There is a never ending "updating" of economic data issued by Washington with the said "updating" often lowering the previously released good news embraced by the Obama White House. Unfortunately, this "updating" has happened again with the target this time being the growth of the American economy during this past third quarter.
Originally the Obama Administration proclaimed that the national economic growth in the 3rd quarter of 2009 was at the rate of 3.5% which it later lowered to 2.8% and which it has now very quietly reduced even lower to the figure of 2.2%. If the last figure is accepted, then some acknowledgement must be given that either the Obama actions of this past year have allowed only a marginal recovery or that the economy runs on its own efforts with those efforts now showing some success or these figures are nice but meaningless when compared to other economic indicators.
There is no question that America still faces a very high unemployment rate which Washington states to be at 10% while almost all other economists see at a 17% figure. There also have been many "busted" banks in America this year, with more expected, and the average American consumer remains over leveraged.
Most of the economic good news, and that particularly includes the "rocketing" of the sale of previously owned homes, is not the result of natural growth but rather by programs "fueled by federal aid". This "fueling" is merely the spending of money borrowed from Communist China or the spending of money created by the Obama Congress. In either event, these funds will have to be repaid and will curtail real growth in the future.
No real American wishes for or encourages these now years of economic disaster. However, the Obama power brokers have realized the opportunities now presenting themselves to expand the powers of a federal government and to push all of us closer to a socialist government/economy.
The importance of the 2010 elections grows every day
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
OBAMA DOES NOT EQUAL TRUTH
No matter how much President Obama smiles and publicly pronounces that the American economy has seen its worse days, the truth always seems to surface and to refute the statements of our President. It happened again today.
The Labor Department has just released data concerning matters pertaining to last month's economy and the news ran counter to Obama's recent optimistic representations. It has been disclosed that during this past November wholesale prices increased 1.8%. This inflationary figure is more than two (2) times greater than what the Department had previously prognosticated. Key items contributing to this unexpected rise in costs included the wholesale expense of energy which rose by 6.9% and the wholesale expense of food items which were up by 2.4%.
Not helping in any way to bolster the mood of Americans, in a most recent speech Ben Bernanke expressed that our nation was confronted with "formidable headwinds" as it seeks economic recovery. In that same presentation he confirmed his belief that the recent drop in American unemployment to 10.0% would be short lived. His full expectation was that this not-working number would increase in size as the months of 2010 proceed. Not helping to defuse this bad news was the data release on foreclosures. In 2009 some 3,900,000 mortgage foreclosure notices were sent to US property owners. This is an increase of 22% over the 2008 total for the same type of legal document. Leading the way in the number of recently filed foreclosures were Nevada [1 in every 119 housing units is being foreclosed] and Florida [1 in every 165 housing units is being foreclosed].
The year 2010 will soon be upon us and the change in the number of the year number will, unfortunately, not bring about a change in the White House or in the Senate or in the House of Representatives. However, as November of the year 2010 approaches, those goals of significant governmental change become every day closer and more realistic.
The Labor Department has just released data concerning matters pertaining to last month's economy and the news ran counter to Obama's recent optimistic representations. It has been disclosed that during this past November wholesale prices increased 1.8%. This inflationary figure is more than two (2) times greater than what the Department had previously prognosticated. Key items contributing to this unexpected rise in costs included the wholesale expense of energy which rose by 6.9% and the wholesale expense of food items which were up by 2.4%.
Not helping in any way to bolster the mood of Americans, in a most recent speech Ben Bernanke expressed that our nation was confronted with "formidable headwinds" as it seeks economic recovery. In that same presentation he confirmed his belief that the recent drop in American unemployment to 10.0% would be short lived. His full expectation was that this not-working number would increase in size as the months of 2010 proceed. Not helping to defuse this bad news was the data release on foreclosures. In 2009 some 3,900,000 mortgage foreclosure notices were sent to US property owners. This is an increase of 22% over the 2008 total for the same type of legal document. Leading the way in the number of recently filed foreclosures were Nevada [1 in every 119 housing units is being foreclosed] and Florida [1 in every 165 housing units is being foreclosed].
The year 2010 will soon be upon us and the change in the number of the year number will, unfortunately, not bring about a change in the White House or in the Senate or in the House of Representatives. However, as November of the year 2010 approaches, those goals of significant governmental change become every day closer and more realistic.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
MULTIPLE THOUGHTS
What has to be taken as a positive political sign for anti-Obama conservatives, a third incumbent Democrat Congressman has announced that he will not stand for re-election in November of 2010. These three "retiring" folks are Baird of Washington, Moore of Kansas and Tanner of Tennessee. The Republican Party has clearly embraced these openings with full intent to have the seats become occupied by a member of its Party. As we enter into 2010, fully expect that more Democrats will humbly announce, that for their personal best interests and the best interests of their home district, no reelection campaign will be made.
With the 2010 elections less than a year away, Democrats want to implement a financial debt act now so that it will be forgotten or at least minimized by time voters enter the polls this coming November. This legislation is the raising of the ceiling on the national debt. The current allowed total US debt is $12.1 Trillion and that figure has already been reached. To "balance the books", the Democrats will in next few days raise the national debt by another $1.8 Trillion. In real figures that will be a total short, money owed by all us Americans to others like Communist China and OPEC, in the total amount of $13,900,000,000,000.00.
Considering this huge Federal debt as well as other negative aspects of the American economy, Ken Rogoff, who is a noted Harvard economist and an IMF Department Director, has said that he does not easily see "the kind of robust recovery" in the immediate future of America that will "generate 10-11 million jobs". His thoughts have been that in matters concerning unemployment and housing, "it is going to get worst" particularly as Federal support programs "in time will have to fade".
Finally, a most recent article by Monica Crowley placed before her readers a very somber view of Obama's most recent Afghanistan decree. The article is titled Unserious Afghan Approach and in just those few words perfectly describes Obama's efforts in this war effort. Her emphasis was on how weak Obama had appeared. Key points included that Obama is "just not into it" referring to the military efforts in that region of the world. An apt comparison was also made to Jimmy Carter, another weak Democratic President, when Obama was assigned Carter's "hapless and halfhearted politics". In a obvious reference to the coming elections of 2010 and 2012, Ms Crowley stated that "weak Presidents are neither respected nor electorally rewarded".
November of this year will, with any luck, certainly confirm these feelings of Monica Crowley.
With the 2010 elections less than a year away, Democrats want to implement a financial debt act now so that it will be forgotten or at least minimized by time voters enter the polls this coming November. This legislation is the raising of the ceiling on the national debt. The current allowed total US debt is $12.1 Trillion and that figure has already been reached. To "balance the books", the Democrats will in next few days raise the national debt by another $1.8 Trillion. In real figures that will be a total short, money owed by all us Americans to others like Communist China and OPEC, in the total amount of $13,900,000,000,000.00.
Considering this huge Federal debt as well as other negative aspects of the American economy, Ken Rogoff, who is a noted Harvard economist and an IMF Department Director, has said that he does not easily see "the kind of robust recovery" in the immediate future of America that will "generate 10-11 million jobs". His thoughts have been that in matters concerning unemployment and housing, "it is going to get worst" particularly as Federal support programs "in time will have to fade".
Finally, a most recent article by Monica Crowley placed before her readers a very somber view of Obama's most recent Afghanistan decree. The article is titled Unserious Afghan Approach and in just those few words perfectly describes Obama's efforts in this war effort. Her emphasis was on how weak Obama had appeared. Key points included that Obama is "just not into it" referring to the military efforts in that region of the world. An apt comparison was also made to Jimmy Carter, another weak Democratic President, when Obama was assigned Carter's "hapless and halfhearted politics". In a obvious reference to the coming elections of 2010 and 2012, Ms Crowley stated that "weak Presidents are neither respected nor electorally rewarded".
November of this year will, with any luck, certainly confirm these feelings of Monica Crowley.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
OBAMA DO NOTHING AWARDS
There are so many issues that the majority of American voters have with the Obama led national government that the liberal/socialist political realists in Washington are starting programs to lessen the harm they expect in November of 2010. Some of these efforts are obvious such as this week's pending trip by our President to receive his Noble Prize. Others efforts are thinly veiled political acts set as routine functions by a concerned Federal government. The most recent announcement by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner falls into this second category.
Declaring that "the recovery of our financial system remains incomplete", Geithner has directed that the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP] passed in October of 2008 is extended until October 3, 2010. He has that authority and has exercised it. The real question is, why.
According to Geithner he has three new goals. Number One is to "step up efforts to curb home foreclosures" but this "step up" is not defined. Further, the commercial mortgage industry, unaddressed, remains in bad shape and in the early months of 2010 is expected to get worse with a sizeable increase in declared defaults, foreclosures and repossessions. Number Two is to "provide capital to small banks for job creation". This must mean Federal loans to our "small banks" with the banks to then reloan the funds to a federal-defined class of business for expansion. The only thing at real risk in this situation is the Independence of the "small banks" for when these loans default, Washington will move in to secure its advances by taking control of these banks. Number Three is to "boost its commitment to a program aimed at sparking lending to consumers and small businesses". There is only one response to this Geithner statement and that is, "What in the world do you mean?"
In reality, the Obama Administration is doing nothing economically of any significance. Trying through Geithner to lessen what has been determined to be a probable anti-Obama Administration vote in November of 2010, a great degree of self-proclaimed success will be published by the White House as election day approaches with declarations of how well Geithner's three goals have been achieved. It will be urged that more of the same can be guaranteed if the Democrats are reelected.
All-in-all, it seems appropriate that President Obama is receiving a Noble Medal for doing nothing and at the same time his close advisor, Geithner, is proposing to redirecting TARP money for a new do-nothing Federal economic program.
Declaring that "the recovery of our financial system remains incomplete", Geithner has directed that the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP] passed in October of 2008 is extended until October 3, 2010. He has that authority and has exercised it. The real question is, why.
According to Geithner he has three new goals. Number One is to "step up efforts to curb home foreclosures" but this "step up" is not defined. Further, the commercial mortgage industry, unaddressed, remains in bad shape and in the early months of 2010 is expected to get worse with a sizeable increase in declared defaults, foreclosures and repossessions. Number Two is to "provide capital to small banks for job creation". This must mean Federal loans to our "small banks" with the banks to then reloan the funds to a federal-defined class of business for expansion. The only thing at real risk in this situation is the Independence of the "small banks" for when these loans default, Washington will move in to secure its advances by taking control of these banks. Number Three is to "boost its commitment to a program aimed at sparking lending to consumers and small businesses". There is only one response to this Geithner statement and that is, "What in the world do you mean?"
In reality, the Obama Administration is doing nothing economically of any significance. Trying through Geithner to lessen what has been determined to be a probable anti-Obama Administration vote in November of 2010, a great degree of self-proclaimed success will be published by the White House as election day approaches with declarations of how well Geithner's three goals have been achieved. It will be urged that more of the same can be guaranteed if the Democrats are reelected.
All-in-all, it seems appropriate that President Obama is receiving a Noble Medal for doing nothing and at the same time his close advisor, Geithner, is proposing to redirecting TARP money for a new do-nothing Federal economic program.
Monday, December 7, 2009
A LOOK INTO THE FUTURE
This past week, Washington was most pleased to announce that the unemployment rate in America had for the month of November dropped from 10.2% to 10%. Even those economists who believe that Obama under reports the true national level of our citizens who are out of work expressed that their calculation of the unemployed, based on State and national data, had dropped from 17.5% to just over 17%. Either way, it has to be good news, or is it.
Almost every month the Federal staffers who are charged with collecting, analysing and publishing the nation's unemployment data issue a now almost expected statement that last month or several months ago there was an error in their data or in their calculations and the real unemployment rate for that applicable period of time was something different. Some times the newly updated rate is better news for Obama, but usually it is not. The bottom line is, like much of what we hear from the current Administration, every American has to be careful when considering Washington issued information.
On the issue of unemployment, many political commentators have expressed that Obama, as well as other Democrats, will find the goal of reelection, be it in 2010 or 2012, to be an unreachable target if the percentage of Americans who are unemployed on election day remains high. The recent results of the Statewide balloting in New Jersey and Virginia confirm this prognostication.
Most recently Dr. Charles Krauthammer expressed that the American unemployment level, as it stands in November of 2010 and in November of 2012, will be a tremendous influence on the outcome of all elections. Krauthammer's position is that a voter accepted national unemployment figure of 10% or higher will insure that Republicans will replace Democrats in most contested races. If that same unemployment figure is below 8%, then the Democrats will maintain their political control, including the White House. What is most interesting was his opinion that these same races will be open, harsh and heavily contested if unemployment is between 8 and 10 percent.
What a choice conservatives have. They can hope that unemployment remains high [over 10%]and thus insure that Obama and his followers are retired from public life or wish well for their fellow citizens seeking work [unemployment falling to under 8%] and risk a second Obama term.
Reality raises its ugly head on this issue and the suffering of our nation at the hands of Obama will, unfortunately, continue with the result being victories at the polls in 2010 and 2012 by those openly and aggressively against Obama and his governmental allies.
Almost every month the Federal staffers who are charged with collecting, analysing and publishing the nation's unemployment data issue a now almost expected statement that last month or several months ago there was an error in their data or in their calculations and the real unemployment rate for that applicable period of time was something different. Some times the newly updated rate is better news for Obama, but usually it is not. The bottom line is, like much of what we hear from the current Administration, every American has to be careful when considering Washington issued information.
On the issue of unemployment, many political commentators have expressed that Obama, as well as other Democrats, will find the goal of reelection, be it in 2010 or 2012, to be an unreachable target if the percentage of Americans who are unemployed on election day remains high. The recent results of the Statewide balloting in New Jersey and Virginia confirm this prognostication.
Most recently Dr. Charles Krauthammer expressed that the American unemployment level, as it stands in November of 2010 and in November of 2012, will be a tremendous influence on the outcome of all elections. Krauthammer's position is that a voter accepted national unemployment figure of 10% or higher will insure that Republicans will replace Democrats in most contested races. If that same unemployment figure is below 8%, then the Democrats will maintain their political control, including the White House. What is most interesting was his opinion that these same races will be open, harsh and heavily contested if unemployment is between 8 and 10 percent.
What a choice conservatives have. They can hope that unemployment remains high [over 10%]and thus insure that Obama and his followers are retired from public life or wish well for their fellow citizens seeking work [unemployment falling to under 8%] and risk a second Obama term.
Reality raises its ugly head on this issue and the suffering of our nation at the hands of Obama will, unfortunately, continue with the result being victories at the polls in 2010 and 2012 by those openly and aggressively against Obama and his governmental allies.
Friday, December 4, 2009
ITEMS FOR WEEKEND THOUGHT
As the first week of the last month of 2009 comes to an end, a number of loosely related matters demand some additional exposure.
A British journalist attended President Obama's recent West Point address and was not impressed. The comments in his next day article were that this speech by the leader of the free world on the future of Afghanistan were "guarded" and "defensive" and "less than entirely convincing". The impression also was that America, among other things, was going to "back off Pakistan" particularly an open "unity" with Pakistan and pursue "dealing with Pakistan clandestinely". Clearly he saw that a waste of more American lives, assets and prestige would be the net result of this latest Obama decision.
Speaking of the "war", Congressman David Obey, who is a Democratic and who is Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, continues to promote a "war tax" that will separately fund the expenses of our military efforts in Afghanistan. His expressed concern is that current federal government revenues must be balanced between "war costs" and "rebuilding the US economy". This "war tax" money raising scheme can not be successfully passed at this point in time so more money must come from some where and our wealthier citizens, who generally are stock investors, have been focused upon by Democrat Representative Nancy Pelosi. She is not promoting a "war tax" but does urge a "stock transaction tax" which would impact that section of Americans who still have money to invest in the stock market. As she says, "this transaction tax still has a great deal of merit." Her opinion is for Americans to sell there stock for a profit and give some, maybe alot, of that profit to Washington.
Of more concern are published statements by American economists/investors. Martin L. Gross has confirmed that, contrary to recent Obama Administration statements, the American national debt is not $1,400,000,000,000.00 but is actually $1,885,000,000,000.00. This figure of money owed was confirmed by the US Government which forced Gross to further express that this current and growing obligation is taking us down a path of "absolute destruction." Following this sentiment, Jim Rogers has stated that the US dollar is now a "terribly flawed currency" and America has become "the largest debtor nation in the history of the world." Just the amount we owe Communist China has to confirm this opinion.
Following these depressing statements came one from John Hussman who has forecast that given the extent of known American delinquent business loans and leases, there was an "80% chance of a market crash". Wrapping up these negative thoughts was another comment by the said Martin L. Gross that "we are going to spend ourselves into oblivion". The "we" he defined as the Federal Government and President Obama.
As much as I agree with the sentiments of the above quoted opinions, Americans are strong and are resilient and will want to change this nation via the ballot box in 2010 and 2012. Conservative public leaders need only to make themselves known; campaign by promoting traditional American values; and then start a real reconstruction after being elected.
A British journalist attended President Obama's recent West Point address and was not impressed. The comments in his next day article were that this speech by the leader of the free world on the future of Afghanistan were "guarded" and "defensive" and "less than entirely convincing". The impression also was that America, among other things, was going to "back off Pakistan" particularly an open "unity" with Pakistan and pursue "dealing with Pakistan clandestinely". Clearly he saw that a waste of more American lives, assets and prestige would be the net result of this latest Obama decision.
Speaking of the "war", Congressman David Obey, who is a Democratic and who is Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, continues to promote a "war tax" that will separately fund the expenses of our military efforts in Afghanistan. His expressed concern is that current federal government revenues must be balanced between "war costs" and "rebuilding the US economy". This "war tax" money raising scheme can not be successfully passed at this point in time so more money must come from some where and our wealthier citizens, who generally are stock investors, have been focused upon by Democrat Representative Nancy Pelosi. She is not promoting a "war tax" but does urge a "stock transaction tax" which would impact that section of Americans who still have money to invest in the stock market. As she says, "this transaction tax still has a great deal of merit." Her opinion is for Americans to sell there stock for a profit and give some, maybe alot, of that profit to Washington.
Of more concern are published statements by American economists/investors. Martin L. Gross has confirmed that, contrary to recent Obama Administration statements, the American national debt is not $1,400,000,000,000.00 but is actually $1,885,000,000,000.00. This figure of money owed was confirmed by the US Government which forced Gross to further express that this current and growing obligation is taking us down a path of "absolute destruction." Following this sentiment, Jim Rogers has stated that the US dollar is now a "terribly flawed currency" and America has become "the largest debtor nation in the history of the world." Just the amount we owe Communist China has to confirm this opinion.
Following these depressing statements came one from John Hussman who has forecast that given the extent of known American delinquent business loans and leases, there was an "80% chance of a market crash". Wrapping up these negative thoughts was another comment by the said Martin L. Gross that "we are going to spend ourselves into oblivion". The "we" he defined as the Federal Government and President Obama.
As much as I agree with the sentiments of the above quoted opinions, Americans are strong and are resilient and will want to change this nation via the ballot box in 2010 and 2012. Conservative public leaders need only to make themselves known; campaign by promoting traditional American values; and then start a real reconstruction after being elected.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
WEST POINT SPEECH FOLLOW-UP
Most recently a column was published in this Blog that was intended to show how poorly our national leader, Barack Obama, did in all regards with his West Point address on the subject of adding more combat forces to Afghanistan. That article turn out to be extremely mild as compared to the positions stated in the German magazine, Der Spiegel, by author Gabor Steingart.
The points raised by Steingart were direct and unforgiving. Obama was accused of making a meaningless decision with his directive, according to Steingart, that "30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan and then march right back out again." Certainly this is a bit of an extreme position but the point was well taken. The goals of the addition of this large number of American combat soldiers into Afghanistan were not well explained but there was no question that their return to America regardless of their success would commence in the summer of 2011. Steingart went on to define this stated Obama position as a "dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal".
Little if anything stated by Obama was well received by Steingart. Such lines as "Obama needs no opponents. He's already got himself" and "Obama's magic no longer works", clearly left the impression that, at least to this German author employed by a major German magazine, the love affair between Obama and the German press was over.
As much as I disapprove of any foreign journalist taking shots at any American political leader, it is absolutely pleasing to witness that some sections of Europe have finally seen the reality of Obama politics. This expressed negative reaction, and maybe even a bit of fear, is just what most Americans have harbored towards Washington for almost a year.
As Steingart said in closing his article, this Obama "speech left dreamers and realists feeling distraught." To writer Gabor Steingart I extend a "vielen Dank".
The points raised by Steingart were direct and unforgiving. Obama was accused of making a meaningless decision with his directive, according to Steingart, that "30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan and then march right back out again." Certainly this is a bit of an extreme position but the point was well taken. The goals of the addition of this large number of American combat soldiers into Afghanistan were not well explained but there was no question that their return to America regardless of their success would commence in the summer of 2011. Steingart went on to define this stated Obama position as a "dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal".
Little if anything stated by Obama was well received by Steingart. Such lines as "Obama needs no opponents. He's already got himself" and "Obama's magic no longer works", clearly left the impression that, at least to this German author employed by a major German magazine, the love affair between Obama and the German press was over.
As much as I disapprove of any foreign journalist taking shots at any American political leader, it is absolutely pleasing to witness that some sections of Europe have finally seen the reality of Obama politics. This expressed negative reaction, and maybe even a bit of fear, is just what most Americans have harbored towards Washington for almost a year.
As Steingart said in closing his article, this Obama "speech left dreamers and realists feeling distraught." To writer Gabor Steingart I extend a "vielen Dank".
OBAMA EXPOSED AGAIN
The most recent national, no make that international, address by President Barack Obama on the topic of Afghanistan left only a more pronounced confirmation that our President has no valid idea as to what he is doing. The bottom line of the speech, presented at the US Military Academy at West Point, was that American military forces in war-torn Afghanistan would be quickly increased by 30,000 with a Presidential "pledge" to begin withdrawing our soldiers in 18 months. That would be the Summer of 2011.
Immediate reaction by all Americans, except Obama loyalists, has to be 1) disbelief that the President is so naive; 2) disbelief that the President is so self-centered; and 3) disbelief that the President thinks the voters of this nation are so stupid.
Point 1 - Obama is naive - To the mind set of the radicals, revolutionaries and religious fanatics that have been fighting in Afghanistan for decades against various forms of central governments supported by various military forces of foreign nations, this Obama announcement has to be good news. For the next 18 months, steady but low key harassment will be maintained against our military forces and then a big push to control Afghanistan initiated once American forces begin to depart. Since when does a nation announce that it will engage in combat with an enemy but only until a certain date, not goal, has been reached? American lives and American assets will be lost for no valid purpose.
Point 2 - Obama is grossly self-centered - Already our President has begun to focus on his reelection campaign of 2012. The recent elections in New Jersey and Virginia have convinced Obama that his second term is at risk and so the balancing starts. The White House sees that it can steadily dominate the news and placate many war critics beginning in the late summer of 2011 as he welcomes our forces home. There would be a double goal of continuously publicizing the return of our military with a push for a "total" withdrawal that closely coincides with election day 2012. A few or even many deaths of American servicemen will be lightly considered by Obama.
Point 3 - Obama mis-judges Americans - The plans and intents of Obama are so obvious that less than 12 hours after the said West Point address, members of the Senate and of the Congress have expressed doubts as to just about every aspect of this most recent Obama decision. American voters see this latest White House effort for exactly what it is, a misguided attempt to placate critics and secure a second term.
Like every recent action of Obama, his aim was to promote his future and not necessarily the advancement of our nation. More and more Americans are realizing the actual intent of our President and vow to block him by election results in 2010 and 2012.
Immediate reaction by all Americans, except Obama loyalists, has to be 1) disbelief that the President is so naive; 2) disbelief that the President is so self-centered; and 3) disbelief that the President thinks the voters of this nation are so stupid.
Point 1 - Obama is naive - To the mind set of the radicals, revolutionaries and religious fanatics that have been fighting in Afghanistan for decades against various forms of central governments supported by various military forces of foreign nations, this Obama announcement has to be good news. For the next 18 months, steady but low key harassment will be maintained against our military forces and then a big push to control Afghanistan initiated once American forces begin to depart. Since when does a nation announce that it will engage in combat with an enemy but only until a certain date, not goal, has been reached? American lives and American assets will be lost for no valid purpose.
Point 2 - Obama is grossly self-centered - Already our President has begun to focus on his reelection campaign of 2012. The recent elections in New Jersey and Virginia have convinced Obama that his second term is at risk and so the balancing starts. The White House sees that it can steadily dominate the news and placate many war critics beginning in the late summer of 2011 as he welcomes our forces home. There would be a double goal of continuously publicizing the return of our military with a push for a "total" withdrawal that closely coincides with election day 2012. A few or even many deaths of American servicemen will be lightly considered by Obama.
Point 3 - Obama mis-judges Americans - The plans and intents of Obama are so obvious that less than 12 hours after the said West Point address, members of the Senate and of the Congress have expressed doubts as to just about every aspect of this most recent Obama decision. American voters see this latest White House effort for exactly what it is, a misguided attempt to placate critics and secure a second term.
Like every recent action of Obama, his aim was to promote his future and not necessarily the advancement of our nation. More and more Americans are realizing the actual intent of our President and vow to block him by election results in 2010 and 2012.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Positive News From Newt Not So Good From FDIC
The American voters who are anti-Obama [meaning concerned, against socialism, anti-big government and who can't wait to vote in 2010], continue to receive depressing news as the reports of the status of the economy of our nation just don't get any better. These depressing reports are not "good news" in any real sense other than as a clear report on how poorly Obama and his followers are leading this nation.
In a recent article dedicated to US banking problems, the prognostication on the future of the American financial industry was cautious and realistic. The author was clearly just not prepared to make a definitive statement as to how 2010 will treat the banks of this nation. However, some reported facts were depressing. In the year 2009 there have already been 124 bank failures with the list of still "troubled" banks currently numbering 575. This figure is the highest that it has been since 1993 and, for the obvious reason of avoiding panic withdrawals, the names of the institutions that are among the said 575 are intentionally kept from public knowledge.
Loan balances due American banks fell this past quarter by 2.8% which is the largest quarterly drop since this type of data began to be released in 1984. However, these repayments are generally in the nature of small businesses satisfying pre-recession loans. This movement to repay loans is being strongly promoted by the banks in order to regain its investment and to have available funds to address loan defaults that are looming in 2010. This problem is evident by considering that the for the first time since 1991 our banking industry's deposit insurance fund is in the red and has/is setting aside $62.5 Billion for future loan losses. What this means is that the banking industry has little if any available bank assets upon which to fund loans and this lack of available money is choking economic recovery.
With this negative economic news as a background, words from Newt Gingrich continue to express a hope for America via the 2010 and 2012 elections. Gingrich has clearly expressed that focus has to be made by candidates that they are an alternative and not just an opponent to the current political policies. That all elected positions must be contested by concerned Americans and that those positions include school boards, city and county contests, state races and Congress. He also urges Americans to vote for and elect those candidates who promote jobs and prosperity over higher taxes and big bureaucracy.
This is only November of 2009 and already focus is being made on events to occur 11 months and 23 months in the future. The concerns of the American voter must be maintained and primed for election day. In reality the incompetency of the Obama Administration should not only make this task simple but should also well motivate all Obama opponents.
In a recent article dedicated to US banking problems, the prognostication on the future of the American financial industry was cautious and realistic. The author was clearly just not prepared to make a definitive statement as to how 2010 will treat the banks of this nation. However, some reported facts were depressing. In the year 2009 there have already been 124 bank failures with the list of still "troubled" banks currently numbering 575. This figure is the highest that it has been since 1993 and, for the obvious reason of avoiding panic withdrawals, the names of the institutions that are among the said 575 are intentionally kept from public knowledge.
Loan balances due American banks fell this past quarter by 2.8% which is the largest quarterly drop since this type of data began to be released in 1984. However, these repayments are generally in the nature of small businesses satisfying pre-recession loans. This movement to repay loans is being strongly promoted by the banks in order to regain its investment and to have available funds to address loan defaults that are looming in 2010. This problem is evident by considering that the for the first time since 1991 our banking industry's deposit insurance fund is in the red and has/is setting aside $62.5 Billion for future loan losses. What this means is that the banking industry has little if any available bank assets upon which to fund loans and this lack of available money is choking economic recovery.
With this negative economic news as a background, words from Newt Gingrich continue to express a hope for America via the 2010 and 2012 elections. Gingrich has clearly expressed that focus has to be made by candidates that they are an alternative and not just an opponent to the current political policies. That all elected positions must be contested by concerned Americans and that those positions include school boards, city and county contests, state races and Congress. He also urges Americans to vote for and elect those candidates who promote jobs and prosperity over higher taxes and big bureaucracy.
This is only November of 2009 and already focus is being made on events to occur 11 months and 23 months in the future. The concerns of the American voter must be maintained and primed for election day. In reality the incompetency of the Obama Administration should not only make this task simple but should also well motivate all Obama opponents.
Friday, November 20, 2009
IMF Flexs Again
Looking at an opportunity to increase its own prestige, the leader of the International Monetary Fund has again voiced a "need" for the establishment of an accepted international form of money. To no one's surprise the suggested monetary form was the IMF's Special Drawing Right [SDR]. In an effort to promote the financial importance and unique position of the IMF, its leader, who is the French Socialist Dominique Strauss-Kahn, addressed this past week an international monetary conference and suggested that a "new global currency might evolve out of Special Drawing Right." This "new currency" would be the international standard.
Commenting on this position statement of Strauss-Kahn was Communist Chinese Central Bank Governor Zhio Xiao Chuan who urged that the role of the IMF's SDR be expanded "so to replace the US Dollar." Simultaneously this same position was promoted by past IMF Chief, Michael Camdessus, as he "urged the happening". In a further effort to enlist support from nations who are experiencing economic growth or at least economic maturing, the IMF has proposed that its SDR basket be quickly expanded to include the yuan of Red China, the rupee of India and the real of Brazil.
A little more realistically, the IMF has also urged that Communist China readdress the value of its monetary system and seriously consider a "revaluation of its currency". The yuan has an artificially set-by-Peking value of 6.83 per dollar and that calculation has been written in stone since July of 2008.
The message being sent is that the IMF is clearly anti-dollar and anti-capitalism. Strauss-Kahn wishes to align himself with fellow socialists/communists who exercise power in Asia, Europe and South America. On this point he has done well and can show as proof the extraction of a multi-million dollar "dues" from America with the absolute assistance of President Obama; a huge loan advance from Communist China and defined in the form of SDR; and a multi-million SDR sale of gold to India.
There is no question that the American economy continues to be on a very weak foundation. Unemployment still rises; Federal debt still increases; and availability of investment money remains non-existent. With these real negative economic indicators clearly visible and emphasised more and more by pundits, Obama's Washington does nothing productive. The only real issue facing American this 2009 Thanksgiving is if our nation can successfully tread economic-water until November of 2012 when new national leadership is elected.
Commenting on this position statement of Strauss-Kahn was Communist Chinese Central Bank Governor Zhio Xiao Chuan who urged that the role of the IMF's SDR be expanded "so to replace the US Dollar." Simultaneously this same position was promoted by past IMF Chief, Michael Camdessus, as he "urged the happening". In a further effort to enlist support from nations who are experiencing economic growth or at least economic maturing, the IMF has proposed that its SDR basket be quickly expanded to include the yuan of Red China, the rupee of India and the real of Brazil.
A little more realistically, the IMF has also urged that Communist China readdress the value of its monetary system and seriously consider a "revaluation of its currency". The yuan has an artificially set-by-Peking value of 6.83 per dollar and that calculation has been written in stone since July of 2008.
The message being sent is that the IMF is clearly anti-dollar and anti-capitalism. Strauss-Kahn wishes to align himself with fellow socialists/communists who exercise power in Asia, Europe and South America. On this point he has done well and can show as proof the extraction of a multi-million dollar "dues" from America with the absolute assistance of President Obama; a huge loan advance from Communist China and defined in the form of SDR; and a multi-million SDR sale of gold to India.
There is no question that the American economy continues to be on a very weak foundation. Unemployment still rises; Federal debt still increases; and availability of investment money remains non-existent. With these real negative economic indicators clearly visible and emphasised more and more by pundits, Obama's Washington does nothing productive. The only real issue facing American this 2009 Thanksgiving is if our nation can successfully tread economic-water until November of 2012 when new national leadership is elected.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Pay Down Your Debts
In a recent article that was published on-line, the writer expressed opinions on the future state of the American economy. The thrust of the article was either a sadly pessimistic review of our economy or a hidden believe that the American economy, by its own efforts, may well be able to survive the Obama era.
Three points were raised. The first was that commercial interest rates just could not go any lower. This reference is to the official rate of interest that is charged to business entities by the "big" banks and upon which the actual interest rate to consumers is predicated. This interest rate has been at almost zero for months and will stay that way for several more months. In reality loans to individual businesses and to individual citizens are not readily available because of the reluctance of the banking industry to extend credit and particularly at such a low rate.
The second point was that the American government has limited sources from whom it can borrow money. Our federal government's biggest creditors, such as Communist China and OPEC, have stopped "investing" in the Obama administration. If no money can be borrowed by Obama then there is a limit on what can be spent by Washington.
The third point was with the Federal government's economic stimulus efforts being over, the American economy will soon be on its own. The expressed belief was that this would be initially an economic pain for the nation but could well be the foundation for positive news in a year or so.
Unfortunately, even more recent information has indicated that a majority of the individual American States are in terrible condition financially. The top ten of this debtor classification includes California, Florida, Michigan, Illinois and New Jersey. The bottom line of this particular report was if you have money available, pay down your debts.
Three points were raised. The first was that commercial interest rates just could not go any lower. This reference is to the official rate of interest that is charged to business entities by the "big" banks and upon which the actual interest rate to consumers is predicated. This interest rate has been at almost zero for months and will stay that way for several more months. In reality loans to individual businesses and to individual citizens are not readily available because of the reluctance of the banking industry to extend credit and particularly at such a low rate.
The second point was that the American government has limited sources from whom it can borrow money. Our federal government's biggest creditors, such as Communist China and OPEC, have stopped "investing" in the Obama administration. If no money can be borrowed by Obama then there is a limit on what can be spent by Washington.
The third point was with the Federal government's economic stimulus efforts being over, the American economy will soon be on its own. The expressed belief was that this would be initially an economic pain for the nation but could well be the foundation for positive news in a year or so.
Unfortunately, even more recent information has indicated that a majority of the individual American States are in terrible condition financially. The top ten of this debtor classification includes California, Florida, Michigan, Illinois and New Jersey. The bottom line of this particular report was if you have money available, pay down your debts.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
AMERICAN REACTION TO ECONOMY
Most recently a Federal government publication of data confirms that America is suffering from a quarter-of-a-century high unemployment rate officially set at 10.2% but in reality is more likely at 17.5% or even higher. This report has raised some even more disturbing premonitions that the near future promises little hope for an economic recovery much less a period of prosperity.
The last time our economy was in this bad of a condition was over 25 years ago when in 1982/1983 the unemployment rate was also in the 10% area. Then, Washington's attack on the problem was to take the then high, double digit interest rate and slowly modify it to lower levels thus making funds more available for growth and to revitalize the economy. This program was successful. Unfortunately, this particular door to recovery is closed to the Obama Administration since the Washington controlled commercial borrowing rates are currently at zero and, obviously, cannot be lowered any more.
It seems rather simple to comprehend that to grow the economy and as a result rehire Americans, the demand for products and services must increase. Since few Americans have the financial confidence to spend or the financial willingness and/or ability to borrow, this increased consumer demand is not yet foreseen by any economists. In fact the trend is that American homeowners are not spending money but are rather diminishing their debt obligations. This year those particular obligations will fall by $200 Billion. Banks and businesses are doing the same. Again expenditures have not increased but rather there has been a reduction of existing debt by an estimated total figure of $2.3 Trillion. This trend is also true for small business to whom lending has decreased by $113 Billion.
What all this means was well put by Mort Zuckerman with his comment that America could seriously be looking at an economic deflation as we have "too much supply and too little demand".
There is good news from this economic situation. Fiscal conservative groups, like The Tea Party, are exerting their voting power as can be easily seen in the governor elections recently held in New Jersey and in Virginia. In both of those States, 1/3 of those who cast ballots carried independent party status and were not therefore registered Republicans or Democrats. They were, as properly defined by Dick Armey, the personification of "fiscal conservatism" and "the dead center of American politics". In both of these States the Republican candidate won and by these victories sent a clear message of hope to all Americans unhappy with Obama.
Cultivation of this "dead center" can only result in further ballot box victories for "fiscal conservatism" in the United States in 2010 and 2012.
The last time our economy was in this bad of a condition was over 25 years ago when in 1982/1983 the unemployment rate was also in the 10% area. Then, Washington's attack on the problem was to take the then high, double digit interest rate and slowly modify it to lower levels thus making funds more available for growth and to revitalize the economy. This program was successful. Unfortunately, this particular door to recovery is closed to the Obama Administration since the Washington controlled commercial borrowing rates are currently at zero and, obviously, cannot be lowered any more.
It seems rather simple to comprehend that to grow the economy and as a result rehire Americans, the demand for products and services must increase. Since few Americans have the financial confidence to spend or the financial willingness and/or ability to borrow, this increased consumer demand is not yet foreseen by any economists. In fact the trend is that American homeowners are not spending money but are rather diminishing their debt obligations. This year those particular obligations will fall by $200 Billion. Banks and businesses are doing the same. Again expenditures have not increased but rather there has been a reduction of existing debt by an estimated total figure of $2.3 Trillion. This trend is also true for small business to whom lending has decreased by $113 Billion.
What all this means was well put by Mort Zuckerman with his comment that America could seriously be looking at an economic deflation as we have "too much supply and too little demand".
There is good news from this economic situation. Fiscal conservative groups, like The Tea Party, are exerting their voting power as can be easily seen in the governor elections recently held in New Jersey and in Virginia. In both of those States, 1/3 of those who cast ballots carried independent party status and were not therefore registered Republicans or Democrats. They were, as properly defined by Dick Armey, the personification of "fiscal conservatism" and "the dead center of American politics". In both of these States the Republican candidate won and by these victories sent a clear message of hope to all Americans unhappy with Obama.
Cultivation of this "dead center" can only result in further ballot box victories for "fiscal conservatism" in the United States in 2010 and 2012.
Friday, November 6, 2009
TEN POINT TWO PERCENT
10.2% Unemployment
This is the statistical figure that has just been released by the Obama Administration informing the nation that as of October just over 1 in 10 of our fellow Americans is out of work, unemployed, lost his/her job and has sought federal/state/local welfare.
10.2% Unemployment
This is the United States unemployment figure that the White House acknowledges. In reality it is well over 17% and could be much closed to 20% if the Federal government would elect to be honest in its calculations. Not included in the said unemployment figure are our fellow citizens who no longer draw unemployment benefits; who, even though they lost their jobs, never applied for unemployment benefits; or who are only part-time employees while seeking full-time jobs.
10.2% Unemployment
This is a clear sign of the failure of the Obama Administration. It has failed to implement even one program that can be rationally described as seeking to cure the growing national curse that is unemployment. The recent PR efforts by the White House in boasting over the number of jobs it has helped create has already been exposed as false data. Increased Federal government spending on public projects, which projects will only be implemented in the coming years, has in fact only been more deficit spending which has increased our financial obligations to foreign nations, primarily Communist China and now left-leaning Japan.
10.2% Unemployment
Barely acknowledged by Obama is the data that shows the number of actual hours being worked weekly by Americans who have "full-time" jobs. This past month if you were among the employed you averaged 33 hours per week of paid time. On a standard 40 hour week, this calculates to being "on the job" only 82.5 % of the "normal" work week. It would seem logical that the currently employed, on a national average, would have to receive an 18% increase in their number of work hours before any new jobs would be filled.
10.2% Unemployment
Cold eyed political commentators have opined that Obama and his advocates have no desire at all to lower the number of out-of-work Americans until much closed to the November 2010 elections and then again as the November 2012 Presidential election approaches. The purpose is clear and selfish. Sitting in the White House and in other government jobs, the rational of these "public servants" is to label the unemployment as a Bush-Republican malady and then be able to point to an increase in jobs as an accomplishment of Obama and his far-left allies. All of this not to assist Americans as much as to position themselves for reelection.
10.2% Unemployment
This sensed, but not yet published reality, put conservatives into the Virginia and the New Jersey Governor mansions. This same conservative sweep will occur again in 2010 and then reach the 2012 goal of retiring B.H.O.
This is the statistical figure that has just been released by the Obama Administration informing the nation that as of October just over 1 in 10 of our fellow Americans is out of work, unemployed, lost his/her job and has sought federal/state/local welfare.
10.2% Unemployment
This is the United States unemployment figure that the White House acknowledges. In reality it is well over 17% and could be much closed to 20% if the Federal government would elect to be honest in its calculations. Not included in the said unemployment figure are our fellow citizens who no longer draw unemployment benefits; who, even though they lost their jobs, never applied for unemployment benefits; or who are only part-time employees while seeking full-time jobs.
10.2% Unemployment
This is a clear sign of the failure of the Obama Administration. It has failed to implement even one program that can be rationally described as seeking to cure the growing national curse that is unemployment. The recent PR efforts by the White House in boasting over the number of jobs it has helped create has already been exposed as false data. Increased Federal government spending on public projects, which projects will only be implemented in the coming years, has in fact only been more deficit spending which has increased our financial obligations to foreign nations, primarily Communist China and now left-leaning Japan.
10.2% Unemployment
Barely acknowledged by Obama is the data that shows the number of actual hours being worked weekly by Americans who have "full-time" jobs. This past month if you were among the employed you averaged 33 hours per week of paid time. On a standard 40 hour week, this calculates to being "on the job" only 82.5 % of the "normal" work week. It would seem logical that the currently employed, on a national average, would have to receive an 18% increase in their number of work hours before any new jobs would be filled.
10.2% Unemployment
Cold eyed political commentators have opined that Obama and his advocates have no desire at all to lower the number of out-of-work Americans until much closed to the November 2010 elections and then again as the November 2012 Presidential election approaches. The purpose is clear and selfish. Sitting in the White House and in other government jobs, the rational of these "public servants" is to label the unemployment as a Bush-Republican malady and then be able to point to an increase in jobs as an accomplishment of Obama and his far-left allies. All of this not to assist Americans as much as to position themselves for reelection.
10.2% Unemployment
This sensed, but not yet published reality, put conservatives into the Virginia and the New Jersey Governor mansions. This same conservative sweep will occur again in 2010 and then reach the 2012 goal of retiring B.H.O.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Bag Over The Head = Obama Supporters
Just about every political commentator and/or political journalist has in the past few days expressed an opinion on the national meaning of this week's election results in Virginia and in New Jersey. Mostly they were directly stated and opined that there were national implications. Not surprising, the White House and other Obama advocates are expressing the opinions of "what elections" and if pressured "the newly elected members to Congress will well serve the nation". Obviously these referenced Congressional winners were Democrats while an Administration cold shoulder is administered to the statewide election results in Virginia and New Jersey which, as we all know, were Republican wins and as such truly significant.
The most shallow of the published political comments on these recent election results was a quote attributed to Nathan Daschle who is the Executive Director of the Democratic Governors Association. His answer to the inquiry as to the meaning of the Democrat losses in New Jersey and Virginia was, "Nothing." He continued with "Virginia and New Jersey are independent-minded states and tonight they reminded us of that." What? Are the other 48 states not "independent-minded states"? Did he just drive a nail into the heart of Obama and other pro-Obama future Democrat office seekers? Are only subservient types supporting Obama? The obvious reading on this Daschle opinion is that we can expect that only naive and thoughtless and blindly loyal Party members will cast a ballot for the Democrat candidate, including Obama. "Independent-minded" sorts will weight the qualities of the available candidates; consider the needs of the nation/state/community; and cast a vote for who is better suited for the office being sought, including the Presidency. The current Obama record quickly eliminates his electability.
Voters considering our depressed national economy or the still growing American unemployment level or the situation in Afghanistan/Iran or the strained American banking industry with a slumping dollar or the failing American auto industry or the Obama initiatives toward socialism, they will look to someone else other than B. H. O. to lead the nation. Daschle will be proven right in his "independent-minded" analysis but far to short sighted by attaching that handle to only New Jersey and to Virginia. In 2010 and 2012, voters from 50 states will adopt that "independent-minded" description and Obama will be sent back to Chicago or some other city which would like to host a former President who is also failed socialist.
The most shallow of the published political comments on these recent election results was a quote attributed to Nathan Daschle who is the Executive Director of the Democratic Governors Association. His answer to the inquiry as to the meaning of the Democrat losses in New Jersey and Virginia was, "Nothing." He continued with "Virginia and New Jersey are independent-minded states and tonight they reminded us of that." What? Are the other 48 states not "independent-minded states"? Did he just drive a nail into the heart of Obama and other pro-Obama future Democrat office seekers? Are only subservient types supporting Obama? The obvious reading on this Daschle opinion is that we can expect that only naive and thoughtless and blindly loyal Party members will cast a ballot for the Democrat candidate, including Obama. "Independent-minded" sorts will weight the qualities of the available candidates; consider the needs of the nation/state/community; and cast a vote for who is better suited for the office being sought, including the Presidency. The current Obama record quickly eliminates his electability.
Voters considering our depressed national economy or the still growing American unemployment level or the situation in Afghanistan/Iran or the strained American banking industry with a slumping dollar or the failing American auto industry or the Obama initiatives toward socialism, they will look to someone else other than B. H. O. to lead the nation. Daschle will be proven right in his "independent-minded" analysis but far to short sighted by attaching that handle to only New Jersey and to Virginia. In 2010 and 2012, voters from 50 states will adopt that "independent-minded" description and Obama will be sent back to Chicago or some other city which would like to host a former President who is also failed socialist.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
A SHIFT IN SUPPORT
Current affairs newspaper writer Bruce Drake has most recently shared with his readers two articles of interest pertaining to President B. H. Obama. One is headlined, "Blacks Show Sharp Rise In Satisfaction of Country's Direction", and the other is styled, "Public Turns Negative On Obama Key Issues". These two attention grabbers are clearly in conflict and immediately cause there to be thoughts of racial overtones which can never be viewed, even for Obama, as a positive result.
In the "Blacks Show Sharp Rise..." piece, Drake reports that a recent Gallop Pole reflects that 47% of American Black citizens who were surveyed are satisfied in the direction of the USA. This percentage is noticeably higher that the 10% positive response that the same group expressed on that issue in mid-2008. This same recent poll also showed that 51% of Black Democrats were satisfied with the nation's direction while only 38% of White Democrats felt the same way. The response from any rational person has to be why are Whites more concerned than Blacks with record setting unemployment and with two foreign wars and with the huge Federal government debt and with the drift of our nation toward socialism. The answer is simple and not at all malicious. Black Americans are still in a "honeymoon" status with Obama; are fully aware of the problems confronting the nation; and are a bit more hopeful, because of racial unity, than other segments of the national population that Obama can succeed. Reality will impact them soon enough.
The other Drake report ["Public Turns Negative ..."] addresses the results of a political survey made by CNN. This survey clearly shows that US citizen approval of Obama's actions has fallen below the level of a majority on almost every matter addressed. Obama lost support on his economic efforts with the poll showing 54% opposed to the White House efforts and 46% supporting. The same general results were found in Obama's healthcare approach [57% negative to 42% positive]; on his approach on Afghanistan [56% negative to 42% positive]; and on the growing deficit of the Federal Budget [60% negative to 39% positive]. Surprising was the 54% vote that generally approved of Obama but even this positive figure was down from a September positive figure of 58%.
Although it is too early to state with any real conviction the national meanings, if any, of the recent "anti-Obama" vote results in New Jersey and Virginia, there is no doubt that the "do no wrong" days of the White House are over. Our President gained office by being the "right" person at the "right" time but fortunately for America those two "rights" have already faded into nonexistence.
In the "Blacks Show Sharp Rise..." piece, Drake reports that a recent Gallop Pole reflects that 47% of American Black citizens who were surveyed are satisfied in the direction of the USA. This percentage is noticeably higher that the 10% positive response that the same group expressed on that issue in mid-2008. This same recent poll also showed that 51% of Black Democrats were satisfied with the nation's direction while only 38% of White Democrats felt the same way. The response from any rational person has to be why are Whites more concerned than Blacks with record setting unemployment and with two foreign wars and with the huge Federal government debt and with the drift of our nation toward socialism. The answer is simple and not at all malicious. Black Americans are still in a "honeymoon" status with Obama; are fully aware of the problems confronting the nation; and are a bit more hopeful, because of racial unity, than other segments of the national population that Obama can succeed. Reality will impact them soon enough.
The other Drake report ["Public Turns Negative ..."] addresses the results of a political survey made by CNN. This survey clearly shows that US citizen approval of Obama's actions has fallen below the level of a majority on almost every matter addressed. Obama lost support on his economic efforts with the poll showing 54% opposed to the White House efforts and 46% supporting. The same general results were found in Obama's healthcare approach [57% negative to 42% positive]; on his approach on Afghanistan [56% negative to 42% positive]; and on the growing deficit of the Federal Budget [60% negative to 39% positive]. Surprising was the 54% vote that generally approved of Obama but even this positive figure was down from a September positive figure of 58%.
Although it is too early to state with any real conviction the national meanings, if any, of the recent "anti-Obama" vote results in New Jersey and Virginia, there is no doubt that the "do no wrong" days of the White House are over. Our President gained office by being the "right" person at the "right" time but fortunately for America those two "rights" have already faded into nonexistence.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
This Week's Votes
Election Day 2009 approaches with two Governorship races and one Congressional race in the limelight. These contests are in three different States of the nation and are catching the attention of all Americans who are concerned with our country leaning, drifting or maybe even racing toward socialism. The States in focus are Virginia, New Jersey and New York.
In Virginia the big race is for Governor and it appears to be fairly certain that the Republican candidate will be successful. He leads in all legitimate polls and even the in personal efforts of B.H. Obama have been unable to gain any advantage for the Democratic standard bearer.
The election news from New York and New Jersey is much more interesting and much more uncertain.
The Office of New Jersey Governor is also up for grabs and the messages being sent to the rest of the nation are mixed. The general consensus among political wags is that there is a dead heat between the challenger, Republican Chris Christie, and incumbent, Democrat Jim Corzine. But the wild card is the Independent candidate for that office. Chris Daggert is the Independent; has no chance of winning this race for the Governor slot; but has assumed the role of a "third party" spoiler. The question is whose campaign is he going to spoil? If the supporters of Daggert maintain a hardcore position by casting ballots for "their man and only their man", then the victory could well belong to Corzine. However, a serious appraisal of the whole situation by those leaning to but not dedicated to Daggert could well result in a "meaningful" ballot to oust the pro-Obama candidate and result in the election of Christie.
In the only pending New York Congressional race, the active vote seekers have just had a major candidate modification. The Republican Party side of the slate has been represented by Dede Scozzafava with opposition from a Democrat, Bill Owens, and an Independent, Doug Hoffman. Faced with a growing attack on her liberal political positions and an onslaught of endorsements for the Independent candidate from nationally known Republicans, Scozzafava has withdrawn from the contest. If the Independent, Hoffman, can muster enough votes to win this Congressional seat, there will be quite an anti-Obama message being sent to all office seekers.
Although there is hope in the air, there could be a bad result from these up-coming elections. Even though Virginia will have a Republican/Conservative Governor, the Democrats in New Jersey and in New York could have victories and by these two wins they will be able to demonstrate that third party efforts split the opposition and ultimately produce positive results for Obama followers. As much good as The Tea Party is doing and as much as the Republican Party wants Obama power to be a thing of the past, compromise and unity between these two groups is mandatory if the Obama era is to be neutralized in 2010 and eliminated in 2012.
In Virginia the big race is for Governor and it appears to be fairly certain that the Republican candidate will be successful. He leads in all legitimate polls and even the in personal efforts of B.H. Obama have been unable to gain any advantage for the Democratic standard bearer.
The election news from New York and New Jersey is much more interesting and much more uncertain.
The Office of New Jersey Governor is also up for grabs and the messages being sent to the rest of the nation are mixed. The general consensus among political wags is that there is a dead heat between the challenger, Republican Chris Christie, and incumbent, Democrat Jim Corzine. But the wild card is the Independent candidate for that office. Chris Daggert is the Independent; has no chance of winning this race for the Governor slot; but has assumed the role of a "third party" spoiler. The question is whose campaign is he going to spoil? If the supporters of Daggert maintain a hardcore position by casting ballots for "their man and only their man", then the victory could well belong to Corzine. However, a serious appraisal of the whole situation by those leaning to but not dedicated to Daggert could well result in a "meaningful" ballot to oust the pro-Obama candidate and result in the election of Christie.
In the only pending New York Congressional race, the active vote seekers have just had a major candidate modification. The Republican Party side of the slate has been represented by Dede Scozzafava with opposition from a Democrat, Bill Owens, and an Independent, Doug Hoffman. Faced with a growing attack on her liberal political positions and an onslaught of endorsements for the Independent candidate from nationally known Republicans, Scozzafava has withdrawn from the contest. If the Independent, Hoffman, can muster enough votes to win this Congressional seat, there will be quite an anti-Obama message being sent to all office seekers.
Although there is hope in the air, there could be a bad result from these up-coming elections. Even though Virginia will have a Republican/Conservative Governor, the Democrats in New Jersey and in New York could have victories and by these two wins they will be able to demonstrate that third party efforts split the opposition and ultimately produce positive results for Obama followers. As much good as The Tea Party is doing and as much as the Republican Party wants Obama power to be a thing of the past, compromise and unity between these two groups is mandatory if the Obama era is to be neutralized in 2010 and eliminated in 2012.
Friday, October 30, 2009
More Bad News
It is impossible to imagine that any loyal American is not anxious to have this country's current economic recession/depression come to an end. The massive number of unemployed and underemployed citizens coupled with, and probably helping to cause, the record deficit spending by the Federal government has placed a cloud of despair over our nation. The saddest aspect of this situation is that the leadership we have seen from the Obama White House has been non-existent.
Looking at the Federal debt, it is still difficult to believe that in this just ended Federal fiscal year, the Obama Administration spent $1.4 Trillion more that it received. The idea that there was deficit spending is not difficult to accept but the figure $1,400,000,000,000.00 as the short fall is almost impossible for any American mind to comprehend.
Economist Marc Faber recently pointed out that given the rate of the increase of debt by the Federal government, particularly foreign debt, that within 10 years a full 50% of all Federal government income, and that means taxes, will be spent only on the interest charges due on these Washington created financial obligations. Of course the situation could be remedied by the imposition of higher taxes on the income of Americans. However, to resolve this national debt quickly, it has been reported that minimum income tax rates would have to increase from 10% to 27.2% and maximum rates from 35% to 95.2%. With that much money going to Washington, it is not hard to imagine the negative impact on every other aspect of the American economy.
The issue facing all Americans today is centered on just how is the current financial black-hole we are facing as a nation going to be addressed and then resolved. The first and most obvious answer has to be a reduction of government - local and State and Federal - spending. Tax rates have to come down to allow greater spending by Americans in the real economy. All newly designed government programs as well as many older programs have to be diminished if not altogether dissolved. The ever increasing "welfare state" that so many Americans have been trained to rely upon has to be reversed. All Federal government focus must be redirected to economic efforts in the USA and not to the financial and social development of various 3rd world countries. This redirection of activity is particularly applicable to our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and Japan and Europe.
It is time for sense to return to Washington; for political authority to return to each of the 50 States; for primary concern to be directed at real American problems and not so many perceived international problems; and it is now time to curtail and then in 2012 to end Obama's rule in Washington.
Looking at the Federal debt, it is still difficult to believe that in this just ended Federal fiscal year, the Obama Administration spent $1.4 Trillion more that it received. The idea that there was deficit spending is not difficult to accept but the figure $1,400,000,000,000.00 as the short fall is almost impossible for any American mind to comprehend.
Economist Marc Faber recently pointed out that given the rate of the increase of debt by the Federal government, particularly foreign debt, that within 10 years a full 50% of all Federal government income, and that means taxes, will be spent only on the interest charges due on these Washington created financial obligations. Of course the situation could be remedied by the imposition of higher taxes on the income of Americans. However, to resolve this national debt quickly, it has been reported that minimum income tax rates would have to increase from 10% to 27.2% and maximum rates from 35% to 95.2%. With that much money going to Washington, it is not hard to imagine the negative impact on every other aspect of the American economy.
The issue facing all Americans today is centered on just how is the current financial black-hole we are facing as a nation going to be addressed and then resolved. The first and most obvious answer has to be a reduction of government - local and State and Federal - spending. Tax rates have to come down to allow greater spending by Americans in the real economy. All newly designed government programs as well as many older programs have to be diminished if not altogether dissolved. The ever increasing "welfare state" that so many Americans have been trained to rely upon has to be reversed. All Federal government focus must be redirected to economic efforts in the USA and not to the financial and social development of various 3rd world countries. This redirection of activity is particularly applicable to our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and Japan and Europe.
It is time for sense to return to Washington; for political authority to return to each of the 50 States; for primary concern to be directed at real American problems and not so many perceived international problems; and it is now time to curtail and then in 2012 to end Obama's rule in Washington.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Slip-Sliding Away
There was a great closing line in a recent article by George Will. The quote was, "The window of opportunity could be closing." It was directed at what could be seen as a rushed attempt by President Obama to, again quoting Will, "remake the nation and save the planet." Obviously Mr. Will exercised a little tongue-in-cheek but the message is clear. Obama and his handlers are not so naive that they have missed the continuing shift of public support away from the Obama agenda and the manifestations of that shift by a loss of current, not to mention future, Congressional support for the President.
The most recently published political poll pertaining to the Obama White House has shown that the level of national support attaching to the President is now a bit less than 50%. This same report has not been overlooked by our Representatives in Congress or our US Senators. Each of them, with a few exceptions, wants to maintain his/her seat in Washington and now realizes that open support for the governmental goals of Obama could well lead to an early and undesired retirement from Federal office.
Current emphasis is being placed on the desire of the White House to radically alter the concept of healthcare in this nation. This Obama promoted socialist approach to medicine in America has not met with great enthusiasm from many of our lawmakers. If it does pass, which is not as of today a guarantee, it would likely be missing some of the fundamental elements desired by the left-leaning drafters of the original language. This no-win or at best partial-win would be a direct result of worried law makers hoping to placate the voters of their particular region. What a unique idea! Show support for what your constituents feel and not for the political/economic tenets of Obama.
As our President sees his personally promoted healthcare plan being at worst strongly opposed and at best altered, he has lost focus on other issues that face him. More American servicemen died this weekend in Afghanistan and he can't make up his mind on what to do in that nation. Iraqi terrorists escalated attacks on the political/administrative facilities of the sitting government and our forces continue to be withdrawn. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez heads an attack on the US dollar during a summit in Bolivia resulting in 9 Latin American nations shifting away from the dollar to a new international monetary unit, the "sucre", for transactions among these nations. In response, Obama does nothing. Finally, the American economy shows little in the way of positive change. Over 100 banks have now failed while the unemployment rate continues to grows with Obama thinking about another "stimulus" which only means a still greater deficit that this years $1.4 Trillion.
The above said "window" will close and the sooner the better for America.
The most recently published political poll pertaining to the Obama White House has shown that the level of national support attaching to the President is now a bit less than 50%. This same report has not been overlooked by our Representatives in Congress or our US Senators. Each of them, with a few exceptions, wants to maintain his/her seat in Washington and now realizes that open support for the governmental goals of Obama could well lead to an early and undesired retirement from Federal office.
Current emphasis is being placed on the desire of the White House to radically alter the concept of healthcare in this nation. This Obama promoted socialist approach to medicine in America has not met with great enthusiasm from many of our lawmakers. If it does pass, which is not as of today a guarantee, it would likely be missing some of the fundamental elements desired by the left-leaning drafters of the original language. This no-win or at best partial-win would be a direct result of worried law makers hoping to placate the voters of their particular region. What a unique idea! Show support for what your constituents feel and not for the political/economic tenets of Obama.
As our President sees his personally promoted healthcare plan being at worst strongly opposed and at best altered, he has lost focus on other issues that face him. More American servicemen died this weekend in Afghanistan and he can't make up his mind on what to do in that nation. Iraqi terrorists escalated attacks on the political/administrative facilities of the sitting government and our forces continue to be withdrawn. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez heads an attack on the US dollar during a summit in Bolivia resulting in 9 Latin American nations shifting away from the dollar to a new international monetary unit, the "sucre", for transactions among these nations. In response, Obama does nothing. Finally, the American economy shows little in the way of positive change. Over 100 banks have now failed while the unemployment rate continues to grows with Obama thinking about another "stimulus" which only means a still greater deficit that this years $1.4 Trillion.
The above said "window" will close and the sooner the better for America.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Afghan Exposure
At one point in time, the military action in Afghanistan was intended to be a NATO effort with a number of member nations assisting in the efforts to destroy the Taliban and al Qaeda. Several countries, in addition to America, have assigned units to this combat zone and have suffered casualties. Britain has seen 221 of its military killed and France has had 36 suffer loss of live. Obviously America with over 850 deaths has suffered the most but we also have played the largest role and have largest force in place.
As President Obama stalls on a decision whether or not to add more personnel to the Afghanistan effort, our European and British allies have had enough.
Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France, has made it perfectly clear that he will not order the premature withdrawal of the French military but insists that "not one single more" Frenchman will be ordered to risk his life in defending the goals of Hamid Karzai. This same sentiment was clearly present as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently read to Parliament the names of the British dead in the Afghan action. The sentiment of British lawmakers was reported to be overwhelmingly against British citizens "fighting and dying for an Afghan government that is deeply corrupt".
Adding more negativity to America's efforts in Afghanistan are heavily published media reports that Karzai is in office by fraud. Karzai has, it is reported, agreed to a run-off election with his nearest vote-getting opponent after an international supervising panel decreed that the outcome of the recent Afghan nationwide election was improper. The handwriting is on the wall. Unless Karzai is absented from office, Western nations, including the USA, will begin a phase down of military efforts.
The problem is that this Afghan situation is history repeating itself with Afghanistan mimicking the American experience of Vietnam. In that 1960s-1970s conflict, we introduced forces into that fight; a sitting government of South Vietnam was terminated with our help; American favorites were put into office in Saigon; and after many thousand of our troops died we ran like hell. Obama, who is currently unable to decide what to do in Afghanistan, has no desire to make any decision. Our President fears defining a military position; acting on that decision; and then being proven wrong.
His options are: 1) to do nothing and watch Americans die for no defined purpose or 2) increase the number of American military in country and hope for a definitive win in a nation that offers no real future benefit for America or 3) significantly revamp our approach with the implementation of military control efforts via drones, air strikes and commando raids or 4) voice a disgust with the Hamid Karzai regime and order that we run like hell.
The bottom line is that Obama is demonstrating that he is again in over his head and confirms this daily by his decision stalling.
As President Obama stalls on a decision whether or not to add more personnel to the Afghanistan effort, our European and British allies have had enough.
Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France, has made it perfectly clear that he will not order the premature withdrawal of the French military but insists that "not one single more" Frenchman will be ordered to risk his life in defending the goals of Hamid Karzai. This same sentiment was clearly present as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently read to Parliament the names of the British dead in the Afghan action. The sentiment of British lawmakers was reported to be overwhelmingly against British citizens "fighting and dying for an Afghan government that is deeply corrupt".
Adding more negativity to America's efforts in Afghanistan are heavily published media reports that Karzai is in office by fraud. Karzai has, it is reported, agreed to a run-off election with his nearest vote-getting opponent after an international supervising panel decreed that the outcome of the recent Afghan nationwide election was improper. The handwriting is on the wall. Unless Karzai is absented from office, Western nations, including the USA, will begin a phase down of military efforts.
The problem is that this Afghan situation is history repeating itself with Afghanistan mimicking the American experience of Vietnam. In that 1960s-1970s conflict, we introduced forces into that fight; a sitting government of South Vietnam was terminated with our help; American favorites were put into office in Saigon; and after many thousand of our troops died we ran like hell. Obama, who is currently unable to decide what to do in Afghanistan, has no desire to make any decision. Our President fears defining a military position; acting on that decision; and then being proven wrong.
His options are: 1) to do nothing and watch Americans die for no defined purpose or 2) increase the number of American military in country and hope for a definitive win in a nation that offers no real future benefit for America or 3) significantly revamp our approach with the implementation of military control efforts via drones, air strikes and commando raids or 4) voice a disgust with the Hamid Karzai regime and order that we run like hell.
The bottom line is that Obama is demonstrating that he is again in over his head and confirms this daily by his decision stalling.
More Economics
The last sentence in the three column long article in the newspaper said it all with the line, "Since Obama took office in January, the economy has lost 3.4 million jobs." To be factually correct, Bush lost 3.8 million jobs but it took him from December of 2007, the accepted date of the start of the current recession, through the January 2009 reporting period to do so. That is a 14 month long cycle compared to Obama's accomplishment being done in 9 months. Neither President should receive any accolades for these numbers. However, the experts are now stating that these unemployment figures will get worst and then stay at an elevated rate at least until 2014. So what will be "an elevated rate"? Will it be the 10% Obama projection or a number much closer to 20%? Since most independent economists say we are at 17% now, my leanings are toward a high point in the 20% range and then a lower, long term calculation at a real 10% level.
Let me remind you that even accepting the Washington line that unemployment is at 9.8%, that still represents a 26 year high. More such records, no matter how cushioned, will be set in the next 6 months.
The traditional approach to boost the national economy calls for financial institutions, banks, to make loans to both large and small businesses; for large and small businesses to expand their operations with those loans; and for these expanded operations to need more employees so more people are hired. These new employees then have money to spend which keeps the whole economic deal afloat. The obvious problem is that banks are not lending. To solve this problem, Obama's advocates are talking about a second stimulus [like the first stimulus did so much good] but these funds would have to come from renewed federal borrowings and thus create even greater deficit spending totals. Any additional deficit spending is all wrong. The amount of money America owes is huge and this sum can only act as a dampening effect as our economy labors to rebound.
The size of the current deficit has even caught the critical eye of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. He has urged that US deficits be reduced but offers not one suggestion as to how to accomplish that purpose. This is yet another government official who has seen this terrible financial problem and is at a loss as to how to correct it. Sounds like a common refrain from the powers in place in Washington.
There are solutions but only one is worth serious consideration. The weak solutions include greater taxation to generate income to pay the bills; a devaluation of the dollar; and a default on internationally held US government debt. The one "serious consideration" is via the 2010 elections limit the ability of Obama to pass his socialist, deficit incurring legislation by shifting the control of both the House and the Senate to conservatives.
With that done, the focus can shift to a White House change in 2012.
Let me remind you that even accepting the Washington line that unemployment is at 9.8%, that still represents a 26 year high. More such records, no matter how cushioned, will be set in the next 6 months.
The traditional approach to boost the national economy calls for financial institutions, banks, to make loans to both large and small businesses; for large and small businesses to expand their operations with those loans; and for these expanded operations to need more employees so more people are hired. These new employees then have money to spend which keeps the whole economic deal afloat. The obvious problem is that banks are not lending. To solve this problem, Obama's advocates are talking about a second stimulus [like the first stimulus did so much good] but these funds would have to come from renewed federal borrowings and thus create even greater deficit spending totals. Any additional deficit spending is all wrong. The amount of money America owes is huge and this sum can only act as a dampening effect as our economy labors to rebound.
The size of the current deficit has even caught the critical eye of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. He has urged that US deficits be reduced but offers not one suggestion as to how to accomplish that purpose. This is yet another government official who has seen this terrible financial problem and is at a loss as to how to correct it. Sounds like a common refrain from the powers in place in Washington.
There are solutions but only one is worth serious consideration. The weak solutions include greater taxation to generate income to pay the bills; a devaluation of the dollar; and a default on internationally held US government debt. The one "serious consideration" is via the 2010 elections limit the ability of Obama to pass his socialist, deficit incurring legislation by shifting the control of both the House and the Senate to conservatives.
With that done, the focus can shift to a White House change in 2012.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Two Lurking Nightmares
Two rather diverse topics have recently been foremost in my thoughts. The first has to do with President Obama's deadly slow decision making process as he considers the current Afghanistan situation. The second has to do with the national economy. Neither are issues that are giving me warm feelings of confidence.
The war in Afghanistan is rapidly becoming an obvious lose-lose situation. If America continues to support the legitimacy of the government of Hamid Karzai, a majority of that nation's citizens will tie GIs to the existing Kabul government and feel little compassion, much less loyalty, towards our military. American armed forces will be killed promoting a regime that has no chance of becoming a popular, successful democracy located strategical only to Pakistan. Our troops are engaged in real combat situations as they confront the forces of the Taliban and the al-Qaeda for the Washington expressed purpose of serving the inhabitants Afghanistan - one of the most backward, uncivilized and impoverish locales in the world. Lets get this right, very few native Afghans have any real interest in promoting a central government; a political democracy; or anything that could be labeled modern or western. So, if we stay - we lose.
Unfortunately because America has expended so much effort and talent and money and, most tragically, American lives in Afghanistan that if we just evacuate from that suffering nation the prestige of our county, at home and abroad, has to suffer. So, if we leave - we lose.
Adding to this problem is the inability of our President to make this hard decision. He just does not appear to have the fortitude to commit one way or the other and then be forced to stand with that decision. His answer is to stall. While he waits for the government of Afghanistan address and corrrect election issues, American are killed.
The economy is the other concern. Obama has successfully helped to set a new annual deficit spending record by exceeding Federal spending over Federal income by $1.4 Trillion. All estimates of future Federal income/expenditure figures show that this hugely negative trend will continue for several years. Since foreign nations have started to be hesitant and even non-responsive to "investing" in US government debt instruments, the only source for this Obama created money need has to be increased tax revenue from both business and individual sources. However, since real unemployment is at 17% and expected to rise well into 2010 just how severe is this tax burden going to be on those who Americans still generate income? Add to that question the generally expressed feeling of economic experts that the commercial real estate segment of our economy has suffered greatly and the impact is soon to be felt by all of us.
It would be unfair not to acknowledge that our President is consistent. Like the Afghanistan war dilemma upon which Obama stalls, a viable solution from Obama on our economic woes remains nonexistent.
The war in Afghanistan is rapidly becoming an obvious lose-lose situation. If America continues to support the legitimacy of the government of Hamid Karzai, a majority of that nation's citizens will tie GIs to the existing Kabul government and feel little compassion, much less loyalty, towards our military. American armed forces will be killed promoting a regime that has no chance of becoming a popular, successful democracy located strategical only to Pakistan. Our troops are engaged in real combat situations as they confront the forces of the Taliban and the al-Qaeda for the Washington expressed purpose of serving the inhabitants Afghanistan - one of the most backward, uncivilized and impoverish locales in the world. Lets get this right, very few native Afghans have any real interest in promoting a central government; a political democracy; or anything that could be labeled modern or western. So, if we stay - we lose.
Unfortunately because America has expended so much effort and talent and money and, most tragically, American lives in Afghanistan that if we just evacuate from that suffering nation the prestige of our county, at home and abroad, has to suffer. So, if we leave - we lose.
Adding to this problem is the inability of our President to make this hard decision. He just does not appear to have the fortitude to commit one way or the other and then be forced to stand with that decision. His answer is to stall. While he waits for the government of Afghanistan address and corrrect election issues, American are killed.
The economy is the other concern. Obama has successfully helped to set a new annual deficit spending record by exceeding Federal spending over Federal income by $1.4 Trillion. All estimates of future Federal income/expenditure figures show that this hugely negative trend will continue for several years. Since foreign nations have started to be hesitant and even non-responsive to "investing" in US government debt instruments, the only source for this Obama created money need has to be increased tax revenue from both business and individual sources. However, since real unemployment is at 17% and expected to rise well into 2010 just how severe is this tax burden going to be on those who Americans still generate income? Add to that question the generally expressed feeling of economic experts that the commercial real estate segment of our economy has suffered greatly and the impact is soon to be felt by all of us.
It would be unfair not to acknowledge that our President is consistent. Like the Afghanistan war dilemma upon which Obama stalls, a viable solution from Obama on our economic woes remains nonexistent.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Third Party Reality
George F. Will regularly produces newspaper political opinion pieces and in his October 16th article has a wonderful closing statement. Discussing the potential of Republican House and particularly Republican Senate election gains, he expresses that these anticipated GOP wins "helps explain why Obama is in such a hurry to remake the nation and save the planet. His window of opportunity could be closing."
The two governor elections - Virginia and New Jersey - scheduled for this November truly can be viewed not only as a verification of this George F. Will sentiment of the closing of the Obama opportunity window but also clearly defines an unique obstacle that the anti-Obama, Republican office seekers face. This potentially defeating aspect of pending elections is the emergence of third party candidates.
In Virginia, the Republican candidate for Governor is Robert McDonnell and he is opposed by an Obama backing Democrat named R Creigh Deeds. The most recent pre-election survey shows that McDonnell enjoys an 8.8% point margin in that he leads R. Creigh 51.3% to 42.5%. The race is much closer and much different in New Jersey. The incumbent Democratic governor, Jon Corzine, is seeking reelection and his current voter draw is listed at 40.8%. Corzine trails Chris Christie, the Republican candidate, by 1 percentage point. The real difference is that 14 percent of the anticipated voters are siding with Christopher Daggot who is an independent, third party candidate. It is difficult to characterize these Daggot supporters as anything other than anti-establishment which means anti-Obama and which means anti-Corzine. Therefore the Daggot advocates are primarily a drain against the voter-backing that Republican Christie should be enjoying.
Obama's staff is by no means naive and will view this New Jersey situation as a possible remedy for effectively dividing and rendering moot the candidacy of anti-Obama office seekers in 2010 and 2012 by the creation of "strong" third party candidates. There could even be one for President.
This situation is not unknown in American history. Lets not forget the national elections of 1992. Bush, Clinton and Ross Perot faced off and Clinton won the Presidency by 6% of the vote. The electoral college margin was much higher. However, if the third party candidate, Perot, had not run then his 19% of the popular vote would have gone overwhelmingly to G. H. W. Bush and Clinton would never have won the popular vote, the Electoral College or the White House.
We have to be conscience of not letting this type of third party election history repeat itself in any of the 2010 or 2012 local, State and Federal contests.
The two governor elections - Virginia and New Jersey - scheduled for this November truly can be viewed not only as a verification of this George F. Will sentiment of the closing of the Obama opportunity window but also clearly defines an unique obstacle that the anti-Obama, Republican office seekers face. This potentially defeating aspect of pending elections is the emergence of third party candidates.
In Virginia, the Republican candidate for Governor is Robert McDonnell and he is opposed by an Obama backing Democrat named R Creigh Deeds. The most recent pre-election survey shows that McDonnell enjoys an 8.8% point margin in that he leads R. Creigh 51.3% to 42.5%. The race is much closer and much different in New Jersey. The incumbent Democratic governor, Jon Corzine, is seeking reelection and his current voter draw is listed at 40.8%. Corzine trails Chris Christie, the Republican candidate, by 1 percentage point. The real difference is that 14 percent of the anticipated voters are siding with Christopher Daggot who is an independent, third party candidate. It is difficult to characterize these Daggot supporters as anything other than anti-establishment which means anti-Obama and which means anti-Corzine. Therefore the Daggot advocates are primarily a drain against the voter-backing that Republican Christie should be enjoying.
Obama's staff is by no means naive and will view this New Jersey situation as a possible remedy for effectively dividing and rendering moot the candidacy of anti-Obama office seekers in 2010 and 2012 by the creation of "strong" third party candidates. There could even be one for President.
This situation is not unknown in American history. Lets not forget the national elections of 1992. Bush, Clinton and Ross Perot faced off and Clinton won the Presidency by 6% of the vote. The electoral college margin was much higher. However, if the third party candidate, Perot, had not run then his 19% of the popular vote would have gone overwhelmingly to G. H. W. Bush and Clinton would never have won the popular vote, the Electoral College or the White House.
We have to be conscience of not letting this type of third party election history repeat itself in any of the 2010 or 2012 local, State and Federal contests.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Attack On The Dollar Continues
The international attack on the American dollar continues. These assaults are not to devalue the dollar, that is being done quite nicely and consistently by the Obama Administration, but rather to reduce the dollar to just another national currency and thereby strip prestige from our legal tender and from our nation.
This past week an international financial conference was held in Turkey. During one of the general sessions, a high-ranking official of the United Nations urged that the US dollar be substituted by a "truly global reserve currency such as the IMF's special drawing rights". Recall that the cited "special drawing rights", generally referred to as SDR, were just over a month ago in the news when the same IMF [International Monetary Fund] borrowed 32 Billion SDRs from Communist China. On the day of that loan, 32 Billion SDRs were worth $50 Billion. Today that same principal debt amount is just over $51 Billion in that the dollar has lost about another 3 cents in value. However, this statement in Turkey is more sinister and ominous for Americans when the orator's identity is considered.
The subject address was made by Sha Zukang who in addition to being the
Under-Secretary-General For Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations is a 40 year diplomat from and for Communist China.
Expanding on this monetary intrigue is the knowledge that in March of 2009 Zhou Xiaochuan, the head of Communist China's largest bank, urged the termination of the US dollar as the international trade medium of exchange. Additionally, during this past summer India hosted a small internationally conference with the invitees being only Communist China and Russia for the expressed purpose of exploring the establishment of a new international monetary standard. Now consider that the United States of America owes Communist China over $804 Billion.
Most recently the G-20 met in Pittsburgh and announced that certain economic issues that arose in individual member nations would be submitted to the same IMF for examination and comment. The term "rejection" was not included but is an obvious logical inference. As you know, America is one of the G-20. This award of oversight given to the IMF is easily seen as a prelude to international acceptance of the SDR monetary standard, which currently, but subject to regular review and change, consists of a "basket" of the money of America, England, Japan along with the Euro.
Closing out this exercise in logic, if that is at all possible in international affairs or when considering the White House, our President has made it abundantly clear that he is more of an internationalist than an American. As such it is only a matter of time [Obama has, wishfully, just over 3 more years in office] before the IMF's monetary standard is applied by international law retroactively to date of origin of all existing government debts as held by foreign nations. That would include the massive amounts we owe not only Communist China but also owe the now left-leaning Japan and the folks from OPEC.
Increasing all of the financial obligations of America to foreign nations by the relative value of the dollar to the SDR would cause an unbelievable economic turmoil in our nation. Remember when I stated that the goal of other entities was not to devalue the dollar, I lied.
This past week an international financial conference was held in Turkey. During one of the general sessions, a high-ranking official of the United Nations urged that the US dollar be substituted by a "truly global reserve currency such as the IMF's special drawing rights". Recall that the cited "special drawing rights", generally referred to as SDR, were just over a month ago in the news when the same IMF [International Monetary Fund] borrowed 32 Billion SDRs from Communist China. On the day of that loan, 32 Billion SDRs were worth $50 Billion. Today that same principal debt amount is just over $51 Billion in that the dollar has lost about another 3 cents in value. However, this statement in Turkey is more sinister and ominous for Americans when the orator's identity is considered.
The subject address was made by Sha Zukang who in addition to being the
Under-Secretary-General For Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations is a 40 year diplomat from and for Communist China.
Expanding on this monetary intrigue is the knowledge that in March of 2009 Zhou Xiaochuan, the head of Communist China's largest bank, urged the termination of the US dollar as the international trade medium of exchange. Additionally, during this past summer India hosted a small internationally conference with the invitees being only Communist China and Russia for the expressed purpose of exploring the establishment of a new international monetary standard. Now consider that the United States of America owes Communist China over $804 Billion.
Most recently the G-20 met in Pittsburgh and announced that certain economic issues that arose in individual member nations would be submitted to the same IMF for examination and comment. The term "rejection" was not included but is an obvious logical inference. As you know, America is one of the G-20. This award of oversight given to the IMF is easily seen as a prelude to international acceptance of the SDR monetary standard, which currently, but subject to regular review and change, consists of a "basket" of the money of America, England, Japan along with the Euro.
Closing out this exercise in logic, if that is at all possible in international affairs or when considering the White House, our President has made it abundantly clear that he is more of an internationalist than an American. As such it is only a matter of time [Obama has, wishfully, just over 3 more years in office] before the IMF's monetary standard is applied by international law retroactively to date of origin of all existing government debts as held by foreign nations. That would include the massive amounts we owe not only Communist China but also owe the now left-leaning Japan and the folks from OPEC.
Increasing all of the financial obligations of America to foreign nations by the relative value of the dollar to the SDR would cause an unbelievable economic turmoil in our nation. Remember when I stated that the goal of other entities was not to devalue the dollar, I lied.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
More Thoughts On The Nobel
The shocking announcement made last week by a group of Norwegians that Barack H. Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize continues to be a point of confusion and disbelief. The obvious question is what were these people attempting to accomplish by reducing this internationally prestigious award to a shallow, premature-at-best, unsustainable-by-merit, politically-motivated accolade?
Initial reaction to this presentation has to echo the sentiments of Gov. Tim Pawlenty that a congratulations is in order for whoever receives a Nobel Prize and, expanding on this notion, this is particularly true for any of our countrymen who have been so honored. However, this particular Prize announcement is lessened by what has to be seen as an obvious attempt to influence future international affair decisions by our President. A quick review of the biographies of the 5 individuals handling the actual selection reveals little. All are politicians; one is an open socialist; 4 are women; and one, the chairman, is a male. Adding to the intrigue is the fact that nominations had to be made by February 1, 2009 and except for a period of less than two weeks the winner, Barack H. Obama, was a little known US Senator who had no history of impact on any international matter much less global peace.
If past performance is disregarded then it becomes logical that recent acts, those in the past 8 months, must have been so spectacular that it became obvious to the selection panel that Obama was the only person to be named the awardee. So what did he accomplish in that 8 month time period to protect international peace? The answer is easy - nothing. The desire to exert political pressure is then the goal that must have motivated this Obama selection and if this is the correctly discerned intent then all of America must be insulted rather than pleased.
Insult number one is how improper it is for any quasi-governmental organization of any foreign nation, much less a small nation, to believe that it can sway the international policies of what certainly is still the most powerful nation in the world. The decisions emanating from Washington are for America's best interests and those decisions often impact the rest of the world in a positive fashion. However, American betterment always needs to comes first.
Insult number two is that any foreign group can believe that an American President is so weak and so insecure and so inexperienced and so poorly advised that he would be swayed in his international affairs decisions by such an action as was initiated by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Sounds like the theme of the movie comedy, The Mouse That Roared.
Insult number three is that this group of Norwegians really believes that Obama is weak and insecure and inexperienced and poorly advised. But wait, this may be more than an insult but rather a reflection of what other nations really think about our President. Insult number three then becomes a true indictment of the American voting public and as Obama humbly grins and plans his trip to Scandinavia and considers which charities will receive the $1.4 million that accompanies the Award, the majority of the citizens of the United States of America hang their heads in shame and await restlessly for November of 2012.
Initial reaction to this presentation has to echo the sentiments of Gov. Tim Pawlenty that a congratulations is in order for whoever receives a Nobel Prize and, expanding on this notion, this is particularly true for any of our countrymen who have been so honored. However, this particular Prize announcement is lessened by what has to be seen as an obvious attempt to influence future international affair decisions by our President. A quick review of the biographies of the 5 individuals handling the actual selection reveals little. All are politicians; one is an open socialist; 4 are women; and one, the chairman, is a male. Adding to the intrigue is the fact that nominations had to be made by February 1, 2009 and except for a period of less than two weeks the winner, Barack H. Obama, was a little known US Senator who had no history of impact on any international matter much less global peace.
If past performance is disregarded then it becomes logical that recent acts, those in the past 8 months, must have been so spectacular that it became obvious to the selection panel that Obama was the only person to be named the awardee. So what did he accomplish in that 8 month time period to protect international peace? The answer is easy - nothing. The desire to exert political pressure is then the goal that must have motivated this Obama selection and if this is the correctly discerned intent then all of America must be insulted rather than pleased.
Insult number one is how improper it is for any quasi-governmental organization of any foreign nation, much less a small nation, to believe that it can sway the international policies of what certainly is still the most powerful nation in the world. The decisions emanating from Washington are for America's best interests and those decisions often impact the rest of the world in a positive fashion. However, American betterment always needs to comes first.
Insult number two is that any foreign group can believe that an American President is so weak and so insecure and so inexperienced and so poorly advised that he would be swayed in his international affairs decisions by such an action as was initiated by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Sounds like the theme of the movie comedy, The Mouse That Roared.
Insult number three is that this group of Norwegians really believes that Obama is weak and insecure and inexperienced and poorly advised. But wait, this may be more than an insult but rather a reflection of what other nations really think about our President. Insult number three then becomes a true indictment of the American voting public and as Obama humbly grins and plans his trip to Scandinavia and considers which charities will receive the $1.4 million that accompanies the Award, the majority of the citizens of the United States of America hang their heads in shame and await restlessly for November of 2012.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Nobel Peace Prize Equates Farce
All news medias led today's editions with the proclamation that Barack H. Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Like so many other Americans I found this announcement to be not only ridiculous but also an absolute insult to the prestige that has for decades attached to any recipient of a Nobel Prize. That prestige has now been permanently destroyed.
Under what possible rational theory could Obama ever have been seriously considered a candidate for this award? American forces are killing and dying daily in Iraq although Obama his plans to reduce the military force significantly over the next year. These same Armed Forces are engaged in extensive combat missions in Afghanistan with serious overtures to Obama, that have not been rejected by him, to expand the role and the number of the American military in that desolate nation. The only "peaceful" acts that can be attributed to Obama, and those are in themselves a stretch, are the cancellation of a proposed missile protective system in Eastern Europe and the kowtowing to North Korea as it expands its nuclear and missile programs and the failure to imposing prompt and meaningful sanctions against Iran as it races to join the club of nations with nuclear weapons.
One does not have to be paranoid to see this Nobel award is nothing more than a very cleaver attack on America. The message being sent is that Obama is an international joke as a leader. He is well liked but would not be followed even if the proposed trip was just around the corner. These Euro nations are expressing that a strong, traditional American President is not favored by the anti-American elites of the Nobel Prize Committee. However, the ever accommodating, Saudi Prince bowing, leftist leaning, socialism promoting Obama is no threat and his weaknesses can only demean and diminish America. No award of Olympic Games for Obama because his government and economy can't handle the responsibility but with a sly grin we will give him a Nobel Peace Prize and let him stick $1,400,000.00 as a cash award in his pocket.
The only American poll on this Obama award shows that 66% of his fellow citizens find the said award inappropriate; 13% find the award as premature; and 21% were in favor of the award. If these same figures can only carry over to the 2010 and 2012 elections, I will be happy to see Obama, as a former President, making public appearances with his Nobel sash across his chest and his Nobel Peace Prize medal boldly displayed.
Under what possible rational theory could Obama ever have been seriously considered a candidate for this award? American forces are killing and dying daily in Iraq although Obama his plans to reduce the military force significantly over the next year. These same Armed Forces are engaged in extensive combat missions in Afghanistan with serious overtures to Obama, that have not been rejected by him, to expand the role and the number of the American military in that desolate nation. The only "peaceful" acts that can be attributed to Obama, and those are in themselves a stretch, are the cancellation of a proposed missile protective system in Eastern Europe and the kowtowing to North Korea as it expands its nuclear and missile programs and the failure to imposing prompt and meaningful sanctions against Iran as it races to join the club of nations with nuclear weapons.
One does not have to be paranoid to see this Nobel award is nothing more than a very cleaver attack on America. The message being sent is that Obama is an international joke as a leader. He is well liked but would not be followed even if the proposed trip was just around the corner. These Euro nations are expressing that a strong, traditional American President is not favored by the anti-American elites of the Nobel Prize Committee. However, the ever accommodating, Saudi Prince bowing, leftist leaning, socialism promoting Obama is no threat and his weaknesses can only demean and diminish America. No award of Olympic Games for Obama because his government and economy can't handle the responsibility but with a sly grin we will give him a Nobel Peace Prize and let him stick $1,400,000.00 as a cash award in his pocket.
The only American poll on this Obama award shows that 66% of his fellow citizens find the said award inappropriate; 13% find the award as premature; and 21% were in favor of the award. If these same figures can only carry over to the 2010 and 2012 elections, I will be happy to see Obama, as a former President, making public appearances with his Nobel sash across his chest and his Nobel Peace Prize medal boldly displayed.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Another Expressed Economic Fear
In a recent interview, a noted economist opined that it was quite possible for America to be soon facing a 20% inflationary impact on the US dollar. This crushing blow to our economic recovery would arise from only one change in the current status of our international monetary relationships. That change would be the cessation of the purchasing of US Government debt by Communist China and Japan. This reluctance to invest in an Obama led United States may have already begun.
Just over a month ago China made a ground breaking investment when it loaned the International Monetary Fund [IMF] the equivalent of $50 Billion. This single transaction equaled just over 6% of the total amount that China had previously placed in federal government financial obligations. More importantly it represented $50 Billion that did not go into the coffers of Washington. To add to this concern of future Chinese investments in American government debt instruments are the reports that China has opted to buy all the gold that it can locate rather than put that money into the future of America.
On the concern over future Japanese investment, there is no doubt that the voiced desires of that nation's newly elected government are to separate from Washington and concentrate more on Far East Asian relationships. The USA does not qualify as being of the Far East Asian genre.
If there is in fact substantial inflation in America, the chances of a rapid economic recovery become remote. The dollar becomes less valuable; less is spent on consumer items because more has to be spent on food, housing, utilities and gas. With no growth in the economy there is no reduction in the number of unemployed now generally accepted to be at 17%. The bottom line is that 20% inflation would be disastrous to our nation.
The reaction from the Obama Administration is yet again nothing. However, Jeffrey Lacher, the President of the Federal Reserve, announced last week that the "American economic rebound was robust". He must have missed that in September another 263,000 Americans lost their jobs and that official unemployment was now at 9.8% and that 99 banks have failed this year and that 1,046,499 American have already filed bankruptcy in 2009.
Obama may be failing in all aspects of Presidential leadership, particularly on economic matters, but he gets a good mark for effort in procuring Olympic Games. He failed in that category too but he and his wife sure looked good in Copenhagen. Maybe after January of 2013, when he is looking for a job, he could secure a position with the IOC
Just over a month ago China made a ground breaking investment when it loaned the International Monetary Fund [IMF] the equivalent of $50 Billion. This single transaction equaled just over 6% of the total amount that China had previously placed in federal government financial obligations. More importantly it represented $50 Billion that did not go into the coffers of Washington. To add to this concern of future Chinese investments in American government debt instruments are the reports that China has opted to buy all the gold that it can locate rather than put that money into the future of America.
On the concern over future Japanese investment, there is no doubt that the voiced desires of that nation's newly elected government are to separate from Washington and concentrate more on Far East Asian relationships. The USA does not qualify as being of the Far East Asian genre.
If there is in fact substantial inflation in America, the chances of a rapid economic recovery become remote. The dollar becomes less valuable; less is spent on consumer items because more has to be spent on food, housing, utilities and gas. With no growth in the economy there is no reduction in the number of unemployed now generally accepted to be at 17%. The bottom line is that 20% inflation would be disastrous to our nation.
The reaction from the Obama Administration is yet again nothing. However, Jeffrey Lacher, the President of the Federal Reserve, announced last week that the "American economic rebound was robust". He must have missed that in September another 263,000 Americans lost their jobs and that official unemployment was now at 9.8% and that 99 banks have failed this year and that 1,046,499 American have already filed bankruptcy in 2009.
Obama may be failing in all aspects of Presidential leadership, particularly on economic matters, but he gets a good mark for effort in procuring Olympic Games. He failed in that category too but he and his wife sure looked good in Copenhagen. Maybe after January of 2013, when he is looking for a job, he could secure a position with the IOC
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Obama Comes Through - America Harmed
A conversation I engaged in at a recent grass roots political meeting was centered on President Obama being either a sinister internationalist intent on forcing socialism on America or a shallow, face-man being utilized by a radical element of Americans to promote the same international socialist goals. No decision was reached except that both views ended in bad news for America. However, recent developments at the International Monetary Fund [IMF] have forced a leaning that favors Obama as a fairly competent international socialist.
Recall that at the close of the recent Washington meetings between Communist China and the Obama Administration, President Obama agreed to assist the Chinese in obtaining a greater degree of authority in the arena of international monetary matters. He also said he would give some thought to a new international monetary standard. Via the IMF, this is being done.
On September 2, 2009 the IMF announced that it had borrowed $50 Billion from Communist China but had used for the transaction its own international monetary standard called SDR. This move away from the US Dollar as the accepted international monetary standard has been an expressed goal of Peking. In the past few days the head of the IMF, Dominique Straus-Kahn, indicated that the IMF was going to revamp its voting procedure to allow greater influence by African nations, India and Communist China. The current system grants to America an automatic 17% vote on all issues and since a positive 85% vote of IMF members is needed to approve any program, the United States had an automatic veto. This voting "revamp" will lower the voting power of American and give us a good input but no longer absolute control.
When the relationship between the head of the IMF French socialist, Straus-Kahn, and the American socialist, Obama, is considered it is clear to conclude that the IMF is assisting Obama in his prior expressed promises to China. Added to these actual developments is the published report that OPEC and a number of other nations have engaged in talks to convert international oil trade away from the dollar to a new international monetary standard that utilizes a "basket of currencies". OPEC has denied this development but it certainly sounds like the current monetary standard of the IMF, or something like it, is under consideration.
The impact on America by the implementation of the SDR standard on all international trade would force a massive change, for the worse, on our economy. As of October 6th one SDR is valued at $1.59 up 3 cents from September 2 so that the $50 Billion borrowed by the IMF is now $51 Billion with no interest calculation included. A weakening dollar will make everything imported, not just oil, more expensive for US citizens.
The biggest fear is that Obama, carrying the torch for internationalism, will decree that all outstanding US government obligations will immediately be calculated by the said SDR standard. That could mean the American debt to Communist China alone would be recalculated and be then set at $1.3 Trillion.
An economic recovery becomes more remote.
Recall that at the close of the recent Washington meetings between Communist China and the Obama Administration, President Obama agreed to assist the Chinese in obtaining a greater degree of authority in the arena of international monetary matters. He also said he would give some thought to a new international monetary standard. Via the IMF, this is being done.
On September 2, 2009 the IMF announced that it had borrowed $50 Billion from Communist China but had used for the transaction its own international monetary standard called SDR. This move away from the US Dollar as the accepted international monetary standard has been an expressed goal of Peking. In the past few days the head of the IMF, Dominique Straus-Kahn, indicated that the IMF was going to revamp its voting procedure to allow greater influence by African nations, India and Communist China. The current system grants to America an automatic 17% vote on all issues and since a positive 85% vote of IMF members is needed to approve any program, the United States had an automatic veto. This voting "revamp" will lower the voting power of American and give us a good input but no longer absolute control.
When the relationship between the head of the IMF French socialist, Straus-Kahn, and the American socialist, Obama, is considered it is clear to conclude that the IMF is assisting Obama in his prior expressed promises to China. Added to these actual developments is the published report that OPEC and a number of other nations have engaged in talks to convert international oil trade away from the dollar to a new international monetary standard that utilizes a "basket of currencies". OPEC has denied this development but it certainly sounds like the current monetary standard of the IMF, or something like it, is under consideration.
The impact on America by the implementation of the SDR standard on all international trade would force a massive change, for the worse, on our economy. As of October 6th one SDR is valued at $1.59 up 3 cents from September 2 so that the $50 Billion borrowed by the IMF is now $51 Billion with no interest calculation included. A weakening dollar will make everything imported, not just oil, more expensive for US citizens.
The biggest fear is that Obama, carrying the torch for internationalism, will decree that all outstanding US government obligations will immediately be calculated by the said SDR standard. That could mean the American debt to Communist China alone would be recalculated and be then set at $1.3 Trillion.
An economic recovery becomes more remote.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Racism
There is a not-so-secret but absolutely unpublished rule that no journalist can ever make a generally negative comment as to the Black segment of our nation without immediately exposing himself to the label of being racist. With this idea firmly set in my mind, a Bachelor of Science in Journalism being confirming proof that I was properly trained, the recent article by Bruce Drake definitely approached that forbidden line and yet truly expressed a radical dichotomy between White Americans and Black Americans.
Although Drake cited recent political polling data from several States, he reported on just three States as to the issue of Obama's approval by Blacks and by Whites. Nothing has changed since the election of 2008. In Virginia, 56% of the polled White citizens disapproved of the efforts of Obama while 73% of that State's Black population sided with Obama. Deeper in the South, the Black citizens of Alabama approved of our President's actions by an 80% margin with 74% of the its White citizens finding fault with Obama. In the far west, the White citizens of California gave the President a 50% negative vote while the Blacks approved of his efforts by an 80% vote.
The huge disparity between these approval/disapproval results can only be explained by racism, but rather than a negative connotation of that designation it is a factually correct term in explaining this polling phenomena. The American economy is bad for both Blacks and Whites; foreign terrorists threaten both Whites and Blacks; and the massive amount of internationally held American debt is owed by both Blacks and Whites. Obama has failing marks on all three of these issues. This leaves only one logical result - a substantial number of Black Americans approve of what Obama does merely out of a pride for a member of their race. That is racism.
Is this wrong? The answer has to be yes if that single factor, race status, is allowed to control all rational thoughts as to the merits of Obama. This is a two edged sword in that race can not be viewed as a positive, vote meriting characteristic any more than race can be viewed as a justification for opposition to a vote seeking political candidate.
In 1835 Alexis De Tocqueville published his classic work, Democracy In America. This study of the developing American nation carried a lengthy commentary on race relations in the United States and, to paraphrase, De Tocqueville express sad feelings toward America because Blacks and Whites were destined to live together but never as one. With any luck, De Tocqueville was too pessimistic on this point and will be eventually proven wrong. However, today the wedge of racist is being driven into our society by Black Americans with their unquestioning support of Obama. This harms all the citizens of our nation as Obama moves us, and that means all races, towards socialism and a demeaned position in the world.
Although Drake cited recent political polling data from several States, he reported on just three States as to the issue of Obama's approval by Blacks and by Whites. Nothing has changed since the election of 2008. In Virginia, 56% of the polled White citizens disapproved of the efforts of Obama while 73% of that State's Black population sided with Obama. Deeper in the South, the Black citizens of Alabama approved of our President's actions by an 80% margin with 74% of the its White citizens finding fault with Obama. In the far west, the White citizens of California gave the President a 50% negative vote while the Blacks approved of his efforts by an 80% vote.
The huge disparity between these approval/disapproval results can only be explained by racism, but rather than a negative connotation of that designation it is a factually correct term in explaining this polling phenomena. The American economy is bad for both Blacks and Whites; foreign terrorists threaten both Whites and Blacks; and the massive amount of internationally held American debt is owed by both Blacks and Whites. Obama has failing marks on all three of these issues. This leaves only one logical result - a substantial number of Black Americans approve of what Obama does merely out of a pride for a member of their race. That is racism.
Is this wrong? The answer has to be yes if that single factor, race status, is allowed to control all rational thoughts as to the merits of Obama. This is a two edged sword in that race can not be viewed as a positive, vote meriting characteristic any more than race can be viewed as a justification for opposition to a vote seeking political candidate.
In 1835 Alexis De Tocqueville published his classic work, Democracy In America. This study of the developing American nation carried a lengthy commentary on race relations in the United States and, to paraphrase, De Tocqueville express sad feelings toward America because Blacks and Whites were destined to live together but never as one. With any luck, De Tocqueville was too pessimistic on this point and will be eventually proven wrong. However, today the wedge of racist is being driven into our society by Black Americans with their unquestioning support of Obama. This harms all the citizens of our nation as Obama moves us, and that means all races, towards socialism and a demeaned position in the world.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Steve Forbes made it perfectly clear in an interview today that the American economy will not improve until the American dollar once again becomes strong. His biggest complaint was that former President Bush did not act to strengthen the dollar when the recession started and now President Obama was also failing in that department. His rational is very good because unless the dollar becomes stronger there will be little if any desire on the part of the American financial industry to loan money. This kills growth in the American small business sector of the economy and cripples the overall national economy.
This small business sector of our economy is vital to the well being of America. A full 38% of the American GDP [Gross Domestic Product] comes from small business activity and these same entities employ 50% of the American work force. The media only focuses on big industrial failures and ignores the fact that 100s of thousands of small businesses have closed. Any walk though a strip mall or a small business center quickly demonstrates this fact. Until these businesses grow or are reestablished there will be no real increase in our employment levels. Many economists have opined that unemployment will continue to grow into and through 2010 and then level off. Slowly, with an emphasis on slowly, thereafter Americans will begin to be rehired.
Not helping this economic situation is the refusal of the banking industry to take an economic leap of faith in Americans and in the American small business sector by relaxing personal credit. Most Americans spend money via credit cards and then regularly repay those balances. There is no question that charge card defaults are at a record level, but to aggravate the situation the banks have this year withdrawn $1.25 Trillion in available credit lines from active credit cards. A full 10% of all standard credit cards have been cancelled outright and the banking industry has indicated that it will close another $1.5 Trillion in credit card lines of credit in 2010. The obvious victim is small business because spending, even on credit, allows growth and that means hiring.
Obama's focus must be on strengthening the dollar and pressuring the banks to make money available to creditworthy Americans. His efforts this week, particularly the sojourn to Copenhagen, reveal his lack of economic knowledge or maybe just his lack of interest.
This small business sector of our economy is vital to the well being of America. A full 38% of the American GDP [Gross Domestic Product] comes from small business activity and these same entities employ 50% of the American work force. The media only focuses on big industrial failures and ignores the fact that 100s of thousands of small businesses have closed. Any walk though a strip mall or a small business center quickly demonstrates this fact. Until these businesses grow or are reestablished there will be no real increase in our employment levels. Many economists have opined that unemployment will continue to grow into and through 2010 and then level off. Slowly, with an emphasis on slowly, thereafter Americans will begin to be rehired.
Not helping this economic situation is the refusal of the banking industry to take an economic leap of faith in Americans and in the American small business sector by relaxing personal credit. Most Americans spend money via credit cards and then regularly repay those balances. There is no question that charge card defaults are at a record level, but to aggravate the situation the banks have this year withdrawn $1.25 Trillion in available credit lines from active credit cards. A full 10% of all standard credit cards have been cancelled outright and the banking industry has indicated that it will close another $1.5 Trillion in credit card lines of credit in 2010. The obvious victim is small business because spending, even on credit, allows growth and that means hiring.
Obama's focus must be on strengthening the dollar and pressuring the banks to make money available to creditworthy Americans. His efforts this week, particularly the sojourn to Copenhagen, reveal his lack of economic knowledge or maybe just his lack of interest.
OBAMA & THE OLYMPICS
It is 11:04 AM, EST and the vote on the Olympic Games coming to Chicago has not yet been announced. However, once again the Obama White House is not being honest with America or the Obama White House has again lower the prestige of the American Presidency.
As a student of the history of our nation, I cannot imagine that any American President would travel across the Atlantic to a foreign nation to plead before a private international organization to place Olympic Games in one of our cities. I also could never had imagined a American President bowing to a Saudi Prince. What's going on right now in Copenhagen is not the job of President Obama but rather a task properly belonging to a meaningless, symbolic office holder like Vice President Biden. Except if the deal has already been done, the right pockets filled, and the economic promises made, then the President could fly overseas, make an appearance and when the announcement is made take credit for the success. The economy is bad, our military is not doing well in Afghanistan, the dollar is under attack, we owe Communist China $804 Billion but Obama got us a future Olympic site. This certainly defines our President.
On the other side of the coin, why would Obama risk the embarrassment to himself, the American government, and the whole of the United States by asking for this Olympic favor in person and be turned down?
What a choice. Our President attempts to misled the nation on what is going on or our President demeans the greatest elected office in the world by seeking to be named an international games host.
November 2012 can't come fast enough!
UPDATE:
The games went to Rio.
So do we now pat our President on the back and say, "Nice try" or do we shake our heads and mutter, "You idiot"? You hate to criticise anyone trying to benefit America but BHO just does not yet understand who he now is, what his office means nationally and internationally and that he has flunkies, Biden, who can waste time on items like Olympic Games selection committees.
As a student of the history of our nation, I cannot imagine that any American President would travel across the Atlantic to a foreign nation to plead before a private international organization to place Olympic Games in one of our cities. I also could never had imagined a American President bowing to a Saudi Prince. What's going on right now in Copenhagen is not the job of President Obama but rather a task properly belonging to a meaningless, symbolic office holder like Vice President Biden. Except if the deal has already been done, the right pockets filled, and the economic promises made, then the President could fly overseas, make an appearance and when the announcement is made take credit for the success. The economy is bad, our military is not doing well in Afghanistan, the dollar is under attack, we owe Communist China $804 Billion but Obama got us a future Olympic site. This certainly defines our President.
On the other side of the coin, why would Obama risk the embarrassment to himself, the American government, and the whole of the United States by asking for this Olympic favor in person and be turned down?
What a choice. Our President attempts to misled the nation on what is going on or our President demeans the greatest elected office in the world by seeking to be named an international games host.
November 2012 can't come fast enough!
UPDATE:
The games went to Rio.
So do we now pat our President on the back and say, "Nice try" or do we shake our heads and mutter, "You idiot"? You hate to criticise anyone trying to benefit America but BHO just does not yet understand who he now is, what his office means nationally and internationally and that he has flunkies, Biden, who can waste time on items like Olympic Games selection committees.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
To The Press and Federal Reserve -You Lie
It was difficult to initially believe that a news story headline and a quote from a Washington economic "big wig" were not perverted attempts at humor. Unfortunately, both the AP headline and the quote from Federal Reserve President Jeffery Lacher were correctly printed and each lied on the subject of the American economy.
The business news story from the AP was headlined by "US Economy Shows Signs Of Rebound". The leading point of the article was that consumer spending had "surged" in August and since consumer spending accounts for 70% of our economy's vitality this was a good sign. The article continued with the comment that this customer spending reflected "the success of the Cash-for-Clunkers Program". This whole reporting approach reflects nothing more than unity with the Obama Administration. The C-for-C Program did little more than reward 700,000 or so Americans along with the auto industry with several billion dollars of tax payers' money. No "surge" in consumer spending was realized in any other facet of the retail market and the C-for-C money will have to be repaid with interest to Communist China or some other creditor of America.
The President of the Federal Reserve is Jeffrey Lacker and as the AP published its above cited story, Mr. Lacker announced that the "economic rebound was robust". The real facts are that there were 551,000 new claims for unemployment benefits, a number which is up from the last reporting period. Remember, this half a million number reflects only newly laid-off workers. Additionally, American confidence in the economy diminished from 54.5 in August to 53.1 in September. The Federal government's own Commerce Department today reported that in America "personal income growth lags".
The bottom line is that the spending "surge" was a misnomer; over half a million more Americans have lost their jobs; the American public showed renewed lack of confidence in the economy; and personal income is not keeping pace. There is no evidence of an "economic rebound".
Every piece of data that is published to Americans by any member of the Obama Administration, and that includes all elements of the news media, has to be considered propaganda and examined closely. In today's AP and Lacker examples, Congressman Joe Wilson must be quoted, "You lie!"
The business news story from the AP was headlined by "US Economy Shows Signs Of Rebound". The leading point of the article was that consumer spending had "surged" in August and since consumer spending accounts for 70% of our economy's vitality this was a good sign. The article continued with the comment that this customer spending reflected "the success of the Cash-for-Clunkers Program". This whole reporting approach reflects nothing more than unity with the Obama Administration. The C-for-C Program did little more than reward 700,000 or so Americans along with the auto industry with several billion dollars of tax payers' money. No "surge" in consumer spending was realized in any other facet of the retail market and the C-for-C money will have to be repaid with interest to Communist China or some other creditor of America.
The President of the Federal Reserve is Jeffrey Lacker and as the AP published its above cited story, Mr. Lacker announced that the "economic rebound was robust". The real facts are that there were 551,000 new claims for unemployment benefits, a number which is up from the last reporting period. Remember, this half a million number reflects only newly laid-off workers. Additionally, American confidence in the economy diminished from 54.5 in August to 53.1 in September. The Federal government's own Commerce Department today reported that in America "personal income growth lags".
The bottom line is that the spending "surge" was a misnomer; over half a million more Americans have lost their jobs; the American public showed renewed lack of confidence in the economy; and personal income is not keeping pace. There is no evidence of an "economic rebound".
Every piece of data that is published to Americans by any member of the Obama Administration, and that includes all elements of the news media, has to be considered propaganda and examined closely. In today's AP and Lacker examples, Congressman Joe Wilson must be quoted, "You lie!"
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Economy
The nature of the economy of America is so large and so diverse and so complex that it is difficult to come to any conclusion as to the financial health of the United States. Some individual elements of the economy appear to be improving: the stock market is up and threatening the 10,000 mark and residential home sales have increased, not much, but have increased. Unfortunately the most recent publications by economic gurus have not been positive.
Dan Mangru opines that the real "on the street" economy is poor. He contends that the actual unemployment figure is at least 16% and not the 9.8% promoted by the Obama Administration. The stock market rebound he characterizes as a "short term" reaction which has occurred only as the result of government borrowing and government stimuli rather than real economic growth. On those same two topics, Addison Wiggin has expressed that the percentage of the American unemployed is in the 20s and could well be approaching the 30% figure. Wiggin also believes that the positive economic news is only "fictitious growth" due to "government stimulus" and in fact there has not been "any real recovery".
The word "depression" slips into articles by both Mangru and Wiggin. The American economic forecast is "cloudy" states Mangru with "depression" still looming. Wiggin points out, that by definition, depression is unemployment nearing or at 30% and we are much closer to that figure than Washington will admit.
On the same depressing economic page are Peter Schiff, Marc Faber and Professor Lawrence Kotlikoff . Schiff, who may well be promoting commodity sales through his business entity, has demonstrated some past economic savvy and labels the American dollar as the "new peso" . He reflects that the dollar is weak and will get weaker making is useful to be borrowed at a low rate and "invested in better, higher yielding assets". Professor Kotlikoff, who teaches economics at Boston University, has simply declared that "the United States is going broke". Faber is even more scary with his belief that "the next crises will bring down the entire capitalistic system".
In all this doom there is a positive aspect being urged by Dan Mangru. He puts full confidence in the American people [note that it was not the American government] to adjust, innovate and bring real economic success back to the United States. Mangru correctly points out that America is still the "world's most preeminent nation" and no one ever claimed that staying in that status would be easy.
To get back to economic preeminence, which will drag all other aspects of our national life along with it, the reign of Obama, his advocates and his handlers must be ended. Elections in November of this year, next year and in 2012 must relegate the current Washington hierarchy into involuntary retirement.
Dan Mangru opines that the real "on the street" economy is poor. He contends that the actual unemployment figure is at least 16% and not the 9.8% promoted by the Obama Administration. The stock market rebound he characterizes as a "short term" reaction which has occurred only as the result of government borrowing and government stimuli rather than real economic growth. On those same two topics, Addison Wiggin has expressed that the percentage of the American unemployed is in the 20s and could well be approaching the 30% figure. Wiggin also believes that the positive economic news is only "fictitious growth" due to "government stimulus" and in fact there has not been "any real recovery".
The word "depression" slips into articles by both Mangru and Wiggin. The American economic forecast is "cloudy" states Mangru with "depression" still looming. Wiggin points out, that by definition, depression is unemployment nearing or at 30% and we are much closer to that figure than Washington will admit.
On the same depressing economic page are Peter Schiff, Marc Faber and Professor Lawrence Kotlikoff . Schiff, who may well be promoting commodity sales through his business entity, has demonstrated some past economic savvy and labels the American dollar as the "new peso" . He reflects that the dollar is weak and will get weaker making is useful to be borrowed at a low rate and "invested in better, higher yielding assets". Professor Kotlikoff, who teaches economics at Boston University, has simply declared that "the United States is going broke". Faber is even more scary with his belief that "the next crises will bring down the entire capitalistic system".
In all this doom there is a positive aspect being urged by Dan Mangru. He puts full confidence in the American people [note that it was not the American government] to adjust, innovate and bring real economic success back to the United States. Mangru correctly points out that America is still the "world's most preeminent nation" and no one ever claimed that staying in that status would be easy.
To get back to economic preeminence, which will drag all other aspects of our national life along with it, the reign of Obama, his advocates and his handlers must be ended. Elections in November of this year, next year and in 2012 must relegate the current Washington hierarchy into involuntary retirement.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Random Thoughts
An article in the newspaper covered the current health insurance "improvement" legislation being hotly debated in Washington. As is common with this type of reporting a number of statistics were employed and several caught my attention. Cited by the author was a US Census report that in 2008 only 15% of Americans did not have health insurance. In that same year only 10% of children were uninsured and less than 2% of seniors were without health insurance. If these figures are accurate, then the current efforts by the Obama Administration are not out of a need to medically assist our nation's citizens but rather as an extension of Obama's socialistic goals into yet another phase of our lives.
A local car dealer was interviewed on the subject of the huge drop in sales following the termination of the Cash-For-Clunkers Program. He had just held a special sales event which drew 450 potential customers. Of these attendees, just over 300 provided financial information for new car purchases but only 10 cars were actually sold. This disparity in the numbers was identified as not representing poor credit but rather an intense lack of interest by financial institutions to loan money for new car purchases. The dealership was not selling exotic autos but rather VWs. I wonder how bad it is at the Mercedes lot?
Out of Washington, the Social Security Administration projects that in 2010 it will pay out $1o Billion more in benefits than it will receive in tax income. This deficit payment figure is expected to drop to a mere $9 Billion in 2011. Officials from the Social Security office explained that the extreme decrease in the number of employed Americans has "negatively impacted" the current levels of the Social Security tax and thus the "premature" negative funding figures. At the same time statistics were cited that showed an increase of 23% over last year in the number of Americans initially applying for retirement funds and a 20% increase in the initial claims for disability income. The most interesting comment was that in "normal" economic times most of these new individual claimants would have only taken advantage of unemployment benefits. It would be interesting to see the raw number of claimants chased involuntarily into retirement or into a "disability" by the economy and therefore not shown as an addition to the unemployment calculations.
Finally, yet another recognized economic pundit [IHS Global Insight] has declared that technically the American economy is no longer in recession. However, unemployment shall, it admits, continue to increase well into 2010. So, to follow their logic even though more Americans will be losing their jobs during the next 9 months as compared to Americans being hired, the recession is over. Like most economic experts, these guys may know statistics but real life is lost on them.
A local car dealer was interviewed on the subject of the huge drop in sales following the termination of the Cash-For-Clunkers Program. He had just held a special sales event which drew 450 potential customers. Of these attendees, just over 300 provided financial information for new car purchases but only 10 cars were actually sold. This disparity in the numbers was identified as not representing poor credit but rather an intense lack of interest by financial institutions to loan money for new car purchases. The dealership was not selling exotic autos but rather VWs. I wonder how bad it is at the Mercedes lot?
Out of Washington, the Social Security Administration projects that in 2010 it will pay out $1o Billion more in benefits than it will receive in tax income. This deficit payment figure is expected to drop to a mere $9 Billion in 2011. Officials from the Social Security office explained that the extreme decrease in the number of employed Americans has "negatively impacted" the current levels of the Social Security tax and thus the "premature" negative funding figures. At the same time statistics were cited that showed an increase of 23% over last year in the number of Americans initially applying for retirement funds and a 20% increase in the initial claims for disability income. The most interesting comment was that in "normal" economic times most of these new individual claimants would have only taken advantage of unemployment benefits. It would be interesting to see the raw number of claimants chased involuntarily into retirement or into a "disability" by the economy and therefore not shown as an addition to the unemployment calculations.
Finally, yet another recognized economic pundit [IHS Global Insight] has declared that technically the American economy is no longer in recession. However, unemployment shall, it admits, continue to increase well into 2010. So, to follow their logic even though more Americans will be losing their jobs during the next 9 months as compared to Americans being hired, the recession is over. Like most economic experts, these guys may know statistics but real life is lost on them.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Remedy By Magic Acorns
A recent article by T.G. Carpenter of the Cato Institute drew attention to the position that President Obama needs to reemphasise the importance of the Monroe Doctrine. This 170 year old American international affairs mandate demands that no European nation endeavor to establish a political or military client in the Western Hemisphere. It would appear that Russia has chosen to ignore this Doctrine.
Within the past week Venezuela and Russia announced that Hugo Chavez and his military will receive $2.2 Billion in military hardware. Additionally, Chavez has also indicated that Russia may assist his nation in developing a nuclear industry. There is no question that the $2.2 Billion assistance program is factual and all would hope that the nuclear claim is a typically untrue piece of Chavez propaganda. To counter this Monroe Doctrine violation, Carpenter states that Cuba must be seen as a historical exception to the Monroe Doctrine and that Obama must tell Medvedev/Putin that "Washington will not tolerate another exception". What an absolute waste of effort it is to consider that anything Obama states will be seriously considered by any nation much less Russia. The serious world leaders would have to chuckle out loud at even the insinuation that Obama would no longer "tolerate" something.
The reputation of our President is far from that of a powerful international force and unfortunately this weakness stigma has also attached to America. Reference only needs to be made to Obama's failures with Kim Jong-il of North Korea and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to confirm this impression. There is no way that Medvedev/Putin could be intimidated by any expression of concern raised by our President.
Obama just does not have the intestinal fortitude or even the real desire to confront any potential adversary of the ilk of Russia and has no possible leverage which could be employed. The Eastern European missile system promoted by Bush has already been scraped. It would seem that he is left only with the threat to throw "magic acorns" at those who continue to pursue those Obama identified intolerable goals.
Mr. Carpenter is theoretically correct in his approach but the available actors are limited and those who are available are talentless.
Within the past week Venezuela and Russia announced that Hugo Chavez and his military will receive $2.2 Billion in military hardware. Additionally, Chavez has also indicated that Russia may assist his nation in developing a nuclear industry. There is no question that the $2.2 Billion assistance program is factual and all would hope that the nuclear claim is a typically untrue piece of Chavez propaganda. To counter this Monroe Doctrine violation, Carpenter states that Cuba must be seen as a historical exception to the Monroe Doctrine and that Obama must tell Medvedev/Putin that "Washington will not tolerate another exception". What an absolute waste of effort it is to consider that anything Obama states will be seriously considered by any nation much less Russia. The serious world leaders would have to chuckle out loud at even the insinuation that Obama would no longer "tolerate" something.
The reputation of our President is far from that of a powerful international force and unfortunately this weakness stigma has also attached to America. Reference only needs to be made to Obama's failures with Kim Jong-il of North Korea and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to confirm this impression. There is no way that Medvedev/Putin could be intimidated by any expression of concern raised by our President.
Obama just does not have the intestinal fortitude or even the real desire to confront any potential adversary of the ilk of Russia and has no possible leverage which could be employed. The Eastern European missile system promoted by Bush has already been scraped. It would seem that he is left only with the threat to throw "magic acorns" at those who continue to pursue those Obama identified intolerable goals.
Mr. Carpenter is theoretically correct in his approach but the available actors are limited and those who are available are talentless.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Had Again?
Is it possible that America and particularly American capitalists have been "had again" by Barack H. Obama?
On Wednesday our President addressed the United Nations and expressed that the nations of the world had to work in union with each other in order to address and solve the global problems impacting all of us. The US could no longer "go it alone", Obama declared, and America was to be "equal partners with others". These statements were all given worldwide publicity and apparently were made in an intentional manner with focus on the G-20 conference being held this weekend in Pittsburgh. Obama is now trapped by his own words and will be forced to acquiesce to demands by other G-20 national leaders or he will be correctly portrayed as hypocritical and untrustworthy. Our President's ego cannot allow such characterizations.
Here is the "had again" aspect. The President of France is Nicolas Sarkozy and he has emphatically expressed that the G-20 shall pass a resolution that places a cap on the salaries and bonuses of business executives of the member nations. Sarkozy has threaten to walk out of the conference if this is cap is not passed. Obama has previously indicated that he is not in favor of this proposal, however we cannot forget that Obama is a socialist and an internationalist. He has already imposed his governmental will on several American industries and the opportunity to do so once more will be more than he can resist. So, Obama will plead the American, capitalist case and then graciously bow to the desires of Sarkozy and his fellow socialist, globalist world leaders.
No longer will "the sky is the limit" be an apt expression for how much money an American businessman can put in his pocket if he is fantastically successful. Maximum income and maximum bonus figures will be established by a committee of the G-20. The dictated figures will probably be expressed in the IMF international monetary standard called SDRs and America will sink further into the reality of our economy being controlled by a global organization and real foundations of a global government being instituted.
On Wednesday our President addressed the United Nations and expressed that the nations of the world had to work in union with each other in order to address and solve the global problems impacting all of us. The US could no longer "go it alone", Obama declared, and America was to be "equal partners with others". These statements were all given worldwide publicity and apparently were made in an intentional manner with focus on the G-20 conference being held this weekend in Pittsburgh. Obama is now trapped by his own words and will be forced to acquiesce to demands by other G-20 national leaders or he will be correctly portrayed as hypocritical and untrustworthy. Our President's ego cannot allow such characterizations.
Here is the "had again" aspect. The President of France is Nicolas Sarkozy and he has emphatically expressed that the G-20 shall pass a resolution that places a cap on the salaries and bonuses of business executives of the member nations. Sarkozy has threaten to walk out of the conference if this is cap is not passed. Obama has previously indicated that he is not in favor of this proposal, however we cannot forget that Obama is a socialist and an internationalist. He has already imposed his governmental will on several American industries and the opportunity to do so once more will be more than he can resist. So, Obama will plead the American, capitalist case and then graciously bow to the desires of Sarkozy and his fellow socialist, globalist world leaders.
No longer will "the sky is the limit" be an apt expression for how much money an American businessman can put in his pocket if he is fantastically successful. Maximum income and maximum bonus figures will be established by a committee of the G-20. The dictated figures will probably be expressed in the IMF international monetary standard called SDRs and America will sink further into the reality of our economy being controlled by a global organization and real foundations of a global government being instituted.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Obama UN Speach - It could have been so good.
Today our President, Barack H. Obama, addressed for the first time the United Nations and present were leaders from approximately 100 nations. The speech was a typical Obama effort - well written, well delivered and void of any positive meaning.
The initial review from the pro-Obama press highlighted that our President had expressed that America could no longer "go it alone" in addressing and resolving world problems. My thoughts precisely. Let our government stop being the world cop. Let our government stop being the funder of world charities. Let our government stop being the money lender [never to be paid back] to other nation's economies. Let our government focus on the issues at home. But that was not what Obama meant.
We need, Obama declared, a "global response to global challenges" and America desires to be "equal partners with others". Empty words with no definitions and no explanations and no details. What should have been said was that we, America, will contribute to needy nations and causes in the exact same percentage of our GNP as our global equal partners do in relation to their GNPs. And by the way, just who will determine what is a "global challenge" and who will determine the "global response". Would this be the UN or the IMF? Could in fact Obama be proposing a global government in which America has no more say than Communist China or Russia or Venezuela or Iraq? Could the real closing of our Mexican border be a "global challenge" with the remedy being in the form of foreign troops controlling this international line but from the US side?
The next quote from Obama's address belittled America, democracy and capitalism. Our American President clearly stated that "no world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed". Sound familiar? Obama said the exact same thing when he spoke in Egypt earlier this year. Then he said, "Any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail." How many times does our President have to express that he does not love, promote or even admire America before this nation will comprehend his now twice publicly stated denunciation of our nation.
America is the personification of a "world order" and, as a group of people, as a nation, and as a democratic, capitalistic entity, is elevated over all other nations.
Wake up America! The White House is occupied by a promoter of world socialism and a global government in which America is just one of over 100 members. The followers of Stalin, Lenin and Mao must be pleased.
The initial review from the pro-Obama press highlighted that our President had expressed that America could no longer "go it alone" in addressing and resolving world problems. My thoughts precisely. Let our government stop being the world cop. Let our government stop being the funder of world charities. Let our government stop being the money lender [never to be paid back] to other nation's economies. Let our government focus on the issues at home. But that was not what Obama meant.
We need, Obama declared, a "global response to global challenges" and America desires to be "equal partners with others". Empty words with no definitions and no explanations and no details. What should have been said was that we, America, will contribute to needy nations and causes in the exact same percentage of our GNP as our global equal partners do in relation to their GNPs. And by the way, just who will determine what is a "global challenge" and who will determine the "global response". Would this be the UN or the IMF? Could in fact Obama be proposing a global government in which America has no more say than Communist China or Russia or Venezuela or Iraq? Could the real closing of our Mexican border be a "global challenge" with the remedy being in the form of foreign troops controlling this international line but from the US side?
The next quote from Obama's address belittled America, democracy and capitalism. Our American President clearly stated that "no world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed". Sound familiar? Obama said the exact same thing when he spoke in Egypt earlier this year. Then he said, "Any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail." How many times does our President have to express that he does not love, promote or even admire America before this nation will comprehend his now twice publicly stated denunciation of our nation.
America is the personification of a "world order" and, as a group of people, as a nation, and as a democratic, capitalistic entity, is elevated over all other nations.
Wake up America! The White House is occupied by a promoter of world socialism and a global government in which America is just one of over 100 members. The followers of Stalin, Lenin and Mao must be pleased.
Meaningful Quote
The quote was absolutely perfect - "less government in business and more business in government". The coordinating factor in this two pronged expression is debt, a debt that is being created by Obama and his handlers which will have be paid back by the American taxpayer.
The actual and potential financial obligations of the Federal government are difficult to grasp because the figures are so large. Consider this, our Washington leaders have now pledged to guarantee just at 80% of the outstanding home mortgages in America. That would be 80% of $14.6 Trillion. Of course no where near that total amount will ever be actually demanded from the various Federal agencies that have underwritten the housing industry and the financial industry. However, if only 10% of these mortgages go into default, the taxpayer will have to come with $1,460,000,000,000.00. A calculation easier to grasp is the Cash-For-Clunkers program. In rough figures 700,000 Americans received this government benefit. Not counting the actual government expense [overhead for salaries, utilities, etc.] that is another $2,300,000,000 taxpayers have to contribute to Washington.
The banking industry is doing poorly even with Obama's help. Almost 100 banks have been closed and so much of the FDIC reserve spent that this Federal agency is now seeking $500 Billion from the banks it services. Which means the money will come eventually from our pockets.
Washington truly wants to "spread the wealth" and every action it undertakes is contrary to the basic tenets of capitalism. In the true American way, some businesses are successful and some are not. Some Americans work hard, get breaks and prosper others don't. Governments are not businesses and have no business insight. This is true no matter which party is in power. The American government once "enlisted" the services of real businessmen to coordinate and implement a solution to a national problem. Now the Federal government employs, and unfortunately we elect, individuals who have never run a business; who have never worried about making a payroll; and who have never been faced with a business slow-down. Those government checks; those community organization checks; and those "non-profit" checks always show up on time and mostly came from taxpayers' wallets.
The solution is simple "less government in business and more business in government".
The actual and potential financial obligations of the Federal government are difficult to grasp because the figures are so large. Consider this, our Washington leaders have now pledged to guarantee just at 80% of the outstanding home mortgages in America. That would be 80% of $14.6 Trillion. Of course no where near that total amount will ever be actually demanded from the various Federal agencies that have underwritten the housing industry and the financial industry. However, if only 10% of these mortgages go into default, the taxpayer will have to come with $1,460,000,000,000.00. A calculation easier to grasp is the Cash-For-Clunkers program. In rough figures 700,000 Americans received this government benefit. Not counting the actual government expense [overhead for salaries, utilities, etc.] that is another $2,300,000,000 taxpayers have to contribute to Washington.
The banking industry is doing poorly even with Obama's help. Almost 100 banks have been closed and so much of the FDIC reserve spent that this Federal agency is now seeking $500 Billion from the banks it services. Which means the money will come eventually from our pockets.
Washington truly wants to "spread the wealth" and every action it undertakes is contrary to the basic tenets of capitalism. In the true American way, some businesses are successful and some are not. Some Americans work hard, get breaks and prosper others don't. Governments are not businesses and have no business insight. This is true no matter which party is in power. The American government once "enlisted" the services of real businessmen to coordinate and implement a solution to a national problem. Now the Federal government employs, and unfortunately we elect, individuals who have never run a business; who have never worried about making a payroll; and who have never been faced with a business slow-down. Those government checks; those community organization checks; and those "non-profit" checks always show up on time and mostly came from taxpayers' wallets.
The solution is simple "less government in business and more business in government".
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Obama advocate Senator Chris Dodd [Dem-Conn] is about to file a proposed piece of legislation intended to consolidate Washington's control on another aspect of the American economy. This time the intended victim is yet again the banking industry.
There is no question that the banking industry in this nation is straining to stay viable much less be profitable. The federal government has closed over 90 failing banks so far this year and nearly another 400 of these financially related businesses remain on a federal "watch list". Some of these failed banks are merely casualties of the current recession but many are failing as the result of self inflicted wounds from poor investment choices to overly risky loans approvals. There is some evidence of owner greed but the personal avarice nature of bankers is not a fundamental problem.
A more concerning fact is that the available FDIC security funds have drastically decreased and additional assessments against the remaining banks are inevitable. Yet another "strain" on the banks.
So what does Dodd suggest? His plan is to unify all 4 federal bank governing agencies into one supreme group. The entities in the sites of Dodd are the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision, The Federal Deposit Insurance Commission and the Comptroller of the Currency. His rational for this legislation is that it "restores confidence" in the banking industry and makes it "easier to seize large troubled companies".
Since when did enlarging any government agency ever "restore confidence" in anything? How can making it "easier to seize troubled companies" ever "restore confidence" in any businessman? Most Americans wish for the federal government to get out of private business matters and let the tenets of capitalism work. However, the socialist Obama and his allies want more, not less, government involvement. If this Dodd plan sound familiar it should. The exact same program was suggested by Obama but was so heavily criticized that it was abandoned.
Lets not forget Barney Frank. He is also at work in this matter and has a piece of legislation to introduce that only combines two of the above said departments.
What a horror picture! Obama, Dodd and Frank working to control the American banking industry.
There is no question that the banking industry in this nation is straining to stay viable much less be profitable. The federal government has closed over 90 failing banks so far this year and nearly another 400 of these financially related businesses remain on a federal "watch list". Some of these failed banks are merely casualties of the current recession but many are failing as the result of self inflicted wounds from poor investment choices to overly risky loans approvals. There is some evidence of owner greed but the personal avarice nature of bankers is not a fundamental problem.
A more concerning fact is that the available FDIC security funds have drastically decreased and additional assessments against the remaining banks are inevitable. Yet another "strain" on the banks.
So what does Dodd suggest? His plan is to unify all 4 federal bank governing agencies into one supreme group. The entities in the sites of Dodd are the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision, The Federal Deposit Insurance Commission and the Comptroller of the Currency. His rational for this legislation is that it "restores confidence" in the banking industry and makes it "easier to seize large troubled companies".
Since when did enlarging any government agency ever "restore confidence" in anything? How can making it "easier to seize troubled companies" ever "restore confidence" in any businessman? Most Americans wish for the federal government to get out of private business matters and let the tenets of capitalism work. However, the socialist Obama and his allies want more, not less, government involvement. If this Dodd plan sound familiar it should. The exact same program was suggested by Obama but was so heavily criticized that it was abandoned.
Lets not forget Barney Frank. He is also at work in this matter and has a piece of legislation to introduce that only combines two of the above said departments.
What a horror picture! Obama, Dodd and Frank working to control the American banking industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)