Why Rand Paul is wrong (this time)...

I wrote the following in response to Rand Paul's article on Breitbart (both of whom I have great respect).

Here is a link to his article,  RAND PAUL: STOP WARPING REAGAN'S FOREIGN POLICY


Apples & Oranges.

Reagan was only able to meet with Mikal Gorbachev after 3 other Soviet leaders died and after Reagan had committed to massive rearmament of the US military.  In the '80's the only war was the cold war.  Reagan was able to institute diplomatic solutions because he was bargaining from a position of strength while the Soviets were reeling from the loss of 3 leaders in 3 years.  And, their economy was not propped up by oil & gas revenue from Western Europe at the time.

Today's situation is different.  It is the KGB vs Acorn.  Our president has managed to alienate some of our closest allies, in addition to those in the former Eastern Block countries like Poland, where he nixed the installation of missile defense systems in his attempted "reset" of east-west relations.  That, along with the recent purposed gutting of the US military budget has made his (our) hand weaker yet.  No president since Carter has looked so weak on the world stage.  [On side note - I believe Obama wants a decline in the US superpower status and he is purposefully using these events to perpetuate - if not accelerate - our decline.] 

Yet, if BHO did want to change the outcome for Crimea, it would be relatively simple (for most men of humility, of which Obama is not one).  He could talk to the remaining 6 members of the G8 and express how wrong he had been to trust the latest leader of the Axis of Evil and that they need to combine forces and oust Russia from the G8 - relocating the meeting to Geneva this summer instead of Sochi.  Then pivot (as he so likes to do) and begin building a case against them in the WTO, immediately bringing the remaining Eastern Block countries into NATO, publicly announcing the reconstituting of the US Military, deploying missile defenses to Poland, fast tracking the Keystone Pipeline (largely a figurative move, as exporting oil or even LNG to Europe would be cost prohibitive), sending in a CIA team to extricate Snowden out from under Putin's protection, and upping the rhetoric against Putin every chance he got.  Then he (we) could bargain for the freedom of Crimea from a position of strength.  Leave or continue to be an outsider in world affairs.

Of course, he'll do none of this.  He'll continue to draw the red line, from Crimea to east Ukraine, to western Ukraine to Poland if Putin sees fit to continue his re-assemblage of the Soviet Empire.  This will only embolden the former KGB operative to do as he sees fit throughout the world, leaving a mess for the next president.  

Those who say, "Who are we to tell them what country they can or cannot invade? We do the same thing" are making a HUGE mistake making some sort of moral equivalency between the US & Russia.  We invade, install democracy (or some semblance, thereof) and turn the countries back over to it's people.  Russia invades, sets up puppet government, "nationalizes" profits makes the rules class unbelievably rich and submits the people to lives of oppression, much like the Statist's here would like to do.  

Rand Paul would be one of the worst choices for president I could think of.  He is NOT the polar opposite of Obama, which is what will be required.  I respect Mr. Paul (and his father) on the domestic economy, but certainly not if foreign affairs.  There is nothing I would like more than for the next president, Scott Walker, to appoint Rand Paul to publicaly audit the Fed, oversee the re-privatization of healthcare insurance, student loans, FREDDIE & FANNIE MAE, etc... 

However, the United States IS the world's policeman, like it or not.  We are the only superpower who can ensure free trade all over the globe by our projection of naval superiority (for now).  Unless we maintain our vast military superiority and projection of power throughout the globe we will fall into the isolationist trap of early 20th century.

Head Scratcher....

Bankers suicides a coincidence....?

August 27, 2013: Pierre Wauthier, chief financial officer of Zurich Insurance Group AG (ZURN), probably committed suicide at his home, according to police.

January 28, 2014: Gabriel Magee, an American senior manager at JP Morgan, 39, fell from the 33-storey skyscraper at around 8am and was found on the ninth floor roof


January 26, 2014: The body of William ‘Bill’ Broeksmit A former Deutsche Bank executive, 58, was discovered at his home in South Kensington on Sunday shortly after midday by police, who had been called to reports of a man found hanging at a house

January 31, 2014: Russell Investment Chief Economist Dueker Found Dead

And: U.K.-based communications director at Swiss Re AG died (this person is apparently still unnamed, but referred to in a number of the stories above. 

Add to the above, also from January 27, 2014:  Karl Slym, India’s Tata Motors managing director, died after falling from a hotel room in Bangkok in what police said on Monday could be possible suicide.

Slym, 51, had attended a board meeting of Tata Motors’ Thailand unit in the Thai capital...

In other banking news:

Some banks not allowing some cash withdrawls:

Some HSBC customers have been prevented from withdrawing large amounts of cash because they could not provide evidence of why they wanted it, the BBC has learnt.

Saul Alinsky revisited....

So I saw this on FB today:

How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky:
There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.
1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people
2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)
6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools
8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This
will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
Anyone out there think that this stuff isn't happening today in the United States of America.? In case you hadn't noticed, all eight rules are currently in play Can we turn around the eight social state agendas that have been insidiously injected into our culture by Obama and his extreme socialist regime? Alinsky merely simplified Vladimir Lenin's original scheme for world conquesty communism, under Russian rule.
Stalin described his converts as "Useful Idiots." The Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control. It is presently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S. It may be too late to reverse the decline.

I did some research and while the above is all true, it is not attributable Saul Alinsky, nor can I find anyone to credit for it.  Having said that, it most certainly is a road map to a social state
.
As for Saul Alinksky, his most famous works is "Rules for Radicals".  Here are those rules.  As you read them, you can see how well the democrat party has adopted them.
See my notes in [Bold Brackets].

Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. [The GOP's perception of the MSM being in the Dems pocket has them all but frozen like a deer in the head lights.  The fact is, this regime's policies are now entrenched and the American public can feel it, regardless of how rosy the MSM paints the economy.  In this case, the GOP should be pounding away at the result of Obamanomics - all day, every day, every time they are in front of a camera or microphone, they need to be attributing what American's are experiencing to Obama's policies.]

The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.  [Bill Clinton's perjury about sex in the oval office vs say the treatment of Clarence Thomas]

The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage. [Romney's dog strapped to the roof of the car, anyone?]

The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.  [Planned Parenthood?]

The seventh rule: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings. [How many Obama "pivots" in strategy have been reported vs how many actual change in the regime's policy?]

The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose. [IRS and Eric Holder - 'nough said]

The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. [GOP's "war on women"]

The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.  [OFA - Obama for America morphing into OFA - Organizing for America]

The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.  

The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right — we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."  [The GOP does have alternatives, unfortunately the MSM - even FNC - will not report them.  We need someone to actively and repeatedly pound home the alternatives proposed by the GOP.]

The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  [The entire 2012 campaign for POTUS against Mitt Romney.  From the "Binder of women, the dog on the roof, the off shore investments, etc..."  Incidentally, if the GOP refuses to do this to Hillary Clinton beginning TODAY, they will lose 2016 regardless of the candidate.  HRC could be kept out of the race if she is vilified enough (and rightly, so) between now and 2015.]

On immigration...

As the GOP in the U.S. House of Representatives prepare to cave on immigration it's good to be informed. Here is the best presentation I've ever seen on immigration (try not to be distracted by the girl in the Green Bay Packers shirt in the audience):

So, you're a Republican and you still believe that immigrants, especially Hispanics, are largely conservative and will vote for the likes of Marco Rubio or Nikki Haley?

As if on cue, we are about to get a (another, actually) report that refutes this myth.  Read about it before the report comes out:

GOP CRAFTS PLAN TO WRECK THE COUNTRY, LOSE VOTERS

January 29, 2014

Here are some snippets:

According to a Harris poll, 81 percent of native-born citizens think the schools should teach students to be proud of being American. Only 50 percent of naturalized U.S. citizens do. 

While 67 percent of native-born Americans believe our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, only 37 percent of naturalized citizens agree. 

Pew also found that only 27 percent of Hispanics support gun rights, compared to 57 percent of non-Hispanic whites. According to Latino Decisions, large majorities of Hispanics favor a national database of gun owners, limiting the capacity of magazines and a ban on semiautomatic weapons. 

While 47 percent of self-described "liberal Democrats" hold a negative view of capitalism, 55 percent of Hispanics do.

So what does a co-founder of Greenpeace think about "Climate Change"?

Patrick Moore, co-founder Greenpeace, on Climate Change:



Source: http://ecosense.me/

Obamacare ad blitz debacle

I remember in the days leading up to the passage of Obamacare having discussions (rather heated discussions, actually) about the potential efficacy of the law.  I argued that it is a road to a single payer system.  I argued that there is no way the government could be more efficient at providing healthcare insurance than the private insurers.  One of their big arguments was that there wouldn't be a need for "all that overhead & profit" so a government solution would be simpler. 

I know, I know.  What can I say?  In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

So here we are.  It's been a few months since the roll out.  The worst of the website access issues have apparently been resolved (or maybe it's that people just don't care so much anymore).  Of course, there are still big "elephants in the room" regarding website issues, sitting there waiting to explode.  For instance, still not having a way to effectively communicate with the back room aspects of buying insurance (like actually processing payments) and of course the biggest issue that is on the horizon:  the fact that the website security is nearly non-existent and made even worst every time there is a patch or fix applied.  And since the website must be connected to other government agencies such as the IRS, HHS, etc. it could be used as a portal into those databases as well.  We shall see.  

But I digress.  One of these liberals largest arguments was about how the lack of  "overhead & profit" would make the system cheaper.  Namely, they pointed to the marketing costs.  Since it'll be mandated, everyone will be required to have it, so "wala" no marketing expense required, right?  Wrong.  

Even as early as last summer it was reported the budget for marketing Obamacare was going to be $684,000,000.   Some of this money was spent on amazing advertising like these, this, and this.  Ironically, since Obamacare has not yet nationalized the health insurers, they too are hopping on the band wagon.  These insurers are expected to kick in another $500,000,000 just in TV advertising alone.    

And now we have the 2014 Winter Olympics about to start and here comes another ad blitz with Magic Johnson and Alonzo Mourning.

So I have to ask, "Where is the efficiency of this new healthcare insurance scheme?"

Number's 4, 5, 8, 13 on display....

Funny how it all seems so clear now.  If you are a conservative and/or Republican and you're getting too popular (or in this case getting ahead of the Hillary in the polls) you must be "Alinsky'ed".

This CNN story has the all the elements on display:

Feds investigate Christie's use of Sandy relief funds

#13:  “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” -  Done

#8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” - These attacks on Christy will not stop until his poll numbers are in the dust.

#5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” - What's the first thing you think of when you think of Chris Christy?  Oh, yeah, he's fat.  Ridicule them like 1st graders....

#4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”  - Republicans are always, ALWAYS, held to a higher standard than Democrats, if for no other reason than they actually have standards.  In the Democrat party, what happened with the lane closures would have been heralded as resume enhancer, not something to be vilified.  

See this link for a full explanation of Saul Alinsky's, "Rules for Radical: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals"

 Remember, if you think that at least Hillary Clinton is not this radical, Hillary completed her thesis on this book...

92,000,000 Americans no longer in the workforce....

Ok,  let's think about this.  

Nearly 92,000,000 people in the U.S. are not in the workforce anymore:

Source: zerohedge.com

 Yet, these people are still eating, still have cell phones, flat screen TV's, internet, etc...   How?

 Source: Heritage.org

Just to be clear, we are in year 6 of the Obama regime.  

On January 9, 2014 Pres Obama announced "Promise Zones", described in the NYT, "where federal agencies will cut through red tape in an effort to give struggling residents a chance at better lives."

It seems like President Obama realizes there are better ways for the federal government to encourage economic growth and he wants to apply the new methods in these "promise zones".  This proves two things:

1. He knows his regimes current economic policies isn't working.
2. If he knows they aren't working and he is changing course in the "promise zones", then he is admitting he (at the very least) is OK with the failed results in the rest of the nation. otherwise he'd make changes to his economic policy across the board.

If the above is true, President Obama is choosing to hold back the entire U.S. economy, save for these 5 "promise zones".   In other words, he knows the right answer, he is choosing, I assume for ideological reasons, to continue on with his path of destruction, almost as if it is all part of his plan.  

Hmmm....  What if it is his plan to ruin the U.S. economy, forcing people to depend on government assistance for food, shelter, clothing, medical care, cell phones, higher education, home loans, etc....?  If that where his plan, he is wildly successful and should feel quite good about his accomplishments.  

D'oh!

Remember these famous words:

Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance. - Nancy Pelosi 

Or How about these famous words:

But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. - Nancy Pelosi

Ironically, those quotes from the San Fran Nan were never talked about in this story:

With Affordable Care Act, Canceled Policies for New York Professionals

By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS, NYT
December 13, 2013

Here's a few excerpts from the story (along with my running commentary):

Many in New York’s professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama’s health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, if they can find it. [Oh, pshaw, the poor darlings.  What was it San Fran Nan said.  Oh yeah, "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance."]

The people affected include not just writers, artists, doctors and the like, but also independent tradespeople, like home builders or carpenters, who work on their own.  [99% of whom have never voted for anyone but a Democrat - EVER.]

But while those policies, by and large, had been canceled because they did not meet the law’s requirements for minimum coverage, many of the New York policies being canceled meet and often exceed the standards, brokers say. The rationale for disqualifying those policies, said Larry Levitt, a health policy expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, was to prevent associations from selling insurance to healthy members who are needed to keep the new health exchanges financially viable.  [Yes, the healthy cannot possibly have such good insurance.  It would be unfair, unequal.  We must all share in the misery.]

Among those affected are members of the Authors Guild; the Advertising Photographers of America; the Suzuki Association of the Americas, a music teachers organization; theSociety of Children’s Book Writers and Illustrators; the New York City Bar Association; and the New York County Medical Society. (One group, the Freelancers Union, negotiated a one-year exemption with the state.)  [Oh, to be in a union....]

But the pull quote of the entire article has to be this line.  I mean really, if this doesn't sum up the idiocity of the liberal mindset:

“One of the reasons to join a society is to get health insurance,” said Dr. Paul N. Orloff, president of the New York County Medical Society. Even doctors pay a lot for coverage, he said, because the days of trading medical care with colleagues are long gone. “In the old days, professional courtesy was the norm,” Dr. Orloff said.  [Yes, he really said that.  Who knew health insurance was such an integral part of our society?  Given that health insurance was largely an invention created during & after WWII to attract workers to companies, it makes one wonder how we got along for the first 160 years.]

And then there is this sad truth:

It is not lost on many of the professionals that they are exactly the sort of people — liberal, concerned with social justice — who supported the Obama health plan in the first place. Ms. Meinwald, the lawyer, said she was a lifelong Democrat who still supported better health care for all, but had she known what was in store for her, she would have voted for Mitt Romney. [If only she hadn't been lied to for 4 years by the same paper that wrote this story, she might have known what she was in for....  I'll be she re-ups her subscription though.  I also bet she voted for De Blasio.  If she doesn't like Obamacare, just wait & see what her mayor has in store for her.  People like her will never, let me say it again: NEVER, vote for a Republican, or at least admit it, lest they not get invited to the right cocktail parties...]

The Death Knell for Keystone...

This week Obama hired John Podesta as "Counselor to the President", ensuring the Keystone Pipeline never gets approval.

Why hire Podesta?  Aside from being the consummate Washington D.C. insider (former Clinton Chief of Staff, Lobbyist, co-founder of the both The Podesta Group and the Center for American Progress) he was added to the White House Staff and will have a "broad portfolio touching on the economy and congressional relations" according to the NY Times.

But, Podesta is a flaming liberal environmentalist who actually still believes in the global warming hoax and is now empowered to influence official Obama regime policy regarding all things environmental.  The official line is that Podesta has "officially recused" himself from anything regarding the Keystone pipeline.   More "transparency" from this regime...

A little about the benefits of the $5.3 billion Keystone XL pipeline:

• 9,000 skilled (re:high paying) American workeres will be required to build it.
• 7,000 U.S manufacturing jobs will be supported for the production of steel pipe, valves and pumps
• TransCanada (pipeline owner/manager) already has 50 U.S. suppliers in 18 U.S. states.
• TransCanada currently employs 4,000 U.S. employees in OK & TX building a $2.3 billion Gulf Coast Pipeline Project
• These pipelines will combine for $5 billion in property taxes alone
• The Keystone XL will add $172 billion to the U.S. GDP by 2035 and will create 1.8 million person-years employment in the US over the next 22 years
• Keystone XL will reduce the amount of oil the U.S. needs to import from places like the Middle East and Venezuela who, in case you haven;t noticed, aren't exactly our best friends

So what's so bad about the Keystone XL Pipeline?

According to guys like Podesta it'll only further entrench U.S. "dependency" on oil.  Really?  I wonder if knows of any electric powered 777's or even MD80's?  How about electric powered 18 wheeler's or container ships?  I'm just sayin'.  Come on john, I appreciate your desire to lessen our dependency on oil, though I want to more specifically lessen out dependency on Middle East and Venezuelan oil, rather than on oil in general, but really, do you have it's replacement?  I didn't think so. 

Back to the "transparency of the Obama regime.  I do need to point out, John Podesta already sits on the Foreign Affairs Policy Board and the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board both of which are VERY involved in the Keystone XL pipeline approval process.

So whats the big deal you say?  Well, let me introduce you to a board member of Podesta's Center for American Progress, Tom Steyer.  Aside from initially making a fortune trading in oil and oil companies in his hedge funds he and Podest authored an opinion piece in the WSJ: "We Don't Need More Foreign Oil & Gas".  Oh, and did I mention Mr. Steyer is also a major investor in a competing pipeline by Kinder Morgan. 

Mr. Steyer is also a large, no HUGE, democrat donor (through PACs).

This is all VERY complex and the best  exposé on all this is on the Free Beacon.

It'd actually be funny if it weren't so accurate....

Mark Stein coins a new phrase...

We've all heard of the "Low-Information Voter" (ala Rush Limbaugh - Thanks, Rush), but I do believe Makr Stein just coined a new term: "Low Information Congresswomen" when pointing out just how uninformed his congress woman Representative Ann Kuster (Dem NH 2nd District).  Just watch her be totally baffled by Benghazi at a town hall, ultimately saying she was there to discuss the Middle East, not Benghazi.  Somebody buy her a globe, please!




Mark Stein is rightly disturbed by the typical empty suit poly-tic-ian look to her aide near the end of the clip as if to say, "How did you let me get this question, especially knowing I'm clueless?"

Obama's America, just as predicted...

This is a pretty concise summation (7:53) of the Obama regime thus far.

(Follow the link here.)

"2016" Update from Dinesh D'Souza on Vimeo.

Obama Wants to Appease Iran...

...., really?  Really.

10 years of nuclear weapons program extended indefinitely.  

See Elliot Abrams:

Why Liberals Should Never be Allowed to Govern: Reason #113

Only a complete buffoon (or in this case, former Vietnam vet, and current Secretary of State, John "Effing" Kerry) could create foreign policy agreement, in this case the nuclear arms deal with Iran, that would anger BOTH Saudi Arabia AND Israel.  Seriously, when was the last time those two countries were on the same side.  OK, I know the Iraq war.  But still, this is so completely asinine that even Canada wants no part of it.

All you need to know about John "Effing" Kerry:



So now you can see why our highest diplomat is the same man who pissed of Saudi Arabia one side:

From the UK Telegraph:


Iran nuclear deal: Saudi Arabia warns it will strike out on its own
Saudi Arabia claims they were kept in the dark by Western allies over Iran nuclear deal and says it will strike out on its own

By Damien McElroy
11:41AM GMT 25 Nov 2013

"We were lied to, things were hidden from us," [senior advisor to the Saudi royal family, Nawaf Obaid] said. "The problem is not with the deal struck in Geneva but how it was done."

AND piss off  Israel:

Israel calls Iran nuclear deal a 'historic mistake'
Michele Chabin, Special for USA TODAY

12 p.m. EST November 24, 2013

"What was reached last night in Geneva is not a historic agreement, it is a historic mistake," [Prime Minister Benjamin ]Netanyahu said.

Even Canada thinks the agreement is suspect:

Canada "deeply skeptical" of Iran nuclear deal

By ROB GILLIES / Associated Press 

November 24, 2013

Foreign Minister John Baird said in Ottawa on Sunday that past actions predict future actions and ‘‘Iran has not earned the right to have the benefit of the doubt. ‘‘

So, of course our man-child POTUS defended the policy:

Obama praises deal to limit Iran's nuclear activities, while Israeli Cabinet minister slams 'Iranian deception'

President Obama said the deal struck Saturday 'cut off Iran's most likely path to a bomb.' On the heels of his speech, it was reported that the U.S. and Iran engaged in secret high-level meetings over the past year.

BY RICH SCHAPIRO / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
PUBLISHED: SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2013, 9:57 PM
UPDATED: SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2013, 2:10 AM

“These are substantial limitations which will help prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon,” Obama said. “Simply put, they cut off Iran’s most likely path to a bomb.”.

"So what is Iran's response to the matter", you ask?

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claims victory for nuclear program

Reza Kahlili
Daily Caller
10:58 PM 11/24/2013

Fars News Agency, the media outlet of the Revolutionary Guards, reported that [Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei in a statement thanked President Hassan Rouhani and his negotiating team for their achievement in Geneva.

“I thank God that… the new government… was able to legitimize the Iranian nation’s nuclear program on the international stage and take the initial step in a way that the nuclear rights and the enrichment rights of the Iranian nation are acknowledged by world powers where before they had tried to deny them, and (the agreement will) open the way for future big strides in technical and economic progress,” Khamenei said.

So there we go.  A deal where there are no winners, only losers, proving once again the pointy-headed liberal academic types rule the day, where the west loses and the "axis of evil" wins.     

Most transparent administration?

Reagan on Carson March 13, 1975

There are a lot of people who are fond of saying that Reagan wouldn't be allowed into the Republican Party today because he wasn't conservative enough.  Really?  Listen Reagan then watch Ted Cruz on Leno and you tell me.  Does Ronaldus Magnus sound more like the wishy-washy, bi-partisian, moderate John McCain or Tea Party celeb Ted Cruz?



And now for Ted Cruz on Leno:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Obama's Chicago Style Politics Know No Bounds

This is truly scary Chicago Style politics (formerly known as fascist or gestapo style) and it's happening right there in flyover country.

From the WSJ:

Wisconsin Political Speech Raid
Subpoenas hit allies of Scott Walker as his re-election campaign looms.
Updated Nov. 15, 2013 6:53 p.m. ET

Americans learned in the IRS political targeting scandal that government enforcement power can be used to stifle political speech. Something similar may be unfolding in Wisconsin, where a special prosecutor is targeting conservative groups that participated in the battle over Governor Scott Walker's union reforms.

In recent weeks, special prosecutor Francis Schmitz has hit dozens of conservative groups with subpoenas demanding documents related to the 2011 and 2012 campaigns to recall Governor Walker and state legislative leaders.

Copies of two subpoenas we've seen demand "all memoranda, email . . . correspondence, and communications" both internally and between the subpoena target and some 29 conservative groups, including Wisconsin and national nonprofits, political vendors and party committees. The groups include the League of American Voters, Wisconsin Family Action, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Americans for Prosperity—Wisconsin, American Crossroads, the Republican Governors Association, Friends of Scott Walker and the Republican Party of Wisconsin.

One subpoena also demands "all records of income received, including fundraising information and the identity of persons contributing to the corporation." In other words, tell us who your donors are.

***

The probe began in the office of Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf, though no one will publicly claim credit for appointing Mr. Schmitz, the special prosecutor. The investigation is taking place under Wisconsin's John Doe law, which bars a subpoena's targets from disclosing its contents to anyone but his attorneys. John Doe probes work much like a grand jury, allowing prosecutors to issue subpoenas and conduct searches, while the gag orders leave the targets facing the resources of the state with no way to publicly defend themselves.

That makes it hard to confirm any details. But one target who did confirm receiving a subpoena is Eric O'Keefe, who realizes the personal risk but wants the public to know what is going on. Mr. O'Keefe is director of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, which advocates lower taxes, limited government and other conservative priorities. He has worked in political and policy circles for three decades, including stints as national director of the Libertarian Party in 1980 and a director of the Cato Institute, and he helped to found the Center for Competitive Politics, which focuses on protecting political speech.

Mr. O'Keefe says he received his subpoena in early October. He adds that at least three of the targets had their homes raided at dawn, with law-enforcement officers turning over belongings to seize computers and files.

Mr. O'Keefe and other sources say they don't know the genesis of the probe, and Mr. Schmitz declined comment. The first public reference appeared in an October 21 blog post by Daniel Bice of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Mr. Bice is well known for his Democratic sources.
The kitchen-sink subpoenas deserve skepticism considering their subject and targets. The disclosure of conservative political donors has become a preoccupation of the political left across the country. In the heat of the fight over Governor Walker's reforms, unions urged boycotts of Walker contributors and DemocraticUnderground.com published a list of Walker donors for boycotting.

The subpoena demand for the names of donors to nonprofit groups that aren't legally required to disclose them is especially troubling. Readers may recall that the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent the tax-exempt applications of several conservative groups to the ProPublica news website in 2012.

The subpoenas don't spell out a specific allegation, but the demands suggest the government may be pursuing a theory of illegal campaign coordination by independent groups during the recall elections. If prosecutors are pursuing a theory that independent conservative groups coordinated with candidate campaigns during the recall, their goal may be to transform the independent expenditures into candidate committees after the fact, requiring revision of campaign-finance disclosures and possible criminal charges.

***

Another reason for skepticism is the probe's timing as Mr. Walker's 2014 re-election campaign looms. This is the second such investigation against Mr. Walker in three and a half years, following one that began in the office of Milwaukee County Democratic District Attorney John Chisholm in spring 2010.

That probe examined whether staffers used government offices for political purposes while Mr. Walker was Milwaukee County Executive, but after three years turned up nothing on Mr. Walker and embarrassingly little else. The final charges included a case of an aide sending campaign emails on county time, two Walker aides stealing money, and charges of child enticement against the domestic partner of a former staffer.

Mr. Walker's Democratic recall opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, nonetheless used the probe against the Governor, saying in a debate that "I have a police department that arrests felons, he has a practice of hiring them." So it's notable that the new batch of subpoenas began flying just days before Democrat Mary Burke announced her candidacy for Governor. District Attorneys are partisan elected officials in Wisconsin, and Mr. Landgraf works for Mr. Chisholm. Neither of them returned our call for comment.

The investigation's focus on campaign-finance law also falls into the wheelhouse of the Government Accountability Board, Wisconsin's political speech regulator. The GAB, which is made up of retired judges appointed by the Governor, has a history of pushing aggressive regulations of issue advertising. Mr. O'Keefe's Wisconsin Club for Growth has fought in court with the GAB over regulating political speech.

A person who has seen one of the Wisconsin search warrants tells us that the warrants were executed based on the request of Dean Nickel, who filed an affidavit for probable cause. Mr. Nickel is a former head of the Wisconsin Department of Justice Public Integrity Unit and has worked as an investigator for the GAB. Mr. Nickel told us he is a contractor for the GAB but wouldn't discuss the John Doe probe. GAB Director and General Counsel Kevin Kennedy declined to comment.

***

Perhaps the probe will turn up some nefarious activity that warrants this subpoena monsoon and home raids. But in the meantime the effect is to limit political speech by intimidating these groups from participating in the 2014 campaign. Stifling allies of Mr. Walker would be an enormous in-kind contribution to Democrats. Even if no charges are filed, the subpoenas will have served as a form of speech suppression.

Mr. O'Keefe told us that the flurry of subpoenas "froze my communications and frightened many allies and vendors of the pro-taxpayer political movement in Wisconsin and across the country." Even if no one is ever convicted of a crime, he says, "the process is the punishment."

[Note: all external links created by me.]

Again, this is frightening stuff.  Truly frightening.  This quote from Watchdog.org's M.D. Kittle published October 28, 2013, in his article:  Sources: Secret probe targeting conservatives is abuse of prosecutorial powers defines it quite succinctly:

“This is a taxpayer-funded, opposition-research campaign,” one source said. “This is not a question of what conservatives did wrong. It’s a question of one party in this state using prosecutorial powers to conduct a one-sided investigation into conservatives.”  

Of course, the Daily Koz loves this stuff:  

Wisconsin Friday News Dump. Oh. My. National RW funders are John Doe Targets?

By Mike Kahlow

By the way, it should come as no surprise that the author Mike Kahlow is a taxpayer funded college prof, who is no doubt filling the young skulls full mush at the once proud institution of higher learning UW-River Falls (aka: Moo U).

Income Gaps Widens. Further Proof Obama's "Transformation of America" is Right on Schedule....

From the article in the Washington Post:

In many states, the recovery is making the income gap worse

• BY NIRAJ CHOKSHI 

• November 18 at 6:00 am

The income gap in America has been widening for decades and the modest three-year recovery did little to change that, according to new Census data.

The new data suggest that despite modest recoveries in many states, the middle class has been shrinking while households have been added in the lowest and highest income brackets. In many states and nationally, the highest income brackets saw more growth than the lowest, but households in the middle brackets continued to decline. The state-by-state data compare incomes from a pair of three-year periods: 2007 through 2009, a span that included the Great Recession, and 2010 through 2012, a period that included the ongoing and modest recovery.

For years, the wealthiest 1 percent have amassed income more quickly than the rest. From 1979 through 2007, for example, the top 1 percent of households saw income grow by 275 percent, according to a nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office study. Compare that to the bottom fifth of households, which saw income gains of only 18 percent over that time. Recent Nobel Prize winner for economics Robert Shiller, who is known for creating a closely tracked home-price index, last month called income inequality “the most important problem that we are facing now today.” And just last week, President Obama’s nominee to lead the Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen, called income inequality “an extremely difficult and to my mind very worrisome problem.”

Though rare, the recovery was strong and reduced inequality in some states, such as North Dakota, where an oil boom has provided a sustained economic boost. There, the number of households in the lowest half of income brackets shrank, while more joined the highest income brackets, a trend that suggests broad upward mobility. But in most states—and nationally—the data show the income gap worsening. In Michigan, for example, more than 65,000 households fell out of the middle-income brackets. That loss was counterbalanced by the addition of some 38,000 households, but only at the lowest and highest income levels.

That was true in many states: The number of middle-income households shrank while the number of low- and upper-income households grew. In many states, more upper-income households were added than lower-income ones—a positive economic sign not entirely unexpected during a recovery from such a severe downturn—but the middle class still shrank.
But even despite the recovery, that wasn’t always the case. In California, where the total number of households grew between the two periods, more than 70,000 dropped out of two middle-income brackets. That loss was more than offset, but only by growth at the extremes. And more households joined the bottom three income levels than had joined the top three, according to the Census data.

The interactive graphic below shows that, between the two three-year periods, a shrinking middle class in many states was offset by growth but only in the upper and lower income extremes.

There is great interactive graphic that accompanies the  story.  You can see graphically by state or in total the number + or - of each income category.

Of course, the reason I posted is because it completely supports my previous post in which I claim that the current POTUS, Barack Hussein Obama, wants to create a utopia, just like Detroit.  Only someone who believes in redistribution of wealth can aspire to such evil.  

Barack Hussein Obama: Transforming America Using Chicago Style Political Methods and Detroit as a Template

Yes, I am saying it.  There two very good books  describing what led to the demise of a once great city.  

Devil's Night: And Other True Tales of Detroit  by Ze've Chafets

and the newer book building on the theme outlined by Ze'ev Chafets: 

What Doomed Detroit by Kevin D. Williamson

In a recent review of Williamson's book by David Issac of the Washington Free Beacon, he describes the racial politics, early by white democrats against blacks, and in more modern times, black democrats against whites.  

Williamson writes about the more recent democrat racism: 

“Detroit is a city in which black identity politics has trumped, and continues to trump, every other consideration, from basic finances to public safety.”

and: 

“It is an irony of our history that the political home of black racism in American politics is also the historical political home of white racism: the Democratic Party...”

Issac describes a scene from a Detroit City Council meeting in the book:

During a 2009 debate on expanding a city convention center the assembled crowd told whites who were present to “go home.” Monica Conyers, then-council president and wife of Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.), told a white union representative: “Those workers look like you—they don’t look like me.” Monica Conyers would later be convicted of bribery charges related to Detroit’s pension funds.

So how is this a template?  Well, beginning in the 1974 (and lasting 20 years, until 1994) Detroit came under the rule of an authoritarian Coleman Young.  Coleman young, as you can read about on your own, was an avowed communist and black nationalist.  He used the race card wherever it suited him, from lowering the expectations of his actual accomplishments with his constituency to playing the race card with anyone who opposed him.  And throughout is all, he lined his pockets.  

Sound familiar?  This is Obama's template for his own regime.  And when the race card doesn't work Obama pulls out all the stops to eradicate opposition.  Starting with his early races Obama knew he could no compete in the area of ideas, especially if he told the truth.  This is why he had to eliminate the opposition, not beat the competition.  In Obama's first election he simply used a procedural challenge to eliminate the incumbent opponent.  You can read all about Obama's early elections here.

Still don't believe me?  What about the Presidential Executive Orders ?  Even worse is the still unraveling scandal in Obama's IRS.  Seriously, if this doesn't scare the hell out of you, you have no clue who & what the federal government, especially a Justice Department headed by the Chief Law Officer of the U.S., U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder  is capable of...

The list of Obama's scandals, mis-deed's and blunders are of epic proportions, but even scarier is that in addition to all the rest of the internal scandals, Obama is gutting the military of generals opposed to the Commander in Chief's  leaving the U.S. military, "unprepared to deploy".  All this while allowing Russia to build spy stations (disguised as GPS tracking stations) ON U.S. SOIL!

What next?