Obama is snubbed for the second time by Russian President Putin. "Reset the Russian/American relationship" my . . . . . . but it ain't true.

<<<<<  Note the love and respect on Putin's face as he listen's to Obama wax elegant.  This is July 7, 2009, the date of the first snub. Putin sent Obama's arch enemy,  George Bush,  "best wishes" just 24 hours earlier,  while Obama was in flight to meet Putin.  If you do not see the insult in this,  it is because you are a moron.  

Remember the G8 Summit,  held on Friday and Saturday at Camp David,  before the Sunday G20 in Chicago this past week?  Remember Putin declining to attend either the G8 or the G20,  choosing, rather, to send his #2 man, instead?  Remember Obama's claim,  this past week, in which he declared world wide respect for the United States,  something for which he is personally responsible?  Remember that idiot "reset button,"  a toy someone on his staff went out and bought and presented to Russian leadership?

Well,  what you do not remember,  because it was never reported by the Lame Stream Media,  is the fact that the newly elected "president" Putin,  also  turned down a one-on-one meeting with Barack "The Naive" Obama,  who had planned a meeting with Putin,  "on the side,"  while at Camp David,  a meeting designed by Obama to discuss bilateral and international issues effecting the singular relation between the Russians and the United States.  Keep in mind that this is two weeks after Obama promised to be "more flexible" with the Russians,  after the coming elections.

Did I say that Putin said "No" to this meeting?  We learned of this diplomatic snafu from the Singapore Press, yesterday.

And this is not the first Putin snub of Barackie Obama.

On July 6th,  Putin sent this memo to President George W Bush while Obama was flying over to Europe to "reset" the relationship with the Russians :

"During the last years we have been working on strengthening Russia-U.S. cooperation. Although there were differences between our countries, I always valued your openness and sincerity," Putin said, congratulating Bush on his 63rd birthday on July 6.   "With special warmth I recall your hospitality in the Crawford ranch and your family estate in Kennebunkport," Putin wrote, referring to their 2007 meeting at the Bush family vacation home when the two leaders went fishing and ate lobster.

You can click to enlarge. Make note of Putin's
facial expression as Obama says whatever he
is saying.  This is a Times picture taken of the
July 7, 2009 meeting. 
What is "special" about this greeting,  is that it was  (a) sent to Obama's declared domestic enemy,  George Bush,  and (b) it was sent at precisely the same time Barackie was traveling to Europe to meet with Putin [the next day - July 7] and other European leaders. The birthday wish was as in-your-face an insult,  as insults get.  You can almost see Putin smiling as he sends off this greeting.  Understand that he and Bush were hardly "pals"  but they had a working relationship that was based upon mutual respect and you see that respect in the "birthday greeting," above.  "Reset" was an ill-advised fantasy of the Left and this "first insult" episode proves that point.       

I cannot over-emphasize this point  [did you notice?] :  to be sending this greeting while Obama was in flight to Europe was almost more than an insult, so much so that the Obama Media did not report the circumstance nor has it ever tied the two events together . . . . . . . . . . . . Putin sending George  W.  birthday greeting while Barackie "I hate Bush's guts" Obama was in the air, on his way to the July 7th meeting.  

Oh, by the way,  the July 7th meeting was declared a "huge success" by Obama and his subservient media (media members were meeting with White House staff each morning,  at the time).  You can read the media report here.    You should know that absolutely nothing came of this meeting.  

Make note:  as you read the Time's article,  there is not even a hint of the insult sent by Putin,  less than 24 hours, earlier.  

Seriously,  the reset button given to the Russians,
looked very much like this - a plastic toy given
to the Russians in the name of resetting Russian-
American relationships.  Geeeesh. 

Gallup reveals a disturbing fact . . . . . . for the Commander and Chief --- his army does not like him all that much.


<<<<< When it comes to the opinion of our military,  the Marine Times is not an aversion, but a representative fact.  


Here is the bad news:  across the board,  in all age groups,  with retired vets and active military,  Obama is not scoring points needed to win the military vote he commands.  And,  the libs at Gallup have no clue as to why.  




First the bad news: 

Vote Preferences: Male Veterans, April-May 2012

Now, the "we don't have a clue" part: 


Gallup writes:  "Why veterans are so strong in their preference for the Republican presidential candidate is not clear. Previous Gallup analysis has suggested that two processes may be at work. Men who serve in the military may become socialized into a more conservative orientation to politics as a result of their service. . . . . . .  " 

Apparently,  the Gallup people don’t following the news.  Over the years,  we have learned that Obama instituted combat policies that are both very unpopular and , worse,  extremely dangerous for our soldiers. 

First,  he decided to withdraw from Iraq without finishing the job.  Time will tell as to the impact of this decision.

In Afghanistan,  Obama has put in place  a capture and release policy.  If captured enemy forces cannot be transferred to approve detention facilities within a 72 hour period,  they must be released.  If our troops are ambushed near a residential area,  they are not permitted to call in air support.  American forces are no longer permitted to interrogate the enemy.  Our soldiers are not permitted to fight “house to house” when the enemy flees the battlefield to hide in nearby homes.  In some cases,  we have  rendered  Miranda Rights.  But, most telling of all,  is the fact that the Command and Chief cannot define “victory,”  when asked,  and has no intentions of winning the war on the battlefield.  In fact,  he is currently trying to secure a “negotiated peace,”  (code for “surrender) as he releases captured Taliban back onto the battlefield. 
And to think,  Gallup does not understand the “why” attached to its survey.  


Why has CNN decided to separate Trump from the masses? Whatever the reason, the strategy is not working.

Updated for content 
Summary statement:  all of the Obama campaign is about trivia.  Since no one in the Obama camp wants to talk about his record,  they really have nothing important of which to speak.  CNN is currently suffering its worst ratings in history.  The following "news" story is part of the reason.  I am talking about this "report"  because of its sheer nonsensical nature. Understand that this post is not about Romney and Trump, but about Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dumb at CNN.  

News Alert !!!  Romney Likes Trump !!!  

/ CNN:
Romney doesn't back away from ‘birther’ Trump  —  (CNN) - Mitt Romney said Monday he wasn't concerned about Donald Trump's commitment to the “birther” conspiracy, one day before the GOP presidential candidate hosts a fund-raiser alongside the celebrity business magnate.
Discussion: Politico

Editor’s note:  what a ridiculous headline and story,  and the talking heads at CNN wonder why their ratings trail the likes of MSNBC and Headline News.  Maybe it has something to do with its reporting.  An example of the idiocy that passes for a national news story,  is that which is referenced above.  Understand that no one cares what Romney thinks of The Donald,  certainly not Trump or Romney.  And, the story itself, embraces half truths and accusations that are simply untrue.  


For starters,  Trump is not a birther.  He just wanted to see Obama’s birth certificate,  something that took the Chief  four freaking years to produce when anyone else could have produced theirs in a matter of minutes.  Secondly,  there is no "comspiracy" as to the "birther" theme.  In fact,  near as this conservative pundit can see,  the issue is a dead issue.  I believe there is a good chance Obama's birth certificate is phony,  but that is just me.  I have not written a story on the issue in since Obama presented his certificate.  Additionally,   Donald Trump, himself,  is over-rated.  Is he a key player within the conservative movement?  Absolutely not, unless, of course, you think Dick Lugar and Arnold and the midget mayor of New York City,  Michael Bloomberg, are true conservatives.   But, for certain,  he is one who can get under the thin skin of B. Obama,  and Donald does that better than any conservative can.    I mean,  he got Obama to cough up his birth certificate.  Now,  he has brought up the issue surrounding the man’s transcripts.    

To demonstrate just how ridiculous this article is,  it was picked up by only one media source,  the equally ridiculous Politico.   Will Trump continue demanding truth from Obama?  Will Romney continue to refuse the Left as it seeks to invalidate him at every turn?  Will Obama continue to misrepresent himself and his personal ideology?  Will Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dumb ever acquire a sense for the interests of its audience?  

Side bar:  understand that if Donald Trump is anything,  he is a businessman,  and his disdain for B Obama is grounded in the notion that - as relates to business/economic issues - Barack  is as uninformed, after four years - any president in history.  That is Trump's motivation.   In fact,  most of the nation sees the problem.  

We understand why Obama is failing to act against Iran, but Israel? We just might have the answer to that question . . . . . and it is the baddest computer virus in the Cosmos

It is clear to this blogger that folks within the Bush very secret service, helped to develop a virus that is 20 times more potent than the famous Stuxnet virus that shut down much of Iran's nuclear project a couple of years ago.  It just might prove to be Obama's savior.  Time will tell.  Meanwhile,  let's see how long it takes for Obama to  (a) take credit for the virus and (b) to expose those who helped in its development, you know,  like he did with the Yemenite double agent,  Seal Team Six and the Pakistani doctor who helped locate Osama bin Laden.  

A new, unprecedented computer virus called “Flame” (or “sKyWIper”) has hit Iran, the West Bank, and other Middle Eastern locations. It is already considered one of the most sophisticated cyber weapons ever unleashed. Internet security company Kaspersky said Monday that Flame was the “most complex piece of malicious software discovered to date.”     The cyber-espionage worm, designed to collect and delete sensitive information, is said to have 20 times as much code as Stuxnet, which attacked an Iranian uranium enrichment facility (and some 16,000 computers), causing centrifuges to fail. Iran blamed Israel and the US for its creation.  Flame is also believed to contain an element that was used in Stuxnet. Kaspersky said the Flame malware may have been lurking inside thousands of computers across the Middle East for between five and eight years. The creator of the virus is not yet known. . . . . . The country with the largest number of machines infected by Flame is believed to be Iran, following by the West Bank, and Sudan and Syria after that. Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt have also been affected.

Source site: the Times of Israel here. 

_______________________________

In a PDF technical report on the virus,  the University of Budapest gave us this excerpt in its larger report found here. 

Our first insight suggests that sKyWIper is another info-stealer malware with a modular structure incorporating multiple propagation and attack techniques, but further analysis may discover components with other functionalities. In addition, sKyWIper may have been active for as long as five to eight years, or even more. sKyWIper uses compression and encryption techniques to encode its files. . . . . . . . . . sKyWIper has very advanced functionality to steal information and to propagate. Multiple exploits and propagation methods can be freely configured by the attackers. Information gathering from a large network of infected computers was never crafted as carefully as in sKyWIper. The malware is most likely capable to use all of the computers’ functionalities for its goals. It covers all major possibilities to gather intelligence, including keyboard, screen, microphone, storage devices, network, wifi, Bluetooth, USB and system processes.
The results of our technical analysis support the hypotheses that sKyWIper was developed by a government agency of a nation state with significant budget and effort, and it may be related to cyber warfare activities. sKyWIper is certainly the most sophisticated malware we encountered during our practice; arguably, it is the most complex malware ever found.  

On this day, Memorial Day, let us not forget those who fought for this country and those Democrat leaders of today, who have hated the historic United States of America and the economic system that has made this country the greatest nation of all time.


<<<< Our original Baby  Boomer First Couple and part of the Marxist collegiate cabal that began working for the other-throw of the American system in the mid-1960's.  I typify the 1960 radicals (today's Democrat leadership),  "communist,"  because that is what they called themselves.  I know . . . .  I went to college with this bunch of Marxist Misfits.  --  blot editor  

Christ Hayes is a younger Marxist punk whose wife,  Kate Shaw,  is an associate legal counsel for Barack Obama.  Understand that the Boomers employed at MSNBC,  are among those who threw bags of excrement at our returning Viet Nam soldiers,  and, in so many ways,  disparaged those who believed they were fighting for the freedom of others.  I will never forget that is was the likes of John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi and most of the Boomer aged leadership within the Socialist Democrat Party of today, that jointed together as the collegiate Marxist crowd of yesterday (the late 1960’s) in their hatred for this country, its historic and economic base.  Such is the leadership of the party that,  today,  supports B and M Obama in their orchestrated “fundamental transformation” of our great country.      


The "other half" of the Boomer Generation,  remember full well, the tripe that was the New Left, in the 1960 - 70's.  Memorial Day was inaugurated as a memorial for those killed in  the Civil War and was originally called Decoration Day.  Since the defeat of the Democrat controlled South and its hatred for the Black man in this country, this very special day has become a memorial day for all who have died in our several wars.  


Obama,  speaking in a memorial service today (May 28),  mentioned that we had won all the wars in which we have fought.  Of course,  he does not know what he is talking about. The only war we have won, in practical terms, since WWII,  is Iraq under a Republican president. The remaining wars were all defeats,  but not  military defeats.  Korea, Nam,  Somalia and, soon to be Afghanistan,  were/are  not military defeats;  they were/are political debachels having nothing to do with our ability to actually win the particular conflict.  I think it safe to say that we have never lost a war on the battlefield.  


Of the four wars named above, (Korea, Nam,  Somalia and, soon to be Afghanistan),  all were run by Democrat politicians except for the shared responsibility of LBJ/Nixon in Viet Nam.  Of course,  the mother of all wars,  WW II, was an undertaking under Democrat leadership, but,  again,  since that time,  organized anti-war sentiment within the Democrat party has rendered the leadership within that party,  incapable of successfully managing a war  -- to the point that Obama consistently refuses to define "victory"  and the likes of Chris Hayes,  cannot declare one a "hero" for fear of giving allegiance to the concept of war.  
______________________________

Fox News:
A top veterans group called Monday for an "immediate and unequivocal apology" after an MSNBC host said on the eve of Memorial Day that it makes him "uncomfortable" to describe fallen soldiers as heroes. 
Chris Hayes made the comment while kicking off a panel discussion Sunday on his show, "Up With Chris Hayes." 
He noted it's "very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words 'heroes.'" 
Hayes tried to explain why that makes him uneasy: "I feel ... uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war." 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, in addition to a throng of conservative bloggers and groups, slammed Hayes for being so conflicted about the term. 

Six Leftist arguments against the Right reviewed and exposed. Great information for the Right application.



<<<< Don't know what to say when one of your Leftist buds parrots one of her popular arguments against Right thinking? This post might help.  

Original post by Paxton. Original rebuttal by J Smithson, blog editor:  

I Didn’t Vote for Obama in 2008, but I’ll be First To Do So in 2012

By Fay Paxton, cross-posted at The Pragmatic Pundit. (Don't be fooled by the title.  She didn't vote for Obama only because she was traveling in some foreign country - blog editor)

[I don't know what "cross-posted" means.  The fact is this: the original 12 point article was posted at The Pragmatic Pundit.   The Soda Head clowns decided the article was too long for their purposes or too complicated for their readership,  and cut the article to six points,  all of which are borne of a "class warfare" mentality  (I use "mentality" loosely) - blog editor]. 

[Also, you should know that Paxton is a retired real estate executive  -  a woman who made her fortune profiteering via capitalism,  but is now a Leftist center piece bent on the destruction all things capitalistic. Sean Penn, Michael Moore,  Nancy Pelosi, Soda Head, Progressive Pundit, Salon, the Obama's, Elizabeth Warren and so many other progressive entities and personalities,  are all united in their use of capitalism to fund the destruction of capitalism.  Understand this: there is no economic alternative for "upward mobility' within a society other than trickle down, old fashion, capitalism.  Don't believe me?  Talk to the Russians about the seven year plan they worked under for decades, or a financially successful Chinese commie  --  or, better yet,  try interviewing the poor in 'capitalist free' Cuba.  -- blog editor ]. 
  
Ex-capitalist, Fay Paxton begins:  
During the campaign, I was thousands of miles away, but as I watched it unfold, it was painfully obvious to me that America is nowhere near being post-racial and the southern strategy is not dead. I knew, that if elected, Barack Obama would become the object of the keenest scrutiny any President has ever been subjected to and his race, birthplace, indeed birthright and religion would dominate social concerns. America has not disappointed me. . . . . . . . .  I would cast my vote for him in 2012 because his presidency calls upon all the ugliness that this nation needs to face. And there are other reasons:

1. I’ll vote for Obama because I like the idea that Wall Street has soured on the president. . . . . . . . . .  If you believe Obama’s policies are crippling when the stock market has reached an all-time high, you’re an idiot.
[To which I say, "If you believe that Wall Street typifies the economic reality of the "street,"  you are the idiot."] 

2. I’ll vote for Obama because I appreciate the distance of so many members of the 1%. . . . . . . .   Some complain that the wealthy pay 40% of the income taxes…they control 80% of the wealth, so I’m not certain they shouldn’t pay 80% of the taxes. If you live in this country, you pay taxes . . . . .     
[She somehow does not know that the top 26% of this country pay 76% of all taxes;  that the bottom 74% benefit from the equivalent of $2,700 per month 'assistance,' including housing, food stamps,  free education,  and free medical care - with the current system of federal aid,  there is no such thing as "the poor" in a statistical sense, if one attaches a monetary value to federal and local aid ]


3. I’ll vote for Obama to show the elite they can’t buy the government. The likes of Sheldon Adelson can give a candidate $20 million, but he still only has ONE vote. The Koch brothers can finance all the Tea Parties they desire, but in the end, they can each only submit one vote. Voters can defeat Citizens United. My vote for Obama will be a strike against corporate rule.
[She apparently is not aware of the likes of George Soros,  Lewis Cullman, Stephen Bing, Susie Buell, Marcy Carsey, Ted Kennedy and family members,  Peter Lewis,  John Kerry and his two rich wives,   Alida Messinger,   Nancy Pelosi, benefitting from her marriage to rich husband, Paul  (her wealth grew from 21 million in ’09 to 35 million in 2010),  Agnes Varis,   Andrew Rappaport (a venture capitalist) ,  Greg and Maria Jobin-Leeds,   Simon Rosenberg,  Eliabeth Warren (worth 13 million), Linda Pritzker , John Harris IV  --  all members of the "filthy rich club" within the Democrat Party. . . . . . . . . oh,  I forgot to add "Fay Paxton" to this list]  

4. I’ll vote for Obama to uphold and celebrate the diversity that is America; to defy and deny all the racist rhetoric that has consumed the nation since his election. . . . . . . . . . . . . 
[She leaves off the fact that Woodrow Wilson, this nation's first full-blown progressive Democrat president,  re-instated segregation within the military as did FDR.  She forgets to mention that all of the hangings and murders in the South were committed by Democrats and their KKK.  She refuses to admit the fact that the Democrat party ignored its black membership when it came presidential election day, right up to the day they fell in love with the Obama's.   She forgets that the LBJ civil rights bill of 1964 was voted down by a Democrat majority,  during the Eisenhower Administration,  with LBJ driving that negative vote.  She ignores the fact that when the civil rights law was, finally,  passed,  under LBJ,  more Republicans - percentage wise - voted for its passage than Democrats.  And [lets be honest for a moment]  Paxton leaves off the fact that GOP black membership includes no black pundit as ignorant as the likes of Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Cynthia McKinney, Bobby Rush or an organizational concern communist oriented as the Castro loving Congressional Black Caucus ]


5. I’ll vote for Obama because the nation never respected his election, as if they had the right to disregard the votes of millions of Americans; to disavow their voting rights with the delegitimization of a candidate who was duly elected by the people. . . . . . . . .  
[What is so preposterous about this comment is the fact that Paxton and the Marxist hordes within her Social Democrat Party,  did precisely the very thing she complains about in their treatment of George W Bush and Ronald Reagan.  This comment is a trashy mischaracterization of the truth,  even for someone as intelligent as Paxton.]  

6. I’ll vote for Obama because I’ve seen this Republican playbook before; when Clinton was in office and I can’t imagine how anyone could possibly forget, they were “the party of No” then too. Republicans even accused Clinton of murder. . . . . .  They have no respect for the “whole” of America; they think they are the only ones who have a right to govern and will drive America to the brink of destruction for political gain.
[Paxton's  point is nothing short of a [full] load of chunky-style barnyard.   Think about,  and how did Paxton forget (!!!??),  under Clinton,  he and the GOP majority legislated tax reform,  a balanced budget (something the Social Democrats of today oppose), and one of the strongest economies of the modern era.  As to accusing Clinton of murder?  Look, there were rumors of Clinton and murder,  but none of it rose to the level of a "popular opinion."  In fact,  those driving opposition to such rumors were, themselves, members of the Republican party.  I am as Right as you get,  and neither me nor anyone I knew,  busied themselves in making such charges.  Paxton fails to mention that these accusations were investigated by a Republican Special Prosecutor and found to be false  -  but when you are Fay Paxton or any other Progressive, anti-Capitalist, Lefty,  who cares about the truth?   --  besides,  how many times was Bush accused of murder, huh ???  ]  

 _________________________

Source(s): Soda Head  -  a huge Leftist site made up of folks who care nothing for accepted Constitutional values.  The original article (a 12 point polemic, more than the 6 points found at Soda Head) was posted on The Pragmatic Pundit, here and on Paxton's own blog at Salon,  cleverly titled Fay Paxton's Blog.  Salon is in its 17th year and is ranked 663 in the United States,  out of the top on million blogs. Paxton is a retired real estate executive (a capitalist by profession,  busy in her afterlife trashing all things "capitalistic." 

The Pragmatic Pundit is another huge Leftist rag,  but differs from most of the others in that its dedicated mission is the polemic defense of progressivism as a political/moral cause and,  specifically,  Obama's administration of progressivism. 


A Midknight Review Exclusive: Obama caught in a whopper: "I did not promise 8% unemployment" or so states his supporters.

The Obama people, have begun a new phase in their campaign strategy,  one that finds them denying that promises were made limiting unemployment to 8% if the Reinvestment Act (the stimulus) was put into law.  We all heard the man makes such claims, but,  good luck trying to find an existing copy of an Obama video in which he makes the claim. 

Midknight Review did the necessary research to confirm what we already knew to be true,  that Obama,  indeed,  told the American people his stimulus would prevent unemployment in excess of 8%.  Here is the Lie and the truthful rebuttal  (a Midknight Review exclusive): 

The Democrat Lie
From the Liberal Values blog: 
“One of Mitt Romney’s many lies on the economy is a false claim that Obama promised to reduce unemployment to under 8 percent with the stimulus. The 8 percent figure was based upon projections by staffers before the final economic statistics were available. Eight percent unemployment was projected  when data at the time suggested that the GDP had contracted by 3.8 percent in the previous quarter under George Bush. When the final analysis was done it was found that the GDP had actually contracted by 8.9 percent. In other words, things were far worse because of Bush’s policies than was realized at the time leading to staffers to make more optimistic projections. This was not a promise as is being claimed by Romney.”

Now, the truth.   First ,

The Chart

Understand that this chart is a production of Obama and his Economic Council,  chaired by Christiana Romer and Jared Bernstien along with Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers,  and others. That report,  titled  The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,   is the source for both the chart and all of the information used by Obama in his radio address of January 10th.  Both are included,  below.  



Obama’s Radio Address of January 10th
Based on his January 9th Economic Report


Note that Obama begins with " . . . . an economic crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime."  He knew the extent of the crisis.  He just did not know what to do about it,  him and his remaining horde of theorists.  --  blog editor. 



Barack
Barack Obama
The President-Elect's Radio Address

We start this new year in the midst of an economic crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime. We learned yesterday that in the past month alone, we lost more than half a millionjobs– a total of nearly 2.6 million in the year 2008. Another 3.4 million Americans who want and need full-time work have had to settle for part-timejobs. And families across America are feeling the pinch as they watch debts mount, bills pile up and savings disappear.
These numbers are a stark reminder that we simply cannot continue on our current path. If nothing is done, economists from across the spectrum tell us that this recession could linger for years and the unemployment rate could reach double digits – and they warn that our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world.
It's not too late to change course – but only if we take immediate and dramatic action. Our first job is to put people back to work and get our economy working again. This is an extraordinary challenge, which is why I've taken the extraordinary step of working – even before I take office – with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will call for major investments to revive our economy, createjobs, and lay a solid foundation for future growth.
I asked my nominee for Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Christina Romer, and the Vice President-Elect's Chief Economic Adviser, Dr. Jared Bernstein, to conduct a rigorous analysis of this plan and come up with projections of how manyjobsit will create – and what kind ofjobsthey will be. Today, I am releasing a report of their findings so that the American people can see exactly what this plan will mean for their families, their communities, and our economy.
The report confirms that our plan will likely save or create three to four millionjobs. 90 percent of thesejobswill be created in the private sector – the remaining 10 percent are mainly public sectorjobswe save, like the teachers, police officers, firefighters and others who provide vital services in our communities.
Thejobswe create will be in businesses large and small across a wide range of industries. And they'll be the kind ofjobsthat don't just put people to work in the short term, but position our economy to lead the world in the long-term.
We'll create nearly half a millionjobsby investing in clean energy – by committing to double the production of alternative energy in the next three years, and by modernizing more than 75% of federal buildings and improving the energy efficiency of two million American homes. These made-in-Americajobsbuilding solar panels and wind turbines, developing fuel-efficient cars and new energy technologies pay well, and they can't be outsourced.
We'll create hundreds of thousands ofjobsby improving health care – transitioning to a nationwide system of computerized medical records that won't just save money, but save lives by preventing deadly medical errors. And we'll create hundreds of thousands morejobsin education, equipping tens of thousands of schools with 21st century classrooms, labs and computers to help our kids compete with any worker in the world for any job.
We'll put nearly 400,000 people to work by repairing our infrastructure – our crumbling roads, bridges and schools. And we'll build the new infrastructure we need to succeed in this new century, investing in science and technology, and laying down miles of new broadband lines so that businesses across our nation can compete with their counterparts around the world.
Finally, we won't just createjobs, we'll also provide help for those who've lost theirs, and for states and families who've been hardest-hit by this recession. That means bi-partisan extensions of unemployment insurance and health care coverage; a $1,000 tax cut for 95 percent of working families; and assistance to help states avoid harmful budget cuts in essential services like police, fire, education and health care.
Now, given the magnitude of the challenges we face, none of this will come easy. Recovery won't happen overnight, and it's likely that things will get worse before they get better.
But we have come through moments like this before. We are the nation that has faced down war, depression and fear itself – each time, refusing to yield; each time, refusing to accept a lesser fate. That is the spirit that has always sustained us – that belief that our destiny is not written for us, but by us; that our success is not a matter of chance, but of our own courage and determination. Our resources may be finite, but our will is infinite. And I am confident that if we come together and summon that great American spirit once again, we will meet the challenges of our time and write the next great chapter in our American story.
Citation: Barack Obama:"The President-Elect's Radio Address," January 10, 2009.Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley,The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=85391.


Krugman’s Critique

Paul Krugman thought much of this was too optimistic, and registered his criticism of the plan in an article he wrote for the NY Times.  If you read his article,  linked below,  you should note that Krugman is nowhere critical of the assertion that the Stimulus will keep unemployment at 8%,  only that the without the stimulus,  unemployment would, perhaps,  rise above the 9% mark.   Words taken from that brief article include the following: 

"One more point: the estimate of what would happen to the economy in the absence of a stimulus plan seems kind of optimistic. The chart above has unemployment ex-stimulus peaking at 9 percent in the first quarter of 2010 and coming down through the year; the CBO estimates an average unemployment rate of 9 percent for 2010, so the Obama people are more optimistic than the CBO, and a lot more optimistic than I am."

The Krugman article can be found here 



I think this is humorous.  Between the time I found, read and copied parts 
of the Krugman Article,  it was taken down.  The link no longer works,  
proven,  of course,  my supicions that the Leftists are busy cleansing the 
web of the evidence disproving their lie.  I intend to go back and print
out the Economic Councils report, as well.  No doubt it  will be a target 
of the Left's deceit, as well.  --  blog editor. 





See the on-lone copy at the Obama campaign/president elect site here: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=85391&st=jobs&st1=#axzz1OPNVsvHl


You keep hearing that the United States is a "center right" nation." Here is what that is all about -- a lesson Obama needs to learn . . . . . . . . . after the coming election.


Summary: Gallup reports that those who identify as "liberal" and "conservative" apart from political party affiliations,  are on a 23/41 split, respectively,  and "conservative" has always been double [or nearly so] that of the "liberal" element.  This is why the outnumbered Republican party can win national elections - the general population thinks "conservatively."   Because the general population is conservative but not ideologically so,  the liberal Dems can win elections, as well,  as long as they do not cross paths with populace opinion.  Understand that while the populace is "conservative" but not in a principled way (ideology),  it can be fooled via compromise and incrementalism.   

Summary conclusion:  A move to the "Left" is best accomplished incrementally, via comprise  ----   exactly the strategy of the Left (since Woodrow Wilson) until Obama.  In the beginnings of Obama's administration,  he often said "Time for talk is over;  time for action is now."  He no longer uses this phrase.   The phrase served two purposes: one, to tell the Right that things were about to change, and, two, to send a message to his own party members,  telling them that the strategy of incrementalism was no longer the preferred strategy.  

Because Obama abandoned incremental politics and its requisite "compromise,"  the American people can, now, see where the Democrat party is taking this nation.   This coming election is a referendum on that sense of direction.  History - I believe - will record that Obama is the worst thing to hit the Democrat Party in its history.  

Statistical end notes: 

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans are more than twice as likely to identify themselves as conservative rather than liberal on economic issues, 46% to 20%. The gap is narrower on social issues, but conservatives still outnumber liberals, 38% to 28%.
Thinking about economic issues, would you say your views on economic issues are -- [ROTATED: very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal (or) very liberal]? Thinking about social issues, would you say your views on social issues are -- [ROTATED: very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, (or) very liberal]?
These results are based on Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs poll, conducted May 3-6. Since 2001, the poll has asked Americans to say whether they are liberal, moderate, or conservative on "economic" and, separately, "social" issues. The interpretation of what qualifies as social or economic issues is left to the respondent, given that the question does not define or provide examples of these types of issues.
In the same poll, on Gallup's standard measure of ideology -- not asked in reference to any set of issues -- 41% identified themselves as conservatives, 33% as moderates, and 23% as liberals. Those figures are similar to what Gallup typically finds when it asks people to identify their ideology.
Thus, compared with the standard measure of ideology, slightly more Americans say they are economically conservative and slightly fewer say they are socially conservative. Also, significantly more Americans say they are socially liberal than identify their basic ideology as liberal.
More Americans Identifying as Economic Conservatives
Over the last four years, an average of 48% of Americans have said they are conservative on economic issues, including a high of 51% in May 2010. From 2001-2008, an average of 42% said they were economically conservative. This increase in economic conservatism has been coupled with a decline in the percentage who say they are moderate on economic issues. There has also been a slight increase in the percentage of Americans identifying as economic liberals, to a high of 20% this year.

How much damage can a defeated president do to the coal industry in six month? We are about to find out.



<<<< Back then, 2008, he made opposition to the coal issue a matter of ideology and promised to destroy the industry, 30 years before the nation was/is ready to kiss that energy source good-bye,  the poor and middle class folks be damned. 

Then 

In January of 2008, a full year before he took office,   Obama made the following statement:  

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.
What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
[Cap and Trade, then,  is a profit scheme to increase taxable revenues AND a tool to be used in societal engineering - blog editor]

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.
[nearly 45% of this nation's heating and cooling is generated by coal, benefiting 140 million Americans,  most of them middle class to poor, but Obama does not care about that fact and never mentions it in his discussions - blog editor]

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
[Like I said,  he is talking about a huge taxable base.   How dumb is this,  to destroy the coal industry 30 years before "alternative" energy is in a position to replace this lost energy resource?  - blog editor]

The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.    So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.    It’s just that it will bankrupt them.
[Setting aside the fact that his second sentence in the above paragraph is a grammatical mess, he is saying,  "Under my presidency,  coal will no longer be considered (there's the 'ideological' part) a via solution to the heating and cooling needs of the Eastern United States.  Ready or not,  I am taking coal 'off the table.' - blog editor]

Now
(as in 'yesterday,'  May 25)



From the Daily Caller:  

The Environmental Protection Agency held 12 hours of stacked hearings in Washington, D.C. and Chicago on Thursday in favor of a regulation that analysts have concluded would kill the building of new conventional coal plants in the U.S.
Among the participants scheduled to testify in consecutive five minute blocks throughout the day were multiple representatives from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and environmental activists from the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace.

The proposed rule, reported by The Washington Post in March, limits the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by power plants to no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. While the EPA is keeping public comments on the regulation open until June 25, the dice have already been cast by the Obama administration against conventional coal plants, fulfilling a January 2008 campaign promise by the president.

“The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits 800 to 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour,” the Post reported.

Natural gas — a competitor to coal — and the Sierra Club have had historically close financial ties. Natural gas companies paid the Sierra Club $26 million over four years to battle the coal industry. Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune dismissed the connection in a February blog post.

Obama’s own energy policies have also favored the natural gas energy initiatives of major campaign donors, including Warren Buffett, George Soros and T. Boone Pickens.

Hot Air columnist Ed Morrissey wrote that Obama “wants to drive up energy costs in order to make his favored alternatives somewhat competitive, even though none of them can match the production scope of hydrocarbon sources that are found in abundance in the U.S.” . . . . . . .  finish reading the article here. 

________________________

Point of post: 
to set into its historical context, Obama's hatred for fossil fuels,  especially coal;  

to remind the ignorant that he had no specific and immediate plan to replace coal,  only to eliminate coal before his first term is over and worry about its replacement source,  30 years from now; 

to make it clear that all this is a matter of ideology and his statement back in 2008 makes that undeniably clear.  

Lets not forget that after his defeat - should that be the case - in November,  Obama will have nearly 3 months to force his agenda via regulations, upon the American populace,  proving, of course,  that he is an ideologue of monstrous proportion and an enemy of both,  free elections,  and,  the will of the people.