This from Nolte at Breitbart
People can debate whether or not Romney made a diplomatic “gaffe” all they want, but what’s not debatable is that even outside of the world of horserace politics, our collapsing economy is a very serious matter which makes it, you know, newsworthy. The media, however, is showing little to no interest in the fact that over the last few economic quarters our GDP has collapsed from 4.1% to 1.5%.
GDP collapsing from 4.1% growth to 1.5% is free fall.
Three months of job growth under 100k when you need more than twice that number just to keep up with population growth is free fall. Home sales plummeting 8.4% is free fall. Consumer confidence dipping, business inventories increasing, manufacturing contracting, and more people getting disability than jobs, is free fall.
The only way this failed and failing and flailing president can win reelection is to toxify his opponent into someone the public will see as NOT an acceptable alternative to Obama — and this is exactly what the corrupt media is making sure happens by ignoring over 20 million people struggling in their under-employed or unemployed status while keeping its focus on all-things Mitt 24/7.
Even as the economy collapses ands real suffering increases, all the media can do is hysterically amplify every real and perceived mistake Romney makes and when not doing that, focus intently on the very areas Obama wants the focus on: Romney’s wealth and the fact he’s not releasing more of his taxes than John McCain did.
Honest, I wrote the post this morning before reading the Rice article located here.
I agree with about 90% of what she wrote.
The big takeaway point from the article is we need a President that is a leader who embraces and believes that the USA is an exceptional country. The article is short, maybe 5 minutes long. Good synopsis of the gaping vacuum in the president’s office.
As for this post there will be no hyperlinks to articles or copying & pasting text from another location. Not that there hasn’t been some interesting events unfurling or breaking through. In the real world of my own existence and livelihood, things have been also breaking through which has required my attention and consideration. Those kind of events I record on my LJ not here. But as mentioned, much has occurred and with the hands of the sundial and the zodiac getting ready to line up to the eighth month of 2012 I am a bit stunned how much hasn’t happened than what has. Surely the kid plugging the hole in the dyke must have two-score thumbs.
Unresolved or continuing to deteriorate:
Our Congress and the partisan immaturity & noncooperation
Iran and the whole nuclear weapon question
Euro and the European financial crisis
US unemployment and economy
Stability in the Middle East
and there is many more stories and events but these are the ones I continue to monitor.
November arrives and hopefully we will see with it the removal of the incumbent occupying the executive branch of government. Of course there is much harm that he can do in those long days of being a lame duck president. Nevertheless their is far greater fear of another four years of damage to our country and standing in the world.
“Leadership from behind” is the strategy and creation of someone who is NOT a leader. It is the result of someone who is doing something that is actually against their convictions and values. I think that sums up the CES’ four years. He is president of America, a country he has no conviction for nor possesses its historical values. We need a leader, someone who will navigate the mess we are in with convictions and values rooted in the exceptionalism of America. Someone who will stand tall with our allies, not blink with our enemies and rally the domestic forces to unite and work together. That is the person our country needs as President of the United States of America.
For over 3 years I have been writing and saying that the CES is a socialist. Some think I use that as purely a derogatory label. Nope, calling him what he is. A socialist amateur who never should have become president of our country but too many of the citizens of our country are naive and well…. I will leave it at that.
His recent comments should have resulted in a 10+ point downswing in polls but the majority of the citizens…. you know…..
Did the state make you great?
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: July 19
“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
— Barack Obama,
And who might that somebody else be? Government, says Obama. It built the roads you drive on. It provided the teacher who inspired you. It “created the Internet.” It represents the embodiment of “we’re in this together” social solidarity that, in Obama’s view, is the essential origin of individual and national achievement.
To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.
Moreover, the greatest threat to a robust, autonomous civil society is the ever-growing Leviathan state and those like Obama who see it as the ultimate expression of the collective.
Obama compounds the fallacy by declaring the state to be the font of entrepreneurial success. How so? It created the infrastructure — roads, bridges, schools, Internet — off which we all thrive.
Absurd. We don’t credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einstein’s manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.
Obama’s infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. What’s variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes.
The ultimate Obama fallacy, however, is the conceit that belief in the value of infrastructure — and willingness to invest in its creation and maintenance — is what divides liberals from conservatives.
More nonsense. Infrastructure is not a liberal idea, nor is it particularly new. The Via Appia was built 2,300 years ago. The Romans built aqueducts, too. And sewers. Since forever, infrastructure has been consensually understood to be a core function of government.
The argument between left and right is about what you do beyond infrastructure. It’s about transfer payments and redistributionist taxation, about geometrically expanding entitlements, about tax breaks and subsidies to induce actions pleasing to central planners. It’s about free contraceptives for privileged students and welfare without work — the latest Obama entitlement-by-decree that would fatally undermine the great bipartisan welfare reform of 1996. It’s about endless government handouts that, ironically, are crowding out necessary spending on, yes, infrastructure.
What divides liberals and conservatives is not roads and bridges but Julia’s world, an Obama campaign creation that may be the most self-revealing parody of liberalism ever conceived. It’s a series of cartoon illustrations in which a fictional Julia is swaddled and subsidized throughout her life by an all- giving government of bottomless pockets and “Queen for a Day” magnanimity. At every stage, the state is there to provide — preschool classes and cut-rate college loans, birth control and maternity care, business loans and retirement. The only time she’s on her own is at her grave site.
Julia’s world is totally atomized. It contains no friends, no community and, of course, no spouse. Who needs one? She’s married to the provider state.
Or to put it slightly differently, the “Life of Julia” represents the paradigmatic Obama political philosophy: citizen as orphan child. For the conservative, providing for every need is the duty that government owes to actual orphan children. Not to supposedly autonomous adults.
Beyond infrastructure, the conservative sees the proper role of government as providing not European-style universal entitlements but a firm safety net, meaning Julia-like treatment for those who really cannot make it on their own — those too young or too old, too mentally or physically impaired, to provide for themselves.
Limited government so conceived has two indispensable advantages. It avoids inexorable European-style national insolvency. And it avoids breeding debilitating individual dependency. It encourages and celebrates character, independence, energy, hard work as the foundations of a free society and a thriving economy — precisely the virtues Obama discounts and devalues in his accounting of the wealth of nations.
In this The Week magazine on page 20 is the article Obamacare ruling: Why did Roberts switch sides?
The article does like a typical Week article and presents a few bits of commentary and analysis on the subject. It well reflects all the commentary I read or heard following the decision which is – in essence, boiled down to the bottom-line he made a political decision.
Over the last hundred years and maybe longer the MSM and the Executive and Legislative branches of government have politicized the role of a supreme court judge which has fed the current situation Roberts felt he was in. The Dems were and MSM were ready to bash the Supreme Court for striking down the greatly flawed Obamacare Act because it was and is a subject/issue of interest to them. Now consider carefully what the Dems and MSM would have said – it (the Supreme Court) is conservative, if not Republican majority court so this was further political attacks on the current president. Roberts, in his thinking and reasoning allowed himself to be bullied by this flawed argument and then flipped sides in a political verbal gymnastics routine that allowed each side to feel a bit of victory while then the Dems and MSM would not say the Supreme Court was a republican…
Hence Roberts’ decision was political and not constitutional for he chose to make a political stand and not a constitutional stand on the legislation.
Simply put = he DID NOT DO HIS JOB – PERIOD and he did a grave injustice to the S.C. now and in the future. The S.C. is supposed to be above the riff-raff of the legislative and executive branches. It is supposed to be the defender of the Constitution of the United States and by implication the country’s society.
Isn’t it interesting that the CES, his administration and the MSM haven’t lauded the successful election in Libya? In defense (hack, hack) of the CES, his pick didn’t win. Yep the Islamist lost, the administration going into Libya is a secular liberal alliance. Great news for the people of Libya that is if the Islamists don’t try overthrow the government or cause disruption in the country.
Apparently some are concerned that Syria & Iran will try to do what Saddam Hussein attempted in the first Gulf War – drag Israel into the mess.
Excerpt below is from today’s NYT article “After Meeting With Clinton, Egypt’s Military Chief Steps Up Political Feud”
CAIRO — Egypt’s top military official stepped up his feud with the Muslim Brotherhood on Sunday, saying the army would prevent Egypt from falling to a “certain group,” according to the state news agency.
The remarks by the official, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, did not mention the Brotherhood by name but were widely seen as a reference to the group and to Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s newly elected president and a former Brotherhood leader. And they came just hours after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with the field marshal in Cairo in an effort to prod Egypt’s military to hand its power to civilians.
The accelerating dispute between the military and the Brotherhood marked the latest unpredictable turn in Egypt’s chaotic transition, and underscored the challenges Mrs. Clinton faced on her two-day visit to Egypt.
She also faced anger from Christian leaders, including some who boycotted a meeting with her on Sunday, objecting to what they said was interference by the United States in Egypt’s politics in order to aid an Islamist rise to power.
“Certain group” which at this time the best way to define it is Islamists not just Muslim Brotherhood.
“Unpredictable turn” – really? The military on the whole protected the citizens of the country during the uprising. Yes there was some bad behavior but not on the whole. If it would have been on the whole their would have been a slaughter in the square and elsewhere. The military does not want to hand power over to one party especially in the case when the one party is the MB = Islamists. Clinton hopefully is not actually pressuring the military to do such a thing. Hopefully she is doing her best at just riding the fence, showing the desire to be an Allie of the nation. Again, we need to applaud the military’s proactive energies in protecting the nation, its citizens.
“Aid an Islamist rise to power” – this is Christian commentary and analysis of the actions of the CES and his administration. This is not analysis by the Republican party or the Tea Party, this is analysis by the people in the middle of the so-called Arab Spring.
Remember CES = Chief Empty Suit = current USA President