South Florida Chronicle » natrayger

This Will Kill That #Citizens United

natrayger — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:59:15 +0000

“To our mind, this thought had two faces. In the first place, it was a priestly thought. It was the affright of the priest in the presence of a new agent, the printing press. It was the terror and dazzled amazement of the men of the sanctuary, in the presence of the luminous press of Gutenberg. It was the pulpit and the manuscript taking the alarm at the printed word: something similar to the stupor of a sparrow which should behold the angel Legion unfold his six million wings. It was the cry of the prophet who already hears emancipated humanity roaring and swarming; who beholds in the future, intelligence sapping faith, opinion dethroning belief, the world shaking off Rome. It was the prognostication of the philosopher who sees human thought, volatilized by the press, evaporating from the theocratic recipient. It was the terror of the soldier who examines the brazen battering ram, and says:–’The tower will crumble.’ It signified that one power was about to succeed another power. It meant, ‘The press will kill the church.’ ”

This passage is from “The Hunchback of Notre Dame,” by Victor Hugo. In the passage, a priest looks at a printing press and realizes that the new invention will allow all sorts of information to be mass produced and thus consumed by the public. He fears the end of the near monopoly on the dissemination of information by the church. The churchman frets about all of the irresponsible and untrue information that will be allowed out there without the benefit of responsible authorities to make sure that “the truth” is the only information permitted to the public. Ah certainty, ’tis a wonderful thing.

When I read and hear of the reaction to some in the media concerning the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case, it brings to my mind the reaction of Hugo’s priest to the printing press. Many editorials in the press — including the NY Times — condemned the ruling of the Roberts Court as a dangerous one because it removed restrictions placed on groups of citizens organized as corporations and labor unions to be able to use broadcast and cable media to get their views out. Entities known as Super Political Action Committees (super PACs) have been formed and have collected large amounts of money. Much of this money has been and will be used to run negative and positive advertisements on television and radio to influence the outcomes of elections. Local Florida congressman Ted Deutsch even wants a constitutional amendment to restore the restrictions that existed before the Citizens United ruling. It is interesting to me that so many who oppose the loosening of restrictions are on the left wing of the media spectrum. Many on the right, including radio host Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity of Fox News, do not mind the corporate or union competition in the marketplace of ideas.

Like Victor Hugo’s fearful priest, left wing members of the media class seem to be afraid of allowing more voices to be heard. One member of those chosen few who have programs is Stephen Colbert. He seems to be rather unwelcoming of the idea that others should have the same rights of self-expression that he does. Colbert has a show on Comedy Central and he uses sarcasm to mock others along with discussing current events. His fellow broadcaster Jon Stewart also does the same. Colbert has formed a Super PAC in order to mock the Supreme Court’s ruling. I watched a report about Colbert by Ted Koppel who seemed to go along with Colbert’s mockery. This is fascinating because the very right to influence how others think is exactly what Koppel, Stewart, and Colbert do for a living. Why should this ability be limited to the chosen few who somehow get to have a TV or radio show? You and I have as much right as they do to use whatever amount of money we can to advertise and promote our views. Why are they so against others who also wish to have the same rights as they do? Colbert and Koppel, along with the editorial board of the NY Times, seem to believe that the use of media to influence history is not a right guaranteed by the First Amendment but a privilege that should be restricted only to those who already have a platform. They seem to object to corporations having this right, but Comedy Central is owned by Viacom, which is also a rather large corporation. Why should this corporation have the right to express and promote political points of view on television while others are left out? In my opinion, all programs and newscasts that are current events or history-oriented are laden with political content and values, as are many movies, plays, websites, and books. TV programs that are not ostensibly political have political content like Jay Leno and David Letterman. What about “The View” on ABC? Why should groups of like-minded citizens organized as corporations or unions be prevented from spending as much money as they can to run messages to influence events? HBO has Bill Maher, whose show obviously represents his political views. Fox News has Sean Hannity and others where their views are evident to all who watch. These programs express the ideas of the hosts or owners of the network or station. Right now there are limited numbers of broadcast or cable stations. In an ideal world, TV and radio would be like the web, where everyone and anyone can have a site or host a show if they so desire. Youtube is out there but most people still watch television.

Some will decry the influence of corporations or union money, but CNN, Fox News, Current TV, and Al Jazeera are all corporations that were created by wealthy individuals or groups wishing to influence national and international affairs.

I suppose that if you work for some newspaper or already have a TV show you may believe that you must be the only ones who should be the intermediaries between the certainty of the truth that you possess and the rest of us. We the lowly citizens need to be protected from the free speech that you want for yourself, but would deny to others.

Who Guards The Guardians? Slanting News The Sun Sentinel Way

natrayger — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:27:56 +0000

A recent story in the Sun Sentinel illustrates how someone there tried to slant the news. The headline by the writer/editor cried out: “Armed robber gets life in prison for stealing $29.”
The story is posted here: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/fl-armed-robber-gets-life-20120209,0,3232012.
The headline would make you think that this criminal got sentenced to life for stealing $29 which is a small amount of money to get life in prison for. Later it is revealed in the story that the criminal not only was armed with a gun but used the weapon to strike the victim. It is also revealed that the criminal is a repeat offender. The question is why did the headline writer make the choice to emphasize the small amount of money with the enormity of the life sentence? The headline could have read, “Repeat offender strikes victim with gun, gets life in prison.” This would actually have been more accurate considering the story that followed.

Perhaps I am being too harsh and the person who wrote the headline. Maybe they really think that the small amount of money and the life sentence are the most important aspects of the story. This would indicate a very different worldview and mindset than some of its readers who would think that the amount of money stolen is less relevant than the fact that a career criminal used a gun and hit someone with it in order to steal and got life in prison for it.

News reporting is not an objective activity. There are all sorts of values and political leanings that a person will bring to the table. Story selection and emphasis call for judgement. The way we judge things is not objective but based on who we are and what we believe and think that we know. In the case of the Sun Sentinel headline writer or editor I think that this demonstrates that the sympathy or at least empathy is for the criminal and not the victim.

Obama Proverb: If You Give A Man A Fish Everyday He Will Vote For You For A Lifetime

natrayger — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:38:43 +0000

Obama’s version of the American dream.

Old Proverb: “If you give a man a fish you have fed him for a day, if you teach him how to fish you feed him for a lifetime.”
Obama proverb: “If you give a man a fish you have fed him for a day, if you give a man a fish every day, he will vote for you for a lifetime.”

Obama is a president who has been very successful. I believe that President Obama wanted to get even more people dependent on the government and he has been masterful at doing so. He has helped create more dependants than any other president in history. More people are receiving government benefits than ever before no matter what metric is used. Republicans certainly share in this mess but Obama and his democrat cronies have perfected the art of making and keeping people helpless and hopeless.

According to Bloomberg News, right now 49% of Americans live in a household where at least one person receives a government check or benefit. Bloomberg News also reported that 63% of federal spending for the year consists of checks written to people who provide no services to the government. This is an income transfer. This will only increase as more baby boomers retire. With the implementation of Obamacare, 30 million people will get health insurance that they do not pay for but others have to pay for them. This isn’t even counting people who work for the government or benefit in other ways by government spending like those who benefited from loans to companies like Solyndra that will never be paid back.

There are programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit that actually give tax refunds to people who do not pay any income taxes but only payroll taxes. The Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, commonly called Food Stamps can add $500 a month in spending money. Even though food stamps are supposed to go for food they allow recipients the largesse to spend other people’s money on non-essential items like alcohol and tobacco. This is because the essentials are being paid for by other people who work for a living. The NLSP or National Student Lunch Program can be worth more money. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) can add a couple of thousand in the yearly disposable income for the so called needy. Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan (CHIP) can also add an enormous sum to someone’s disposable income versus a person who is making more money but has to pay for health insurance for their family on their own. Then we have Section 8 housing rent subsidies that can add to a non-earner’s “paycheck.” We are not done yet, lest we forget assistance with utility bills. There are even programs that give free cell phones to the non-working. One thing to remember, these people do have one great asset that translate into more disposable income, their vote. Obama and the democrats know this. The election in November will ether stop this cascade or Obama gets his wish and the American dream becomes a cradle to grave society of semi adults addled by dependency with a ruling class of civil servant-masters.

Has The Gingrich Honesty Problem Spread To Those Who Support Him?

natrayger — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:44:01 +0000

Mitt Romney is eminently attackable from a conservative perspective. His implementation of universal health insurance(RomneyCare) in Massachusetts became the template for ObamaCare. The constitutionality of the individual mandate and other parts of the federal law are going to be decided by the Supreme Court. There are so many other issues to attack Romney on including his flip-flopping on many issues. Instead of these a Gingrich supporting PAC decided to go after Romney with lies, half truths, and outright distortions.

I recently watched a 28 minute video called “King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came to Town.” This film has been put out by a group that calls itself, “Winning our Future,” which is a political action committee(PAC) and is reportedly friendly to Newt Gingrich. Due to the distortions in the film, Gingrich has asked the PAC to correct some of the factually challenged assertions or stop showing the film. Of course, he cannot directly control what the PAC decides to do. The documentary presents cases that the filmmakers think show that Romney was directly responsible for large numbers of job losses. One problem is that the Associated Press reported that Romney was out of the company when some of the alleged events happened and that some of the claims are not even true.

1. According to the film by the Gingrich friendly PAC, UniMac corporation was a company that manufactured commercial laundry equipment in Marianna, Florida, and the film states, “Romney and Bain upended the company and gutted the workforce.” Apparently Romney was out of Bain one year after the company was bought and the company was sold to a Canadian company seven years after that in 2005. If you relied on the film you would think that UniMac was put out of business by Bain. Actually the Canadian company relocated the factory to Wisconsin and UniMac is still in business.
2. According to the film KB Toys was another company that Romney and Bain destroyed. The Associated Press makes it clear that KB Toys was purchased by Bain in 2000 but Romney had left the firm in 1999 and severed all ties in 2001. Additionally KB Toys was not liquidated until 2009 and it was partially competition from other toy retailers that ultimately killed KB Toys. The film also dishonestly states that the Boston Herald called the profits Bain made “disgusting.” This was actually a statement from a worker that appeared in the paper and was referring to another executive at the company, Stephen Pagliuca, who ran against Ted Kennedy for the democrat nomination for senator and lost. The PAC film ran this quote as if the word disgusting as a description of the profits was a quote by the newspaper itself.
3. Ddi Corporation was another company purchased by Bain after Romney left the company. Romney did profit from stock sales but viewers of the film would not know that the company is still in business today.
4. Another case that Romney was more involved in was AM Pad or American Pad and Paper. The Associated Press reported that Romney was at Bain and two manufacturing plants were closed and cut 385 jobs. One worker at the company stated that Romney owned 15 homes which is untrue. The film does not bother to correct this assertion but just leaves it out there. This became an issue and democrats did use this against Romney in his unsuccessful run for Senator and hs successful run for Governor of Massachusetts.

Gingrich was fined $300,000 dollars by a Republican congress for ethics violations and kited over 20 checks as part of the House Bank Scandal. Gingrich also collected 1,600,000 as a “historian” for Freddie Mac. There are a lot of other things also. The problem with honesty seems to be contagious and perhaps has spread even to those who support him.

Newt Gingrich Is Not Reliable, Not Trustworthy, Not Ethical, Not Stable, But Is Arrogant.

natrayger — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:31:29 +0000

Even before Herman Cain dropped out of the race Newt Gingrich became the apparent frontrunner for the republican nomination but his support is slipping. Just a short time ago the rise of Gingrich seemed highly improbable but serves as a lesson that in American politics there is so much unpredictability. Gingrich is an impressive man and it could easily be argued that he immediately becomes the smartest person in any room he enters no matter who the occupants are. So what is it that makes me uneasy about him?

First, there is his personal life that includes three marriages. The first marriage was to his former high school geometry teacher. The bride, Jackie Battley was 26 and Newt was 19. Odd circumstances aside, the marriage produced two children and lasted 18 years. According to many press accounts and other sources, Gingrich was unfaithful to her. There is also a story that he presented her with divorce papers or went over the details of their divorce while she was in a hospital recovering from uterine cancer. Battley told the Washington Post that the divorce came as a surprise to her but Gingrich and one of his daughters from that marriage have denied her account and have claimed that the divorce was at her request and came before the hospital stay. Who really knows but these circumstances led to his second marriage to Marianne Ginther, the woman he allegedly consummated his lack of fidelity to his first wife with. This marriage also led to divorce when Gingrich created a pattern of unfaithfulness by cheating on his second wife with his now third wife, Calista Bisek, the third Mrs. Gingrich.

When Bill Clinton ran for office a lot of conservatives I spoke to felt that his bad character was revealed by his affair with Gennifer Flowers. In 1992 Flowers confirmed the affair to radio host Al Rantel in an interview that I was present at while she was in Florida. The argument made by many of my fellow conservatives was that character counted. If Clinton broke his word to his wife, how could you trust him about anything else? I disagreed with this and made it clear at the time that if Ronald Reagan had cheated on Nancy I would have voted for him against Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale. It is not that I endorse this sort of thing but I think some of the worst presidents, like Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are loyal to their wives. I find this type of behavior not as significant as what the candidate believes in terms of the role of government in our lives. I want a reduced role for all levels of government in the United States. Crony capitalism, insider trading, bribery, and other forms of corruption have long been a feature of political life. There probably is a cellblock devoted to the number of politicians from South Florida serving time in federal prison. As the government has grown like a toxic weed it has greater influence in so many aspects of life that were once private like health care. The corruption has become worse.

What Gingrich said about his infidelities is what floored me. In a 2011 interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, he acknowledged his past indiscretions by saying:

“There’s no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.”

What kind of a person thinks like this? Is he really suggesting that the reason he cheated was his passion for the country? Might I be so bold to suggest that perhaps these are the words of someone who lacks self-control and makes excuses for what he does and never really takes responsibility for his actions. His statement is bizarre and I find myself wondering what sort of mind could produce it. Even someone as shameless a liar as Clinton, who also saw fit to pardon terrorists wouldn’t have dared say that, well, maybe Clinton would. But I could still vote for Gingrich even after his ridiculous statement explaining his bad behavior along with his real betrayal of his wives.

Perhaps it was his passion for his country that led Gingrich to do some other things that show a lack of fidelity, that is to a sense of what is right and what is wrong. During the 1980s some members of the House of Representatives were caught in a scheme that allowed them to write checks with money that they actually did not have in their checking accounts. This is called check kiting and fittingly became known as the House Check Kiting Scandal. Many democrats were pilloried for their role but Gingrich also saw fit to partake in this scheme by having 22 checks kited for him.

Gingrich also had a slight ethics problem. He was fined $300,000 to recover some of the costs of an ethics investigation into his use of a tax-exempt college teaching course for political purposes. The final bipartisan subcommittee report stated that his actions were either “intentional or it was reckless, neither choice reflects creditably on the House.” The House voted 395 – 28 to approve a settlement that concluded that he had misled the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. This included 196 Republicans that supported the reprimand. The report also said that:

“The violation does not represent only a single instance of reckless conduct. Over a number of years and in a number of situations, Mr. Gingrich showed a disregard and lack of respect for the standards of conduct that applied to his activities.”

I confess that I would vote for someone so flawed if I could trust that they would try to shrink government but I do not trust Gingrich. Just as he searched for validation and affection outside of his marriages, Gingrich also seems to be searching for validation and affection from those on the left. There was the issue of a debate about global warming with John Kerry in April of 2007. Right before the supposed debate Gingrich conceded the point. He agreed with Kerry that global warming was real and that humans contributed to it and that “we should address it very actively.” Gingrich held up Kerry’s book, “This Moment on Earth,” and called it “a very interesting read.” When asked to address Senator Jim Inhofe (R Okla) and others in the Senate who expressed skepticism about global warming and/or human contributions to it, Gingrich said:

“My message is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere.”

Then Gingrich went bizarre. This is what he said to explain his support for saving species from climate change:

“My name Newt, actually comes from the Danish Knut, and there’s been a major crisis in Germany over a polar bear named Knut.”

Wasn’t that heartwarming? Maybe he now wants some attention from left wing environmental cuties.

His global warming commercial in 2008 with the likes of Nancy Pelosi was another example of why I do not trust him to be the person I want to shrink government and not increase its size and scope. He has said it was the dumbest thing he ever did. That is saying a lot when you look at his record. I am a skeptic about human caused global warming and my views on this subject are contained in a website called climatescam.com. If Gingrich seemed so sure about this issue in 2008 when he did the commercial with Pelosi, what changed his mind? Why has he now said that the commercial he did with her was the dumbest thing he ever did? Does he mean that it was dumb because it hurt his chances with voters like me who do not want the federal government or the United Nations dictating limits on energy use in the United States? Was it dumb because it will now make him look like a flip flopper on an issue that many other Americans have become skeptical about also? Has he really changed his mind or is he being dishonest once again? If he has truly changed his mind, what research prompted this change? Based on this and a lot of other things I cannot possibly vote for Gingrich in the Florida republican primary.

Democrat logic: Sparano should not have been fired.

natrayger — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:24:39 +0000

Everyone knows that Dolphins Coach Tony Sparano was fired by the Dolphins on December 12, 2011. The team started the 2011 season with 7 straight losses. They were on their way to a perfect season of sorts when they began to win a few games. Their record as of his firing is 4 wins and 9 losses. I do not watch football or most other sports so I decided that I needed someone very smart and informed to explain the situation to me. I chose the head of the Democrat National Committee, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. After all, who else could I find that is so smart and knowledgeable?

I called her on her cell phone. As soon as she realized it was me she hung up. I realized that she would never talk to me because I had challenged her many times in public and on the radio. In order to get her to talk to me I would have to pretend to be someone else. I needed to be someone that she knew would be mild and obsequious. Who could I pretend to be? It would have to be someone who had never challenged Debbie Wasserman Schultz and had never asked her a hard question? All of a sudden it came to me, I would pretend to be Sun Sentinel political reporter Anthony Mann.

The following is the exchange:

Me
Hello Debbie, this is Anthony Mann.
Debbie
Hello Anthony, I really loved that piece on me that you did?
Me
Oh really, which one.
Debbie
All of them.
Me
Thank you, Debbie what do you make of the firing of Coach Sparano?
Debbie
I think that the Dolphins owner Stephen Ross unjustly fired him.
Me
What do you mean, look at his record.
Debbie
Anthony!!! Do not use that tone of voice with me!!!
Me
Yes ma’am, I am so sorry. Could you please explain why someone with a record like his should keep his job?
Debbie
Well Anthony, Sparano coached the team to a 4 and 9 record.
Me
Yes and wouldn’t most people would find that win and loss record a dismal failure?
Debbie
What people have to realize is that the record of 4 wins and 9 losses could have been much worse. If Sparano wasn’t the coach, the team could have lost even more games. It was his skill as a coach that got the team to win 4 games. That’s 4 games! You have to isolate the 4 wins and just remember he got us 4 victories that we would not have had if not for his reforms and programs.
Me
What about the 9 losses?
Debbie
Don’t bring up the past. We must look to the future. Yes we can. You have to isolate the team’s record and only look at the 4 wins and forget the 9 losses. I think owner Stephen Ross was wrong for firing him.
Me:
So I should only count the team’s wins and forget the losses.
Debbie:
Yes, if you only look at the 4 wins, the team’s record under Coach Sparano is pretty good.
Me
I guess I understand.
Debbie
I knew you would Anthony.

Occupy Thanksgiving: A glorious tale of how the 1% had their wealth redistributed.

natrayger — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:02:32 +0000

It was obviously an unjust situation. The 1% owned practically everything and they perpetuated these injustices by a system of inherited wealth. By accident of birth, the 1% had managed to gain control of and own huge amounts of resources and property. Additionally, the wealth and property was passed down from parents to children. The cultural capital included knowledge of how the system worked and how to profit from it was also handed down from generation to generation and the social structure was definitely paternalistic and based on male supremacy.

Many in the 99% believed that the legal structure of the society protected the assets of the 1% and that the whole system worked against the majority. Rejecting this repression, the 99% came with an agenda that included wealth redistribution and agrarian reform. The time had come to finally redistribute the wealth from the 1%. With an agenda of hope and change and by any means necessary, which included legal means and sometimes force, the 99% eventually were able to occupy the property of the 1%. Unwilling to passively see their wealth and property taken away, the reactionary and counterrevolutionary forces of the 1% tried to retain what they felt was rightfully theirs. Seeking to defend their privileges and ownership rights the 1% fought back and the battles raged on for many years. After many years of conflict, the 99% was finally able to defeat the 1% and redistributed their wealth.

The 1% in the story were the Native Americans, the 99% is the rest of us.

Perry And Cain Have Obama Moments

natrayger — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:28:24 +0000

A lot has been made of Texas Governor Perry forgetting the third agency he would close during a debate. He mentioned that he would close the Department of Education along with the Commerce Department but could not remember the energy department which is the third agency he would close. His verbal slip or memory lapse became the story. Missing from the discourse was a discussion on the worthiness of his proposals about closing those departments. The verbal slip of brain freeze seemed to be the focus of the press. I would have preferred a discussion about whether those departments should be closed but apparently that is not on the mind of “professional” journalists and political commentators.

Herman Cain also seemed to stumble on questions about Libya but the chatterers do not wish to discuss the actual issue but instead wish to focus on the gaffe. So be it. In order to even the playing field, let us examine mistakes and verbal stumbles made my another for a change. After reading these, ask yourself, if gaffes reveal a candidate’s unworthiness for office, how does one explain Obama’s seeming ability to make mistake after mistake and not have them count against him? My opinion is that people in the media ignore Obama’s mistakes because they agree with him and focus on the gaffes of those they oppose. In the interest of fairness and to prove my own professional status here they are.

Some gaffes from the brilliant one, Barack Obama.

“One such translator was an American of Haitian descent, representative of the extraordinary work that our men and women in uniform do all around the world — Navy Corpse-Man Christian Brossard.” –mispronouncing “Corpsman” (the “ps” is silent) during a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, Washington, D.C., Feb. 5, 2010 (The Corpsman’s name is also Christopher, not Christian)

“The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries.” –Tampa, Fla., Jan. 28, 2010

“UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.” –attempting to make the case for government-run healthcare, while simultaneously undercutting his own argument, Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11, 2009

“The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system.” –in remarks after a health care roundtable with physicians, nurses and health care providers, Washington, D.C., July 20, 2009

“It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There’s a lot of — I don’t know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing.” –confusing German for “Austrian,” a language which does not exist, Strasbourg, France, April 6, 2009

“No, no. I have been practicing…I bowled a 129. It’s like — it was like Special Olympics, or something.” –making an off-hand joke during an appearance on “The Tonight Show,” on March 19, 2009 (Obama later called the head of the Special Olympics to apologize)

“I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any seances.” –after saying he had spoken with all the living presidents as he prepared to take office, Washington, D.C., Nov. 7, 2008 (Obama later called Nancy Reagan to apologize)

“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” — defending his tax plan to Joe the Plumber, who argued that Obama’s policy hurts small-business owners like himself, Toledo, Ohio, Oct. 12, 2008

“What I was suggesting — you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith…” –in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, who jumped in to correct Obama by saying “your Christian faith,” which Obama quickly clarified.

“I’m here with the Girardo family here in St. Louis.” –speaking via satellite to the Democratic National Convention, while in Kansas City, Missouri, Aug. 25, 2008

“Let me introduce to you the next President — the next Vice President of the United States of America, Joe Biden.” –slipping up while introducing Joe Biden at their first joint campaign rally, Springfield, Illinois, Aug. 23, 2008

“Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s. It will be a strong friend of Israel’s under a McCain…administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel’s under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change.” –Amman, Jordan, July 22, 2008

“How’s it going, Sunshine?” –campaigning in Sunrise, Florida

“On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.”

“Hold on one second, sweetie, we’re going to do — we’ll do a press avail.” –to a female reporter for ABC’s Detroit affiliate who asked about his plan to help American autoworkers.

“I’ve now been in 57 states — I think one left to go.” –at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon.

During a trip to London’s Westminster Abbey, President Obama signed the guest book and dated it 24 May 2008. Unfortunately for the brilliant one, it was 2011.

Obama’s New Risk Free Investing.

natrayger — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:40:29 +0000

Warren Buffet has a reputation as being if not one of the most than perhaps the most successful investor in history. His personal fortune makes him one of the richest people in the world. His company, Berkshire Hathaway is what is called a holding company and has shares in companies like insurance giant GEICO, Coca Cola and numerous others. If you look up the company you can see it for yourself. Anyone can buy shares of the company and they are listed as BRK.A and BRK.B. In the interest of full disclosure, I have and still do own Berkshire Hathaway B shares. The A shares at $119,000 are just too expensive. The B shares can be had at around $80 a share.
There is another person who in a strange way is an even better investor than Warren Buffet. That man is George Kaiser. Kaiser is an oil billionaire and his investment strategy is different from Warren Buffet. Buffet buys stock in companies he feels are undervalued and his returns have been truly spectacular. For the past 44 years the company has returned and average of over 20% increase a year. He even buys whole companies outright if he feels that they have a profitable future. Of course with Buffet there is always a risk of losing our investment if the companies he buys do not make money.
It could be argued that Kaiser has a different way of investing, a different philosophy you might say. A nice way to say it is that while Buffet invests in companies, Kaiser invests in people. A not so nice way of saying this is that Warren Buffet buys companies, Kaiser buys people. It looks like he bought Obama for around $100,000. In 2008, Kaiser was what is called a bundler. What this means is that in order to get around rules on how much an individual can contribute to a campaign a bundler puts together groups of other people and bundles their campaign contributions into a lump sum, in this case the amount was around $100,000. One can do this in a number of ways including hosting fundraisers where a number of people come and contribute or just grouping other people’s campaign contributions and giving this amount to the campaign. This is common practice in politics today.
However, for the $100,000 his return was spectacular and by percentage, far more spectacular than anything Buffet has ever done. Over the last 44 years, Buffet has returned an average of 20% increase a year with enormous risk. In minimizing risk Kaiser easily bested him. Kaiser turned a $100,000 bundled contribution to the Obama campaign in 2008 into a $535,000,000 loan to a company that wished to manufacture solar panels. This was the amount of a loan guarantee to a company called Solyndra even though the company only had a fair rating in terms of its ability to pay back a loan of this size. Kaiser had a large interest in the company. The company declared bankruptcy and taxpayers are on the hook for it, and guess what, it was arranged by the Department of Energy that Kaiser will be paid back his loan before the taxpayers will be. This is being guaranteed by the government, you know, that’s us, the 99%. This arrangement may even be illegal and this is raising questions as to why it was done so that the taxpayer’s interest would be subordinate to private investors like Kaiser. This is a great way of doing business. If Solyndra had become successful Kaiser would have reaped the benefit, but now that the company went under Kaiser was protected thanks to the Department of Energy bureaucrats making sure that he would be paid back before the rest of us would be, you know us, the so called 99%. Now that is the type of risk free investing that even Warren Buffet must surely admire.

No related posts.

Operation Fast and Furious Worked As Planned.

natrayger — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:35:07 +0000

Operation Fast and Furious was a plan that allowed over two thousand guns from the United States to be smuggled into Mexico so that they could wind up in the hands of the members of the drug cartels. The idea seemed to be that perhaps the guns would be recovered guns at crime scenes. And it worked. The Obama administration must be congratulated on another well thought out well executed scheme This idea seems to have worked out exactly as planned and must be considered a success. Guns from the United States were recovered at many crime scenes just as the administration wanted them to be.
One particular crime scene was in the United States and Border Agent Brian Terry was killed. Two guns that were allowed to be smuggled into Mexico were found at the scene.

When questioned at a congressional hearing held on May 3, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed he was unaware of this plan,

“I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first
time over the last few weeks.”

That would mean that Holder is claiming that he had never known about Operation Fast and Furious before April or May of 2011.

Apparently this is not true. Sharyl Attkisson of CBS reported that Holder began receiving frequent memos about the program as far back as July in 2010. That is approximately ten months before he claimed to have known about this plan. If Holder knew about the operation before he claimed to and lied about it he must resign or be fired.

During the Bush administration there was an operation called “Wide Receiver,” that allowed straw purchasers to buy guns for use in Mexico. The difference between the two programs was that under Operation Wide Receiver, RFID tracking devices were placed and surveillance aircraft was used to follow the guns. Operation Wide Receiver was a failure because some of the RFID tracking devices failed and were not installed properly. Additionally, the surveillance failed because the smugglers outsmarted the ATF by driving around for hours while being tracked by the planes. When the planes had to return for fuel the smugglers crossed into Mexico and some 450 guns made their way there. The operation was shut down in 2007. This failure makes it even more puzzling why Operation Fast and Furious was even undertaken.

Life’s Full Measure. Dedicated to all who wish for a simpler time with less energy use.

natrayger — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:40:06 +0000

“Life’s Full Measure .” This is dedicated to all of those in the environmental movement who wish for a world without all of the modern conveniences and energy use. Copyright, 2008. All rights reserved.
This story is related to a “Twilight Zone” episode called “A Stop at Willoughby.” The episode starred James Daly playing Gart Williams who worked for an ad agency in New York during the 1960s. He has an ulcer from the stress of his job. Due to his misjudgment, he has just caused a multimillion dollar account to be lost to another agency along with his assistant who took the account there. His boss is described as an overbearing overweight man who is constantly pushing Williams and blames him for the loss of the account.
One day Williams reached his breaking point and insulted his boss by telling him to shut up and referred to him as “fat boy.” He took the train home to Connecticut and during the ride he was seemingly transported back to a simpler time and place. The time is 1888 and the place is Willoughby, a picturesque and idealized town that could be a setting for a Norman Rockwell painting. Willoughby is an idyllic place with a band playing in the town square, boys with fishing poles, and people using horses and wagons. Williams did not get off the train but believed that he would be happier in this simpler time and that Willoughby was a place where a man could live his life full measure, a phrase that is used throughout the drama.
When Williams confided his unhappiness to his wife Janie she was unsympathetic to his need to live an easier life. She coldly insulted and belittled him with her complaint that she was married to a man who wanted to be Huckleberry Finn. By the end of the story Williams had another troubling and stressful day at work. This time when Willoughby appeared during a stop he decided to get off the train and go there. He is shown believing that he has arrived at Willoughby and now will be able to live his life full measure. However, it is revealed that he had really jumped off the train and is dead. As a touch of irony, the funeral home transport truck has “Willoughby and Sons” on the side of its vehicle. Has Gart Williams has made it to Willoughby after all?
In this follow up story called “Life’s Full Measure,” Williams actually gets to Willoughby.
I am going to get off Gart Williams thought to himself. I am not going to wait anymore. The conductor cried out, “Willoughby, this stop, Willoughby.” As the train stopped Williams knew that this was his chance, perhaps his only opportunity to escape the life he had made for himself. He knew that if he did not get out now he might never get the chance again. He would go to Willoughby and live in a simpler time. Hadn’t the conductor told him that Willoughby was a place where a man could live his life full measure?
A time when boys went fishing and life moved at a slower pace. He would leave his wife Janie behind and his boss, that obese and piggish man who owned the agency. He would never have to hear, “This is a push, push, push business boy and you have to push, push, push to get anywhere.” He had not been fired for losing the three million dollar automobile company account that his assistant, Jake Ross, had landed and then took the account with him to another agency. It would not matter that he would never see the agency again. “Willoughby,” the conductor said, “this stop Willoughby.”
Williams jumped off the train. He would find peace and rest here. Willoughby, where he could slow down at last. Willoughby, the lovely little village of 1888 it would be summer there. As he got off the train he saw that the women carried parasols and wore long dresses.
Williams saw three boys with fishing poles and asked. “Is the fishing good?”
“Yes sir,” the boy said, the other replied, “fishing is real good, lotsa fish, lotsa room.”
“Well maybe I’ll join you,” Williams responded.
“Anytime sir,” one of the boys said.
As Williams walked into the town a man in a wagon said, “Good day to you sir.“
Williams responded with a happy, “and a good day to you too.“
As he approached the town square he breathed deeply and the air felt good in his lungs. He was beginning to relax. The large clock in the town square showed that it was 3 PM.
There was a band playing and a barber shop quartet performed to the applause of the gathered people. The carousel at the center of town went around and around and he could see the smiling faces of the children as they enjoyed the ride. Williams found an open seat on a bench and savored the scene. He was so tired that sleep came to him as a friend.
When he awoke everyone was gone. It was night and the carousel had closed. He looked up and saw all of the stars. They were beautiful and he knew that getting off the train had been the best thing he had ever done in his life. He would live in Willoughby and he would know the peace and tranquility that had eluded him for so long. Janie, well perhaps she would be better off without him. In truth he had departed from her a long time ago, or perhaps it was the other way around. He looked up and could not get over the darkness. He actually stumbled in the street. He had never experienced such darkness. In the cities of his time, all of the reflection from the bright lights kept one from seeing the stars. Now he could see all of them and they were beautiful. Here he would live his life to its full measure.
I had better find a place to sleep, he thought. As he walked through the town he looked up at a sign that said “Willoughby Tavern,“ it had looked so quaint in his dreams. He decided to enter the place.
He saw a group of men sitting at one table. The wagon driver who had said hello to him was sitting at table. Williams waved to the man who waved back.
What will it be sir?” the bartender asked.
“Oh, nothing, but wait, can I have a glass of water? It was real hot out there today and I didn’t realize how thirsty I was.”
Williams thought he saw a slight frown on the man’s face.
“Sure, I can give you some water.” Williams smiled and thanked the man. He drank the water, it was warm.
That’s right, he thought, they don’t have much in the way of refrigeration here. Perhaps they have an ice house in the back.
Williams walked over to the table that the wagon driver was sitting and one of the chairs was empty.
“Mind if I sit in and join you fellows?”
“Sure,” one of the men said, “I’m Hank, are you new to these parts?”
“Well yes, in a way I am.” Williams said. “I would like to settle here.”
“Why?” one of the men asked. After a long pause, Williams said,
“this town looks so peaceful and quiet I think that it would be a nice tranquil place.”
“Tranquil, what do you mean tranquil?” The wagon driver asked.
“Well it seems so relaxed, I was at the town square today and I saw the carousel and the ladies walking and it just seemed so peaceful.”
“I wish that I had the time to do that,” the wagon driver said.
“Yeah, me too,” one of the men said. “I had to shovel all of that crap from the animals from that carousel today. All of that turning makes the ox dizzy and loose.”
Williams then remembered that the source of the movement for the carousel had been an ox. He had forgotten that electricity had barely been utilized in the world of 1888.
“What were you fellows talking about? He imagined that they must have been talking about how great the fishing was and what a fine day it had been. Perhaps they were debating which fishing hole was the best or how beautiful the night sky was.
“Well we were just talking about the election coming up.” the wagon driver said, spraying Williams with some tobacco that had formerly been lodged between two of his yellow teeth. Williams recoiled from the projectile that landed on his cheek. He wiped it away with his sleeve and that was when he noticed it.
The horrible smell, all of the men had terrible body odor.
This fellow had been shoveling crap all day and he and his clothing certainly smelled from it. William’s nose also told him that the wagon driver had a horrible body odor. Then he noticed that the man was also missing a large number of his teeth.
Williams did not want to be rude and leave so he placed his hand over his nose to try to hide the smell. He decided to join in with what the men had been discussing.
The wagon driver whose name was Michael said. “I was saying that the tariffs needed to be preserved and increased to protect our industries from foreign competition. George here was saying that the tariffs need to be lowered.”
“You only feel that way because you make saddles,” George responded. “You are just trying to protect your livelihood. Why should I have to pay more for a saddle made here when we can import them from overseas and pay less?”
“You only want the tariffs lowered so that you can buy cheap foreign goods and kill American industries,” Michael, the wagon driver responded.
Another man named Albert who had been sitting working with an abacus said, “Gentlemen, I have noted an item that should be of interest to all of us. Using the latest scientific and mathematical techniques on my abacus I have calculated that our dependence on the horse will be the ruination of us all.”
“Shut up Albert,” all the men said at once. “That’s Albert, even our little village has one,” Michael said.
Albert ignored the men and addressed Williams, “Did you know that at our current rate of population increase and our dependence on the horse, my calculations show that we will be buried in horse manure by the year 1922. Manhattan Island itself will be buried under 20 feet of horse manure unless we stop using the horse now. The level of horse manure will rise so much that we will have no place to put it. We will be drowning in it. The domesticated horse is the worst thing ever to happen to the planet. Earth, our planet itself, is in the balance due to our over dependence on the horse.“
“Shut up Albert,” all of the men again said at once.
What do you think we should do about it?” asked Williams.
“We must tax every horse sold based on the amount of manure produced. Only then can we save our planet.”
“Shut up Albert,” all the men said again.
“That ought to be good for you George,” Michael said.
“Well I am voting for Harrison the Democrat,” George said.
“I am going for Cleveland again,” Michael said.
Williams found the body odor of those at the table overpowering. Luckily for him the group was breaking up and the tavern would close. He was feeling a little hungry, what would he do for food?
He walked over to the bartender who he had gathered owned the place and asked him if he had any food to eat. The bartender asked him if he had any money and Williams realized that he did not have any money that could be used in 1888.
“No,” he replied,.
“Well I’ll tell you what, you help me clean up the place and I will stake you to a meal, I’m James.”
“Thank you James, my name is Gart, Gart Williams,“ he replied.
“Do you have a place to sleep?”
“Actually I don’t,” Williams replied.
“Well you can sleep in the back room. I can give you a blanket, it gets kind of cold at night.”
Is there a place I can take a bath or shower?” Williams asked.
“Bath or shower,” James said. “You’ll catch your death of cold if you do that.”
Williams realized that he would not be able to take a nice warm shower in the Willoughby of 1888.
Williams helped James clean up and true to his word, James gave him some bread and a piece of pork roast that he had been cooking along with some beer. James left the tavern and Williams bedded down for the night in the backroom.
It wasn’t long before he felt something crawling on him. It was a rat. Williams jumped up in fright and the rat scurried away. Williams also felt himself being bitten by swarms of mosquitoes. He swatted at them and wished he had some insecticide and also wished that the room had a screen. Screens were not in use in the Willoughby without the modern machines to make them.
The next morning at dawn Williams was awakened by a rooster crowing. He got up with welts and he itched from the insect bites. He saw that the town was already alive with movement.
Williams began to walk around the town and observed the blacksmith shoeing a horse and a wheelwright replacing a wagon wheel on a wagon. “Good morning neighbor,” Williams said.
“Good morning to you sir,” the blacksmith replied.
“Any idea when the band will start playing in the town square?”
“They won’t be back today,” The blacksmith replied. “Yesterday was Sunday, the Lord’s day, everyone is back at work today.”
“Good fishing around here?”
“Yes sir, if you go down to the creek and walk up a ways to an oak tree, that is usually the spot that most people favor.”
“Care to join me?” Williams asked.
“I wish I had the time,” the blacksmith said. “I have to go to the service today,”
“What service?
“The little Jenkins girl died from a fever.” he replied.
“Oh, I am sorry to hear about that.” What did she die from?”
“The doctor said that she had a pain in her ear and the infection just spread to her brain. There was nothing he could do except to try to relieve her suffering.”
“Why didn’t they give her some antibio—-?“ Williams stopped himself. He had almost said antibiotics but he realized that they did not have them in 1888.
“What,” the blacksmith asked.
“Oh nothing, nothing at all” Williams said. “I am sorry for the family and the little girl.”
It was hard for Williams to imagine a child dying from something so easily cured in his time. I guess she will never get the chance to live her life to full measure in the Willoughby before the advent of modern medicine, he thought.
Williams headed to the creek to do a little fishing. There was only one person there. He was a boy about 16.
“Hello,” Williams said.
The boy ignored him.
“Hello,” Williams said louder but the boy did not even turn around.
Williams tapped the boy on the shoulder and the boy, startled, uttered an unintelligible sound.
The boy was deaf.
The boy grunted and made noises but Williams could not understand what he was trying to say.
Everyone else is in school but this boy is allowed to run wild, Williams thought. Back in the 1880s he would just be considered deaf and dumb. He remembered that at this time there were a few schools for the deaf just beginning to take hold but this boy lived so far away they might as well be on Mars.
Williams began to feel a little uneasy. A little girl dying from a simple infection, a deaf boy allowed to run wild and not get an education. The odors and poor hygiene of the people made him long for a modern shower and and indoor plumbing. The infestation of mosquitoes and rats made him long for modern insect and rodent control. The work from dusk till dawn made him appreciate the modern machinery and energy use that made the world more comfortable and sanitary. The real and early onset of darkness without the benefit of electric lighting made him long for the conveniences that he had thought were not really important. What he wouldn’t do for a nice hot shower and indoor plumbing. What he wouldn’t do for air conditioning or a ride in an automobile.
“Excuse me, Mr. Williams, Mr. Williams”
“What, what,” Williams said not sure where he was.
It was the conductor, “you were moaning, you must have fallen asleep. Did you have a bad dream?”
Williams looked around and became reassured and relieved that he was back in his own time with air conditioning, running water, electricity, machines, medicine, sanitary facilities, and the rest of the modern world.
“Yes, that dream was a nightmare.”

Democrat Math.

natrayger — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:25:24 +0000

Recently I went to see my doctor. I had not been there for a year. After I was weighed she noted with some alarm that I had gained 20 pounds. I told her not to worry and explained that in reality I had actually lost 10 pounds.
“What do you mean?” she asked. “You were here one year ago, at that time you weighed 220 now you are up to 240 how did you lose 10 pounds?”
“Well, you have to take into consideration that even though I gained 20 pounds from a year ago there were a couple of weeks where I actually lost some weight. I calculated that the number of pounds I lost added up to 10 pounds. Therefore I could have actually gained another 10 pounds but because I exhibited such firm self control I am going to count those pounds I lost for those couple of weeks as a weight loss of 10 pounds.”
She seemed puzzled, “but you now weigh 20 pounds more than you did last time you were here, how can you say you lost 10 pounds?”
I explained again that because I could have gained 30 pounds but I had only gained 20, this actually meant that I lost 10 pounds.”
Exasperated, she quickly lost her bedside manner. She asked me, rather impolitely, if I would like a referral to a psychiatrist. When I declined she asked me where I learned how to think this way and who taught me this type of logic.
“Debbie Wasserman Schultz,” I said.
“Who?”
“Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the head of the DNC.”
“Please explain.”
“I was watching the news and Debbie Wasserman Schultz explained that the president and the democrats 800 billion dollar stimulus package had actually created some 3.5 million jobs.
“How can she say they created all of these jobs when the unemployment rate went up from 7.5% when Obama took over in January 2009 to over 9.1% today?” she asked.
“The same way I lost those ten pounds,” I responded.

Just How Smart Is Obama?

natrayger — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:39:13 +0000

In a past column I contrasted Obama with Palin and believed that Obama was smart and that Palin seemed frivolous and even silly when compared to him. I believed that Obama was not only really bright but actually was learned. This was based on hearing and reading a transcript of an interview Obama gave when he was a law professor in which he discussed his seeming preference for the justice of redistribution economics. He also made this point famously with Joe the plumber. Contributing to my belief in his intelligence was also his being graduated from Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School. A number of people took me to task for this. After doing some research I now ask the question publicly, just how smart is Obama?

Misspeaking is not necessarily a sign of a lack of intelligence but many on the left certainly pounced on every mistake President George W. Bush made. Dan Quayle certainly paid for his gaffes with a concurrent loss of prestige and trust.

If for the sake of fairness, we judge President Obama by the same standards used to judge President George W. Bush we would have to conclude that his mental faculties do not work very well.

On February 5, 2010, Obama mispronounced the word “corpsman.” He said it as “corpseman.” When one says corpsman properly, the ps sound is omitted and the word sounds like core-man. Again, a mispronounced word does not prove lack of intelligence but here is where the mispronunciation rises to the level of stupidity. Apparently Obama did not check how the word is pronounced. If one runs into a word where your pronunciation might sound absurd most people would check to make sure they are not making a mistake. During a radio interview with Peter Deutsch, the congressman pronounced the word hyperbole as hyperbowl. This made him sound foolish. Didn’t the president’s ear pick up the absurdity of pronouncing the word corpsman as corpseman as if those who hold this position in the Navy are actually called a word that would sound like this with its implied meaning?

There are other examples. On January 28 2010, Obama said, “the Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries.” He might have just left out the word conflict but imagine if Bush had said this.

On April 6, 2009 in Strasbourg, France, Obama said. “It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There’s a lot of — I don’t know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing.” Apparently he meant to say German because there is no language called “Austrian.” What if Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann were so ill informed?

On “The Tonight Show,” on March 19, 2009, Obama said, “no, no. I have been practicing…I bowled a 129. It’s like — it was like Special Olympics, or something.” I can imagine the reaction if a republican said this. Obama did call the head of the Special Olympics and apologized.

There are other examples of course like when he referred to 57 states and others beside that. If one does a web search for “Obama Gaffes,” they all come up.

But I suspect that the president is not unintelligent. Former Librarian of Congress, Daniel Boorstein who was a lawyer, professor, and writer once said, “the greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” Here is where President Obama has a problem. He has an intellectual Maginot Line and nothing new can get through. He thinks he knows everything from economics to medicine. One example of this supposed knowledge is when he spoke about giving pain pills instead of hip surgery to older people. He also once suggested that doctors remove tonsils because they can make more money. This is the real problem. Obama is arrogant and that makes him not smart and this is very bad for the country.

The price of failure, government style.

natrayger — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:19:39 +0000

During Hurricane Katrina, President Bush said “you’re dong a heck of a job Brownie,” to Michael Brown, the head of FEMA, which performed disastrously and is a permanent stain on the Bush presidency. This has become a phrase used to deride and ridicule someone’s job performance and to Brown, practically a sobriquet. The line was even used by Tony Soprano who said it to Paulie Walnuts after his disastrous job performance while running a street fair.

In a previous column I described how at least 2000 guns were lost in Operation Fast and Furious. This was a plan hatched at Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) or the Department of Justice (DOJ) to allow firearms to be smuggled into Mexico in order to do exactly what, no one really knows. The plan functioned from November 2009 to January 2011 and the idea was to identify Mexican drug cartel leaders by following the guns to the cartel leaders. Presumably, this would be done by recovering guns at crime scenes and identifying them since no tracking devices were used on any of the weapons. Two of the guns were found at the site where Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was killed in Arizona. Many other guns that the ATF allowed to get into Mexico were used in crimes committed there.

Some in the gun civil rights community suspected that the Obama administration was doing this so that they could prove out that American guns were used to commit crimes in Mexico. They could then use this to help get gun control legislation passed in the United States.

One key supervisor for the operation was William G. McMahon, who was the ATF’s deputy director of operations in the west. McMahon testified before congress and admitted that he made serious mistakes in the handling of the operation. McMahon has just been promoted and made a deputy assistant director of the ATF’s Office of Professional Responsibility and Security Operations. This division is responsible for investigating misconduct by employees of ATF.

William D. Newell was the special agent in charge of the field office for Arizona and New Mexico where Operation Fast and Furious took place. He has just been promoted to special assistant to the assistant director of the ATF’s Office of Management in Washington.

David Voth was a field supervisor in the Phoenix office. He was one of the people who oversaw Operation Fast and Furious. He has just been promoted to become a branch chief for the ATF’s tobacco division in Washington.

Kenneth E. Melson, the acting director of the ATF said that McMahon and others were being rewarded because of the “skills and abilities they have demonstrated throughout their careers.” I wonder if the family of agent Brian Terry would agree with that assessment. Call me suspicious and paranoid but one has to wonder if these three worthies have been promoted so that they would not reveal the names and roles of higher ups who planned or condoned the operation. People like Eric Holder or perhaps Barack
Obama himself. You’re doing a heck of a job Barack.

No related posts.

Increasing the debt limit without cutting spending would have been like giving an obese person a larger belt.

natrayger — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:18:05 +0000

Multiple Choice Test.

Who said the following?
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a Sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. …Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here’. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and Grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

A. Rand Paul B. John Boehner C. Allen West D. Ronald Reagan D. Barack Obama

The answer is Barack Obama in March 2006. Of course now that he wants the debt limit to be increased he admits that his position was a “mistake.” It is funny how this quote has not been widely reported or commented on in the Sun Sentinel and other left wing branches of the Democrat party disguised as media organizations.

The United States spends a lot more money than it receives. This is the deficit. The accumulated deficit is the national debt. The U.S. has to borrow money to pay its bills. Because the U.S. has a credit rating of AAA, the highest possible credit rating from multiple credit rating agencies, it can borrow money at extremely favorable (very low) interest rates. If the debt limit was not increased the U.S. would not have the legal authority to borrow any more money. The debt ceiling is 14.3 trillion and the government reached that level on May 16 but was able to borrow through August 2, 2011. The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since 1962 according to the Congressional Research Service. If the debt ceiling was not raised it would mean that the U.S. could only pay its obligations (spend) based on the actual amount of revenue that it receives. Since the U.S. spends more than it receives (deficit) some people, including those who have already lent money to the U.S. like China and other bondholders would most likely not be paid in order to pay those who receive social security and others who work for the government like those serving in the military. If this occurred credit rating agencies could and would have likely downgraded the credit rating of the United States. Once this happened it could have led to the U.S. having to borrow money at higher interest rates in the same way that an individual with poor credit will pay a higher interest rate than someone with good credit due to the increased risk of default that the lender is subject to. Because the U.S. is such a large borrower, it is possible that this rise in the interest rate that the U.S. pays could have a ripple effect. This would mean that someone borrowing money would likely pay higher interest rates because if the interest rate goes up for the United States with its huge resources and the right to print and manage currency, everyone else’s would go up also. This would include mortgage and credit card rates and all sorts of other financing that people do. Most members of both parties believed that if this occurred it would have led to a further slow down in the already weak economy. Generally when interest rates go up economic activity will slow down due to the higher cost of borrowing. If the interest rates went up people might decide not to buy new or even used cars and those wishing to make other purchases like homes might not proceed due to the increased costs. This would further cripple an already moribund economy to the lack of consumer spending which is already taking place due to so many people being out of work and more people would lose their jobs. Even those fortunate enough to have work including business owners have reported lower earnings and less business activity.
.
At this time it looks like a compromise between democrats and republicans is in the works and the debt ceiling will be increased so that the U.S. does not default on its obligations. From a conservative perspective the compromise is not perfect but considering the alternatives it was better to have done this than to have the country fail to meet its obligations with the possible and probable negative ramifications.

No related posts.

South Florida Chronicle » natrayger

This Will Kill That #Citizens United

Related Posts

Who Guards The Guardians? Slanting News The Sun Sentinel Way

Related Posts

Obama Proverb: If You Give A Man A Fish Everyday He Will Vote For You For A Lifetime

Related Posts

Has The Gingrich Honesty Problem Spread To Those Who Support Him?

Related Posts

Newt Gingrich Is Not Reliable, Not Trustworthy, Not Ethical, Not Stable, But Is Arrogant.

Related Posts

Democrat logic: Sparano should not have been fired.

Related Posts

Occupy Thanksgiving: A glorious tale of how the 1% had their wealth redistributed.

Related Posts

Perry And Cain Have Obama Moments

Related Posts

Obama’s New Risk Free Investing.

Related Posts

Operation Fast and Furious Worked As Planned.

Related Posts

Life’s Full Measure. Dedicated to all who wish for a simpler time with less energy use.

Related Posts

Democrat Math.

Related Posts

Just How Smart Is Obama?

Related Posts

The price of failure, government style.

Related Posts

Increasing the debt limit without cutting spending would have been like giving an obese person a larger belt.

Related Posts