Correction: 1 Q was a negative 2.8 GDP.
2Q was 4.3.
3Q was 5.0
4Q was 2.6.
For an average of 2.3 GDP for 2014 and now, the oil/gas industry is preparing to lay off upwards of 50,000 people, which will effect 10x that number (140,000 in Texas alone).
The weakest recovery ever, facing a collapse in the job market (70% of all jobs created in the past 6 years have been in fossil fuel related industries) and we have the template for another economic collapse.
We discuss a possible reason for the lies and misinformation coming out the White House.
White House: Taliban not a terrorist group . . . White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz argued during Wednesday’s briefing that the United States can negotiate prisoner swaps with Taliban members, because the Taliban is not considered a terrorist group. Washington Times
Editor's notes: Anyone know what is going on with this silliness? Let me suggest this: Obama believes in a thing called "legal fiction." If he can reframe a circumstance to his favor, he will do so. Refusing to call the war on terror the "war on terror," or Benghazi "an al Qaeda attack," or pretending to have done more for Israel than any past president, are all examples of his collection of legal fiction.
Because of the fact that domestic punks are or have been guilty of similar and individual attacks as the jihadist, he argues that "jihadist" narrows the reality. He often argues that his "policies work against all such acts of terror, regardless in whose name they are committed." Such is the legal fiction. The reality is this: no one in his Administration will ever use anti-terror strategies to go after this nation's gangbangers.
He argues that he has given more arms and money to Israel than any other president, thus, proving his alliance to that democracy, when, in point of fact, we have no way of proving his claims, but know, that his treatment of Netanyahu has been nothing short of disgraceful. Couple this with the fact that he has decided to allow Iran to continue to develop their nuclear weapons program and you have a man who is nothing other than an enemy of Israel. His fiction has been destroyed by reality.
We now know beyond debate, that Islamic Jihad was responsible for the deaths of those at the Benghazi Conciliate was nothing short of a rather involved bit of fiction. The reality? At the time, he believed he needed the legal fiction of a successful terror policy (GM is alive and al Qaeda is dead) in order to win the election. And even worse, he sucked Hillary into this moment of deception.
Understand that all examples of legal fiction are birthed of a necessity to deceive. Such is always nefarious, at some level, but seldom, in the case of Obama, rises to the level of proof.
For legal fiction to work, there must remain a degree of plausible deniability. Virtually all of Obama's lies and misinformation have these two considerations in common: (1) at least for a time, they were all reasonably deniable (emphasis on "reasonable" or "plausible"), and (2) they (the lies and/or misinformation) all serve to give Obama cover or separation from perceived realities that threasten to cause a certain level of disaster to his purposes.
As to the Taliban and his refusal to call them a terrorist organization, and, without understanding all the motivations involved in this refusal, we know that (a) it is not the truth and, (b), this bit of misinformation shields him from other realities. I am saying that one does not intentionally lie or offer up misinformation, without there being a reason.
He stoned-walled releasing the emails of Dr. Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist. for years. Why? Well, the trial is over and Hasan was given the death penalty. Why the stone-wall? Whatever the reason, it was more an imagined problem, than real.
I could give one example after another, but, I will leave you to that task. Just know this, when one is a pathological liar (where "pathology" has to do with a disease and/or an emotional compulsion), the conscience does not play a role in that life, but fear of being caught or "found out" can be almost overwhelming. That is why some "pathologicals" murder their victims or devise complicated plots in an effort at deflecting blame.
This is your president. He does not care who is "thrown under the bus," just as long as it is not him. This is the reason why he pretends to be ignorant of just about any negative story. He believes this gives him plausible deniability and separation. He never accepts blame, because he cannot, emotionally. As a consequence, he is trapped in his sickness, and the rest us suffer.
_____________________
The editor has been a qualified pastoral counselor for decades, with a MA in Theocentric Pyshology and a certificate in crisis counseling from the U of Maryland.
Editor's notes: Anyone know what is going on with this silliness? Let me suggest this: Obama believes in a thing called "legal fiction." If he can reframe a circumstance to his favor, he will do so. Refusing to call the war on terror the "war on terror," or Benghazi "an al Qaeda attack," or pretending to have done more for Israel than any past president, are all examples of his collection of legal fiction.
Because of the fact that domestic punks are or have been guilty of similar and individual attacks as the jihadist, he argues that "jihadist" narrows the reality. He often argues that his "policies work against all such acts of terror, regardless in whose name they are committed." Such is the legal fiction. The reality is this: no one in his Administration will ever use anti-terror strategies to go after this nation's gangbangers.
He argues that he has given more arms and money to Israel than any other president, thus, proving his alliance to that democracy, when, in point of fact, we have no way of proving his claims, but know, that his treatment of Netanyahu has been nothing short of disgraceful. Couple this with the fact that he has decided to allow Iran to continue to develop their nuclear weapons program and you have a man who is nothing other than an enemy of Israel. His fiction has been destroyed by reality.
We now know beyond debate, that Islamic Jihad was responsible for the deaths of those at the Benghazi Conciliate was nothing short of a rather involved bit of fiction. The reality? At the time, he believed he needed the legal fiction of a successful terror policy (GM is alive and al Qaeda is dead) in order to win the election. And even worse, he sucked Hillary into this moment of deception.
Understand that all examples of legal fiction are birthed of a necessity to deceive. Such is always nefarious, at some level, but seldom, in the case of Obama, rises to the level of proof.
For legal fiction to work, there must remain a degree of plausible deniability. Virtually all of Obama's lies and misinformation have these two considerations in common: (1) at least for a time, they were all reasonably deniable (emphasis on "reasonable" or "plausible"), and (2) they (the lies and/or misinformation) all serve to give Obama cover or separation from perceived realities that threasten to cause a certain level of disaster to his purposes.
As to the Taliban and his refusal to call them a terrorist organization, and, without understanding all the motivations involved in this refusal, we know that (a) it is not the truth and, (b), this bit of misinformation shields him from other realities. I am saying that one does not intentionally lie or offer up misinformation, without there being a reason.
He stoned-walled releasing the emails of Dr. Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist. for years. Why? Well, the trial is over and Hasan was given the death penalty. Why the stone-wall? Whatever the reason, it was more an imagined problem, than real.
I could give one example after another, but, I will leave you to that task. Just know this, when one is a pathological liar (where "pathology" has to do with a disease and/or an emotional compulsion), the conscience does not play a role in that life, but fear of being caught or "found out" can be almost overwhelming. That is why some "pathologicals" murder their victims or devise complicated plots in an effort at deflecting blame.
This is your president. He does not care who is "thrown under the bus," just as long as it is not him. This is the reason why he pretends to be ignorant of just about any negative story. He believes this gives him plausible deniability and separation. He never accepts blame, because he cannot, emotionally. As a consequence, he is trapped in his sickness, and the rest us suffer.
_____________________
The editor has been a qualified pastoral counselor for decades, with a MA in Theocentric Pyshology and a certificate in crisis counseling from the U of Maryland.
The case against "gridlock." Obama's new budget proposal is "dead on arrival." Not to worry. The Democrat controlled Senate, voted down two of his budgets, 97- 0 and 99 - 0. Seriously. Gridlock has nothing to do with it.
Obama wants to bust the caps . . . President Barack Obama's budget will call for an increase in domestic and military spending that would end spending caps known as "sequestration," a White House official said, setting up a new source of conflict with Republicans in Congress. Obama intends to announce his plans during a meeting with congressional Democrats in Philadelphia on Thursday. The fiscal 2016 budget, which the White House intends to unveil on Monday, would fund a host of programs that Republicans are unlikely to support. Reuters
Editor's notes: Let's not blame gridlock for the predictive failure of Obama's budget proposal. The Hill, a Left leaning rag, details the failure of his two budget proposals for 2012 and 2013. You can find the numerology, here. What is startling is this fact: Bush, the "dumy from Harvard and Yale," had to deal with total rejection of his budget proposals. In fact, no president in American history has such a dismal record for rejection. I mean, not at single Democrat vote in his favor? Not one. Seriously. And some of you think he is intelligent? Good grief.
Just how poorly written or thought out, must a budget proposal be to garner a Goose Egg for the final tally?
Along the same lines, his 2015 budget proposal, submitted in April of 2014, failed in the House with a 413 to 3 vote total, according to The Hill, here. According to the same source, his 2013 proposal was rejected by a vote of 414 to 0. And his 2014 proposal was submitted too late to receive a vote.
Finally and even worse than submitting 4 budgets only to receive 2 votes in favor, and 923 "no" votes, per the info above, Obama wanted the CBO to score a speech he gave in 2011, and consider that his budget proposal for 2012.
Their answer? "We do not score speeches." So, a big nothing burger for that effort, as well. Confirmation of this account can be found here. It is a matter of record.
Understand, no president in history has this kind of failure rate. None.
So the new budget is not "dead on arrival" because of gridlock. Rather, and clearly, it is DOA because of sheer ineptness, bordering on stupidity.
When I laugh at his "intellect," some of you think this is pejorative and hyperbole. Instead, after checking sources, the fact of this matter is this: he lacks the ability to think critically or linear when "creating" a budget proposal. It is all about his dreams and not about precess and reality.
A friend of mine just made this point as we discussed these numbers: "You know what makes all this even worse? That he never asked anyone for help."
Editor's notes: Let's not blame gridlock for the predictive failure of Obama's budget proposal. The Hill, a Left leaning rag, details the failure of his two budget proposals for 2012 and 2013. You can find the numerology, here. What is startling is this fact: Bush, the "dumy from Harvard and Yale," had to deal with total rejection of his budget proposals. In fact, no president in American history has such a dismal record for rejection. I mean, not at single Democrat vote in his favor? Not one. Seriously. And some of you think he is intelligent? Good grief.
Just how poorly written or thought out, must a budget proposal be to garner a Goose Egg for the final tally?
Along the same lines, his 2015 budget proposal, submitted in April of 2014, failed in the House with a 413 to 3 vote total, according to The Hill, here. According to the same source, his 2013 proposal was rejected by a vote of 414 to 0. And his 2014 proposal was submitted too late to receive a vote.
Finally and even worse than submitting 4 budgets only to receive 2 votes in favor, and 923 "no" votes, per the info above, Obama wanted the CBO to score a speech he gave in 2011, and consider that his budget proposal for 2012.
Their answer? "We do not score speeches." So, a big nothing burger for that effort, as well. Confirmation of this account can be found here. It is a matter of record.
Understand, no president in history has this kind of failure rate. None.
So the new budget is not "dead on arrival" because of gridlock. Rather, and clearly, it is DOA because of sheer ineptness, bordering on stupidity.
When I laugh at his "intellect," some of you think this is pejorative and hyperbole. Instead, after checking sources, the fact of this matter is this: he lacks the ability to think critically or linear when "creating" a budget proposal. It is all about his dreams and not about precess and reality.
A friend of mine just made this point as we discussed these numbers: "You know what makes all this even worse? That he never asked anyone for help."
Rubio will have a little Koch before announcing his candidacy.
<<< Meet this blog's, editor and chief (hey I am the only one here, so, "editor and chief" works), and I have this to say to the GOP: Guys, we really need to take our politics into the future. We cannot stay in the Bush's and pretend we are working for the future. Status quo no longer works in the Grand Old Party.
Politico:
Politico:
Koch donors give Marco Rubio early nod — Straw poll at donor summit rates 5 GOP hopefuls. — Getty — The Koch brothers' conservative network is still debating whether it will spend any of its massive $889-million budget in the Republican presidential primaries, but the prospect …
Discussion: Bloomberg Business, Page Six, Associated Press, Talking Points Memo, American Spectator, Hit & Run, ABC News, The Daily Caller, Hot Air,National Review, Political Wire and Bloomberg Politics
 |
| Skinny little old me. |
Editor's notes: I know, the Koch brothers are evil but Soros and Steyers and Gates and Buffett are all cool. Whatever. The good news for those of us who think Rubio will be great for the country, is that Bush and Romney are not going to suck up all the available "big money."
As much as I respect those from the "common sector" who try to success in the political arena, still, there is much to be said for those who are well versed in the political theater. Obama was not, never took on the mind-set of a politician, and was not successful in what he claimed to have believed. But, so too, a number of folks on the GOP side of the tracks.
So, today, we GOP supporting Independents are looking at a very different primary season. I absolutely like Rance Priebus and what he has done for the GOP National Party. First time in a decade or more that we have a "first stringer" at the helm. We have a great collection of effective governors, and the beginnings of a leadership transformation that promises to take us into the next generation of GOP hero's. We die-hard conservatives will have to compromise, but we will, and the beat will go on. Understand that the 22nd party politic will look nothing like what is seen today - for either party. So we do what we can to keep the Constitution and the Founders Dreams as the center of the Universe.
Anyway . . . going to take a run up into the hills. Talk to you all later. My work, here and for the day, is done.
Later days, folks.
Biased governance is the name of the game for the Islamic sympathizer we have for a president, a "president of the people. Here is the evidence.
Red States get the deepest cuts under Obama . . . Between the 2009 and 2013 fiscal years, funding for a wide swath of discretionary grant programs, from Head Start preschool education to anti drug initiatives, fell by an average of 40 percent in Republican-leaning states like Texas and Mississippi. By contrast, funding to Democratic-leaning states such as California and politically competitive swing states like Ohio dropped by 25 percent.
"I would suggest these numbers would tell us there is politicization going on," said John Hudak, an expert on federal spending at the centrist Brookings Institution. Reuters
Editor's notes: Obama practice this same level of partisan crap, with his writing and administration of the 2009 Stimulus. 3 of every 4 dollars coming out of that failed legislation, went to Democrat districts and private sector allies (teacher and labor unions, for example).
He has sent a team to Israel to help defeat the Prime Minister in the coming March elections. We have his administration of funds, designed to punish the opposition.
We have his threat to Netanyahu ("I have two years left. You will pay a price"), the first president in our entire national history to threaten an established and dependable ally.
He has framed elections as "the best possible revenge."
He hates the Jew and is no friend of England, despite the fact that he plays the game of "friend" well. He actually is unforgiving of England for past and imagined crimes against his grandfather. So much so, that when Margaret Thatcher died, no one from his Administration attended her funeral, yet, he bows and scraps at the death of the Saudi King, a man who allowed the attack on 9/11 and butchered his own people will alive.
If you read no other news summary for the day, read this from our Friends at White House Dossier.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Good morning! In the news today: Obama appears to be intentionally targeting red areas for spending cuts; federally-funded group uses money to try to bring down Netanyahu; Dems block Iran sanctions bill, but just for two months; Obama makes a mess of Syria; government spying at gun shows; Jindal warns of Islamic "colonization" in U.S.; and Bob Dylan advocates "trickle down economics."
Have a great day.
Keith at White House Dossier.
Obama's administration of the war on terror, is so far removed from reality and a successful effort, that four non-partisan military advisers took time to warn us all, as a nation, of this failing policy/effort.
Spy General Unloads on Obama’s ISIS War Plan
The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency slammed the Obama administration on Monday as “well intentioned” but paralyzed and playing defense in its the fight against Islamic militancy.
Recently retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn called for the U.S. to lead the charge in a sweeping, decades-long campaign against the Islamic State group, al Qaeda, and its ilk—a fight like the one against the former Soviet Union—against a new enemy he said is “committed to the destruction of freedom and the American way of life.”
“There is no substitute, none, for American power,” the general said, to occasional cheers and ultimately a standing ovation from a crowd of special operators and intelligence officers at a Washington industry conference.
“There is no substitute, none, for American power,” the general said, to occasional cheers and ultimately a standing ovation from a crowd of special operators and intelligence officers at a Washington industry conference.
He also slammed the administration for refusing to use the term “Islamic militants” in its description of ISIS and al Qaeda.
“You cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists,” Flynn said.
He said the administration is unwilling to admit the scope of the problem, naively clinging to the hope that limited counterterrorist intervention will head off the ideological juggernaut of religious militancy.
“There are many sincere people in our government who frankly are paralyzed by this complexity,” said Flynn, so they “accept a defensive posture, reasoning that passivity is less likely to provoke our enemies.”
We are dedicating today's posts and tomorrow, to the losing war on terror, a war Obama seems committed to losing; a war in which he has backstabbed all of our Middle East allies, and turned the Middle East into a apocalyptic nightmare.
Editor's notes: highlighted in red, below, are those critical misconceptions, coming from the Beginner in our White House, that put us all in increasing danger. Understand that ISIS has a world view, is a religious entity - albeit a false view, and intends to conquer the entire world for the "Prophet." Obama denies all of this and, today, more than four months after giving his televised speech, three of the nation's finest generals, including the retiring head of the DIA, were sharply critical of Obama with regard to his feckless fantasy he calls a "strategy." Again, four months after announcing his strategy and naming Yemen and Somalia, in this very televised speech, as grand examples of his terror policy, we have had to retreat from Yemen, no one every thought Somalia was an example of anything good, and Libya is being over-run by jihadist -- this Libyan circumstance being the news of today.
From Critical Threat. org: President Barack Obama delivers a live televised address to the nation on his plans for U.S. military action against the Islamic State, September 10, 2014. (Reuters)
President Obama just announced that he is bringing a counter-terrorism strategy to an insurgency fight. He was at pains to repeat the phrase “counter-terror” four times in a short speech. Noting that ISIL is not a state (partly because the international community thankfully does not recognize it), he declared, “ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.” Neither of those sentences, unfortunately, is true.
ISIL is an insurgent group that controls enormous territory in Iraq and Syria that it governs. It maneuvers conventional light infantry forces supported by vehicles mounting machine guns and occasionally armored personnel carriers against the regular forces of the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish Peshmerga—and wins.
It is purely and simply not a terrorist organization any longer. Neither is it the simple manifestation of nihilistic evil the president makes out.
ISIL has described a very clear vision of seizing control of all of the territory of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Territories. It intends to abolish all of the borders and redraw them according to a new structure of governance suitable to its hateful version of an old Islamic heresy. That vision also makes it more than a simple terrorist organization. It’s awfully hard to develop a sound strategy when you start by mis-diagnosing the problem so profoundly. That’s why the “strategy” the president just announced has no chance of success
Understand that after six years of Obama's war on terror, he admits that "we have no strategy."
On August 29, CNN reminds us all that Obama is telling those who will listen, that he has no terror strategy as to what is going on in the Middle East
In a story published by CNN on Sept 4, but written on October 28, Obama, again, reiterates that he has no terror strategy as to ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Understand that this last admission comes just days before his televised speech, in which he pretends to have a strategy.
Apparently, since these admissions, someone suggested to Obama that he stop with these admissions . . . . . you know, it makes him look kind of dumb, certainly uncommitted as well as uninvolved.
In a story published by CNN on Sept 4, but written on October 28, Obama, again, reiterates that he has no terror strategy as to ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Understand that this last admission comes just days before his televised speech, in which he pretends to have a strategy.
Apparently, since these admissions, someone suggested to Obama that he stop with these admissions . . . . . you know, it makes him look kind of dumb, certainly uncommitted as well as uninvolved.
Tuesday, Jan 27, military advisers went to congress, and excoriated Obama's terror strategy - reminding Congress that we do not have a strategy for success.
_________________
Read the full report at US News and World Report. Here is a rather lengthy excerpt:
An absence of clear policies from the White House makes it impossible for the U.S. to achieve any sort of victory in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the region, according to three former top military officers who oversaw recent wars there.
“[We need to] come out from our reactive crouch and take a firm, strategic stance in defense of our values,” retired Marine Gen. Jim Mattis said to Congress Tuesday morning.
“America needs a refreshed national security strategy,” he added, saying that it must look beyond the string of crisis “currently consuming the executive branch.” . . . . . . . . . . . The three former commanders highlighted what they see as a common problem among top conflicts sucking in U.S. forces deployed abroad, and threats to the American people at home.
The U.S. has been in a “strategy-free” stance in Iraq for some time, and it didn’t begin with the Obama administration, Mattis said. He applauded President Barack Obama for visiting Saudi Arabia this week to reinforce ties with the longtime Middle Eastern ally, and for using U.S. influence to help oust Nouri al-Maliki, the polarizing former Iraqi prime minister.
But many countries in the region, including the Saudis, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, remain confused about what America hopes to achieve there while stating its goal remains to pivot to the Pacific.
“We’ve disappointed a lot of friends out there, from Abu Dabi to Riyadh, from Tel Aviv to Cairo,” Mattis said.
Keane, a Vietnam veteran, helped oversee the initial invasion of Iraq and became one of the most vocal advocates following his 2003 retirement for increasing the number of troops deployed to the war there.
Keane, along with Mattis and Fallon, criticized Obama’s preference for ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on a preconceived deadline, instead of weighing progress on the ground, he says.
The U.S. fight against Islamic extremism should resemble something closer to U.S. efforts to contain communist ideology wrought by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, he said Tuesday.
A “policy of disengagement in the Middle East” has contributed to the rise of such extremism, he said, conceding that the appeal of groups like the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, or al-Qaida in Pakistan or Yemen, would still exist were it not for U.S. intervention in the region.
The U.S. must focus on gathering allies who share similar values and political beliefs to confront his threat, he said, or it remains doomed to face the same problems again. This is particularly important ahead of the reported massive offensive against the Islamic State group in the key Iraqi city of Mosul and in Anbar province this spring.
“Will there be something after ISIS to deal with?” he said, using a common alternative name for the Islamic State group. “You bet, if we don’t take a comprehensive approach to deal with it.”
Mattis offered a similar example in Syria, saying it remains unclear what the administration hopes to achieve politically in that country. . . . . . . . . . .
The newest lie being told by this Administration: Lower oil prices are the result of our energy politicies. Oil really ??
Look, need we be reminded that solar, wind-mill energy, and energy coming from rehabilitated pond scum, cannot succeed as alternative energy supplies if oil per barrel, is selling for less than $80 a barrel, and, today, it is around the $45 mark. Gas-at-the-pump prices are projected to be at or near 2008 totals ($1.84 per gallon) for several years into the future . . . . and we have some 300 years of fossil fuel supply in our yet-to-be produced future. With the lower prices, fracking, per se, may be dead, as are the big three, scum/algae, wind and solar, and for the very same reason. They are all very expensive to produce.
As a result of these lower prices, the gas guzzling SUV has new life, as does the next generation of muscle cars, and, our "dependence" on fossil fuels. Further, you should remember that Obama has cut production on Federal lands by 6% -- the only land over which he can claim any production success at all. The private sector is producing nearly 60% more oil and gas than when Obama took office and began his campaign against Big Oil.
Pretty sad when you have done so little, that you must camp on the successes of others to build your "legacy." And, of course, his lies will not survive the test of time. He is not our first black president (he is half white, after all and has never lived in the "hood").
Rather, he is our first man-child president, filled with Utopian nonsense and an anti-Semitic bias, all while leaning heavily on a profound respect for Islam and the killer religion that it has proven to be. Without faith, secular in his dreams, existential in his allegiance to himself, and grossly inept. What a combination. What a scary combination.
What goes round, comes around and the time for that is now.
 |
| Clearly, Reid did NOT fall of some piece of exercise equipment. Nope. And this is the second time (add 2011) that this sort of "accident" has happened. I think he got smacked around a bit, for being a jerk. |
Guaranteed, blogs such as Midknight Review will never allow the Dems to forget the past 6 years. We need to be fair, but without giving away the farm. For certain, the Progressives would shutdown the GOP, again, if they had the chance. We have learned, over the past six years, how the Democrat Party would rule, if given a chance. Never again (?).
A daily update - a little late in the day, but, hey, it is here. ( An abbreviated version with comments for the brilliant editor of this blog).
| REDLINE |
The Right Stuff In The Morning
Monday, January 26, 2015
Good morning! In the news today: Fiorina, Walker star at conservative cattle call in Iowa; Christie forms a PAC; Palin fails to wow; Obama want to wall off ANWR; McDonough's egregious gaffe; and . . . Mohammed in the Capitol?
Have a great day.
Keith
|
and bookmark it for use each time you make a purchase. REDLINE and White House Dossier will receive a percentage of the price of your purchase, but it doesn't cost you a thing! Thanks for your support. |
|
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)