Author Topic: Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken  (Read 221900 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #500 on: March 18, 2011, 07:55:59 PM »
Editorial: Obama's Libya Strategy Driven By Politics
IBD Editorials ^ | March 18, 2011 | Staff



Foreign Policy: As is often the case, the president's Libya strategy looks politics-driven, as senators get privately briefed while the public is left guessing. The public deserves more.

Thursday's classified briefing of senators by Obama officials on possible U.S. intervention in Libya was by all signs a political success.

Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., came away believing "the administration is moving and now the only question is time." Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who always comes through in the clutch — for Democrats — said afterward, "I want to take back criticism I gave to them yesterday and say, 'you are doing the right thing.'"

But has Obama's underlying role in inflaming the Middle East — Libya being merely the latest manifestation — been "the right thing"?

Whether George W. Bush was prescient or naive in declaring that America's liberation of Iraq lit an "untamed fire of freedom" that will "reach the darkest corners of our world" may be debatable. But the Obama Doctrine seems to be the foreign policy equivalent of arson.

The president strikes the match, as he did in his 2009 Cairo speech criticizing U.S. allies like Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and implicitly apologizing for U.S. actions in Iraq and Iran. But as the fire grows, Obama is unable to direct the flames or put it out.


(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #501 on: March 20, 2011, 06:04:25 AM »
Interior Dept Gives Approval to Brazilian Oil Company’s Gulf of Mexico Deep Water Facility
Weasel Zippers ^ | March 18, 2011




Yes, as he continues to hold up drilling permits for U.S. oil companies in the Gulf.

(Reuters) — The U.S. Interior Department said on Thursday it gave final approval for Petrobras to use the first ever deepwater floating production storage facility in the Gulf of Mexico.

The facility will be used when the company begins oil and natural gas production at its Chinook-Cascade project in the near future, the department said. Petrobras is based in Brazil.

A Petrobras official who asked not to be identified told Reuters that production would begin in May.

The floating facility has a daily production capacity of 80,000 barrels of oil and 16 million cubic feet of gas. It can be disconnected and moved out of the path of a storm, unlike permanently moored production platforms, preventing long-term supply disruptions because of storms.

“These regulatory approvals pave the way for safe, new production of oil and gas resources in the Gulf of Mexico,” said Michael Bromwich, who heads the department’s agency that oversees offshore drilling.

Such vessels are common for offshore production in other countries without seabed pipelines to transport oil and gas to shore, such as West Africa and Brazil. Petrobras has a fleet of them off Brazil’s shores, and Exxon Mobil Corp uses one of the largest units in the world at one of its fields in offshore Angola.

Read more. . .

Timely, considering the First Family’s upcoming holiday to Rio.

________________________ _____________


Soros' investment is paying off.   

FFFFUUUUBBBBOOOOO!!!!!!


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #502 on: March 21, 2011, 05:13:54 AM »
Report: U.S. considering strategic outreach to Hezbollah
Washington Post says Obama administration weighing dialogue with Lebanese militant group's political wing, in an effort similar to that attempted by U.K. in its dealings with Sinn Fein in the 1990s.

By Haaretz Service

Tags: Israel news Lebanon Hezbollah


________________________ _______________-



The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is considering reaching out to the political elements in Hezbollah, the Washington Post reported on Friday, stressing that the at this stage it was an intelligence effort, not a policymaking one.

In an opinion piece appearing on the newspaper's online edition, columnist David Ignatius indicated that Washington was considering an effort similar to the one the U.K, implemented "during the 1990s with Sinn Fein, the legal political wing of the terrorist Irish Republican Army."

  Hezbollah fighters parade during the inauguration of a cemetery for fighters who died while fighting Israel, in southern Beirut on Nov. 12, 2010.
 
Photo by: AP 

"That outreach led to breakthrough peace talks and settlement of a conflict that had been raging for more than a century," Ignatius wrote, adding that several U.S. officials were expected to endorse dialogue with political elements of both Hezbollah and the Taliban in an upcoming intelligence report.

Writing of the effect recent Mideast turmoil may have had on Obama's decision to accept these recommendations, the Washington Post writer said that the "political time bomb ticking away in the [intelligence report] is the question of whether the United States should seek some kind of direct or indirect engagement with Hezbollah — at least with its political wing."

"Officials who support this course argue that the organization is like the IRA or the PLO — with nonmilitary components that can be drawn into a dialogue," Ignatius added.

Ignatius quotes in his article one intelligence official, John Brennan, known for supporting a move toward dialogue with the Lebanese militant group, as saying that while "Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early ’80s," it has "evolved significantly over time."

"The bottom line," the Washington Post article concluded, "is that after a decade of American wars in the Middle East, the Obama administration is increasingly looking for ways to talk with adversaries and draw them into a process of dialogue."

"The world is changing, and perhaps so should U.S. policy," he added.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #503 on: March 21, 2011, 06:49:23 PM »

IBD Editorials Sponsored by:
. Obama: Drill, Brazil, Drill!
 
Posted 07:08 PM ET
 



Energy Policy: While leaving U.S. oil and jobs in the ground, our itinerant president tells a South American neighbor that we'll help it develop its offshore resources so we can one day import its oil. WHAT?!?

With Japan staggered by a natural disaster and a nuclear crisis, cruise missiles launched against Libya in our third Middle East conflict and a majority of U.S. senators complaining about a lack of leadership on the budget, President Obama decided it would be a good time to schmooze with Brazilians.

His "What, me worry?" presidency has given both Americans and our allies plenty to worry about. But in the process of making nice with Brazil, Obama made a mind-boggling announcement that should make even his most loyal supporter cringe:

We will help Brazil develop its offshore oil so we can one day import it.

We have noted this double standard before, particularly when — at a time when the president was railing against tax incentives for U.S. oil companies — we supported the U.S. Export-Import Bank's plan to lend $2 billion to Brazil's state-run Petrobras with the promise of more to follow.

Now, with a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska's continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico — and a de facto moratorium covering the rest — Obama tells the Brazilians:

"We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers."

Obama wants to develop Brazilian offshore oil to help the Brazilian economy create jobs for Brazilian workers while Americans are left unemployed in the face of skyrocketing energy prices by an administration that despises fossil fuels as a threat to the environment and wants to increase our dependency on foreign oil.

Obama said he chose Brazil to kick off his first-ever visit to South America in recognition of that country's ascendancy. He has also highlighted one of the reasons for America's decline — an energy policy that through the creation of an artificial shortage of fossil fuels makes prices "necessarily skyrocket" to foster his green energy agenda.

In an op-ed in USA Today explaining his trip, Obama opined: "Brazil holds recently discovered oil reserves that could be far larger than ours. And as we seek to increase secure-energy supplies, we look forward to developing a strategic energy partnership."

Yet in his alleged quest for "secure-energy supplies," he refuses to develop oil and natural gas resources in U.S. waters. His administration has locked up areas in the West where oil shale reserves are estimated to be triple Saudi Arabia's reserves of crude. His administration is even stalling on plans to build a pipeline to deliver oil from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. market.

That project would build a 1,661-mile pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta to U.S. refineries near Houston. It would create 13,000 "shovel-ready" jobs and provide 500,000 more barrels of oil per day from an ally.

Yet it's now being held up by the State Department because it crosses an international border, on the grounds that it needs further environmental review. Shipping oil by tanker from Brazil is safer and more secure?

If Brazil had copied our current energy policy, it wouldn't have discovered in December 2007 the Tupi field, estimated to contain 5 billion to 8 billon barrels of crude, or its Carioca offshore oilfield that may hold up to 33 billion barrels.

Haroldo Lima, head of Brazil's National Oil Agency, estimates that Carioca might hold as much as five times the reserves of Tupi. Somehow the Brazilians aren't too worried about oil spoiling the pristine beaches of nearby Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro in the tourist season.

We suggest that President Obama return home and start worrying about an unapologetic American renaissance in which we focus more on American energy and American jobs and less on mythical environmental hazards and foreign accolades.



http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/566719/201103211908/Obama-Drill-Brazil-Drill.htm


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #504 on: March 22, 2011, 06:00:13 AM »
The 12 Worst Features Of ObamaCare 
By David Hogberg     
Tue., March 22, 2011 12:04 AM ET 
Tags: ObamaCare - Health Care - Waivers - Hospitals - Medicare

http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/2532-the-12-worst-features-of-obamacare?src=HPLNews





On the eve of the one-year anniversary of President Obama signing his health care bill into law, it's a good time to examine ObamaCare’s worst features.

Of course, any law is going to cause difficulties, but problems seem to be attracted to ObamaCare the way worms are to an apple orchard. And the bulk of the law has yet to come into force, including the individual mandate, health exchanges and massive taxpayer subsidies. This is a list of the ObamaCare’s 12 worst features, although it is hardly definitive. Feel free to suggest your own in the comments section.

1. 1099. Under ObamaCare, businesses have to send a 1099 tax form to every other business, contractor and so forth that they do $600 worth of commerce with, resulting in a huge amount of costly new paperwork. Previously, businesses only had to send a 1099 to an independent contractor for services rendered. This provision has proven so unpopular that President Obama said he’d sign a repeal. The House and Senate have passed bills repealing the measure but remain at odds over the details.

2. Surprises, Surprises. There doesn’t seem to be an end to the discoveries of provisions that almost no one knew were in ObamaCare until after it passed. The 1099 may have been the first. The most recent is the “Basic Health Plan,” what Greg Scandlen called “sort of a ‘public option’ in sheep’s clothing.”  According to Scandlen, a BHP is a plan “states may implement to provide coverage for people between 133% and 200% of poverty and noncitizen legal immigrants who are not eligible for Medicaid ... . If a state opts for a BHP, those people will no longer be eligible for coverage under the Exchange.” One of the surprises first broken by IBD was that health plans that were supposed to be “grandfathered” under ObamaCare were only grandfathered if they didn’t make any big changes in the future. An administration document estimated that under the rules, about 51% of employers would have to relinquish their coverage by 2014. Unless of course, your plan is run by a union.

3. Waivers. Section 2711 waivers enable the health plans of businesses, labor unions and other groups to avoid having to comply with ObamaCare’s regulations, lest their members lose “the insurance they like.” The Department of Health and Human Services has granted 1,040 waivers in about six months. Naturally, a disproportionate share of those receiving waivers are unions, some of Obama’s biggest political allies.

And the waivers are a temporary reprieve as by 2014 all business, unions, etc., must comply with ObamaCare rules, something that will very likely result in lost jobs.

4. More Waivers? State governments are now asking for waivers from ObamaCare’s medical-loss-ratio regulations. At present, Maine has received a waiver, Kentucky, Nevada and New Hampshire have applied, and 11 other states are preparing applications. An MLR is the share of health premiums spent on medical costs. A 75% ratio means that 75% of premiums are spent on medical care, leaving 25% for things like salaries, advertising, fraud prevention and profits. Starting in 2011, insurers serving the individual or small-group market — i.e., companies with 100 employees or less — must have MLRs of at least 80%. It seems that states are worried that the difficulty of complying with these regulations might drive insurance companies out of their individual and small markets. Maine applied for a waiver because officials there worried that MEGA Life and Health Insurance, which has 37% of the state’s individual market, “would withdraw from the market altogether if the federal requirement remained in place.”

5. Insurers Have Left The Child-Only Market. In June 2010, HHS informed insurers that they would have to sell a policy to anyone under age 19, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Insurers figured this would incentivize more and more parents to purchase insurance after their children fell ill. This would almost surely make child-only policies a losing business. Thus, insurers started abandoning the child-only market in droves. According to a survey conducted by the Republican staff on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, 34 states have lost at least one insurer in the child-only market and 20 no longer have any insurers offering child-only policies.

6. Medicaid — Ouch! ObamaCare requires all states to expand their Medicaid program to 133% of the federal poverty level. Presently only eight states and Washington, D.C. make eligibility limits that generous. That expansion is expected to cost states at least an additional $118 billion through 2023. States are already reeling from budget shortfalls, with Medicaid usually being the biggest budget item. But the stimulus package passed in early 2009 added a new twist to Medicaid. It gave states money to shore up their Medicaid shortfalls, but in exchange the states could not cut back on Medicaid by reducing the eligibility level. That has left only two options: cutting back on benefits and reducing provider reimbursement rates. So far, states seem to be taking the former approach, with Arizona ending support for some organ transplants being the most notorious example.

7. Life After Death Panels. While Sarah Palin’s remark about a “death panel” was not technically accurate, it did highlight the fact that the original version of ObamaCare contained a provision allowing Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling. In the ensuing media storm, the provision was removed. But that wasn’t the end of it. If reformers with a good idea can’t get it through the front door, they’ll eagerly try the back. Late last year the issue again erupted when HHS tried to slip the provision into 692 pages of new Medicare regulations. The provision was removed again, but controversy remains. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently admitted she was the one that decided to exclude the provision for the “proposed” regulations and later slip them into the final rules. The House GOP is calling for an investigation.

8. Medicare’s Advantage Over Cuts. ObamaCare was supposed to cut about $200 billion from Medicare Advantage, the Medicare program that pays private insurers to provide Medicare benefits. There was just one little problem: the 11 million seniors with Medicare Advantage plans who could lose them if the cuts were enforced. As a result, the Obama administration suspended the cuts for 2011 and will actually increase the amount given to Medicare Advantage by 1.6% in 2012 (election year, anyone?). Which means that for the budget math to work, even deeper Medicare Advantage cuts will have to be made in the future. Assuming the budget math actually works to begin with.

9. Cost Estimates Not Correct. An analysis by Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster showed that ObamaCare would not reduce overall health care costs, but would increase them by about $311 billion through 2019. An analysis by former Congressional Budget Office head Douglas Holtz-Eakin found that if one takes into account factors that the CBO could not in its analysis (CBO is limited to analyzing just what is a bill), then ObamaCare could increase the deficit by $190 billion.

10. Who Needs Evidence? Two of the new health care financing “models” pushed by ObamaCare are medical homes and Accountable Care Organizations. Yet there is very little research showing the medical homes are a cost-effective way of delivering care (and some research that they aren’t.) As for ACOs, there doesn’t appear to be much research on them at all. So much for policymakers only enacting sweeping reforms backed up by evidence.

11. CLASS-less. ObamaCare included Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act, a measure that is supposed to help seniors pay for long-term care. On paper, the CLASS Act looks fiscally sustainable because it takes in premiums for a number of years before it starts paying out benefits. Which means it is not sustainable. Even Sebelius has admitted as much. But on short-term measures, the CBO has to score CLASS as reducing the deficit.

12. Physician-Owned Specialty Hospitals. A major source of innovation in health care, physician-owned specialty hospitals had long been a target of the Big Hospital Lobby — the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals — which doesn’t like competition. ObamaCare effectively prevents new physician-owned specialty hospitals from opening and makes it near impossible for existing ones to expand.

 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #505 on: March 22, 2011, 09:28:45 AM »
Solar-panel maker Solyndra to lay off workers (Obama bundler got huge amount of stimulus money)
news.cnet.com ^ | 3-2011





Thin-film solar-panel maker Solyndra will announce today it plans to close its Fab 1 plant in Fremont, Calif., The New York Times has reported.

The closing will result in 40 Solyndra employees being laid off. Another 150 subcontractors will not have their current work contracts renewed, according to the report.

But the news follows the opening of Solyndra's state-of-the-art Fab 2 plant near its original Fremont plant just weeks ago, which was built in part with a $535 million federal loan guarantee from the Department of Energy.

The Fab 2 plant, when fully operational, is capable of producing 500-megawatts worth of thin-film solar panels per year and employing about 1,000 people.

Solyndra makes thin-film flexible solar cells from CIGS (copper, indium, gallium, and selenide), not traditional photovoltaic cells made with silicon. Thin-film solar cells are typically less efficient than silicon solar cells, but because they have also been traditionally cheaper to install they maintained a competitive edge in the solar marketplace.

But a changing thin-film solar market, as well as a significant drop in the cost of traditional silicon solar cells, has changed that dynamic.

Solyndra has raised a total of $970 million in financing, and received another $573 million in the form of a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, money that was appropriated in the Energy Act of 2005. The Department of Energy and the White House has held Solyndra up as a prime example of U.S. green-tech manufacturing innovation, investment, and job creation. President Obama made his "We've got to go back to making things" speech in May from the Fab 2 plant during a visit.

Concurrent with Solyndra's funding and ramp-up to production, several thin-film solar manufacturers in China have also been ramping up manufacturing in large part because of the Chinese government's well-documented push to invest in green tech.

Chinese thin-film solar manufacturer Suntech, for example, has announced several tech partnerships it says have improved the efficiency of its thin-film solar cells, as well as increased production volume resulting in significantly lower costs for its products.

In April PricewaterhouseCoopers, Solyndra's auditor, said the company was in debt at a rate that was unsustainable and needed to make significant adjustments if it was to be profitable long-term. In July the company canceled its planned IPO and announced that Solyndra founding CEO Chris Gronet would be stepping down to be replaced by Brian Harrison.

The decrease in cost to install conventional PVs, combined with this recent introduction of cheaper thin-film solar products from China, has been closing the competitive gap. Solyndra's high-tech Fab 2 plant will reduce production costs compared to its old facility, Harrison told The New York Times.

"Fab 2 is much more efficient and cost-effective than our existing facility," he said.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20021624-54.html#ixzz1HIS39ISl





Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #506 on: March 22, 2011, 01:28:25 PM »



Top Oil Rig Suppliers to Obama: Your Response to Gulf Oil Spill Is Unreasonable, Unwarranted, Unfair & Unlawful (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 12:16 PM


http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/03/top-oil-producers-to-obama-your-response-to-gulf-oil-spill-is-unreasonable-unwarranted-unfair-unlawful-video



 They’re mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore…


The Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA), put together the following video to explain how the de facto moratorium against offshore drilling is killing the American economy and driving up oil and gas prices. OMSA represents the companies that provide supplies and services to the oil rigs in the Gulf. They are really hurting, as they watch drill equipment leave the Gulf instead of waiting out the drilling moratorium.

Here is OMSA’s Open Letter to Barack Obama:

February 17, 2011

The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the tens of thousands of offshore marine service employees and their families, we are writing to protest your war on domestic energy exploration and development and its devastating impact on Americans. Lift your de facto moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Let Americans get back to work. We’ve suffered enough.

Your response to the Gulf oil spill has been unreasonable, unwarranted, unfair, and unlawful. Other industries have collaborated with government to tighten safety measures and implement improvements following tragic accidents, but you simply shut down every deepwater drilling operator in the Gulf of Mexico. When a federal judge pronounced your moratorium was unjustified-and later found you in contempt of the injunction-you simply ignored the court’s ruling as if you were above the law.

For nearly a year, you have defied a court order prohibiting you from interfering in the lawful production of energy off the Gulf Coast. You are not issuing deepwater drilling permits and you have been indecisive on the remedies that would satisfy you. For nearly a year, you’ve maintained your de facto moratorium, which is shutting down new energy production in the Gulf.

For well over a year now, you’ve told Americans quite the opposite-that your policies will create jobs, lower energy costs and make us less dependent on foreign oil. You’ve told Americans that you’ve lifted the moratorium, when the facts show otherwise. Americans know a moratorium when they see one. Isn’t it time you started telling the truth?

While your disregard for the rule of law may placate environmental activists and the government-subsidized corporations clambering for alternative energy giveaways, the vast majority of Americans will only suffer the burden of your policies. Most Americans can’t afford to pay $4 for a gallon of gasoline or see their home heating bills skyrocket. They need jobs-they don’t want to be more beholden to those unstable and hostile regimes that your actions are ensuring will supply America’s energy.

Before your moratorium, more than 50,000 oil wells were drilled safely in the Gulf of Mexico. The fact that we earn an honest living serving those operations should in no way suggest that we aren’t concerned with the safety of our colleagues or the health of the Gulf. After all, thousands of us live here-we fish here, we shrimp here, and our children swim here. No one wants to pollute our beaches, put Americans out of work, or spend billions of dollars to clean up a spill. It’s in everyone’s best interests to drill safely.

Mr. President, your deliberate actions to strangle domestic energy production are putting people out of work, raising the price of fuel and weakening our national security. Your political agenda does not supersede American law.

Again, we remind you that Americans have suffered enough. Lift your de facto moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf and let Americans get back to work.

Signed by several top leaders in top offshore drilling


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #507 on: March 22, 2011, 02:08:48 PM »
President Obama Can’t Wait to Buy More Foreign Oil
Heritage.org ^ | 3/22/11 | Conn Carroll




The Obama Administration has already presided over the steepest rise in gas prices since the Carter Administration. And like President Jimmy Carter, PresidentBarack Obama has restricted traditional domestic energy development at every turn. According to the Energy Information Administration, President Obama’s Gulf drilling moratorium will cause domestic offshore oil production to fall 13% this year . Absent the Obama moratorium, the EIA had predicted a 6% increase in offshore production from 2010 levels. That means President Obama’s Gulf moratorium alone will cost American consumers 220,000 barrels of domestic oil production a day.

But President Obama is not against all offshore oil drilling. When other countries are the ones developing their natural resources, President Obama is all for it.


(Excerpt) Read more at blog.heritage.org ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #508 on: March 22, 2011, 07:59:47 PM »
Editorial: President Obama’s Crony Capitalism
 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/566837/201103221841/Crony-In-Chief.htm

Posted 06:41 PM ET


Leadership: Obama critics were quick to link U.S. loans for Brazil oil to benefits for his investor pal George Soros. There was no link in this case, but considering how this president operates, it's no wonder suspicions ran high.

The president's announcement that his administration would lend billions of dollars to develop Brazil's offshore oil reserves left many Americans flabbergasted.

After all, he had issued two drilling moratoriums in U.S. waters and then was declared in contempt of court for defying a federal judge who ordered the moratoriums reversed. Some wondered if the president wasn't intentionally acting against U.S. interests.

Others wanted to know if pleasing political campaign contributors was the idea. The name of Soros, the leftist billionaire, came up because he'd held stock in Petrobras, the Brazilian state oil company. But he dumped the shares six months ago.

Our disengaged president has said little as the Arab world is engulfed in revolution and has been absent as a huge budget battle plays out in Congress. But some lines can be drawn between his more inexplicable decisions and cronyism.

Indeed, many of Obama's decisions have been all about benefiting special interests and political friends — what's been called the Chicago Way. Whatever it's called, it's in the interests of the few at the expense of the whole. Some examples:

• Obama's firm support for nuclear energy in the wake of Japan's nuclear crisis. We don't fault his position, but it's worth noting that General Electric is a principal constructor of nuclear power plants, and its CEO is a close Obama ally.

Jeffrey Immelt was named to a White House jobs board, where he baffled many by declaring no core inflation in the U.S. and supported the administration's big spending. Was there an exchange of favors?

• Obama's praise for Solyndra Inc. as the first recipient of $535 million of stimulus cash in 2009 to hire 1,000 workers for "green jobs." The company had never shown a profit, but that was no obstacle to getting the cash, and in the end the Fremont, Calif.-based solar panel manufacturer never came through.

However, Solyndra's majority owner, billionaire George Kaiser, was a top fundraiser for the 2008 Obama-Biden campaign.

• During the U.S. auto bailout of 2008 and 2009, Obama's ally, the United Auto Workers, saw its unsecured claims win out over those of secured bondholders, an unprecedented alteration of bankruptcy law that violated bondholders' legal rights. The move was augmented by a politically motivated investigation against rival Toyota, with Transport Secretary Ray LaHood telling Americans not to buy Toyotas.

• The Health and Human Services Department gave 1,040 Section 2711 waivers on onerous ObamaCare regulations, which enabled labor unions and businesses to avoid the burdensome costs of the new law.

"Naturally, a disproportionate share of those receiving waivers are unions, some of Obama's biggest political allies," wrote IBD's David Hogberg in a blog post Monday.

The list goes on. If there's any pattern here, it's that of a president who makes a clear decision only if it's to help someone who can help him — or who already has.

That's not leadership. That's cronyism, and history is a harsh judge to such leaders.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #509 on: March 23, 2011, 10:14:14 AM »
National & World News
23, 6:55 AM EDT
US reviewing nuclear arsenal with eye to new cuts

By DESMOND BUTLER
Associated Press
 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

US Video
 

 
 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration has begun examining whether it can make cuts to its nuclear weapons stockpiles that go beyond those outlined in a recent treaty with Russia.


The classified review is not expected to be completed until late this year, but some Republicans already are worried that it will go too far. On Tuesday, 41 Republican senators warned Obama in a letter not to make major changes in nuclear policy without consulting Congress.

Arms control advocates say the United States is mired in Cold War-era thinking about nuclear deterrence and are pressing the administration to use the review to rethink U.S. nuclear requirements. They say the decisions will be a test of President Barack Obama's commitment nearly two years ago to put the world on a path toward eliminating nuclear weapons.

Obama ordered the nuclear review early last year with an aim of shrinking the nuclear arsenal, but the work, led by the Defense Department, began recently, according to a department spokeswoman, Lt. Col. April Cunningham.

The review will look at issues such as what targets the U.S. would have to hit with nuclear weapons in a worst-case scenario and what kind of weapons it would need to hit them. Rethinking the requirements could open the way to cuts.

In the letter to Obama, Republicans warned against any big reductions from those outlined in the New START treaty, ratified by the Senate and the Russian Duma in recent months. The treaty limits each side to 1,550 deployed warheads - a level military officials have said meets the need of the current directives.

Sharp reductions in nuclear forces "would have important and as yet unknown consequences for nuclear stability," the letter said.

The letter was circulated by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a leading opponent of the New START treaty when it was considered in the Senate. It makes clear that significant changes in nuclear policy without consulting Congress could affect consideration of a new treaty with Russia. The 41 lawmakers who signed it include a number who supported New START and represent sufficient numbers to block any treaty.

There is no indication that the Obama administration is considering drastic cuts as a result of the review. But the study could shape talks it has proposed with Russia on weapons not covered by the New START treaty. The administration wants to focus on stored nuclear weapons and those intended for short-range delivery, known as tactical nuclear weapons. But negotiations with Russia also could lead to further reductions in deployed long-range nuclear weapons.

Administration officials say the review has just begun and no decisions have been made. In a broader look at nuclear weapons policy last year, called the nuclear posture review, the administration stressed the need for maintaining a strong U.S. deterrent.

"The United States will continue to ensure that, in the calculations of any potential opponent, the perceived gains of attacking the United States or its allies and partners would be far outweighed by the unacceptable costs of the response," the document said.

Disarmament advocates who follow administration thinking on nuclear issues say the document is unlikely to lead quickly to sharp cuts.

"For better or worse, it's not in the cards," says Daryl Kimball, head of the Arms Control Association, which advocates nuclear disarmament.

But advocates hope the review could open the way to reconsidering what would be needed to deter potential adversaries.

"We shouldn't have to dump 60 hydrogen bombs on Odessa to ensure U.S. nuclear security," says Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, which advocates the elimination of nuclear weapons. "This review will determine whether the president is serious about moving toward deep reductions and the elimination of nuclear weapons or if he is giving up on that vision."
 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #510 on: March 23, 2011, 10:30:21 AM »
Petrobras gets permit for U.S. deep waters
http://www.upi.com ^





WASHINGTON, March 18 (UPI) -- Washington has given Petrobras America Inc. permission to start oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, a regulator said.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement gave Petrobras approval to use a floating production storage offloading facility at its Cascade-Chinook project in the Gulf of Mexico.

The approval marks the first time FPSO technology will be used in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

The oil and gas project is about 165 miles off the coast of Louisiana in 8,200 feet of water. The FPSO has a production capacity of 80,000 barrels of oil and 16 million cubic feet of natural gas per day.

The BOEMRE approved the production safety system permit and a supplemental deep-water operating plan from Petrobras. The regulatory agency said it was satisfied that operations would be safe from hurricanes and other natural disasters.

"These regulatory approvals pave the way for safe, new production of oil and gas resources in the Gulf of Mexico," BOEMRE Director Michael R. Bromwich said in a statement.

Noble Energy in early March was awarded a BOEMRE permit to drill in the Mississippi Canyon block about 70 miles south of the Louisiana coast.

The permit was for what the BOEMRE described as a bypass well meant to drill around a mechanical problem in the original hole.

Deep-water exploration is under scrutiny following the April oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. government lifted a moratorium on deep-water drilling in October, six months after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig caught fire and sank in the Gulf of Mexico.


(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #511 on: March 23, 2011, 10:38:46 AM »
So let me get this straight. It's OK for Brazil to deepwater drill in our waters yet it's wrong for American companies to do that?

Awesome logic from tovarich Obama!  ::)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #512 on: March 23, 2011, 10:39:58 AM »
So let me get this straight. It's OK for Brazil to deepwater drill in our waters yet it's wrong for American companies to do that?

Awesome logic from tovarich Obama!  ::)

Check out the story I posted above that.   


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #513 on: March 23, 2011, 07:04:21 PM »

Anthony Weiner: Waiver might work for New York
Close Send to a friendAnthony Weiner: Waiver might work for New York
'Maybe New York City can come up with a better plan' on health care, said Anthony Weiner. | AP Photo
CloseBy KATE NOCERA | 3/23/11 4:37 PM EDT


Rep. Anthony Weiner said Wednesday he was looking into how a health law waiver might work for New York City.

Weiner, who is likely to run for mayor of New York, said that because of the city’s special health care infrastructure, his office was looking into alternatives that might make more sense. Weiner is one of the health care law’s biggest supporters; during the debate leading up to reform, he was one of the last holdouts in Congress for the public option.

“The president said, ‘If you have better ideas that can accomplish the same thing, go for it,’” said Weiner. “I’m in the process now of trying to see if we can take [President Barack Obama] up on it in the city of New York, … and I’m taking a look at all of the money we spend in Medicaid and Medicare and maybe New York City can come up with a better plan.”

New York is one of two states that pass on Medicaid expenses to cities and localities, so “the city winds up having an enormous Medicaid expense,” Weiner said.

The congressman was trying to debunk Republican “myths” about the health care law during a speech at the Center for American Progress. He used the waivers as way to describe how flexible the law actually is and how “this notion that the government is shoving the bill down people’s throats” is not true.

“The administration needs to make this argument more forcefully,” he said. “A lot of people who got waivers were … people who are our friends.”

The New York Democrat said that he does not have the power to get the city to apply for a waiver but that he is “personally looking at whether he can make the numbers work.”

“We in New York already have hospitals, we already employ doctors and we employ nurses. We have a lot of uninsured people. … [Setting up] the exchanges is the one piece of the puzzle that would be difficult for us to do,” he said. “I’m just looking internally to whether the city can save money and have more control over its own destiny.

Weiner is slated to hold at least five events on the anniversary of the Affordable Care Act and has been one of the most outspoken Democratic supporters of the law.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51840.html#ixzz1HTj9MQjD


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #514 on: March 23, 2011, 07:06:54 PM »
Texas: EPA's Cheating on Tests to Pull Plug on Gas Drilling
Newsmax ^ | 3/23/2011 | Charles J. Little



The Environmental Protection Agency still is trying to shut down a gas drilling operation near Fort Worth despite fresh doubts about the agency’s central allegation, that the drilling had tainted the local water supply, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Texas’ own regulators say new scientific tests on gas in the water well show the leakage is the result of natural causes: gas migrating upward from a rock formation that lies directly below the tainted aquifer.

Armed with these findings, Texas officials allege that the EPA is using dubious science to reach hasty conclusions that will harm the state’s economy.

“This is an example of overreaching at its worst,” said Texas regulator Michael Williams.


(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #515 on: March 25, 2011, 11:07:43 AM »
Vicente Fox: Obama’s Approach a Failure
Newsmax ^ | 3/22/2011 | Jim Myers and Kathleen Walter




Former Mexican President Vicente Fox says his nation is at "war" with drug cartels, and he offered sharp criticism of the Obama administration for failing to assist its beleaguered neighbor.


In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV on Tuesday, Fox said President Barack Obama's administration has failed to grapple with the deteriorating situation in Mexico.


“Obama is thoroughly mixed up with all these things he’s got," Fox said, adding: "He’s got to solve Libya. He’s got to solve Afghanistan. He’s everywhere. And this nation, I don’t know why it’s not showing the leadership and capacity to attend different issues at the same time.”


(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #516 on: March 25, 2011, 11:09:48 AM »
lmao...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #517 on: March 25, 2011, 11:12:06 AM »
Doug Feith: "The President wants to cut America down to size"

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/23/doug-feith-the-president-wants-to-cut-america-down-to-size





Doug Feith served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for President George W. Bush from July 2001 until August 2005, where he worked closely with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior administration officials on U.S. policy from Afghanistan to Iraq.  (Fareed highlighted an incredible April 7, 2003 memo Rumsfeld sent Feith basically asking him to solve the world’s most intractable problems in a few lines.) Feith is also the author of War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism, and director of the Center for National Security Strategies at the Hudson Institute.

I talked with Feith this afternoon about American foreign policy in the Middle East. Here’s an edited transcript of what Feith had to say about President Obama’s motivations for intervention in Libya.


“Most people are analyzing U.S. action in Libya in a way that makes what President Obama is doing seem incomprehensible.  If the President says Gadhafi must go and believes it is important enough to engage our military to achieve this objective, why would he wait two or three weeks before making a stand? If the President’s goal is to protect civilians in Libya, how can he be willing to let Gadhafi - the source of the humanitarian danger in Libya - remain in power after the operation ends?

“Pundits are puzzled because they assume President Obama is focused on Libya.  But that assumption may be false.

“The only way to make the President’s behavior comprehensible is to recognize that he has a larger strategic goal than just the outcome of Libya.  While the rest of the country is focused on Libya’s future, the President is focused on fundamentally changing America’s role and standing in the world. Libya, for him, is simply an occasion for undertaking a radical reformulation of 70 years of American foreign policy.

“At least since the U.S. entered World War II, there has been a view of the United States as a leading power, a democratic power, a country that acts boldly in its own interests.  I think President Obama does not believe that’s the role America should play in the world.

“Had the Arab League vote, the push by the French and British and the UN vote not lined up as they did, the intervention in Libya wouldn’t have happened.  This means that whatever happens in Libya is less important to the President than these other factors.

“The President is saying that as important as Libya is, it is not as important as the principle that the U.S. should not act independently. He is saying, 'I’m willing to intervene in Libya only if I can do it in a way that establishes the principle that America does not act unilaterally, independently or simply for American interests. We only act within multilateral contexts.  We try not to take the lead and when we do have to assert leadership, we do not hold it for very long. We transfer leadership early.'

“Essentially, the President wants to cut America down to size - he would say make America a better citizen of the world. But what he is talking about is moving America away from a position of leadership.

“This explains why the President missed a major opportunity two to three weeks ago to seize on the momentum of the rebels to defeat Gadhafi.  Unlike other countries that acted earlier to support the rebels, the President did not recognize the rebels, arm them or provide other forms of support.  He did not want to act without the United Nations.

“Over the next two to three weeks, Gadhafi turned the tide and recaptured virtually all the ground he had lost. Only when he was on the verge of wiping out rebels - and only after the international community had come together - did President Obama act.

“What President Obama is doing is very risky. He is taking an important military action in a circumstance that he does not consider to be very important. He’s gone out of his way to emphasize that we shouldn’t consider it too important either - waiting for the UN, emphasizing limitations on our means, and stressing that he does not want to lead the operation.

“The President said at the outset that we are not going in on the ground.  But if he had the strategic goal of removing Gadhafi from power, the smart thing to do would be to say that that was the goal, and to stress our determination to achieve it.

“Instead, he has signaled to the Libyan people that if the going gets hard, America won't escalate its efforts and will therefore settle for a more modest goal than ousting Gadhafi.   Even if President Obama has no intention of sending in ground forces, it doesn’t serve U.S. purposes to announce that because it sends a negative message to Libyan people, whom we are trying to motivate.

“But - and here is the key point - President Obama is less interested in motivating Libyans to overthrow Gadhafi than in establishing the principle of constrained American action.

“This is why many American commentators have said they lack confidence in the President regarding Libya.

“Now he may turn out to be lucky in Libya. Tomorrow Gadhafi could get a bullet in his head from somebody in Libya. Everything may turn out well. That would be good for America and good for the world. But that would not be the result of our action. It would just be good luck.”

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #518 on: March 25, 2011, 11:14:12 AM »
his security detial did it

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #519 on: March 25, 2011, 08:15:51 PM »
Obama’s U.N. Debacle - The Obama administration’s big hopes of reforming the Human Rights...
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE ^ | March 25, 2011 | Anne Bayefsky




Obama's U.N. Debacle


The Obama administration's big hopes of reforming the Human Rights Council from within are in shreds.



President Obama’s decision to place the United Nations at the center of his foreign policy took another hit Friday as the U.N. Human Rights Council ended its latest session in Geneva. One of the president’s primary justifications for joining the notorious council shortly after he assumed office was its mandatory five-year review process; if the U.S. was a member, the administration claimed, it could influence this process. The process, which quietly unfolded in back rooms in Geneva over the past six months, has been exposed to be a total fraud, taking the administration’s cover down with it.

Starting last fall, the Obama team was a very active participant in a working group of the council that had been set up to tackle reform. At the end of February, the working group produced a document summarizing its decisions, and on Friday the council passed a resolution adopting that document by consensus — that is, without a vote. Regardless of the fact that every serious recommendation of the United States was rejected, Obama’s diplomats refused to call for a vote on the resolution so that they could vote against it.

They did play a little game intended to fool uninformed listeners by claiming to “dissociate” the administration from the resolution. However, since the resolution has been adopted by consensus, it will proceed unimpeded to the General Assembly, where it will be rubber-stamped. The U.S. could not have stopped the resolution, but an American vote against the measure would have been a major blow to the credibility of the Human Rights Council. It also would have set up the U.S. to leave the council as a logical consequence of the failure to reform it.

The slap in the face to President Obama is painfully clear from a short list of American demands for reform and the council’s responses.

The council has an official, permanent agenda that governs all its meetings and consists of only ten items. One of those items is reserved for condemning Israel, and another is assigned to human rights in the other 191 U.N. member states. This session, for instance, produced six resolutions condemning Israel, one resolution each on four other states, and nothing at all on the remaining 187 countries. The American delegation huffed and puffed that this obvious discrimination — which characterizes every meeting of the council — must come to an end, and proposed that the two agenda items be rolled into one. The proposal was rejected.

The American delegation proposed creating easier trigger mechanisms for convening special sessions on specific countries when serious human-rights concerns arise. The proposal was rejected.

The American delegation proposed abolishing the council’s make-work “Advisory Committee.” It is currently populated by such human-rights luminaries as former Sandinista leader and suspended priest Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann. (Brockmann once served as president of the U.N. General Assembly and is best remembered for a series of anti-Semitic outbursts and for coming down off his podium to hug Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.) The proposal was rejected.

The American delegation proposed making public pre-screened complaints of gross and systematic violations of human rights that are received by the council. Specific cases, which have poured into the U.N. for over half a century from poor souls around the world, have never been revealed. The proposal was rejected.

The American delegation proposed expanding the time allocated to discussions of abuses in specific countries. The proposal was rejected.

The American delegation proposed that states running for a seat on the council should engage in a public dialogue with General Assembly members on their human-rights record, as measured by specific criteria. The proposal was rejected.

In all, the U.N. reports that 42 proposals were put forward by the American delegation orally and in writing. Only three were accepted. Those three addressed minutiae. For instance, the Obama team proposed allowing all states that wish to speak during the council’s “universal periodic review” (UPR) to be permitted to do so. The UPR is the procedure in which the council considers the human-rights record of every state, but the council tightly controls the time spent on each country. Council members are allotted three minutes’ and non-members two minutes’ worth of comments, regardless of the scope of the issues. Since the total time is fixed, would-be commentators are frequently silenced by ending up too low on the speakers’ list. The “reform” that was proposed and accepted? Keep the total time the same and reduce the allotted time per speaker. Thirty-second critiques of human-rights abuses, here we come.

Instead of admitting their complete inability to accomplish their mission of reforming the council, however, Obama’s representatives are scrambling to sweep the disaster under the rug. Admitting their error would no doubt strike at the heart of the president’s U.N. chorus line.

On March 31, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. ambassador Susan Rice announced that the U.S. would seek to join the council “because we believe that working from within, we can make the Council a more effective forum,” and because “the Council . . . is scheduled to undergo a formal review of its structure and procedures in 2011, which will offer a significant opportunity for Council reform.” In a New York Times op-ed on Sept. 13, 2010, Eileen Donahoe — the United States’ ambassador to the council — called the review “a serious self-reflection exercise” and claimed that “if we do not sit at the table with others and do the work necessary to influence the process, U.S. values and priorities will not be reflected in the outcome.”

Now we know there was no “serious self-reflection.” U.S. values and priorities have not been reflected in the outcome. The reform opportunity is in shreds.

The result leaves the administration with two choices. Choice number one: Admit the fiasco. Refuse to lend legitimacy to a highly discriminatory agency designed to help members such as Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba conceal their own abuses. And get out. Choice number two: Allow a bogus “reform” to be adopted by consensus, and stay put.

President Obama has evidently decided to take the second course, sending one more signal about how little he values Israel and how few are the number of human-rights victims around the world that stand any chance of capturing his attention.

— Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, director of the Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, and the editor of www.EYEontheUN.org.



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #520 on: March 26, 2011, 07:42:52 AM »
Obama’s Monetary Policy: Stick It to the Middle Class
Pajamas Media ^ | March 26, 2011 | Kyle- Anne Shiver


________________________ ________________________ ______________


Inflated federal egos drive real-world inflation ever higher.

 It’s a rare day when I, a self-confessed macroeconomics ninny, dare to write about anything so weighty as federal monetary policy. My husband of four decades loves to joke that I know nothing about money except how to spend it. (Ha. Ha.)

He fails to mention that I have been the chief financial officer of my household budget for 41 years now — that I have managed to put wholesome, safe meals on our family’s table through some of the most treacherous-to-the-middle-class periods of inflation in American history. Or that I take only cash to purchase nearly 100 items every single week and am never off my cost estimate by more than a few dollars at checkout. These are feats of which I am quite proud. In the process of weekly grocery shopping over four decades, I have become an expert at spotting inflation before my financial-guru husband has the slightest clue what’s around the bend.


I’ve been sounding the hyperinflation alarm for more than a year — to rolling eyes and shrugs, and the all-too-familiar “you just want a raise” discounting tactic. So when I read this little piece in the Wall Street Journal last week, I would have been downright giddy at the validation, if I weren’t so utterly depressed by the reality.

It seems that one heck of a prestigious dude — William Dudley, president of the New York Federal Reserve — decided to have a little tête-à-tête with local consumers, no doubt sensing a need to bolster their confidence in the Fed’s more-fishy-by-the-hour monetary policy.


Mr. Dudley gave a nice PR speech highlighting “improvements” in the economy and the Fed’s “successes.” Then came the questions. One guy had the audacity to hope he could make some sense out of the government’s insistence that inflation remains minimal despite the largest monthly increase in food costs in 36 years — and gas spiking so much that soon the cost of getting to work may exceed one’s wages. Dudley made use of a skill they must have taught him at Berkeley, proceeding to ram his Goldman Sachs resume, along with his Gucci loafer, right through his front teeth:

“Today you can buy an iPad 2 that costs the same as an iPad 1 that is twice as powerful,” he replied. “You have to look at the prices of all things.”

To which one truly great American responded: “I can’t eat an iPad.” He might as well have added, “I can’t drive an iPad to work either.” And at the rate grocery and gas prices are rising, by the end of this year, I couldn’t afford that iPad’s monthly service fee even if I had enough discretionary income to purchase the little piece of dazzling technology in the first place.

If you ask me, Ms. typical American middle-class consumer, I would have to say that Mr. Dudley’s current yearly salary of $410,000 in taxpayer money is just a tad inflated as well. That $410,000 of our money is mere chicken-feed to a man of Mr. Dudley’s stature, I’m told. When he was at Goldman Sachs, he was pulling in millions every year. I’m sure he was worth every penny. If inflation really were down in the 2% range on the genuine necessities of life for us little people, then I wouldn’t begrudge the guy his half-million in wages and benefits.


But Dudley’s salary, along with Geithner’s and Bernanke’s and even Obama’s, are all based on lying statistics that mean nothing in the real world where inflation is actually rampant.

ObamaCare alone has caused a nearly 40% hike in insurance premiums for individual policies such as the one my self-employed husband and I have. The Democrats’ save-the-deadbeats credit card law caused an immediate rise in interest rates for us always-pay-on-time consumers to cover the cost of the mandated write-offs.

Right here, in the real world, Obama’s monetary policy is starting to look like it has a bottom line screw-the-middle-class philosophy.

For the president’s information, the most dreaded word in every middle-class household’s budget confab is — all together now — INFLATION. And just because a few golden-boy hotshots in the jet set can somehow ignore the cost of groceries and gas when they do their little on-paper tallies of deceptive figuring does not mean that a real family can get by without taking these vital things into account.

When inflation drives up the cost of food to fuel the little human bodies sitting around the dinner table every night, then the family must get the money from somewhere else in the budget. Otherwise children go hungry. We don’t have money-printing presses in our living rooms.


When inflation drives up the cost of gas — and gas is necessary to get to work and school and all the other places we must go — then that extra money has to come from somewhere else. The yearly vacation, which has been cut down to a couple of days close by, has to go entirely. Or that summer camp we were planning to send the kids to is out. Or the braces will have to go on the credit card whose interest is way above “prime rate.” There isn’t a middle-class family in this entire country who does not live in dread of the I-word.

Inflation stalks like a thief in the night, filling the nightmares of homemakers and breadwinners alike.

Inflation is the invisible beast that steals the long-awaited raise before it has a chance to hit the bank account.

Inflation is the disease that ravages the arduously saved dollars of decades.

Inflation is the bandit that steals from the poor while hardly ever even noticed by the likes of the politicians who guilefully prod its crime spree.

Inflation is the monster who gobbles up the goodies of responsible citizens no matter their station.

So, when Obama and Bernanke and all the Fed gurus like Mr. Dudley put their little heads together and formulate a monetary policy, it would really be nice if they remembered — just once — that while the iPads and the Guccis and the golf clubs they love so much are simply wonderful if they cost a little less, the rest of us do have to worry about the rising cost of our groceries and our gas.


In our world, the necessities of life don’t get paid for with other people’s money.

We in the middle class pay the most taxes and fuel the government engine.

It would be nice if we weren’t told to eat our iPads when we notice that our government has set out to deflate the middle class.


Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #521 on: March 26, 2011, 07:57:17 AM »
HIS SECURITY DID IT RIGHT?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #522 on: March 26, 2011, 08:01:44 AM »
HIS SECURITY DID IT RIGHT?


Yes.  JBT's were called out on granny.


BTW - you have not been able to dispute one article in this entire thread.   Wonder why?   

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #523 on: March 26, 2011, 08:27:08 AM »

Yes.  JBT's were called out on granny.


BTW - you have not been able to dispute one article in this entire thread.   Wonder why?   


His security called swat on Grannies?

Is that a true statement from you?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #524 on: March 26, 2011, 08:30:28 AM »

His security called swat on Grannies?

Is that a true statement from you?

Yes - I posted the video. 


Were those girl scouts with the batons, helmets, and riot gear?