Really ?? Really Mr. President ?? Insulting Israel on an open microphone is par for the course for Obama

Really ? Really Mr. President ? You had to be amateurish enough and foolish enough to make a disparaging remark about one of our key allies to Sarkozy when you were wearing an open microphone. Are you kidding me ?

This fool who was elected President has made a litany of dumb moves in the three years he has been in place but this one takes the cake. It is almost as if he was taking lessons from VP Biden on how to embarrass yourself and the country.

As Jeff Foxworthy is known to say, " And there's your sign...."

We have suffered enough under this poser who conned his way into the Presidency and this is a sure sign that he needs to be sent packing next November. While Israel isn't always acting in anyone's best interest other than their own, they do not deserve to hear the President of the United States bragging to another country's leader about his contempt for their Prime Minister.

Hang it up Barry. Take a long look around at the trappings of being the President because regardless of who the GOP puts up against you, you are going to be a one-term President. Anyone who could want to leave Obama in place after this display of incompetence is as foolish and as empty-headed as this community organizer from Chicago who has driven our country and it's reputation into the ditch.

Sarkozy tells Obama Netanyahu is a "liar"
11/08/11 By Yann Le Guernigou - Reuters

PARIS (Reuters) - French President Nicolas Sarkozy branded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "a liar" in a private conversation with President Barack Obama that was accidentally broadcast to journalists during last week's G20 summit in Cannes.

"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama, unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.

"You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," Obama replied, according to the French interpreter.

The technical gaffe is likely to cause great embarrassment to all three leaders as they look to work together to intensify international pressure on Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

The conversation was not initially reported by the small group of journalists who overheard it because it was considered private and off-the-record. But the comments have since emerged on French websites and can be confirmed by Reuters.

White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to comment on the conversation when asked by reporters traveling with Obama to an event in Philadelphia.

Obama's apparent failure to defend Netanyahu is likely to be leapt on by his Republican foes, who are looking to unseat him in next year's presidential election and have portrayed him as hostile to Israel, Washington's closest ally in the region.

Pushing Netanyahu risks alienating Israel's strong base of support among the U.S. public and in Congress.

Netanyahu's office declined immediate comment.

Obama and Netanyahu have had a rocky relationship as U.S. efforts to broker a Middle East peace deal have foundered, with the U.S. president openly criticizing Jewish settlement building in the occupied Palestinian territories.

It was unclear why exactly Sarkozy had criticized Netanyahu. However, European diplomats have largely blamed Israel for the breakdown in peace talks and have expressed anger over Netanyahu's approval of large-scale settlement building.

PALESTINIAN WORRIES

During their bilateral meeting on November 3, on the sidelines of the Cannes summit, Obama criticized Sarkozy's surprise decision to vote in favor of a Palestinian request for membership of the U.N. cultural heritage agency UNESCO.

"I didn't appreciate your way of presenting things over the Palestinian membership of UNESCO. It weakened us. You should have consulted us, but that is now behind us," Obama was quoted as saying.

The October 31 UNESCO vote marked a success for the Palestinians in their broader thrust for recognition as a sovereign state in the U.N. system -- a unilateral initiative fiercely opposed by Israel and the United States.

As a result of the vote, Washington was compelled to halt its funding for UNESCO under a 1990s law that prohibits Washington from giving money to any U.N. body that grants membership to groups that do not have full, legal statehood.

Obama told Sarkozy that he was worried about the impact if Washington had to pull funding from other U.N. bodies such as the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and the IAEA nuclear watchdog if the Palestinians gained membership there.

"You have to pass the message along to the Palestinians that they must stop this immediately," Obama said.

The day the conversation took place, the Palestinians announced that they would not seek membership of any other U.N. agency.

Sarkozy confirmed that France would not take any unilateral decisions when the U.N. Security Council discusses a Palestinian membership request, a debate expected later this month.

"I am with you on that," Obama replied.

Straight talk from Senator McCain to the President - “It is time the President came off the campaign trail..."

Straight talk......and spot on. Senator McCain might not always be right about issues, but he will tell you why he believes in an issue, instead of the "BS" we see from the present administration, no matter what the issue.

President Obama has been in " campaign mode " for far too long, and when you add that to the time he has been on the golf course and on multiple vacations, it is little wonder why his performance is dreadful......He is a part-time President who wants all the things that go with the office except the work.

Obama's political goals matter more to the Empty Suit in the White House than the fate of the nation.... and it shows.

McCain to Obama: Get off the campaign trail
POLITICO.COM

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) thinks President Barack Obama is doing too much campaigning and not enough policymaking.

McCain claimed that Obama, his 2008 opponent, was engaging in “demagoguery” on the issue of job creation as he’s traveled the country to pitch his jobs proposal.

“It is time the president came off the campaign trail, sat down and negotiated and talked with us and see areas of common ground,” McCain said Sunday on “State of the Union.”

McCain – who helped introduce the Senate Republicans’ jobs plan – instead called for more regularly relief and tax reform that would lower rates and close tax loopholes.

Massachusetts Governor shows once again that he is a Hypocrite

Massachusetts Governor Deval " Spend it All" Patrick proves again that he is a member of the " Do as I say, not as I do" crowd..This is par for the course for our hypocritical Governor as he feels that things like a Car Free Week is for the little people, a.k.a. The Taxpayers.


Gov. Patrick Seen Riding In SUV During “Car-Free Week”
By Ken MacLeod, WBZ-TV
September 19, 2011

(CBS) – Governor Deval Patrick did walk to a morning event on Beacon Hill — a stone’s throw from the Statehouse — but was quick to sheepishly admit that he probably hadn’t set the best example earlier in the day.

“You got me!” grinned the Governor.

He’s talking about video shot by WBZ of Mr. Patrick leaving his Milton home this morning with his assigned state trooper at the wheel for the routine drive into work in his SUV.

One problem.

The Governor himself recently declared this “Car-Free Week,” urging people to ditch their autos in favor of public transportation, biking, walking, or at the very least carpooling — espousing the environmental and health benefits of that switch.

“It’s a little bit of hypocrisy,” observed one commuter.

We asked some regular folks if the Governor was ‘talking the talk’ instead of ‘walking the walk.’

“If he’s going to tell people to do something,” says another man, “he should try to do it himself. That’s the way I see it.”

“I carpooled this morning with my trooper,” says the Governor with a chuckle, “We both had to come together.”

He’s joking — and he’s not.

Of course, the Governor does have legitimate security, time, and logistics concerns.

He makes lots of stops on and off the beaten path — with a small entourage in tow — and some folks were willing to cut him some slack on that account.

“Going without a car has issues,” one woman told us. “It depends on where you’re going — where you have to be. It’s not always practical. I think you can still sell a message even if you’re not able to do it yourself that day.”

Indeed, the Governor was quick to urge people not to follow his lead.

“Look, it’s a great initiative for people who can make the most of it,” Patrick told reporters. “I hope they will and I hope during the course of the week to make the most of it, too.”

“Car-Free Week” in Massachusetts is actually an expansion of “World Car-Free Day” — which is Thursday.

A thousand cities in 40 countries are taking part.

The Governor says he’s got a crazy schedule this week, but will make good on his pledge to follow the spirit of the initiative — when he can.

The Red Line, by the way, is within walking distance of his house — one of three “T” stations within a half mile of home.

“He should be a role model for everyone,” one man told us.

“I got the gotcha question,” the governor admitted. “Believe me, I’m going to do my best.”

The ABC's of why the PRESIDENT OBAMA is a L-O-S-E-R

Today's lesson in politics is L stands for " LOSER " which is what the "empty suit" in the White House is and he has proven to be over & over again.

B is for "BRILLIANT " which this article is, and POTUS is NOT


The Obama Downgrade, Alphabetically
By Bret Stephens - Wall Street Journal

Snapshots from President Obama's efforts to improve America's standing in the world, 923 days into his administration:

A is for the Arab world, and our standing in it: This year, Zogby International found that 5% of Egyptians had a favorable view of the U.S. In 2008, when George W. Bush was president, it was 9%.

B is for the federal budget deficit, which is estimated to come in at around 11% of GDP in 2011, up from about 3% in 2008.

C is for China's military budget. For 2012, Beijing plans to increase spending on defense by 12.7%. The Obama administration, by contrast, proposed Pentagon cuts in April averaging out to $40 billion per year over the next decade, and Congress may soon cut a lot more.

D is for—what else—the federal debt, which grew to $14.3 trillion this month from $10.7 trillion at the end of 2008. D is also for the dollar, which has lost almost half its value against gold since Aug. 2008.

E is for energy. The average retail price of a gallon of gas hovered near the $1.80 mark when Mr. Obama was inaugurated. It has since more than doubled. E is also for ethanol, the non-wonder fuel the U.S. continues to subsidize to the tune of $5 billion a year.

F is for free trade. Bill Clinton signed Nafta in 1994, which facilitates $1.6 trillion in the trade of goods and services between the U.S., Mexico and Canada. George W. Bush midwifed more than a dozen FTAs, from Australia to Singapore to Morocco to Bahrain. Number of FTA's signed by the current president: zero.

G is for Guantanamo, which remains open, and for Gadhafi, who remains in power, and for Greece, which offers a vision of America's future if we don't reform our entitlement state.

H is for Hillary Clinton, who—I can't believe I'm writing this—would have made a better president than Mr. Obama.

I is for Israel, a Middle Eastern country the president claims to support even as he routinely disses its prime minister, seeks to shrink its borders and—why not?—divide its capital.

J is for jobs. In November 2008, president-elect Obama promised he would create 2.5 million jobs by 2011. By October 2010 the economy had shed 3.3 million jobs.

K is for Karzai, Hamid, Afghanistan's feckless leader. Still, the Obama administration probably did itself no favors by publicly dumping on the man, leading him to seek new best friends in Tehran.

L is for Laden, Osama bin. The president's greatest triumph, which will forever put him one notch—if only one notch—above Jimmy Carter.

M is for Mexico, a country that manages 5.4% unemployment and 4.2% annual growth even as it fights a war against the drug cartels.

N is for NATO, once a pillar of Western security, which Mr. Obama is in the process of destroying through his decision to withdraw from Afghanistan and his refusal to give NATO the push it needs to win in Libya.

O is for ObamaCare, which goes far to explain B, D, J as well as the Greek part of G.

P is for Pyongyang, whose ruler the administration is once again attempting to engage in the six-party talks. This is after the Kim regime welcomed Mr. Obama's plea for a nuclear-free world by testing a nuclear bomb, torpedoing a South Korean ship, shelling a South Korean village, and unveiling a state-of-the-art uranium enrichment facility.

Q is for QE2, the most disastrous experiment in monetary policy since Fed Chairman William Miller's low-interest rate policy crashed the dollar in 1978.

R is for the reset with Russia, the principal result of which is an arms-control treaty that brings us to parity in strategic nuclear weapons, leaves us behind in the tactical category, and ill-equips us for the challenge of a proliferating world.

S is for shovel-ready. Enough said.

T is for taxes, which Mr. Obama would like to see raised for "millionaires and billionaires"—curiously defined as people making $200K and up.

U is for Iran's uranium enrichment. When Mr. Obama came to office promising to extend his hand to the mullahs, Iran had enriched 1,000 kilos of uranium. Today they have produced more than 4,000 kilos.

V is for Venezuela, a country whose extensive subterranean links to Iran the administration has consistently downplayed.

W is for the Dubya, whose presidency now looks like a model of spending restraint.

X is for Liu Xiaobo, an example of what a deserving winner of the Nobel Peace Prize looks like. X is also for Xanax, likely to be remembered as the drug of choice of the Obama years.

Y is for Yes, We Can! Unfortunately, it's also for Yemen.

Z is for zero, which is the likelihood that Mr. Obama will get relected in 2012.

2012 Election tip - Steer clear of POLITICIANS who have written memoirs and manifestoes as it isn't about helping US, only themselves

I have little patience for self-serving political types that write memoirs that are nothing more than a pathetic exercise in " Why I LOVE ME " and other nonsense that they feel compelled to foist upon the world. Example in point on the DEM side of things is POTUS' two memoirs and the idiot Governor of Massachusetts' book that is so far down on the NY TIMES best seller list they had to dig a new subterranean category to list it. As if any hard working, tax paying, check earning citizen wants to try to parse through the drivel that these self absorbed fools put on paper.....give us a break, get over yourself and do the job we pay you for. Really.

Well a scribe from the LA TIMES dissects the other side of the political aisle and a number of the POLS over there that have done the same time-wasting exercise of trying to get us to read their drivel. Here is one of my favorite clips from this timely article:

The Romney we meet in "No Apology" is earnest, pedantic and, let's say it, dull. He's given to leaden statements of the obvious. "It is good for America to be strong," he advises. And: "To strengthen America's economy, we must minimize those things that retard economic growth and promote those things that accelerate it."

Wow....pedantic...no way....I was gobsmacked that the author is able to see what the rest of us know for a fact, only he left out pathetically desperate and pandering too.

Gingrich has 23 Books published....really. That makes him 23 times more unappealing as the rest of the POLS.

I was impressed that Rep. Michelle Bachmann didn't make the list of the self absorbed authors as she doesn't have a book all about herself....maybe there is a ray of hope for her after all.

All I know is that each of the people who are Presidential contenders for the office in 2012 and Authors (including the "empty suit in residence at the White House") have two things in common. Each of them is in LOVE with the sound of their own voice and have NO INTEREST in listening to the average citizen as all they really care about is themselves.

And that is the truth.


LA Times Op-Ed

McManus: The write stuff
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a politician seeking the presidency must be in want of a memoir.

By Doyle McManus July 31, 2011

The news from Washington — bickering over the debt ceiling, poor prospects for the economy — hasn't been uplifting lately. It's time for some beach reading.

And I have just the ticket. There's a whole crop of potential Republican presidential candidates who promise to lead us to a better tomorrow, and most of them have written books to spell out their visions, demonstrate intellectual depth and give their fans something to spend $29.95 on.

GOP wannabes Writing memoirs and manifestoes has become a rite of passage for politicians, a way to show that they're up to the job — so much that just one book won't always suffice. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Texas Gov. Rick Perry have each written two. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich wins the productivity prize, with his name on no fewer than 23 books, including eight novels. Even pizza mogul Herman Cain has promised a book this fall. If they hope to stand a chance in this field, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. better get busy.

As a public service, I took a pile of these literary works on vacation and dug in. (Now you know one more difference between Washington policy wonks and normal Americans.) And here's what I found:

In their own telling, all these politicians are fiercely patriotic, devoted to their families and humble.

And they're all deeply worried about the future of the country, especially if President Obama and the Democrats stay in power.

"They simply don't believe in America as it was shaped by the founders," warns Romney in his book "No Apology," and he's among the most moderate of the bunch.

Want something stronger? Try Gingrich. In "To Save America," he says Obama is running a "secular-socialist machine [which] represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did."

The Romney we meet in "No Apology" is earnest, pedantic and, let's say it, dull. He's given to leaden statements of the obvious. "It is good for America to be strong," he advises. And: "To strengthen America's economy, we must minimize those things that retard economic growth and promote those things that accelerate it."

Gingrich is at the opposite end of the emotional spectrum, furious and hyperbolic. "America is facing an existential threat," he warns in "To Save America." Obama "has presided over a political machine that has tried to impose on this country a radical left-wing agenda that is alien to American history and American values."

In between is former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty — no less conservative but less confrontational, at least back when he was writing "Courage to Stand" last year. In politics, he suggests, "You never want to punch when somebody's down. You want to win, but you don't want to destroy your opponent." In this year's Republican field, that measure of civility qualifies as Minnesota nice.

Then there's Perry, who's almost as angry as Gingrich. "We are tired of being told how much salt to put on our food, what kind of cars we can drive, what kind of guns we can own, what kind of prayers we can say … [and] what doctor we can see," Perry writes in "Fed Up!"

And, of course, Palin, who manages to sound both slashing and cheerful at the same time. "We have allowed the left, with its unconstrained vision, to convince us that America's current woes were caused by too little government involvement," she writes. "This is nonsense. We got into this economic mess because of misplaced government interference in the first place."

There's a long list of issues all these candidates agree on. "We need to have a more limited, more accountable government," Pawlenty writes.

"The road to success is lower taxes [and] smaller government," echoes Perry.

But once in a while, a bit of daring comes through, in this case from Romney: "Government can promote opportunity or it can crush it," he writes. "To a point, even taxes can foster opportunity." No wonder "tea party" adherents are suspicious.

They all want to repeal Obama's healthcare law. "It will destroy our nation's healthcare system," warns Perry. "This is not hyperbole."

Even Romney, who signed a healthcare law in Massachusetts that was one of the inspirations for Obama's plan, now agrees. "Obamacare is an unconstitutional federal incursion into the rights of states," he writes in a passage that he added to the second edition of his book. (The first edition, published when the healthcare law was still being debated, wasn't that tough.)

They all believe religious faith should be an explicit underpinning of politics. "Removing God from our conversations, our plans and our actions is not in the best interest of our country," writes Pawlenty, who laces his memoir with verses from the Bible. In her second book, Palin praises Romney for defending his Mormon faith during his 2008 campaign, and contrasts him with John F. Kennedy, who she says "seemed to want to run away from religion" in 1960. (Of course, Kennedy was trying to answer fears that a Catholic president would take orders from the Vatican.)

And they all believe defense spending is, if anything, too low. "Right now America is, based on its defense spending, well on the road to weakness," writes Romney.

"Defense spending is now being squeezed out of the budget because of the explosion in entitlement spending," Perry complains.

The choice for Republican primary voters next year, at least judging by the literary works of the candidates, lies within a remarkably narrow range. They won't be offered differing approaches to government, only different ideas about how hard and fast to pursue it.

If, after all that, you're still hoping for a recommendation on what book to take to the beach, here's this reviewer's bottom line:

Most readable: Sarah Palin, "Going Rogue."

Least readable: Mitt Romney, "No Apology."

Most difficult political tightrope act: Romney, "No Apology."

Most intriguing new author: Rick Perry, "Fed Up."

Most appealing life story: Tim Pawlenty, "Courage to Stand."

Most terrifying jeremiad: Newt Gingrich, "To Save America."

doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com

"The only major beneficiaries of the recovery have been corporate profits and the stock market and its shareholders"

"The Horders" is not some reality show where we see a couple who has gathered too much stuff in their cramped quarters but rather the story of what businesses are doing in a period of record profits.

The heads of the corporations in questions are short sighted as the more they follow this path of grabbing profits and not sending that back to the workforce in the form of pay increases and benefits eventually (and likely already) have reached a tipping point where the workers (a.k.a. consumers) will not have the $$$ to spend on the goods and service which generate the profits.

Instead of allowing things to go along as they should, they are trying to strangle the very Golden Goose who supplies their profits. The Unions didn't help either as they are only interested in their own interests and that is not supporting workers but rather keeping things good for those in charge of the Unions. The Unions "use & abuse" the workers just like the businesses.

Northeastern economics professor Andrew Sum called the mismatch "historically unprecedented" and said it bodes ill for future growth..."Workers have no money, no purchasing power, so that's why consumption is not moving," he said.

A freshman economics student can tell you what happens next - The "GREED" factor causes the whole thing to stutter as the companies make it impossible for people to buy the new cars and other durable goods needed because they haven't been able to keep up with inflation. This is further evidence of the " I got mine" aspect in businesses and it will only result in prolonged recession and pain for the majority. The cost of gas and other consumer goods have risen steadily in the last two 1/2 years that the Feckless Fool in the White House has been in charge. This has happened on his watch and he is solely responsible for a failure to act.

And what does the Feckless Fool in the White House have to say about it??

" Time to eat your peas."- President Obama

Oh, and for the record, the Empty Suit and his family will still be going for their 10 day Martha's Vineyard Holiday (at taxpayers expense) even if the majority of Americans can't afford to have a vacation.

HEY, Mr. President - Have you ever heard the term, " Leadership by example ?" - No, I am SURE you haven't. He is the King of the " Do as I say, not as I do" set. And just for the record, he'll be on the government payroll for the rest of his life, regardless of how many people's lives he wrecked with his incompetence.

Companies churn out profits but not jobs

By Steven C. Johnson Reuters 24JULY2011

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The sluggish pace of hiring may be hobbling the U.S. economy, but it's not been holding back big U.S. companies' profits thanks to growth overseas and cost controls at home. And that's bad news for the more than 14 million Americans without jobs.

Big businesses would normally be desperate for surging job growth as it would feed into domestic demand but these aren't normal times. Massive growth opportunities overseas, especially in China and other buoyant Asian economies, have some of the largest American companies on track for record profits, even if they're businesses are mostly treading water in the U.S.

The message last week from the chief financial officer of one of the nation's industrial giants couldn't be clearer.

"We've driven all this cost out. Sales have come back, but people have not," said Greg Hayes, chief financial officer at United Technologies Corp. "It's the structural cost reductions that we have done over the past few years that have allowed us to see strong bottom-line results.

The company, the world's largest maker of air conditioners and elevators, said second-quarter profit rose 19 percent, and it is doing most of its hiring in emerging markets where demand for its products is growing fastest.

It isn't alone in seeing profits climb in the current earnings reporting season.

About 78 percent of companies in the benchmark S&P 500 index that have reported second-quarter earnings have beaten Wall Street expectations. Many benefited after slashing costs when the financial crisis hit and then keeping tight control on them even as sales recovered.

Economists say the ability to do more with less has helped create a two-speed U.S. recovery. The S&P 500 has doubled in value since the recession ended and per-share earnings are currently on track for a new annual record, while employment remains below the level seen in late 2008 when corporate profits troughed.

Employers added fewer jobs in June than at any time in the past nine months, and the jobless rate rose to 9.2 percent - not far below its level of 9.5 percent in June 2009 when the recession ended.

"We've never seen the kind of shedding of jobs that we saw in this recession. America's corporations have never been running so efficiently," said Ellen Zentner, senior U.S. economist at Nomura Securities in New York.

LITTLE WAGE GROWTH

What's more, workers have never claimed such a paltry share of real national income growth. Economists at Northeastern University in Boston recently found corporate profits captured 88 percent of income growth between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010.

Workers' take? Slightly more than 1 percent.

"The only major beneficiaries of the recovery have been corporate profits and the stock market and its shareholders," the study concludes.

The high jobless rate is also keeping wage growth severely restrained in the U.S., which is also good for profit margins.

Recent Department of Labor data showed unit labor costs edged up 0.7 percent in the year to March, though not enough to make up a 2.9 percent decline in the prior 12-month period.

Northeastern economics professor Andrew Sum called the mismatch "historically unprecedented" and said it bodes ill for future growth, especially given many companies are sitting on their cash rather than investing it.

"Workers have no money, no purchasing power, so that's why consumption is not moving," he said. By sitting on profits, firms are acting like earners "who take their money and stuff it in the mattress. That's happening across the economy."

U.S. economic growth slowed sharply in the first quarter and was expected to remain below 2 percent in the April-June period.

Some blamed that on high energy prices and supply shortages caused by Japan's earthquake and are betting on a rebound in the second half.

A July Reuters poll put the median estimate for 2011 growth at 2.7 percent, down from 2.9 percent in 2010.

CHICKEN AND EGG

Businesses' ability to do more with the same or less -- what economists term increased productivity -- has been rising since the 1990s, thanks partly to technological advancements and the ability to tap markets in fast-growing, lower-cost developing countries.

Some of the most profitable firms are those with overseas markets. The largest U.S. conglomerate General Electric Co. tied its 21.6 percent rise in earnings partly to strong foreign demand for its heavy equipment, including jet engines and electric turbines.

In the United States, things are obviously different. Consumers are still trying to pay down large debts built up during the boom years, which suppresses spending and means there is little incentive for companies to hire.

"It's a chicken-and-egg thing -- whether demand or supply drives growth," Zentner said. "Studies show that lack of sales for small business is the biggest impediment to hiring."

Even companies selling basic consumer products are feeling the pinch as the jobless and those on low incomes watch the pennies. Pepsi Co Inc tempered its full-year outlook this week and said performance in its North American beverage business was worse than expected.

In the cost-conscious auto industry. General Motors Co's top U.S. sales chief, Don Johnson, told Reuters that its manufacturing managers have been "squeaking out extra units through improving line rates, adding on extra shifts". The company indicated it is in no hurry to build new factories or hire lots of new workers.

Uncertainty about future tax rates and policy, a by-product of the deadlock in Washington over whether to raise the country's borrowing limit and how to rein in a gaping budget deficit, has also made firms cautious, said Jacob Oubina, senior U.S. economist at RBC Capital Markets.

But Doug Cliggott, U.S. equity strategist at Credit Suisse, said investors and CEOs alike should probably prepare for more subdued earnings in the second half and beyond.

For one thing, growth abroad appears to be slowing as booming economies such as China and Brazil try to tame inflation. Heavy machine maker Caterpillar blamed slower U.S. and global growth for disappointing quarterly earnings on Friday.

And while U.S. interest rates are likely to remain very low for some time, companies won't be able to rely on massive federal spending, which Cliggott said also helped boost profits over the past two years.

(Additional reporting by Scott Malone in Boston, Nick Zieminksi in New York and Clare Baldwin in Detroit; Editing by Martin Howell)

All in how you define the "problem"

Not like I have a lot of faith in Congress either as they were one of the "prime enablers" in letting the President spend us into a $14 Trillion Dollar hole....We need to take the keys away from the idjit-in-charge and elect someone who understands that you CAN'T spend what you don't HAVE !!

A PAIR OF FECKLESS IDIOTS - SLICK MITT ROMNEY & NO-DRAMA OBAMA

We have suffered for the last 2 1/2 years under a socially awkward idiot who sat in the White House and said things like, " They talk about me like a dog..", " I need to know whose ass to kick.", " Time to eat your peas..." and about a 100 other equally moronic statements that have come from this Harvard educated fool...

What we REALLY don't need is another one....The GOP has to stop trying to prop up SLICK MITT Romney as he comes off just as foolish and clueless as Obama. Neither of them should be in the Oval Office and neither of them have the right LEADERSHIP to be COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF as both of them have ZERO experience in the military.

Stop the madness and let's get a genuine LEADER in the Oval Office.....enough with propping up these " empty suits ' just because they can raise a $100 Million dollars from other clueless fools who give them the money to buy access. The United States needs LEADERSHIP, not the feckless hucksters like Romney and/or Obama. Really.


Mitt Romney’s on red-faced run
By Dave Wedge and Katy Jordan - Boston Herald
Friday, July 15, 2011

He’s admired for his perfect hair and polished style. It’s when Mitt Romney tries to be a regular guy that he runs into trouble.

The former Bay State governor and multimillionaire has made a string of quirky campaign missteps that have pundits questioning his ability to relate to the common voter. Some have even dubbed him an “awkward” candidate struggling with an identity crisis as his latest bid for the Oval Office kicks into high gear.

From pretending a waitress pinched his behind in New Hampshire, to cracking jokes about being “unemployed,” to pulling out a $100 bill in a Colorado restaurant, Romney has raised eyebrows with a series of stumbles as he stumps in the harsh glare of the national spotlight.

“I think more is expected of Romney because he’s done this once before,” said Carrie Giddins, a politics professor at George Washington University. “Romney’s struggle has been to be relatable. He’s trying to be the guy you can go have a beer with, but he’s struggled and been unable to get over those awkward moments.”

The media hasn’t been kind. The Wall Street Journal recently referred to his “aw shucks, cornball humor,” and the Washington Post wrote of his “weirdness,” describing his demeanor as “equal parts ‘Leave It to Beaver’ corniness and social awkwardness.”

In New Hampshire yesterday, Romney declined to acknowledge any recent missteps, smiling and shutting his car door, saying “Thanks guys!” when a reporter asked about his campaign trail foibles.
Some pundits said the criticism has increased because Romney leads most polls for the GOP presidential nomination.

“What’s really happening is the scrutiny is getting more intense on Mitt because he’s clearly the front-runner,” said Republican consultant Rick Wilson. “He’s the guy that seems to perform best against Obama.”

“His every move is being watched,” Giddins added.

Indeed, Romney has come under fire on a nearly daily basis from national Democrats as well as in New Hampshire, where the former governor has long had a summer home.

“He’s trying to pitch himself as something he’s clearly not,” said Holly Shulman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. “Mitt Romney’s awkwardness on the campaign trail is perhaps not just because he fails to connect with voters and what they are going through in their daily lives, but because he knows deep down that what he is selling about his record on jobs and the economy just isn’t true.”

In Portsmouth, N.H., yesterday, Romney riffed off President Obama’s deficit-cutting admonishment last week that Americans must “eat our peas.”

“I ate a full plate of peas. I ate my peas,” Romney told supporters.

Romney’s quirky moments highlight the trouble that rich, well-heeled politicians sometimes have connecting with regular voters. Fellow Bay State multimillionaire U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry was painted as out of touch for dodging taxes on his luxury yacht last year, and drew mockery in 2004 for asking an Iowa clerk, “Can I get me a hunting license here?” He also offended military families with his 2006 “botched joke,” when he told college students to stay in school or they’d “get stuck in Iraq.”

But Wilson called Romney’s recent gaffes “minor” and said there has yet to be a defining moment for the presidential hopeful. “These aren’t egregious sins. I think most of this is just silly season stuff,” he said

The Unemployment Numbers are an " Unmitigated Disaster" - the real numbers are much, much worse....bleak times for US Workforce

Here are some of the remarks made by economists based on the updated Unemployment Rate released on Friday:

" Unmitigated Disaster ", " It will be many years before the nation eliminates the current shortfall in jobs ", "We can see no silver lining in this employment report, which is weak, weak, weak."

You get the picture. Too bad the empty suit in the White House doesn't get it as he is trying to say he deserves another 4-year term to keep driving the American Economy into the ground. If your job performance at work was a poor as his, you would have been fired about a year into the job. Too Bad we can't do that with Obama.

The DEMS in Congress are Obama's cheerleaders and equally culpable. The GOP will only help if it suits their political gains and ultimately, the US Taxpayers are the ones getting screwed.

Well, let's interject some sobering reality into the situation - If you look at and include those who have fallen off the numbers who are counted, the unemployment issue is much, much worse than the present resident of the White House would like to admit...any wonder why some would seek work outside the US (or in Afghanistan) if this is the situation back home ?


Without Dropouts, Jobless Rate Would Be Over 11%
Wall Street Journal - July 8, 2011

The unemployment rate increased to 9.2% in June, the Labor Department reported, but if the recession hadn’t pushed so many people out of the labor market it would have been much worse.

The duration of unemployment continues to increase and sat at an average of 39.9 weeks in June. More than four million people who want jobs, or nearly a third of the unemployed, have been out of work for more than a year. Those are the people are hanging in and looking for work, but a large number have given up altogether.

The share of the population in the jobs market, called the labor-force participation rate, fell to 64.1% last month — the lowest level since 1984 when women were still just beginning to enter in full force. The participation rate peaked in 2000 and has been steadily declining since as the effect of women taking full-time jobs plateaued and Baby Boomers began to retire, but the decline accelerated sharply during the recession. The participation rate was 66% at the start of the recession and 65.7% when the recovery started in June 2009. If the participation rate were still at that level, the unemployment rate would be more than 11% right now.

With nearly a third of the unemployed out of work for over a year, it makes their reintegration back into the labor market more and more difficult. People out of a job that long tend to lose skills and experience long-term effects on their lifetime earning power. It’s even harder to reintegrate workers who have dropped out altogether.

There’s also a problem of underemployment. A comprehensive gauge of labor underutilization, known as the “U-6″ for its data classification by the Labor Department, accounts for people who have stopped looking for work or who can’t find full-time jobs. That number shot up in June to 16.2% from 15.8% a month earlier.

The U-6 figure includes everyone in the official rate plus “marginally attached workers” — those who are neither working nor looking for work, but say they want a job and have looked for work recently; and people who are employed part-time for economic reasons, meaning they want full-time work but took a part-time schedule instead because that’s all they could find. People who drop out of the labor force completely aren’t included in this tally.

Sometimes the jobless rate can rise because people re-enter the work force. That can be a positive sign for the economy, indicating a strengthening labor market and improved confidence. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case in June. The number of people in the labor force dropped last month, while the number of people employed tumbled and the number of unemployed increased.

LEADERSHIP means making unpopular choices as it is the RIGHT thing to do..“ ‘What’s the right number of troops in Afghanistan?" is the wrong question.

Last November, I wrote about how I agreed with Gen. Petraeus' vision of needing to " GO HEAVY" as this was what was needed in AFGHN....Break the back of the Taliban and deprive them of the ability to control vast areas of the country here..

http://usnavyjeep.blogspot.com/2010/11/confirmation-of-that-go-heavy-approach.html

Well now that we are in all but July of 2011, the fool in the White House has to get serious about figuring out which is more important - The mission to eliminate the Taliban from AFGHN (allowing Afghanistan to be free) or trying to make sure he offers up an AFGHN strategy that doesn't elminate his base from re-electing him in 2012.

For those who understand what " Leadership " means, it means making unpopular choices (even ones that can have negative personal consequnces) because it is the RIGHT thing to do.....In "BARRY-FROM-CHICAGO's" world, it is looking over the polling and figuring out which decision will make sure he gets re-elected.

A freshman PoliSci major can see the manner in which the White House operates - None of what they do is about what is BEST for the Country, only what is best for the feckless idiot who has been in charge for the past 2 1/2 years.

His distain for the military was on full display until he got elected and since then he has been "going through the motions" as it is politically necessary.

So we face the crossroads - Do what is best for the Nation, Afghanistan and follow-through on the mission, freeing Afghanistan while eliminating the Taliban as they threaten the West as a whole OR do what ensures he can get more of his supporters to vote for him & try to reassure his re-election in 2012 ???

Again, the first year Poli-Sci major could predict the course the feckless politician will follow (as my Dad would say, "He's a shallow as p*ss on a flat rock"....More to follow as we watch the outcome on Wednesday evening.

Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Three options weighed by the White House
Anna Mulrine Staff writer The Christian Science Monitor Jun 21, 2011

President Obama’s Wednesday speech on his promised July drawdown of the 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan is drafted. But on circulating copies, there are still blank spaces where the final troop figures will go. Whether that’s because the White House is still in the midst of internal debate – or whether it’s a fear of leaks – remains the subject of speculation, but guessing precisely what those figures will be was insider Washington’s favorite parlor game Tuesday.

Here are some possible scenarios – small, medium, and large troop withdrawals – being weighed by the White House for the near and long-term, along with their risks and rewards.

Small

This is certainly the Pentagon’s preference. It would involve continuing to keep fairly robust levels of American forces in Afghanistan through 2014, likely as many as 60,000 soldiers, according to a plan that Seth Jones, an analyst for the RAND Corporation and until earlier this year an adviser to special operations forces in Afghanistan, submitted in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month.

In the near term, it would involve keeping the bulk of the 30,000 US surge forces in the country, too – as 2011 draws to a close, only 5,000 to 10,000 surge troops would withdraw, according to plans favored by the Pentagon.

A reduction of up to 10,000 troops by the end of 2011 – most of them support and logistics specialists from the largest US bases – would not create a great risk for the US military’s mission in Afghanistan, says Jones, who adds that troop levels could perhaps be reduced by 10,000 to 20,000 more by the end of 2012.

“What the military wants is any withdrawal this year to take place after the fighting season is completed, which generally runs through the summer, and the withdrawal to be noncombat troops, so they have as many combat troops as possible to wage the fighting season this year and next year,” says Richard Fontaine, senior fellow with the Center for a New American Security and former foreign policy adviser to Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Some defense analysts say, however, that a small withdrawal is not consistent with achieving the goal of a sustainable homegrown counterinsurgency effort. The problem, says Jones, is that keeping close to current US troop levels in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future would “not adequately prepare Afghan forces to fight the insurgency and secure their country.”

American troop presence in the country, too, appears to have diminishing returns, Jones points out: Though it’s still above 50 percent, Afghan support for the US military has declined every year since 2005.

Medium

This approach would limit US goals in Afghanistan, focusing on assisting Afghan national security forces and targeting terrorist leaders – a plan Jones calls an “Afghan-led counterinsurgency.” Such a plan “would largely terminate US combat operations in 2014, except for targeting terrorist leaders,” he says.

This might mean pulling out 20,000 troops by the end of 2011, 40,000 more by the end of 2012, and reducing forces to roughly 30,000 by 2014, says Jones. The key would be bolstering Afghan national security forces as well as the Afghan Local Police (ALP), a goal enthusiastically supported by Gen. David Petraeus, commander of US forces in Afghanistan. So far, the ALP have undercut Taliban control in key areas of the South, Jones says, and helped to connect local villages to the Afghan government. But local security forces “do not offset the risks incurred by premature withdrawal of combat forces from Afghanistan,” says Frederick Kagan, a defense analyst with the American Enterprise Institute, who has advised the US military and was an architect of the surge in Iraq. What’s more, Dr. Kagan and others add that a premature withdrawal of combat forces would undermine what until now has been a promising local security effort.

“Local security forces operate in remote areas that have either been cleared or that were not enemy safe havens to begin with,” says Dr. Kagan, who supports a small troop drawdown. “They cannot by themselves clear enemy-held areas, nor can they withstand concerted enemy attacks.”

That’s because local security forces number only about 6,000, he says. “Remember that there were over 100,000 Sons of Iraq. Increasing their numbers depends on having requisite numbers of partners and mentors.” Removing conventional forces, he adds, “will encourage more Afghans to sit on the fence, and can undermine the entire local security effort.”

Large

This is the “counterterrorism” option favored by Vice President Joseph Biden and others, and would involve withdrawing all, or most, military forces from Afghanistan and relying on US Special Operations Forces and CIA units to capture or kill members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
In this case, Jones explains in this option submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,“The US footprint in Afghanistan might more closely resemble the current US footprint in Yemen: Lean and lethal.”

This would involve drawing down half of the 100,000 US troops currently in Afghanistan by the end of 2011, and nearly 30,000 more by the end of 2012, leaving some 20,000 US troops in the country by 2013. There are risks, though, that involve losing the gains that US troops have fought hard to achieve, says Mr. Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security.

“The military has fought very, very hard to make progress in the south and the east of Afghanistan – and with fewer troops you have less ground you can cover, less places you can go, less people you can fight,” he says. “But you have to balance that against all the other considerations.” These involve whether the expense in troops lives and billions of dollars, particularly in the midst of an economic crisis, is worth the price America is paying.

Such a strategy would significantly reduce the financial burden on the United States – a concern for lawmakers with a close eye on the 2012 elections.

“My personal belief is that the cost [of the war in Afghanistan] is obviously extremely high,” Fontaine says. “But if we are correct that the strategic stakes in Afghanistan are as great as we’ve been describing, then that justifies – at least in the short to medium term – some pretty substantial investments in what we’re trying to do.”

But how much impact will delaying the withdrawal for a little while really have on the ground in Afghanistan? That is the question Mr. Obama should be asking himself, says retired Col. Douglas Ollivant, senior national security fellow at the New America Foundation, and former senior counterinsurgency adviser to the US military’s Regional Command East in Afghanistan.

“ ‘What’s the right number of troops in Afghanistan?’ is the wrong question. The core question – what you want to ask – is: ‘Do we think what we’re doing is working?’ ” Beyond that, he adds, “Is the policy sustainable?”

President Clueless and First Lady "Michelle modern-day Marie Antoinette" continue to muck it up.....with our $$$ and future on the line

The Media is all in a tizzy as President Clueless is going to make his announcement of what his decision will be regarding troop levels in Afghanistan.

With a full understanding that popularity polls are against continuation of the troop levels we presently maintain, when did we decide that critical national defense decisions are made by polling ? Did Churchill, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower or Kennedy make key decisions based on polls?? NO - they listened to the military experts and made decisions on what was BEST, not what would make sure they got re-elected.

The issue with Afghanistan still comes back to a "You can pay me now or pay me later" issue. The Liberal media tried this same arguement with IRAQ - too expensive, unwinable, etc. etc - They were wrong then and they are wrong now. We are invested and we need to follow the mission through to completion not look for the fast & cheap way out....haste make waste, but then again, common sense was never a virtue in the present adminstration.

The feckless idiot we have in the White House presently cares about only one thing - HIMSELF. How it effects HIM. He could give a crap less about the military and his track record shows that....Wednesday we will get to see what the empty suit says....I'm not holding my breath as the key issue will be how many times he uses the word " I " in his statement because as far as he's concerned, it has always been all about himself....think about it, the fool has written TWO Autobiographies. That speaks volumes....

And secondly, we have First Lady " Michelle Modern-Day Marie Antoinette" jetting off to Africa with her Mom, daughters and a few other friends in tow....more "Official Travel" when in reality, she's just making sure she finds more creative ways to spend our money....The article enclosed shows how clueless she is as she has pretty much mucked it up as First Lady....again, another prime example of it being " all about me".....What a clueless pair.

All I can hope is that the American people wake up and elect someone brighter than the dim-bulb & his "Mrs. Spends-alot" we have in the White House presently.


Michelle Obama heads to Africa, stirs criticism
By Rachel Rose Hartman - Yahoo News

First Lady Michelle Obama embarks today on a weeklong trip to Africa to spread goodwill. But the trip is already stirring criticism, making it just the latest travel choice by the First Lady to draw some negative press for the White House.

The aim of Obama's tour, which will take her to South Africa and Botswana, is to engage with young people--especially girls and women--who play prominent roles in academic life and civic leadership, while also furthering awareness on health and wellness issues.

But, as Washington Post writer Krissah Thompson notes, the trip is already provoking disappointment from Africa advocates who argue that President Obama, whose father was Kenyan, hasn't devoted enough time to the continent since winning the presidency. Mwiza Munthali, public outreach director of TransAfrica Forum, argues that U.S. officials "are not seeing Africa as a big priority. There has been some ambivalence." The president has made just one trip to sub-Saharan Africa since his Jan. 2009 inauguration and has chosen not to accompany his wife on her journey.

This isn't the first time the First Lady has come under fire for travel plans. Below we review some of Michelle Obama's past controversies around trips:

• The glitzy Spanish getaway: The First Lady raised eyebrows last August when she decided to jaunt off to Spain, commanding top-dollar luxury accommodations in the middle of a recession. The New York Daily News called her "a modern-day Marie Antoinette."

• The greeting leaders with creative diplomacy in England, Indonesia: The ever-delicate question of international etiquette has made trouble for the First Lady on a couple of foreign trips. In April 2009, she broke royal protocol and hugged Queen Elizabeth, causing a major stir in England and elsewhere. Then in Indonesia last November, Michelle Obama shook the hand of a conservative Muslim minister, a form of social contact between the sexes that violated his religious vows. He blamed the First Lady for the violation.

• The visit to immigration-complicated Mexico: Critics accused the First Lady of organizing a frivolous trip to Mexico in April 2010 with Jill Biden, wife of Vice President Joe Biden. While that trip, too, was aimed primarily on establishing contact with younger civic leaders, some detractors called out the First Lady for taking time to travel to a country that's long been a flashpoint in U.S. immigration policy. Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, for instance, argued that the trip was little more than an effort to promote "illegal alien shamnesty."

Time is running out while the "Empty Suit" in the White House fiddles and diddles....

Any sane person can see that our economy is on the edge.....the edge of becoming a double dip recession....and that is fitting as the "DIP" in the White House has not done anything effective to change that course.

Unemployment is over 9% and that is only those collecting. If you are one of the people that fell off the roll after exhausting your benefits, you don't even matter to the bean counters in WASH DC. Actual unemployment is closer to 15%....The hidden section of unemployed are not worthy of the attention of the media or the pols.

This group of idiots in the Adminstration think they are also worthy of relection...The millions who lost jobs, homes and a future they worked hard for might just disagree with that sentiment.

The "game is afoot" as Sherlock Holmes would state, and it is about time we throw out the penalty flag on this poser who has been in the White House for 2 1/2 years with no real measurable progress....if anything, we are worse off for his sprendthift spending which only lined the pockets of his political friends and stuck the rest of us with the bill.

To quote the guys from TOP GEAR, " How hard can it be? "

Apparently, for the village idiot (read "comunity organizer") from Chicago, it was obviously way outta his league...some of us stated so 2 1/2 years ago but no one was listening.


Obama's biggest deficit is time
By: Joe Scarborough
June 7, 2011 04:48 AM EDT

The headlines are frightening.

America’s unemployment rate has once again broken 9 percent. The U.S. economy created 100,000 fewer jobs than expected last month. And now, Moody’s is threatening to downgrade the country’s prized Aaa debt rating. Despite a massive domestic spending spree during the past several years, the U.S. economy remains stuck in a ditch. The president and Congress are helpless to improve the situation and, on many days, seem determined by their actions to make things worse.

So how did the most powerful economic machine on the planet get to a place where it is juggling both an anemic economy and a terrifying debt?

President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies will, of course, blame all of America’s problems on George W. Bush. But using Bush 43 as a political shield is less effective than it once was. The blame game may have gotten Obama elected in 2008 but will do little to get Americans back to work in 2011.

Republicans who blame our current economic crisis on Obama either have short memories or no shame. The GOP owned Washington when it inherited a booming economy and a $155 billion budget surplus. Mr. Obama was not as fortunate. He inherited a broken financial system, a housing market in free fall and a debt that doubled during the Bush years.

But that doesn’t mean Obama should be given a free political pass for our nation’s dismal economic condition. For while the economic crisis was not of his making, Obama’s unfocused policies and spendthrift ways have had the effect of taking a bad situation and making it worse.

In early 2009, the president allowed then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic-controlled Congress to cobble together a tragically flawed stimulus bill that had more to do with congressional politics than with economic realities. The $787 billion measure was the largest spending bill in American history, and unlike the auto bailout that followed, Obama’s stimulus plan was doomed to fail from the start. Conservatives complained that it spent too much. Liberals argued that it spent too little. But very few paid attention to the most important question: Where did the money go?

House members and senators who voted with the president were in no position to answer that question, because none of them actually read the bill before it passed.

Against that backdrop, one wonders why the Obama administration promised voters that if this muddled collection of legislative goop was signed into law, unemployment would never rise above 8 percent.

The president has clearly failed on the jobs front. But Republicans who were elected in 2010 by promising to focus on job creation have also done little to drive that agenda. Almost as depressing for small-government conservatives is the fact that spending continues to skyrocket under Republican leadership.

Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan, which the White House and the mainstream press deride as “radical,” would actually add $6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

And the budget deal that averted a government shutdown in April and was supposed to save Americans $38 billion has been revealed by the Congressional Budget Office to actually increase spending by $3.2 billion this year.

In 2011, Congress will spend more under Speaker John Boehner than it did in 2010 under Pelosi.


But as bad as Republicans have been on budget matters during the past decade, Democrats can always be counted upon to be worse. Even during the Clinton years, which liberals now highlight to prove that their side is superior on taming the deficit, every GOP budget proposal was met with a Democratic plan that spent more. And as bad as Bush 43 was on the debt, he always submitted budgets that spent less than the Democratic alternative.

These days, it’s more of the same. Domestic spending has gone up 24 percent on Obama’s watch. Spending is now equal to nearly 25 percent of gross domestic product, after hovering around 20 percent during the Bush years. Because of the growth in spending and a decrease in tax revenues caused by the recession, publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP has nearly doubled in the past four years, from 36 percent to 68 percent.

This statistic is especially frightening. Due to high spending and low revenues, publicly held debt may soon equal 90 percent of America’s GDP. If we enter a double-dip recession, some economists believe we could hit that number in as little as 12 months. Once debt is equal to 90 percent of GDP, bondholders will begin demanding higher interest rates that will put even more pressure on an already fragile economy. At some point, we’ll start borrowing just to pay back money that we’ve already borrowed, triggering an economic death spiral that will make Greece’s crisis look like a Mediterranean cruise.

Of course, Obama didn’t create the Bush tax cuts. He just extended them for two years. He did not start the wars in Afghanistan. He just tripled the number of troops in an endless war. And the president isn’t the first to demagogue Medicare. He’s just the one who is planning to exploit those fears to win reelection next year.

But regardless of whether he is reelected, Obama now owns the $1 trillion tax cut extension, three wars and a growing debt crisis.

Who knows? Maybe Obama can reverse the damage that he and Bush have done to America’s economy over the past decade. Maybe the president will get serious about saving Social Security and Medicare. Maybe the commander in chief will have the courage to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and finally bring our troops home. Maybe. But if so, the candidate of “hope” and “change” had better get moving soon. Time is running out.

A guest columnist for POLITICO, Joe Scarborough hosts “Morning Joe” on MSNBC and represented Florida’s 1st Congressional District in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2001.

© 2011 Capitol News Company, LLC

Aloha Friday Observations....

I have spent time in Hawaii and in the islands, every Friday is " Aloha Friday "...There they look to live the " Aloha Spirit " and embrace the idea that "Aloha" is a way of living life with care and concern for others, along with enjoying life as it is a gift....I did this while overseas and wore my Aloha Shirt around Afghanistan on Fridays.....it made me stand out that was for sure and I had one Marine ask me, " What the hell do you do here? " in a tone that was uncharacteristic of most Marines (they are very polite when addressing civilians)....when I told him I was part of the company that supplies his life-support services, he eased up...it was a funny encounter as I would have likely wondered what the guy in the Aloha shirt was doing in Helmand Province if I were in his shoes too.....

Fridays also spur retrospective observations....You try to sum up the week's efforts and prepare yourself for some well earned weekend activity....so I'll take a bash at sharing some observations from my AOR (area of responsibility - Military speak for your present location)

• We are entering Spring but the weather here seems to not want to move away from winter....we had snow here twice this week and thankfully, it didn't add up to much...gone within hours once the temps rose back to the low 40s
• .
• The Herring are "running", which means returning to the rivers here in Southeastern Massachusetts as they do each Spring....you can tell because there is a large flock of Seagulls squawking and following them as they make their way up the river....and of course, leaving behind the calling cards that only seagulls can.....ewww
• "March Madness" is in full swing.....whatever. Too much attention is paid to the NCAA and it has turned March into a month dominated by college Basketball.....sorry, not interested. Spring Training for the Red Sox....more please.....Roundball just isn't that exciting, in my humble opinion.
• Two Oldest came by last night and we shared dinner and some early birthday cake along with the Mrs., daughter and daughter-in-law.....it was a good evening of humor, sibling rivalry and a game of Wii Golf....I actually won the round despite predictions that Dad would peter out on the tougher holes....I enjoy these evenings as the Number 1 and Number 2 sons have grown to be honorable men....I am proud of their efforts and it is very enjoyable to spend time in their company. The company of family in these tough times is something everyone needs more and less have the ability to enjoy....
• The political posturing for the 2012 Elections is already rearing it's ugly head and the field could not be more full of empty-headed fools who look in the mirror and see themselves as the next Thomas Jefferson....."Let me be clear about this"....the country is in serious need of leadership and we got nobody.......zero, zilch, nada.....no one.....not a single person has appeared on the horizon who the country can get behind and feel confident on the outcome.....Romney, Gingrich, Palin, Bachman, Trump, Barbour, Pawlenty, etc, etc. - All are woefully over matched and none of them has anything we want or need....they are all a bunch of self-centered fools......the "Empty Suit" who occupies the office is an abject lesson in what we should NOT do...elect some feckless idjit promising " hope & change " - We need to " Hope" we can "Change" him outta there as he is a blight upon the world stage and an embarrassment .....feckless, incompetent and lacking the sense God gave a dog.....really....and who will be the replacement???
• Meanwhile, we have Japan (prayers for them), Libya, Middle East unrest, Oil spiking, Deficit issues, etc, etc......did I miss anything ??
• I think this may be why we all are eager for Spring to come along....to allow us to enjoy the great outdoors and for a moment, leave the issues behind......especially on an ALOHA FRIDAY.

British Press label Obama as " THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY"

The British Press pretty much calls it like it is....Now if FOX NEWS had published this story, it would be seen as partisan and racist....The Brits don't really have a stake in the game and this view falls under the standard of the "3rd disinterested observer's point-of-view" which is usually the most accurate.

The hosts of TOP GEAR are always asking the following question when they see something going horribly wrong and it would seem to be appropriate regarding the feckless "empty suit" sitting in the White House;

" HOW HARD CAN IT BE ????"


BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?
President Barack Obama's supporters believed that he had the vision to transform America
Friday March 18,2011
By Anna Pukas

INEFFECTUAL, invisible, unable to honour pledges and now blamed for letting Gaddafi off the hook. Why Obama’s gone from ‘Yes we can’ to ‘Er, maybe we shouldn’t’...

Let us cast our minds back to those remarkable days in November 2008 when the son of a Kenyan goatherd was elected to the White House. It was a bright new dawn.....

Obama’s campaign slogan was mesmerisingly simple and brimming with self-belief: “Yes we can.” His presidency, however, is turning out to be more about “no we won’t.” Even more worryingly, it seems to be very much about: “Maybe we can… do what, exactly?“ The world feels like a dangerous place when leaders are seen to lack certitude but the only thing President Obama seems decisive about is his indecision. What should the US do about Libya? What should the US do about the Middle East in general? What about the country’s crippling debts? What is the US going to do about Afghanistan, about Iran?

What is President Obama doing about anything? The most alarming answer – your guess is as good as mine – is also, frankly, the most accurate one. What the President is not doing is being clear, resolute and pro-active, which is surely a big part of his job description. This is what he has to say about the popular uprising in Libya: “Gaddafi must go.” At least, that was his position on March 3.

Since then, other countries – most notably Britain and France – have been calling for some kind of intervention. Even the Arab League, a notoriously conservative organisation, has declared support for sanctions. But from the White House has come only the blah-blah of bland statements filled with meaningless expressions
and vague phrases. Of decisive action and leadership – even of clearly defined opinion – there is precious little sign.

What is the Obama administration’s position on the protests in the Gulf island state of Bahrain, which the authorities there are savagely suppressing with the help of troops shipped in from Saudi Arabia? What is the White House view on the alarming prospect of the unrest spreading to Saudi Arabia itself? Who knows? Certainly not the American people, nor the leaders of nations which would consider themselves allies of America.

The President has not really shared his views, which leads us to conclude that he either doesn’t know or chooses, for reasons best known to himself, not to say. The result is that a very real opportunity to remove an unpredictable despot from power may well have been lost. Who knows when or if such an opportunity will come along again?

Every day for almost the last two months our television screens, radio broadcasts and the pages of our newspapers have been filled with the pictures, sounds and words of the most tumultuous events any of us can remember in the Arab world. The outcome of these events, once the dust has settled, could literally change the world. Yet Obama seems content to sit this one out. He has barely engaged in the debate. Such ostrich-like behaviour is not untypical of the 49-year-old President who burst through America’s colour barrier to become the first African-American to occupy the White House.

Two days after taking office in January 2009, he pledged to close down the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, which has become notorious for holding detainees for years without trial. Obama promised to lose the prison within 12 months and to abolish the practice of military trials of terrorism suspects. It was an important promise. America’s reputation had been severely tarnished by revelations about the conditions at Guantanamo, by reports of waterboarding and extraordinary rendition (transporting prisoners to a third country for torture) and by the appalling treatment of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Closing Guantanamo was a redemptive gesture. Two years on, not only is the prison still in use but its future is as assured as ever. Ten days ago, the President signed an executive order reinstating the military commissions at the island prison. Human rights organisations were outraged. “With the stroke of a pen, President Obama extinguished any lingering hope that his administration would return the United States to the rule of law,” said Amnesty International while Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, declared the President’s action to be “unlawful, unwise and un-American.”

White House spokesmen insisted the President was still committed to closing Guantanamo, which currently has 172 detainees in custody. It was Congress, they said, that had refused to sanction the transfer of the prisoners to the US mainland for trial, leaving no option but to keep the prison open in Cuba. Very little has been achieved in the quest to secure peace in the Middle East. Under Obama, US foreign policy is founded on extreme caution. At first this cool-headedness was a welcome change from the naked aggression of George W Bush and his henchmen Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

It is also true that the President is constantly stymied by a hostile, Republican-ruled Congress. But Obama’s apparent reluctance to engage with momentous events is starting to look like more than aloofness. Some tempering of America’s role as the world’s No1 busybody may be no bad thing but under Obama the US appears to be heading towards isolationism. He is hardly doing much better at home. Economically, the US is in big trouble but the national debt is not shrinking.

Ditto the country’s ecological health; the American love affair with the car and oil remains undiminished despite any alleged commitment. But the White House appears to shy away from any tough action. The energy with which Obama entered the White House seems to have all gone in the push to bring in health care reform, which many Americans didn’t want (or still don’t realise they want).

All of which means that it is starting to look as if Obama and the Democratic Party have but one aim in mind for the rest of this presidential term: to get elected for a second. That means not doing anything that might upset any number of special interest or niche groups, which in effect means not doing very much at all. So, not too many harsh but necessary measures to tackle the financial deficit; no clear direction on where America goes with Afghanistan, even though the war there is going nowhere except from bad to worse.

The Obama government can’t even give clear direction on whether the American people are in danger of exposure to nuclear fallout from Japan following the devastating earthquake and tsunami. The US Surgeon General Regina Benjamin advised San Francisco residents to stock up on radiation antidotes, prompting a run on potassium iodide pills, while the President said experts had assured him that any harmful radiation would have receded long before reaching the Western shores of the US.

Yes we can was a noble and powerful mantra which secured for Barack Obama the leadership of the free world. Those than can, do. It is time he started doing

Losing his base....

Posting diverse opinions can encourage thoughtful debate.....

Looks like the empty-suit-in-residence at the White House is losing his base...rapidly.

To Mr. Robintte, I say, " What took you so long??" - Most of us saw this coming more than four years ago when we recognized that a Community Organizer from Chicago was NOT the person the country needed as a Senator from Illinois, let alone the Chief Executive for our Nation.....Now, we need to find a suitable replacement, and that is also becoming a difficult task.

We need true leadership and we need it yesterday.

Posted: Monday, 14 March 2011 10:55AM

“Pres. Obama, I too am exhausted defending you.”
Garland Robinette Reporting - 870am, 105.3fm, WWL.com.

“President Obama, quite frankly, I’m exhausted defending you. Mr. President, is this my new reality?”

Those words were spoken to President Obama on September 20th, 2010 during a town hall meeting in Washington. The speaker identified herself as a CFO of a large national organization, a mother, a wife, and an American veteran.

Mr. President, I'm Garland Robinette...me too. I’m totally exhausted. I'm one of the few (possibly the only) radio talk show hosts in the south who admits that I like and admire you. I've liked and disliked all of our Presidents for various reasons. I've admired your intelligence, calm and reasoned communication skills. Some of your programs I like a lot, parts of others still work for me, and others I find much to disagree with. I'm one of the few remaining "journalists" who really does try to see all sides. I don't join “fear clubs” (Republicans and Democrats.) I don't need to be told what to think and how to vote. I think you need people like me, but for me it's too late...you can put me in the “minus one” category. Aside from being exhausted defending you, I'm now doubting my daughter and wife's security…their future in this country. Your energy policies are incredibly contradictory, uneducated, and extremely dangerous. Either you are not the Harvard-backed brain I thought you were, or you're getting unbelievably bad information from your advisors.

What finally knocked me out of your camp was your speech last Friday…the one about energy. Let's break it down into specifics.

1. You admitted that oil and gas prices affect everybody, "For Americans already facing a tough time it's an added burden." You emphasized the middle class.

Question: If a lack of it (oil) is an "added burden for Americans facing tough times,” why don't we go everywhere that we can to find it? I wrote a blog yesterday about you and T-Boone Pickens (famous oil man) saying "we can't drill our way out of this problem" (lack of energy). I think the blog pointed out the lunacy of that statement. Switch that belief to food. Use the hypothetical of a looming food shortage. Use corn as the oil analogy. It’s finite; we have to use it as bio-fuel. We can't "corn raise" our way out of the problem? So we quit growing more corn, because it will one day run out as a food source? We don't continue eating and growing more of it as a bridge while we're using science and research to find a substitute? I know you don't agree, but this makes me look at a Harvard graduate and say…contradictory, uneducated and increasingly dangerous.

2. You said, "Now the hard truth is, that as long as our economy depends on foreign oil we’re subject to price spikes.” Let me be more specific. First we need to continue to boost domestic production of oil."

Question: The figures I read say 86 billion barrels offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, 10 billion barrels in the Arctic and 800 billion barrels in oil shale in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and even more in Canada. These holdings are reportedly three times larger than Saudi Arabia reserves. Mr. President, have your energy advisors told you we are swimming in low cost, high quality fuel in Cushing, Oklahoma? Cushing is a main trading hub for oil. But there is a problem; we can't get any of that cheaper oil here in the south and much of the east. We have to buy expensive oil from other parts of the world. Why? I'm sure your experts told you Cushing doesn't have enough pipelines coming to us or the east, and there’s so much oil that America doesn’t have enough trains and tankers to get it to us. So, again the question…you said, "First we need to continue to boost domestic production of oil"...but not with any of the above current availabilities? Feeling my exhaustion?

3. You said, "Our oil production reached its highest level in 7 years. Oil production from the Gulf and Mexico reached an all-time high. We've approved more than 35 new offshore drilling permits."

Question: But it takes 7-10 years to gear up to bring oil to the surface after it's found, so other administrations are responsible for the additional oil, not yours. In particular, the new technology that takes out oil shale in the Dakotas. The Energy Information Administration (you know the one under your Department of Energy) projects there will be a decline in production of 220,000 barrels of domestic oil per day this year. The EIA says the number is 150 million fewer barrels in the Gulf of Mexico. Seven major rigs have left the Gulf to sign multi-year contracts in other countries. Do you just not know this? Do you think just because the media is a sad pile reflected conservative and liberal dogma that no one fact checks anymore? All time high Gulf oil production? Here are numbers I've found. 55 rigs in the Gulf drilling four days before the Deepwater Horizon explosion. May 2010, your six month moratorium was announced, then there were 46. Last week (3-11-11) the count was 25. Here comes that exhaustion again.

4. You've "directed the Department of the Interior to determine (in two weeks) why the oil companies aren't developing federal leases they currently hold.”

Question: How can I find these answers? Your experts apparently don't know why…and now only have two weeks to find out. Let's see, well…oil companies won't drill unless there is oil under the lease. Not all have oil. To find out if one does, it takes years of geological surveying, testing, and many, many, many of your environmental studies before drilling can even begin...like...7-10 years. Plus, after spending tens of millions of dollars and finding oil, they need to lease not just the spot where they drill, but tens of thousands of surrounding acres. If oil companies don't lease the land, competitors could simply drill nearby without spending millions and suck out the other guys oil just like a straw in a milk-shake. So what company would be so stupid as to not buy the surrounding leases that they’re not going to drill on? Surely, President Obama you must have someone who tells you this? Does anybody understand my exhaustion with this? Oops, almost forgot, as of June 2008 The New York Times reported that "almost 100 percent of the oil companies are constrained in their investment program, because there are no rigs available.”

5. "We're taking steps that will enable us to gather data on potential gas and oil resources of the mid-and south Atlantic". #^$%#&WAIT-WAIT-WAIT!!

Question: What? Where did that come from, Mr. President? You couldn't have gotten permission from Robert Kennedy Jr., or Al Gore, or John Kerry, Greenpeace…they're all too busy fighting windmills off the east coast (see Sunday edition New York Times -- "NOT IN MY LIBERAL BACKYARD.” They’re referring to any alternative energy…oil drilling would be obviously out of the question. You couldn't have meant any other east coast state, they’re all against oil exploration. But I'm sure you heard...didn't you?

6. "We're looking at potential new development in Alaska both onshore and offshore.” #(_#&@#*#)#*$-WAIT-WAIT-WAIT!!!

Question: You are, Mr. President? Since when? But you said there was barely enough there to sustain a 3 to 5 years supply, so why muck up the moose trails? You said we're not going to drill our way out of this problem?

7. "We're working to diversify our entire portfolio with historic developments in clean energy. I set a goal for 80% clean energy by 2035, with wind, solar, natural gas, clean coal, and gas and nuclear power.” LOL nuclear power. LOL. NYMBY. Japan…the best device-quake proof plants ever? Raise your hand if you want one in your backyard. If you don't believe that industry is dead, simply google “geothermal plays in San Francisco, cause earthquakes, efforts abandoned.” Then google “geothermal plays in Switzerland (check this Ambian) caused earthquakes and the process was shutdown. “ Google “multi-earthquakes in Arkansas caused by natural gas drilling.” Read all about earthquake fears along the Mississippi river.

Question: Actually not a question…just a low moan like the Titanic in the movie (on the way down). This is where I pass out because I fear you're getting dizzy. Have you even introduced yourself to your head of the department of energy, Steven Chu? He got a big old Nobel Prize on his mantel for his work in physics, biology, and alternative energy…little old schools like Stanford, Lawrence Berkley National labs, and Bell Labs. He must not have seen you mention in your SOTU speech about a certain professor at Cal-Tech and others at Stanford who have mastered the art of photosynthesis to the power of the sun times ten. But Mr. Chu must know that Professor Nathan Lewis agrees that we have the capability to meet the President's goal, we just have no way to implement that capability. Whadayasay we look at the alternatives?

8. Mr. President, you said, "We’ve got to make sure we have sufficient supplies, an example would be during Hurricane Katrina when you've got a whole bunch of refineries that have been impacted all along the Gulf."

Question: Sufficient supplies? Right. You do know we haven't built a refinery in this country in over 30 years, right? So, how do you maintain our supplies during a category 5 hurricane, when you have no alternative refineries? The polls should have educated you a long time ago; the country doesn't like or believe in “Big Oil” and often scream NRIMBY (no refineries in my back yard).

9. Mr. President, you even admit that China, India, and Brazil will need more oil as their economies improve. Have your advisors given you the numbers? Try 22 billion new barrels per day. The world consumes 85-86 billion per day. The oil industry has never produced more than 88 million barrels a day. Out of that 88, the U.S. is demanding 20 million barrels a day. Can you tell me again, why we wouldn't drill for every little drop of oil in this country? Plus, do you really think everything will go back to the "quiet ole days" in the Middle East?

10. Mr. President, you even admitted, "In fact, a lot of folks who are having the toughest times, who are either unemployed or have low-wage jobs, they're the ones that are most severely affected because they're using a higher portion of their income just to fill up their tanks.”

Question: Isn’t that every reason to drill everything we can find, until we find the magic elixir to replace oil?

And, one final question, Mr. President: For those west and east coast communities who don't want oil drilling…can we arrange a legal agreement by which they vote NOT to use any more gas than they do at this time? You know, like a rationing card? It's what they say they want? We take all the risks here on the Gulf Coast, yet receive virtually no royalties. Isn't it only fair that we not send them what they don't want? We're getting a little tired of their lack and knowledge or hypocrisy; they seem to reflect the same in you.

It’s really exhausting…

(and it has been so for most Americans for the better part of the last two years.)