What’s in a Name?
A Case for Pseudonyms
Jillian C. York
Editor’s note: This article was originally published on the Electronic Freedom Foundation’s Deeplinks blog.
pseu·do·nym
[sood-n-im]
—noun a fictitious name used by an author to conceal his or her identity; pen name.
There are myriad reasons why individuals may wish to use a name other than the one they were born with. They may be concerned about threats to their lives or livelihoods, or they may risk political or economic retribution. They may wish to prevent discrimination or they may use a name that’s easier to pronounce or spell in a given culture.
Online, the reasons multiply. Internet culture has long encouraged the use of “handles” or “user names,” pseudonyms that may or may not be tied to a person’s offline identity. Longtime online inhabitants may have handles that have spanned over twenty years.
Pseudonymous speech has played a critical role throughout history as well. From the literary efforts of George Eliot and Mark Twain to the explicitly political advocacy of Publius in the Federalist Papers or Junius' letters to the Public Advertiser in 18th century London, people have contributed strongly to public debate under pseudonyms and continue to do so to this day.
A new debate around pseudonymity on online platforms has arisen as a result of the identification policy of Google+, which requires users to identify by “the name your friends, family, or co-workers usually call you.” This policy is similar to that of Facebook’s which requires users to “provide their real names and information.” Google’s policy has in a few short weeks attracted significant attention both within the community and outside of it, sparking debate as to whether a social platform should place limits on identity. A considerable number of Google+ users have already experienced account deactivation as a result of the policy, which Kirrily “Skud” Robert, a former Google employee kicked off the service for identifying as “Skud,” has closely documented.
Those in favor of the use of “real names” on social platforms have presented a number of arguments: that real names improve user behavior and create a more civil environment; that real names help prevent against stalking and harassment by making it easier to go after offenders; that a policy requiring real names prevents law enforcement agents from “sneaking in” to the service to spy on users; that real names make users accountable for their actions.
While these arguments are not entirely without merit, they misframe the problem. It is not incumbent upon strict real-name policy advocates to show that policies insisting on the use of real names have an upside. It is incumbent upon them to demonstrate that these benefits outweigh some very serious drawbacks.
Consider, for example, Wael Ghonim, the now-famous Egyptian whose Facebook page, We Are All Khaled Said, inspired thousands to join in the January uprising. Though the page was created in the summer of 2010, not long after the death of Khaled Said at the hands of policemen, it wasn’t until later that year that it began to truly gain momentum. And yet, its presence in the protests almost didn’t happen: In November 2010, the page went down after its administrator (now known to have been Ghonim) was reported for using a pseudonym. While Facebook was able to offer a solution, allowing an “identified” person to step in for Ghonim, this case was largely exceptional, owing to Ghonim’s ability to connect to Facebook staff and solve the problem. Not everyone has these types of connections, and there’s no way of knowing how many people have fallen through the cracks, so to speak, because they were unaware of how to appeal an account deactivation. In Ghonim’s case, using his real name would have placed him under considerable risk. And while pseudonymity provides no guarantees, it makes it considerably more difficult for authorities to identify activists.
Mandating the use of ‘real’ names can exclude from the conversation anyone who fears retribution for sharing their views.
There are myriad reasons why an individual may feel safer identifying under a name other than their birth name. Teenagers who identify as members of the LGBT community, for example, are regularly harassed online and may prefer to identify online using a pseudonym. Individuals whose spouses or partners work for the government or are well known often wish to conceal aspects of their own lifestyle and may feel more comfortable operating under a different name online. Survivors of domestic abuse who need not to be found by their abusers may wish to alter their name in whole or in part. And anyone with unpopular or dissenting political opinions may choose not to risk their livelihood by identifying with a pseudonym.
As Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens put forth in deciding McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission,
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.
Just as using “real” names can have real consequences, mandating the use of “real” names can too, excluding from the conversation anyone who fears retribution for sharing their views. While one added value of requiring real names might be increased “civility” of the conversation, it is most certainly to the detriment of diversity.
The bloggers at Geek Feminism have compiled a wiki highlighting the people who are harmed by a real names policy, demonstrating the hundreds of potential reasons why an individual may use a name other than his or her own. Though many examples on the list demonstrate cases of at-risk individuals whose use of a pseudonym is for the purpose of safety, there are other important reasons that one may choose pseudonymity as well.
Take the example of Michael Anti, the Chinese journalist whose birth name is Jing Zhao. Anti was kicked off of Facebook in January of 2011, presumably after someone reported him for using a name other than the one with which he was born. Despite having used the pen name “Michael Anti” for almost a decade, in his writing for The New York Times and elsewhere, Facebook insisted on strict enforcement of its policy.
On Google+, similar examples have arisen, as have false positives, prompting Google+ to change some of its processes, including a shift from immediate account deactivation to offering users a warning and an opportunity to align their name with the policy.
Nevertheless, policies requiring “real” names are nearly impossible to enforce at scale, and as several examples have demonstrated, enforcement tends to be skewed against individuals who are well-known or have enemies, a result of community reporting mechanisms.
It is well within the rights of any company—Google, Facebook, or otherwise—to create policies as they see fit for their services. But it is shortsighted for these companies to suggest that “real name” policies create greater potential for civility, when they only do so at the expense of diversity and free expression. Indeed, a shift toward crafting policies requiring “real” names will have a chilling effect on online free expression.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Blood Meridian
Blood Meridian (Part 1 of 3): Michele Bachmann on Border Security and Immigration
The separate issues of border security and immigration have become entwined as the American economy continues to wane, an illicit drug trade continues to flourish and a vast number of Americans remain unemployed as illegal immigrants take jobs on American soil. This leads to the immigration and border security issues becoming increasingly important and controversial.
With President Barack Obama’s decision to take a vacation from deporting millions of people who broke our nation’s laws by entering our soil illegally, it is vital that we get to know which GOP candidate would do the best job of redressing the damage he has done. Thus, I will endeavor to examine the immigration stances of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. Today, I start with Michele Bachmann.
I begin with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s stated positions. On her Congressional Website, she points out that our current immigration laws have serious flaws and our obsolete. She states her views below.
The last time our immigration laws were overhauled was in 1986, when Congress granted amnesty to almost three million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and promised increased border security in the near future. Twenty years later, the number of illegal immigrants in our country has quadrupled, with no end in sight. Rather than repeating the mistakes of our past, I believe Congress must work to secure our nation’s borders and enforce the immigration laws already in place. Once this is achieved, improvements to the current system can be considered.
On the campaign trail, she has established a strong position in favor of enhancing the level of security present on the Mexican Border. The Patriot Action Network recently blogged a Bachmann campaign visit to Greenville, SC.
Bachmann said “The problem has been in our unwillingness to enforce the laws that are on the books.” and “How do you solve it? You build a barrier, a fence, a wall — whatever you want to call it. You build it…As president of the United States, every mile, every yard, every foot, every inch will be covered on that southern border.”
While she hasn’t been lead author on any legislation that reflects these stated priorities, she has been supportive of others. She is one of 64 co-sponsors for Congressman Rohrabacher on H.R.787: No Social Security for Illegal Aliens Act. She also co-sponsored Congressman Hunter’s H.R.1134: Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act. According to OnTheIssues.org, Congresswoman Bachmann has also stated support for making English the official language of The United States.
On the Issues goes on to describe four basic positions that they believe describe American attitudes towards open borders and unrestricted immigration. Strongly Support, Support, Oppose, Strongly Oppose. I personally Oppose Open Borders and Unlimited Immigration, Congresswoman Bachmann Strongly opposes these ideas. To the extent that I disagree with this candidate at all on immigration, I can offer up only two minor quibbles to balance out the remainder of this post.
I would like to see her think of something to address the economic impact of lost migrant labor on agriculture, and I would also like to see her encourage a larger number of decent and legal immigrants to join the American Family. That’s it. Otherwise, she basically has the issue nailed. As I said before, these are minor quibbles. Compared to Barack Obama’s “Call Me When I’m Back From Martha’s Vineyard” Policy on the issue, Michele Bachmann would truly be a godsend. (Coming soon: Mitt Romney on Immigration and Border Security).
Posted by Repair_Man_Jack
The separate issues of border security and immigration have become entwined as the American economy continues to wane, an illicit drug trade continues to flourish and a vast number of Americans remain unemployed as illegal immigrants take jobs on American soil. This leads to the immigration and border security issues becoming increasingly important and controversial.
With President Barack Obama’s decision to take a vacation from deporting millions of people who broke our nation’s laws by entering our soil illegally, it is vital that we get to know which GOP candidate would do the best job of redressing the damage he has done. Thus, I will endeavor to examine the immigration stances of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. Today, I start with Michele Bachmann.
I begin with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s stated positions. On her Congressional Website, she points out that our current immigration laws have serious flaws and our obsolete. She states her views below.
The last time our immigration laws were overhauled was in 1986, when Congress granted amnesty to almost three million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and promised increased border security in the near future. Twenty years later, the number of illegal immigrants in our country has quadrupled, with no end in sight. Rather than repeating the mistakes of our past, I believe Congress must work to secure our nation’s borders and enforce the immigration laws already in place. Once this is achieved, improvements to the current system can be considered.
On the campaign trail, she has established a strong position in favor of enhancing the level of security present on the Mexican Border. The Patriot Action Network recently blogged a Bachmann campaign visit to Greenville, SC.
Bachmann said “The problem has been in our unwillingness to enforce the laws that are on the books.” and “How do you solve it? You build a barrier, a fence, a wall — whatever you want to call it. You build it…As president of the United States, every mile, every yard, every foot, every inch will be covered on that southern border.”
While she hasn’t been lead author on any legislation that reflects these stated priorities, she has been supportive of others. She is one of 64 co-sponsors for Congressman Rohrabacher on H.R.787: No Social Security for Illegal Aliens Act. She also co-sponsored Congressman Hunter’s H.R.1134: Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act. According to OnTheIssues.org, Congresswoman Bachmann has also stated support for making English the official language of The United States.
On the Issues goes on to describe four basic positions that they believe describe American attitudes towards open borders and unrestricted immigration. Strongly Support, Support, Oppose, Strongly Oppose. I personally Oppose Open Borders and Unlimited Immigration, Congresswoman Bachmann Strongly opposes these ideas. To the extent that I disagree with this candidate at all on immigration, I can offer up only two minor quibbles to balance out the remainder of this post.
I would like to see her think of something to address the economic impact of lost migrant labor on agriculture, and I would also like to see her encourage a larger number of decent and legal immigrants to join the American Family. That’s it. Otherwise, she basically has the issue nailed. As I said before, these are minor quibbles. Compared to Barack Obama’s “Call Me When I’m Back From Martha’s Vineyard” Policy on the issue, Michele Bachmann would truly be a godsend. (Coming soon: Mitt Romney on Immigration and Border Security).
Posted by Repair_Man_Jack
Veracruz: A city and state held hostage
On July 27, a group of sicarios from the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG) identifying themselves as "mata Zetas", or Zeta Killers, release a video to the public acknowledging that they have arrived in Veracruz to free the people from Los Zetas, who control organized crime and drug trafficking throughout the state.
The CJNG is believed to be nothing more than a group of gunmen in the service of the Sinaloa Cartel.
Rumors begin to be heard that El Chapo Guzman has been seen eating in high end restaurants in the Gulf coast port city of Veracruz.
The new PRI Governor of Veracruz, Javier Duarte, inherited a state firmly under the control of Los Zetas from the previous Governor, Fidel Herrera, who is said to have allowed Los Zetas to establish that control, for a price.
Fidel Herrera was said to be in the early running for the PRI party candidacy for the Mexican presidential election in 2012.
Javier Duarte, whose campaign for Governor may have been partly financed by Los Zetas, feels increasingly threatened by that group and decides to betray them by "selling the plaza" to Chapo Guzman and his Sinaloa Cartel.
The arrival of the CJNG "MataZetas", who express respect and admiration for Javier Duarte in their video, confirms Duarte's betrayal.
The problem is that this treason has begun a fight for the plaza of Veracruz that will claim many lives, and could possibly result in the bloodiest dispute for a plaza to date in Mexico's drug war
An opinion piece in the Templo Mayor column of Tuesday's edition of the national Reforma Newspaper comfirms rumors of "El Chapo's" presence in Veracruz leading the fight for the plaza against Los Zetas.
The above rumors of El Chapo Guzman's presence in Veracruz and Javier Duarte's betrayal of Los Zetas are only speculation given a lack of hard evidence but what is certain is that extreme violence and killings have swept the state since the beginning of August.
It appears the people of Veracruz are being held hostage in what is looking like a battle for the plaza between Los Zetas and other rival groups.
Videos of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of a street battle this Sunday in the upscale Boca del Rio municipality, which lies immediately to the south of Veracruz. This battle was between two rival groups of gunmen and brought Boca del Rio to a standstill Sunday evening as skirmishing and "narco" blockades continued into the night.
Four gunmen were killed in the fighting that according to a speaker in the second video below lasted several minutes with heavy automatic fire and grenades.
The videos show the fear and danger involved with simply going out on a Sunday afternoon in Veracruz.
Hours after the second video was posted on Youtube, deaths threats began appearing on Facebook and Twitter aimed at the young male speaker. A 15,000 peso reward for the name of the person was posted on the Balacera Veracruz facebook page but was removed shortly after.
Even the act of experiencing and documenting an act of violence, with no threats to any party, can get you and your family killed in Mexico's war on drugs.
This is the power of the "narco" to silence the nation, to hold it hostage.
Aftermath of Sunday's fighting in Boca Del Rio.
At around 7:00pm Sunday, about an hour after the confrontation in Boca del Rio,
a vehicle with gunmen on board, suspected of involvement in the earlier shootout, was being pursued in Veracruz by a Marine patrol on the beachfront Avila Camacho Boulevard.
In front of the Veracruz aquarium a grenade was thrown from the vehicle, probably meant for the Marine pursuers, and exploded among a crowd of tourists.
An unidentified family from Texcoco, Estado de Mexico, vacationing over the weekend in Veracruz was hit by the grenade blast.
The father died of shrapnel wounds at the scene, Three other tourists from Texcoco, Estado de Mexico, a woman and her two children, were also injured by shrapnel.
The mother suffered shrapnel wounds to her abdomen and a toddler suffered superficial wounds. The 5 year old daughter suffered a severe head wound.
The survivors were being treated in a local hospital and were expected to survive. The daughter's head injuries were said to be of a permanent nature.
On Thursday, August 11, thirteen people were killed in shootouts throughout the city of Vera Cruz between rival groups of gunmen and in confrontations with military forces
Five gunmen travelling in a white SUV were killed by Army troops in the Las Vegas area of Vera Cruz
Thursday afternoon another five gunmen were killed according to authorities after they ambushed a convoy of 3 buses carrying a unit of Marines in Boca del Rio.
In the fighting Thursday a Veracruz doctor, Irving Noe Hernandez, was murdered by gunmen on board a white Ford pickup that crashed into the doctor's VW Bora while escaping from an Army pursuit.
Hernandez was shot by the gunmen as they fled from their vehicle on foot, his life was taken for "getting in the way".
Saturday and Sunday, August 6 and 7, twenty people died in organized crime violence throuhjout the state of Veracruz. Nine people were killed in the violence the week before.
sources:
http://chingadanews.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/cartel-de-jalisco-el-pacto-de-javier_duarte-con-el-chapo-guzman-y-la-traicion-a-los-zetas-veracruz-verfollow/
http://www.reforma.com/editoriales/nacional/620/1239131/
http://www.pateandopiedras.com/2011/08/balaseras-y-grandazos-en-veracruz-el-video-que-el-gobernador-no-quiere-que-veas/
http://www.narcoviolencia.com/2011/08/balacera-en-boca-del-rio-veracruz-dos.html
http://www.narcoviolencia.com/2011/08/victimas-del-estallido-de-granada-en.html
http://www.narcoviolencia.com/2011/08/jornada-violenta-13-muertos-ayer-en.html
http://www.narcoviolencia.com/2011/08/sicarios-atacan-3-autobuses-militares.html
Obama Administration Misrepresents Timing of Sanctions on Syria
(CNSNews.com) – As the Obama administration Thursday defended itself against criticism that it took too long to call for Syrian President Bashar Assad to stand down, officials incorrectly claimed that sanctions had been imposed from the start of the crisis.
“You will recall that as soon as protests began and violence was perpetrated against those protestors we started to impose sanctions on the Assad regime,” a senior administration official told reporters in a background teleconference briefing arranged by the White House.
The assertion was repeated twice more during the briefing, with reporters told that “we moved to punitive measures in Syria right away,” and again, that “we pursued punitive measures from the beginning.”
In fact, the first U.S. sanctions imposed on Damascus this year occurred seven weeks after the violent crackdown began in mid-March – seven weeks during which more than 450 people had been killed, according to human rights groups.
And those sanctions did not target Assad himself; instead the administration imposed an asset freeze and a ban on business dealings with the U.S. for three senior regime officials as well as two security agencies.
That first U.S. response to the violence came after growing calls from U.S. lawmakers from both parties for a firmer response – not military action, but steps to undermine the regime and strengthen the opposition, and a clear statement from Obama that it was time for Assad to go.
President Obama’s call Thursday for Assad to “step aside,” accompanied by an executive order further tightening economic sanctions, came 22 weeks and two days after the beginning of the violent clampdown, which has now cost an estimated 1,800-2,000 lives.
By contrast, it took Obama one week from the beginning of the Egyptian uprising last January to call for a “transition” to democracy and about two more to prod Hosni Mubarak to leave. It took Obama about a week and a half after violence erupted in Libya in February to call on Muammar Gaddafi to resign.
Over a number of weeks, reporters have been pressing State Department spokesmen on the issue of why Obama has been unready to call on Assad to leave.
“How many dead Syrian innocent civilians do there have to be before your strategic patience wears out?,” asked one reporter on Tuesday, while a day earlier another asked, “So it’s important to stop the killing, but maybe not just yet?”
The official response has been an argument for the need to build international support – while at the same time denying that the U.S. has been leaving it to others to take the lead.
‘Smart power’
The biggest change in the international response to the crisis came a fortnight ago, when Saudi Arabia and several other Gulf states turned against Assad. (Turkey’s slow shift away from its neighbor began somewhat earlier.)
That process was much slower than in the case of Libya, where the Arab League early on first suspended Gaddafi’s regime, and then called for international intervention.
Why it was necessary for the U.S. to wait until the Arab governments had lost patience with Assad before coming out with Thursday’s stance remains unclear, but administration officials have rejected the notion that the U.S. approach has been one of “leading from behind.”
“On the contrary,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said this week in response to that question. She cited U.S. sanctions and its efforts at the U.N. Security Council and Human Rights Council to secure statements condemning Assad.
“We are trying to not only lead by example but also work with as many others as possible to follow the lead that we have set in increasing the pressure on Syria,” she said.
In Thursday’s White House background briefing, the administration official took the same line: “We wanted to make sure we weren’t just issuing statements [alone], but were doing so in an internationally coordinated way.”
“We’ve recognized from the start that American leadership is crucial to this effort and that to have maximum impact in Syria we want to lead the chorus of voices and pressures, not just make this a solo act.”
Nuland Thursday characterized the approach as “smart power” as promoted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“As you know, it’s a hallmark of her approach to diplomacy. And when she talks about smart power, it’s about combining political, economic, diplomatic, development tools not only of the United States, but of our friends, allies, partners, regional players, to create communities of common action.”
Immediately after Obama’s statement was released Thursday, it was followed by similar ones from the European Union and the British, French, German and Canadian governments.
In their responses to Obama’s statement on Thursday, a number of politicians, including Republican presidential aspirants, referred to the time it had taken to reach that point.
“It has taken President Obama far too long to speak out forcefully against Assad and his vicious crackdown in Syria,” former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said in a statement. Showing American leadership meant “not remaining silent for too long while voices of freedom and dissent are under attack.”
“It is about time that the Obama Administration stepped to the plate and called for the long-awaited resignation of President Assad,” said former Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), adding that it was “shocking that it has taken President Obama this long to realize that Syria is a threat to not just the region, but to its own people.”
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Obama’s call was “long overdue.”
Defending engagement
While campaigning for the presidency, Sen. Obama was asked during a Jul. 2007 presidential primary debate whether as president he would meet with Assad (as well as the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea) “in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries.”
He replied that he would, adding that “the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them – which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this [Bush] administration – is ridiculous.”
Once in office Obama sought to engage the Syrian regime, encouraged by Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who has met with the Syrian leader at least six times.
Six months into his presidency, Obama sent Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell to Damascus, followed several months later by undersecretary for political affairs William Burns.
Officials cited as reasons to engage hopes to promote the Israeli-Arab peace process, and to draw Assad away from his alliances with Iran and Hezbollah.
In response, Assad strengthened his ties with Iran and Hezbollah, and no movement occurred on the peace-talks front.
Nuland on Thursday took issue with the suggestion that the engagement policy had been a failure.
She said the administration had come in “committed to offering engagement to countries where relations have been difficult across the board and trying to turn the page and having a fresh start.”
“With some countries, that has resulted in a positive reset in relations that has paid dividends for both countries – the United States and the country in question – strengthened regional security, helped us to work together. But with some countries like Iran, like Syria, like North Korea, these offers of engagement have not been met with steps to come closer to the international community, to make the kinds of changes that we’ve been looking for so that we can have a better relationship.”
“So from the United States perspective, it was the right thing to try to have a fresh start,” Nuland said. “But these were squandered opportunities, unfortunately, in some of these places.
The Boston Globe quoted Kerry as saying Thursday that Assad had “missed an historic opportunity for a new relationship with the West and economic transformation for Syria.”
By Patrick Goodenough
“You will recall that as soon as protests began and violence was perpetrated against those protestors we started to impose sanctions on the Assad regime,” a senior administration official told reporters in a background teleconference briefing arranged by the White House.
The assertion was repeated twice more during the briefing, with reporters told that “we moved to punitive measures in Syria right away,” and again, that “we pursued punitive measures from the beginning.”
In fact, the first U.S. sanctions imposed on Damascus this year occurred seven weeks after the violent crackdown began in mid-March – seven weeks during which more than 450 people had been killed, according to human rights groups.
And those sanctions did not target Assad himself; instead the administration imposed an asset freeze and a ban on business dealings with the U.S. for three senior regime officials as well as two security agencies.
That first U.S. response to the violence came after growing calls from U.S. lawmakers from both parties for a firmer response – not military action, but steps to undermine the regime and strengthen the opposition, and a clear statement from Obama that it was time for Assad to go.
President Obama’s call Thursday for Assad to “step aside,” accompanied by an executive order further tightening economic sanctions, came 22 weeks and two days after the beginning of the violent clampdown, which has now cost an estimated 1,800-2,000 lives.
By contrast, it took Obama one week from the beginning of the Egyptian uprising last January to call for a “transition” to democracy and about two more to prod Hosni Mubarak to leave. It took Obama about a week and a half after violence erupted in Libya in February to call on Muammar Gaddafi to resign.
Over a number of weeks, reporters have been pressing State Department spokesmen on the issue of why Obama has been unready to call on Assad to leave.
“How many dead Syrian innocent civilians do there have to be before your strategic patience wears out?,” asked one reporter on Tuesday, while a day earlier another asked, “So it’s important to stop the killing, but maybe not just yet?”
The official response has been an argument for the need to build international support – while at the same time denying that the U.S. has been leaving it to others to take the lead.
‘Smart power’
The biggest change in the international response to the crisis came a fortnight ago, when Saudi Arabia and several other Gulf states turned against Assad. (Turkey’s slow shift away from its neighbor began somewhat earlier.)
That process was much slower than in the case of Libya, where the Arab League early on first suspended Gaddafi’s regime, and then called for international intervention.
Why it was necessary for the U.S. to wait until the Arab governments had lost patience with Assad before coming out with Thursday’s stance remains unclear, but administration officials have rejected the notion that the U.S. approach has been one of “leading from behind.”
“On the contrary,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said this week in response to that question. She cited U.S. sanctions and its efforts at the U.N. Security Council and Human Rights Council to secure statements condemning Assad.
“We are trying to not only lead by example but also work with as many others as possible to follow the lead that we have set in increasing the pressure on Syria,” she said.
In Thursday’s White House background briefing, the administration official took the same line: “We wanted to make sure we weren’t just issuing statements [alone], but were doing so in an internationally coordinated way.”
“We’ve recognized from the start that American leadership is crucial to this effort and that to have maximum impact in Syria we want to lead the chorus of voices and pressures, not just make this a solo act.”
Nuland Thursday characterized the approach as “smart power” as promoted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“As you know, it’s a hallmark of her approach to diplomacy. And when she talks about smart power, it’s about combining political, economic, diplomatic, development tools not only of the United States, but of our friends, allies, partners, regional players, to create communities of common action.”
Immediately after Obama’s statement was released Thursday, it was followed by similar ones from the European Union and the British, French, German and Canadian governments.
In their responses to Obama’s statement on Thursday, a number of politicians, including Republican presidential aspirants, referred to the time it had taken to reach that point.
“It has taken President Obama far too long to speak out forcefully against Assad and his vicious crackdown in Syria,” former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said in a statement. Showing American leadership meant “not remaining silent for too long while voices of freedom and dissent are under attack.”
“It is about time that the Obama Administration stepped to the plate and called for the long-awaited resignation of President Assad,” said former Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), adding that it was “shocking that it has taken President Obama this long to realize that Syria is a threat to not just the region, but to its own people.”
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Obama’s call was “long overdue.”
Defending engagement
While campaigning for the presidency, Sen. Obama was asked during a Jul. 2007 presidential primary debate whether as president he would meet with Assad (as well as the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea) “in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries.”
He replied that he would, adding that “the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them – which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this [Bush] administration – is ridiculous.”
Once in office Obama sought to engage the Syrian regime, encouraged by Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who has met with the Syrian leader at least six times.
Six months into his presidency, Obama sent Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell to Damascus, followed several months later by undersecretary for political affairs William Burns.
Officials cited as reasons to engage hopes to promote the Israeli-Arab peace process, and to draw Assad away from his alliances with Iran and Hezbollah.
In response, Assad strengthened his ties with Iran and Hezbollah, and no movement occurred on the peace-talks front.
Nuland on Thursday took issue with the suggestion that the engagement policy had been a failure.
She said the administration had come in “committed to offering engagement to countries where relations have been difficult across the board and trying to turn the page and having a fresh start.”
“With some countries, that has resulted in a positive reset in relations that has paid dividends for both countries – the United States and the country in question – strengthened regional security, helped us to work together. But with some countries like Iran, like Syria, like North Korea, these offers of engagement have not been met with steps to come closer to the international community, to make the kinds of changes that we’ve been looking for so that we can have a better relationship.”
“So from the United States perspective, it was the right thing to try to have a fresh start,” Nuland said. “But these were squandered opportunities, unfortunately, in some of these places.
The Boston Globe quoted Kerry as saying Thursday that Assad had “missed an historic opportunity for a new relationship with the West and economic transformation for Syria.”
By Patrick Goodenough
UK Group Sends Convoys to Gaza to Support Hamas
by IPT News • Aug 15, 2011 at 2:10 pm
A U.S. designated terrorist group plays a key role in dispatching convoys to the Gaza Strip, according to a report released by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center in Israel.
Interpal is a British-based charity named a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2003 for its support for Hamas. Interpal is also a member of the Union of the Good, designated by the U.S. in 2008 under Executive Order 13224 for supporting and transferring funds to Hamas.
Interpal has sent its officials to the Gaza Strip through its Miles of Smiles convoys over the past two years. In June, Miles of Smiles 3 was greeted by Hamas leader and designated terrorist Ahmad al-Kurd. Interpal Vice Chairman Essam Mustafa (also known as "Essam Yousef") met with Hamas Prime Minster Ismail Haniyeh during the trip. Mustafa was referred to as the "general coordinator" of Miles of Smiles 2 and 4 by articles in the Arab media. He is "a key personality in the Hamas-supporting financial system in the Western world," according to the Israeli center's report. He is also the co-founder and executive director of the Union of the Good.
The most recent Interpal convoy, Miles of Smiles 4, entered the Gaza Strip via Egypt on July 31. "Resistance is our strategic choice and it will go on. We won't recognize Israel and we won't make any concessions on any of our people's legitimate rights, mainly the right of return," Haniyeh told representatives of the group at his office. Participants included Essam Mustafa and Ibrahim Hewitt, the chairman of Interpal and senior editor of the Islamist publication Middle East Monitor.
Interpal's participation in convoys to Gaza is not limited to Miles of Smiles. In March 2009, Interpal activists participated in the first Viva Palestina (VP) convoy to the Gaza Strip. Viva Palestina is a UK-based organization which has delivered millions of dollars to the Hamas-regime in Gaza through its convoys. Interpal has also helped raise money for VP's convoys.
A fifth Miles of Smiles convoy is scheduled to reach Gaza late this month, and two more are scheduled to arrive by November. Also, a South African aid convoy comprised of organizations and individuals that are members of the Union of Good expects to arrive in Gaza in late August, according to the Israeli report.
A U.S. designated terrorist group plays a key role in dispatching convoys to the Gaza Strip, according to a report released by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center in Israel.
Interpal is a British-based charity named a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2003 for its support for Hamas. Interpal is also a member of the Union of the Good, designated by the U.S. in 2008 under Executive Order 13224 for supporting and transferring funds to Hamas.
Interpal has sent its officials to the Gaza Strip through its Miles of Smiles convoys over the past two years. In June, Miles of Smiles 3 was greeted by Hamas leader and designated terrorist Ahmad al-Kurd. Interpal Vice Chairman Essam Mustafa (also known as "Essam Yousef") met with Hamas Prime Minster Ismail Haniyeh during the trip. Mustafa was referred to as the "general coordinator" of Miles of Smiles 2 and 4 by articles in the Arab media. He is "a key personality in the Hamas-supporting financial system in the Western world," according to the Israeli center's report. He is also the co-founder and executive director of the Union of the Good.
The most recent Interpal convoy, Miles of Smiles 4, entered the Gaza Strip via Egypt on July 31. "Resistance is our strategic choice and it will go on. We won't recognize Israel and we won't make any concessions on any of our people's legitimate rights, mainly the right of return," Haniyeh told representatives of the group at his office. Participants included Essam Mustafa and Ibrahim Hewitt, the chairman of Interpal and senior editor of the Islamist publication Middle East Monitor.
Interpal's participation in convoys to Gaza is not limited to Miles of Smiles. In March 2009, Interpal activists participated in the first Viva Palestina (VP) convoy to the Gaza Strip. Viva Palestina is a UK-based organization which has delivered millions of dollars to the Hamas-regime in Gaza through its convoys. Interpal has also helped raise money for VP's convoys.
A fifth Miles of Smiles convoy is scheduled to reach Gaza late this month, and two more are scheduled to arrive by November. Also, a South African aid convoy comprised of organizations and individuals that are members of the Union of Good expects to arrive in Gaza in late August, according to the Israeli report.
Virginia Lets Guns Into Bars.....
Virginia Lets Guns Into Bars; A Year Later, 5% Fewer Gun Crimes in Virginia Bars
by Duane Lester
An armed society is a polite society. As evidence of that, here’s what happened when Virginia allowed its citizens to carry firearms into businesses that serve alcohol:
The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper’s request.
And overall, the crimes that occurred during the law’s first year were relatively minor, and few of the incidents appeared to involve gun owners with concealed-carry permits, the analysis found.
A total of 145 reported crimes with guns occurred in Virginia bars and restaurants in fiscal 2010-11, or eight fewer than the 153 incidents in fiscal 2009-10. State police track all murders, non-negligent manslaughters, aggravated assaults, forcible sex crimes and robberies in more than two dozen categories, including “bars/nightclubs” and “restaurants.”
Some of the readers might think that a drop from 153 to 145 isn’t that substantial of a decrease, but when you consider the premise of the anti-gun activist, that allowing guns into bars would result in drunken shoot-outs, it’s worth mentioning.
The simple fact is, those who take the time to acquire a conceal carry permit are not criminals. They have no intention of committing a crime with the gun they want to carry.
They simply want to protect themselves and those they care about.
Hat Tip: Daily Pundit
by Duane Lester
An armed society is a polite society. As evidence of that, here’s what happened when Virginia allowed its citizens to carry firearms into businesses that serve alcohol:
The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper’s request.
And overall, the crimes that occurred during the law’s first year were relatively minor, and few of the incidents appeared to involve gun owners with concealed-carry permits, the analysis found.
A total of 145 reported crimes with guns occurred in Virginia bars and restaurants in fiscal 2010-11, or eight fewer than the 153 incidents in fiscal 2009-10. State police track all murders, non-negligent manslaughters, aggravated assaults, forcible sex crimes and robberies in more than two dozen categories, including “bars/nightclubs” and “restaurants.”
Some of the readers might think that a drop from 153 to 145 isn’t that substantial of a decrease, but when you consider the premise of the anti-gun activist, that allowing guns into bars would result in drunken shoot-outs, it’s worth mentioning.
The simple fact is, those who take the time to acquire a conceal carry permit are not criminals. They have no intention of committing a crime with the gun they want to carry.
They simply want to protect themselves and those they care about.
Hat Tip: Daily Pundit
No Time for Wallowing
by Tom Donohue
With our credit downgraded, stock prices falling, economic recovery sputtering, and hope running out for millions of unemployed workers, this may seem like an unusual time to talk about America’s strengths. In fact, it’s the best time. Wallowing in self-doubt will get us nowhere. By harnessing our extraordinary advantages, we can create new growth, jobs, and opportunities for Americans.
We’ve got a highly productive manufacturing sector poised for expansion and new hiring. Our competitors’ costs are rising. With the right tax, labor, and regulatory policies, we can enjoy a manufacturing renaissance few dared to imagine a short time ago.
Domestic energy production will fuel this renaissance. We have bountiful supplies of natural resources to use at home and sell around the world.
We’re home to vast agricultural lands of unmatched potential. Our farms can feed a hungry world, creating businesses and jobs across industries throughout America.
We still have one of the best end-to-end infrastructure systems in the world. With smart investments and upgrades, we can create hundreds of thousands of jobs while spurring growth and improving our quality of life.
With positive demographics and a continued commitment to openness and individual opportunity, our country will have a constant supply of the hardest workers, smartest innovators, and most adventuresome entrepreneurs. This will keep our high-tech industries, our universities, our tourism destinations, and our health care sector vibrant and on the cutting edge.
There’s plenty to criticize when it comes to our laws, politics, and government. Some in the global community have recently piled on the criticism. But who would trade our system for theirs? A strong rule of law, low levels of corruption, and a commitment to open debate and equal treatment are significant advantages too.
These and other attributes comprise America’s “secret sauce” that will continue to sustain the most successful economy on earth. That’s why people, rich and poor, are still beating a path to our shores. This is most evident in times of crisis. Investors habitually seek safe haven here. They are doing so to this very day.
I’m not suggesting that we try to paint a happy face on today’s lousy circumstances. We’ve got big problems to fix. We must grow our economy, limit the appetite of our government, put the American entrepreneur back in the driver’s seat, and take short and long-term steps to create American jobs.
But let’s stop selling America short. There’s no faster way to crush America’s can-do spirit than by throwing up our hands and saying we can’t.
With our credit downgraded, stock prices falling, economic recovery sputtering, and hope running out for millions of unemployed workers, this may seem like an unusual time to talk about America’s strengths. In fact, it’s the best time. Wallowing in self-doubt will get us nowhere. By harnessing our extraordinary advantages, we can create new growth, jobs, and opportunities for Americans.
We’ve got a highly productive manufacturing sector poised for expansion and new hiring. Our competitors’ costs are rising. With the right tax, labor, and regulatory policies, we can enjoy a manufacturing renaissance few dared to imagine a short time ago.
Domestic energy production will fuel this renaissance. We have bountiful supplies of natural resources to use at home and sell around the world.
We’re home to vast agricultural lands of unmatched potential. Our farms can feed a hungry world, creating businesses and jobs across industries throughout America.
We still have one of the best end-to-end infrastructure systems in the world. With smart investments and upgrades, we can create hundreds of thousands of jobs while spurring growth and improving our quality of life.
With positive demographics and a continued commitment to openness and individual opportunity, our country will have a constant supply of the hardest workers, smartest innovators, and most adventuresome entrepreneurs. This will keep our high-tech industries, our universities, our tourism destinations, and our health care sector vibrant and on the cutting edge.
There’s plenty to criticize when it comes to our laws, politics, and government. Some in the global community have recently piled on the criticism. But who would trade our system for theirs? A strong rule of law, low levels of corruption, and a commitment to open debate and equal treatment are significant advantages too.
These and other attributes comprise America’s “secret sauce” that will continue to sustain the most successful economy on earth. That’s why people, rich and poor, are still beating a path to our shores. This is most evident in times of crisis. Investors habitually seek safe haven here. They are doing so to this very day.
I’m not suggesting that we try to paint a happy face on today’s lousy circumstances. We’ve got big problems to fix. We must grow our economy, limit the appetite of our government, put the American entrepreneur back in the driver’s seat, and take short and long-term steps to create American jobs.
But let’s stop selling America short. There’s no faster way to crush America’s can-do spirit than by throwing up our hands and saying we can’t.
Corrupt Eric Holder DOJ investigating Standard & Poor’s
President downgrade Obama has already directed corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder to go after Standard & Poor’s. According to Fox News, the corrupt Justice Department., which is trying to direct attention away from Fast and Furious is now investigating if Standard & Poor’s credit ratings agency “improperly rated dozens of mortgage securities in the years leading up to the financial crisis.” What amazing timing don’t you think? If these were the case with S&P why didn’t the Obama regime go after them sooner?
The investigation began before Standard & Poor’s cut the United States’ AAA credit rating this month, but it’s likely to add to the political firestorm created by the downgrade, the newspaper said. Some government officials have since questioned the agency’s secretive process, its credibility and the competence of its analysts, claiming to have found an error in its debt calculations.
The investigation began before Standard & Poor’s cut the United States’ AAA credit rating this month, but it’s likely to add to the political firestorm created by the downgrade, the newspaper said. Some government officials have since questioned the agency’s secretive process, its credibility and the competence of its analysts, claiming to have found an error in its debt calculations.
Judicial Watch Uncovers New Documents: Obama Administration Bankrolls Massive Internet Propaganda Campaign to Push Obamacare
Obama HHS Spends Millions of Taxpayer Dollars on “Guerrilla Campaign” to Track Search Engine Web Traffic and Push Internet Search Engine Users to Government Website Promoting Obamacare; Propaganda Campaign Targets Key Obama Campaign Voter Demographics
Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC -- August 18, 2011
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it obtained documents from the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) showing that the Obama White House helped coordinate a multimillion dollar taxpayer-funded campaign to use Internet search engines such as Google and Yahoo to drive web traffic to a government website promoting the Affordable Health Care Act (also known as Obamacare). The expressed purpose of this campaign is to increase public support for the president’s health care overhaul among key Obama campaign demographics, specifically Hispanics, blacks, and women.
The 2,328 pages of records, obtained by Judicial Watch pursuant to a March 23, 2011, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 11-608)), include internal correspondence between officials at the HHS office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA), as well as communications with representatives from The Ogilvy Group, the public relations firm hired by the Obama administration to manage the Obamacare campaign. The following are highlights from the documents:
The Obama HHS launched a campaign to track Internet searches and to use online search engines such as Google and Yahoo to drive traffic to a government website promoting Obama’s healthcare overhaul. Using “pay-per-click” advertising tools, such as Google Adwords, HHS purposely targeted for influence people searching the term “Obamacare,” a word that has been described as “disparaging” by political agents of the president. One HHS email details:
A few keyword groups continue to be top performers, and have subsequently driven most of the traffic to the campaign websites:
Affordable Care Act, including such terms as health care reform, government health insurance, Obamacare, and affordable care act.
Health Insurance Group, including terms as health insurance.
Health Care Group, including terms as health care.
While other keyword groups have not performed as well, and are not driving significant traffic to the campaign websites:
Health Insurance, Health insurance options, Medical Insurance, and Insurance companies
According to a budget summary prepared by Ogilvy, from October 2010 through February 2011, the Obama administration spent $1,435,009 on these online advertisements alone, including advertising campaigns with Google and Yahoo, almost $300,000 per month.
According to a December 10, 2010, email from Margo Gillman, Senior VP of Ogilvy Public Relations to Jenny Backus, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and the Principal Deputy for Strategy and Planning for HHS, the Obama White House was involved in coordinating the HHS propaganda campaign:
Just a quick note to see if you have any feedback/direction on how we should proceed with the radio and TV concepts that were presented a few weeks ago. You mentioned on our last call that you were planning to discuss them with the White House on either Friday or yesterday. We would appreciate any guidance that you can provide, so we can determine immediate next steps and a production schedule. Also, we are awaiting your feedback on the overarching strategic campaign plan.
Another HHS internal email dated December 1, 2010, from then-HHS official Jaime Mulligan to agency colleagues references the need to present recommendations to the White House regarding a number of components of the Obamacare campaign, including “a big guerilla campaign splash…” (Mulligan is currently the White House New Media Analyst for Public Health.)
A number of documents address the need to target the Obamacare propaganda campaign to Hispanics, blacks, and women. For example, according to an email from Chris Beakey, Vice President of Ogilvy PR Worldwide, to HHS officials on December 16, 2010, summarizing a conference call, “You want to utilize the bulk of their paid media efforts (which would include expenditures for Radio One and Univision) on media that reaches African Americans and Hispanics. The money will go farther and these audiences continue to be a top priority.” A January 18, 2011, email from Ogilvy to HHS New Media Communications Director Julia Eisman notes with respect to a Spanish banner ad campaign, “I realize we really can’t use the blond mom and child for this audience.”
An October 25, 2010, email from Julia Eisman to Imani Green, Senior Vice President and Director of Paid Media for Ogilvy Washington suggests changing the online advertising campaign to accommodate web traffic patterns caused by the mid-term elections: “Given the high performance, we’re wondering if we should we consider reallocating resources from the lesser performing words and put more $$ to ‘Obamacare’ - at least for the next 7 days,” she suggests.
In previous documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, HHS describes in detail the key to success of the propaganda campaign in a “Statement of Work” accompanying the agency’s Acquisition Plan: “Health and program-related messages are processed by the target audience according to a particular reality, which he or she experiences. Attitudes, feelings, values, needs, desires, behaviors and beliefs all play a part in the individual’s decision to accept information and make a behavioral change.” [Emphasis added.] These documents suggest the total cost of the Obamacare propaganda campaign could reach as much as $200 million.
“The Obama administration is using taxpayer dollars to manipulate public opinion regarding his socialist healthcare overhaul while also trying to get a leg up in the 2012 presidential campaign,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The American people should be disturbed that the Obama administration is using taxpayer funds to try to brainwash people simply searching the Internet for information on health care. This Big Brother campaign is underhanded, potentially unlawful, and it must be stopped. As the congressional ‘super-committee’ begins negotiations to cut the deficit, this wasteful Obamacare propaganda campaign is the first place they should look.”
In November 2010, Judicial Watch obtained documents from HHS regarding a series of three Medicare TV ads featuring actor Andy Griffith. The Obama Administration spent $3,184,000 in taxpayer funds to produce and air the ads on national television in September and October 2010 to educate “Medicare beneficiaries, caregivers, and family members about forthcoming changes to Medicare as a result of the Affordable Care Act.” However, according to FactCheck.org, a project of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, the ads intentionally misinformed the American people.
Documents Uncovered
Full document production (2300 pages, ~250MB) - August 5, 2011
Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC -- August 18, 2011
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it obtained documents from the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) showing that the Obama White House helped coordinate a multimillion dollar taxpayer-funded campaign to use Internet search engines such as Google and Yahoo to drive web traffic to a government website promoting the Affordable Health Care Act (also known as Obamacare). The expressed purpose of this campaign is to increase public support for the president’s health care overhaul among key Obama campaign demographics, specifically Hispanics, blacks, and women.
The 2,328 pages of records, obtained by Judicial Watch pursuant to a March 23, 2011, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 11-608)), include internal correspondence between officials at the HHS office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA), as well as communications with representatives from The Ogilvy Group, the public relations firm hired by the Obama administration to manage the Obamacare campaign. The following are highlights from the documents:
The Obama HHS launched a campaign to track Internet searches and to use online search engines such as Google and Yahoo to drive traffic to a government website promoting Obama’s healthcare overhaul. Using “pay-per-click” advertising tools, such as Google Adwords, HHS purposely targeted for influence people searching the term “Obamacare,” a word that has been described as “disparaging” by political agents of the president. One HHS email details:
A few keyword groups continue to be top performers, and have subsequently driven most of the traffic to the campaign websites:
Affordable Care Act, including such terms as health care reform, government health insurance, Obamacare, and affordable care act.
Health Insurance Group, including terms as health insurance.
Health Care Group, including terms as health care.
While other keyword groups have not performed as well, and are not driving significant traffic to the campaign websites:
Health Insurance, Health insurance options, Medical Insurance, and Insurance companies
According to a budget summary prepared by Ogilvy, from October 2010 through February 2011, the Obama administration spent $1,435,009 on these online advertisements alone, including advertising campaigns with Google and Yahoo, almost $300,000 per month.
According to a December 10, 2010, email from Margo Gillman, Senior VP of Ogilvy Public Relations to Jenny Backus, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and the Principal Deputy for Strategy and Planning for HHS, the Obama White House was involved in coordinating the HHS propaganda campaign:
Just a quick note to see if you have any feedback/direction on how we should proceed with the radio and TV concepts that were presented a few weeks ago. You mentioned on our last call that you were planning to discuss them with the White House on either Friday or yesterday. We would appreciate any guidance that you can provide, so we can determine immediate next steps and a production schedule. Also, we are awaiting your feedback on the overarching strategic campaign plan.
Another HHS internal email dated December 1, 2010, from then-HHS official Jaime Mulligan to agency colleagues references the need to present recommendations to the White House regarding a number of components of the Obamacare campaign, including “a big guerilla campaign splash…” (Mulligan is currently the White House New Media Analyst for Public Health.)
A number of documents address the need to target the Obamacare propaganda campaign to Hispanics, blacks, and women. For example, according to an email from Chris Beakey, Vice President of Ogilvy PR Worldwide, to HHS officials on December 16, 2010, summarizing a conference call, “You want to utilize the bulk of their paid media efforts (which would include expenditures for Radio One and Univision) on media that reaches African Americans and Hispanics. The money will go farther and these audiences continue to be a top priority.” A January 18, 2011, email from Ogilvy to HHS New Media Communications Director Julia Eisman notes with respect to a Spanish banner ad campaign, “I realize we really can’t use the blond mom and child for this audience.”
An October 25, 2010, email from Julia Eisman to Imani Green, Senior Vice President and Director of Paid Media for Ogilvy Washington suggests changing the online advertising campaign to accommodate web traffic patterns caused by the mid-term elections: “Given the high performance, we’re wondering if we should we consider reallocating resources from the lesser performing words and put more $$ to ‘Obamacare’ - at least for the next 7 days,” she suggests.
In previous documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, HHS describes in detail the key to success of the propaganda campaign in a “Statement of Work” accompanying the agency’s Acquisition Plan: “Health and program-related messages are processed by the target audience according to a particular reality, which he or she experiences. Attitudes, feelings, values, needs, desires, behaviors and beliefs all play a part in the individual’s decision to accept information and make a behavioral change.” [Emphasis added.] These documents suggest the total cost of the Obamacare propaganda campaign could reach as much as $200 million.
“The Obama administration is using taxpayer dollars to manipulate public opinion regarding his socialist healthcare overhaul while also trying to get a leg up in the 2012 presidential campaign,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The American people should be disturbed that the Obama administration is using taxpayer funds to try to brainwash people simply searching the Internet for information on health care. This Big Brother campaign is underhanded, potentially unlawful, and it must be stopped. As the congressional ‘super-committee’ begins negotiations to cut the deficit, this wasteful Obamacare propaganda campaign is the first place they should look.”
In November 2010, Judicial Watch obtained documents from HHS regarding a series of three Medicare TV ads featuring actor Andy Griffith. The Obama Administration spent $3,184,000 in taxpayer funds to produce and air the ads on national television in September and October 2010 to educate “Medicare beneficiaries, caregivers, and family members about forthcoming changes to Medicare as a result of the Affordable Care Act.” However, according to FactCheck.org, a project of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, the ads intentionally misinformed the American people.
Documents Uncovered
Full document production (2300 pages, ~250MB) - August 5, 2011
Rush Limbaugh Asks Where’s Obama’s Former Girlfriends?
Rush Limbaugh is asking, where are the people in Barack Obama’s past? Where are the girls he dated once upon a time? Where are the students who were so inspired by his professorship? I’m asking, and been asking for a long time, where are the welfare mothers whom he taught to knock on the doors of City Halls to demand more, more more? Where are the secretaries who might share a few tales of Obama’s summer days at the law firms of Sidley Austin and Hopkins and Sutter? Where are the guys he worked with as President of the Harvard Law Review? And last, but certainly not least, where are the Trinity United Church of Christ members who shared a pew with Obama and family for those long 20 years. Stories from a church dinner? Stories of Obama delivering turkeys at Thanksgiving and gifts for the poor at Christmas, as many of us do through our Sunday School classes? Stories of the beautiful family working at Vacation Bible School, or Michelle picking up the girls, or Obama finding fellowship with the TUCC mens groups? There’s the Vera Baker story. Have no idea whether it is true or not. There are reports of a Million dollar reward for anyone verifying the story. Apparently it’s not true. A Million dollars would be hard to pass up if you were, say…a taxi driver who knew a secret, unless someone else paid you more. I would really like to hear some church stories – I mean, there’s a 20 year history there. See the video below.
From Barack Obama's Senior Year - The Oahuan Yearbook
Remember Wayne Allyn Root, at Columbia at the same time Obama is reported to be there. They were on the same career path, but Root doesn’t have any memories of Barack Obama. Root interviewed with Reason Magazine’s Matt Welch. Here’s that exchange:
[Welch] So tell us what we should know about Barack Obama that we don’t?
[Root] I think the most dangerous thing you should know about Barack Obama is that I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knows him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. Ever!
[Root] Nobody recalls him. I’m not exaggerating, I’m not kidding.
[Welch] Were you the exact same class?
[Root] Class of ’83 political science, pre-law Columbia University. You don’t get more exact than that. Never met
him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, 20th reunion, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! Who was he, and five years ago, nobody even knew who he was.
[Welch] Did he even show up to the reunion?
[Root] I don’t know! I didn’t know him. I don’t think anybody knew him. But I know that the guy who writes the
class notes, who’s kind of the, as we say in New York, the macha who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a
human who ever met him. Is that not strange? It’s very strange.
I mean, when I went to Columbia, the black kids were all at like tables going “Black Power!” We used to walk by and go, “What the hell are they talking about.” And they didn’t associate with us and we didn’t associate with them. So if you track down a couple of black students, they’ll probably know him. But nobody white’s ever heard
of this guy. It’s quite amazing. Nobody remembers him. They don’t remember him sitting in class.
The Columbia Spectator, however, quotes a classmate. This from Michael Ackerman, a 1984 grad (the link to Ackerman may not be “the” Michael Akerman, although this shows him to be at Columbia from 1980-1984):
His political science classmate, Michael Ackerman, CC ’84, recalled him as “almost chameleon-like, spy-like, slipped in and out. He tried to keep to himself.”
But there is Phil Boerner, who said he was an Obama roomy.
Barack Obama and Phil Boerner
Phil Boerner said he roomed with Obama at both Occidental and Columbia: The crowd we hung out with included men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics and international students. Barack listened carefully to all points of view and he was funny, smart, thoughtful and well-liked. It was easy to sit down with him and have a fun conversation.
In that apartment [at Columbia, while roomates] we hosted a number of visitors, mostly friends from Oxy who stayed overnight when they were passing through town. Barack was very generous to these visitors. As a host and roommate, he sometimes did the shopping and cooked the chicken curry.
How many “generous” college students do you hear about unless Dad and Mom are “generous” first?
All of his records are sealed so the fact is, we have no way to know the truth about this man.
Rush Limbaugh asks: Where are Obama’s Former Girlfriends? (video)
Thanks to Fox Nation and World Net Daily
Posted by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook
Remember Wayne Allyn Root, at Columbia at the same time Obama is reported to be there. They were on the same career path, but Root doesn’t have any memories of Barack Obama. Root interviewed with Reason Magazine’s Matt Welch. Here’s that exchange:
[Welch] So tell us what we should know about Barack Obama that we don’t?
[Root] I think the most dangerous thing you should know about Barack Obama is that I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knows him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. Ever!
[Root] Nobody recalls him. I’m not exaggerating, I’m not kidding.
[Welch] Were you the exact same class?
[Root] Class of ’83 political science, pre-law Columbia University. You don’t get more exact than that. Never met
him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, 20th reunion, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! Who was he, and five years ago, nobody even knew who he was.
[Welch] Did he even show up to the reunion?
[Root] I don’t know! I didn’t know him. I don’t think anybody knew him. But I know that the guy who writes the
class notes, who’s kind of the, as we say in New York, the macha who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a
human who ever met him. Is that not strange? It’s very strange.
I mean, when I went to Columbia, the black kids were all at like tables going “Black Power!” We used to walk by and go, “What the hell are they talking about.” And they didn’t associate with us and we didn’t associate with them. So if you track down a couple of black students, they’ll probably know him. But nobody white’s ever heard
of this guy. It’s quite amazing. Nobody remembers him. They don’t remember him sitting in class.
The Columbia Spectator, however, quotes a classmate. This from Michael Ackerman, a 1984 grad (the link to Ackerman may not be “the” Michael Akerman, although this shows him to be at Columbia from 1980-1984):
His political science classmate, Michael Ackerman, CC ’84, recalled him as “almost chameleon-like, spy-like, slipped in and out. He tried to keep to himself.”
But there is Phil Boerner, who said he was an Obama roomy.
Phil Boerner said he roomed with Obama at both Occidental and Columbia: The crowd we hung out with included men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics and international students. Barack listened carefully to all points of view and he was funny, smart, thoughtful and well-liked. It was easy to sit down with him and have a fun conversation.
In that apartment [at Columbia, while roomates] we hosted a number of visitors, mostly friends from Oxy who stayed overnight when they were passing through town. Barack was very generous to these visitors. As a host and roommate, he sometimes did the shopping and cooked the chicken curry.
How many “generous” college students do you hear about unless Dad and Mom are “generous” first?
All of his records are sealed so the fact is, we have no way to know the truth about this man.
Rush Limbaugh asks: Where are Obama’s Former Girlfriends? (video)
Thanks to Fox Nation and World Net Daily
Posted by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook
Good news! We found those “shovel-ready” jobs!
Pardon us, Mr. President. Here we’ve been wondering where all those “shovel-ready” jobs you keep talking about are and lo and behold we think we’ve found them!
Who needs a golden parachute when you can have a golden shovel?
Seattle’s KOMO News has the story:
Last year, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn announced the city had won a coveted $20 million federal grant to invest in weatherization. The unglamorous work of insulating crawl spaces and attics had emerged as a silver bullet in a bleak economy – able to create jobs and shrink carbon footprint – and the announcement came with great fanfare.
Wow! $20 million for jobs! Fantastic! Amazing! Pathetic! Wait. Did we say pathetic? Yes, that’s exactly what we said. While this was supposed to create 2,000 jobs the reality is:
But more than a year later, Seattle’s numbers are lackluster. As of last week, only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program. Many of the jobs are administrative, and not the entry-level pathways once dreamed of for low-income workers. Some people wonder if the original goals are now achievable.
Back to those simple mathematics that seem so elusive to the Obama administration. Let’s take that $20 million and divide it by 14 jobs, which gives us a figure of $1,428,571 cost per job created.
Yes, that certainly sounds like “hope and change” to us. No hope and with spending like that, the taxpayers will get no change at all. Not even a penny.
- Written by CO2Insanity
Source: KOMO News
Seattle’s KOMO News has the story:
Last year, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn announced the city had won a coveted $20 million federal grant to invest in weatherization. The unglamorous work of insulating crawl spaces and attics had emerged as a silver bullet in a bleak economy – able to create jobs and shrink carbon footprint – and the announcement came with great fanfare.
Wow! $20 million for jobs! Fantastic! Amazing! Pathetic! Wait. Did we say pathetic? Yes, that’s exactly what we said. While this was supposed to create 2,000 jobs the reality is:
But more than a year later, Seattle’s numbers are lackluster. As of last week, only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program. Many of the jobs are administrative, and not the entry-level pathways once dreamed of for low-income workers. Some people wonder if the original goals are now achievable.
Back to those simple mathematics that seem so elusive to the Obama administration. Let’s take that $20 million and divide it by 14 jobs, which gives us a figure of $1,428,571 cost per job created.
Yes, that certainly sounds like “hope and change” to us. No hope and with spending like that, the taxpayers will get no change at all. Not even a penny.
- Written by CO2Insanity
Source: KOMO News
Michelle’s Separate Travel Costs Taxpayers Thousands
Michelle Obama Thursday traveled separately from President Obama to Martha’s Vineyard, costing taxpayers thousands in additional expenses to get her a few hours of extra vacation time.
Mrs. Obama and her daughters arrived just before 2 pm Thursday on a U.S. government jet, according to the Martha’s Vineyard Times, which got its information from the local airport. The first lady’s office has been silent on her travel. President Obama arrived in the evening along with the family dog Bo.
The extra costs related to Mrs. Obama’s solo trip mainly include the flight on a specially designed military aircraft she took instead of Air Force One, as well as any extra staff and Secret Service that had to be enlisted to go with her. She would also have had her own motorcade from the airport to her vacation residence.
Mrs. Obama’s separate jet travel sends the wrong message on a host of issues, from global warming to the budget deficit to the economy – in which currently so many people can’t afford to take a vacation at all.
This is not the first time Michelle has gone on vacation ahead of the president on the taxpayers’ tab. Last December, she racked up what was likely more than $100,000 in expenses leaving early for their Hawaii vacation.
Thanks to one of our readers, who goes by Lizzy, for noting the double dip.
by Keith Koffler on August 19, 2011, 10:26 am
Mrs. Obama and her daughters arrived just before 2 pm Thursday on a U.S. government jet, according to the Martha’s Vineyard Times, which got its information from the local airport. The first lady’s office has been silent on her travel. President Obama arrived in the evening along with the family dog Bo.
The extra costs related to Mrs. Obama’s solo trip mainly include the flight on a specially designed military aircraft she took instead of Air Force One, as well as any extra staff and Secret Service that had to be enlisted to go with her. She would also have had her own motorcade from the airport to her vacation residence.
Mrs. Obama’s separate jet travel sends the wrong message on a host of issues, from global warming to the budget deficit to the economy – in which currently so many people can’t afford to take a vacation at all.
This is not the first time Michelle has gone on vacation ahead of the president on the taxpayers’ tab. Last December, she racked up what was likely more than $100,000 in expenses leaving early for their Hawaii vacation.
Thanks to one of our readers, who goes by Lizzy, for noting the double dip.
by Keith Koffler on August 19, 2011, 10:26 am
Police Say They Can Detain Photographers If Their Photographs Have "No Apparent Esthetic Value."
It happened in Long Beach:
The police officer somehow determined that there couldn't be esthetic value there, and thus, the photographer had to be detained and checked out. The police are defending this policy, saying that while officers don't have any specific training in what qualifies as "apparent esthetic value," they will stop anyone photographing things they don't consider to be something a "regular tourist" would photograph. I actually have to go down to Long Beach next month for a speaking engagement, and I'm now tempted to take a bunch of photographs that have "no apparent esthetic value."
I understand the security concerns at the root of this, but it's just crazily overreaching. And as someone who often takes pictures like this...
... I feel really threatened.
(Via MadisonMan.)
The police officer somehow determined that there couldn't be esthetic value there, and thus, the photographer had to be detained and checked out. The police are defending this policy, saying that while officers don't have any specific training in what qualifies as "apparent esthetic value," they will stop anyone photographing things they don't consider to be something a "regular tourist" would photograph. I actually have to go down to Long Beach next month for a speaking engagement, and I'm now tempted to take a bunch of photographs that have "no apparent esthetic value."
I understand the security concerns at the root of this, but it's just crazily overreaching. And as someone who often takes pictures like this...
... I feel really threatened.
(Via MadisonMan.)
What is the difference between slaves on plantations and blacks who blindly vote for Democrats?
This is from an email that’s been going around for some time, but never stops being thought-provoking. OR TRUE.
What is the difference between slaves on plantations and blacks who blindly vote for Democrats?
What does a slave-owner have to provide, free, for his slaves?
1. Free Housing.
2. Free Food.
3. Free Healthcare
4. A menial education sufficient to the task he requires the slave to perform.
What is the one thing a slave owner required of his slaves?
1. Unquestioning Loyalty.
What do the democrats always promise to provide, free, to blacks?
1. Free Housing.
2. Free Food.
3. Free healthcare
4. A free menial education, sufficient to get them to the voting booth.
What is the one thing Democrats require of their constituents?
1. Unquestioning Loyalty.
The only question black democrats have to ask themselves is:
Who’s your master now?
The Democrat Party survives because it keeps blacks poor and dependent on Democrat hand-outs to survive.
Democrats do something similar with gays: they keep us in check by scaring gays into believing Republicans are evil and want to kill us, so the only protection we have is to vote Democrat, Democrat, Democrat.
Democrats keep Hispanics under control by pushing Spanish as much as possible, so Hispanics never learn English and don’t progress as much in society.
Women are kept in line by Democrats though cultural wedge issues like abortion, where, once again, people are convinced to vote against their own economic best interests because Democrats create boogeymen to scare them into believing conservatives are evil and want to harm them or take away their rights.
If even one of the groups above could be reasoned with, and would actually see what the Democrat Party does to them, the fragile identity-bloc coalition that makes up the Democrat Paty would collapse on itself.
If you blindly vote Democrat, year after year, without ever asking what you REALLY get out of it, you are either a slave or a damn fool.
*****************************
UPDATE: Thanks to Rush Limbaugh for reading this essay on the air today.
I’m sure it’s made tons of people mad, but all of it is true.
The Democrat Party really will collapse if only conservatives would eclipse the Cocktail Party GOP establishment and start depriving the Left of the means to keep blacks, gay, women, and other indentity-groups subervient in their respective reservations.
The Cocktail Party won’t do this because those in the highest floors of the establishment LIKE things the way they are. Those at the top on the Left and in the Cocktail Party work hard to keep each other in power.
It really is possible to make all of this come crashing down by speaking openly about the reality of what it truly means to be members of one of these Democrat identity-blocs.
What is the difference between slaves on plantations and blacks who blindly vote for Democrats?
What does a slave-owner have to provide, free, for his slaves?
1. Free Housing.
2. Free Food.
3. Free Healthcare
4. A menial education sufficient to the task he requires the slave to perform.
What is the one thing a slave owner required of his slaves?
1. Unquestioning Loyalty.
What do the democrats always promise to provide, free, to blacks?
1. Free Housing.
2. Free Food.
3. Free healthcare
4. A free menial education, sufficient to get them to the voting booth.
What is the one thing Democrats require of their constituents?
1. Unquestioning Loyalty.
The only question black democrats have to ask themselves is:
Who’s your master now?
The Democrat Party survives because it keeps blacks poor and dependent on Democrat hand-outs to survive.
Democrats do something similar with gays: they keep us in check by scaring gays into believing Republicans are evil and want to kill us, so the only protection we have is to vote Democrat, Democrat, Democrat.
Democrats keep Hispanics under control by pushing Spanish as much as possible, so Hispanics never learn English and don’t progress as much in society.
Women are kept in line by Democrats though cultural wedge issues like abortion, where, once again, people are convinced to vote against their own economic best interests because Democrats create boogeymen to scare them into believing conservatives are evil and want to harm them or take away their rights.
If even one of the groups above could be reasoned with, and would actually see what the Democrat Party does to them, the fragile identity-bloc coalition that makes up the Democrat Paty would collapse on itself.
If you blindly vote Democrat, year after year, without ever asking what you REALLY get out of it, you are either a slave or a damn fool.
*****************************
UPDATE: Thanks to Rush Limbaugh for reading this essay on the air today.
I’m sure it’s made tons of people mad, but all of it is true.
The Democrat Party really will collapse if only conservatives would eclipse the Cocktail Party GOP establishment and start depriving the Left of the means to keep blacks, gay, women, and other indentity-groups subervient in their respective reservations.
The Cocktail Party won’t do this because those in the highest floors of the establishment LIKE things the way they are. Those at the top on the Left and in the Cocktail Party work hard to keep each other in power.
It really is possible to make all of this come crashing down by speaking openly about the reality of what it truly means to be members of one of these Democrat identity-blocs.
Fast and Furious Plan Went Awry
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Chip in Fort Worth. It's great to have you on the program. Hi.
CALLER: Dittos from Fort Worth, Rush. First-time caller, longtime listener.
RUSH: Happy to have you here, sir.
CALLER: I wanted to ask you what your thoughts were on these Department of Justice, got your two field supervisors, your deputy directors of the ops in the west all getting promotions and sent up to Washington in this Fast and Furious gun debacle.
RUSH: My thoughts on Fast and Furious have been pretty consistent from the beginning, and the detail that you just mentioned I think confirms for me that I think this thing all started out as an effort by the regime to gin up anti-gun sentiment in America, and it went wrong. It went haywire. I think they tried to secretly get all of these assault weapons in the hands of Mexican drug lords. And then knowing full well what Mexican drug lords would do with them as they're gunning people down. Then the news would hit that Mexican drug lords were using American bought weapons. And how did they get 'em? Why, they just crossed the border and went to a gun show in Phoenix or they went to a gun shop in Phoenix. Look how easy it was and they're killing people.
But then something went wrong with the whole plan. It was learned that the government actually arranged for the guns to end up in the hands of the Mexican drug lords. So all you can do is speculate here, but with some of these people getting promotions, it's a way of keeping them quiet, or it's a way of saying job well done, what have you. It's also a way of making sure that there's always a cloud of doubt about was the government really involved in this? Was the regime really behind all this? But I'll just say, this is one of those stories, if this were a Republican president and something like this had happened, front page news, impeachment would be shouted on the front pages of newspapers, how dare this man imperil American lives? What a harebrained scheme. It barely gets any attention in the Drive-By Media. Did you know, by the way -- I'm gonna give you a little factoid here -- Fast and Furious only tracked one gun, and then for only half a day, then they lost track. Do you also realize that Fast and Furious, to a whole bunch of people in this country, is a bunch of automobile movies?
END TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Chip in Fort Worth. It's great to have you on the program. Hi.
CALLER: Dittos from Fort Worth, Rush. First-time caller, longtime listener.
RUSH: Happy to have you here, sir.
CALLER: I wanted to ask you what your thoughts were on these Department of Justice, got your two field supervisors, your deputy directors of the ops in the west all getting promotions and sent up to Washington in this Fast and Furious gun debacle.
RUSH: My thoughts on Fast and Furious have been pretty consistent from the beginning, and the detail that you just mentioned I think confirms for me that I think this thing all started out as an effort by the regime to gin up anti-gun sentiment in America, and it went wrong. It went haywire. I think they tried to secretly get all of these assault weapons in the hands of Mexican drug lords. And then knowing full well what Mexican drug lords would do with them as they're gunning people down. Then the news would hit that Mexican drug lords were using American bought weapons. And how did they get 'em? Why, they just crossed the border and went to a gun show in Phoenix or they went to a gun shop in Phoenix. Look how easy it was and they're killing people.
But then something went wrong with the whole plan. It was learned that the government actually arranged for the guns to end up in the hands of the Mexican drug lords. So all you can do is speculate here, but with some of these people getting promotions, it's a way of keeping them quiet, or it's a way of saying job well done, what have you. It's also a way of making sure that there's always a cloud of doubt about was the government really involved in this? Was the regime really behind all this? But I'll just say, this is one of those stories, if this were a Republican president and something like this had happened, front page news, impeachment would be shouted on the front pages of newspapers, how dare this man imperil American lives? What a harebrained scheme. It barely gets any attention in the Drive-By Media. Did you know, by the way -- I'm gonna give you a little factoid here -- Fast and Furious only tracked one gun, and then for only half a day, then they lost track. Do you also realize that Fast and Furious, to a whole bunch of people in this country, is a bunch of automobile movies?
END TRANSCRIPT
Obama Admits Healthcare Waivers Are to Hold Back Flood of Companies Dropping Insurance
Obama Admits Healthcare Waivers Are to Hold Back Flood of Companies Dropping Insurance
This is from the President’s appearance in Decorah, Iowa. A man in the audience asks “You talk about universal healthcare…if it’s so good why are you allowing so many large companies to opt out?”
Anytime you’re changing big systems like this there’s going to be a transition period. So, the overall healthcare reform does not fully take effect until 2013. That’s when we have the exchanges set up, which means that if you don’t have health insurance or if you’re a small business that only has a few employees and you can’t get a good rate, you’re going to be able to go into the exchange and essentially be part of a big pool just like a big company or federal workers are and get a better deal from your insurance companies. But those exchanges are just now being set up. Took about couple years to get it set up.
So in the mean time the question is how do you manage that transition in a way in which a bunch of companies don’t say to themselves well we’re just going to eliminate healthcare that’s not great but it’s better than nothing. And our basic attitude has been we’re willing to give some waivers to some companies that are doing something when it comes to healthcare because those employees don’t have a better option right now but as we build up this better option then they’ll be able to take advantage of that better option. So the whole issue here has to do with how do we transition to the point where all these exchanges across the country are up and running.
All during the debate over Obamacare, Republicans argued that companies facing steeper costs would simply eliminate health care and dump people into the exchanges. Here’s how the Heritage Foundation described it earlier this year:
As it turns out, many businesses will likely dump employees into the subsidized exchanges, passing the cost of providing coverage from the business to the federal taxpayer. A company that does not offer health coverage will be able to increase its work force’s wages, with the employees receiving generous subsidies to buy insurance in the exchanges. It is a true win-win scenario (workers get higher wages and subsidized coverage while employers get drastically reduced costs for employee health insurance) if we forget about the taxpayer.
Meanwhile, progressives like those at Think Progress were busy arguing that this would not happen to any significant degree.
But President Obama just admitted that the waivers his administration has issued are an attempt to staunch the flood of companies dropping employer healthcare just until the exchanges are set up. Maybe there’s another way to parse it, but that’s how it sounds to me. Once the exchanges are set up the waivers end (already built into the law) and employees will have a “better option,” i.e. taxpayer subsidized plans.
The entire effort to promote Obamacare has been a case of deceit and misdirection by the President and his allies. As the reality of the plan draws nearer, he continues to reveal more of the reality as opposed to the carefully crafted sales pitch.
This is from the President’s appearance in Decorah, Iowa. A man in the audience asks “You talk about universal healthcare…if it’s so good why are you allowing so many large companies to opt out?”
Anytime you’re changing big systems like this there’s going to be a transition period. So, the overall healthcare reform does not fully take effect until 2013. That’s when we have the exchanges set up, which means that if you don’t have health insurance or if you’re a small business that only has a few employees and you can’t get a good rate, you’re going to be able to go into the exchange and essentially be part of a big pool just like a big company or federal workers are and get a better deal from your insurance companies. But those exchanges are just now being set up. Took about couple years to get it set up.
So in the mean time the question is how do you manage that transition in a way in which a bunch of companies don’t say to themselves well we’re just going to eliminate healthcare that’s not great but it’s better than nothing. And our basic attitude has been we’re willing to give some waivers to some companies that are doing something when it comes to healthcare because those employees don’t have a better option right now but as we build up this better option then they’ll be able to take advantage of that better option. So the whole issue here has to do with how do we transition to the point where all these exchanges across the country are up and running.
All during the debate over Obamacare, Republicans argued that companies facing steeper costs would simply eliminate health care and dump people into the exchanges. Here’s how the Heritage Foundation described it earlier this year:
As it turns out, many businesses will likely dump employees into the subsidized exchanges, passing the cost of providing coverage from the business to the federal taxpayer. A company that does not offer health coverage will be able to increase its work force’s wages, with the employees receiving generous subsidies to buy insurance in the exchanges. It is a true win-win scenario (workers get higher wages and subsidized coverage while employers get drastically reduced costs for employee health insurance) if we forget about the taxpayer.
Meanwhile, progressives like those at Think Progress were busy arguing that this would not happen to any significant degree.
But President Obama just admitted that the waivers his administration has issued are an attempt to staunch the flood of companies dropping employer healthcare just until the exchanges are set up. Maybe there’s another way to parse it, but that’s how it sounds to me. Once the exchanges are set up the waivers end (already built into the law) and employees will have a “better option,” i.e. taxpayer subsidized plans.
The entire effort to promote Obamacare has been a case of deceit and misdirection by the President and his allies. As the reality of the plan draws nearer, he continues to reveal more of the reality as opposed to the carefully crafted sales pitch.
EU Solution-A Transaction Tax-What It Means To You and Why the Market Tanked
Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy met today. Here is what they came up with.
They put off the idea of a Eurobond. They have proposed that Herman Van Rompuy become the Head of Euro Council,. The debt brake will be anchored in German and French law-so now they have taken over the other Euro countries. All Euro countries will have to put deficit limits into their constitutions by summer 2012. They are committed to a strong Euro currency. They will try to harmonize corporate taxes by 2013.
But the big news is they will propose a transaction tax on financial transactions.
The market fell out of bed after the conference since virtually everything they proposed is more bureaucratic nonsense, and then a tax.
The fall out from the conference looks to be three fold.
First, Greece will get gently booted out of the Euro. They should have never been allowed in, and instead of pruning from the top down, they are pruning from the bottom up. Greece will be jettisoned, banks will take a hit and the country of Greece will see massive inflation once the Drachma is brought back.
Second, they will rely on bureaucracy to solve their problems. The 17 nations will have to get their budgets under control. Additionally, the corporate tax harmonization was a shot across the bow at Ireland. Ireland has a low corporate tax and Europeans hate it. Will Ireland be able to continue to fight to keep it’s tax rates low? Time will tell. If I were Ireland, I might rather leave the EU than raise taxes.
Third, and the biggest bombshell, a financial transaction tax. This impacts the NYSE ($NYX) since they are merging with the Deutsche Borse. It also impacts the NASDAQ ($NDAQ) because they own European exchanges. Of course, banks ($GS, $MS, $C, $BAC) will collect the tax and pass on the cost to consumers. Don’t think for a minute that they will pay it.
Transaction taxes are like a willing, sexy women at the bar. She looks so appealing. You take her to your room, and you wind up with a disease that you can never get rid of.
Transaction taxes are taxes on liquidity. Every time a trade is placed, a tax is paid. That makes it more expensive to trade. Market participants have to widen the bid/ask spread to account for the tax. This damages the market and costs consumers more than they actually realize.
Suppose that the US enacted a transaction tax. A tax was originally included in the Dodd-Frank bill before it was wisely dropped. The spread on US Treasuries would widen significantly. A one tick rise in the spread is worth from $6.25 to $31.25 depending on the maturity. The tick value on a ten year note is $15.625. They are traded in $100,000 increments. To do a billion, you’d have to do 10,000 contracts. A .05 cent tax would cost $500. In its Treasury futures, the $CME does 2.6 million contracts per day. In theory, a five cent tax would bring in $130,000 per day, or $28.6 million per year. The total take just from CME if volume continued to average what it has would be $198 million per year. (ADV=18M)
As a market maker, forced to pay a tax I would decrease the volume that I traded. It would force more discipline on my trading style and force me to pick my spots. I’d be a lot more careful. The tax changes risk reward ratios. Multiply that by the thousands of people trading and you will get significantly less volume than you have today. Sounds good to a lot of people. “Let’s get those greedy Wall Street bastards!”
Less volume means it’s a lot harder for pension funds and mutual funds to transact business. They get worse prices. That decreases the rate of return they can pay the people that are invested in them. Glad you got those Wall Street bastards?
Follow the logic even further. If spreads widen in the ten year US Treasury market, it will cost you $15.625 for every tick they widen. Currently our debt is 14 trillion. Averaging out the tick value of the Treasury contracts, you get around $17.60. For every $100,000 you increase the debt, you pay an extra $17.60 per tick. To give you a rule of thumb, spreads before futures contracts were initiated on Treasury debt were around 12-15 ticks wide or roughly $250 bucks. Today they are a tick wide, but after a tax they would widen for sure. ($ZQ_F, $ZT_F, $ZF_F, $ZN_F, $ZB_F, $GE_F)
Because a tax on transactions is a tax on liquidity, bid/ask spreads will have less volume on each side. This means that when a large trade hits the marketplace, there will be what market pros call “slippage” in the market. Prices will get even more volatile and costs go up. Slippage decreases the return on investment that funds return to their investors. Aren’t you glad they went after those greedy traders now?
A transaction tax will add trillions to the cost of issuing US debt. That increases your tax liability. The increased cost will artificially increase interest rates. That increases corporate borrowing costs, and forces consumers to pay higher prices for goods and services. A crushing debt load will turn each and everyone of you to a slave to government, not working for the betterment of your family.
Aren’t you happy you got those greedy bastards now?
Applying the same logic to Europe, Sarkozy and Merkel just made everything significantly more expensive($CL_F). They increased costs dramatically, and guaranteed slower growth. They just lifted trillions in Euros from the pockets of anyone using the Euro. Not only that, but capital will flow away from the European marketplace and into markets that tax less. Asia and the United States ought to benefit from those capital flows. More money will plow into the Swiss Franc($CHFUSD, $6S_F).
The cost of commodities will be more expensive in Europe. Brent Crude ($ICE) now faces a transaction tax that will artificially push up the cost of energy. This increased cost will filter through everything in Europe.
Sarkozy and Merkel just shot themselves in the foot. They guaranteed slower growth and dimmer prospects for the future. Let’s hope that US officials don’t borrow the same stupid logic.
thanks for the links Kirk Report, Investing With Options, Emini Addict, Investors Hub, Cara Community.
They put off the idea of a Eurobond. They have proposed that Herman Van Rompuy become the Head of Euro Council,. The debt brake will be anchored in German and French law-so now they have taken over the other Euro countries. All Euro countries will have to put deficit limits into their constitutions by summer 2012. They are committed to a strong Euro currency. They will try to harmonize corporate taxes by 2013.
But the big news is they will propose a transaction tax on financial transactions.
The market fell out of bed after the conference since virtually everything they proposed is more bureaucratic nonsense, and then a tax.
The fall out from the conference looks to be three fold.
First, Greece will get gently booted out of the Euro. They should have never been allowed in, and instead of pruning from the top down, they are pruning from the bottom up. Greece will be jettisoned, banks will take a hit and the country of Greece will see massive inflation once the Drachma is brought back.
Second, they will rely on bureaucracy to solve their problems. The 17 nations will have to get their budgets under control. Additionally, the corporate tax harmonization was a shot across the bow at Ireland. Ireland has a low corporate tax and Europeans hate it. Will Ireland be able to continue to fight to keep it’s tax rates low? Time will tell. If I were Ireland, I might rather leave the EU than raise taxes.
Third, and the biggest bombshell, a financial transaction tax. This impacts the NYSE ($NYX) since they are merging with the Deutsche Borse. It also impacts the NASDAQ ($NDAQ) because they own European exchanges. Of course, banks ($GS, $MS, $C, $BAC) will collect the tax and pass on the cost to consumers. Don’t think for a minute that they will pay it.
Transaction taxes are like a willing, sexy women at the bar. She looks so appealing. You take her to your room, and you wind up with a disease that you can never get rid of.
Transaction taxes are taxes on liquidity. Every time a trade is placed, a tax is paid. That makes it more expensive to trade. Market participants have to widen the bid/ask spread to account for the tax. This damages the market and costs consumers more than they actually realize.
Suppose that the US enacted a transaction tax. A tax was originally included in the Dodd-Frank bill before it was wisely dropped. The spread on US Treasuries would widen significantly. A one tick rise in the spread is worth from $6.25 to $31.25 depending on the maturity. The tick value on a ten year note is $15.625. They are traded in $100,000 increments. To do a billion, you’d have to do 10,000 contracts. A .05 cent tax would cost $500. In its Treasury futures, the $CME does 2.6 million contracts per day. In theory, a five cent tax would bring in $130,000 per day, or $28.6 million per year. The total take just from CME if volume continued to average what it has would be $198 million per year. (ADV=18M)
As a market maker, forced to pay a tax I would decrease the volume that I traded. It would force more discipline on my trading style and force me to pick my spots. I’d be a lot more careful. The tax changes risk reward ratios. Multiply that by the thousands of people trading and you will get significantly less volume than you have today. Sounds good to a lot of people. “Let’s get those greedy Wall Street bastards!”
Less volume means it’s a lot harder for pension funds and mutual funds to transact business. They get worse prices. That decreases the rate of return they can pay the people that are invested in them. Glad you got those Wall Street bastards?
Follow the logic even further. If spreads widen in the ten year US Treasury market, it will cost you $15.625 for every tick they widen. Currently our debt is 14 trillion. Averaging out the tick value of the Treasury contracts, you get around $17.60. For every $100,000 you increase the debt, you pay an extra $17.60 per tick. To give you a rule of thumb, spreads before futures contracts were initiated on Treasury debt were around 12-15 ticks wide or roughly $250 bucks. Today they are a tick wide, but after a tax they would widen for sure. ($ZQ_F, $ZT_F, $ZF_F, $ZN_F, $ZB_F, $GE_F)
Because a tax on transactions is a tax on liquidity, bid/ask spreads will have less volume on each side. This means that when a large trade hits the marketplace, there will be what market pros call “slippage” in the market. Prices will get even more volatile and costs go up. Slippage decreases the return on investment that funds return to their investors. Aren’t you glad they went after those greedy traders now?
A transaction tax will add trillions to the cost of issuing US debt. That increases your tax liability. The increased cost will artificially increase interest rates. That increases corporate borrowing costs, and forces consumers to pay higher prices for goods and services. A crushing debt load will turn each and everyone of you to a slave to government, not working for the betterment of your family.
Aren’t you happy you got those greedy bastards now?
Applying the same logic to Europe, Sarkozy and Merkel just made everything significantly more expensive($CL_F). They increased costs dramatically, and guaranteed slower growth. They just lifted trillions in Euros from the pockets of anyone using the Euro. Not only that, but capital will flow away from the European marketplace and into markets that tax less. Asia and the United States ought to benefit from those capital flows. More money will plow into the Swiss Franc($CHFUSD, $6S_F).
The cost of commodities will be more expensive in Europe. Brent Crude ($ICE) now faces a transaction tax that will artificially push up the cost of energy. This increased cost will filter through everything in Europe.
Sarkozy and Merkel just shot themselves in the foot. They guaranteed slower growth and dimmer prospects for the future. Let’s hope that US officials don’t borrow the same stupid logic.
thanks for the links Kirk Report, Investing With Options, Emini Addict, Investors Hub, Cara Community.
In Praise of Timely, Blatant Incompetence
Tonight I am going to do something different, openly praise blatant incompetence. I will list my reasons later but first let me sing the praises of sheer incompetence at Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P (the big 3 rating agencies).
Downgrade of U.S. Debt Long Overdue
Many are in shock that the S&P downgraded debt of the US from AAA. Not me. It was long overdue.
However, the S&P proved it was incompetent in the way it made the downgrade. Pray tell how can a rating agency make a $2 trillion error? The answer is obvious: sheer incompetence.
The irony is Moody's and Fitch proved they are incompetent by not downgrading U.S. debt.
If you need a myriad of reasons, I highly recommend Issues and Solutions for Restoring Credibility to the Credit Rating Agencies and Rehabilitating the Alternative Banking System by Janet M. Tavakoli, President, Tavakoli Structured Finance, Inc.
Also note that Egan-Jones downgraded US debt on July 18 from AAA to AA+ and nobody batted an eye.
"We are taking a negative action not based on the delay in raising the debt ceiling but rather our concern about the high level of debt to GDP in excess of 100% compared to Canada's 35%."
NRSRO Certification
The SEC certifies Egan-Jones as one of 10 NRSROs "Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations".
The "Big 3" NRSROs are Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P.
Most have never heard of Egan-Jones or any rating agencies but the big 3, and that explains why nobody howled when Egan-Jones did its downgrade, yet everyone howled like rabid wolves over the S&P's action.
The wolves demanded action and action they got.
S&P Under Justice Department Investigation
The Associated Press reports Justice Department investigating Standard and Poor's mortgage securities ratings .
The Justice Department is investigating whether the Standard & Poor's credit ratings agency improperly rated dozens of mortgage securities in the years leading up to the financial crisis, The New York Times reported Wednesday.
S&P Investigated for Insider Trading
The Wall Street Journal reports SEC Asking About Insider Trading at S&P
The post-downgrade backlash against S&P seems to be gathering strength.
The FT is reporting, citing anonymous sources, that the SEC is investigating whether there was any insider trading done by employees of Standard & Poor’s ahead of their downgrade of the US a week ago.
Dow Jones Newswires writes:
"The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has asked Standard & Poor’s to disclose who within its ranks knew of the recent decision to downgrade U.S. debt before it was announced, the Financial Times newspaper reported Thursday on its website, citing unnamed people familiar with the matter."
Remember, rumors of a post-bell downgrade were rampant on Wall Street very early on Friday, rumors that turned out to be true. It sure sounded like a leak, though the leak could have come from either S&P or Treasury. It seemed inevitable there would be an investigation, though it could be hard to find anything.
MarketWatch points out that, according to the 2006 Credit Rating Agency Reform Act, S&P could have its license revoked if it leaked word of the downgrade.
Nearly universal sentiment was that treasury yields would rise on a downgrade. I said "no effect". Yields plunged in spite of the downgrade, so clearly the decision had no effect.
Rumors float all the time. The S&P gave a date as to when they would announce. They even hinted at a downgrade in my opinion. So, how tough is it for someone to start a rumor that had a 50% chance of being correct?
Excuse me for asking, but as long as prostitutes are under investigation, what about an investigation of the other two whores, Moody's and Fitch, or better yet all of them for reasons far more serious than unfounded witch-hunts, like outright fraud.
AAA Rated CDOs, CDOs-Squared, and Other Garbage
By now nearly everyone realizes Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P were grossly incompetent and fueled the mortgage crisis by rating pure garbage mortgages in numerous forms as AAA.
But was it gross incompetence or purposeful fraud by the big 3 to see who could collect the most "paying johns", damn the consequences?
Regardless, why is only the S&P under investigation?
The answer is the big three whores are supposed to do what the government says they are supposed to do, and the S&P didn't. So the S&P is under investigation. And that serves as a warning to Moody's and Fitch.
Explanation of Whores
I have used the term "whores" twice now so it needs an explanation. What I mean is the big 3 rating agencies arguably sold themselves to the highest bidder, essentially granting an AAA rating to damn near anything for a fee.
The Rating Agency Model, as it now exists, pays raters on the basis of how much volume they do, not on how well they rate anything. If you are willing to rate pure garbage as AAA no matter what it is really worth, you get a lot more "action" and make a lot more money.
And action the "big 3" got. And everyone, turned a blind eye to the process, because no one likes to end a party, especially a party that whores are throwing with Greenspan and Bernanke cheerleading like a pair of pom-pom girls at the big game.
The SEC Caused this Mess
There is just one more detail I need to point out before we get to the proper solution. That detail pertains to the question "Who Caused this Mess?"
I have talked about this on numerous occasions actually, but perhaps now is the time someone will listen.
Flashback September 28, 2007: Time To Break Up The Credit Rating Cartel
The rating agencies were originally research firms. They were paid by those looking to buy bonds or make loans to a company. If a rating company did poorly it lost business. If it did poorly too often it went out of business.
Low and behold the SEC came along in 1975 and ruined a perfectly viable business construct by mandating that debt be rated by a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO).
Establishment of the NRSRO did three things (all bad):
It made it extremely difficult to become "nationally recognized" as a rating agency when all debt had to be rated by someone who was already nationally recognized.
In effect it created a nice monopoly for those in the designated group.
It turned upside down the model of who had to pay. Previously debt buyers would go to the ratings companies to know what they were buying. The new model was issuers of debt had to pay to get it rated or they couldn't sell it. Of course this led to shopping around to see who would give the debt the highest rating.
Spotlight on Prostitutes
There is nothing new here. I have been talking about this for years.
But finally rating agencies are in the spotlight of Congress, of foreign governments, of investors, and of pension fund managers stupid enough to buy AAA rated garbage stamped by paid prostitutes.
Solutions
Some of the proposed solutions to this mess are horrific. There is a massive 400 page bill in Congress to address the problem.
Tavakoli's report, cited above, is 50 pages long. I agree with most of her analysis. I cannot endorse the ending paragraph.
The solution is to raise one or more rating agencies up to standard to merit the NRSRO label. Meanwhile, rating agencies can continue to issue ratings but must commit to coming up to standard. Those that cannot should have the privilege of issuing ratings completely revoked. The second part of the solution is to develop global third party benchmarks and global third party rating scales and make accurate ratings the only measurement of success.
No, that is NOT the Solution
The government does not have and never has had a need to have a NRSRO label. Moreover, there is no need to require all debt be rated. Indeed, the act of mandating that all debt be rated by designated rating agencies is what led to the escalating problem of everything being rated AAA in the first place.
Finally, it is complete silliness to suggest some committee can determine who merits NRSRO and to wait until rating agencies come up to standard.
THE Solution
End immediately the NRSRO label. Neither the government nor the SEC has any business handing a monopoly business to anyone.
End immediately the requirement that all debt be rated. The market will sort this out in a flash.
By immediately I mean 6 months, 8 months or whatever time is appropriate for debt-buyers to decide who they want to use as opposed to some committee deciding who should be approved.
People buying debt will have to do homework, but that is far better than trusting an AAA rating placed on garbage by prostitutes paid to place a label.
Over time, Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P will do a better job, or they will cease to exist. Simply put, those who rate debt accurately will flourish, those who don't will go out of business.
What's wrong with that?
So Why Do I Praise Blatant Incompetence?
I praise blatant, timely incompetence because it takes massive force (in this case universally recognized blatant incompetence at precisely the right time), before there is any chance of getting change.
There is a small window of opportunity here.
The time to take advantage is now. Instead of silly Congressional investigations of the S&P in regards to the timing of their announcement, Congress simply needs to write a bill eliminating the NRSRO label and the requirement that debt be rated. Yes, it's as simple as that.
S&P, I salute your gross incompetence. Your timing was perfect. Whether anything sensible happens remains to be seen, but at least there is a small chance for reasonable voices to be heard.
Contact Congress
Please send your congressional representatives an email or fax and tell them to scrap the NRSRO "Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations" rating entirely, ending the monopoly of Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
Downgrade of U.S. Debt Long Overdue
Many are in shock that the S&P downgraded debt of the US from AAA. Not me. It was long overdue.
However, the S&P proved it was incompetent in the way it made the downgrade. Pray tell how can a rating agency make a $2 trillion error? The answer is obvious: sheer incompetence.
The irony is Moody's and Fitch proved they are incompetent by not downgrading U.S. debt.
If you need a myriad of reasons, I highly recommend Issues and Solutions for Restoring Credibility to the Credit Rating Agencies and Rehabilitating the Alternative Banking System by Janet M. Tavakoli, President, Tavakoli Structured Finance, Inc.
Also note that Egan-Jones downgraded US debt on July 18 from AAA to AA+ and nobody batted an eye.
"We are taking a negative action not based on the delay in raising the debt ceiling but rather our concern about the high level of debt to GDP in excess of 100% compared to Canada's 35%."
NRSRO Certification
The SEC certifies Egan-Jones as one of 10 NRSROs "Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations".
The "Big 3" NRSROs are Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P.
Most have never heard of Egan-Jones or any rating agencies but the big 3, and that explains why nobody howled when Egan-Jones did its downgrade, yet everyone howled like rabid wolves over the S&P's action.
The wolves demanded action and action they got.
S&P Under Justice Department Investigation
The Associated Press reports Justice Department investigating Standard and Poor's mortgage securities ratings .
The Justice Department is investigating whether the Standard & Poor's credit ratings agency improperly rated dozens of mortgage securities in the years leading up to the financial crisis, The New York Times reported Wednesday.
S&P Investigated for Insider Trading
The Wall Street Journal reports SEC Asking About Insider Trading at S&P
The post-downgrade backlash against S&P seems to be gathering strength.
The FT is reporting, citing anonymous sources, that the SEC is investigating whether there was any insider trading done by employees of Standard & Poor’s ahead of their downgrade of the US a week ago.
Dow Jones Newswires writes:
"The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has asked Standard & Poor’s to disclose who within its ranks knew of the recent decision to downgrade U.S. debt before it was announced, the Financial Times newspaper reported Thursday on its website, citing unnamed people familiar with the matter."
Remember, rumors of a post-bell downgrade were rampant on Wall Street very early on Friday, rumors that turned out to be true. It sure sounded like a leak, though the leak could have come from either S&P or Treasury. It seemed inevitable there would be an investigation, though it could be hard to find anything.
MarketWatch points out that, according to the 2006 Credit Rating Agency Reform Act, S&P could have its license revoked if it leaked word of the downgrade.
Nearly universal sentiment was that treasury yields would rise on a downgrade. I said "no effect". Yields plunged in spite of the downgrade, so clearly the decision had no effect.
Rumors float all the time. The S&P gave a date as to when they would announce. They even hinted at a downgrade in my opinion. So, how tough is it for someone to start a rumor that had a 50% chance of being correct?
Excuse me for asking, but as long as prostitutes are under investigation, what about an investigation of the other two whores, Moody's and Fitch, or better yet all of them for reasons far more serious than unfounded witch-hunts, like outright fraud.
AAA Rated CDOs, CDOs-Squared, and Other Garbage
By now nearly everyone realizes Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P were grossly incompetent and fueled the mortgage crisis by rating pure garbage mortgages in numerous forms as AAA.
But was it gross incompetence or purposeful fraud by the big 3 to see who could collect the most "paying johns", damn the consequences?
Regardless, why is only the S&P under investigation?
The answer is the big three whores are supposed to do what the government says they are supposed to do, and the S&P didn't. So the S&P is under investigation. And that serves as a warning to Moody's and Fitch.
Explanation of Whores
I have used the term "whores" twice now so it needs an explanation. What I mean is the big 3 rating agencies arguably sold themselves to the highest bidder, essentially granting an AAA rating to damn near anything for a fee.
The Rating Agency Model, as it now exists, pays raters on the basis of how much volume they do, not on how well they rate anything. If you are willing to rate pure garbage as AAA no matter what it is really worth, you get a lot more "action" and make a lot more money.
And action the "big 3" got. And everyone, turned a blind eye to the process, because no one likes to end a party, especially a party that whores are throwing with Greenspan and Bernanke cheerleading like a pair of pom-pom girls at the big game.
The SEC Caused this Mess
There is just one more detail I need to point out before we get to the proper solution. That detail pertains to the question "Who Caused this Mess?"
I have talked about this on numerous occasions actually, but perhaps now is the time someone will listen.
Flashback September 28, 2007: Time To Break Up The Credit Rating Cartel
The rating agencies were originally research firms. They were paid by those looking to buy bonds or make loans to a company. If a rating company did poorly it lost business. If it did poorly too often it went out of business.
Low and behold the SEC came along in 1975 and ruined a perfectly viable business construct by mandating that debt be rated by a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO).
Establishment of the NRSRO did three things (all bad):
It made it extremely difficult to become "nationally recognized" as a rating agency when all debt had to be rated by someone who was already nationally recognized.
In effect it created a nice monopoly for those in the designated group.
It turned upside down the model of who had to pay. Previously debt buyers would go to the ratings companies to know what they were buying. The new model was issuers of debt had to pay to get it rated or they couldn't sell it. Of course this led to shopping around to see who would give the debt the highest rating.
Spotlight on Prostitutes
There is nothing new here. I have been talking about this for years.
But finally rating agencies are in the spotlight of Congress, of foreign governments, of investors, and of pension fund managers stupid enough to buy AAA rated garbage stamped by paid prostitutes.
Solutions
Some of the proposed solutions to this mess are horrific. There is a massive 400 page bill in Congress to address the problem.
Tavakoli's report, cited above, is 50 pages long. I agree with most of her analysis. I cannot endorse the ending paragraph.
The solution is to raise one or more rating agencies up to standard to merit the NRSRO label. Meanwhile, rating agencies can continue to issue ratings but must commit to coming up to standard. Those that cannot should have the privilege of issuing ratings completely revoked. The second part of the solution is to develop global third party benchmarks and global third party rating scales and make accurate ratings the only measurement of success.
No, that is NOT the Solution
The government does not have and never has had a need to have a NRSRO label. Moreover, there is no need to require all debt be rated. Indeed, the act of mandating that all debt be rated by designated rating agencies is what led to the escalating problem of everything being rated AAA in the first place.
Finally, it is complete silliness to suggest some committee can determine who merits NRSRO and to wait until rating agencies come up to standard.
THE Solution
End immediately the NRSRO label. Neither the government nor the SEC has any business handing a monopoly business to anyone.
End immediately the requirement that all debt be rated. The market will sort this out in a flash.
By immediately I mean 6 months, 8 months or whatever time is appropriate for debt-buyers to decide who they want to use as opposed to some committee deciding who should be approved.
People buying debt will have to do homework, but that is far better than trusting an AAA rating placed on garbage by prostitutes paid to place a label.
Over time, Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P will do a better job, or they will cease to exist. Simply put, those who rate debt accurately will flourish, those who don't will go out of business.
What's wrong with that?
So Why Do I Praise Blatant Incompetence?
I praise blatant, timely incompetence because it takes massive force (in this case universally recognized blatant incompetence at precisely the right time), before there is any chance of getting change.
There is a small window of opportunity here.
The time to take advantage is now. Instead of silly Congressional investigations of the S&P in regards to the timing of their announcement, Congress simply needs to write a bill eliminating the NRSRO label and the requirement that debt be rated. Yes, it's as simple as that.
S&P, I salute your gross incompetence. Your timing was perfect. Whether anything sensible happens remains to be seen, but at least there is a small chance for reasonable voices to be heard.
Contact Congress
Please send your congressional representatives an email or fax and tell them to scrap the NRSRO "Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations" rating entirely, ending the monopoly of Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
Obama Administration Pledges to Reduce Deportations
Comprehensive Amnesty Threat - Obama Administration Pledges to Reduce Deportations
The Obama Administration announced on Thursday that it will individually review the 300,000 cases of illegal aliens currently holding deportation orders in an effort to appease his pro-amnesty critics and last year's record number of deportations.
The Administration deported 400,000 illegal aliens last year -- less than half had been convicted for other crimes. Pres. Obama is pledging to halt deportations of non-criminal illegal aliens. Illegal aliens that are considered low-priority deportations will no longer be the focus, including young people who were brought to the U.S. as children, military veterans and spouses of military personnel.
"They will be applying common sense guidelines to make these decisions, like a person's ties and contributions to the community, their family relationships and military service record," White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Muñoz wrote on the White House blog. "In the end, this means more immigration enforcement pressure where it counts the most, and less where it doesn't – that's the smartest way to follow the law while we stay focused on working with the Congress to fix it."
The Obama Administration announced on Thursday that it will individually review the 300,000 cases of illegal aliens currently holding deportation orders in an effort to appease his pro-amnesty critics and last year's record number of deportations.
The Administration deported 400,000 illegal aliens last year -- less than half had been convicted for other crimes. Pres. Obama is pledging to halt deportations of non-criminal illegal aliens. Illegal aliens that are considered low-priority deportations will no longer be the focus, including young people who were brought to the U.S. as children, military veterans and spouses of military personnel.
"They will be applying common sense guidelines to make these decisions, like a person's ties and contributions to the community, their family relationships and military service record," White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Muñoz wrote on the White House blog. "In the end, this means more immigration enforcement pressure where it counts the most, and less where it doesn't – that's the smartest way to follow the law while we stay focused on working with the Congress to fix it."
The 50 Richest Members of Congress (2011)
To determine the richest lawmakers, Roll Call adds up the minimum value of total assets reported by each Member on their annual financial disclosures and subtracts the minimum liabilities. Percent change refers to the change since last year's disclosure forms.
An asset valued at $5 million to $25 million is counted at the lesser amount, as is a liability valued at $1 million to $5 million.
You can visit previous editions of 50 Richest lists here.
Expanded version of the LATEST LIST HERE
An asset valued at $5 million to $25 million is counted at the lesser amount, as is a liability valued at $1 million to $5 million.
You can visit previous editions of 50 Richest lists here.
Expanded version of the LATEST LIST HERE
‘If You are a White, Middle-Aged American Male, You Might be a Terrorist!’
In a hat tip to Jeff Foxworthy’s “You Might be a Redneck” shtick, the Department of Homeland Security has instituted a “You Might be a Terrorist” campaign. It goes something like this: “If you are white, male (maybe female), and middle-aged…you might be a terrorist!”
The DHS has released yet another public service announcement-style video to push its If You See Something, Say Something campaign to encourage public vigilance in the War on Terror. The problem is, like previous PSA videos, the only way DHS can portray terrorists is as white men or women.
Now, I’m not saying it’s impossible for white, middle-aged American men and women to be terrorists, but the odds suggest otherwise. Over the last two years, 126 people have been indicted on terrorism-related charges, and all have been Muslim. According to Attorney General Eric Holder, only 50 of the 126 were Americans, but how many of these Americans were white men or white women has not been released.
This latest Janet Napolitano “Big Sis” production comes on the heels of a July 2011 PSA video which also characterized white Americans as likely terrorists.
When Infowars broke the story about this first PSA, it theorized why DHS took this unique approach to portray who might bear watching:
“Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the DHS’ own internal documents list predominantly white conservative groups as the most likely terrorists, such as Ron Paul supporters, gun owners, gold bullion enthusiasts, and a myriad of other comparatively banal political interests that are largely the domain of white middle class Americans.”
I think the motive lies somewhere between the tyrannical (as the above quote suggests) and the politically correct.
We’ve certainly seen how the left wants to disparage patriotic Americans, especially the Tea Party. Whether Vice President Joe Biden did or did not call Tea Partiers terrorists recently may never be proven, but it seems the sentiment is there, so I lean toward believing he did. It’s the same kind of disdain we see in the DHS 2009 report about right-wing extremism. Are the DHS PSA videos an attempt to create a perception of danger about a group of people who have not demonstrated any violence?
A large component of the DHS’s careful selection of actors in its PSA videos seems to be PC-based. Although the average terrorist who has attacked/attempted to attack American interests in recent years has been a young Middle-Eastern Muslim male, DHS could not bring itself to use that accurate depiction. It might offend the people who are actually trying to harm us! It’s the same mentality that causes DHS-owned TSA agents to frisk toddlers and senior citizens with great zeal. Profiling would be offensive, even when the data suggests a certain profile to watch for.
Something like $10M of taxpayer money was poured into the creation of these worthless videos…government silliness at its worst. If the DHS was motivated by a streak of tyranny, then we have much more to fear as citizens than just these videos. If they were created because the PC crowd on the left feared being offensive to Muslims, then the irony is in how offensive the videos are to white, non-Muslim Americans. Either way, or somewhere in between, we need to shake up the makeup in Washington, DC. The inmates are running the asylum, and it’s time for some adult leadership in government.
Mike Angley
Hamas To Assad: Fire At Will
Hamas has some interesting political ideas; it appears that it is only a bad thing to kill Palestinians and shell refugee camps when Jews do it. When anti-Sunni Arab dictators shell peaceful Palestinians, that is perfectly OK.
The breathtaking cynicism of the leadership of this terrorist organization is rarely so openly on display, but when the economic and personal interests of its leaders are involved, Hamas will support Butcher Assad as he wallows in Palestinian blood.
It is now clear which side of the Syrian revolution Hamas wants to win. Despite attacks on Palestinians in the coastal city of Latakia (where over 5,000 Palestinians fled the Palestinian refugee camp of al-Rami after it came under fire from Syrian gunboats) and arrests and intimidation of Palestinians in the Yarmouk neighborhood of Damascus, home to many Palestinians who were marching in support of the Palestinians fleeing Latakia, Hamas has firmly placed itself in Assad’s camp.
The official response to Syrian attacks on Palestinians? Silence and a crackdown on any anti-Assad, pro-Palestinian protests in Gaza. As the conservative Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post reports:
A Gaza youth organization tried to stage an anti-Assad rally on Tuesday evening, but plain-clothed Hamas security police showed up ahead of time and ordered journalists away. They briefly detained a handful of youths who tried to protest.
Notice the different way the PLO leadership reacted: Yasser Abed Rabbo, the PLO secretary general, told Reuters yesterday:
The shelling is taking place using gunships and tanks on houses built from tin, on people who have no place to run to or even a shelter to hide in…This is a crime against humanity.
Not to be unduly cynical, but Fatah sees (correctly) that Hamas’ squalid policy of collaboration gives Fatah the chance to peel away more Hamas followers in the ongoing bitter struggle between the rival Palestinian movements. Fatah on its part said next to nothing as Egypt enforced a blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza.
Political forces naturally compete, but Palestinian factions, which generally depend on foreign funders to provide the money for the salaries which keep their followers sweet, have historically been more fractious and less manageable than most. Bitter internal feuds among the Palestinians and the ease with which outsiders can influence Palestinian leadership are among the great weaknesses of the Palestinian project. That doesn’t, sadly, seem likely to change.
Walter Russell Mead's Blog
The breathtaking cynicism of the leadership of this terrorist organization is rarely so openly on display, but when the economic and personal interests of its leaders are involved, Hamas will support Butcher Assad as he wallows in Palestinian blood.
It is now clear which side of the Syrian revolution Hamas wants to win. Despite attacks on Palestinians in the coastal city of Latakia (where over 5,000 Palestinians fled the Palestinian refugee camp of al-Rami after it came under fire from Syrian gunboats) and arrests and intimidation of Palestinians in the Yarmouk neighborhood of Damascus, home to many Palestinians who were marching in support of the Palestinians fleeing Latakia, Hamas has firmly placed itself in Assad’s camp.
The official response to Syrian attacks on Palestinians? Silence and a crackdown on any anti-Assad, pro-Palestinian protests in Gaza. As the conservative Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post reports:
A Gaza youth organization tried to stage an anti-Assad rally on Tuesday evening, but plain-clothed Hamas security police showed up ahead of time and ordered journalists away. They briefly detained a handful of youths who tried to protest.
Notice the different way the PLO leadership reacted: Yasser Abed Rabbo, the PLO secretary general, told Reuters yesterday:
The shelling is taking place using gunships and tanks on houses built from tin, on people who have no place to run to or even a shelter to hide in…This is a crime against humanity.
Not to be unduly cynical, but Fatah sees (correctly) that Hamas’ squalid policy of collaboration gives Fatah the chance to peel away more Hamas followers in the ongoing bitter struggle between the rival Palestinian movements. Fatah on its part said next to nothing as Egypt enforced a blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza.
Political forces naturally compete, but Palestinian factions, which generally depend on foreign funders to provide the money for the salaries which keep their followers sweet, have historically been more fractious and less manageable than most. Bitter internal feuds among the Palestinians and the ease with which outsiders can influence Palestinian leadership are among the great weaknesses of the Palestinian project. That doesn’t, sadly, seem likely to change.
Walter Russell Mead's Blog
A classic Boortz rant (clip and save)
By Neal Boortz
Yesterday the Dow dropped by 419 points. So how far does it drop today? Or do we see some of yesterday’s losses reversed? And --- the big question --- what’s with this effort to make us all believe that this is just “bad luck” brought on by the earthquake in Japan or free subways in Greece? How much longer are the American people going to be expected to swallow that nonsense?
Just what has happened to bring us the worst recovery since the Great Depression? Why can’t our economy get on track? Just last week 408,000 additional American applied for jobless benefits. If you’re not one of them, well then good for you. That’s great. But do you know what it means for many of the 408,000 American wage earners who were just added to our unemployment rolls? How many tens of thousands of additional fathers do we now have who can’t look their wives and children in the eye because they think they have now failed in their primary function of providing for their families? How many working wives do we now have – just in the last week – who now feel an emptiness for not being able to contribute to the family’s struggle to make it through this economy? While hundreds of thousands of Americans are beating a path to the unemployment line, to the food banks, to the thrift stores, and to the bankruptcy courts, Barack the Magnificent is on a bicycle path on Martha’s Vineyard. Ain’t life grand! (Apologies to Widespread Panic)
But not to worry, unemployed Americans! Our Dear Ruler will present us with his final solution – his grand plan for jobs – just a few weeks after he and Michelle make their way back to Washington from Hoi Polloi Land.
Don’t mean to rattle your chains, folks – but it is well past time for you to consider what might have been the unthinkable a few years ago. It’s time for you to consider the possibility that our failure to emerge from the recession into a growing and robust economy is by design rather than just “bad luck,” as Obama would have you believe.
Now I’m about to go on a rant here – and once I get into cruise mode I’m not going to stop to try to drag up specific references, sources, dates and the like. I’m the judge here, and I’m taking judicial notice of many of the following facts. Judicial notice? OK … here’s your definition:
Well I’m just ever so sorry if you haven’t been reading of the utterances of Barack Obama; of his upbringing; of his past associations and of his very admissions in his own books.
So here’s what I want you to consider. If you can come up with specific and verifiable facts that refute these ideas, then by all means share. You know the number to the show (877-310-2100) and the email address is somewhere on this page. Have at it. If you don’t have specific knowledge that what I’m saying here is untrue, then maybe you should consider the possibility, however remote, that the problem with Obama is much more severe and dangerous than you ever imagined.
Do you remember when, five days prior to the election in 2008, Obama stood in front of a group of supporters and told them that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America!”? Is it now time for you to pay a bit more attention to that “fundamentally transform” thing? Come on … give me the quick definition for those two words. Or .. just taken this definition from Websters. We know what transform means (after all, it’s not like you’re listening to sports talk), so we’ll take on “fundamental.” It means “of, pertaining to, or affecting the foundation or basis.” So what Obama was saying on that day before the dumb masses of this country made him president was that it was his intention to fundamentally transform the very foundation and basis of this country. Tell me, is that what you were signing up for?
OK … transform from what to what? This is where it gets scary.
Maybe looking at the history of Barack Obama – where he came from – would give you a clue. It’s not very politically correct to say this, but his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, has been described by many as being a Marxist. She attended Mercer Island High School near Seattle, Washington – a high school described by many as a hotbed of communist teachers, administrators and activism. His father, Barack Obama Sr. was widely believed to be a Marxist, I can’t find references to the political philosophy of Lolo Soetoro, Dunham’s second husband and Obama’s step-father, but we do know that he was a practicing Muslim.
After Obama’s mother divorced Soetoro she move back to Hawaii with young Barack. There she took up with (we’ll leave the definition of their relationship there) a dedicated communist by the name of Frank Marshall Davis. Obama references Davis in his books, but only by the name “Frank.” He talks of the profound influence Davis had on his life. Some suggest that Dunham’s relationship with Davis went back to her earlier years in Hawaii and that Davis may, in fact, be Obama’s father. Phuleeeeze. This is another “birther” diversion that means nothing and gets us nowhere. Davis had a profound influence on Obama. That’s enough. The begator is not as important as the begatee.
Is a trend starting to emerge here?
Let’s wrap this up quickly by pointing out that in Obama’s own books he speaks of his gravitation toward Marxist student groups and professors during his undergraduate college years at Occidental. It is there that a man by the name of John Drew (now a PhD political scientist) encountered the young Obama and, according to Drew, convinced him that the communist revolution Obama envisioned would never happen in this country due to the presence of a strong middle class. Drew writes that their conversations resulted in Obama dedicating himself to transforming the United States to a Marxist economy through political activism rather than encouraging a violent overthrow.
There’s that “transform” word again.
Don’t forget also that when Barack Obama made the decision to formally announce his entry into the political world – he chose the warmth and cozy confines of the living room of two dedicated Marxists, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dhorn, as the venue for his political debutant ball.
And this is the guy who spoke of “fundamentally transforming” the United States of America?
So … let’s absorb all that I’ve already told you about Obama’s past, and add to our little mix some of Barack’s greatest hits over the past few years. Again, paraphrasing here because I just don’t have the time to get the exact quotes:
We need to raise taxes because we need to spread the wealth around.
Working for the private sector is “working behind enemy lines.” In other words, the private sector is America’s enemy.
Sometimes you have to just admit that you’re making too much money.
Yes, an increase in capital gains taxes would probably result in a decrease in tax revenue, but we need to do it out of fairness.
Some people just have more money than they need and they should pay more taxes.
If you will go back and read the writings of Barack Obama Sr. you will see a seething animosity toward capitalism. You will see some of the same in the writings of his son. I’m convinced that Obama believes that free enterprise and capitalism are exploitive economic systems wherein people only acquire wealth by plundering others. As you page through volumes of Obama’s speeches and statements over the years you will see a definite dedication to the “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” tenant of Marxism.
Where does that leave us? Is it possible that this leaves us with a President of the United States who is engaged in an intentional and dedicated effort to sabotage and to damage, beyond repair, the capitalist free market economy of The United States? Does this leave us with a president who is joining with his radical leftist friends in the Democrat party to “fundamentally transform” our nation into the very model of a European socialist welfare state with al all-powerful central government planning and implementing every economic step? Does this mean to destroy free enterprise in America? Anti-capitalism is certainly at the core of Obama’s upbringing; does he hope make it his legacy? I understand that these are all very uncomfortable questions when applied to our president, but considering both his background and his actions as president, do we have the luxury of casting those arguments aside as nonsense? Does Obama sees himself as the savior of the oppressed – the man who will bring American free enterprise and (in his mind) it’s history of exploitation to its knees?
I can understand why you would want to reject this scenario out of hand. Simply put, most Americans just can’t bring themselves to believe that the man who occupies the Oval Office could be a Marxist revolutionary dedicated to the destruction of Capitalism. There are dots here, my friends. Many dots. Just connect them. The image you will see isn’t the dollar sign. It looks more like a hammer and sickle.
Have hope though. Obama will present his jobs program a few weeks after his return from vacation. Perhaps as many as a million more Americans will fill out that application for unemployment while we’re waiting. And when the plan does emerge will it be a plan to turn lose the engine of free enterprise? Will the fears of American jobs creators be put to rest? Will consumer confidence soar on Obama’s recognition of the vitality of the private sector and it’s ability to drive America to a new prosperity?
Yesterday the Dow dropped by 419 points. So how far does it drop today? Or do we see some of yesterday’s losses reversed? And --- the big question --- what’s with this effort to make us all believe that this is just “bad luck” brought on by the earthquake in Japan or free subways in Greece? How much longer are the American people going to be expected to swallow that nonsense?
Just what has happened to bring us the worst recovery since the Great Depression? Why can’t our economy get on track? Just last week 408,000 additional American applied for jobless benefits. If you’re not one of them, well then good for you. That’s great. But do you know what it means for many of the 408,000 American wage earners who were just added to our unemployment rolls? How many tens of thousands of additional fathers do we now have who can’t look their wives and children in the eye because they think they have now failed in their primary function of providing for their families? How many working wives do we now have – just in the last week – who now feel an emptiness for not being able to contribute to the family’s struggle to make it through this economy? While hundreds of thousands of Americans are beating a path to the unemployment line, to the food banks, to the thrift stores, and to the bankruptcy courts, Barack the Magnificent is on a bicycle path on Martha’s Vineyard. Ain’t life grand! (Apologies to Widespread Panic)
But not to worry, unemployed Americans! Our Dear Ruler will present us with his final solution – his grand plan for jobs – just a few weeks after he and Michelle make their way back to Washington from Hoi Polloi Land.
Don’t mean to rattle your chains, folks – but it is well past time for you to consider what might have been the unthinkable a few years ago. It’s time for you to consider the possibility that our failure to emerge from the recession into a growing and robust economy is by design rather than just “bad luck,” as Obama would have you believe.
Now I’m about to go on a rant here – and once I get into cruise mode I’m not going to stop to try to drag up specific references, sources, dates and the like. I’m the judge here, and I’m taking judicial notice of many of the following facts. Judicial notice? OK … here’s your definition:
Well I’m just ever so sorry if you haven’t been reading of the utterances of Barack Obama; of his upbringing; of his past associations and of his very admissions in his own books.
So here’s what I want you to consider. If you can come up with specific and verifiable facts that refute these ideas, then by all means share. You know the number to the show (877-310-2100) and the email address is somewhere on this page. Have at it. If you don’t have specific knowledge that what I’m saying here is untrue, then maybe you should consider the possibility, however remote, that the problem with Obama is much more severe and dangerous than you ever imagined.
Do you remember when, five days prior to the election in 2008, Obama stood in front of a group of supporters and told them that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America!”? Is it now time for you to pay a bit more attention to that “fundamentally transform” thing? Come on … give me the quick definition for those two words. Or .. just taken this definition from Websters. We know what transform means (after all, it’s not like you’re listening to sports talk), so we’ll take on “fundamental.” It means “of, pertaining to, or affecting the foundation or basis.” So what Obama was saying on that day before the dumb masses of this country made him president was that it was his intention to fundamentally transform the very foundation and basis of this country. Tell me, is that what you were signing up for?
OK … transform from what to what? This is where it gets scary.
Maybe looking at the history of Barack Obama – where he came from – would give you a clue. It’s not very politically correct to say this, but his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, has been described by many as being a Marxist. She attended Mercer Island High School near Seattle, Washington – a high school described by many as a hotbed of communist teachers, administrators and activism. His father, Barack Obama Sr. was widely believed to be a Marxist, I can’t find references to the political philosophy of Lolo Soetoro, Dunham’s second husband and Obama’s step-father, but we do know that he was a practicing Muslim.
After Obama’s mother divorced Soetoro she move back to Hawaii with young Barack. There she took up with (we’ll leave the definition of their relationship there) a dedicated communist by the name of Frank Marshall Davis. Obama references Davis in his books, but only by the name “Frank.” He talks of the profound influence Davis had on his life. Some suggest that Dunham’s relationship with Davis went back to her earlier years in Hawaii and that Davis may, in fact, be Obama’s father. Phuleeeeze. This is another “birther” diversion that means nothing and gets us nowhere. Davis had a profound influence on Obama. That’s enough. The begator is not as important as the begatee.
Is a trend starting to emerge here?
Let’s wrap this up quickly by pointing out that in Obama’s own books he speaks of his gravitation toward Marxist student groups and professors during his undergraduate college years at Occidental. It is there that a man by the name of John Drew (now a PhD political scientist) encountered the young Obama and, according to Drew, convinced him that the communist revolution Obama envisioned would never happen in this country due to the presence of a strong middle class. Drew writes that their conversations resulted in Obama dedicating himself to transforming the United States to a Marxist economy through political activism rather than encouraging a violent overthrow.
There’s that “transform” word again.
Don’t forget also that when Barack Obama made the decision to formally announce his entry into the political world – he chose the warmth and cozy confines of the living room of two dedicated Marxists, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dhorn, as the venue for his political debutant ball.
And this is the guy who spoke of “fundamentally transforming” the United States of America?
So … let’s absorb all that I’ve already told you about Obama’s past, and add to our little mix some of Barack’s greatest hits over the past few years. Again, paraphrasing here because I just don’t have the time to get the exact quotes:
We need to raise taxes because we need to spread the wealth around.
Working for the private sector is “working behind enemy lines.” In other words, the private sector is America’s enemy.
Sometimes you have to just admit that you’re making too much money.
Yes, an increase in capital gains taxes would probably result in a decrease in tax revenue, but we need to do it out of fairness.
Some people just have more money than they need and they should pay more taxes.
If you will go back and read the writings of Barack Obama Sr. you will see a seething animosity toward capitalism. You will see some of the same in the writings of his son. I’m convinced that Obama believes that free enterprise and capitalism are exploitive economic systems wherein people only acquire wealth by plundering others. As you page through volumes of Obama’s speeches and statements over the years you will see a definite dedication to the “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” tenant of Marxism.
Where does that leave us? Is it possible that this leaves us with a President of the United States who is engaged in an intentional and dedicated effort to sabotage and to damage, beyond repair, the capitalist free market economy of The United States? Does this leave us with a president who is joining with his radical leftist friends in the Democrat party to “fundamentally transform” our nation into the very model of a European socialist welfare state with al all-powerful central government planning and implementing every economic step? Does this mean to destroy free enterprise in America? Anti-capitalism is certainly at the core of Obama’s upbringing; does he hope make it his legacy? I understand that these are all very uncomfortable questions when applied to our president, but considering both his background and his actions as president, do we have the luxury of casting those arguments aside as nonsense? Does Obama sees himself as the savior of the oppressed – the man who will bring American free enterprise and (in his mind) it’s history of exploitation to its knees?
I can understand why you would want to reject this scenario out of hand. Simply put, most Americans just can’t bring themselves to believe that the man who occupies the Oval Office could be a Marxist revolutionary dedicated to the destruction of Capitalism. There are dots here, my friends. Many dots. Just connect them. The image you will see isn’t the dollar sign. It looks more like a hammer and sickle.
Have hope though. Obama will present his jobs program a few weeks after his return from vacation. Perhaps as many as a million more Americans will fill out that application for unemployment while we’re waiting. And when the plan does emerge will it be a plan to turn lose the engine of free enterprise? Will the fears of American jobs creators be put to rest? Will consumer confidence soar on Obama’s recognition of the vitality of the private sector and it’s ability to drive America to a new prosperity?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)