Spiking the football, trying to score political points as he is accustomed to, the egomaniacal narcissist who we call our President said to the American Red Cross yesterday that "We (America) leave nobody behind".
Normally, this statement would not be so outrageous if only six weeks ago he did not leave four Americans to die in Benghazi without as much as lifting a finger during the nearly 7-hour ordeal.
What kind of a man (and I use the term loosely in this case) sits in the Whitehouse situation room and literally watches and listens to those he is charged with protecting ask for help three times over a 7-hour period and not lift a finger despite having forces at the ready only an hour away? What kind of conscience must such a scoundrel have to be so callous?
No, Mr. President, America normally never leaves any of its citizens behind. That, however, requires leadership. You never left the campaigning mode after the 2008 election. You never went in to the governing mode because that actually requires making tough decisions - something you have proven to be incapable of! For you to make such a statement while your hands are still dripping the blood of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty - our heroic CIA security personnel who assisted the consulate against orders and gave their lives defending their compound - is no doubt the lowest point of your shameful, scandal ridden presidency. You are America's shame; one that will leave a stench for a long time no matter what happens in six days.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
Benghazigate: Enraging Story of an Unraveling Presidency and Media Corruption
Ill winds of a major scandal are once again blowing in Washington, D.C. Along with it, a shameful chapter in American presidential history is about to be closed even if it is no consolation for the loved ones of heroic souls Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, along with Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith of the Diplomatic Corps, who were sacrificed in the name of political expediency by a narcissistic megalomaniac and his inept and corrupt Administration; all aided by a shamelessly corrupt media. The pivotal role that each - the Administration and the media - play in this whole affair makes this two scandals in one.
The news developments in the Benghazi affair are coming fast and furious. Folks, this is dead-serious, infuriating stuff. In fact it is nothing short of a scandal of epic proportions that should end the political careers of all sorts of politicians, bureaucrats, and journalists involved in this cover-up. I say 'should', sadly because only FNC is widely reporting the revelations while the other Obama adoring lapdog media is brushing over this, having gotten cover by the Administration's assurances that they are "investigating" the matter. The idea is to delay reporting on more scandalous and potentially criminal details of just what happened during and after the Benghazi attack.
Here is a brief timeline (for more details follow this link), the troubling details, as well as the inconsistent statements and damning lies the Administration has been repeating:
► On the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, at 9:40 p.m. local time, the United States consulate/mission in Benghazi, Libya came under organized attack by an Al Queda affiliated terrorist group - Ansar Al-Sharia - using rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, assault rifles, 14.5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns, diesel canisters, gun trucks, and mortars.
► Inside the consulate, which was not a secure building by any diplomatic standards, were Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith protected only by five contracted security agents, and four Libyans who fled the scene at the first sign of trouble.
► Ambassador Stevens was apparently involved in more than just diplomacy in its traditional sense. He played a pivotal part in arming the anti-government forces in Syria as well as Libya before Kaddafi's fall. He regularly was meeting with governmental sources from Turkey and Qatar who were sending armaments to the rebels. In fact, the good Ambassador was likely involved in clandestine activities that would make Iran-Contra or Fast and Furious look like child's play. The night he was killed, he had just met with an unnamed Turkish official in Benghazi. We will learn more about this later, but if true, this might further explain the reluctance by the Administration in divulging information, especially since this being an election year.
► There were multiple requests made for beefed up security in the months leading to the tragic events due to the increasing turmoil in the region, but were all turned down by the State Department which cited no specific reasons for the denials. A month after the tragedy, the Administration (led by the V.P.) would falsely claim that Republican led House of Representatives had cut the security budget severely as the reason security was not beefed up despite the fact that there were $2 billion dollars set aside for specifically this purpose that the State Department could have used.
► Within a mile of the consulate, a CIA compound/annex had several agents who were observing the events as they unraveled while being in constant communication with their supervisor. They were denied permission to leave the compound and assist the Ambassador and his entourage on two different occasions as we have found out (later CIA chief said that they were not the ones who denied the military support request, making White House the likely source of the denial). Two of these men - Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty - would later be casualties of this reckless, gutless Administration.
► Also, in the air above were two Predator drones sending real-time images/information to situation rooms in the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon, and all sorts of intelligence agencies including the CIA. This is one of the critical facts that came out as a part of the Congressional hearings over the past two weeks.
► The total duration of the two separate attacks on the consulate and the CIA annex was roughly 7 hours during which we lost four Americans who were bravely serving their country in different capacities. Once again, despite multiple requests for assistance and ample opportunity for a rapid response force to arrive from their base in Italy, these men were callously left to fend for themselves.
► At any time during the assault, no U.S. military intervention of any type occurred despite three different requests. The only assistance rendered (in violation of the orders from politicos in D.C.) were by Woods, Doherty, and two other CIA operatives at the annex. Later Woods and Doherty would give their lives while manning a machine gun on the top of the CIA compound.
► Following the tragic events in Benghazi, President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Defense Secretary Panetta, and a host of other Administration officials made the tour of political talk shows and gave numerous press conferences where they gave conflicting statements ranging from this being the result of a protest against the infamous "Innocence of Muslims" movie trailer, to the assault being possibly a terror act against the U.S.A. To this date, the Administration is still not clear about what exactly went wrong and are refusing to release to the Congress the video of the fateful events.
--
The Plot Thickens:
But wait, the twists in this sickening story still do not end there. We also know that two high rank military commanders have also been taken off duty since Benghazi. First, and the more damning, is the firing of General Carter Ham, head of AFRICOM. General Ham, as the commanding officer, received in real-time the same e-mails and communications as did the Situation Rooms in the White House and elsewhere. The unconfirmed story is that he was outraged by the order to Stand Down on requests for assistance that he over-ruled Washington's order. This explains why and how Woods and Doherty were able to go to the Consulate and assist in evacuating the survivors despite the outrageous orders to Stand Down. General Ham was reportedly fired one minute after he gave his orders to disregard the Stand Down order by his second in command. Since his firing, General Rodiguez has been given his post.
The second commanding officer to be dismissed right after the terror attack was Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, the commander of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East. At the time of the assault in Benghazi, Admiral Gaouette's strike group was deployed off the coast of Libya. It is my speculation that Adm. Gaouette ordered the two Predator drones to be deployed against orders from Scty. Panetta.
These two firings are also anectodal evidence that the orders coming from Washington on that fateful night were too outrageous for these honorable military commanders to obey.
The Media Angle:
Despite the obvious scandal surrounding the administration's action before, during and after the Benghazi atrocity, an equally outrageous scandal is the one surrounding the corrupt mainstream media's handling of it. When the final chapter of this dreadful story is written, the media will also have a lot to answer for over its indefensible conduct.
Consider the fact that Steve Kroft of CBS "60 Minutes" interviewed President Obama on Sept. 12, just hours after the attack. In acknowledging the pre-meditated terrorist nature of the attack, Obama told Kroft:
"You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."
But CBS did not release this video clip until more than one month after it was recorded. Why? Meanwhile, CBS dutifully reported the White House-crafted cover story about the attack being due to a spontaneous protest over a 14-minute video that somehow spun out of control, a falsehood that the administration clung to for more than two weeks. CBS could have easily blown the cover off of that falsehood before it even got off the ground. But it remained silent and did not post the Kroft video clip online until Oct. 19, which was 37 days after it had been recorded.
Fox News reported on Friday that besieged consulate operatives on the evening of Sept. 11 had requested assistance through CIA channels and had twice been refused, with orders telling them to "stand down" rather than to help the ambassador. Yet this earth-shattering news was not reported on adjacent outlets. The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS all maintained complete silence.
NYT had room for 3 endorsements of Obama's re-election but no room to report this story. By contrast, a day earlier all of these outlets were able to give a full-throated airing to Defense Secretary Panetta's defense of the administration claiming that DoD did not have "real time information" despite the fact that the State Department's Charlene Lamb had continuous phone contact throughout the attack with the Benghazi consulate and there had been an aerial drone sending live-link video feed back to the White House situation room almost from the start of the attack.
Later in the day on Friday, CIA Director David Petraeus announced through agency spokesperson Jennifer Youngblood that:
"no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."
That meant one and only one thing. Orders to "stand down" had been issued from the Oval Office and nowhere else. Again, mainstream media sites maintained total news blackout. That blackout was maintained until AP reported the story almost 24 hours later, sourcing its report back to the original Fox News account as described in the linked story below. And notice AP's headline which touts the White House disputing the blockbuster revelations rather than the revelations themselves.
Whether it was media hostility to Fox News or outright cheerleading complicity with the Obama administration is not known. It is for those outlets to clear up the uncertainty. Don't hold your breath waiting for an honest answer. What is not even the slightest bit in doubt is that the mainstream media has sacrificed any entitlement to a presumption of integrity.
We expect politicians to lie, especially if a very unhelpful development occurs just as they are waging a desperate uphill battle to be re-elected. But we don't expect to endure media corruption at the same time, especially when they appear to be complicit with an increasingly endangered administration. Failure of mainstream media to pursue this entire story forthrightly has broadened it from an administration scandal into a major media scandal.
Conclusion:
Here is what it all boils down to, folks. Any foreign diplomatic post is in essence United States territory. Obama knew that a disastrous attack on its soil so close to the general election would have been a fatal blow to his re-election chances - especially since what allowed this to happen was their own criminal negligence in not taking threats that were communicated to them weeks before by the Egyptian and Libyan sources seriously, and the willful ignoring of requests by the Ambassador himself for extra security, the requests by CIA personnel for permission to assist those in the consulate, pleas for intervention by AC130 gunships and drones overhead as well as the quick reaction force deployed only an hour away in Italy.
It all (this inaction) makes perfect sense if you look at the Obama doctrine of leading from behind. In their demented view, the U.S. must never be seen as aggressors on foreign soils where we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the populace.
What was and is being protected here by the Administration as well as the main stream media, at a cost of innocent lives, is the myth of the unassailability of the Obama record as commander in chief. Obama himself has lied about it - no surprise here as he has proven over and over again that he is a pathological liar. He has covered up the trail of events before and after. He has shown no remorse. Just as vitally, he has not executed his job as commander-in-chief of the armed forces of our country, therefore he should be impeached for abdication of responsibilities under Article 2 of the constitution.
The progressive left has historically never had any problem sacrificing the truth, or even human lives, when it comes to achieving the outcomes they desire. Anyone with a sense of justice and regard for humanity can only hope that they drown in the spilled blood of those they are responsible for sacrificing. So come November 6th, as you are about to make your choice for president, listen well - the distant voices you hear are those of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty crying for at least a small measure of justice.
The news developments in the Benghazi affair are coming fast and furious. Folks, this is dead-serious, infuriating stuff. In fact it is nothing short of a scandal of epic proportions that should end the political careers of all sorts of politicians, bureaucrats, and journalists involved in this cover-up. I say 'should', sadly because only FNC is widely reporting the revelations while the other Obama adoring lapdog media is brushing over this, having gotten cover by the Administration's assurances that they are "investigating" the matter. The idea is to delay reporting on more scandalous and potentially criminal details of just what happened during and after the Benghazi attack.
Here is a brief timeline (for more details follow this link), the troubling details, as well as the inconsistent statements and damning lies the Administration has been repeating:
► On the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, at 9:40 p.m. local time, the United States consulate/mission in Benghazi, Libya came under organized attack by an Al Queda affiliated terrorist group - Ansar Al-Sharia - using rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, assault rifles, 14.5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns, diesel canisters, gun trucks, and mortars.
► Inside the consulate, which was not a secure building by any diplomatic standards, were Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith protected only by five contracted security agents, and four Libyans who fled the scene at the first sign of trouble.
► Ambassador Stevens was apparently involved in more than just diplomacy in its traditional sense. He played a pivotal part in arming the anti-government forces in Syria as well as Libya before Kaddafi's fall. He regularly was meeting with governmental sources from Turkey and Qatar who were sending armaments to the rebels. In fact, the good Ambassador was likely involved in clandestine activities that would make Iran-Contra or Fast and Furious look like child's play. The night he was killed, he had just met with an unnamed Turkish official in Benghazi. We will learn more about this later, but if true, this might further explain the reluctance by the Administration in divulging information, especially since this being an election year.
► There were multiple requests made for beefed up security in the months leading to the tragic events due to the increasing turmoil in the region, but were all turned down by the State Department which cited no specific reasons for the denials. A month after the tragedy, the Administration (led by the V.P.) would falsely claim that Republican led House of Representatives had cut the security budget severely as the reason security was not beefed up despite the fact that there were $2 billion dollars set aside for specifically this purpose that the State Department could have used.
► Within a mile of the consulate, a CIA compound/annex had several agents who were observing the events as they unraveled while being in constant communication with their supervisor. They were denied permission to leave the compound and assist the Ambassador and his entourage on two different occasions as we have found out (later CIA chief said that they were not the ones who denied the military support request, making White House the likely source of the denial). Two of these men - Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty - would later be casualties of this reckless, gutless Administration.
► Also, in the air above were two Predator drones sending real-time images/information to situation rooms in the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon, and all sorts of intelligence agencies including the CIA. This is one of the critical facts that came out as a part of the Congressional hearings over the past two weeks.
► The total duration of the two separate attacks on the consulate and the CIA annex was roughly 7 hours during which we lost four Americans who were bravely serving their country in different capacities. Once again, despite multiple requests for assistance and ample opportunity for a rapid response force to arrive from their base in Italy, these men were callously left to fend for themselves.
► At any time during the assault, no U.S. military intervention of any type occurred despite three different requests. The only assistance rendered (in violation of the orders from politicos in D.C.) were by Woods, Doherty, and two other CIA operatives at the annex. Later Woods and Doherty would give their lives while manning a machine gun on the top of the CIA compound.
► Following the tragic events in Benghazi, President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Defense Secretary Panetta, and a host of other Administration officials made the tour of political talk shows and gave numerous press conferences where they gave conflicting statements ranging from this being the result of a protest against the infamous "Innocence of Muslims" movie trailer, to the assault being possibly a terror act against the U.S.A. To this date, the Administration is still not clear about what exactly went wrong and are refusing to release to the Congress the video of the fateful events.
--
The Plot Thickens:
But wait, the twists in this sickening story still do not end there. We also know that two high rank military commanders have also been taken off duty since Benghazi. First, and the more damning, is the firing of General Carter Ham, head of AFRICOM. General Ham, as the commanding officer, received in real-time the same e-mails and communications as did the Situation Rooms in the White House and elsewhere. The unconfirmed story is that he was outraged by the order to Stand Down on requests for assistance that he over-ruled Washington's order. This explains why and how Woods and Doherty were able to go to the Consulate and assist in evacuating the survivors despite the outrageous orders to Stand Down. General Ham was reportedly fired one minute after he gave his orders to disregard the Stand Down order by his second in command. Since his firing, General Rodiguez has been given his post.
The second commanding officer to be dismissed right after the terror attack was Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, the commander of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East. At the time of the assault in Benghazi, Admiral Gaouette's strike group was deployed off the coast of Libya. It is my speculation that Adm. Gaouette ordered the two Predator drones to be deployed against orders from Scty. Panetta.
These two firings are also anectodal evidence that the orders coming from Washington on that fateful night were too outrageous for these honorable military commanders to obey.
The Media Angle:
Despite the obvious scandal surrounding the administration's action before, during and after the Benghazi atrocity, an equally outrageous scandal is the one surrounding the corrupt mainstream media's handling of it. When the final chapter of this dreadful story is written, the media will also have a lot to answer for over its indefensible conduct.
Consider the fact that Steve Kroft of CBS "60 Minutes" interviewed President Obama on Sept. 12, just hours after the attack. In acknowledging the pre-meditated terrorist nature of the attack, Obama told Kroft:
"You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."
But CBS did not release this video clip until more than one month after it was recorded. Why? Meanwhile, CBS dutifully reported the White House-crafted cover story about the attack being due to a spontaneous protest over a 14-minute video that somehow spun out of control, a falsehood that the administration clung to for more than two weeks. CBS could have easily blown the cover off of that falsehood before it even got off the ground. But it remained silent and did not post the Kroft video clip online until Oct. 19, which was 37 days after it had been recorded.
Fox News reported on Friday that besieged consulate operatives on the evening of Sept. 11 had requested assistance through CIA channels and had twice been refused, with orders telling them to "stand down" rather than to help the ambassador. Yet this earth-shattering news was not reported on adjacent outlets. The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS all maintained complete silence.
NYT had room for 3 endorsements of Obama's re-election but no room to report this story. By contrast, a day earlier all of these outlets were able to give a full-throated airing to Defense Secretary Panetta's defense of the administration claiming that DoD did not have "real time information" despite the fact that the State Department's Charlene Lamb had continuous phone contact throughout the attack with the Benghazi consulate and there had been an aerial drone sending live-link video feed back to the White House situation room almost from the start of the attack.
Later in the day on Friday, CIA Director David Petraeus announced through agency spokesperson Jennifer Youngblood that:
"no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."
That meant one and only one thing. Orders to "stand down" had been issued from the Oval Office and nowhere else. Again, mainstream media sites maintained total news blackout. That blackout was maintained until AP reported the story almost 24 hours later, sourcing its report back to the original Fox News account as described in the linked story below. And notice AP's headline which touts the White House disputing the blockbuster revelations rather than the revelations themselves.
Whether it was media hostility to Fox News or outright cheerleading complicity with the Obama administration is not known. It is for those outlets to clear up the uncertainty. Don't hold your breath waiting for an honest answer. What is not even the slightest bit in doubt is that the mainstream media has sacrificed any entitlement to a presumption of integrity.
We expect politicians to lie, especially if a very unhelpful development occurs just as they are waging a desperate uphill battle to be re-elected. But we don't expect to endure media corruption at the same time, especially when they appear to be complicit with an increasingly endangered administration. Failure of mainstream media to pursue this entire story forthrightly has broadened it from an administration scandal into a major media scandal.
Conclusion:
Here is what it all boils down to, folks. Any foreign diplomatic post is in essence United States territory. Obama knew that a disastrous attack on its soil so close to the general election would have been a fatal blow to his re-election chances - especially since what allowed this to happen was their own criminal negligence in not taking threats that were communicated to them weeks before by the Egyptian and Libyan sources seriously, and the willful ignoring of requests by the Ambassador himself for extra security, the requests by CIA personnel for permission to assist those in the consulate, pleas for intervention by AC130 gunships and drones overhead as well as the quick reaction force deployed only an hour away in Italy.
It all (this inaction) makes perfect sense if you look at the Obama doctrine of leading from behind. In their demented view, the U.S. must never be seen as aggressors on foreign soils where we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the populace.
What was and is being protected here by the Administration as well as the main stream media, at a cost of innocent lives, is the myth of the unassailability of the Obama record as commander in chief. Obama himself has lied about it - no surprise here as he has proven over and over again that he is a pathological liar. He has covered up the trail of events before and after. He has shown no remorse. Just as vitally, he has not executed his job as commander-in-chief of the armed forces of our country, therefore he should be impeached for abdication of responsibilities under Article 2 of the constitution.
The progressive left has historically never had any problem sacrificing the truth, or even human lives, when it comes to achieving the outcomes they desire. Anyone with a sense of justice and regard for humanity can only hope that they drown in the spilled blood of those they are responsible for sacrificing. So come November 6th, as you are about to make your choice for president, listen well - the distant voices you hear are those of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty crying for at least a small measure of justice.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Listen to Trevor Loudon
Trevor Loudon, a great New Zealender who does more to expose Marxists and other collectivists around the globe than anyone else, has recorded this message. Heed his warnings; he has been crusading against enemies of freedom for decades:
Monday, October 22, 2012
Questions Romney Should Bring Up in Tonight's Debate
In a perfect world, an impartial moderator would ask candidates about points of contention as well as other questions begging for answers. Well, that would be in a perfect world! Since we do not live in such a place where the media displays no bias, here is my suggestion for how Romney should approach this sham of a debate and the questions he should ask himself.
Romney needs to actively do three things tonight: Attack, Attack, Attack!
Obama foreign policy is the most incompetent and disastrous ever - much, much worse than even Carter's.
Point it out, Mr. Romney. Ask questions like:
'Mr. President, you would not support the Iranian protestors who begged for support and let them be massacred, yet you actively supported the pro-sharia Arab Spring protestors; can you tell the public why?'
and
'Mr. President, can you tell the American public why you flew to Las Vegas and Colorado on fund raisers within 24 hours of our Ambassador's assasination - the first in 30+ years - instead of meeting with your National Security Council? And while you are at it, can you please tell us why you have missed fully 60% of your National Security Briefings during your presidency?'
and
'Mr. President, isn't it abdicating your responsibility to our diplomatic staff overseas to deny them added security on the anniversay of 9/11 when they asked for it over and over again?'
and
'Mr. President, why did your Administration spokespeople keep on repeating a lie that you knew nothing about the cause of the Benghazi attack when later the CIA and other NSA officials made it clear to Congress in hearings that you knew this was a terrorist attack within 24 hours? While you are at it, why did the V.P. lie about the reason for added security to be denied when he said the Congress cut funding for security when it came out that there is over $2 billion available for such contingencies waiting to be disbursed?'
and
'Mr. President, what did you exactly mean when you whispered in to Mr. Medvedev's ear to tell Putin to give you time until after the election when you will have more "flexibility"? Is this the natural progression of us letting our allies down in the Czech Republic and Poland three years ago when we refused to honor our promise to install a missile defense shield? What exactly is our commitment to our eastern European allies in an age Putin's Russia is starting to behave as a bully once again?'
and
'Mr. President, your White House asked Palestinians to sit tight on statehood until your re-election. Coupled with your earlier comments regarding Israel's need to withdraw to its 1965 borders, are you letting our only ally in the Middle East know that they cannot count on the U.S.A. under your presidency?'
and
'The island nation of Fiji recently fell under Marxist rule and has become a base of sorts for the Chinese, what is your view on this situation and why have you or your State Department not made any comments about this worrisome development?'
and
Mr. President, you refused to back allies in Taiwan when you refused to sell them F-18 combat aircraft, in Colombia when you cozied up to their enemies in Venezuela and Ecuador who support the Marxist FARC guerillas, ......(list the long list of allies let down by this POS); can you explain to the American public if this is what 'leading from behind' is all about?'
and
'Do you think that a U.S. that abandons allies and cozies up to traditional enemies fosters trust on the part of our allies? Do you see the U.S. as a super power which needs to defend America's interests around the globe while protecting our steadfast allies?'
and
'What do you think is the likely outcome of a foreign policy that leads to our allies not trusting us and our enemies not fearing us in an age when radical Islamists the world over are openly declaring their goal of annihilating Israel as well as infidels who reject Islam?'
It doesn't end with those vital questions. There are so many more questions this POS has to answer unfortunately, but we all know that the lapdog who will be moderating will ask none of it. So it is up to Mr. Romney to ask. Go get him, Mitt!
Romney needs to actively do three things tonight: Attack, Attack, Attack!
Obama foreign policy is the most incompetent and disastrous ever - much, much worse than even Carter's.
Point it out, Mr. Romney. Ask questions like:
'Mr. President, you would not support the Iranian protestors who begged for support and let them be massacred, yet you actively supported the pro-sharia Arab Spring protestors; can you tell the public why?'
and
'Mr. President, can you tell the American public why you flew to Las Vegas and Colorado on fund raisers within 24 hours of our Ambassador's assasination - the first in 30+ years - instead of meeting with your National Security Council? And while you are at it, can you please tell us why you have missed fully 60% of your National Security Briefings during your presidency?'
and
'Mr. President, isn't it abdicating your responsibility to our diplomatic staff overseas to deny them added security on the anniversay of 9/11 when they asked for it over and over again?'
and
'Mr. President, why did your Administration spokespeople keep on repeating a lie that you knew nothing about the cause of the Benghazi attack when later the CIA and other NSA officials made it clear to Congress in hearings that you knew this was a terrorist attack within 24 hours? While you are at it, why did the V.P. lie about the reason for added security to be denied when he said the Congress cut funding for security when it came out that there is over $2 billion available for such contingencies waiting to be disbursed?'
and
'Mr. President, what did you exactly mean when you whispered in to Mr. Medvedev's ear to tell Putin to give you time until after the election when you will have more "flexibility"? Is this the natural progression of us letting our allies down in the Czech Republic and Poland three years ago when we refused to honor our promise to install a missile defense shield? What exactly is our commitment to our eastern European allies in an age Putin's Russia is starting to behave as a bully once again?'
and
'Mr. President, your White House asked Palestinians to sit tight on statehood until your re-election. Coupled with your earlier comments regarding Israel's need to withdraw to its 1965 borders, are you letting our only ally in the Middle East know that they cannot count on the U.S.A. under your presidency?'
and
'The island nation of Fiji recently fell under Marxist rule and has become a base of sorts for the Chinese, what is your view on this situation and why have you or your State Department not made any comments about this worrisome development?'
and
Mr. President, you refused to back allies in Taiwan when you refused to sell them F-18 combat aircraft, in Colombia when you cozied up to their enemies in Venezuela and Ecuador who support the Marxist FARC guerillas, ......(list the long list of allies let down by this POS); can you explain to the American public if this is what 'leading from behind' is all about?'
and
'Do you think that a U.S. that abandons allies and cozies up to traditional enemies fosters trust on the part of our allies? Do you see the U.S. as a super power which needs to defend America's interests around the globe while protecting our steadfast allies?'
and
'What do you think is the likely outcome of a foreign policy that leads to our allies not trusting us and our enemies not fearing us in an age when radical Islamists the world over are openly declaring their goal of annihilating Israel as well as infidels who reject Islam?'
It doesn't end with those vital questions. There are so many more questions this POS has to answer unfortunately, but we all know that the lapdog who will be moderating will ask none of it. So it is up to Mr. Romney to ask. Go get him, Mitt!
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Welfare State Rages On
Good news fellow Americans! For the first time, we have broken the $1 trillion mark in welfare spending.
After all, all those food stamp parties that the Administration has thrown, pleas to the Mexican government to let their citizens who are illegally here know they too can use such benefits in states like California that refuse to implement I.D. requirements for welfare recipients (but don’t dare farm your land, god forbid the smelt may be harmed somehow), and a myriad of other enticements the Obama Administration has worked so hard to provide for our ever so proud, ever growing dependency class.
Greece, eat your heart out!
After all, all those food stamp parties that the Administration has thrown, pleas to the Mexican government to let their citizens who are illegally here know they too can use such benefits in states like California that refuse to implement I.D. requirements for welfare recipients (but don’t dare farm your land, god forbid the smelt may be harmed somehow), and a myriad of other enticements the Obama Administration has worked so hard to provide for our ever so proud, ever growing dependency class.
Greece, eat your heart out!
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
The Real World John Galt
Those of you who may have read Ayn Rand's famous novel Atlas Shrugged are surely familiar with the character of John Galt. Galt is a creator, philosopher, and inventor who symbolizes the power and glory of the human mind. He serves as a principled counterpoint to the collectivist social and economic structure depicted in the novel. The depiction portrays a society based on oppressive bureaucratic functionaries and a culture that embraces stifling mediocrity and egalitarianism, which the novel associates with socialistic idealism or utopianism as I prefer. Sounds familiar? Well, it should because that is just what we are experiencing in the U.S. right now.
As in Atlas Shrugged, business owners/investors in the U.S. have decided to boycott the government policies. This boycott takes form of a investment and hiring freeze many businesses have instituted over the past two years. Survey after survey, members of business groups like the Chamber of Commerce, NFIB, NAM, and others have overwhelmingly indicated that their biggest concerns are the fiscal and regulatory uncertainties they face.
Any reasonable person would agree that no prudent investor would risk his capital and sweat equity in new or expanded ventures when progressive forces in Washington have launched an outright assault on them. Despite the Administration's (and its henchmen in media and academia) best efforts to convince the unsuspecting, apathetic public that the problem is lack of demand and insufficient stimulus spending, the truth has been conveyed loud and clear by those who create the jobs - or as I like to call them, those in the know.
Last week, David Seagal, owner of Westgate Resorts, showed the courage of informing his employees what might happen if they vote for more of the class warfare President Obama has unleashed on our society. Mr. Seagal recieved a lot of misplaced criticism from the usual suspects for his blunt assessment. I, for one, believe that he is if anything compassionate for telling it as it is. Afterall, his duty as an employer who cares for his employees, is to let them know what is in their best interests. Here is his memorandum to his employees:
Subject: Message from David Siegel
Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [David Siegel]
To: [All employees]
To All My Valued Employees,
As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.
However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.The current administration and members of the press have perpetuated an environment that casts employers against employees. They want you to believe that we live in a class system where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. They label us the "1%" and imply that we are somehow immune to the challenges that face our country. This could not be further from the truth. Sure, you may have heard about the big home that I'm building. I'm sure many people think that I live a privileged life. However, what you don't see or hear is the true story behind any success that I have achieved.
I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. We didn't eat in fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations because every dollar I made went back into this company. I drove an old used car, and often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business - hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, many of my friends got regular jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a nice income, and they spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into this business --with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford to buy whatever I wanted. Even to this day, every dime I earn goes back into this company. Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed.
Just think about this - most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I'm the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I've made.
Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?
Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50 percent of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50 percent of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.
Here is what most people don't understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore - to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don't want you to know that the "1%", as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, "democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.
So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.
So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.
You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.
Signed, your boss,
David Siegel
As in Atlas Shrugged, business owners/investors in the U.S. have decided to boycott the government policies. This boycott takes form of a investment and hiring freeze many businesses have instituted over the past two years. Survey after survey, members of business groups like the Chamber of Commerce, NFIB, NAM, and others have overwhelmingly indicated that their biggest concerns are the fiscal and regulatory uncertainties they face.
Any reasonable person would agree that no prudent investor would risk his capital and sweat equity in new or expanded ventures when progressive forces in Washington have launched an outright assault on them. Despite the Administration's (and its henchmen in media and academia) best efforts to convince the unsuspecting, apathetic public that the problem is lack of demand and insufficient stimulus spending, the truth has been conveyed loud and clear by those who create the jobs - or as I like to call them, those in the know.
Last week, David Seagal, owner of Westgate Resorts, showed the courage of informing his employees what might happen if they vote for more of the class warfare President Obama has unleashed on our society. Mr. Seagal recieved a lot of misplaced criticism from the usual suspects for his blunt assessment. I, for one, believe that he is if anything compassionate for telling it as it is. Afterall, his duty as an employer who cares for his employees, is to let them know what is in their best interests. Here is his memorandum to his employees:
Subject: Message from David Siegel
Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [David Siegel]
To: [All employees]
To All My Valued Employees,
As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.
However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.The current administration and members of the press have perpetuated an environment that casts employers against employees. They want you to believe that we live in a class system where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. They label us the "1%" and imply that we are somehow immune to the challenges that face our country. This could not be further from the truth. Sure, you may have heard about the big home that I'm building. I'm sure many people think that I live a privileged life. However, what you don't see or hear is the true story behind any success that I have achieved.
I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. We didn't eat in fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations because every dollar I made went back into this company. I drove an old used car, and often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business - hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, many of my friends got regular jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a nice income, and they spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into this business --with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford to buy whatever I wanted. Even to this day, every dime I earn goes back into this company. Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed.
Just think about this - most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I'm the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I've made.
Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?
Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50 percent of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50 percent of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.
Here is what most people don't understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore - to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don't want you to know that the "1%", as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, "democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.
So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.
So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.
You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.
Signed, your boss,
David Siegel
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Hillary: Clear and Present Danger
The U.S. presidents have made some terrible foreign policy/national security appointee choices in the past. Top two disastrous names that come to mind are Zbigniew Brzezinski who was appointed by Carter as his National Security Advisor - a man who believed much like our current President that U.S. needs to step back from its position as the leading power in the world -, and Madeleine Albright - Secretary of State for President Clinton who played a pivotal role in turning a blind eye to the growing Islamic radical threat overseas.
Whomever the bad choice, they always were limited in the damage they caused due to their limited political ambitions and scope of their involvement in affairs other than foreign policy. The most recent disastrous foreign policy choice, Hillary Clinton, however is not so unambitious or shy about her views on other matters.
Hillary's damage to the U.S. interests here and abroad are not limited to the disastrous Administration policy of ignoring and/or backstabbing allies like Israel, Taiwan, Poland, Czech Republic, Iranian dissidents/protestors, Honduras, Colombia,..........(the list goes on seemingly endlessly) while cozying up to and conceding to our mortal enemies in Russia, Iran, China, various radical Muslim leaders, Chavez, Castro, and many other dictators all around the world. Oh, and let's not forget turning against our own states either! Scariest prospect of all, however, is that Hillary still has presidential aspirations, and that is a serious problem because, if successful in getting elected in 2016, she will undoubtedly finish off the job of fundamentally transforming the U.S. Obama started but hopefully will not have a chance to finish off.
Hillary's commitment to establishing progressive utopia here in the U.S. is no less than that of her boss, Barack Obama. Her radical past speaks for itself, and her present mind set as displayed just a couple of weeks ago when she pushed for a global tax on the wealthy proves that we have every bit of a revolutionary leftist in Hillary as we do in our President.
Former Secretaries of State like George Schultz, Alexander Haig, and Condoleeza Rice never stepped outside the professional boundaries of their duties. Mrs. Clinton and other radicals of the left seem not to be able to help themselves because, to them, the goal isn't to conduct their duties to the best of their abilities while ensuring America's self interests, but its to tear down this country in their zeal to fundamentally transform our constitutional republic.
A word to the wise: Watch out for Hillary in 2016!
Whomever the bad choice, they always were limited in the damage they caused due to their limited political ambitions and scope of their involvement in affairs other than foreign policy. The most recent disastrous foreign policy choice, Hillary Clinton, however is not so unambitious or shy about her views on other matters.
Hillary's damage to the U.S. interests here and abroad are not limited to the disastrous Administration policy of ignoring and/or backstabbing allies like Israel, Taiwan, Poland, Czech Republic, Iranian dissidents/protestors, Honduras, Colombia,..........(the list goes on seemingly endlessly) while cozying up to and conceding to our mortal enemies in Russia, Iran, China, various radical Muslim leaders, Chavez, Castro, and many other dictators all around the world. Oh, and let's not forget turning against our own states either! Scariest prospect of all, however, is that Hillary still has presidential aspirations, and that is a serious problem because, if successful in getting elected in 2016, she will undoubtedly finish off the job of fundamentally transforming the U.S. Obama started but hopefully will not have a chance to finish off.
Hillary's commitment to establishing progressive utopia here in the U.S. is no less than that of her boss, Barack Obama. Her radical past speaks for itself, and her present mind set as displayed just a couple of weeks ago when she pushed for a global tax on the wealthy proves that we have every bit of a revolutionary leftist in Hillary as we do in our President.
Former Secretaries of State like George Schultz, Alexander Haig, and Condoleeza Rice never stepped outside the professional boundaries of their duties. Mrs. Clinton and other radicals of the left seem not to be able to help themselves because, to them, the goal isn't to conduct their duties to the best of their abilities while ensuring America's self interests, but its to tear down this country in their zeal to fundamentally transform our constitutional republic.
A word to the wise: Watch out for Hillary in 2016!
Thursday, October 11, 2012
A Fair Warning From One Who Knows
Thomas Peterffy grew up in socialist Hungary. Despite the fact that he could not speak English when he immigrated to the United States in 1956, Thomas fulfilled the American dream. With hard work and dedication, he started a business that today employs thousands of people. In the 1970s, Thomas bought a seat on the American Stock Exchange. He played a key role in developing the electronic trading of securities and is the founder of Interactive Brokers, an online discount brokerage firm with offices all over the world.
Here is his fair warning to unsuspecting sheeple that call themselves Democrats and Independents on the most part:
Here is his fair warning to unsuspecting sheeple that call themselves Democrats and Independents on the most part:
Friday, October 5, 2012
An Amateurishly Conceived October Surprise?
Forget bomb shell revelations about candidates. Forget hidden video or audio recordings of candidates making nebulous and innocuous statements that can be used by the opposition to feather and tar them through misrepresentation. Sometimes October surprises can come in the form of statistics, as it seems to have this morning.
At 8:30 a.m., the government released its latest unemployment data and boy, was it a doozy!
Let me get this straight, without breaking out in uncontrollable laughter. Here are the dubious facts as reported by the government:
1) The economy added 114,000 new jobs
2) Unemployment rate (U-3) went down from 8.1% to 7.8%
3) The real unemployment rate (U-6) remained unchanged at 14.7%
4) The drop in the rate was NOT due to a reduction in the labor force participation rate.
Now, I don't know about what others think but the math is as suspect as a three dollar bill. We know for a fact that the economy needs to create a little over 150,000 jobs per month to break even with the net increase in the labor force. So what gives? We get about 25% fewer jobs created than necessary to break even. According to the government, there is no reduction in the participation rate - meaning no additional discouraged workers or those who exhaust their unemployment benefits. On top of it all, the U-6 figure remains unchanged.
The first reason it does not make any sense is because you cannot possibly have the outcome portrayed by the BLS with the facts given - it is a mathematical impossibility. The second reason is that you cannot possibly have the U-3 go down by three tenths of a percent but have no change in the U-6 figure without reduction in the labor force. And finally, the contradictions in the slew of data released by the BLS is beyond what might be expected from an outfit that has been doing a reasonably decent job.
So, what we have here is as apparent as day, folks. Under the fearless leadership of Secretary Hilda Solis (a committed leftist hack), the Labor Department is doing what it must to salvage the Presidents prospects after his embarassingly poor debate performance in front of the largest TV debate audience in history. Had we a national media with integrity, this wouldn't fly, but with the exception of some economists and reporters, the media seems to be swallowing the Administration's latest propaganda despite its oviously questionable nature. That is what lapdogs do.
In the true sense of what passes as serious economic reporting today, many sources applauded the brave new report of this wonderfully rosy employment picture without questioning the impossible math behind it. And why wouldn't day? After all, the investment of the media in this Administration is as total as any previous in history. As one might say in modern day slang...ROFL!
At 8:30 a.m., the government released its latest unemployment data and boy, was it a doozy!
Let me get this straight, without breaking out in uncontrollable laughter. Here are the dubious facts as reported by the government:
1) The economy added 114,000 new jobs
2) Unemployment rate (U-3) went down from 8.1% to 7.8%
3) The real unemployment rate (U-6) remained unchanged at 14.7%
4) The drop in the rate was NOT due to a reduction in the labor force participation rate.
Now, I don't know about what others think but the math is as suspect as a three dollar bill. We know for a fact that the economy needs to create a little over 150,000 jobs per month to break even with the net increase in the labor force. So what gives? We get about 25% fewer jobs created than necessary to break even. According to the government, there is no reduction in the participation rate - meaning no additional discouraged workers or those who exhaust their unemployment benefits. On top of it all, the U-6 figure remains unchanged.
The first reason it does not make any sense is because you cannot possibly have the outcome portrayed by the BLS with the facts given - it is a mathematical impossibility. The second reason is that you cannot possibly have the U-3 go down by three tenths of a percent but have no change in the U-6 figure without reduction in the labor force. And finally, the contradictions in the slew of data released by the BLS is beyond what might be expected from an outfit that has been doing a reasonably decent job.
So, what we have here is as apparent as day, folks. Under the fearless leadership of Secretary Hilda Solis (a committed leftist hack), the Labor Department is doing what it must to salvage the Presidents prospects after his embarassingly poor debate performance in front of the largest TV debate audience in history. Had we a national media with integrity, this wouldn't fly, but with the exception of some economists and reporters, the media seems to be swallowing the Administration's latest propaganda despite its oviously questionable nature. That is what lapdogs do.
In the true sense of what passes as serious economic reporting today, many sources applauded the brave new report of this wonderfully rosy employment picture without questioning the impossible math behind it. And why wouldn't day? After all, the investment of the media in this Administration is as total as any previous in history. As one might say in modern day slang...ROFL!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)