Clinton/Obama Foreign Policy Failures in Review, Part 2, Russian Reset

Ok, chronologically, this probably should have come before the Honduran coup, but in reality the effects of this simple, yet relevant, mistake would become symbolic of Hillary Clinton's role in implementing Barack Hussein Obama's failed foreign policy far into the future.

The Russian reset fiasco is often referred to in the MSM as a funny mistake by Hillary Clinton that was easily and quickly smoothed over by her sense of humor. I can assure it was no joke and that set the tone for how Russia, Putin in particular, would perceive the Clinton/Obama reign of failure as it pertains to Russia.

Here is the now famous clip from the seemingly innocuous event:



Cringe worthy, is it not? Imagine the wrath she invoked behind the scenes after this funny little faux pas. Ok, beyond imagining Hillary throwing a lamp or book at the poor bureaucrat translator who screwed this up, what do you think Russia walked away from this little event thinking?

Well, apparently Russian media poked fun at Hillary Clinton's "mistake" with Russian newspaper Kommersant declaring on its front page: "Sergei Lavrov and Hillary Clinton push the wrong button."

Though it concerns me that the U.S. State Department apparently did not employ a competent Russian translator, to me it paints a much larger picture of incompetence. I'll admit, Condoleezza Rice set the bar pretty high, given her expertise in Russian affairs and fluency in the Russian language, but screwing up on this big of a stage on your very first meeting goes beyond just mere embarrassment.   It reveals a level of incompetence to the Russians that stoked confidence in their belief that Barack Hussein Obama was a light-weight empty suit and would he and Hillary Clinton would be easily manipulated.

They would go on to prove this over the next 4 years in conflict after conflict. I would argue it will continue will under John Kerry's (who served in Vietnam) term through the 2017 inauguration.  When I get to Kerry/Obama's failures I'll make the case the the foreign policy will take a definite turn for the worse from incompetent-but-aloof bad to down-right-dangerous bad.  But, that's for another day.

Again, this was not only an early indicator of the Clinton/Obama foreign policy failures to come, but acted as a glaring example to the Russian leaders that they were going to be dealing with complete incompetence for the foreseeable future.  We see the result of this simple act of incompetence embolden Putin as he tacks his foreign policy into direct conflict with U.S. interests time and time again.  

The Clinton/Obama Foreign Policy Failures In Review, Part 1: Honduras

Let's start at the beginning, shall we?

Early in the Clinton/Obama reign there was an coup in Honduras. Most citizens in the U.S. either never heard about it or ignored it. However, it was an early indicator of how the Clinton/Obama regime was going to transform the U.S.A.'s foreign policy. How so? Well, in brief here's what happened:

The legally elected president of Honduras Manuel Zelaya decided he wanted to rewrite Honduras' Constitution and was going to add a non-binding referendum to permit it in an upcoming election in 2009, in order to allow him to run for additional terms. The Honduras supreme court said that was unconstitutional and ordered him to stop. He did not. They ordered the Zelaya to be arrested and exiled to Costa Rica. He was on June 28, 2009.

In what would become a pattern, the Clinton/Obama regime seemed to be blind sided by the whole affair. They hesitated. The hesitation was interpreted as implicit support for the coup. In fact, as time worn on the Clinton/Obama regime recognized the newly formed government and have continued to send money to them for support of their military. The same military that executed the coup.

This is obviously a very simplified version of what occurred, there are a lot of detail and nuances many would like to add to the story, however these are the facts and remain so today. Despite calls by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives for a change in the policy, pointing out the many human rights violations since the coup (not to mention the coup, itself) the Clinton/Obama regime policy has been that the coup was legitimate. This, despite statements by the Clinton/Obama regime in the weeks/months following the coup making half-hearted attempts to support reinstating Zelaya. The facts are that no aid was cut off except some as required by law pertaining to support for democracy. No diplomatic ties have been severed as a result. Nothing has changed other than the names and faces of the Honduras leaders. Oh, and the uptick in violent and bloody human rights violations.  This too will become a pattern in the Clinton/Obama regime's foreign policy (or lack thereof).

Admittedly, few in the U.S. media made a big deal out of this and fewer still came down on the Clinton/Obama regime for their lack of..., what really? Lack of interest? Lack of disdain for military coups in their own hemisphere? Lack of support for rule of law? Seriously, in spite of all the other foreign policy debacles that have transpired in the interim, is it any surprise to learn that the Clinton/Obama regime had no interest in such trivial events in such a trivial country? Can't you here Hillary saying in some briefing, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Well, it does make a difference.  Fast forward to the spring of 2014.  Do you remember the big story at the time?  The one exposing the influx of illegal child immigrants from "Northern Central America"?  Hmmm....  Do you suppose it's a coincidence?  This from no less than the Council on Foreign relations on November 30, 2014: 

"Three-quarters of unaccompanied minors are from the Central American Northern Triangle—Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala; as recently as 2009, 82 percent of apprehended minors came from Mexico. Among the Central Americans, Hondurans represent the largest group, making up 28.6 percent of the total." [Emphasis added]

  The report goes on to explain why this might be happening:

"Honduras' institutions are particularly troubled, in part as a result of the country's 2009 military coup. Large swathes of the country fall out of the rule of law, making it—and its neighbors—prime terrority [sic] for drug trafficking. "

I should take a moment to point out a statement also included in this report regarding the illegal immigration.  I'll come back to the entire subject at a later point, but I found the comment so profound I really had to take a moment to point it out.  So, apparently Obama met with leaders of these Central American countries to talk about stemming the tide of these illegal child immigrants.  This is how these presidents responded:

"The Central American presidents said that the United States bore some responsibility for the crisis, due to its market for illicit substances that pass through the region, and its "ambiguity" on immigration reform." [Emphasis added]

I know, fascinating, right?  The U.S. is perceived to  be ambiguous regarding immigration reform.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand, U.S. foreign policy.  So in the early months of the Clinton/Obama regime, the first of many foreign policy failures to come gets scant attention by the U.S. Main Stream Media  (from now on referred to as MSM).

Here and here are some of the articles used to write this piece.  You'll note that much of the coverage is from foreign media.  Shocking, I know.

Even SNL sees the hypocrisy of Obama's "Executive Memos"....

Again, on Valerie Jarrett...

Amazing.  Yet more Valerie Jarrett news...

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.

Election 2014 Post Mortem for the GOP

I do not want to bask in the wave election wins for the GOP for too long.  Instead, I want to focus on some of the take-aways from this election:

1. I'm begging the GOP: Please do not believe the results of this election mean that everyone loves the GOP.  As Republicans you must understand that the media in all it's forms: news outlets, TV shows, movies, and music are all still mocking you and as such will require diligence to keep from it getting out of control if you try something stupid (e.g: impeaching the first black president). 
2. The American voter is far more sophisticated than the Republican [or Democrat, for that matter] consultants would have you believe.  It is not simply about telling people what they want to hear, but telling them the things they must come to grips with:
• Onerous government intrusion into your life cannot not make things better
• Government cannot and should not promise to supply all of your needs
•  We, out here in the hinterland, understand our country needs to do a 180 and we are desperately seeking REAL STRONG LEADERSHIP.  
3. Both Tea Party Conservatives AND establishment candidates CAN win.  

Now for the hard part:  Actually governing.  This is where the rubber hits the road.  Obama is not likely to bend on many issues (likely none).  So, you must be prepared to make not only symbolic votes, but also realistic votes to advance the ball.  For example:

1. Keystone pipeline.  Obama is not likely to veto the requirement allowing the Keystone pipeline to begin construction.  He and the Dems have been sitting on this in order to get money from Tom Steyer.  Tom Steyer is out $74 million in this election cycle and he will have received very little from his investment.  Make it about Steyer not Obama.  Obama is such a narcissist that if you try to pin the lack of movement on him, he may continue to sit on it pretending he is still waiting for some agency to clear the project.   
2. Grant Obama Trade Promotion Authority.  Everyone is for it, so what do you have to lose?
3. Repatriate foreign profits of U.S. companies.  Again, allowing U.S. corporations to bring profits back to the U.S. with little or no tax consequences puts that money to work  here.  Better here than overseas.
4. Immigration.  DO NOT PASS "COMPREHENSIVE" IMMIGRATION REFORM.  Give it to the president in bite size pieces.  Force him to go on the record about specific immigration issues.
• Border security.  Provide the border with more resources to secure the border immediately.  Build fences where practical, use technology (ground sensors, drones, thermal imagining, etc..) where fences won't work and provide enough manpower to get those illegals who still try to get across deported back to Mexico fast.
• Streamline the visa processing procedures to make it easier to get here for specific groups of workers: those with high-tech skills, doctors, and other professionals; manual laborers who already have an employer willing to sponsor them in the U.S.
• Round up the children for central America who came here illegally in 2014 and get them reunited with their parents in their home country.  Pronto.
• Require English competency for citizenship.
• Change the anchor baby law.  If you are born to illegal immigrants, you are an illegal immigrant.
• Once all of these are in place being enforced (this depends on who BHO appoints to AG) THEN you can begin a conversation on how to get those who are already here illegally out of the shadows, get them documented, get them paying taxes, deport the violent criminals, the rest will be issued a green-card, but would NOT be allowed to vote.  Only those who came here legally and the children of those who came here illegally would [eventually] be allowed to vote.
5. Oversight.  Establish invasive oversight of the IRS, EPA, OSHA, NSA and every other alphabet soup agency as required by law.  Find out what went on at the IRS, Justice (fast & Furious), State (Benghazi), etc...  Do it fast and publicly.  Prosecute where necessary.  
6. Obamacare.  Begin by repealing the entire bill let BHO veto.  Then start sending him fixes. He'd veto some, sign some, but he'd own it ALL and so would the next democrat candidate. 
• Repeal the tax on medical devises
• Repeal the 30 hour work week requirement
• Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines
• Eliminate the so-called federal "exchange"
• Raise the threshold for subsidies
• Tort reform - institute loser pays.
7. Repeal Dodd-Frank.  'nuff said.
8. Make it illegal for government agencies to confiscate assets without due process.  Make repayment of 3x the amount confiscated (plus legal fees) if agencies are found to have wrongly confiscated assets
9. Eliminate all foreign aid to countries that are antagonistic to American interests.

This could all be done (aside from the on-going oversight) within the first 100 days or so.  This would be a HUGE embarrassment to Harry Reid and the Democrat Party.  If the GOP could get all this done in 100 or so days it would be a complete repudiation of the last 6 years of Harry Reid's Senate leadership.  They need to pick things BHO will sign quickly to create action in order to give the American electorate reason to vote for the GOP in the next election cycle.  The Obamacare items would take longer and be more advantageous for the GOP to be drawn out over time, well into the next election cycle in 2015.

Speaking of the 2016 election cycle, the GOP MUST do the following:

1. Expand it's outreach into disaffected minority  neighborhoods.  Plenty of blacks are feeling taken advantage of by the Democrat Party and when conservative values are explained in an articulate manner they tick nearly every box that African-Americans vote on:
• Economic recovery - not welfare.  Jobs, jobs, jobs.   I like Rand Paul's Economic Freedom Zones.
• School choice.  Most parents that are paying attention want the child to have opportunities they did not have, including a better education.   Public school teacher's unions must be beat back in favor of the student and the taxpayer.  
• Patriotism.  I believe every person who is a legal U.S. citizen is (or should be) proud of the U.S.  The USA was the first country in the history of the world founded by and for its citizens.  Was slavery legal?  Yes.  Was it horrible?  Yes.  Did we correct that disgrace? Yes (and 600,000 people died in the process).  Did we continue to discriminate based on the color of a person's skin?  Yes.  Did we correct that disgrace?  I believe we have.  A long time ago now.  I doubt many middle to upper class black kids have ever been discriminated against.  I'll admit they probably have been called bad names as a child, what child hasn't (I could tell you stories of what my name rhymes with)?  We need to move on.  We are not hyphened Americans.  We are Americans.  We need to come together to solve our problems.
• Violence in the inner city.  Many inner cities are largely made up of minority populations.  Black on black crime takes a huge toll on.
• Use the minorities we currently have elected to build on this momentum!  These people are craving leadership even more than the general population at large and being able to send elected-Republican minorities into those communities to explain our conservative values would give the GOP huge credibility.  We simply have to make sure the face of the GOP is not always a crust old white guy (a la Pat Roberts-Kansas) and is more like Mia Love-Utah, Tim Scott-SC, Nikki Haley-SC, Bobby Jindal-LA, Susana Martinez-NM, etc..)  
2. De-emphasize social issues.  I am not saying to give up our stands on abortion, gay marriage, and legalization of pot, but they are simply not the biggest issues facing the country.  Both are legal and I would expect them to stay that way for some time.  Technology is lowering people's support of abortion and I suspect over time people will come to understand the long-term consequences of both same-sex marriage and recreational pot use.
3. The GOP must begin to reach out to our allies around the world and let them know that the last 6 years (and next 2) are an aberration.  They must understand that the U.S. will stand beside our allies in Eastern Europe: Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Czech Republic, etc... We will stand with you against Russian aggression.  If that means installing missile bases in those countries and selling them tanks & planes, them that's what we should do.  The same goes for our ally in the Middle East - namely, Israel.  The rest (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, etc.. are faux allies and should be treated as such.
4. Find a handful of articulate conservatives to be the new face of the GOP.  Cruz, Robio, Paul, Love, Jindal, Walker, Kasich, Haley, etc.. Get them to go into the inner cities and make sure they articulate the conservative message at least monthly where it doesn't normally get heard.  At some point the GOP HAS to make inroads into these communities.  they will not convince everyone, but they only need to convince enough or even begin to plant the seed of doubt into the minds of people who have never even heard the GOP message.  This HAS to be done and it has to be done THIS election cycle in order to hold the house, the senate AND gain the presidency in 2016.  

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

Why these stories are related...

Story #1:

Mozilla CEO resignation raises free-speech issues

Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich stepped down Thursday as CEO, just days after his appointment. He left the nonprofit maker of the Firefox browser after furious attacks, largely on Twitter, over his $1,000 contribution to support of a now-overturned 2008 gay-marriage ban in California.

Story #2:

Why Chinese Christians are camping out to save their church and cross from demolition

Concerned that Christianity was growing too fast and in an “unsustainable” manner, local officials in the province of Zhejiang began a campaign in February to demolish any church buildings that violated local regulations, according to a government Web site.

Story #3:

American Atheists Lawsuit Against 'World Trade Center Cross' Goes Before Appeals Court

American Atheists will present their case before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, arguing that the WTC cross does not belong in a museum on government leased property.

Story #4:

More Black Babies Aborted than Born in New York City

Data from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene shows that, among non-hispanic black women, there were 31,328 “induced terminations” to 24,758 live births, according to a CNS News report.

Story #5:

The right’s other “war on women”: 5 ways the assault is about way more than abortion

Republicans are having a tough time shaking the “war on women” label, probably because they can’t stop themselves from sounding — and voting — like a bunch of raging misogynists.

Story #6:

NY Time's Friedman Compares "Climate Change Deniers" to Trotsky Marxists

Story #7:

Why income inequality is a hot topic

Although high-octane rhetoric on health care seems to overshadow all other political discussions in U.S. politics, income inequality and economic opportunity have crept up in speeches and policy proposals from the White House

So, what do all these stories have in common?  The answer is in a 1940's cartoon:

This Cold War-era cartoon uses humor to tout the dangers of Communism

Here is a bit more updated version of this cartoon, below of which is a link to a 17 minute trailer for the full length movie.

 

Our current leader on these subjects:

Story #1:

Income Inequality:

Story #2:

Story #3:

Story #4:

Story #5: 

Now compare these messages against that of the greatest leader since Winston Churchill

D'oh....

That was then.....



This is now....

Published on Sep 23, 2014

ARABIAN GULF (Sept. 23, 2014) The guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea (CG 58) launches Tomahawk Land-Attack Missiles (TLAM) against ISIL targets. Philippine Sea is deployed as part of the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) Carrier Strike Group supporting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility. (U.S. Navy video by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Abe McNatt/RELEASED)

U.S. forces launched air strikes against the little-known Khorasan Group Monday night.

By Marina Koren

The U.S. launched eight airstrikes Monday night against a little-known, al-Qaida-affiliated militant group in Syria.

The United States Central Command said Tuesday morning that American forces hit the Khorasan Group near Aleppo to stop "imminent attack-planning against the United States and Western interests." At a Pentagon press briefing shortly after, defense officials explained just how imminent such an attack may have been.

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...]