The gunman, named as Nordine Amrani, 33, began his attack near a bus stop at Place Saint Lambert, a central shopping area and the site of the city's annual Christmas market and its main courthouse.
The gunman, named as Nordine Amrani, 33, began his attack near a bus stop at Place Saint Lambert, a central shopping area and the site of the city's annual Christmas market and its main courthouse.
I think it is clear that the Kansas campaign speech -- uh, err, presidential address! -- given by Obama recently left all but his team and sickest fans with question marks over their heads. His words were open to gross interpretation. This is his campaign mode, his tell-nothing-and-do-so-with-pleasant-platitudes mode.
So, it's 2008 again, only this time, the Democrat has an actual record to look at. (Still no college record, but so what, right? That's not weird -- wait, yes it is. It's very odd for a POTUS to lock up his school history. Where was I...?)
It was a taxpayer-paid campaign stump speech by our divisive, happily obscure Campaigner-in-Chief.
His team is correct: it was a make or break speech. The issue to me, though, is this: Will pretty words that mean plenty of different things to different people satiate enough national voters again in 2012 to give the "O-TelePrompTer" the podium for another four?
While Team Obama -- or the "The O-Team," as we'll call them -- insists this was NOT a campaign speech, Mr. Obama's CAMPAIGN team said this related to the recent speech in Kansas: "the other side's candidates all want to let Wall Street write its own rules and give more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires."
Yet, in the speech, Obama said the ideals of which he was bellowing were not ones exclusively of the 1 percent or of the 99 percent, not DNC nor GOP. Hmm. What values are those?
So, from his words to The O-Team's words, we get differing, uhh, interpretations. But The O-Team clearly thinks the Republicans are pro-rich and anti-middle class.
That's not class warfare. That is totally factual, not ridiculous or divisive at all. What a make or break speech it was!
Coincidentally, not Wall Street, but the formerly Democratic-locked Senate did write new rules for financial institutions. But they went even bigger -- for big gov fans, BETTER -- creating a BRAND NEW BUREAUCRACY to serve those rules. They didn't want to fix the SEC or other bureaucracies that should or could have been more functional, no. Left them alone, it seems, and created moooore bureaucracyyyyy. THAT's what Obama's people did.
Why just come up with rules when you can create a new agency, and one that answers ONLY to the Executive Branch?
I can hear the public sector workers, the half of Americans who pay no taxes, and those who prefer being on the government dole, cheering: four more years! Four more years!
Read his words, or watch it, here:http://www.barackobama.com/fair-shot/full
(Or, you could decide right just how easy it will be to give another guy, or gal, a try in 2012. Leaves a lot of time free from all this election hoo-hah. Just saying to consider it!)
- jR (aka @AirFarceOne)
(And not a damned troll, you leftist blowhard tweet sissies)
I admit, some days I don't like the way the world works. I had a decent childhood but faced some very serious matters that I still deal with, sometimes to distraction, today. I wish I could change that. But I can't. I can live above it, beyond it, outside of it, but I cannot change what happened. And sometimes, that pounds on me, as it does many. All I can change, really, is myself and my perspective on things, and try to have some influence on others.
I am a wanton rebel, in part. I managed to avoid jail as a youth, and that was, trust me, quite notable during several chapters of my youth. Not proud of it. I do get a devilish grin thinking about some of those misspent hours, now and then. But I wouldn't form my life around those things.
There is a part of me that is pulling for the #OWS people. No, not to bring down capitalism or remain in smelly park camp sites for years, and such pathetic madness: The message hidden in the Marxist, road-blocking, smelly park benches, long-term campout, public bowel movement, stupidity of it.
In a less abrasive way -- one that doesn't include RIOTS in Rome and snotty American pukes blocking people's way to work in NYC -- I hope some element of the Occupy Wall Street movement WORKS -- that it gets something across to the idiots these people helped put in charge in the U.S. (Obama! Pelosi! Frank! Jackson, Jr!).
But, that's the problem with "the Left" -- or what I call Modern American Liberals/Left (MAL, if you wish -- "MALcontents" if you're silly about it), isn't it? The way the least practical of them think and how they promote their message, it's downright incomprehensible. And, inexplicably, the least intellectually vibrant seem to get to the front of the camp. (I mean Pelosi?! How can anyone pay attention to her comments for any length of time and not think she's a drip?!)
Much of what I've seen of the Occupy [City Name Here] movement is, for me, kinda like watching a bad movie shot in (for example) Russian: I see what's going on, and while I cannot understand a word, it looks about as vacant as my Russian vocabulary. I would still root for the protagonist if I have to sit through it. Or, I'd feign illness and go somewhere else.
These same people who are in the #OWS crowds NO DOUBT make fun of the Tea Party movement, yet don't they see just how close their complaints are, but for one major thing: who they blame? There are of course other things that separate these groups, like the Tea Party encourages people to read the Constitution while the Socialist Party of the USA is passing things out at #OWS events. But the big difference is who they blame for the current economic troubles.
They both blame powerful groups. The government is mostly to blame on the Tea Party side, and Wall Street is obviously to blame on the other side.
One group -- the Tea Party -- was brewing in 2008-09 and moved to work within the system, and those in the establishment trying to wrangle cats (such as Dick Armey's FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Patriots). (Disclosure: I identify with the Tea Party's simple, ACTUAL agenda -- as opposed to the creepy, crude, shallow claims the left project onto them.)
The other -- the "Occupy" movement -- seems to think they have it ALL FIGURED OUT, and they can change the ENTIRE system by having droning conversations in parks, and visiting billionaires' neighborhoods. Oh, and holding riots in Europe. Most events, from New Zealand to Britain, were peaceful, happily. (But still lack a point that is actionable in a global economy and digital world, where credit, contacts and education are, reasonably enough, important.)
I find it frustrating, then, that the groups are both angry about state and business collusion that worsened the economic collapse, allowed big business bailouts and provided everyday people foreclosure-fest 2008 (and 2009, and...). They are both angry about those things! That's common ground!
The Tea Party was called terrorists, radicals, and the like -- and utterly mocked as "astroturf" by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and called "tea baggers" by so many people it's not possible to list them. This, despite the fact they worked to be very orderly, they were respectful of areas they were gathering in, were calm and collected (unless they were actually attacked, physically, as they were several times, by "union thugs" and politicians' staffers), and left places as clean as they entered them. Well, by comparison to the OWS activists, that IS RADICAL!
Then there's the OWS activists. They aren't so much dangerous because they are capable of violence to try to make their scrambled point, as in Rome on Oct. 15, but because they assume so many things. It is as if their imaginations are fully in chanrge of their perceptions of reality.
They have behaved, quite literally, as the brainwashed members of a cult -- a long video from the Occupy Atlanta kick-off on October 8th showed that weirdness (watch from 1:27 on till you get too bored to keep it up). Business and life have use for imagination, but it's work to turn that into something functional. Just ask an engineer who's worked on a car design, or an aircraft. Ideas are easy.
The OWS activists are fighting a form of fascism, but sadly, I believe it is a "fascism" from inside, that they are listening to and accepting things that are crushing their spirits and leaving ruin in their own misused minds. They seem think they can imagine or talk inconsistencies in the economic system to death, or fight the system with park meetings and shouting at bank buildings. How's that like the Tea Party? It isn't. I wish it were.
If the clutter that thrived in D.C. and New York City, and the droning of Atlanta, the riots of Rome, all subside, something meaningful may come of #OWS. I mean REALLY meaningful. Not geeks getting lucky with some hot hippie babes or making new Facebook friends, but something that is, in the cheesy words of the guy these folks seem to have voted for, Obama: they will provide a "teachable moment." That "moment" isn't gonna happen for the world at large from the back seat of a police cruiser, though.
So, wake up, children, and realize that common sense was way ahead of you on the anti-consumerism thing. The best way to reject "consumerism" is to choose to not buy stuff. You can do that at home, or even out with friends, believe it or not. No need to sleep in clumps in a park, toss garbage all over the place, repeat EVERYTHING other people say (how can this even be done by otherwise happy humans?!), call cops names, or take a dump in public.
If you're anti-capitalist, though, such as Adbusters truly appears to be, then you're going to be hating it in life. If America were purely capitalist, it would be a wasteland. It isn't. But it drives the economic thinking, for the most part.
I imagine -- but only IMAGINE -- elements of OWS and Tea Party movements getting together. I cannot even imagine it, though, till the bratty, spoiled, acting-out crazies leave the OWS as it was shown in NYC, Boston, Atlanta and probably other locations. There are kooks who also identify with the Tea Party, sure, but they are not the majority. I've seen no proof of it. In the OWS examples I cited, however, there are examples of uber-creepiness.
There's kids who are sure that Santa's coming this Christmas. Not in spirit, but there are kids who believe Santa Claus is really going to arrive with presents. Who am I to tell those kids otherwise? I wouldn't do that to kids. The belief in Santa is awesome -- even if I don't have it, I wouldn't want others to lose it.
I hope Santa comes, kids. I truly do!
As for getting rid of the crony capitalism, ending big-business bailouts, and creating good jobs, there we have lots of agreement. Can't we work from there? The Tea Party terrorist radicals agree with you there! Just stop calling them "tea baggers", for everyone's sake!
(Clarification: being stuck in that commune is not good.)
I wrote the other day that Reuters found that Adbusters, a Canadian anti-capitalist organization with ties to George Soros, had inspired and encouraged the public displays of whining that began as Occupy Wall Street on this little blog.
Kudos to Reuters for looking into the source of the Occupy movement. I think this smelly, drug-addled, street-blocking, business-hating madness is going to get more people hurt across the world and the greedy, power-hungry billionaire out there are going to be watching it from well-secured mansions.
Yet, there is no big story concerned that this little group of Marxists in Canada are allegedly behind this, their Western fashion of the so-called Arab Spring (which is not all it's springed up to be).
Why isn't the MSM, or even Fox News and the blogosphere shouting about them? (I wonder what Alex Jones -- "Mr. Conspiracy Theories" -- thinks?)
What is Adbusters? Well, they're easy to find. They have a very active and savvy Web site which includes plenty of #OWS activity and partner sites: http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns
Apparently, all of the work on their site was created with free software, developed by people who will only barter, on servers purchased with bartered deals. Oh, but let's be realistic: in order to bring down a system that's spoiled so many, including your ignorant job-having friends, you must cut corners somewhere. Money must be used until Utopia can be achieved!
Funny, but since I am not a DRONE that follows these Marxist socialist fascist dreamers, I already have been doing something for YEARS that they turned into a, uhh, movement or something: Buy Nothing Day. When is it? It's Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving. In the U.S. - oh, excuse me, in "North America".
Have a look at what kind of activism that is inspiring, apparently, to the economically stupid and those incapable of individual thought or responsibility: http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/bnd
I'd think Adbusters were hilarious if it weren't for the inspired students and -- most hilarious -- full-grown adults who are doing exactly what they suggest. Have you seen the videos of these Occupy events? Nutters!
Adbusters say they are anti-consumerist. Well, so what? On many days, so am I!
The difference between anyone like me -- who isn't a fan of a wildly consumer-driven society lacking in strong, grounding traditions and activities -- and these people, is these people don't grasp the subtely of "go" and "floor it". I don't include in my economic philosophy ideas such as purchasing things is bad. (Is it just how I think, or not?
This anti-consumerism opens the door WIDE OPEN to numbskulls robbing stuff because they don't believe in consumerism. Purchasing things like an idiot is bad, not existing in an economic model where goods and services are traded for money (or bartering, etc.).
I am one who VALUES being an INDIVIDUAL, with all my shortcomings, even. Purchasing regrets I have. I am not, however, interested in relating to blowhard socialists -- that's what these creeps are -- telling me to demonize the consumerism that wreaks havoc on the lives of the complacent poor (most of all, the poor, because if you don't got it, you shouldn't spend it on CRAP). Their other argument, of course, is that the consumerist system exclusively vaunts the greedy to positions of wealth and power. I guess I have to point out that this is a misinformed view, since just as no ethnicity or city or country is all bad, neither is any income class. I know jerks in all classes of income. I probably even dislike wealthy jerks more, but what's that? That's not a reason to prompt a riot!
They can't just be all Dave Ramsey about their spending. They cannot simply avoid the trap of mindless consumerism by listening to grandmotherly advice (as Ramsey offers -- ask him), they have to claim the problem as their own, call it a terrible threat, go to great lengths to attend time-wasting, drone-leading-drone sit-ins and face arrest, and even riots (in Rome, so far), then proclaim: We have saved the world from themselves! Again!!
I have a request: you Adbusters-following, #OWS joining, park-sleeping, public-pooping, finger flickering, repeating-after-me-ing sheep (YouTube video from Occupy Atlanta) open your minds for REAL. First, listen to Dave Ramsey -- or any money-matters personalities out there -- and see where that takes you. It'll not draw you into the street, that's for sure, except to go find a job or two and bust a hump to make something of yourself.
Because I got news for you: capitalism works a lot better than socialism. If the U.S.A. went socialist, what would all those socialist countries that depend on us DO?!
- J Ruse
O'Reilly is correct on both counts: there is no evidence showing Obama is involved with the protests, and if there were, it would make for a stunning story. But there's more to look at. Other than some complimentary references such as those Obama has already made to the protesters, there may never be a connection from Obama to the cult-like, repetitious, finger-swirling OWS crowds. The Fox News host -- and many others, too -- are missing a connection because they are looking for the links from the wrong side. While a direct connection from Obama to Occupy Wall Street (Et Al) is not evident, overtures are there. The connection is not from the White House to the activists, though. It is from the opposite direction, from activists to the ideas that swirl around at the bottom of the dirty sink filled with Obama's useful-idiot-pandering, Marxism-ridden, class warfare toned rhetoric.
The park-squatting protesters who, at times, evoke blatantly anti-capitalist views, are the far side of what Obama seems to evoke, however dishonestly or veiled he is about it. Their anarchist-seeming chatter can make the anti-success, anti-rich, anti-business rhetoric of the vote-pandering White House seem more in the center of political discourse than it is. So the OWS movement is to Obama's advantage, possibly benefiting him among the most pliable of the public's eyes and ears.
Soros and the protesters deny any connection. But Reuters did find indirect financial links between Soros and Adbusters, an anti-capitalist group in Canada which started the protests with an inventive marketing campaign aimed at sparking an Arab Spring type uprising against Wall Street. Moreover, Soros and the protesters share some ideological ground.
Like the protesters, Soros is no fan of the 2008 bank bailouts and subsequent government purchase of the toxic sub-prime mortgage assets they amassed in the property bubble.
The protesters say the Wall Street bank bailouts in 2008 left banks enjoying huge profits while average Americans suffered under high unemployment and job insecurity with little help from Washington. They contend that the richest 1 percent of Americans have amassed vast fortunes while being taxed at a lower rate than most people.
I watch you turn away from what is easy and stand up for what is right. I see you understand we as a society are only as strong as our weakest link. I see you wise beyond your years. And I am proud. Give ‘em hell, kids. You are beautiful.
Together we are strong.
In Denver, in 2008, "we were nominating a candidate who reflects our hopes and our core values -- someone who's looking out for all Americans, not just those with the most money or the most power..." As that quote shows, the Obama 2012 squad is hard at work while our president does federal government and "leader of the free world" stuff. Only recently, President Barack Obama did more of that working over of America when he lied, at a mic while making a statement at the White House, that he had met a jobless teacher from Boston. He didn't. It was a perfectly needless, self-ingratiating lie used to put lipstick on this pig: a clumsy, class president campaign-type comment to the effect of "it would be nice to have a budget to fund that guy a teaching job, wouldn't it?" It would be terrific, Mr. President, truly. If there is money for it and an actual budget (a speech doesn't count!!) to do that and lots of other really neato stuff it would be jump-for-joy nutty good to do. But we're still arguing about where trials for terrorists ought to be, in some corners, thanks to your Admin's totally off-the-path policy priorities. What's the big deal about his little lie? It's one of many, for starters. This one: Obama blossomed the fact that he was in the general vicinity of a Boston teacher, claimed having "had the honor of meeting" the teacher (who may actually have a job, were now being told!), to make a really, really lame point. Obama was in the White House garden, lying for no good reason, and adding that we should get that teacher back into a classroom teaching some children. The teacher complained that he had been laid off three times because of budget cuts or something bureaucratic and impersonal. Well, Obama knows impersonal! He said he met the teacher without sharing a word with him, from about five or six arm-lengths away at best. What an amazing man! Obama can even meet people without them realizing it until Obama tells the media about it! Here's more of that magical Obama power, as Juliana Smoot tells the fawning masses in a campaign email "Getting to Charlotte" (where the 2012 DNC Convention will be): "I watched him [Obama] accept the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States in Denver. It was a powerful moment for a lot of reasons, but for many of us who were there, the point was driven home: It was so important that we were nominating a candidate who reflects our hopes and our core values -- someone who's looking out for all Americans, not just those with the most money or the most power." Uh-huh. Unlike those evil, racist, bigoted Tea Partiers, Republicans and zombie brain-eaters from Hell who have conservative economic and Constitutional views, the president cares about you! Just ask his buddy the CEO of GE! Yes, President Obama, one-term president, blamer-in-chief, supporter of the basic socialist-communist concept of "redistribution of wealth," is looking out for YOU! Isn't that nice? He is literally thinking about you right NOW, while having a cold milk with Santa -- it's a dairy summit. All hail the chief! Like your mom, your big brother (if he is cool), hall monitors, the camp counselor who pats your back a bit too long and slowly, an imaginary giant white rabbit, or the railings that your captor put on your bed sides, Obama is there for you. How is he showing it? Did you know that Obama never goes to sleep without first looking at a list of all of America's unemployed and underemployed. Of course, he reviews any deals for his illegal immigrant uncle (the drunk driver who drives for a living) or undocumented aunt in New England, or whichever relative will next stumble out into the light and be a terrible eyesore for a mostly in-the-tank press. He, obviously, caps off his night reading with the latest of his Department of Justice's emails regarding the failed sting, the cartel gun-running "Fast and Furious" fiasco nobody knew about till the week the story broke the MSM noise barrier (that was August, or July, some time, though some have been reporting on it since 2009). Oh now look at me, exaggerating: Obama does none of those things. But like the Boston teacher was, those issues are milling around him, so, therefore, he is right on top of them all, "dealing" with them like the big world leader that he is so clearly learning to be. It's not important that Obama is much better at inventing stories of how he is dealing with such issues than how he is ACTUALLY dealing with them. That's what Congress is for: actually handling the issues. The White House doesn't have to deal with that, they just have to look... presidential-ish. But Pelosi had to stop being Speaker and that is when things got all messed up; they were going so well those first two years! There was the pledge to close Gitmo, to end the two wars, inspire love and respect for America from all the Islamic nations, hold the jobless rate to 8% or less, create 300,000 jobs a month, to name a few. All those successes! Well, possibilities, at least. The evil GOP had to get in the way and win those 2010 elections and prevent this from becoming a one-party nation like some nutty far left Democrats had been hoping for.
The White House and drips such as former Speaker Pelosi are "Getting to Charlotte" -- and whole lot of other communities, and not in a good way. I hope the amateur leaders (but professional campaigners) can hold themselves back when they lose the WH in 2012, and step down with the same impersonal grace with which Obama told of his fake discussion with an unemployed (employed?) Boston teacher in early October. Only 13 months to go. Best of luck, non-leftists, I am pulling for you to take the White House, and hold the House!! Perhaps non-leftists can even take a majority in the Senate. Thirteen months is a long time to watch amateurs run a country, after all.
- jR "Postcards from the Wedge" - posts about the wedge that the White House drives between itself and the inconvenient facts of their clear failures. In the process, they put a wedge between Americans. We cannot let thoroughly self-centered politicians ruin this nation. (Ex: the sheep in their flock and informed Americans who like America better than they do redecorated socialist economic goals of redistribution that are peddled by the left.)
How confusing is it for entitled punks in #occupywallstreet, et al, with #capitalist Steve Jobs passing?
In between campaign efforts to draw small donations by offering a dinner with Obama for randomly selected supporters, Team Obama launched a busy-body snitch site, as it had in 2008. The new rat squad home page is http://AttackWatch.com. It seems that the dinner-with-Obama effort has been pelting folks with an email every day for at least a week. It's because September 30 is a deadline, they say. Good to know. That probably doesn't mean the emails will stop, though. (Wow! What I do to stay informed....)
The Attack Watch link rolls Web surfers to the campaign domain, an all-black page with scant content, encouraging people to report lies that make Obama look bad, or just don't get the facts omitted quite they way he'd like them to be.
It is a site for Obama supporters, of course, so that assumes many are the same people who have called the Tea Party movement a pack of racists since the beginning. So, lies might amount to just about anything said against Obama and his policies, right, wrong or simply viewed with thinking that isn't stuck in the far left mindset.
Along with his supposed jobs plan, which seems to functionally favor giant corporations and penalize small biz people by going after the more successful ones' personal income, this rat squad thing is a further descent into what I call "Happy Face Fascism".
"Zero"-bama is no Mussolini (search), certainly, but it seems very clear that he is at heart an academician, a man who lives on theories and words rather than effort and actions, who:
- was not a tested leader until January 2009
- campaigns all the time
- coaches from the bench
- leads by blaming and false flagging
- says he has a plan/budget/bill and RARELY produced any from his office
This all has an air of pushing a cult of personality, a fascistic one-sidedness, and not a positive "hope and change" promise. Not mere politics, but overt divisiveness. I am not encouraged by this continued "I" and "me" focus of the reelection campaign.
It took too long for him to focus on jobs, truly, yet he had the nerve to claim, in September, that no one else had been focusing on them. How could anyone? Too busy keeping terrorists out of NYC courtrooms, trying to get a handle on a 2,500-page health "reform" bill, etc. Obama has "refocused" on job creation how many times since 2009? Must be at least three times, and I suspect it is more.
I DON'T BUY INTO HIS HYPE. I am troubled by ANYONE who continues to. His people have to blow smoke in public, or they would have to quit. Anyone else, it's just troubling.
Don't be guilted into sympathizing with this clumsy leader, and don't let anyone you know feel it's a bad thing to disagree with our first Black president. Because he is more than that: he IS OUR PRESIDENT.
He wanted the job, then didn't do the job. HE DIDN'T DO THE JOB. He's to blame, not Americans, not Bush, not even Congress -- both sides -- not all blame or even most can go onto the GOP.
Yes, "the anointed one" -- as Sean Hannity calls him -- wanted the job, then didn't do things in any practical order. Jobs first? No! Gitmo closing was his 1st priority. Second was his forgotten Cairo speech. How did those two moves work out for him, or you and me?
When came jobs? The initial stimulus was either a failure, or it was not far enough. Either way, it was a bad try. Tragic not for Obama but for lots of citizens. And then the White House and its pals could not seem to get out of the way for anything. "Corporate jet owners" became one of the Most Wanted, it seemed from the rhetoric.
We cannot allow this self-centered, smooth-talking master campaigner to hold the White House for another term. All hope was that this aggressive young president would rise to occasion. He did, but he was dancing to the wrong music.
Obama is simply not good for America. He might be suitable to vote "present" somewhere, like he had in the Illinois State Senate, but in the big-boy world of Washington, D.C., he just can't handle. He's got a record now, and now we ought to know what happens when you DON'T elect someone based on some sort of legitimate, clear, open record. Bad leadership happens.
He won in 2008 by a small but decisive margin, and America has had a president who wasn't White. For that, he will go down in history. I am eager to see another Black man move into that role, or a woman, or Hispanic/Latino, but preferably one who isn't full of ideological assumptions that cannot pan out in a free country. But one who isn't running -- shamelessly, at times -- on their ethnic background or sex.
I'd like to see the United States have a leader who isn't part of the pigeon-holing politics (as in, label-obsessed) of the far left liberal elitist masters of the Democratic Party. Obama has shown, short of a few examples, that he is incapable of veering toward the center. Sadly, he also appears to be incapable of submitting a serious budget to Congress (his last one famously failed in the Senate, 97 to 0 in May 2011).
AttackWatch.com isn't the kind of activism that bring people to a table to share, it cultivates divisiveness. So... NEXT!
[Image: An AttachWatch.com home screen view (Sept. 2011)]
WICHITA, Kansas -- Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer has joined 77 other mayors in 44 states in a letter of opposition to the aviation tax increases proposed by President Barrack Obama.
During a Tuesday morning press conference with aviation reporters from national and local publications, Mayor Brewer questioned the logic of various revenue measures which target general aviation.
"I'm struggling to try to understand why the President is doing this," Mayor Brewer said. "I cringe each and every time those comments are made."
Q: Is a strong economic plan the key to President Obama securing a second term?
Carter: Well, that's one thing I pretty much ignored to my political sorrow when I was in office—election-year politics and things like that. I think that the best political approach for him even now would be to let the people know that he was bold and knowledgeable and politically courageous in order to put forward things that would result in some decrease in services, including Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, but also increase revenue.
President Obama has a policy, which may very well be the right one for now, of letting the Congress evolve multiple bills and then ultimately negotiating to get a final decision, or even no decisions. I think a much stronger approach by the White House would be my own personal belief, as a political philosophy.
... But did he also make a false claim? Of all his figures, his statement that the United States sent $360 million "straight to the Taliban" was the most striking.
It didn't take long to turn up what he was talking about.
Grayson was referencing an Aug. 16, 2011, story by the Associated Press that preceded the commission's in-depth report. The AP reported that an investigation by a military task force found that $360 million in taxpayer money meant to strengthen Afghanistan's economy ended up going to "the Taliban, criminals and power brokers with ties to both."
Well, he's not wrong. Yippee. So he's not completely out of his nut.
But he sure isn't easy to tolerate when he's more full of, uhh, hateful "rhetoric", than credible content. And he's better at making the news with one than the other.- jR
Because the Americans Obama hasn't been listening to are really hurting now. And -- who's....
BIG JOURNALISM | SEPTEMBER 5, 2011
It’s no secret that I am no fan of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) because they are traitors to the black community. ... Read more
JIM CROW Laws and Hangings - Again!? Allen West threatens to reconsider his membership in Black Caucus
CBC brushes Allen West’s threat to reconsider his membership aside
HOT AIR » TOP PICKS | SEP. 1, 2011
"We're neighbors, we're allies, we're friends, but you are also responsible," a somber and angry Calderon said.
It is assumed the attack was carried out by the Zetas cartel, who allegedly set fire to the casino because the owners had not paid some $10,000 a week the organization had demanded, government officials told Excelsior.
"It's clear that we are not confronting common criminals, we are confronting true terrorists," Calderon said in a televised speech after meeting his security advisers.That last statement by the president of our neighbor to the south is in stark disagreement with one of his guys. There was an, uhh, argument -- or, rationalization worthy of an immature, 13-year-old, stoned hippie cult member, not a nation's representative -- by Mexico ambassador to the U.S., Arturo Sarukhan in a letter to the Dallas Morning News in which he referred to drug cartel leaders as a type of businessman, stressing that they were not any sort of terrorist (see http://totally-political.blogspot.com/2011/04/morally-corrupted-yeah-that-fits-choose.html).
Ocala lawmakers, and federal and state laws, decide fate of abundant public park ducks: Death by poison
Another example of government failing to serve, but doing a good job to push around:
Ocala's verdict for Tuscawilla ducks: Death by poison (from Ocala.com)
By Susan Latham Carr
If they weren't doomed to euthanization, the Muscovy ducks that have confounded officials by their proliferation in city parks and retention ponds would have died of embarrassment Tuesday watching the Ocala City Council's highly emotional decision-making process that ended in the ducks' demise.
Council President Daniel Owen hurled vitriol and foul language at Keith Belisle of Ocala Wildlife Sanctuary Inc. (OWLS), who requested to move the 110 offending ducks to a duck-friendly farm at no charge to the city.
"It's too bad ducks don't pay taxes because I would tax the hell out of them for the s--- they put at our parks," an angry Owen growled at Belisle, referencing the ducks that soil city picnic tables and walkways.
Owen spoke softer but with the same angry edge to Tish Hennessey, All Creatures Sanctuary founder, who harbors 200 Muscovy ducks removed from the city of Belleview. She also offered, with a request for a donation, to house the Ocala ducks to keep them from being killed as the city staff recommended.
"However we can assist in helping this be a case of humanness and love and representative of all the people in Marion County that this is a place that loves their animals, we would do whatever is necessary," Hennessey said.
"Do you have any suggestions on how we can treat the humans in our parks humanely and with love?" Owen asked Hennessey. "Right now we bridge that gap between ducks and humans with a lot of pressure washing and Clorox."
<< Please comment!
$14.1T: AN AFFORDABLE LEVEL OF NATIONAL DEBT?
The United States’ current level of national debt is still affordable and consistent with several other nations. The problem, however, is that with the continued rate of growth in the debt experienced over the last 10 years it will not be affordable forever. National accounting statistics show clearly that the U.S.’s 96% national debt/GDP percentage is, in fact, above average compared with most other modern economies, but it is certainly not the highest as economies like Japan and Italy currently have debt/GDP levels at 204% and 130%, respectively. Moreover, the level of U.S. national debt as a percentage of GDP (96%) is relatively close to where it was back in 1950 after having financed World War II. Our nation’s highest level of debt relative to GDP was 121% back in 1945. The key point is that debt must be benchmarked to our nation’s income which is GDP. I find it interesting that if I tell someone that Bill Gates owes someone $10M they quickly can figure out that he’s probably fine, but if I tell the guy at Starbucks that the U.S. owes $14.1T they think the country must be ready to go bankrupt. Big numbers really scare people, so one needs a perspective.
What should be the goal? I say a debt level of 67% of GDP should be the goal, which is a very average and affordable level of debt. It’s OK for debt to grow as long as it does not become too high relative to the size of our economy or GDP.
- jR (@AirFarceOne on Twitter)