Humbug - Obama Dog And Pony Phony.

Humbug is quaint Americana for something false, phony or underhanded.
President Obama was his usual arrogant self as he demonstrated bi-partisanship to the seventeen Congressional Republicans who attended his health care extravaganza.

Repeatedly interrupting Republican speakers and refuting factual representations made to him, the President’s idea of bi-partisanship comprised of one hundred and nineteen minutes of Obama-dominated campaign mode lecturing. The Washington Times stated he looked very professorial… a title he never held.

Republicans were held to a mere one hundred and ten minutes while the twenty one Democrats attending the meeting were allowed one hundred and fourteen minutes, during which they dredged up story after story of constituents medical woes in support of their boss, some of which stretched the imaginations of those present. It was the usual Democrat hysteria-inducing sob-story tactic we’ve all heard so many times before. You’d think they’d wise up to the fact that we’re on to it.

For the Republicans’ part they pretty much stuck to what they said they’d do, which was to stipulate that the entire piece of legislation should be scrapped and started over from scratch.

Eric Cantor with the 2,400 page Senate Health Care Bill.

Obama was also offended at Representative Eric Cantor (R) Virginia, for bringing the two thousand four hundred page health care bill to the meeting and prominently displaying the bill in front of him as he spoke. The President interrupted Republican speakers, refuting statements and giving somewhat unlikely anecdotes. At one point Obama got into a peeing match with Senator John McCain, where he petulantly quipped “We’re not campaigning here John”.

All in all, the Democrats not only didn’t cover themselves with glory, they looked pretty silly. The Democrats are trumpeting the use of the reconciliation process, since President Obama has said he wants an answer from the Republicans within six weeks, presumably giving Democrats enough time to see if they can come up with the requisite votes.

That’s not at all a done deal either, for all the Democrat bloviating.
Eric Cantor, the Minority House Whip, and his team have come up with some pretty solid calculations showing that the House Madame may only be able to come up with about 205 of the 217 votes she needs.
From your lips to God’s ears, Eric.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

[Via http://skipmaclure.wordpress.com]

Try to stay awake: the President has a healthcare Bill to pass

Try to stay awake: the President has a healthcare Bill to pass

to not show photographer information –> (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

 

 

to not show image description –> ‘Obama, looking incongruously glamorous in a crisp white shirt and blue tie – like Jamie Foxx chairing a convention of Pittsburgh cement contractors – gave an Oscar-worthy performance as the Concerned Listener’

 

 

to not show enlarge option –>–>

Chris Ayres: Healthcare Summit Sketch

Warning: watching American politicians argue about healthcare can be seriously damaging to your health. Symptoms may include migraines, extreme fatigue and sudden violent urges. In the event of exposure to competing statistics — regarding “donut holes”, “HMO deductibles”, “reconciliation devices” or suchlike — seek immediate medical help.

The public affairs television channel C-Span 3 might as well have put such a message at the bottom of its screen yesterday as it broadcast President Obama’s epic six-hour “bipartisan” debate on US medical reform.

Of course, by the usual standards of C-Span programming — which can induce sleep faster than an IV drip of propofol — the summit was the equivalent of a bikini mud wrestling contest. You half expected the picture to shake as the camera operator struggled to compose himself.

For the rest of us, however, it was mainly an opportunity to see how many conciliatory-looking poses Obama could strike while listening to his Republican opponents explain why the entire first year of his administration has been a gigantic waste of time, and why the telephone directory-sized health Bills produced by both the Democrat-controlled House and Senate should be fed into a shredder the size of Connecticut, before they . . . well, no one seems to know exactly what these vast pieces of legislation would do.

Except that it won’t be good, because the US Congress generally only does expensive and complicated.

The President’s first challenger of the morning was the Republican charmer Lamar Alexander, a whiskey-voiced Senator from Tennessee. “We want you to succeed, because if you succeed, our country succeeds,” he told Obama, before adding, a few moments later, that want he really wanted, more than anything, was for the President to fail.

Or, as he put it: “This [healthcare reform] is a car that can’t be recalled and fixed . . . we ought to start over.”

Throughout all this, Obama, looking incongruously glamorous in a crisp white shirt and blue tie — like Jamie Foxx chairing a convention of Pittsburgh cement contractors — gave an Oscar-worthy performance as the Concerned Listener.

He listened with his chin raised and his eyes narrowed. His listened with his head resting quizzically in one hand. He listened while scribbling furiously in his notebook. Indeed, it was only when one of his own allies began to speak — the purple-suited Nancy Pelosi, famed for her left-wing politics and fondness for private jets — that Obama’s camera-talent abandoned him, and he allowed himself to be filmed with his middle finger creeping over his lips, as if urging Ms Pelosi to shut the hell up and take the next Gulfstream back to California.

His frustration was understandable. After all, for a while, it seemed as though Senator Alexander might be getting the upper hand, and the viewer began to wonder if Obama’s gambit — to bore America into submission while getting another opportunity to look handsome on television — was about to blow up in his face.

But then Alexander made the fatal mistake of claiming that even Congressional Budget Office thought Obama’s healthcare reform plan would result in more expensive health insurance premiums.

Quite the opposite, interjected Obama, suddenly in his legal scholar element: the Budget Office said that premiums would fall, which would then inspire middle class families to purchase better, more expensive insurance policies. “This is an example of where we’ve got to get our facts straight,” he chided, in the tone you might use while encouraging a toddler to eat all his peas.

Alexander attempted a flustered response, before declaring that he would like to submit his rebuttal in writing at a later date, instead of “arguing in public”. Obama, now sounding like the leader that has been mostly absent from the White House for the past year, declined the offer. “I’d like to get this issue resolved before we leave today, because I don’t believe I’m wrong,” he said.

For the Democrats, it was a long overdue moment of victory. Whether anyone in America was still awake to witness it, however, was another matter.

 

 

Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.

Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper

News International associated websites: Milkround

Copyright 2010 Times Newspapers Ltd.

This service is provided on Times Newspapers’ standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.

 

[Via http://bsimmons.wordpress.com]

Obama to the Left and almost everyone else is to the right of Obama

Radical Chart of Obama connections

Folks are wondering why Obama, with a super majority in the House and Senate, can’t seem to get his agenda passed. The Republicans want nothing to do with his agenda and some Democrats feel the same way. Even though Obama proclaims that he is no an ideologue, most Americans believe he is.

Investor.com reports:

The nation seems polarized, Washington is gridlocked, Republicans don’t want anything to do with the president’s policies, and even Democrats, who control Congress by big margins, can’t pass long-sought initiatives. What gives?

Perhaps it’s President Obama’s politics, which according to a new IBD/TIPP Poll are significantly out of alignment with the majority of Americans.

Specifically, three of five Americans see themselves as politically to the right of where they see Obama. This includes not just eight of 10 Republicans but also two of three independents. Even a third of Democrats see themselves to the right of their party’s leader.

Cough! Obama is a far-left radical. This has been proven by his policies and actions. People are finally waking up and realizing that Obama is nothing that he claimed to be. A fraud is a fraud is a fraud. Talk about buyer’s remorse.

This is the results of electing a Saul Alinsky disciple. This is a guy that sought out radicals and Marxist professors. This is a guy that is following the Cloward-Piven strategy. Just look at who he surrounds himself with to understand the man who sits in the Oval Office spending the US further and further into debt.

The fundamental transformation of America that Obama’s speaks about can’t happen until the system crashes. Folks are waking up and are starting to listen to the words Obama says. They also are watching his actions.

The ideologue has no clothes and people see him for what he is…a far-left radical.

[Via http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com]

Government Grab of Retirement Accounts a Matter of ‘Social Justice’

February 22, 2010 – by Paul Hsieh

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/government-grab-of-retirement-accounts-a-matter-of-social-justice/

Uncle Sam wants your retirement money.

The Obama administration has just solicited public comment on their proposal to take money from Americans’ private 401(k) retirement accounts and convert it into government-backed annuities. In other words, they want to take your money now to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds, then pay you a monthly sum later after you’ve retired.

Although this proposal is being initially portrayed as a voluntary choice, Americans already have the ability to purchase Treasury bonds with their retirement money. Moreover, the Obama administration is considering making these annuities the default option. And as analyst Karl Denninger noted, “‘choices’ have a funny way of turning into mandates.” Nor is his concern unjustified.

In 2008, Professor Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School of Social Research testified before Congress proposing a similar scheme to convert private 401(k) accounts into government-run “guaranteed retirement accounts” that would pay a 3% return. And in 2008, the Argentinian government attempted to nationalize private retirement funds to help cover its runaway deficit.

As the U.S. Social Security system moves ever closer to bankruptcy, the billions of dollars Americans have saved in their private retirement accounts will become an increasingly tempting target for our politicians.

A government raid on private retirement funds wouldn’t necessarily take the form of outright confiscation. It could take the form of mandatory conversion into government accounts, where the government would determine how much money retirees could receive. Or it could take the form of, for example, a 40% surtax on disbursements from 401(k) balances over $1 million — on the grounds that it would only harm wealthy “millionaires.”

But regardless of the precise method employed, the basic principle would be the same: Your money would no longer be your money. Instead, the government would claim the right to redistribute your wealth to pay for others’ retirement on the grounds that they needed it more. In essence, the government would be implementing the Marxist principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Many Americans are predictably alarmed at this prospect. One of my friends who I’ll call “John” is a hard-working middle-class professional who has lived frugally, saved enough to send his two children to college, and has carefully built up a nest egg sufficient to ensure that he and his wife will have a comfortable retirement. In contrast, his neighbor George making the same salary has chosen to spend his income on fancier vacations and a more extravagant lifestyle, rather than saving for the future. John is understandably outraged that the government might someday tax or confiscate his nest egg to guarantee George’s retirement income regardless of George’s bad choices.

The fact that George could face old age with minimal savings does not entitle him to any of John’s savings. George’s need does not give him a right to John’s money. Penalizing John for having saved responsibly to bail out George would be a gross injustice — just as it was a gross injustice for the government to punish frugal homeowners who lived within their means to bail out irresponsible homeowners who took out larger mortgages than they could afford.

Unfortunately, the Republicans are little better than the Democrats with regard to respecting your rights to your own money. Republican Congressman Paul Ryan has proposed his own “roadmap” to “reform” Social Security, where you could divert some of your Social Security money into a nominally private individual account. But you couldn’t invest your money as you saw fit. Instead, if you met certain eligibility requirements (set by the government), you would be allowed to put some of your money into special accounts (approved by the government), to be managed not by the private investment service of your choice — but by the government.

In his Newsweek interview, Ryan claimed that his plan “unapologetically applies our nation’s founding principles — individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise — to the challenges of today.” But his plan does nothing of the sort. In fact Ryan openly admitted to the New York Times, “I make a lot of concessions here to the left.” As with the Obama administration’s plan, under the Ryan plan your money wouldn’t really be yours to do with as you wished. Instead, you could only do with it what the government permitted.

If Republicans truly wanted to respect the principles of individual liberty and limited government, they would respect Americans’ rights to save or spend their money as they wished. The government’s job is not to somehow guarantee a fixed standard of living to all retirees but instead to protect individual rights — including each person’s right to enjoy the fruits of his labor and his right to plan for his retirement according to his best judgment.

The Social Security program should be gradually phased out. Individuals should be allowed to save their own money in whatever investment vehicles they see fit. If they wished to form voluntary mutual aid societies or enter into voluntary insurance contracts to protect against financial catastrophe in their old age, they should be free to do so. But the government should not compel one man to pay for another’s retirement by raiding his 401(k) account to prop up the unsustainable Ponzi scheme of Social Security.

If someone lacked sufficient retirement savings in his old age, he should rely on voluntary charity, not demand another’s life savings as an entitlement. Most Americans will gladly help those who have fallen into dire straits through no fault of their own, as we’ve seen recently in Haiti, and as we’ve seen throughout history with countless innocent disaster victims in the U.S. and abroad. Conversely, those who have brought financial hardship on themselves through irresponsible living should not be able to compel their more-responsible neighbors to subsidize their bad choices via what amounts to forced charity.

As Don Watkins and Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights recently wrote in Investor’s Business Daily, we must reject the notion that one man’s “need” gives him an automatic moral claim on another man’s wealth. Instead, we must respect and affirm the principle that the person who has earned his wealth deserves it — and that it is his rightful choice (not the government’s) to decide whether and how he should save it, spend it, or give to others as charity.

The coming debate over Americans’ retirement funds won’t be just about economics, but about fundamental issues of justice and individual rights. Will we allow the government to raid John’s retirement account because George “needs” the money more? Or will we demand that it respect John’s right to his hard-earned life savings? The choice will be ours.

[Via http://randysright.wordpress.com]

Intressant analys, men....

I SvD skriver Karin Henriksson om att det amerikanska folket inte direkt är imponerade av sin kongress. Stödet från höger är rekordlågt, då halva amerikanska folket motsätter sig att staten tar över en femtedel av ekonomin. Den amerikanska sjukvården är ungefär dubbelt så dyr och utbyggd som den svenska, vilket resulterar i enorma kostnader men inga vårdköer eller väntetider, de bästa medicinerna, och en generellt extremt hög standard, samt goda löner för såväl sjuksköterskor som läkare. Dessutom är man från höger skeptisk till skatt på koldioxid och el, höjda skatter, och så vidare. Vad Karin Henriksson missade att få med i sin artikel när hon skrev att ingen kan regelrätt höja skatter i USA så var hon delvis rätt. Systemet fungerar ofta så att skattesänkningar har en viss tidsgräns och måste regelbundet förnyas. Obama och hans kongress har sagt att de tänker i det “tysta” låta många av dessa löpa ut. Media har noterat detta i USA, och resultatet är kraftigt höjda skatter för medelklassen. Från vänster, givetvis, är man uppgiven att kongressen inte lyckas driva igenom just de så kallade “reformer” i socialdemokratisk riktning som gör USA:s konservativa livrädd och/eller vansinniga.

Karin Henriksson gör där, trots en i regel ganska god analys, misstaget att påpeka att systemets konstruktion gjort det så långsamt att det är nästintill handlingsförlamat. Detta skall vara en dålig sak, tydligen. Men faktum är att USA har lyckats överleva en bra bit över två hundra år som demokratisk stat utan vare sig statskupp eller diktatorer. Man har klarat sig igenom ett blodigt inbördeskrig utan att alla sönder. Se på Frankrike och deras revolution, där man redan haft fem så kallade republiker och otaliga kungar och kejsare. Se på Tyskland, där småstater, kejsardöme, ett par års demokrati, och diktatur trycks in på ett århundrade, och där världskrig och röd terrorism knappast gjort situationen gladare. Orsak och verkan, i detta fall, är just att det inte ska gå att driva igenom stora förändringar över en natt. Dessutom är USA, till skillnad från exempelvis Sverige, extremt heterogent. Massvis med kulturer, religioner, åsikter, tankar, invandrare från varje land i Europa och kanske världen.

Personligen hade jag inte klagat om det hade krävts 60% stöd även i Sverige för att driva igenom reformer. Vi hade då fått brett folkligt stöd bakom landets politiska väg, och kompromisser hade tvingats arbetas fram. Sverige är trots allt en land som uppskattar konsensus och kompromisser, vilket kan vara en anledning varför vi undvikit de blodiga inre stridigheter som slitit sönder många andra länder. I USA har Obama och hans cheerleaders har nu fått lära sig att det inte bara funkar att driva en ideologi i politikens utkanter utan försök till samarbete. Detta är en styrka, inte en svaghet!

[Via http://escapingperdition.wordpress.com]

God Bless America

I was sitting in my room the other night listening to Alice in Chains. Both old and new songs and as most committed fans have been doing since the new album came out, comparing the new lead singer, William DuVall to our blessed Lane Staley. There similarities in the voice that are at times uncanny and “chilling.” As the story goes, at the audition, when DuVall began to sing, everyone in the room stopped, the hair on the back of their neck standing up. As a long time fan of Alice in Chains, I am very happy with Mr. DuVall as the choice of the new lead singer and the new music that they are making.

This, and other changes in the color canvas of our celebrities and media images has forced me to stop and think, would all of this been possible had it not been for President Obama?

I know that a lot of people are unsatisfied with our current president’s standings and what he has accomplished (or not accomplished thus far) but I am already thinking that he is one of the best things that has ever happened to this country and I think that if people could just look past the fact that in this democratic system actual political change isn’t really possible not matter how good your intentions are, then one could see why this is such an amazing thing.

For one, I believe that you have to be a really bitter, unhappy, unbelieving, angry person to not feel at least the slightest bit inspired by his speeches. Even if only for a moment.  And there are people in this country who are and many of them have every right to be skeptical. But nothing gets done, you can’t accomplish anything if first you don’t believe. I mean that’s all there is to it. If you want to be a cynic and judge and question everything then you will never do great things. And this country was built by believers and dreamers. If Obama could get the necessary people behind him that are the doers, then I think we are good to go.

Second, pretty much no matter what Obama does, it will never be as bad as what Bush did and was trying to do to us. I remember a few months prior to the election I was working in an Irish pub in Hell’s Kitchen and (ironically enough) all of the Irish immigrants who worked there were mostly all very strictly Republican. Well, needless to say, it was a very long few months for me leading up to the election. But I do remember having a conversation with one of our bartenders at one point and we could agree on one thing, Obama may not be able to save the world, as a matter of fact, he may not even “do” anything if he was president, but if he at least stopped the downward spiral, put all the madness to a hault, then I think his job was done.

And finally, and most importantly for this country, WE HAVE A BLACK PRESIDENT!!!! I honestly don’t think that people realize what an insane impact this is having on our young school children in this country. This is enormous and is quite possible the greatest thing that has ever happened in this country. I have been teaching at-risk children in the New York City area, specifically the Bronx, for almost ten years and the reactions of my students to the tangible, living, visible proof that they unarguably can grow up to be anything they want is so amazing that words can’t express it.

I mean look at the dramatic shift in the marketing scheme in this country. The fear to cross over to the dark side is gone. We have a new lead black singer in a grunge band and nobody even cares that he is black, it’s not “an issue” it’s just cool. The whole advertising and marketing canvas has changed so dramatically I feel like the 8 year old inside of me who was raised on blonde Barbie dolls with straight hair and no curves is just sitting in awe in front of the television.

A friend of mine who just recently immigrated from Ireland spoke for the European reaction to our new president when she said, “Its just so nice to see a race of people have something this wonderful happen for them. They have just been through so much.”

I am not saying that I don’t’ want more out of President Obama’s presidency. I too would like to see some real political change. But as even he has said, it takes all of us working together to make it happen. And trust me, that little black girl who grew up on Gun Hill road who now believes that change is possible may grow up to be the change that need.

[Via http://silentfirespeaks.wordpress.com]

VIDEO: Obamas strateg - hur vi vann valet med hjälp av Google data

Alla undrar hur det egentligen gick till när Obama skapade en kampanj som bröt alla mönster och konventioner för hur en presidentvals kampanj ska fungera. Ett svar är David Plouffs bok “The audacity to Win“. Antagligen ligger den på många svenska politikers och kampanjmakares sängbord i dessa dagar. Det svenska valet kommer självklart att både söka plocka russinen ur Obamas kampanj kaka men också jämföras i ljuset av den kampanj som bedrevs så framgångsrikt och innovativt. Frågan kommer också vara – blir detta ett “webb val”?

Den stora skillnaden är att människor kan donera pengar till en kandidat i USA. Hur översätter vi den typen av engagemang i ett svenskt perspektiv?

I mitten av november förra året höll en av nyckelpersonerna i Obamas kampanj en föreläsning på Googles huvudkontor i Mountainview, Ca. Även om videon har några månader på nacken så är det fortfarande aktuell. Och många har inte sett den..

Dan Siroker, Director of Analytics for the Obama Presidential campaign, berättar om hur de använda data tillsammans med verktyg som Google analytics och Website Optimizer för att öka engagemang och donationer från besökare på Obama kampanjens webbsidor. Helt viktigt eftersom webben var navet i kampanjen.

Plouff beskriver i boken hur central webben var från dag ett i kampanjen och att man bejakade gräsrotstanken från början. Obamas kampanj har av proffstyckare kallats för en kampanj på “sterioder”. Men de dopade aldrig sig utan anammade istället den inneboende kraft som infinner sig när “all the nobodies blir The Somebodies” och man gav anledningar och möjligheter att medverka och donera små summor pengar. Jag gillar öppenhet, autentisitet och innovationskraft, när modet att göra annorlunda bejakas och används som ledande pricip i något så stort och viktigt som ett val.

Men nu Dan Siroker…

Best / Anders

[Via http://solstrale.wordpress.com]

colorado calling

President Barack Obama at a fundraiser in Denver for Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, February 18, 2010.

[Via http://chipsticks.wordpress.com]

Obama's Politically Correct Defense Strategy fails to mention important words like 'Islamist,' 'Islamic,' and 'Islam'

Why does the Obama administration continue to be scared to offend Muslims? In their new defense strategy, the Obama administration conveniently left out key words in the war on terror. Important words that tell Americans who we are at war with. Words like Islam, Islamic and Islamist that describe the terrorists that our troops are fighting.

The same administration had no problems attacking American citizens with their report on so-call right-wing extremist who are pro-life, pro-military and pro-2nd amendment. The same administration that attack military veterans in the same report but will not include key words in a defense strategy out of the fear of angering the Muslim world.

The Washington Times reports:

Two new documents laying out the Obama administration’s defense and homeland security strategy over the next four years describe the nation’s terrorist enemies in a number of ways but fail to mention the words Islam, Islamic or Islamist.

The 108-page Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, made public last week by the Department of Homeland Security, uses the term “terrorist” a total of 66 times, “al Qaeda” five times and “violent extremism” or “extremist” 14 times. It calls on the U.S. government to “actively engage communities across the United States” to “stop the spread of violent extremism.”

Yet in describing terrorist threats against the United States and the ideology that motivates terrorists, the review – like its sister document from the Pentagon, the Quadrennial Defense Review – does not use the words “Islam,” “Islamic” or “Islamist” a single time.

Political correctness is what is going to ruin our country. Being afraid to upset a population that harbors and condones terrorist and terrorism is sickening. The Obama administration wants to appease the Muslim world in the hopes that they will somehow obtain peace.

We are not safe when we have idiots that refuse to identify our enemies. They want to sugarcoat the situation and use other words to describe those who want to destroy our way of life. All in the name of political correctness.

[Via http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com]

Obama’s newly created “governor’s council” could be used to wage war on state rights.

Obama’s newly created “governor’s council” could be used to wage war on state rights.

http://cofcc.org/

Obama created what he calls a “governor’s council” via executive order. No one ever voted on this expansion of the Federal Government.

The following governors have been appointed by Obama to be a sort of overlord for their region. The appointments match up closely to the ten “Federal Districts.” District created by Richard Nixon at the request of the United Nations. One of the appointments is the Governor of Puerto Rico, not even a state!

Governor James H. Douglas of Vermont – Region 1

Governor Luis Fortuna of Puerto Rico – Region 2

Governor Robert McDonnell of Virginia – Region 3

Governor Beverly Eaves Purdue of North Carolina – Region 4

Governor Brad Henry of Oklahoma – Region 6

Governor Jeremiah Nixon of Missouri – Region 7

Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota – Region 8

Governor Janice Brewer of Arizona – Region 9

Governor Chris Gregoire of Washington – Region 10

Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland – Region 3

Note: Federal District 5 is not represented.

From WorldNetDaily.com…

Los Angeles Times blogger Andrew Malcolm poked fun at the announcement, writing Obama “has determined that, a) there is an insufficient number of advisory bodies among the gazillion already in existence for the federal government in general and said president and his White House specifically.”

Obama also, Malcolm said, “chooses to ignore the existence of the National Governors Assn., the Republican Governors Assn., the Democratic Governors Assn. and the secure telephones
within arms-reach of virtually everywhere said president chooses to sit and/or recline.”

Ultimately, he said, Obama has decided, “One more meaningless advisory body probably couldn’t hurt anything, and might actually look good.”

At Canada Free Press, commentary writer Judi McLeod said, “Like the 30-plus czars running America with neither the people’s nor the Congress’s blessings, the Council of Governors is already a done deal.”

Blogger Nicholas Contompasis suggested it was the “first step towards martial law in America” because it sets up the “use of federal troops and the combination of state and federal agencies under the Defense Department.”

Participants on his forum page said the order appears to be in defiance of posse comitatus, which restricts U.S. military action within the United States. One contributor noted the order talks about “hazards” but then addresses only military hazards.

“The very notion of the executive branch (good intentions or not) issuing executive orders/presidential directives that apply to anything or anyone not specifically within the executive branch is tyrannical,” the forum participant said.

[Via http://whitelocust.wordpress.com]

Too Big To Bail

I remember not long ago, the Government’s warning of financial meltdown if certain banks deemed too big to fail, were not bailed out. The warning contradicted everything I thought I knew about the free market.  Did I misunderstand capitalism? Perhaps naïvely, I regard Capitalism like nature in that; every financial institution will naturally find its place on the ever-shifting financial food chain. Even a child understands that nature, while exceedingly magnificent, has a darker side. With today’s breathtaking high-definition coverage, a lion devouring a freshly killed gazelle after a grueling chase is stunning. While nature, like capitalism, is sometimes unfair it remains just and balanced.

President Obama has taken it upon himself to intervene on matters best left alone. When the proverbial lions, AIG, CitiGroup and Lehman Brothers face almost certain death, Barack Obama makes the determination that nearly $1 trillion of taxpayer dollars should be used to “save” the behemoths. Naturally, if such banking giants were to collapse, the effect on the global economy would be devastating; wouldn’t they?

(Source: dailyfinance.com) Too big to fail? This isn’t a designation that the Obama administration wants to exist any more. New regulations proposed by President Obama would result in “leaner and simpler institutions that don’t carry the weight of the system,” according to the Associated Press.

It was believed that the collapse of any of these companies could result in the collapse of the entire American financial system — which is why they were bailed out. But the bailouts did little good other than cost billions and billions of taxpayers’ money. In order to prevent this from happening again, President Obama wants a group of interconnected companies to “pay a heavy price for the systemwide risk they pose.”

Using the earlier analogy, Obama makes every attempt to prevent the defenseless gazelle from suffering a gruesome and [senseless] death. In the wild natural life cycles like predator eating prey can never truly be stopped.

When I read comments like, “pay a heavy price for the system-wide risk they pose” I can’t help but think that just maybe the leader of the free world fails to understand free enterprise. Perhaps the greatest dynamic of Capitalism is its unique affinity for self-correction. As simple as it sounds, principles are meaningless without true adherence by those who claim to follow them. Capitalism either works or it does not, there’s no middle ground. In fact, it is only when everything is at risk that principles are needed most.

Ironically, the Obama administration sees a great threat when private companies’ gain unbalanced power in our economy; the super-powers must be regulated. Oddly, the same administration advocates the unlimited reach of government control. The public sector’s appetite for power has become unquenchable, so why the regulation of private enterprise and not public? Unchecked lawmakers. Along with great power comes great responsibility.

The masterful blueprint drafted by America’s Founding Fathers stressed the need for government regulation and required internal balance of power, for good reason. Free-market, unlike government, is subject to the harsh and sometimes cruel laws of capitalism. I would imagine by now I have many readers thinking how wide-eyed and childish I must be to suggest such a most uncomplicated explanation to an undecipherable problem. As the problems facing America become more complex the principles needed for correction remain as simple and pure as a dog’s love for its master.

When Styrofoam is used to build a mansion, all the expensive paint in the world won’t avert destruction from an unrelenting storm. I find it morbidly amusing that various companies are recognized as “too big to fail” by a government with less than 11% of its members claiming private sector experience. Perhaps government missed other opportunities to open taxpayer’s wallets in the name of preservation?

Was Bernie Madoff too big to fail? Perhaps Tiger Woods was too big. Enron? How about the dotcom bust? Watergate, Tyco, Global Crossing? How about the communications giant, WorldCom in the late 90’s? WorldCom’s influence included:

·  Providing mission-critical communications services for tens of thousands of businesses around the world

·  Carried more international voice traffic than any other company

·  Carried a significant amount of the world’s Internet traffic

·  Owned and operated a global IP (Internet Protocol) backbone that provided connectivity in more than 2,600 cities and in more than 100 countries

·  Owned and operated 75 data centers on five continents. [Data centers provide hosting and allocation services to businesses for their mission-critical business computer applications.]10

If Obama were President, WorldCom might have survived a year or two longer by way of generous taxpayer “loans”. You see, even the mighty Titanic was no match for an immovable iceberg in its path. While the Obama bail out continues to have little or to no effect on the economy, our children burden the load. As giant banks begin to fall and government grows, one thing remains certain: the only thing that is too big to fail is still the American people.

[Via http://the-raw-deal.com]

Climategate U-turn as scientist Phil Jones admits: There has been no global warming

Oops! The global warming hoax just keeps on unraveling as it’s supporters continue to cling to their sinking ship. “So, can we have our incandescent light bulbs back now?”

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming

SHOCKER: ClimateGate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no Global Warming since 1995. The academic at the centre of the ‘ClimateGate‘ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of Climate Change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday, there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

PajamasMedia.com

Phil Jones momentous Q&A with BBC reopens the “science is settled” issues

[Via http://stevescomments.wordpress.com]

Tại sao Trung Quốc không muốn nâng giá đồng nhân dân tệ?

(GiaVang.com.vn – Giá vàng Việt Nam và Thế Giới) – Sự ngại ngần của Trung Quốc trong việc để biến động trên thị trường quyết định tỷ giá của đồng nhân dân tệ là một điều mà cả Mỹ và Trung Quốc đều không muốn nó vượt khả năng kiểm soát.

Sự ngại ngần của Trung Quốc trong việc để biến động trên thị trường quyết định tỷ giá của đồng nhân dân tệ là một điều mà cả Mỹ và Trung Quốc đều không muốn nó vượt khả năng kiểm soát.

Trung Quốc cho biết nước này điều chỉnh tỷ giá đồng nhân dân tệ với một số loại tiền khác thuộc giỏ tiền tệ thế nhưng nếu trên thực tế có một giỏ, đồng USD sẽ còn lâu mới là đối trọng lớn nhất.

Lịch sử của việc “thả nổi có điều chỉnh” đồng nhân dân tệ của Trung Quốc được chia thành 2 khoảng thời gian chính: từ tháng 7/2005 đến tháng 7/2008 khi đồng nhân dân tệ tăng giá 21% – đồng nhân dân tệ được neo giá từ từ so với đồng USD, từ tháng 7/2008 đến nay khi đồng nhân dân tệ được neo trở lại ở tỷ giá 6,83 nhân dân tệ/USD.

Tháng 7/2005, Trung Quốc ngưng việc neo đồng nhân dân tệ với đồng USD đã kéo dài suốt 1 thập kỷ trước đó, Trung Quốc khăng khăng nước này đang hoàn thiện cơ chế tỷ giá thế nhưng sự thiếu linh hoạt trong suốt 1 năm qua khiến thế giới không khỏi tức giận.

Giới chỉ trích người Mỹ, đặc biệt là những nhóm vận động hành lang lớn, kêu ca rằng Trung Quốc đã ngăn đồng nhân dân tệ tăng giá bất chấp việc vị thế của kinh tế nước này trong kinh tế toàn cầu ngày một đi lên.

Trung Quốc cho biết tỷ giá hối đoái ổn định là yếu tố cần thiết hỗ trợ cho xuất khẩu đang ngày một đi xuống và giúp mang đến sự ổn định cho kinh tế toàn cầu.

Tại sao Mỹ phản đối chính sách của Trung Quốc?

Chính quyền Tổng thống Obama lo lắng khi chính sách của Trung Quốc không đi theo sự điều chỉnh bình thường của thị trường – đó là đồng tiền của những nền kinh tế đang nổi ngày một tăng giá và vì thế hàng hóa của nước đó trở nên đắt đỏ hơn đối với người nước ngoài.

Hậu quả, Trung Quốc thu được rất nhiều tiền từ thặng dư thương mại cũng như dự trữ ngoại tệ ngày càng phình to, tiền đổ vào Trung Quốc bởi nước này bán được rất nhiều hàng trên khắp thế giới.

Đây có phải chỉ là vấn đề của riêng nước Mỹ?

Quỹ tiền tệ quốc tế (IMF) đã hối thúc Trung Quốc chấp thuận sự linh hoạt tỷ giá như một yếu tố hỗ trợ cân bằng tăng trưởng kinh tế toàn cầu và giúp chính Trung Quốc có sự tự chủ cao hơn trong việc đưa ra chính sách tiền tệ.

Nhiều nước châu Âu cũng gây sức ép buộc Trung Quốc để đồng nhân dân tệ tăng giá, nhiều nước khác khi chứng kiến các gian hàng của họ ngập tràn hàng Trung Quốc cũng đã “than trời”.

Thống đốc Ngân hàng Trung ương Canada gần đây đưa ra nhận xét: “Họ đang mạo hiểm với chính sách này. Đó chính là nguồn gây ra một số vấn đề và sự mất cân bằng của kinh tế toàn cầu.”

Điều gì sẽ xảy ra nếu đồng nhân dân tệ tăng giá?

Trên lý thuyết, đồng nhân dân tệ tăng giá sẽ khiến hàng hóa của Trung Quốc bán ra trên khắp thế giới tăng giá. Nếu giá tăng đều đặn, hàng hóa của nước khác sẽ trở thành lựa chọn mới của khách hàng. Một số người Mỹ hy vọng công ty nội địa hiện nay đang cho biết họ không thể cạnh tranh sẽ quyết định họ có thể tăng được thị phần xuất khẩu và nhờ thế đẩy mạnh sản xuất, tuyển dụng. Nếu người tiêu dùng Trung Quốc có đồng nhân dân tệ mạnh, họ sẽ nhập khẩu nhiều hơn, thặng dư thương mại Trung Quốc có thể biến thành thâm hụt thương mại.

Trên thực tế, dù từ năm 2005 đến năm 2008, đồng nhân dân tệ tăng giá 21% so với đồng USD, những bên mua hàng của thế giới, thông thường là công ty nước ngoài như Wal-Mart yêu cầu chi phí hàng hóa thấp và bên cung hàng vẫn ở mức thấp nhờ năng suất lao động tăng.

Các chuyên gia thường coi thặng dư thương mại Trung Quốc có tính cấu trúc, đó là nói đến nguồn vốn giá rẻ và hoạt động đầu tư quá mức, sản xuất thừa và đẩy hàng đi xuất khẩu. Cải cách của Trung Quốc bao gồm xây dựng hệ thống an sinh xã hội tốt chứ không hẳn chỉ là để đồng nhân dân tệ tăng giá, những chính sách trên là cần thiết để kích thích nhu cầu nội địa và hạn chế thặng dư thương mại tăng quá cao.

Trung Quốc liệu có “xả” nợ Mỹ?

Dự trữ ngoại hối của Trung Quốc lên mức 2,27 nghìn tỷ USD, dự trữ lớn nhất thế giới. Phần lớn chuyên gia cho rằng khoảng 2/3 dự trữ trên đầu tư vào tài sản được định giá bằng USD. Trung Quốc là nước nắm giữ trái phiếu chính phủ Mỹ nhiều nhất, tính đến cuối tháng 6/2009, Trung Quốc nắm giữ ít nhất 776,4 tỷ USD nợ chính phủ Mỹ.

Các chuyên gia cho rằng việc nắm quá nhiều tài sản USD đã mang đến cho Trung Quốc một công cụ ngăn Mỹ có thể yêu cầu bất kỳ sự thay đổi nào liên quan đến chính sách tỷ giá đồng nhân dân tệ bằng việc đe dọa sẽ ngừng mua nợ và có thể bán đi số tài sản đang nắm giữ.

Trung Quốc thực tế chưa bao giờ làm điều đó dù đã nhiều năm nay tuyên bố sẽ đa dạng dự trữ ngoại tệ. Trung Quốc, về phía họ, thường lo lắng về những gánh nặng nợ ngày một phình to của chính phủ Mỹ, bởi đồng USD yếu khiến giá trị các khoản đầu tư vào tài sản Mỹ giảm.

Ngoại trừ khả năng về một cuộc chiến thương mại, Trung Quốc sẽ không bao giờ bán tháo số tài sản của họ bởi điều này sẽ khiến thị trường chấn động và chỉ khiến số tài sản họ đang nắm giữ tiếp tục mất giá trị.

Thâm hụt ngân sách ngày một phình to của Mỹ đồng nghĩa với họ cần nước ngoài mua nợ của họ nhiều hơn bao giờ hết thế nhưng ngược đời là quy mô phát hành đồng nghĩa với thị phần mua lượng nợ phát hành mới của Trung Quốc đang giảm dần. Hồi phục từ khủng hoảng, người Mỹ sẽ tiết kiệm hơn, đối tượng nội địa mua nợ Mỹ tăng lên, nước Mỹ ít chịu ảnh hưởng từ thay đổi của nhu cầu nước ngoài.

Nếu trái phiếu Bộ Tài chính Mỹ bị bán tháo, điều gì sẽ xảy ra?

Nếu đối tượng mua gom nhiều nợ Mỹ nhất – Trung Quốc bán số nợ đi hoặc tuyên bố không mua thêm, đồng USD sẽ chịu ảnh hưởng tức thì. Một trong những tuyên bố mạnh mẽ nhất của Mỹ về vị thế của đồng USD trong vai trò đồng tiền dự trữ của thế giới chính là nước này sở hữu thị trường vốn có tính thanh khoản cao nhất thế giới. Nay nếu đối tượng mua nợ Mỹ lớn nhất ngưng lại, tuyên bố này sẽ không còn giá trị, vị thế của USD vốn đã chịu nhiều chỉ trích thì nay sẽ lung lay hơn nữa.

Source: Tại sao Trung Quốc không muốn nâng giá đồng nhân dân tệ?

[Via http://vietnamgold.wordpress.com]

Bipartisan jobs bill won't add many jobs

Here’s a brief look at what will be required for a business to be granted a ‘tax incentive’:

Rick Klahsen, a tax expert at the accounting firm RSM McGladrey, said his clients need to see business pick up before they can hire more workers.

“If demand were increased, they are saying it will take care of itself because I will then have the motivation to go out and hire new employees,” Klahsen said.

The bipartisan Senate plan would exempt businesses from paying a 6.2 percent Social Security tax on the wages of new employees, as long as the workers have been unemployed at least 60 days. The tax break would run through the end of the year.

A company could save a maximum of $6,621 if it hired an unemployed worker after the bill is enacted and paid that worker at least $106,800—the maximum amount of wages subject to Social Security taxes—by the end of the year. The company could get an additional $1,000 on its 2011 tax return if it kept the new worker for at least a full year.

So … a company could save $6,621 if it pays a worker $106,800? And what if the guy isn’t worth $106,800? I don’t see too many companies that are barely surviving now to shell out that kind of money for a possible 6 grand savings.

CBO estimates that such a tax break would generate only eight to 18 full-time jobs per $1 million in tax breaks.

What rocket scientist came up with this? Gawd, and this is supposed to be part of a “Jobs Bill”.

 Bipartisan jobs bill won’t add many jobs.

[Via http://stevex09.wordpress.com]

Inuyasha Episode 9 Summary

Inuyasha Holding his Sword to attack the Thunder Brothers

Summary:

A Small Fox-Human Appeared Named “Shippu” and has come to get the Shards from Kagome and Inuyasha. So he can use the shards to Avenge his father who was Killed by the “Thunder Brothers” Very powerful brothers who use Lighting attacks. Then runs away with the shards he stole. Kagome gets mad and try’s to catch him But Shippu got caught by the younger thunder brother.But shippu quickly got afraid then ran away,Leaving Kagome behind to get caught so Later Kagome got abducted by the Younger thunder brother. So he can use her for his hair recipe,Quickly Shippu goes to tell Inuyasha and then him and Inuyasha go towards the Thunder Brothers Lair. then Inuyasha and Kagome caught up to eachother but kagome is still abducted by the Brothers. The Older brother notices that Inuyasha has the shards so he grabs his sword and starts charging into Inuyasha to get the Soul shards. An Epic Battle is Enraging!

LINK: http://www.animefreak.tv/watch/inuyasha-episode-9-online

[Via http://mangaxanime.wordpress.com]

Insane Brooks Thinks Obama is New Camelot

What are you looking at?

I don’t even know what planet Brooks, the Democrat-Christened ‘moderate conservative’, is hailing from these days.  Outer Space wouldn’t even explain it, though some Michael Jackson-esque drugs possibly could.  He should probably check himself in.

In the meantime, most Republicans hope Brooks is right (no pun intended) and the Obama admin. is more insane than himself.  It sure looks like Camelot:

Yet the atmosphere in the White House appears surprisingly tranquil. Emanuel is serving as a lighting rod for the president but remains crisply confident in his role as chief of staff. It’s true that several top administration officials did not want to attempt comprehensive health care reform this year. But they are not opening recrimination campaigns. It’s no secret that many think the president needs to be more assertive with Congress, yet administration officials still talk about Obama in awestruck tones, even in private.

Some would say the administration is underreacting to the incredible shift in the public mood. Some would say they need more voices from the great unwashed. But no one could accuse them of panicking, or of scrambling about incoherently. In their first winter of discontent, they are offering continuity and comity. Whatever their relations with the country might be, inside they seem unruffled. The bonds of association, from the top down, seem healthy — especially for a bunch of Democrats.

via Op-Ed Columnist – The House of Tranquillity – NYTimes.com.

[Via http://punditpawn.wordpress.com]

China Blues

The Obama administration seems to be spoiling for a fight with the Chinese. The chances are excellent that it would secure one. Since the commencement of the year, it has tweaked the tiger’s tail, not once or twice, but thrice and it may get more than it bargained for. A few months ago, Obama visited China, where he gushed about the importance of Sino-American relations and the one china policy.

Now he seems to be singing from a different hymn sheet. What must have caused this abrupt change of heart? Have the Republicans gotten to him? Bush, (43), made China baiting a sport by his persistent support and arming of Taiwan which Beijing considers to be a renegade province.

A few years into his Presidency, conflict was narrowly averted when an American Reconnaissance plane was intercepted in Chinese airspace and forced down.

I find the Republican U-turn on China quite perplexing. Were they not responsible for breaking the frosty relations with the Middle Kingdom? Henry Kissinger was the nexus between Washington and Beijing and is credited with Nixon’s visit to the reclusive state on Feb’1972.China became a bulwark against Russian expansionism and a bridge to the Western world.

Ronald Reagan realized the importance of China as a partner on the world stage and tried fervently to lobby it on matters of détente with Russia, nuclear proliferation and trade. On account of his charm and persuasion, the Chinese either abstained or voted with the Americans on most matters at the UNSC to the detriment of the Russians.

Bush, (41) maintained a middle course in his diplomacy with the Chinese. The mantra was that the Americans would not interfere in the “internal affairs” of a friendly nation. This was a tacit approval of the one china policy. Taiwan was a province of China, but China could not invade or occupy the renegade province.

To hammer home these sentiments, the American fifth fleet was stationed in the Pacific with the twin purpose of preventing and defeating a Chinese invasion of Taipei. If Taiwan was part of china, why defend it? Does this not contradict the American policy of a single china? Taiwan does not have a seat in the United Nations and has few or no embassies anywhere in the world, (apart from Liberia, the last time that I checked).

If the Chinese were to invade and occupy Taiwan, would the Americans risk an all out war with the Middle kingdom? War would be disastrous for all concerned. China may be defeated militarily, but the Americans will suffer economic ruin. China is the tail that wags the American dog. Wall Street and the Dow Jones are practically run from Hong Kong and Macau. When the Chinese panda sneezes, the Americans catch a cold.

Does the American policy on Taiwan not seem a tad like the don’t ask, don’t tell policy on gays in the American Military? If Taiwan was part of China, one would have presumed it right and proper for the Chinese to assert and take what belonged to them.

Turning a blind eye and pretending that the elephant does not exist in the room will boomerang on Washington and create more problems than solutions.

The White house has announced that the 44th President of the united states, Barack Obama would meet the Dalai Lama who is the spiritual and cultural head of the Tibetans.

Are the Americans also promoting secession of Lhasa from Beijing? I would have thought that the invasion and occupation of Tibet by China in 1951 was a fait accompli. Are the Americans hoping to reverse that?

Has the Dalai Lama not accepted the status quo? In recent comments and negotiations with the Chinese authorities, he has only sought autonomy over certain values of the Tibetan people. The argument that the Dalai Lama is a spiritual and cultural leader holds little water.

There are lots of chaps who fit the profile of the Lama who have not had the comfort of a meeting with the American President in the Oval Office. When the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church and Reverend Moon of the Unification church of South Korea next visit America, will the White house be inviting them for cups of espresso coffee and doughnuts?.

The ambiguous One China policy must be explained in clear terms. If Taiwan is part of the Chinese mainland, then the American fifth fleet must be withdrawn from the Pacific and a proper and dignified apology tendered to the Mandarins in Beijing.

If not, then the Americans must prepare for war. Knowing the mindset of the Chinese, they will never relinquish what they believe rightly belongs to them.

[Via http://charleyjk4.wordpress.com]

Musesicman: The Who At Half Time, Hardly A Rock Opera but...

Rock legends Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend kicked some half time ass today during Super Bowl 44. The entire 12-minute experience wasn’t enough time to pump out full versions of many of their classic songs that average around seven minutes or more in length. However, it did give us a chance to see and hear how relevant a band’s music can be nearly 40 years on.

Compare these legendary performers to some of the Grammy performances last week and you can see why the NFL keeps picking from the back catalog when it comes to the high profile half time events.

Thinking back on Pink’s pumped out rock hard man-body, spraying water (at least that’s what they said it was) over the Grammy audience was impressively acrobatically creepy. Or Lady Blah, Blah opening the show with again another legend Elton John was quite simply terrific, even through the performance itself seemed to be taken from David Bowie’s Glass Spider tour in 1987.

The question begs to be asked whether Blah, Blah’s performance would have been as good if Elton wasn’t on stage with her? It makes me wonder if the record industry is at the point that they cannot trust the results of utilizing one of their hottest acts on the charts today to open their own event. Either way, she sounded great and Elton was a sure-fire good fit.

Blah can sing and Taylor Swift is a pretty package with a nice bow on top. Swift blamed her poor performance on technical problems, but the bottom line is that she just couldn’t hold up to the stature of a duet with Stevie Nicks. Once again, call in the old folks to save the show.

The problem is that the record companies feel the way to save the industry is to clone past Pop successes such as Christina or Britney. However, this formula is a quick fix and simply doesn’t work. Kings of Leon is the closest thing to a mainstream rock act on the charts today.

That’s why when a band like The Who or Led Zeppelin do a tour everybody perks up. Year after year the Rolling Stones are still playing to sold out Stadium sized crowds, simply because their music was great. What happened to the basic rock formula? Why doesn’t the industry look at their track record over the past 30 years and learn a lesson from itself. In the early eighties it was rock that saved the day with the creation of such bands as U2, Springsteen, REM and Van Halen. Then another rebound in the nineties as Nirvana and Pearl Jam breathed life into a dire industry. The term ‘Rock’ is music history and ‘Pop’ is the term the music industry relies on when it talks to their investors.

Taylor Swift is a great example of the poor formula. She provided the industry with the largest selling CD in 2007, by selling a mere three million copies. One has to wonder what the music executives are thinking, as they look for a new act and in turn a new line of work. Even with the state of downloads, three million records sold for a ‘Cross-Over’ act that appeals to Pop, Country and Rock listeners, is just a bland work of art. The music industry is at such a tipping point that it couldn’t trust the inexperience or the voice of Swift on her own and called in yet another legend, as Stevie Nicks knocked the audience off their seats during the second duet of the night.

However, the fact of the matter is what music holds up over time. Looking at a few of the past half time acts such as, Prince, McCartney, Tom Petty, U2 and The Boss, it makes sense for The Who to serve the show today. After the Grammy’s show, I struggled with what angle to take to write about the state of the music industry, however, it all seemed to ‘Join Together’ (thank you, thank you) with The Who’s performance today.

The Who haven’t released an album since 1982 with ‘It’s Hard’. After the death of Keith Moon in 1978, we had a chance to hear how much of the band was held together by Moon, since the preceding albums were much lighter in both sound and vision. The Who hadn’t released an album for nearly 25 years until the release of ‘Endless Wire’ in 2006.  With the loss of John Entwistle in 2002 (the night before I saw them live at the Hollywood Bowl), they still played the show with long time friend and bass legend Carlos Alomar playing each note as if they were his own.

Rather than a Rock Opera, The Who dished out a half-time Rock Smorgasbord. It was 12 minutes of pure music bliss. The show consisted of mini versions of some classics. Pinball Wizard rolled into a very abrupt moment as they transitioned into Baba O’Reiley but quickly picked up the momentum again, it almost sounded like a mistake. The next segway into Who Are You was stunning and made up for what didn’t sound right a few minutes earlier. Daltrey’s vocals roared as Townsend and the bands sound ripped across the airwaves. Next was a very short sound bite from Tommy and finally into Won’t Get Fooled Again. In addition to the music, the laser show was incredible utilizing the latest lighting technology and added to the fuel of the fireworks and great playing. What a performance from Zak Starkey on drums, Keith Moon would have been proud. Keep in mind that Townshend, is 64 and Daltrey is 65 years old. They are the oldest act to rock the Super Bowl since 1987. Don’t ask what act was older, trust me you don’t want to know.

It seems that the only ‘Deaf,’ ‘Dumb,’ and ‘Blind,’ ones in the audience today were the music industry executives. They will keep complaining poor sales and lack of talent rather than putting their jobs on the line by admitting defeat and trying something that worked for them in the past and established their business in the first place.

[Via http://musesicman.com]

Fact or Urban Myth: The Obama Stamp

LOL… someone sent this to us in an e-mail. We don’t know if this is true or not but it sure is funny…

The Postal Services created a stamp with a picture of President Obama on it. The Postal Service noticed that the stamp was not sticking to envelopes. This enraged the President, who demanded a full investigation. After a month of testing and $1.73 million in congressional spending, a special Presidential commission presented the following findings:
1.The stamp is in perfect order.
2. There is nothing wrong with the glue.
3. People are spitting on the wrong side.

[Via http://thatswacked.wordpress.com]

OBAMA IS A 2 FACED ASS!!!!!

Now the ass Obama says something is broken regarding communications between the Republicans and the Democrats. And he wants everyone to come together for the good of the People.

Hold on a minute!

Is this the same Bumpkin that pulled Tricks Out of his Hat when Senator Ted Kennedy passed regarding getting the Mass. Governor to Override the Rules of Law in Order to get a Democrat to replace Senator Kennedy, so they could get the Vote for the Health Care Reform bill on time, before the elections were supposed to take place?

Is this the same Bumkin that wasn’t inviting the Republicans to the Health Care meetings not too long ago, and kept them out of the goings On regarding these Meetings?

Is this the same Bumkin that was making back Door Deals with PHARMA in order to get their support for the Health Care Reform Bill?

I say “Yes, it is the Same Bumkin that is now Whining!!!!!

When he had enough Democratic Votes to get his Health Care Reform Bill passed, he was content with leaving the Republicans to themselves. He didn’t give a Shit because they didn’t matter. Now Obama is Singing a different tune because he can no longer Bully the Republicans.

Poor Obama, what is a former Bully to do!!!!! Go cry to the people he Bullied for Forgiveness. Obama is Politics as Usual, and hopefully the Obamacrats see Obama for what he really is, just another Politician……..with a Golden Tongue which is being seen for what it truly is……Fool’s Gold!!!!

Now Obama, go in a corner and cry because you fucked up!!!

[Via http://transparnc.wordpress.com]

Back in Hiding

Democrats have been unusually honest about their true beliefs since the election of Barack Obama, feeling, perhaps, that their fringe beliefs had been embraced by America’s center. This was a mistake – for Democrats to win elections, it is essential for them to keep their true beliefs hidden. That didn’t change with Obama, who did his best to hide his redistributive tendencies, for example, during the campaign.

Legislators’ election year anxiety after Republican Scott Brown’s U.S. Senate win has likely doomed a proposal granting undocumented students in-state tuition rates for this legislative session, according to Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo.

So liberals seem to be switching back to the status quo – tricking voters, then pursuing their un-American goals until after the election.

But Gov. Deval Patrick, a fellow Democrat, said Monday he hopes that’s not the case.

“We keep putting off hard issues,” an exasperated governor told reporters. “I credit the Legislature for taking a number of the hard votes we’ve asked them to, but in many of those cases, even, the right thing to do has been waiting for decades. Let’s get on with it.”

Massachusetts voters know what Deval believes, which is why his chances for reelection are as small as they can be for an incumbent Dem in this Democratic state.

[Via http://realclearthinker.com]

Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Really????

If you saw President Obama’s State of the Union address last week then you are fully aware of his position on the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. The 17 year old policy that was put in place by President Clinton is the current topic of debate among government officials.  President Obama has vowed to repeal this policy and his current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen  agrees with him.

According to a statement, Adm. Mullen says “It is the right thing to do… No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”  While many disagree with his statement, I agree whole heartedly. Gays should not have to lie about who they are in order to defend their country. The moral issue about homosexuality is another issue but to force people to lie about who they are is wrong plain and simple.

We can ask these individuals to put their lives on the line for their country but yet their country will not accept them if they are gay. Seriously??? Is that the world that we live in today?  I thought the days of bigotry and civil rights violations are long gone. What happend to “all men are created equal”? There should be no reason that a country that prides itself in being the leader of Democracy and equality is allowing such a policy. It’s absurd and it should be repealed.

I know some of you may feel it is necessary to keep such a policy in place but as an educated latina woman I can not comprehend how any civil rights violation is acceptable. If we keep this policy in place we are opening up the flood gates for violations of other civil liberties. No one should be allowed to tell us who we should be or that who we are is wrong. This is a country where it was once acceptable to own human beings, to segregrate people because of the color of their skin, that made abortion illegal and a crime. All laws established by white men. I really hate to bring race into this but it is what is. It’s all a part of the history of this country and we have come a long way since then.  So what if other soldiers may feel uncomfortable serving with someone that is openly gay. That’s their problem. Why do gay people have to pay for someone else’s discomfort. Give me a break. Are we pre-schoolers that to be coddled or grown adults that should be able to interact with one another in a cordial and respectable way despite our differences? What do you all think? Do you agree with “Dont Ask, Don’t Tell”?

[Via http://ms808nhartbreak.wordpress.com]

Latest Stimulus Report shows the Obama, and his Administration, are Liars

All the numbers being thrown around by Obama, and his administration, had people laughing and shaking their heads in disbelief. It started out with a claim that 650,000 jobs “saved or created. Pure fuzzy math.

Last weekend, Obama sent out Robert Gibbs, David Axelrod and Valerie Jarret. All three gave out different “saved or created” job claims. It’s simple if you are not an Obama follower.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

WASHINGTON — Recipients of economic-stimulus money said they had used the funds to pay 599,108 workers in the last quarter of 2009, fewer than the number of jobs they had reported to have created or saved in the first seven months after the plan was enacted.

The recipients’ reports, published on the official government Web site recovery.gov late Saturday night, are likely to fuel further controversy over the impact of the $787 billion package, as Democrats seek to craft new jobs-creation proposals to address the country’s continued, high jobless rate.

Many opinion polls suggest that most voters do not believe the current stimulus program, which was passed last February, is working.

Stimulus recipients previously reported that they had directly “created or saved” 640,329 jobs by September 30, 2009, but their filings were widely criticized after it emerged that some people had reported saving jobs when they had actually spent the money on pay raises or paying employees who were not in danger of being laid off.

In December, the White House Office of Management and Budget changed its guidance, telling recipients they should start counting every worker whose salary was funded with stimulus money, rather than guessing whether the jobs would have existed in the absence of the federal plan. Opponents of the program accused the administration of ”moving the goal posts” to make the plan appear more successful.

This is how the Obama administration works. Put out bogus numbers then change the results as people catch on. It’s all a scam.

Let me explain it to those who still believe Obama’s numbers. When he took office in January 2009, the U.S. lost over 700,000 jobs and unemployment was 7.4 percent. We continued to lose jobs every single month and unemployment continued to rise. Unemployment hit 1o.2 percent and the Obama administration tried to claim that the stimulus was “saving or creating” jobs.

If this was true, why did unemployment continue to rise? If they created 1.5 to 2 million jobs, why have we lost over 4 million jobs? If jobs was Obama’s number one priority, why do we have over $500 billion in stimulus cash sitting in the Treasury?

Despite all their fuzzy math, this report shows the fraud committed by this administration. 599,108 jobs “saved or created” with $787 billion taxpayer dollars. I’m sure the left will spin this but the facts are on their $15 million dollar web site. Hard to debate the numbers your party puts out.

The stimulus is proven once again to be an utter failure. Obama promised the taxpayers that if his stimulus was passed, unemployment would go above 8 percent. Well, we are sitting at 10 % and it is higher in major cities. Obama promised his stimulus would create 3.5 t0 4 million jobs. Let’s do the math.

We have lost 4 million +. Obama promised 4 million jobs with his stimulus. This puts Obama in the hole by 8 million jobs. So no matter how many jobs he “creates or saves,” Obama has a long way to get back in the red. That’s a simple reality.

[Via http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com]

Television News Rejection of Liberal Doctrine

The Right Stuff by  Bill O’Reilly HUMANEVENTS

Watch out. America is moving to the right, and it’s happening fast. The vote in Massachusetts was an ideological earthquake whose tremors are still being felt all over the country. When a big-government guy like President Obama takes to the lectern to announce he wants to freeze some federal spending, you know hell might be freezing over, as well.
   
But nowhere is the rejection of liberal doctrine seen more clearly than in the television news industry. Last week, Fox News Channel, the only network that has brought some scrutiny to Obama from the beginning, was the No. 1 rated cable operation in America

In addition, the Democratic outfit Public Policy Polling released a stunning scientific survey. It asked Americans which TV news operation they trusted. Hide the kids; here are the results:

Fox News: 49 percent trust, 37 percent don’t trust.
ABC News: 31 percent trust, 46 percent don’t trust
NBC News: 35 percent trust, 44 percent don’t trust
CBS News: 32 percent trust, 46 percent don’t trust
CNN: 39 percent trust, 41 percent don’t trust
   
This is a rout. Nearly half the country trusts FNC, and nobody else is even close. Can you imagine the Fox bashers at NBC and The New York Times reading this poll? I’d pay to see the reaction.
   
MORE…...humanevents.com/

[Via http://jkshaws.wordpress.com]