600 More Days of Obama

APTOPIX ObamaBy Alan Caruba

As of May 30, 2011, America has 600 days more of rule by President Barack Hussein Obama.

He is the 44th President and, while we have had incompetent Presidents in the past, we have never had one determined to destroy the nation. It has taken more than two yearsfor most sentient Americans to grasp this extraordinary threat. He has not solved problems. He has exacerbated them.

Granted the financial crisis began in 2008 as President George W. Bush was finishing his second term, but President Obama—aside from blaming Bush for everything that has occurred on his watch—literally tripled the national debt with dubious and failed “stimulus” programs, plunging the nation into debt that rivals all others in our history.

President Obama had a lot of help in getting elected and will no doubt get it in his effort to secure a second term. The mainstream media has utterly debased itself, sounding more like the state monopolies of fascist nations.

On June 6, 2008, a reporter for the Associated Press wrote an article, “These men are likely targets in an anti-Obama campaign”, naming Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, the former Weatherman domestic terrorist, among others. One of them, Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko, an early Obama supporter, was convicted of mail fraud and money laundering the same week the article appeared.

By July 2008, Investor’s Business Daily took note of Obama’s “Stealth Socialism” when he addressed the NAACP using the code words “economic justice” four times to a cheering audience. IBD reported that “‘Economic justice’ simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It’s a euphemism for socialism.”

In October 2008, the Washington Post’s syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer, wrote “I’ll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory.”

With the election days away in November 2008, Sammy Benoit, posted on American Thinker.com, wrote, “Please take a look at these people allied with the Obama campaign. Some of them are anti-Israel; others are anti-Semitic, and anti-Israel.” He named Samantha Power who had “called for an invasion of Israel to impose a solution to the Palestinian issue.” Obama’s open hostility toward Israel in recent days demonstrates how prescient Benoit was.

Shortly after the election, Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post’s reporter on the media asked “Are the media capable of merchandizing the moment, packaging a president-elect for profit? Yes, we are.” Then he touched on the key role the media had played leading up to Obama’s election and afterward. “We seem to have crossed a cultural line into myth-making.”

“Whew! Are journalists fostering the notion that Obama is invincible, the leader of what the New York Times dubbed ‘Generation O’?” asked Kurtz.

In rapid succession, with some rejections, President Obama filled not only his cabinet posts, but added an astonishing level of advisors, quickly dubbed “czars”, to the White House. Their ranks included the true believers in the global warming hoax including a former Environmental Protection Agency director who had just resigned from a post as commissioner for the Socialist International Commission for a Sustainable World Society. Czars and cabinet members all represented the antithesis of moderation.

Moderation is not a word anyone would apply to the Obama administration. By February 18, 2009, political guru, Karl Rove, pointed out that “Less than 700 hours after taking the oath of office, President Barack Obama signed the largest spending bill in American history.”

His eligibility to hold the office was already an issue by February 2009 and it is not going to go away. Dr. Jerome Corsi’s new book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” is a New York Times bestseller, its sale buoyed by widespread and growing concerns that Obama, under the terms set form by the U.S. Constitution, was not and is not eligible. Not only are there questions about his alleged birth certificate, but his Connecticut Social Security number as well.

After “Obamacare” was literally reamed through the House and Senate on a strict party-line vote, the public began to have some serious concerns. The massive assault on Medicare would bring a million people to Washington, D.C., to protest it prior to the vote and would spark the Tea Party movement. By November 2010, control of the House would return to the Republican Party and Democrats had lost members in the Senate.

By early 2011, Wall Street Journal columnist, Daniel Henninger, commented on Obama’s dwindling “likeability gap” citing the passage of time. “Obama.2008 was engaging, patient, open, optimistic, and a self-identified conciliator. Obama.2011 has been something else—testy, petulant, impatient, arrogant and increasingly a divider.”

As voters begin to scan the November 2012 horizon, Henniger wrote “Never forget: That historic 2008 victory came with 52.9% of the total vote and 52% of independent voters. David Axelrod recently noted ‘how small the margin for error is.’”

By April 2011, Gallup reported that “Barack Obama’s approval among the poorest Americans dropped to an all-time low of 48 percent…leaving the president with less-than-majority approval among all income brackets reported in Gallup’s presidential approval surveys.” Rasmussen polling showed the same numbers.

On August 9, 1974, Richard M. Nixon resigned the office of the presidency, the first to do so in the nation’s history. The sordid events dubbed “Watergate” forced his hand. Earlier, Lyndon B. Johnson had told voters he would not run for reelection after his pursuit of the war in Vietnam had turned them against him.

It is not beyond the realm of the possible that Barack Hussein Obama may find himself in increasing difficulty in the remaining 600 days of his first and likely last term in office.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

Joplin Aftermath: Congressman Billy Long Didn’t Take Tornado Preparedness Seriously

00-bowler-5-29By Clay Bowler

As the sun rises on Joplin, Missouri this morning, we are reminded once again why we take emergency preparedness seriously. Within just minutes, what was one of the busiest districts in the Route 66 town was quickly leveled by a mile-wide F4 tornado.

It is important to note, in recent months Congressman Billy Long discounted and attempted to weaken the systems in place set up to protect people from the devastating tornado that hit his district yesterday afternoon. Obviously, there are systems in place to increase your chances of survival and tools for first responders to quickly warn and help those in needs. Congressman Long has attacked both.

During statewide tornado drills in March 2010, Long quickly passed the drills off as over the top on Twitter.

00-bowler2-5-29

KTTS just had detailed Tornado Warning TEST – take cover in the following counties, get in a ditch, yada yada – War of The Worlds PartDuex? about 4 hours ago via mobile web

What was a joke for Long is not a joke for Joplin, Missouri. War of the Worlds Part Duex, a F4 tornado, which some claim was a multi-vortex tornado, has taken out a large section of homes and businesses in Long’s own home district. How many lives were saved all because the state of Missouri has a day to remind people of procedures that may save their lives. This was no time for inspiration from Bozo.

Last night’s storm also reminds of the importance of first responders on HAM radios, mobilizing injury prevention and first response before and after the storm. Long’s co-sponsorship of HR607, the federal emergency broadband bill, weakens this first responder network by removing valuable HAM frequencies that were used yesterday to spot tornadoes, get people to take shelter, and mobilize emergency efforts, but Long’s bill he co-sponsored would make it harder for these HAM radio operators to perform this valuable service.

Joplin resident Duane Graham writes:

The Springfield News-Leader wrote:

The amateur radio enthusiasts have [sic] for the most part spend their own money, use their own equipment, and spend hours of their time training and volunteering during emergencies. They say that losing this frequency would require costly changes to their infrastructure and equipment, and could jeopardize their ability to assist during emergencies…

The section emergency coordinator for Missouri’s Amateur Radio Emergency Service, Kenneth Baremore, reportedly said,

every time there is a tornado watch, local ham radio operators assist the National Weather Service and emergency management offices until it passes.

The paper also reported:

Part of the system is a repeater network, set up with antennas throughout southwest Missouri, that radio operators use to communicate from Springfield to Rolla, Joplin and Nevada.

Most interesting is Long’s explanation, as reported by the News-Leader:

…when asked about the provision in the bill that would sell off the frequency used by amateur radio operators, Long said that was news to him. He said he co-sponsored the bill because [Peter] King, the homeland security chairman, asked him to and because the bill is supported by many organizations that are committed to public safety, something he values.

Committed to public safety? Billy Long? The same guy who made fun of the tornado drills set up for public safety?

Long’s own ignorance of bills he co-sponsors and need for attention through a not even clever one-liner on Twitter or at a microphone could be costly the next time a tornado hits his Missouri 7 district. Billy Long hasn’t taken storm safety, not has he studied the systems in place designed for the public safety–that aren’t federally mandated. Let’s hope one good thing to come out of the Joplin tornado is Billy Long wakes up to how local efforts in both the state and the community work to keep people alive. Maybe then, Long will actually consider reading a bill before he co-sponsors it and discovers the impact it may have on emergency preparedness in the Ozarks.

Originally posted at Bungalow Bill’s Conservative Wisdom © Clay Bowler

The Gang that Couldn’t Negotiate Straight

By Michael R. Shannon

Obama-Netanyahu3It was somewhat disconcerting last week to witness the man our MSM assures us is the essence of cool, calm and collected resorting to the Redneck Philanderer’s defense.

Yet there was President Obama — at the AIPAC conference — defending his latest Mideast stumble by essentially asking the 10,000 member audience if they were going to believe him or their lying eyes.

This is what happens when your governing style tends toward pronouncements from on high. Obama sabotaged his latest peace plans by making the unprecedented declaration that any final agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority “should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”

Government by edict is very popular under this administration and remains a big hit with unelected, unresponsive regulatory agencies, but it is markedly less popular outside Obama’s amen corner.

During a White House meeting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu informed Obama that the ’67 lines were indefensible and he has no intention of agreeing to Obama’s pre–condition.

The photos from that meeting are priceless. While Netanyahu was dissecting Obama’s latest fantasy–based initiative, Obama stares at him like a petulant, sulky adolescent. You can almost see him thinking, “Yeah, well wait ‘til I tell Hillary, then we’ll see who’s the big talker.”

Which is why Obama was at the AIPAC conference explaining that what he said didn’t really mean what he said.

An excellent rule of thumb for evaluating the sincerity of any Obama statement is this simple test: if his position would garner a unanimous vote of approval in the Harvard faculty lounge, Obama really means it.

AIPAC attendees take note.

In an earlier AIPAC speech during the 2008 campaign, Obama proclaimed to wild applause that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” That firm commitment lasted until he left the building and was criticized by leftists and pro–Arab pressure groups. Now Jerusalem will be part of a joint custody arrangement — the kind where both parties have restraining orders.

Arabs are just as pleased with this new pre–negotiation condition as they were over Obama’s last edict that instructed Israel to ban any new “settlement” construction.

The 1967 lines are not actually like the border that exists between say the US and Mexico. (For one thing, Israel guards its border, even though Arabs are willing to do the exploding Jews don’t want to do.)

These boundaries represent where the Arab attack in the 1948 war stopped and where the Arabs intended to renew their attack in 1967. Obama’s endorsement of these lines serves to fix the total number of square miles of territory each side will possess in a final agreement even before negotiations start.

If Israel needs to annex so much as a truck garden on the right side of the ’67 line it has to give up an equal amount of land on the left side of the line on a one–for–one basis.

Size matters when it comes to security and unfortunately the pro–Israel side has made a mistake in metaphors. Supporters in the US often compare Israel’s size to that of New Jersey. Conservatives hear that startling fact and realize Israel has no margin for error. In the event of an attack the Israelis can’t trade space for time to organize a defense.

People like Obama hear that and conclude that since New Jersey is protected by a handful of state troopers, Israel can be, too.

And that’s not the most bizarre of Obama’s fixations.

It’s amazing he believes you can have negotiations at all. Successful agreements require two sides to negotiate in good faith. Yet the Palestinian Authority does not even recognize the existence of Israel and has just formed a coalition government with Hamas, a group who’s charter also refuses to recognize Israel and further calls for the destruction of both Israel and the Jews. There is even a question whether the US can have any dealings with the new coalition, since the State Department lists Hamas as a terrorist organization.

It could be that since Obama says many things he does not mean, he assumes the PA and Hamas do likewise, but cemeteries in Israel prove him wrong.

Back in the 90’s then Secretary of State James Baker – no friend of Israel – gave some advice that could prove useful to Obama. In testimony before Congress he said, “Everybody over there should know that the [White House] telephone number is 1–202–456–1414. When you’re serious about peace call us.”

The President just needs to make sure it’s a conference call.
Michael R. Shannon is a public relations, advertising and political consultant with experience around the globe. He is also a popular speaker and can be reached at michael–shannon@comcast.net.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrshannon
http://www2.insidenova.com/topics/types/person/tags/michael-r-shannon/

Has Romney Been Chosen To Lose To Obama?

by J. D. Longstreet

election-2012It is becoming clear (at least to me) that Mitt Romney will be the GOP’s choice to lose to Obama in November of 2012.

OK, before you blast me for speaking ill of another republican (In the spirit of full disclosure – I AM a republican.) if you haven’t already figured it out – I do not care for Mitt Romney, as a candidate for President of the United States.  Its not a big stretch for me… as I also did not care for his father, George Romney, when HE ran for President way back in 1968 … right up til he dropped out of the Primary in late February, or early March.

“Two weeks before the March 12 primary, an internal poll showed Romney losing to Nixon by a six-to-one margin in New Hampshire. Rockefeller, seeing the poll result as well, publicly maintained his support for Romney but said he would be available for a draft; the statement made national headlines and embittered Romney (who would later claim it was Rockefeller’s entry, and not the “brainwashing” remark, that doomed him). Seeing his cause was hopeless, Romney announced his withdrawal as a presidential candidate on February 28, 1968. Romney wrote his son Mitt, still away on missionary work: “Your mother and I are not personally distressed. As a matter of fact, we are relieved. … I aspired, and though I achieved not, I am satisfied.” (SOURCE)

The “brainwashing remark” referenced above in my opinion, underscores the old adage: “Like father; like son.”  Mitt’s father, George, had problems with “flip-flopping” just as his son does today.  It cost him any chance he might have had at winning the GOP nomination for President.  Here’s what happened:

“On August 31, 1967, in a taped interview with talk show host Lou Gordon of WKBD-TV in Detroit, Romney stated: “When I came back from Viet Nam [in November 1965], I’d just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get.” He then shifted to opposing the war: “I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop Communist aggression in Southeast Asia.” Decrying the “tragic” conflict, he urged “a sound peace in South Vietnam at an early time.” Thus Romney disavowed the war and reversed himself from his earlier stated belief that the war was “morally right and necessary.

Eight other governors who had been on the same 1965 trip as Romney said no such activity had taken place, with one of them, Philip H. Hoff of Vermont, saying Romney’s remarks were “outrageous, kind of stinking … Either he’s a most naïve man or he lacks judgment.” The connotations of brainwashing, following the experiences of American prisoners of war (highlighted by the 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate), made Romney’s comments devastating, especially as it reinforced the negative image of Romney’s abilities that had already developed.” (SOURCE)

(As a side note:  Mitt’s father, George Romney was born in Mexico. Yet, George Romney was a candidate for President of the United States in the primary in 1968. He was born on July 8, 1907 to American parents in the Mormon colonies in Mexico; events during the Mexican Revolution forced his family to move back to the United States when he was a child.) (SOURCE)

Now, I realize all this dates me… and that’s OK.  If it has any importance, at all, it is that I feel as though I have been down the same road with Mitt Romney’s father, George, and I do not care to travel that same hilly, curvy road again.  Then Governor Jim Rhodes of Ohio said, “Watching George Romney run for the presidency was like watching a duck try to make love to a football.”

As difficult as it may seem to believe, for those who did not witness George Romney’s campaign back in the sixties, for those of us who did — there is reason to believe the campaign of his son Mitt will not be that different.

We need an assertive candidate, a candidate sure of himself, without a record of flip-flopping all over the map. I just do not see that in Mitt Romney.

Here in the South, the mention of Romney’s name tends to bring on “rolling of the eyes.”  He is a northeasterner, and a Mormon. That is two out of three strikes for him before the first vote is cast.  If he ever gets to the Oval Office he will do so without the support of the majority of the southern states.  THAT is a near impossible. A number of religious denominations in the south will never vote for a Mormon under any circumstances the human brain can devise.  His campaign will be hard pressed to devise a winning strategy without the southern states.

I understand how difficult this is to read for Romney supporters, but there it is.

So, who can win against Obama?  None of the republican candidate announced, so far. But, I think it is interesting, and important, that the Obama campaign has begun digging into the past of Chris Christie, the current governor of New Jersey, and Christie says he is NOT going to run.  But – if Obama is concerned enough that Christie might change his mind and run, anyway, then that tells me the Obama campaign fears Chris Christie and I LIKE THAT!

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at “INSIGHT on Freedom” at: http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

By the Numbers

by Doug Edelman

by-the-numbersPundits, wonks, politicos and analysts will often toss around a lot of numerical data in making their points or providing their analysis… but they often cite the raw data without realizing that the vast bulk of their audience does not comprehend the numbers and their eyes glaze over! They’re just now starting to grasp the difference between millions and billions, and they haven’t yet inculcated the concept of a trillion into their collective consciousness!

As a public service, I will distill some of the current numerical dialogue into terms that the average citizen should be well able to comprehend and analyze its impact.

Let’s begin with the basics. A million is 1000 thousand. A million dollars will buy between 5 and 8 typical family homes. A million dollars represents about 20 years of earnings for the average family. A million dollars is 10,000 $100 bills. A million dollars will fit into a briefcase.

A billion is 1000 million. A billion dollars in $100 bills would take up 12 shipping pallets stacked 7 feet high. If we round off the population of the USA to 250 Million people, then you would have to take $4 from every man, woman and child to make one Billion dollars. Remember that fact as we will use it in our discussion.

A trillion is 1000 billion. That means a trillion is one million million. Imagine 12,000 shipping pallets stacked 7 feet high with $100 bills. Imagine a 200 car railroad train loaded to capacity with $100 bills! You’d have to take $4000 from every man, woman and child to make a trillion.

Remember, whenever government talks about a billion dollars, think $4 to you. When they talk about a trillion, think about $4000 of your own money.

So now, let’s do some analysis.

Remember Bush’s $87 billion request for the military to run 2 wars? The one Kerry voted for before voting against it? That would have cost you $348 (at $4 per billion as discussed above.)

How about the awful Bush deficits that made him the “worst president ever”?

The worst deficit that Bush had with a GOP congress was in 2003 after 9/11, 2 wars and the dot.com bubble burst. It was around $420 billion dollars. $1680 cost to you.

The 2003 tax cuts did what tax cuts always do, they increased revenues, and the deficit was reduced each of the following years so that by the time power shifted to the Pelosi/Reid congress in January 2007, the deficit had been reduced to under $120 Billion – or $360 to you.

How about the National Debt?

Bush took office with the National Debt of $4 trillion. That’s $16000 debt for you.

In his first 6 years, he added 2 Trillion to the national debt and was harshly and rightly criticized for increasing our debt by 50% in 6 years. This brought our debt to $6 trillion, or $24000 to you.

Pelosi and Reid took the reins of Congress. In 2 years the 110th congress added $3 trillion to the debt. That increased the debt by another 50% in just 2 years. That increased your share by another $12000. Bush took 6 years to add 2 trillion with a GOP congress, but with a Democrat congress they added 3 Trillion in 2 years.

Then we elected Barack Obama.

In the first 2 years of the Obama Administration, the Pelosi-Reid 111th congress added 5 TRILLION DOLLARS to the debt. They borrowed more in 2 years than ALL 42 presidents before Bush COMBINED! They increased the debt more in 2 years than was accumulated in the first 224 years of the United States!

That $5 Trillion increase brought our debt to 14 Trillion. That’s $56,000 of debt for every man, woman and child in the USA. If you thought things were bad in 2006 when we turned control over to the Democrats, realize that your share of the National debt has, in 4 short years, gone from $24000 to $56000! Is this helping you to put it all into perspective? Are you recognizing the impact that 4 years of Democrat dominance of Congress, and 2 years of a democrat congress and presidency has had on you personally?

Back to deficits for a moment.

Remember that Bush’s WORST deficit with a GOP congress was 420 billion, and that was reduced to $120 billion by the time Pelosi/Reid took power. In their first year at the helm of congress, they more than tripled the previous year’s deficit to $450 billion. That was the best they did in the 4 years they had both houses of congress. And it was 30 billion worse than Bush’s WORST deficit in his first 6 years!

But they were just getting started.

Remember that Bush’s $120 billion deficit in 2006 represented a cost to you of $360.

In their second year, Pelosi Reid tripled their first year’s deficit, and brought our deficit over the unheard of TRILLION dollar mark. The deficit that year was actually $1.2 Trillion, or $4800 to you. That’s right, in 2 years they brought your personal share of the annual deficit from $360 to $4800.

This year, the deficit is $1.7 Trillion, or $6800 to you. They are DEFICIT spending almost $7000 for every person in the country. That means that after they spend EVERY DOLLAR that they actually COLLECT in taxes, they keep spending, and borrowing at that level.

Now think back to the budget debate.

Our budget is around 3.5 Trillion a year ($14,000 for each of us). “Discretionary Spending” represents about $1.3 trillion. (That’s about $5200 to you). That includes our military, and the non-entitlement departments, agencies, bureaus and programs. The remainder (2.2 Trillion) represents our entitlement transfers of wealth, and interest on the debt. So the government spends $8800 a year for each one of us, taking from Peter who works, to pay Paul who doesn’t – and to pay the interest on financing the whole scheme!

And yet, the Senate Democrats can’t even agree to cut the 3.5 trillion dollar budget by $100 Billion. They couldn’t bring themselves to reduce your deficit share of $6800 by a lousy $400.

So, now when you hear democrats saying Bush and the GOP are worse than Obama and the Democrats, you can share this information! When they tell you our hardships today were inherited from Bush, you can share this information. And when the politicos and wonks throw numbers around, you can translate them into numbers that make sense! Just remember $4 per billion, $4000 per trillion.

Copyright © 2011 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political analyst and commentator, and was a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice. His work has appeared on ChronWatch, Western Front American, Small Government Times, Western Journalism, News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House and more. Mr. Edelman is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://starboard.blogtownhall.com.