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 : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carolyn who wrote (161)	11/15/2012 4:39:39 PM
From: joseffy	2 Recommendations Respond to of 16547

Obama's Hostile and Evasive Presser creators.com Obama's first post-election press conference, if you could call it that, tells us a great deal about his attitude and the approach he intends to pursue in his second term, which is the same failed policy mix on steroids. Obama's re-election, of course, gives him the right to pursue these policies, but it doesn't deny elected Republicans the right or relieve them of the duty to oppose them. If Obama can glean any intelligible mandate from his victory, it is that relentless negative campaigning, demagoguery, divisive identity politics, deceit and superior political strategists targeting essential voters and voting districts work. So it should be no surprise that Obama is taking that lesson to heart and is already applying the same strategies going forward. In short, Obama will continue to do what he does best: community organizing and campaigning. He is a perpetual campaign machine who pretends to aspire to bipartisanship while being the most partisan president we've had in decades. In fairness, though Obama never did present an agenda beyond generalized brochure-worthy talking points in the last two weeks of the campaign, the American people witnessed in his first term what he stands for, and a majority didn't reject it. Granted, he completely distorted the causes of our ongoing economic problems and continued to blame George W. Bush for his own failures, but in the end, he still won. But so did congressional Republicans, whose mandate to oppose Obama's policies cannot be in serious doubt. Obama's words and body language indicate he intends to be quite aggressive in his second term and more dictatorial. It was as if he regards his election as a coronation to kingship. His responses and deflections even to softball press questions and his hostile attitude toward elected GOP officials in the co-equal legislative branch make that abundantly clear. In his first response, Obama repeated the mantra that this economy still suffers because of events that preceded his first term anointment. He offered the tautology that a growing economy depends on a thriving middle class. Yes, prosperity depends on people being prosperous, but the question is: How do we get there? According to Obama, we do it through economic protectionism, rebuilding those roads and bridges he believes are responsible for creating the businesses that American entrepreneurs didn't build themselves, throwing more federal money at education, and, for good measure, reducing our deficit in a "balanced" way, which means his way (only on "the rich"). He expressed his openness to "compromise" and "new ideas" and then demonstrated in his remaining answers how insincere that bipartisan gesture was. In Obama-speak, "balance" means weighted against the rich. It makes no economic sense to increase tax rates on the highest income producers when many small businesses responsible for most American jobs fall into that category. It will further retard economic growth and yield insufficient revenues to make a dent in our deficits or debt. After making it emphatically clear that it would be his way or the highway, Obama said, yet again, that the American people just want the parties to work together. On the most important issue facing us, spending, especially on entitlements, he didn't even bother to pretend to have a plan. Obama refused to offer any information on the Benghazi and Petraeus scandals, saying he didn't "want to comment on the specifics of the investigation," a line he would repeat at every potentially useful juncture in the conference. He even ducked a generic question on whether he should have been told before the election that the CIA chief was under investigation. But what does the investigation have to do with his opinion? The question wasn't calling for a factual response. More suspect was his claim that if he had been told, he would have been criticized for interfering with a criminal investigation. What? To inform the nation's chief law enforcement authority about details of an investigation under his domain would constitute interfering? That's just bizarre. As in the second presidential debate, Obama revealed his true personality and his intolerance for being challenged. When asked about Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham's call for an investigation into Benghazi and their opposition to Obama's possible appointment of Susan Rice for secretary of state, he became visibly livid and pugnacious, warning the senators that if they go after Rice, "then they've got a problem with me." Also, he couldn't conceal his contempt for a reporter who dared to question why he hadn't provided families of the Benghazi victims more answers. In his first term, Obama routinely abused his authority and paid no price for his usurpations. If there were any doubt before the election that Obama intended to unilaterally impose his will and avoid accountability for it in his second term, he has now eviscerated it. I trust Republican congressional leaders didn't miss the unmistakable signals.

To: Carolyn who wrote (161)	11/20/2012 6:22:54 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 16547

18,500 lost jobs with the declared liquidation of Hostess Brands Inc.

To: Carolyn who wrote (161)	11/20/2012 11:43:34 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 16547

From Rwanda to Benghazi, Susan Rice's Record of Political Cronyism by Kevin L. Martin 20 Nov 2012 breitbart.com President Obama and Congressional Democrats have gone to great lengths to defend embattled U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s role in aftermath of the 9-11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Libya. Ms. Rice’s defenders claim that her initial public assessment that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was a spontaneous protest in reaction to a supposed Anti-Islam Film on YouTube was based on bad intelligence. Congressional hearings have revealed that the CIA, under its former director David Petraeus, knew through intelligence on the ground and from assets overhead that this planned attack was carried out by Al-Qaeda. It would appear that Ms. Rice was part of a coordinated effort by unknown elements within the White House to downplay the terrorist aspect of Benghazi attack, which happened on the 11th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks and with less than 8 weeks to go before a Presidential election. Many people on both sides of the political septum are well aware of Ms. Rice’s history of political cronyism and her tactic of twisting truth to protect the political fortunes of the administrations in which she has served. While Congressional Democrats have sought to portray the investigation into Ms. Rice’s role in the Benghazi cover-up as a witch hunt based on racism and sexism, some of these same Democrats have had their own concerns about Ms. Rice’s cronyism in the past. In a quote for a 2002 book written by Samantha Power, Ms. Rice stated, “If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November congressional election?" in her attempted defense of the Clinton Administration’s lack of inaction in response to the genocide that was taking place in the tiny African Nation of Rwanda in 1994. It was later revealed that President Clinton along with Madeline Albright, Anthony Lake, Warren Christopher and Ms. Rice were all part of a coordinated effort not only to block U.N. action to stop the genocide, but worked behind the scene to craft public opinion on the issue by removing the words such as, "genocide and ethnic cleansing" from official State Department and CIA Memos. In 1997, when President Clinton sought to promote Ms. Rice to the position of Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, members of the Congressional Black Caucus objected to the appointment based on her history of being part of the Washington Elite Class. This is the same Congressional Black Caucus, who is now in 2012 attempting to defend her with trumped up charges of racism and sexism. Even as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, many inside and outside of Washington questioned Ms. Rice’s tenure, as she would reap praise on and worked with certain African Dictators with questionable records. As President Obama’s U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Ms. Rice has come under fire several times in the past. She has missed key votes and she has not opposed nations with questionable human rights records heading key U.N. committees. Rice seems to have taken "a go along to get along attitude" at events like the U.N.'s weak response to the Iranian Election Protest of 2009 or the ongoing disrupt concerning Iran’s Nuclear Program as well as China’s muscle flexing in the East China Sea as of late. Now it would seem that with President Obama’s reelection behind him, he is preparing to reward Ms. Rice with the position of Secretary of State (as Ms. Clinton said she is not interested in serving a second term) as she helped shape early public opinion on the Benghazi Attack. If Ms. Rice does receive the appointment of Secretary of State, it will be with even more blood on her resume, as President Clinton rewarded her after misleading the public on the issues of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Africa. Now President Obama is set to reward her even further, with a possible appointment to Secretary of State. This time her record of shameful political cronyism is now covered in the blood of 4 Americans and that is why her defenders are trying to make this about her race and gender because loyalty to the public is trumped by loyalty to a President and his party.

To: Carolyn who wrote (161)	11/22/2012 12:02:44 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16547

This is why unions are hated more and more these days. I was trying to pick up my wife from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) today, but I had to get around this union rally: breitbart.com Basically the SEIU blocked the main road that led to LAX. This happened on and off for about two hours. Now if that isn't f'd up enough, to snarl up traffic during one of the BUSIEST travel seasons of the year, it gets even better. You see, the SEIU claim they were representing workers for a company called Aviation Safeguards. *But none of those workers attended the protest.* This is because those workers voted to break with the SEIU after they felt the SEIU was ignoring them. They then made their own deal with their employers. The SEIU claims, of course, that the company violated labor laws and "coerced" the employees to decertify and break with the union. The SEIU also claims that some of the employees at Aviation Safeguards are being denied benefits, etc., but several employees for the company directly contradicted those claims. But no, that didn't stop the SEIU from getting a protest permit from the city of L.A. (who was the bonehead that issued that permit anyway?) and snarl traffic for hundreds of thousands of commuters in the L.A. area. Of course, they claim that people sitting in traffic will think, "Oh yeah, I support that protest," and even congresswoman Janice Hahn echoed that claim. But most of the commuters interviewed by local news were pretty pissed off. Like me. My wife had to wait an extra 30-60 minutes at the airport because of these jerks. And all for a SHAM of a protest thanks to the SEIU who bussed in hundreds of purple shirted thugs just to pull off their publicity stunt. Tenchusatsu P.S. - Feel free to link to this post. This is a perfect example of EVERYTHING that is wrong with unions in America these days. Message 28563181

To: Carolyn who wrote (161)	12/8/2012 11:52:14 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 16547

So what makes Susan Rice so horrible? That she misled everyone about Benghazi by peddling the ridiculous story that the attack was in response to some YouTube video? Is that so exceptionally awful? (Didn’t the FDR administration insist for two weeks that the Pearl Harbor attack was a spontaneous response to an Abbott and Costello routine?)

To: Carolyn who wrote (161)	12/12/2012 6:41:07 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 16547

Panetta denies Medal of Honor for Marine who dived on grenade washingtontimes.com I wonder which one of our politicians would throw himself on a grenade to protect one of us..

To: Carolyn who wrote (161)	12/12/2012 6:46:51 PM
From: joseffy	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16547

Obama is 'walking Treason' He has willingly compromised our Navy Seals; our soldiers. Ft. Hood was a 'work place' violence; and Hassan not even to trial yet. Only lies per Benghazi; and dead Americans; a Marine in a Mexican prison; on trumped up charges; and nothing being done by this President.. Obama is far more concerned about the well-being of jihadists in Gitmo; the 'feelings' of our Muslim enemies; than in the best interest of our soldiers; and the Country they serve.