Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (103869)	4/29/2011 3:27:11 PM
From: TideGlider	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

Right Direction or Wrong Track 21% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction, A New Low Wednesday, April 27, 2011 Email to a Friend ShareThis.AdvertisementTwenty-one percent (21%) of Likely U.S. Voters say the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey taken the week ending Sunday, April 24. It's the fourth week in a row that the measurement has gone down, with confidence in the nation's course now reaching the lowest point of the Obama presidency. Prior to this past week, the number saying the country is headed in the right direction has ranged from a low of 22% to a high of 35% since President Obama's inauguration in January 2009. Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters now say the country is heading down the wrong track. Since January 2009, pessimism about the country's direction has ranged from 57% to 72%. Leading up to Obama's inauguration, the number of voters who felt the country was heading in the right direction remained below 20%. The week of his inauguration, voter confidence rose to 27% and climbed into the low to mid-30s until mid-May of that year. Since then, belief that the country is heading in the right direction has been trending lower. (Want a free daily e-mail update ? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook. Fifty-two percent (52%) of black voters now say the country is heading in the right direction. Just 17% of white voters and 19% of voters of other races agree. Most Republicans (91%) and voters not affiliated with either major political party (74%) believe the United States is heading down the wrong track. But now only 37% of Democrats think the country is heading in the right direction, while 51% say it's heading down the wrong track. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Political Class voters still believe the country is heading in the right direction. Eighty-two percent (82%) of Mainstream voters disagree. The Rasmussen Consumer and Investor Indexes have moved up slightly from the low for the year reached on Monday. Voter confidence that the nation’s best days are still to come has fallen to its lowest level ever. Most voters continue to believe U.S. society is fair and decent, but far fewer feel the president agrees with them. Fifty-one percent (51%) of adults nationwide believe hate is growing in this country, but Americans are more narrowly divided when it comes to punishing so-called hate crimes. Most voters still favor repeal of the national health care law and believe it will drive up the federal deficit even as the president and Congress are stepping up the debate on how to cut the government’s massive debt. But voters are more narrowly divided when asked whether the federal government should set health care standards for the entire country. Voters aren’t sure about the short-term implications of the debt ceiling debate, but they recognize that the official figures understate the magnitude of the problem. However, just 23% realize the deficit is due largely to spending commitments made by Congress in the 1960s and 1970s. Voters overwhelmingly believe that taxpayers are not getting a good return on what they spend on public education, and just one-in-three voters think spending more will make a difference. As members of Congress and the president haggle over ways to reduce the federal budget deficit, ratings for the national legislature have fallen to the lowest level since late 2008. A plurality of voters also believes that most members of Congress are corrupt. Republicans hold a just a two-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot, the narrowest gap between the two parties since October 2009. Fifty-five percent (55%) now expect the U.S. military’s role in Libya to last beyond this year. Support for continuing U.S. military operations in Libya is holding steady from two weeks ago after a drop-off in support from just after the mission began. But voters remain almost evenly divided over U.S. military involvement in the Libyan political crisis.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (103869)	4/29/2011 3:42:39 PM
From: JakeStraw	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

Is that so Obama can take in even more money from Soros and Middle Eastern contributors..? I guess Obama knows large U.S. corporations won't give him much, since his socialistic policies keep hurting them.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (103869)	4/29/2011 3:47:16 PM
From: TideGlider	5 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224729

Federal Government Attacks on Boeing Fuel Our National Economic Suicide Apr. 27 2011 - 4:41 pm \| 2,188 views \| 0 recommendations \| 4 comments By GARY SHAPIRO Sometimes by favoring a narrow constituency, the federal government can cause economic devastation for a company or a state and even encourage companies to manufacture outside the United States. In terms of sheer economic stupidity, the Obama Administration committed an economic felony when the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ordered Boeing to shutter a spanking new $2 billion facility that would have created 1,000 much-needed new jobs in South Carolina. Last week, the NLRB told Boeing that it could not open the facility it had spent three years creating to build its new Dreamliner series of airplanes. The NLRB did not deem the plant unsafe or harmful to South Carolina workers. The NLRB simply said that it could block Boeing from using the new plant as Boeing’s decision to locate it in South Carolina was in part based on a desire to avoid work stoppages and strikes, and this rationale was harmful to unions and thus an illegal act. Never before has the federal government told a company it may not relocate within the United States. Never before has the statute used been interpreted to affect a decision on where a product is made. Never before has the Constitutional goal of easing interstate commerce been so trampled by a formal act of the federal government. This outrageous overreach is unacceptable and will certainly be overturned in time by the federal courts. But the process may take years, and meanwhile a great American company – and one of our nation’s largest exporters – will be hurt irreparably. Imagine the Boeing customers abroad who placed firm orders awaiting their new planes; Airbus must be getting lots of calls and new orders thanks to this decision. Our federal government has become the enemy of job creators. Look at the facts here: South Carolina’s Dreamliner production line would be in addition to, not instead of, Boeing’s production line in Seattle. Boeing is already facing a backlog of orders for the plane, and this NLRB action, if not reversed soon, will certainly cause it to lose orders for these American-built planes. The NLRB apparently wants the second line to also be produced in the Puget Sound area – also silly if you see what too much concentration of production capacity in one venue can do (witness the Sendai area in Japan). The greatest irony is that if Boeing had put this facility in Canada or even in China the NLRB probably could not have ordered its shutdown (but who knows given their perverse interpretation of the law). The Obama Administration has been criticized as light on those with any real business experience. If you have not made a payroll or never created a job you can play in the niceties of doing what union fundraisers want. But with all due respect to my father who was a union activist until he died, unions have lost their way. Having successfully changed laws to protect worker safety, overtime and vacation compensation, and even process for termination, unions are pushing our nation over the edge with unaffordable defined benefit pensions and no-fire tenure. This latest example with the NLRB and Boeing pushes the “union gets everything it wants” envelope further; it is just one more reason why a company would choose not to manufacture in the United States. I suspect even my loyal unionist dad would say he and his fellow WWII veterans might think this controlling government action is beyond the American ideal for which they fought. Our government is killing American jobs. American companies compete in the real world, and our nation is in real trouble as we isolate ourselves, create trade barriers and handcuff our best companies with absurd policies, excessive litigation costs, high taxes and social engineering. It is time for common sense. South Carolina Senators should filibuster the Senate until this issue is resolved. Business groups must speak up. Responsible Democrats and Republicans must demand this action be reversed. This march towards national economic suicide must end, and immediate reversal of this act of insanity against Boeing is a good place to start.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (103869)	4/29/2011 3:56:55 PM
From: lorne	6 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

A tale of two birth certificates 'Rosetta Stone' documents provide comparison : April 28, 2011 By Jerome R. Corsi © 2011 WorldNetDaily wnd.com That Obama's birth certificate lists a registrar that appears remarkably like a forger's signature joke on the word "ukulele" is not the only peculiarity observed in comparing the president's record with other long-form Hawaiian birth certificates that have been fully authenticated. The question is whether the Obama birth record the White House released Wednesday is an authentic photocopy of an original 1961 vital record or a modern-day forgery. Image released by the White House April 27, 2011 The Rosetta Stone for determining the authenticity of the Obama birth document is the long-form birth certificates for the Nordyke twins, which WND discovered and authenticated in July 2009. Birth certificate of Gretchen Nordyke, one of two twin sisters born at what was known in 1961 as the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. A side-by-side comparison of the Nordyke twins' birth certificates with the Obama birth certificate the White House released yesterday reveals many differences, some with regard to content, others to format. In the Nordyke twins' birth certificate, in Box 20, "Date Accepted by Local Reg." and Box 22, "Date Accepted by Reg. General," the date is stamped "AUG 11 1961," while the date is stamped on Obama's birth certificate as "AUG -8 1961," with a dash before the middle number designating the day. In the Nordyke twins' birth certificates, the type in Box 8, "Name of the Father" lines up to the right margin with the typing in the next three boxes below, while in the Obama birth certificate, the typing in Box 10, "Age of Father," and Box 15, "Age of Mother," are indented below the "R" in "Barack" in Box 8. In the Nordyke twins's birth certificate, the type in Box 9, "Race of Father," Box 12b, "Kind of Business or Industry," and Box 14, "Race of Mother," line up to the left margin of the box (in all three boxes for Susan Elizabeth Nordyke and in two of the three boxes for Gretchen Carter Nordyke), while in the Obama birth certificate, the type in each of these three boxes is indented from the right box margin, with varying indent spacing in each line. In Box 16, "Birthplace of Mother," in the Nordyke twins' birth certificate, the letters of "Los Angeles, California," are aligned at the bottom margin, while in the Obama birth certificate, the "K" in Kansas rides up and appears only partially struck at the top. The left-margin alignment in the boxes throughout the Nordyke twins' birth certificates suggest a typewriter was set up to fill in information by tabbing through the document, as compared to the more irregular content of the information filled in the boxes on the Obama birth certificate. The typed letters in the Nordyke twins' birth certificates appear irregularly spaced, often run together, as in the capital letters of the boxes stating the name of the father and mother, while the typed letters in the Obama birth certificate appear evenly spaced, not run together, not even with the capital letters in the boxes stating the name of the father and the mother Boxes 8 and 13). Again, the differences more strongly suggest the Nordyke twins' birth certificates were prepared on a manual typewriter. In Box 3, "This Birth," the "X" marking "Twins" in the Nordyke twins' birth certificates strikes the box upper left, as is the case with Box 4, "If Twin or Triple, Was Child Born," while Box 3 in Obama's is struck top right. Similar differences in how the "X" strikes the boxes can be seen in Box 6d and 7e where the "X" on Obama's birth certificate fits squarely into the box, drifting toward the top, and the "X" in the Nordyke twins' birth certificates fall high and to the right in the boxes provided. The Nordyke twins' birth certificates in Box 5a lists the birthdate as Aug. 5, 1961, with the month abbreviated, while Obama's in Box 5a lists the birthdate as August 4, 1961, with the month spelled out. In the Nordyke twins' birth certificates the "H" in "Honolulu" in Boxes 7a and 7c drifts high above the horizontal of the other typed letters, while in Obama's birth certificate the "H" in "Honolulu" is consistently on line with the other letters in the word. The dates stamped in the Nordyke twins birth certificates in Boxes 20 and 22 appear irregularly stamped, at an angle, while the date stamps in the Obama birth certificate appear more evenly on line, at the center of the boxes, even if a bit high in the box. The local registrar in the Nordyke twins' birth certificate, Box 21, is different than the local registrar who signed the Obama birth certificate. Was there more than one local registrar operating to process birth certificates from Kapiolani hospital at this time? The Nordyke twins' birth certificate at the bottom have the printed signature of the director of health and the registrar general, along with the date the copies were issued, "5-5-1966," while the Obama birth certificate has no similar official designations indicating the date on which the copy was issued or that the copy was certified by the director of health and the registrar general to be a "true and correct copy" of the original record on file in the Research, Planning and Statistics Office of the Hawaii State Department of Health. The Norydke twins' birth certificates appear white against black, in the format typical of 1960s Photostats, while the Obama birth certificate appears to be a machine copy printed on hash-marked Department of Health paper; yet in Obama's modern photocopy, a black space at the top appears created by the fold of the paper at the top left corner into the binder and no similar indentation is seen in the Nordyke twins's photostatic copy. Some of these differences may be explained by different people preparing the documents on different typewriters, yet how two different formats appear in the date stamp used in Boxes 20 and 22 is more difficult to explain if the Obama birth certificate is legitimate. Both the Nordyke twins' birth certificates and the Obama birth certificate identify the birth hospital as Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital, even though there has been considerable Internet discussion that that was not the official name of the hospital in 1961. After Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie dismissed Dr. Neil Palafox from being appointed director of health, there may have been no one heading the Hawaiian Department of Health to sign off on the authenticity of the Obama birth document. Still, it remains remarkable that the Hawaii Department of Health and the White House released the Obama birth certificate without the type of authenticating information that appears at the bottom of the Nordyke twins' birth certificates. The SmokingGun.com website notes several additional irregularities with the Obama birth certificate that do not appear on the Nordyke twin's birth certificates: In Box 3, "This Birth," there are two "Xs" above "Twin" and "Triplet" – why are these "Xs" here and what do they signify? What is the meaning of the smudges in the Obama birth certificate in the box containing the name of the attending physician? What is the significance of the numbers, seen vertically, on the right side of the Obama birth certificate? WND has previously reported on information discrepancies between the birth dates, certificate numbers and registration numbers in comparing the Nordyke twins' birth certificates to the Obama birth certificate: As WND reported, the numbers on the long-form birth certificates issued by Kapi'olani to the Nordyke twins are lower than the number given President Obama, even though the president's birth certificate was accepted by the registrar general and stamped with a certificate number three days earlier. Susan Nordyke, the first twin, was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time on Aug. 5, 1961, and was given Certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. Gretchen Nordyke, the second twin, was born at 2:17 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given Certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. Yet, according to the Certification of Live Birth released by FactCheck.org during the 2008 presidential campaign – and now according to the long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate the White House released yesterday – Barack Obama was given a higher certificate number than the Nordyke twins. Barack Obama was given Certificate No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the Nordyke twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health registrar three days earlier, on Aug. 8, 1961. WND has previously reported on information discrepancies between the birth dates, certificate numbers and registration numbers in comparing the Nordyke twins' birth certificates to the Obama birth certificate: In 1961, the birth certificate numbers were not assigned by the hospitals. Instead, the numbers were stamped to the birth record by the Hawaii Department of Health at the main office in Honolulu. This is the only place birth certificate numbers were assigned. At the last step of the process, the documents were accepted by the registrar general, with the date of registration filled into box No. 22 on the lower right hand corner of the long-form birth certificate. The date the birth document was accepted by the registrar general was the same date the birth certificate number was stamped on the birth record. The birth certificate number was stamped on the form by a rubber stamp that automatically increased the birth certificate number by one each time the birth certificate was stamped. The question is, in 1961, how was it possible that the Nordyke twins had their birth certificates accepted by the registrar general in Hawaii three days later than the registrar general accepted Obama's birth certificate, when their birth certificate numbers are lower than Obama's number? At the time the Nordyke twins' birth certificates were discovered, WND displayed copies of the two documents to make clear the limited information contained in the short-form Certification of Live Birth that Obama supporters at that time were claiming was the only Obama birth record needed to prove a Hawaiian birth. In a recorded interview with WND, Eleanor Nordyke said she had no recollection of Ann Dunham having been in the hospital at the same time she delivered her twin daughters. "I was in such pain delivering the twins," Mrs. Nordyke said, "that I have very little recollection of the experience at all, except for the pain." Neither the White House nor the Hawaii Department of Health has yet provided an original copy of the Obama birth certificate for forensic examination.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (103869)	4/29/2011 3:58:31 PM
From: lorne	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

ken...Mr. Trump has got him on the ropes...go Donald...:-) Valerie Jarrett: Obama Not Releasing College Records "He's almost 50 years old and he's president of the United States and I don't think anybody would debate his intelligence and so now we need to get serious ... let's just get serious and get back to focusing on what's important," senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett said on The Joe Madison Show this morning. Video realclearpolitics.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (103869)	4/29/2011 4:02:36 PM
From: lorne	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

Debt ceiling: More Democrats threaten to vote against raising borrowing limit By Peter Wallsten, Published: April 28 washingtonpost.com A growing number of Democrats are threatening to defy the White House over the national debt, joining Republican calls for deficit cuts as a requirement for consenting to lift the country’s borrowing limit. The tension is the latest illustration of how the tea-party-infused GOP is driving the debate in Washington over federal spending. And it shows how the debt issue is testing the Obama administration’s clout as Democrats, particularly those from politically competitive states, resist White House arguments against setting conditions on legislation to raise the debt ceiling. The push-back has come in recent days from Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a freshman who is running for reelection next year. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) told constituents during the Easter recess that he would not vote to lift the debt limit without a “real and meaningful commitment to debt reduction.” Even Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), generally a stalwart White House ally, is undecided on the issue and is “hopeful” that a debt-ceiling bill can be attached to a measure to cut the federal deficit, said her spokesman, Linden Zakula. Klobuchar is also up for reelection next year. Months ago it seemed unthinkable that Congress might refuse to raise the borrowing limit. Leaders in both parties agreed that failing to do so would risk a default by the U.S. government, which could send interest rates soaring and cut off Social Security checks, as well as salaries for combat troops. And although many lawmakers and aides say a bipartisan deal is likely, the insistence on conditions by a small but pivotal group of Democrats suggests that any agreement would almost certainly have to include substantial cuts in the deficit — not just to mollify House Republicans but to satisfy Democrats who could be politically vulnerable on spending issues. “As catastrophic as it would be to fail to raise our debt ceiling, it’s even more irresponsible to not take this opportunity to own up to our unsustainable spending path,” Sen. Mark Udall (Colo.), another Democrat challenging the White House, said in a statement his office released this week. “If we don’t take action to reduce our deficit spending, Congress will be facing this same debt ceiling vote in the near term – still with no end to our deficits in sight.” The debate is likely to dominate Capitol Hill as early as next week, when lawmakers return from recess. The government is expected to reach its $14.3 trillion debt cap in mid-May. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has said he can maneuver to avoid a default until early July. The White House has condemned efforts to attach additional measures to the debt-ceiling issue. Press secretary Jay Carney has called it “a dangerous, risky idea to hold hostage .?.?. a vote on raising the debt ceiling to any other piece of legislation.” On Thursday, White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said legislative leaders in both parties “have been clear that the debt ceiling has to and will be raised to prevent another economic meltdown.” She added that there is also bipartisan agreement about reducing the deficit by trillions of dollars. “If members of Congress act responsibly and try to reach common ground, we can agree to significant deficit reduction without playing reckless politics with our economy,” she said.