Clearly, the long knives are out for Valerie Jarrett.....

Given the topic of the previous post and now the current article: Fire Valerie Jarrett: If Obama really wants to shake things up, his closest adviser should be the first to go. It is clear that the long knives are out in Washington DC for Valerie Jarrett.  I suspect she'll be with the Obama's to the end, which again begs the questions, Who is Valerie Jarrett?; How did she become so entangled with the Obama's?; and Why on God's green earth would she STILL be one of their closest advisors?   

From the article:

Jarrett is more than a mere senior staffer to this president, and of course she is not going to be fired outright. Not ever. If her role in this administration reflected reality, Jarrett would be called “First Big Sister” to both Michelle and Barack. And who would fire the kind of big sister who “really dedicated her entire life to the Obamas,” as New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor told me when I interviewed her about her intimate look at the first family, The Obamas? “She has thrown her entire life into their cause, and she’s made it very clear that she would happily run in front of a speeding truck for them.” 

Very moving. But the fact is, on balance it appears that Jarrett has been more an obstructer than a facilitator over the past six years when it comes to governing, and it’s probably long past time for the president to move her gently into another role. 

For starters, even today, nobody knows precisely what Jarrett does in the White House. What exactly do her titles—senior advisor to the president, assistant to the president in charge of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Office of Public Engagement, the White House Council on Women and Girls—mean? More to the point, Jarrett has often used the aura of authority that these titles give her to stand in the way of talented White House staffers and a smoother-running administration, according to several books that have been written about the Obama presidency, among them Chuck Todd’s forthcoming The Stranger.

The author then goes on to report similar stories of Jarrett undermining Chief of Staff Emanuel and Press Secretary Gibbs as in the previously posted article.

It is a very odd relationship for an advisor to the leader of the free world.  For example:

Her undefined role combined with what by all accounts has been almost unlimited proximity to the Obamas has proved a bad mix. She seems to isolate the president from people who might help him or teach him something—and if there’s one thing that has become clear about Obama, it’s that he doesn’t get to hear enough outside voices. (According to Alter, she once declared that the Obamas wouldn’t be making “new friends” in Washington.) Jarrett micromanages guest lists for White House events big and small, hangs out in the private quarters and often joins the Obamas for dinner, says little in meetings, but walks out whispering in the president’s ear and leaving nervous staffers in her wake, according to Alter. She vacations with the first family in Hawaii and Martha’s Vineyard. She is often the last one they speak to at night, and according to Alter, White House staffers took to calling her the “Night Stalker.”

Odd, don't you think?

I also don't suppose it is a mere coincidence these two articles were written and released at roughly the same time.  Almost as if to give Obama cover should he decide to pull the rip cord on Jarrett.  I don't believe for a minute it'll happen, but one can always hope....

My mistake. It's not "Limousine Liberal". The proper term is "Boardroom Liberal". Who knew?

This is from an article about Valerie Jarrett's influence on President Obama and his policies, The Obama Whisperer, No one has understood Valerie Jarrett's role, until now . Sadly, it completely ignores the effects of said policies...  Regardless, the article describes an advisor who, it should be noted, is not a cabinet member and as such required no vetting by the Senate, not that she would have gotten any in 2009 anyway...  But, I digress.  This paints the an incomplete picture of the actual person Valerie Jarrett is and gives only a few sentence glance at how she became who she is, and completely ignores how she came to such a prominent role as is painted.  

Regardless, there are a few nuggets to take away from the article.  One is the evolution of her role from prominent advisor and attender of all meetings relating to policy to one of creator of the impenetrable bubble for the POTUS.  Valerie Jarrett, they would have us believe, has out lasted all other presidential confidants, from Rahm Emanuel to Robert Gibbs, and as these people left they were replaced with people who were more amicable to Ms. Jarrett.  Again, this reinforces my earlier query on who is Valerie Jarrett?  Where did she come from?  How did she Get where she is?  How did she get involved with the Obama's?  Why is their relationship so seemingly intimate?

The other, and in my humble opinion, more important admission in this article is this regime's philosophy of "Boardroom Liberals".  This is important not just because it is an admission of this regimes philosophy, but because it is in an article in the left's bible, The New Republic. Here is (to me anyhow) the krux of the left's statist mentality:

"They emanate from the worldview that Jarrett and Obama share—call it “boardroom liberalism.” It’s a worldview that’s steeped in social progressivism, in the values of tolerance and diversity. It takes as a given that government has a role to play in building infrastructure, regulating business, training workers, smoothing out the boom-bust cycles of the economy, providing for the poor and disadvantaged. But it is a view from on high—one that presumes a dominant role for large institutions like corporations and a wisdom on the part of elites. It believes that the world works best when these elites use their power magnanimously, not when they’re forced to share it. The picture of the boardroom liberal is a corporate CEO handing a refrigerator-sized check to the head of a charity at a celebrity golf tournament. All the better if they’re surrounded by minority children and struggling moms." [emphasis added]

Bam.  Just like that, everything falls into place.....

As if that admission were not enough, the article goes on to highlight the current White House operations like this:

As it happens, the way the White House runs these days does even less to check Obama’s inclinations. According to a former high-level aide, there is no longer a daily meeting between the president and his top advisers. Under the old system, if the president waved off one adviser’s objection to his preferred plan of action, another could step in to vouch for the objection’s merit. The advice Obama gets now, though, comes more regularly through one-off interactions with the likes of Jarrett and Denis McDonough, who don’t have anyone else to back them up. In the second term, observes the former aide, “Maybe the president says, more often than in the past, ‘We’re doing it.’”

The result is that Obama has become even more persuaded of his righteousness as the years have gone on. His belief that he can win over opponents is unshaken. Unfortunately, these opponents include a party in the throes of radicalism and a self- interested class of ultra-rich that increasingly calls to mind plutocracy—not people whose better instincts you can appeal to. Obama and Jarrett should know this." 

I guess this is exemplifies how Obama can stand up there and take no responsibility for the mid-term drubbing his party took this year...  Amazing.

Fantasy: "By almost every measure...."

"So despite what you may hear, there is no doubt we are making progress. By almost every measure, we are better off than when I took office."



D'oh:

Source: Zerohedge.com

"While by now everyone should know the answer, for those curious why the US unemployment rate just slid once more to a meager 5.9%, the lowest print since the summer of 2008, the answer is the same one we have shown every month since 2010: the collapse in the labor force participation rate, which in September slid from an already three decade low 62.8% to 62.7% - the lowest in over 36 years, matching the February 1978 lows. And while according to the Household Survey, 232,000 people found jobs, what is more disturbing is that the people not in the labor force, rose to a new record high, increasing by 315,000 to 92.6 million!"

Here additional ways from Poor Richards News we are NOT better off than we where when BHO took office:

• Health care is MORE EXPENSIVE for most people
• There are MORE PEOPLE ARE ON WELFARE than ever before
• There are MORE PEOPLE ARE ON DISABILITY than ever before
• IT’S BEEN the SLOWEST ECONOMIC RECOVERY IN HISTORY
• MEDIAN INCOME IS DOWN
• The Federal Reserve is PRINTING MONEY with no end in sight
• THE WORKFORCE is at it’s lowest point in decades
• GAS PRICES are up
• FOOD PRICES are up
• THE WORLD IS IN TURMOIL
• We have LESS PERSONAL FREEDOM than ever before
• The OBAMA ADMINISTRATION is BLATANTLY IGNORING the Constitution
• Spending is OUT OF CONTROL
• The US debt has MORE THAN DOUBLED under Obama
• There has been SCANDAL after SCANDAL after SCANDAL after SCANDAL after SCANDAL afterSCANDAL
• The US government is VIOLATING THE 4TH AMENDMENT by spying on its own citizens

And the "Wealth Tax" begins....

There it is, right there in the second paragraph of this story.

It is this kind of ignorant journalism that allows the government to continue to chip away at our freedom and liberty. Can you spot it?

Obama budget to take aim at wealthy IRAs

By Bernie Becker - 04/05/13 11:45 AM ET

The Hill

President Obama’s budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts. 

The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.

The senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”

Under the plan, a taxpayer’s tax-preferred retirement account, like an IRA, could not finance more than $205,000 per year of retirement – or right around $3 million this year.

Romney, Obama’s 2012 opponent, had an IRA several to many times that amount, leading to questions about how the former Massachusetts governor was able to squirrel away so much money in that sort of retirement account.

In fact, the entire premise of the article is exactly 180 degrees from reality.  Look again at the second paragraph:

The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code..  

No.  Not save.  TAX!  Tax an additional $9,000,000,000.00!   And then they have the gall to mention fairness in the same sentence.  Let's talk fair:

• 39% of ALL taxes are paid by the top 1% of all earners.
• 86% of ALL taxes are paid by the top 25% of all earners
• 97% of ALL taxes are paid by the top 50% of all earners.

Think about that last one.  Only 3% of ALL taxes are paid by the bottom 50% of all earner....  This is "fair"?

But, wait.  It gets better: 

The senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”  

Really? So now "The senior administration official gets to decide that you or I may have "..substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.” Please show me in the U.S. Constitution where is says a government official has the right to decide what is reasonable and what is too much for me to save for my self?

You think this is only for the Mitt Romney type?  Remember this.  The original income tax only was 1%  up to $20,000 in 1913.  What are the rates now?

 

More Proof of Obama's Economic Ignorance...

You really can't make this stuff up....

Obama: Romney not necessarily qualifies to think about "economy as a whole"

CBS THIS MORNING

July 13, 2012 7:05 AM

Here is the quote that proves once and for all that Obama is the least qualified person to even discuss the economy, much less try to lead it:

"When some people question why I would challenge his Bain record, the point I've made there in the past is, if you're a head of a large private equity firm or hedge fund, your job is to make money. It's not to create jobs. It's not even to create a successful business - it's to make sure that you're maximizing returns for your investor. Now that's appropriate. That's part of the American way. That's part of the system. But that doesn't necessarily make you qualified to think about the economy as a whole, because as president, my job is to think about the workers. My job is to think about communities, where jobs have been outsourced.  [Emphasis added]

Yes, the President of the United States of America believes that:

1. A by-product of successful businesses is not jobs, but profit.
2. He doesn't need to think about creating a positive business climate, he needs to creates jobs.

Let's look at these statements:

 It's not to create jobs. It's not even to create a successful business - it's to make sure that you're maximizing returns for your investor. 


So your goal as a private equity firm is not to create a successful business?  While I agree, in principle, that a PE firm's main goal is to make a profit, I think BHO believes they make money by buying companies, closing them and selling their assets.  Certainly, Bain did not do this.  They bought companies and turned them around [or in some cases, funded start-ups] and eventually sold them for huge profits.  


BHO clearly does not understand that successful companies hire employees (or in his Marxist terminolgy "workers").  BHO has never run a business.  Aside from Valerie Jarrett, who parlayed her position as Commissioner of the Department of Planning and Development under the Daley administration into the CEO of The Habitat Company [to the tune of $800,000 per year) none of his close advisers have had a job in the private sector, much less had to turn a profit.  


... my job is to think about the workers.


Really?  I thought his job, at least as outlined in the constitution was to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  He doesn't seem to understand how his policies have business leaders frozen in their tracks.  It is his policies that are setting the foundation of this economy.  History will show that under BHO, the government intrusion into the affairs of business through the regulatory agencies (EPA, OSHA, DOT, EEOC, HHS, etc...), the implementation of the largest tax increase in the history of the world with the Obamatax, and his continued bashing of the free enterprise system is undermining the U.S. economy.  

The New Media Model

How does a Podunk like me get to interact with people so much smarter than myself?


Easy, you email them.

So last night I was watching Hannity interview Dick Morris.  As per usual, Morris ignored Hannity's final question and commandeered his last minute on the show to highlight something, he wrote about in his book, "Screwed".  He mentioned how Hillary Clinton is about to sign an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on July 27th, 2012 and how it will effect our 2nd amendment rights here in the U.S.  

I got a little spooked about my right to bear arms, so I Google 'Arms Trade Treaty' and I see that The Heritage Foundation has a released a background report called The  U.N. Arms Trade Treaty's Criteria for the Transfer Pose Problems for the U.S. the same day Dick Morris is talking about it.  So Dick's comments must have some validity, right?

I read the report and did not see any mention of the 2nd Amendment issues Dick Morris discussed.  So, I did what any curious citizen would do.  I emailed the author, Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D.  I mean, he is only a Senior Research Fellow in Anglo-American Relations with The Margret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a Heritage Department.

I sent the following (cryptic) message at 9:28 PM EDT, July 9, 2012:

Dr. Bromund, 

I saw Dick Morris state on Hannity tonight, July 9, 2012, that U.N. Arms Trade Treaty could be used as a “back door gun regulation”.  

I did not reach that conclusion when I read your report. 

Do you have an opinion?  Back door gun regulation or not?

I figured I would get the obligatory, "We have received your correspondence and will get back to you shortly" auto-response.  

Well, much to my surprise, at 9:37 AM EDT, July 10, 2012, I received the following:

Dear Mr. Xxxxxx, 

Thanks for your note. I'm answering from my personal account, as I'm at the UN ATT conference now and Blackberry is a tedious way to type a reply. 

I've addressed this question in a number of pieces: 

1. The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty’s Criteria for Transfers Pose Problems for the U.S.2. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/effects-of-the-un-arms-trade-treaty-on-the-us 

And will be writing a blog about it later today (if UN work allows). 

In short, I would say that my view is that the foreign policy reason for opposing the ATT are more salient than those related to the 2nd Amendment. But there are reasons to be concerned about the treaty's domestic impact. That is sometimes framed as a sort of 'black helicopter' issue, which is ridiculous. The much more realistic concern is 'death by a thousand cuts': that the ATT will require or facilitate administrative restrictions, or be used as a legal source by judges of a transnationalist bent, in ways that will restrict the effective use of 2nd Amendment rights, without being 'gun confiscation.'

I didn't see Dick Morris's appearance, but I hear [sic] about it.  In my view, exaggerated concern about the domestic effects of the ATT is self-defeating, in that it is too easily dismissed as silly, and because it detracts from the foreign policy issues.

 Best, Dr. Bromund

I have to say, I LOVE technology.  The internet is the great equalizer.  Just as the printing press contributed to to England's hold over the colonies, so will the internet free us from the political class.

Here I am writing to one of the foremost experts in International Security Studies from the comfort of my living room and I get an authoritative answer some 12 hrs later.  Amazing.

In addition, I would say you should go sign the petition on Dick Morris' website, as the ATT is a horrible deal for the U.S., but one would expect that when our current regime believes it is 'managing the decline of the U.S.", not building up the U.S. as has been our policy for most of the last 236 years.