-40 percent. That is virtually unchanged from April 20-22, when he and the generic Republican were tied at 41 percent (the two-point jump for Obama falls within the margin of error).
The poll underscores a point being made by political observers: The slaying of bin Laden, one of the world's most wanted men since the 9/11 attacks, hardly guarantees Obama's reelection in 2012.
The facts in question? Well, it was a 7 point "bounce," alright, but Gallup jumped Obama from 44% before the Osama killing to 51% (not 54%) in the days immediately following the shooting. Like I said, "No big deal." The problem is this, however: are Mr. Fabian's other numbers correct?Without doing any research of his own, Fabian blindly quotes (or is this a misquote) Gallup here: Gallup said the divide on Obama's poll numbers could be because the president's climbing approval rating is being driven by Republicans, who still would vote against Obama next year: Republicans' approval of the president jumped 11 points between late April and now, the highest among any political group.
The suggestion, of course, is that Obama has won over a fairly significant segment of Republicans and is poised -- because of this -- to win re-election. The problem with this conclusion is this: the 11 point "swing" in Obama's favor has nothing to do with his function as president. Rather, it reflects the conservative "11%" and their pleasure with the killing of bin Laden. That's it. The 60 million who voted against Obama in 2008 will vote against him in 2012; of that there is little doubt. The 5 million conservatives who despised McCain despite being love with Sarah Palin and did not vote in the presidential election, will vote in 2012. Add to this the fact that Obama has lost ground in every voting demographic including Blacks (down 5%), Academia (down 15%) and Hispanics (down 17 points). If he cannot recapture those whom he has lost, he will lose by a landslide. Right now, as things stand today, Obama would suffer one of the more humiliating election defeats in modern history, perhaps worse than the beating Jimmy Carter received from Ronald Reagan.
Why do you think Obama is in full campaign mode, right now? And do not worry about the billion dollars the man is going to raise for this election. He raised nearly the same amount the first time. Spent money will not get him elected, but hundreds of broken promises will send him down the tubes.
Understand that you are not watching Obama circling the wagons. Rather, you are watching him circling the drain. . . . . . big difference.
Obama's popularity is 60 % or is it 51% or maybe 48% ?
In an AP poll just released and published by every Leftist organization imaginable, Obama's ratings are thru the roof. . . . . 60% think of Americans think he should be re-elected. Understand that he scored with 53% of the population back in 2008. The fly in the ointment is the fact that 46% of those polled were Democrats and only 29% were Republicans. What a joke. Understand that the AP, Yahoo, HuffingAo, NBC, MSNBC and the New York Timesl will be giving us this kind of crap from now until the 2012 elections. Not to worry.
Gallup has Obama at 51% and Rasmussen at 48%.
I believe the AP "poll" is not a poll at all. Rather, it is a propaganda tool designed to impact uncertain Americans. The reason why Obama has started campaigning 18 months before the election, earlier than any president in history (assuming you believe that he, in fact, ever quit campaigning), is because he is desperately behind in the private polling he and his buds take on an almost daily basis.
The AP poll is as phony as are Obama's claim to be an intellectual.
Gallup has Obama at 51% and Rasmussen at 48%.
I believe the AP "poll" is not a poll at all. Rather, it is a propaganda tool designed to impact uncertain Americans. The reason why Obama has started campaigning 18 months before the election, earlier than any president in history (assuming you believe that he, in fact, ever quit campaigning), is because he is desperately behind in the private polling he and his buds take on an almost daily basis.
The AP poll is as phony as are Obama's claim to be an intellectual.
Obama invites another punk into the White House. This time, it is a cop-hating rapper.
A black rapper singing about hating cops and carrying guns for the "revolution" is a key feature of a gathering at the White House, tonight. The lyrics of one of his songs is presented, below. Understand there is a difference between "art" and "slander," between "peace" and armed revolution.
And what does the New Jersey police federation think about this ? As reported by NBC News, we have this: "The young people who read this stuff, hear this stuff, are getting a very dangerous and deadly message," said David Jones, president of the State Troopers Fraternal Association union.
Like I said late last week, "Don't worry about the bin Laden killing, Obama will come up with something within the week that will counter the good he got out of his war on terror." Sure enough, the domestic war being waged by the various inter-city gangs in this country, has just been given representation in the White House !!
Read the lyrics and understand the violent tone of the message. This does nothing but feed "black anger." It was Obama that told us, "Words mean something." We agree.
A Letter to the Law
Dem boy wanna talk… [indistinguishable]
Whatcha gon do if ya got one gun?
I sing a song for the hero unsung
with faces on the mural of the revolution
No looking back cos’ in back is what’s done
Tell the preacher, God got more than one son
Tell the law, my Uzi weighs a ton
I walk like a warrior,
from them I won’t run
On the streets, they try to beat us like a drum
In Cincinnati, another brother hung
A guinea won’t see the sun
with his family stung
They want us to hold justice
but you handed me none
The same they did to Kobe and Michael Jackson
make them the main attraction
Turn around and attack them
Black gem in the rough
You’re rugged enough
Use your mind and nine-power, get the government touch
Them boys chat-chat on how him pop gun
I got the black strap to make the cops run
They watching me, I’m watching them
Them dick boys got a lock of cock in them
My people on the block got a lot of pok* in them
and when we roll together
we be rocking them to sleep
No time for that, because there’s things to be done
Stay true to what I do so the youth dream come
from project building
Seeing a fiend being hung
With that happening, why they messing with Saddam?
Burn a Bush cos’ for peace he no push no button
Killing over oil and grease
no weapons of destruction
How can we follow a leader when this a corrupt one
The government’s a g-unit and they might buck young black people
Black people In the urban area one
I hold up a peace sign, but I carry a gun.
Peace, ya’ll.”
Ron Paul publishes a call for reform regarding the Federal Exchange. Here is that call to action from the congressman
The following is taken from my mail box. I do not endorse Ron Paul for President, but that is not to be taken as a negative, either. If you visit this site, my preference is Sarah Palin. Having said that, Palin and Paul are on the same page with regard to our national economy and, especially, the out of control Federal Exchange. This memo from Ron Paul is worth reading.
 Dear Fellow Conservative, I hope you join me in my firm conviction that now is the time to fight back against the out of control Federal Reserve and continued Wall Street plundering of our tax dollars. The threat isn't hard to see -- just look all around us. Our constitutional principles and freedoms are being assaulted at every turn. More bailouts, trillion dollar "stimulus" plans, huge new debt burdens for our children, simply printing money to cover our failed policies -- I could go on and on. You and I both know that President Obama is going to keep going and going unless someone puts a stop to the madness. But the good news is there is a way to fight back. And that fight starts today -- by "Auditing the Fed" and showing the American people just how the Fed has abused its power, debauched the dollar, and helped strangle our economy. Because I know you are a friend in Liberty, I wanted you to be among the first people contacted by Campaign for Liberty for the vital fight against the out of control Federal Reserve. Please read the email below from my friend and Campaign for Liberty's President, John Tate. John isn't just a friend of mine. He's also a patriot with years of experience getting things done in politics. Now he's agreed to take up the fight in a way I cannot -- by leading the fight for Liberty on the outside, while I do battle in the halls of Congress. I trust you'll find this battle to expose the out of control Fed worth your support. For Liberty,  Congressman Ron Paul |
 |
Obama does another end run around Congress for pure political advantage
Obama has used an "executive order" to require all corporate political ads to be accompanied by a statement as to who or which company paid for the ad. In assuming the role of a South American dictator, Obama has taken another step in developing an enemies list for the coming campaign. Of course, he will never mention the millions pouring in from outside this country via Big Labor unions and the huge international presence 0f ACORN.
Understand that of the $800 million raised for his 2008 campaign, more than half has remained "anonymous." While mush is being said about his plans to raise a billion dollars for the 2012 campaign, nothing much has been said about the fact that he raised nearly that much in 2008. He out spent McCain 2 to 1 and won the election by only 7% of the vote. This time around, his opposition will have access to millions of dollars not in play in 2008. Should make for an exciting election.
Note: understand that "executive orders" were designed to allow the president to "enhance" existing legislation or to provide for the established function of his office. It was never designed to allow a dictator the powers of legislation, as is the case in this posted example.
Understand that of the $800 million raised for his 2008 campaign, more than half has remained "anonymous." While mush is being said about his plans to raise a billion dollars for the 2012 campaign, nothing much has been said about the fact that he raised nearly that much in 2008. He out spent McCain 2 to 1 and won the election by only 7% of the vote. This time around, his opposition will have access to millions of dollars not in play in 2008. Should make for an exciting election.
Note: understand that "executive orders" were designed to allow the president to "enhance" existing legislation or to provide for the established function of his office. It was never designed to allow a dictator the powers of legislation, as is the case in this posted example.
The housing crisis continues with worse numbers than a year ago.
SHOCK: More than 25% of homes in USA 'underwater'...
Reports of Mortgage Fraud Reach Record...
Well, this is certainly not a shock for the readers of Midknight Review. We have been reporting on this matter for some time, now. Check out our right-column search engine for the full listing of articles.
Here are the reported facts: the percentage of Americans owing more on their new homes than they are worth is between 25 and 35 percent. My neighbor (in California), for example, bought his home at the peak of the housing "bubble," paying $338,000 for his dream house. Today the home's value stands at $180,000. His home will never recover the loss in equity. He will never be able to sell without suffering a huge financial loss. Understand that at the time of any future sale, our neighbor will have to come up with thousands of dollars from his personal savings in order to complete the "deal."
More than this situation is the fact that between 15 and 19 percent of all homes in America are vacant !! In a new 80 home subdivision just north of our house, there are 19 vacant homes -- been vacant for nearly three years. Such is a disaster in and of itself, but its reality effects the equity values of all surrounding homes and adds to the complexity of the housing crisis. Understand that the financial crisis that resulted in the recent recession was not the fault of Big Business or those dirty Bankers. Nope. It was a sub-prime mortgage crisis, much of which was ordered and superintended by a congressional policy known as "Affordable Housing." Quotas were set for the banking industry by congress, designed to put the poor and high risk citizen into home they could not -- as it turned out -- could not afford.
When their adjustable loans matured and morphed into fixed loans, the bottom fell out from under the mortgage world and BAM !! , the crisis exploded.
Point of post: no surprise, here.
Why the Pakistani/US is critical to both States:
The following is a brief review of the problematic Pakistan/US geopolitical circumstance, as it appears on this day. The summary is from the folks at Stratfor, an intel entity used by FoxNews, NBC and most of the other news media. I pay for their services in an effort to better serve the readership of Midknight Review. Copyright rules prevent me from quoting the entire article, but, as always, you have the link and are encouraged to read the full article:
After concluding the breach between the US and Pakistan is real and widening, George Friedman at Stratfor has this to say:
t is not inconceivable that Pakistan aided the United States in identifying and capturing Osama bin Laden, but it is unlikely. This is because the operation saw the already-tremendous tensions between the two countries worsen rather than improve. The Obama administration let it be known that it saw Pakistan as either incompetent or duplicitous and that it deliberately withheld plans for the operation from the Pakistanis. For their part, the Pakistanis made it clear that further operations of this sort on Pakistani territory could see an irreconcilable breach between the two countries. The attitudes of the governments profoundly affected the views of politicians and the public, attitudes that will be difficult to erase.
After concluding the breach between the US and Pakistan is real and widening, George Friedman at Stratfor has this to say:
t is not inconceivable that Pakistan aided the United States in identifying and capturing Osama bin Laden, but it is unlikely. This is because the operation saw the already-tremendous tensions between the two countries worsen rather than improve. The Obama administration let it be known that it saw Pakistan as either incompetent or duplicitous and that it deliberately withheld plans for the operation from the Pakistanis. For their part, the Pakistanis made it clear that further operations of this sort on Pakistani territory could see an irreconcilable breach between the two countries. The attitudes of the governments profoundly affected the views of politicians and the public, attitudes that will be difficult to erase.
Posturing designed to hide Pakistani cooperation would be designed to cover operational details, not to lead to significant breaches between countries. The relationship between the United States and Pakistan ultimately is far more important than the details of how Osama bin Laden was captured, but both sides have created a tense atmosphere that they will find difficult to contain. One would not sacrifice strategic relationships for the sake of operational security. Therefore, we have to assume that the tension is real and revolves around the different goals of Pakistan and the United States.
A break between the United States and Pakistan holds significance for both sides. For Pakistan, it means the loss of an ally that could help Pakistan fend off its much larger neighbor to the east, India. For the United States, it means the loss of an ally in the war in Afghanistan. Whether the rupture ultimately occurs, of course, depends on how deep the tension goes. And that depends on what the tension is over, i.e., whether the tension ultimately merits the strategic rift. It also is a question of which side is sacrificing the most. It is therefore important to understand the geopolitics of U.S.-Pakistani relations beyond the question of who knew what about bin Laden. . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)