Hello, my thoughts exactly with the Stock Market at a record high for this year today, you have to wonder who is buying this stock until you realize the dollar is at its Lowest point this year at .75. So therefore it takes more dollars to buy that same stock now than what it should. Meaning Inflation is artificially increasing the stock market not an increase in consumer confidence. Thanks Norm
I question the high gold prices. Back in the late 70s gold got up to ~$800/oz and slowly dropped down to less than ~$300/oz. With all the TV hype about buying gold I look at it like when the Hunt brothers tried to corner the market on silver, they got burnt when the silver market crashed. I think it is time to sell, not buy.
I know I have a good investment when I get letters from organizations wanting to purchase my REITs or other investments that have a good return, but have limited current marketability. I received an offer to sell at $3.50/share for a REIT I own that I paid $10 and which pays a nice quarterly dividend. What I have seen in the past is that when the offers start coming, the investment will soon be on the market from the investment house. (The last time I saw this, the item sold for $12/share which was a lot better than what had been offered at $4/share) I suspect there is a lot of inside trading issues in the market.
As long as the Obamanation is replaced or shackled in the 2010 election, gold prices will drop once the spending spree is halted.
Gee, I wonder if China told Obama something about spending too much? Is Obama getting a clue? Lowering taxes for business, stopping the government spending? Could it be???
BEIJING – President Barack Obama says he's worried that spending too much money to help revive the economy could undermine a fragile U.S. recovery and throw the economy into a double-dip recession.
That's when the economy begins to recover briefly from a recession only to be dragged back under. Obama told Fox News in an interview Wednesday that his administration is weighing tax breaks that could encourage businesses to begin hiring again.
But he added that it's important to recognize that if the nation keeps adding to deficit spending through tax cuts or more stimulus spending, at some point people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy and that could "lead to a double-dip recession."
Obama: Jobs Forum Will Not Focus on Job Creation By Steve Everley on November 18, 2009 10:29 AM Yes, you read that correctly.
According to the AP, President Obama said that creating jobs will not be the focus of his "Jobs Forum" on December 3rd. Instead, the President hopes that this forum will give him the chance to talk to CEOs and "other experts" to figure out exactly what's going on in the economy.
So here's the quick and sad story behind the stimulus and the Obama administration's job creation efforts in 2009:
They told us that $787 billion in taxpayer dollars would "create immediate jobs," and that it would keep unemployment from rising above 8%. Well, unemployment has been above 8% ever since the stimulus was passed, and currently stands at 10.2%. In addition, more than 4 million jobs have been "lost and dislocated" since Obama signed his pork-filled stimulus package.
Now, clearly recognizing that his stimulus plan has failed, Obama and his administration are engaging in a PR blitz to say: (1) the stimulus has actually created jobs, (2) they never promised immediate job creation, and (3) they're hosting a jobs forum to address unemployment. But 4 million jobs are gone, they did promise immediate job creation, and their phony jobs forum won't even deal with job creation.
"I think Obama's in a league with TR," observes historian and presidential biographer Douglas Brinkley. "He created his political reputation through the written word."
To be sure, no one has ever accused Sarah Palin, a defeated vice presidential candidate, of creating her reputation thusly. One has to wonder, then, why her book, Going Rogue, would merit a fact-check by no fewer than eleven Associated Press reporters when neither the AP nor any other mainstream outlet has spent a moment vetting the books of the "author in chief," as President Barack Obama was anointed in a November GQ article, "Barack Obama's Work in Progress" by Tom Draper.
In an observant piece called the Road to Bali, blogger Tom Maguire addresses the implicit media balance. He does so by calling attention to just one relevant question that the media might have profitably asked our president: did you take new bride Michelle to Bali with you in 1993?
In the course of asking that question, not terribly significant in and of itself, Maguire sheds light on a more substantive question: why have the media paid so little attention to how Barack Obama came to write the book that would make his reputation -- his acclaimed 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father?
As source, Maguire turns to Draper, who has spent time with Michelle and Barack and written the most detailed account to date of the genesis of Dreams. Blinded by Obama's light, however, Draper fails to see the gaping holes in his own storyline.
As Draper tells it, a February 1990 New York Times article telling how Harvard has elected Obama president of the Harvard Law Review attracted the attention of a young agent named Jane Dystel. Draper implies that Obama's "irresistible" writing skills netted him the position, which is not at all true.
In fact, the election was a popularity contest held in racially charged environment. The culturally ambiguous Obama won on his race-healing talents, not his literary ones. He would contribute only one leaden, unsigned case note to the HLR and has not written another legal article since.
According to Draper, on November 28, 1990, Poseidon Press, a Simon & Schuster imprint, issued "a six-figure contract" to Obama for a book tentatively titled Journeys in Black and White. In his recent book, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of An American Marriage, Christopher Andersen specifies the amount at $150,000.
In the hope of recruiting Obama, the University of Chicago Law School offered him an office to use for finishing the book, and there he spent 1991 and 1992. Nearly two years passed, and Obama could not produce. Draper quotes an Obama confession to confidante Valerie Jarrett in 1992: "I just can't get it down on paper. ... I'd much rather hang out with Michelle than focus on this."
Although Draper would never say so, this represented a failure of character as much as it did a failure of talent. Obama had pocketed $75,000 of that advance in exchange for the promise of a manuscript by June 15, 1992. He had more than eighteen months to complete a memoir, the easiest of all genres. It required minimal research, no footnotes, and a narrative that needed not be factual as long as it was plausible.
As a point of comparison, I was offered a contract in April 2005 to write a memoir with a deadline of September 1, 2005. In other words, I had four months to do what Obama could not do in eighteen. To complicate matters, my memoir was to be a story about growing up in the age of Muhammad Ali. So in addition to writing, I read roughly 30-40 books on boxing and related subjects during that period and watched scores of fight films and documentaries.
I set as a goal a thousand words a day, and I made the September 1 deadline. It would have helped a lot if I had ever learned to type, but to me, missing the deadline was unthinkable if for no other reason than that I, like Obama, had signed a contract and accepted an advance. Although Sucker Punch was my fourth published book, I can assure you that my advance was considerably less than that of the untested Obama.
In any case, the June 15, 1992 deadline came and went without a manuscript from Obama. As Draper blithely notes, Obama had other things on his mind, namely his impending October 3rd marriage to Michelle. On October 20, 1992, according to Draper, Poseidon terminated Obama's contract.
Andersen adds a detail that mythmaker Draper chooses to omit. Obama feared that Simon & Schuster would demand the $75,000 already advanced. Writes Andersen, "But when Barack informed them that he had spent the money -- and that he and his wife were still chipping away at their massive student loan debt -- the publisher agreed not to press the issue." In other words, Obama asked for and received an undeserved bailout. A pattern was developing here.
The tenacious agent Jane Dystel managed to find another publisher, Times Books, and secured a smaller advance of $40,000. Draper tells us that Obama used the advance "to fulfill his outstanding financial obligation to Poseidon." Andersen's take sounds more credible.
"Now he's got to produce," writes Draper. "But how?" Although the sanctuary at the University of Chicago and a previous retreat to a friend's Wisconsin farm had done no good, Obama hit upon the idea of going to Bali to unblock. (For Sucker Punch, I went to my cabin on Lake Erie).
As blogger Maguire notes, the pre-election myth, advanced by the New York Times and others, is that Michelle accompanied him. Wrote the Times on May 18, 2008, Obama "eventually retreated to Bali for several months with his wife, Michelle."
A more recent and less romantic version, advanced by Draper and by the Times as well, is that Obama went by himself. "For a month," writes Draper, "he is a lone figure pacing on the white sand and hammering on his laptop."
Andersen describes the Obamas as "drowning in debt" during this period. How either Barack or Michelle could have afforded to go to Bali during this period, for one month or three, remains something of a mystery. Mysterious too is how the media could leave unresolved such glaring contradictions in the biography of the world's most famous man.
Maguire highlights still another hole in the Draper narrative. Incredibly, in a 5,000-word article on Obama's development as a writer, Draper says nothing about what happened between early 1993, when Obama returned from Bali, to June 1995, when Dreams was published. Draper leaves the impression that the month-long Bali high was just what Obama needed to fire his synapses.
Andersen is much more credible here. As he tells it, Bali proved no more helpful than any other retreat. At Michelle's urging, the "hopelessly blocked" Obama finally turned to "friend and Hyde Park neighbor" Bill Ayers to help him.
Andersen's details are specific. The Obamas were convinced of "Ayers's proven abilities as a writer." Barack particularly liked the novelistic style of To Teach, a 1993 book by Ayers. The key sentence in Andersen's account is this: "[The Obama family] oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes were given to Ayers."
Adds Andersen, "Thanks to help from veteran writer Ayers, Barack would be able to submit a manuscript to his editors at Times Books." Based on my own research, I would argue that Ayers actually wrote the book's best sections. Obama's previous published efforts show not a wisp of the skill on display in Dreams. Not surprisingly, Draper overlooks those early efforts.
With his man-crush trumping his critical insights, Draper chooses not to relate the fate of plucky agent Dystel. That story was hard to miss. The proudly liberal but seriously disgusted publisher Peter Osnos went public three years ago. According to Osnos, Obama dumped his devoted long-time agent after Dreams took off and then signed a seven-figure deal with Crown, using only a by-the-hour attorney.
Obama pulled off the deal after his 2004 election to the U.S. Senate but before being sworn in as Senator, thus avoiding the disclosure and reporting requirements applicable to members of Congress. Osnos publicly scolded Obama for his "ruthlessness" and "his questionable judgment about using public service as a personal payday."
But that was in 2006, when Obama was a mere mortal. Today, Obama is a literary god, however false, and challenging the gods is apparently above the AP's pay grade.
I am concerned that the men in black suits will be knockin' down your door before long. [sarcasim]
Eh, let 'em. If this government isn't stopped, at least they'd have to provide "3 hots and a cot". Or I'd be dead. Either is preferable to not being able to find a job, losing my house, not being able to feed myself and my family - which is likely on the current economic path this government is on.
As American Thinker's self-appointed "correspondent" in the outpost that is the United Kingdom, I am filing a report on what the man in the street here really thinks of your President.
The description most often used by those of us when gathered in the local pub is: "a dangerous wanker." For my American cousins, the definition of that most English of insults is: "a highly offensive term for somebody considered unpleasant, self indulgent, pretentious or arrogant"
Admittedly many of us Brits fell for the same "hope and change" mantra that ensnared so many of you. God knows we have ample need of "hope and change" in the United Kingdom. We are, and continue to be, your most faithful of allies -- as both countries slide into an economic abyss.
We turned the other cheek when President Obama unceremoniously returned the bust of Winston Churchill given to your government. The continued mistreatment of our Prime Minister has been dismissed as the mistake of someone new to the job. Your Leader and his wife slap our Queen on the back and he bows from the waist in subservience to the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan. None of your previous Presidents did the same.
As for those naive Poles and Czechs that believed the United States was a nation of its word, the withdrawal of the missile shield was simply a re-thinking of strategy in America's relationship with Russia. The fact that the withdrawal was announced on the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland was just a coincidence. By the way, how is the new "reset" policy toward Russia working out for America and Europe?
We British are astounded as we watch President Obama go around the globe constantly denigrating and apologizing for the United States. Many of us still remember, or were taught, how twice in the 20th century the people of your country literally saved Europe from itself and freed untold millions from oppression throughout the world ever the past 90 years. The United States has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.
Despite the absolute disaster that is our economy, our pound is up 23% in value to your dollar since Obama was inaugurated. Even the most uneducated of us anchored to a bar stool hoisting our pints understands that Americans cannot keep spending enormous sums of money you don't have in the hope that the rest of the world will continue to give the United States a blank cheque in perpetuity -- or that the Obama administration can continue to print dollars.
We in Europe are finally getting the message that your President just isn't that into us. But the question I have is: how much is he into your country?
On the 5th of October last, in an excellent article on the American Thinker website by Steve McCann entitled, "Half A President," it was suggested that Mr. Obama was more interested in being head of state for the world rather than just President of the United States. It does appear on the surface that he has delegated much of his responsibilities to others and, as in the case of Afghanistan for example, he loathes the prospect of actually making a decision.
I might also suggest that he is captive to a left wing ideology more radical than most of the Socialist parties in Europe.
There appears to be an awakening among the citizens of United States, similar to what is happening here. Hopefully that will continue and expand and in your mid-term election in 2010. Perhaps a brake can be applied to the destructive polices of your President. A word of warning my American friends -- and this is not an overstatement: the future of the western world may well hang in the balance
WOW. Things must be getting REALLY bad if "I get a tingle up my leg over Obama" network MSNBC is reporting bad news for Obama. I guess they can't contain the truth any more.
Federal Judge Carter sets Trial Date for Obama's Eligibility!
The expedited trial has been set for Jan. 26, 2010!
Many concerned veterans and citizens attended the hearing in Federal Court in Santa Ana in the lawsuit against Barack Hussein Obama (alias Barry Soetoro) to determine his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief. About 150 people showed up, almost all in support of the lawsuit to demand that Obama release his birth certificate and other records that he has hidden from the American people.
Judge David Carter refused to hear Obama's request for dismissal. He indicated there was almost no chance that this case would be dismissed. Obama is arguing this lawsuit was filed in the wrong court if you can believe that. Obama would prefer a "kangaroo court" instead of a Federal court! Assuming Judge Carter denies Obama's motion for dismissal, he will likely then order expedited discovery which will force Obama to release his birth certificate in a timely manner (if he has one).
The judge, WHO IS A FORMER U.S. MARINE, repeated several times that this is A VERY SERIOUS CASE which must be resolved quickly so that the troops know that their Commander in Chief is eligible to hold that position and issue lawful orders to our military in this time of war. He basically said OBAMA MUST PROVE HIS ELIGIBILITY to the court! He said Americans deserve to know the truth about their President!
The two U.S. Attorneys representing Barack Obama tried everything they could to sway the judge that this case was frivolous, but Carter would have none of it and cut them off several times. Obama's attorneys left the courtroom after about the 90 minute hearing looking defeated and nervous.
Great day in America for the U.S. Constitution! The truth about Barack Obama's eligibility will be known fairly soon - Judge Carter practically guaranteed it!
Video from the press conference after the hearing coming soon.
Congratulations to plaintiffs attorney Dr. Orly Taitz! She did a great job and won some huge victories. She was fearless!
When people who voted for Obama in 2008 -- including registered Democrats -- start speaking in normal conversational voices at dinner parties, neighborhood gatherings and PTA meetings that the over-inflated ego from Chicago has it "in for America," then it's clear most reasonable people have reached the same conclusion.
The central conviction of Obama's ideology is that America is guilty of limitless moral failures and is the chief architect of the world's ills. Obama has boundless enmity for America, its key institutions, and its longtime allies. Consider these facts.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 11-21-2009).]
Gingrich: Republicans Poised for Big Gains in 2010
Monday, November 23, 2009 6:56 PM
By: Dan Weil
Republicans will make strong inroads in next year’s elections, says former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now an author and activist.
“I think there’s a backlash building against the entire secular, socialist wing of the Democratic Party,” Gingrich told Newsmax.TV in an interview.
“Whether it’s Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi or Majority Leader [Harry] Reid or President Obama, all of them are arousing the American people to defend America against very left-wing, radical ideas.”
Republican victories this month in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races show support for the GOP and conservative policies is building, Gingrich says. “I think you could easily have a bigger backlash in 2010 than we had in 1994.”
He was referring to the Republican victories in 1994 — driven by the ideas in the "Contract with America" political platform — that gave the party control of both houses of Congress. That victory resulted in Gingrich's being elected speaker of the House.
Republicans must do three things to take advantage of their opportunity, he says.
“First, they have to be the alternative party, not the opposition party,” Gingrich says. They have to have better solutions for jobs, defending America, energy, health than the left does.
Second, Republicans must contest every seat at every level — from school boards, to city councils, to state legislatures, to Congress.
“Third, they’ve got to win the arguments,” Gingrich says.
“They have to go out and say to the American people that there are only a handful of really big decisions. You decide which team you want to have. I think most Americans are going to pick jobs and prosperity over high taxes and big bureaucracy.”
Gingrich sees a struggle under way between two sets of voices.
“You have the secular, socialist left, their labor union, trial lawyer and academic allies,” he said. “This is their one chance to try to ram through the kind of radical America that they want. Then you have the rest of the country.”
He expressed admiration for Sarah Palin, saying, “I think she drives them [liberals] crazy.”
“The fact that she is plain spoken, she’s unafraid. She’s willing to articulate the values of small town and middle class America.”
The left is unwilling to accept a conservative woman politician, he said.
“It hits right at the heart of what they think is their prerogative and because she’s winning many of the arguments,” Gingrich said.
“The truth is she was much more experienced before the last election than the president was.”
Gingrich sees Palin as a viable presidential candidate in 2012. “She’s going to have a big base if she wants to run. Whether she can translate that into the nomination and into the general election we don’t know.”
Asked about his own presidential aspirations, Gingrich said, “We should spend all of 2010 trying to sweep the House and Senate races and the state and local races. . . And then we can all get together and talk about running for president in February 2011.”
The Cardiff Giant, known as "America's Greatest Hoax," has new competition for the title -- Global Warming. Recent revelations of what appear to be doctored data, corrupted scientists and pressured peer reviews have produced terms such as "Climategate," "Climaqquidick," and similar pejoratives. Describing the events of the past week, Senator Jim Inhofe, a consistent critic of the science said: "Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in."
Despite what appears evidence of outright fraud, President Obama refuses to acknowledge, no less investigate, what is increasingly becoming known as "The World's Greatest Hoax." Obama's intentions to go off to Copenhagen, pretending that "the science is settled," is a political gaffe of enormous proportion. It puts whatever is left of his rapidly diminishing credibility at risk, as well as his agenda.
Most political disagreements are ideological and too complex to easily prove anything. Health care is a good example. It is ideological and many-faceted. There is no definitive way to "prove" that one side is right and the other wrong. In health care, this was particularly evident as the objectives ("marketing' to the public?) shifted as required. In situations like this, credibility is all important. "Can I trust what this man says?" becomes the measure that the public uses to support or reject these complex issues.
Obama's position will be devastating because it is counter to science. Science, done properly, is black or white. It does not rest on consensus, it rests on facts. Al Gore tried to cut off debate on the subject by claiming there was a "consensus." Every scientific advance has been made by one or a small minority that conflicted with "the consensus." That Gore has made millions by a form of street-hustling does not help the credibility of climate-change supporters.
The public had serious doubts about the validity of climate-warming before the recent revelations. They know they will suffer from cap and trade legislation. Their lifestyles will be adversely affected by forced legislative changes (lightbulbs, centrally-controlled thermostats, etc.). Their cost of living will be driven up substantially. Industrial growth will slow. America will become less competitive in the world. Additionally, many sense that the plan will include a redistribution of wealth from richer to poorer nations and may be a step toward world government. If the future of mankind were truly at stake, such sacrifices might be worthwhile. Without that, the proposed legislation is viewed as nothing more than masochistic and controlling. It becomes just another way to extract taxes from the American public.
That Obama wants to proceed full-speed ahead without hard science suggests that his objective is to inflate his image in the eyes of the rest of the world. While I don't believe that will happen, the attempt is clearly at the expense of the American people. To those that realize that the science is faulty, Obama loses all credibility. To others, his credibility may merely decrease. Regardless, his ability to pass health care and other parts of his agenda depends on his credibility. He has little left.
An eerie parallel is that the Cardiff Giant was made in Chicago and buried in NY. We may be witnessing another Cardiff Giant made in Chicago, but "buried" in Washington, DC. An earlier post surmised this outcome.
Katie Couric may be best known for her unflattering interview with Sarah Palin. But her nightly news broadcast this past Monday night may be an indicator that the big liberal media are now turning their guns on Obama. Couric said on “CBS Evening News” that Americans are growing “disenchanted” with Obama and are openly questioning his credibility. “Is the honeymoon over?” anchor Couric said at the beginning of her correspondent’s report. “Although President Obama has been in office less than a year, many Americans are growing disenchanted with his handling of the enormous problems he and the country are facing, from healthcare to unemployment to Afghanistan. “His poll numbers are sliding, and at least one poll shows his job approval rating has fallen, for the first time, below 50 percent.” Correspondent Chris Reid chimed in: “The president is getting battered on everything from the economy to foreign policy. Some polls show Americans are increasingly questioning his credibility.” The report asserted that while Obama talks about dealing with unemployment, which is over 10 percent and expected to rise, he has developed “no new ideas” for dealing with the problem. CBS also cited a poll showing that only 14 percent of Americans believe Obama’s claim that healthcare reform won’t add to the budget deficit, and only 7 percent believe that the stimulus has created any jobs at all. The report also criticized the president for being “indecisive” on Afghanistan, and for returning from his recent Asian trip “with little to show for it.” An expert was quoted as describing his trip as the “amateur hour,” as he did not line up agreements with foreign countries before venturing abroad.
Katie Couric was one of his biggest fans, if not the biggest. I remember on election night how she was practically creaming herself when he won. Maybe her Kool Aid high is finally wearing off and she realizes how wrong she was. This is what happens when one doesn't keep their objectivity.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 11-30-2009).]
Hello Im still not sure about this, yes Ive noticed some back peddleing, but she is still a big fan. She was at the Big state dinner for the Indian PM where the infamous gate crashers got in. Katie was wearing a big blue evening gown with her big blue eyes, maybe someone can post up a picture of that. Thanks Norm
Hello Im still not sure about this, yes Ive noticed some back peddleing, but she is still a big fan. She was at the Big state dinner for the Indian PM where the infamous gate crashers got in. Katie was wearing a big blue evening gown with her big blue eyes, maybe someone can post up a picture of that. Thanks Norm
I'm sure she'd have gone regardless of how she feels about him. He's still the president, and it's a big deal to go to something like that. Heck, I can't stand the guy and *I'd* go.
'He talks too much," a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America's 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory.
He is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.
He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not "unclenched their fist," nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest.
There is little Mr. Obama can do about this disenchantment. He can't journey to Turkey to tell its Islamist leaders and political class that a decade of anti-American scapegoating is all forgiven and was the product of American policies—he has already done that. He can't journey to Cairo to tell the fabled "Arab street" that the Iraq war was a wasted war of choice, and that America earned the malice that came its way from Arab lands—he has already done that as well. He can't tell Muslims that America is not at war with Islam—he, like his predecessor, has said that time and again.
It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America's decline in the eyes of foreign nations. Foreigners were saying what the liberals wanted said.
Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn't seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that's reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year.
Mr. Obama's election has not drained the swamps of anti-Americanism. That anti-Americanism is endemic to this region, an alibi and a scapegoat for nations, and their rulers, unwilling to break out of the grip of political autocracy and economic failure. It predated the presidency of George W. Bush and rages on during the Obama presidency.
We had once taken to the foreign world that quintessential American difference—the belief in liberty, a needed innocence to play off against the settled and complacent ways of older nations. The Obama approach is different.
Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt, Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others.
The crowd may have applauded the cavalier way the new steward of American power referred to his predecessor, but in the privacy of their own language they doubtless wondered about his character and his fidelity. "My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger," goes one of the Arab world's most honored maxims. The stranger who came into their midst and spoke badly of his own was destined to become an object of suspicion.
Mr. Obama could not make up his mind: He was at one with "the people" and with the rulers who held them in subjugation. The people of Iran who took to the streets this past summer were betrayed by this hapless diplomacy—Mr. Obama was out to "engage" the terrible rulers that millions of Iranians were determined to be rid of.
On Nov. 4, on the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran, the embattled reformers, again in the streets, posed an embarrassing dilemma for American diplomacy: "Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them," they chanted. By not responding to these cries and continuing to "engage" Tehran's murderous regime, his choice was made clear. It wasn't one of American diplomacy's finest moments.
Mr. Obama has himself to blame for the disarray of his foreign policy. American arms had won a decent outcome in Iraq, but Mr. Obama would not claim it—it was his predecessor's war. Vigilance had kept the American homeland safe from terrorist attacks for seven long years under his predecessors, but he could never grant Bush policies the honor and credit they deserved. He had declared Afghanistan a war of necessity, but he seems to have his eye on the road out even as he is set to announce a troop increase in an address to be delivered tomorrow.
He was quick to assert, in the course of his exuberant campaign for president last year, that his diplomacy in South Asia would start with the standoff in Kashmir. In truth India had no interest in an international adjudication of Kashmir. What was settled during the partition in 1947 was there to stay. In recent days, Mr. Obama walked away from earlier ambitions. "Obviously, there are historic conflicts between India and Pakistan," he said. "It's not the place of the United States to try to, from the outside, resolve those conflicts."
Nor was he swayed by the fate of so many "peace plans" that have been floated over so many decades to resolve the fight between Arab and Jew over the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. Where George W. Bush offered the Palestinians the gift of clarity—statehood but only after the renunciation of terror and the break with maximalism—Mr. Obama signaled a return to the dead ways of the past: a peace process where America itself is broker and arbiter.
The Obama diplomacy had made a settlement freeze its starting point, when this was precisely the wrong place to begin. Israel has given up settlements before at the altar of peace—recall the historical accommodation with Egypt a quarter century ago. The right course would have set the question of settlements aside as it took up the broader challenge of radicalism in the region—the menace and swagger of Iran, the arsenal of Hamas and Hezbollah, the refusal of the Arab order of power to embrace in broad daylight the cause of peace with Israel.
The laws of gravity, the weight of history and of precedent, have caught up with the Obama presidency. We are beyond stirring speeches. The novelty of the Obama approach, and the Obama persona, has worn off. There is a whole American diplomatic tradition to draw upon—engagements made, wisdom acquired in the course of decades, and, yes, accounts to be settled with rogues and tyrannies. They might yet help this administration find its way out of a labyrinth of its own making.
Mr. Ajami, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, is the author of "The Foreigner's Gift" (Free Press, 2007).
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-01-2009).]
If any of you are wondering how much private sector experience Obama's cabinet members have, read this below.
Lifelong Bureaucrats If you want some insight into the Obama policy, take a look at this fascinating analysis of the percentage of time the cabinet members of various administrations have spent in the private sector. Obama's cabinet has the lowest percentage on record. They are, by and large, lifelong bureaucrats. Ayn Rand is, I'm sure, spinning in her grave.
By Sam Youngman - 12/09/09 01:14 PM ET President Barack Obama told House Republican leaders to "stop trying to frighten the American people" even as he and Democrats said they see a possibility for bipartisan cooperation on job creation legislation.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters that Obama made the admonition during a bipartisan meeting at the White House on Wednesday, producing a chart to show Republicans that "things are a lot better."
Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said there was broad agreement on their side of the aisle about how to create jobs by aiding small businesses and boosting infrastructure spending. Pelosi said she thinks on those issues, "it's possible for us to find some common, bipartisan ground."
But moments later, Republicans made it clear that they want to see a "spending freeze" and a "no-cost" jobs plan that consists largely of tax cuts.
"We can't keep spending money we don't have," House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) pushed back on Obama's request for an end to Republicans' scare tactics by saying that Obama's policies have led to a hiring freeze, and the GOP is simply telling constituents what is happening. "[E]mployers are sitting there and they're frozen because they don't know what's really going to happen here," Boehner said. "And the president wants to blame us for informing the American people about what's happening here and how it will affect them, but it's not what we're doing; it's the policies that they're promoting here in Washington."
The Republicans presented a letter to Obama detailing how they think he should approach job creation, including by way of tax cuts and trade expansion.
For his part, Obama also expressed hope that Republicans would support him on his proposals, particularly on items like a one-year elimination of the capital gains tax that the GOP has supported in the past.
"It's appropriate that I met with leaders of both parties," Obama said after the meeting. "Spurring hiring and economic growth are not Democratic or Republican issues. They are American issues that affect every single one of our constituents."
The president noted Republican opposition to his $787 billion stimulus package, but he said he hopes that he will get some GOP support for his attempts at job creation.
"It's no secret that there's been less than full bipartisan support for the recovery act and some of the steps that have broken the free-fall of our economy," Obama said. "But my hope is that as we move forward we can do so together, recognizing that we have a shared responsibility to meet our economic challenges on behalf of all Americans: those who elected us to make sure that we're doing the people's business."
Despite the GOP opposition, Democratic leaders seemed optimistic they can move quickly on a jobs bill that contains much of what the president outlined in a speech Tuesday.
Reid declined to say when a jobs bill might come up in the Senate, but he said after Tuesday night's "breakthrough" on healthcare reform that he does think the Senate will pass a healthcare bill before lawmakers leave for Christmas.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-10-2009).]
The dems accuse the Republicans of scaring the public for telling the public what government is up to. The dems then use scare tactics to get the public to go along with their plans. They are a bunch of hypocrites.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 12-10-2009).]
Where this goes wrong is when they say that Obama is all about Wall Street. Unless Obama's apparent support from unions is Obama/Wall Street *using* the unions, and will end up hosing them.
Hello if the elimination of the Capital Gains Tax is good enough for one year then it should be good enough to get rid of it all together then. But not sure why business will invest when after a year they get cut off at the knees again, makes no sense to me. Thanks Norm
If the President and his political team were looking for an approval bounce from the troika of the Copenhagen Climate summit, the Nobel Peace speech and "the Oprah effect" from her Christmas special, it appears they are sifting through coal and ashes instead.
For the second day in a row, the Rasmussen index of strongly inclined voters has hit startling new lows:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19. (note: it was -16 on Saturday's release.) Prior to the past two days, the Approval Index had never fallen below -15 during Obama's time in office
For months, the trend has been for around 30% of the country to strongly approve of the President while about 40% strongly disapprove. Most of this recent bleeding has been at the expense of Obama's formerly strong support. He is well below 50% in his own party related to strong approval:
The 23% who Strongly Approve matches the lowest level of enthusiasm yet recorded. Just 41% of Democrats Strongly Approve while 69% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove.
Perhaps the worst news for Obama can be found in some of the internals. He is getting shellacked among independent voters and on those who consider fiscal policy (the deficit) key, he is literally at MINUS 80! He is also starting to "own this economy" among voters as well: Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 21% Strongly Approve and 49% Strongly Disapprove. Among those who consider the economy to be the most important issue, just 26% Strongly Approve of the President's performance while 39% Strongly Disapprove.
Among those who consider fiscal policy issues the most important, just 1% Strongly Approve and 81% Strongly Disapprove. Some other numbers seem to point to flaws in the idea that Obama and his liberal policies are good for the middle class, as he is doing poorly with those income earners. He is now under water with the young voters also:
The President's Approval Index rating is -2 among voters under 30 and -29 among senior citizens. From an income perspective, the President's ratings are weakest among those who earn $40,000 to $100,000 annually. One can assume that the loss of younger voters has to do with the surge in Afghanistan and with dithering on Copenhagen. It would be reasonable to assume that many of these liberals will return to the strong approval camp at some point. Having said that, this continued erosion is becoming pervasive.
President Obama reportedly was re luctant to attend the final day of the UN's Copenhagen climate-change summit unless it was front-end wired to be a major political success. But he went anyway, was twice humiliated in public by the Chinese premier and then finally settled for what the White House hailed as a "meaningful agreement." Really? A top aide admitted that the deal was basically just "an important first step" that was "not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change." Then Obama himself dropped the other shoe: The agreement contains no specific commitments on carbon emissions, only pledges that "will not be legally binding." So what the hell was the point? One would think that Obama had taken a lesson from his last trip to Copenhagen -- when he thought his presence alone would win the 2016 Olympic games for Chicago. That is, that he would have learned that it is a mistake to publicly commit presidential prestige to an outcome that isn't locked up in advance. Obviously, not. So much for two years of work and a supposedly broad international consensus that was to make the Copenhagen conference little more than a formality. Clearly, yesterday was about squabbling over how much money we'll borrow from the Chinese so that we can give it right back to Beijing and other Third World countries in exchange for their promise to . . . well, that was never clear. And twice yesterday, Obama was kept waiting in public by China's premier. This is scary stuff. Obviously, the rest of the world has taken measure of Barack Obama -- and decided he's a pushover. On the merits, not unfairly. Now, we're not going to feign heartbreak over the outcome itself. The conference was a UN-sponsored effort to pick the West's pockets on behalf of its own bureaucrats, plus assorted Third World kleptocrats, and it deserved to die ignominiously. As for Obama, it was clear from Day One that he was on a very steep learning curve. But who imagined it was this steep?
[sarcasim] 
