FedUpUSA

Archive for the ‘Barack Obama’ Category

Obama The Traitor: The Hits Keep Coming

The lid isn’t going to stay on this much longer folks.

First, we have this with General Ham, who apparently had a rapid-deployment force ready to go into action when he learned that the consulate was under assault.  Then:

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it,  he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move  to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he  was now relieved of his command.

Got that?  It appears from this report that he was placed under armed arrest for attempting to rescue our people.

But it doesn’t stop there; apparently General Ham is not the only member of the armed forces who attempted to respond as one would expect from Americans at-arms:

The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.

Inappropriate judgment eh?  Like, perhaps, deciding that he was going to go do his job when our people were under attack through an act of war by belligerents?

U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette

There isn’t much that’s “inappropriate” in my view under such circumstances in terms of rapid response, but the CIC (that would be Obama) apparently sees things differently.

Remember, ladies and gentlemen, we have a military that is under civilan control.  That means you and I are the final arbiters of what is and is not permissible military action, not the other way around.  We, and not they, make that decision.

The questions you must now ask yourself as we come into these next couple of weeks, culminating in the election, are:

• Are you are going to remain silent and by doing so consent to the murder of four in Benghazi?  If this is unacceptable to you then it is your duty as an American to do something about it.  What you choose to do about it is of course up to you, and I urge lawful actions, not lawless ones, but the fact remains that our military structure means that you, and not they, are ultimately in control.
• It appears that there were assets in the air that could have responded; are you going to remain silent knowing they were there and refuse to demand the public identification of the person or persons who refused to use them? It appears now that our men had designated the mortar team that was firing on them with a laser targeting device.  Such an act never takes place unless there are assets in the air able to hit what’s been designated as the target and everyone else in the area can see the emission of energy used to “paint” the target.  We therefore know, assuming the reports of that “painting” are accurate, that some form of aerial fire support was available and was intentionally not used.  Again, you must decide if this is acceptable conduct.
• The predicate to all of this appears to have been the giving of heavy munitions to militants that may have been related to or connected with (or may have actually been!) Al-Qaida, which then “leaked” beyond where the people who gave those munitions intended them to go and be used.  Is it acceptable that our government gave heavy weapons to a publicly-sworn enemy of our nation?  There are multiple credible reports that the reason the Benghazi safe-house was hit was because the CIA was attempting to recover those weapons through what amounted to buying them back (that is, bribery.)  You must once again decide whether or not giving heavy weapons to known and declared enemies of the United State is acceptableunder any circumstances, and if not, what you intend to do about it.
• This is not the first time we have armed belligerents on purpose; is that acceptable?  Specifically, “Gun Runner” or “Fast and Furious” armed belligerent Mexican Drug Lords when then used some of those guns to shoot a United States citizen.  They also, it must be presumed, used them to shoot a lot of innocent Mexican citizens.  The key question here is when we as Americans will have had enough of this crap — it didn’t start with Obama, but he sure as hell has taken to a new level of art.  Back during the Iran-Contra days we indicted and convicted 11 but then sat back while George HW Bush pardoned all of those who didn’t manage to beat the charges on appeal.  Isn’t that nice?

We have a lot of serious problems in this country folks.  Our economy is in the toilet, we have a central bank that is entirely out-of-control and a Congress that refuses to enforce the law that governs its operation (and has serially refused to do so for 100 years), we apparently are arming people who are sworn enemies of the United States and we sit back and we blow Saudi Arabian Kings who demand that the UN trash our First Amendment (and incidentally, Mr. Abdullah, go perform an anatomically-impossible act) instead of declaring him an enemy of our nation, never mind the obvious and well-documented monetary ties between his country and Al-Quaida, not to mention the 9/11 hijackers.

Some of our political candidates would like to argue over things like gay marriage, smoking pot and abortion, or promises to hand out more and more money to people in exchange for their vote.  Others still would like to argue over whether one religion is superior to another.  Others will bleat about how a vote that is not cast for one man is in fact a vote for another, although this is trivially proven to be mathematically false.

This is all small-ball and mental masturbation folks if, as is allged, a bunch of MANPADs that our government handed to Al-Qaida connected people start being used to shoot down airliners or our economy blows up as a consequence of unbridled, rampant deficits and QE-to-insanity.

We had damn well better wake the hell up as a body politic because if we don’t you’re going to wake up one of these mornings due to a GE Turbofan engine coming crashing through your roof, on fire and in pieces, and that will just be the beginning of a nightmare that will not end for years.  This assumes that we don’t find ourselves in the middle of WWIII with mushrooms sprouting as the fruits across our “magnificent” plain.  That was the ultimate ”solution” to the Depression and I’d rather not do it again, especially in a world where the loser can and probably will play “push button vaporization of your nearest city”rather than go down with a whimper.

Don’t tell me that Romney is going to fix it, because I’ve heard exactly nothing from him on any of these matters thus far that leads me to believe he would doanything other than turn his head and, if the shit got really thick, pardon Obama and everyone in his chain of command that ultimately was brought up on charges over this crap exactly as George HW Bush did.

F*%k that.

The candidates are lying; this is a must-see video laying out exactly what we face both today and over the next 6-7 years if we do not act today.

3:30 of the hard-hitting truth!

Discussion (registration required to post)

David Stockman, budget director under Ronald Reagan, has an outstanding article in Newsweek.  He takes an ax to the Republican’s idea that Mitt Romney is some sort of ideal example of a capitalist.  The article is well worth taking time to read in its entirety.

Ironically, right now, most ‘conservative’ media outlets won’t print anything Stockman is saying, when up until about 4 years ago, he was their darling.  Stockman is someone who understands that economics is NOT politics. So, he is equal parts hated by those currently in power, and loved by those who are trying to get into power and vice-versa. This is how those in government attempt to manipulate economics to suit their policies. This is why SO MANY people get it all wrong when it comes to understanding economics and more importantly, how they get it wrong when it comes to solutions to our economic problems.  Unfortunately, our economic problems are ENORMOUS, therefore, failing to grasp basic economic principles due to the obfuscation wrought by partisan politics is nothing short of devastating.   The Republican enthusiasm about Mitt Romney is but one glaring example of politicization of economics.

A HUGE TRUTH in David Stockman’s article is this:  One who takes advantage of government intervention (think of Solyndra, GM, carbon trading, i.e. government-lobbied largesse), is NOT a capitalist.

“Bain’s billions of profits were not rewards for capitalist creation; they were mainly windfalls collected from gambling in markets that were rigged to rise.”

Besides the erroneous label of Mitt Romney as some bastion of free market Capitalism, another misconception is that ANY politicians can ‘create jobs.’  The PRIVATE SECTOR creates jobs.  The only hand government has in this process is whether or not they intervene and pick and choose winners and losers.  Just this week, yet another recipient of government (taxpayer) money went bankrupt.

Electric-car battery maker A123 Systems files for Chapter 11 after years of losses.

The Michigan plants, in the Detroit suburbs of Livonia and Romulus, were paid for with the help of a $249 million government grant from stimulus funds in 2009.  The company also got a $6 million research grant in 2007 under the Bush administration.

We keep hearing this over and over and over again (with little to no help from the government-controlled media).   Republicans blame it on Democrats and Democrats blame it on Republicans.  The truth is that BOTH Parties have their preferred ‘special pet industries.’  It’s not that one Party doesn’t do it and the other does, in truth, nothing changes about government handouts except the names of the recipients.  Regardless, the recipients have absolutely no incentive to use sound business practice, which would include prudent risk assessment and viable technology, because they have an embedded profit and a taxpayer safety net.  The business owners get paid no matter what the outcome because YOU are forced to pay them because the government makes you.  This is not job creation, it’s money wasting and catering to special groups of people for self-enrichment!

The examples of Bain and A123 are more specifically illustrations of CRONYISM.  Cronyism enriches those in power at the expense of those who are not.  This is why we see the same old politicians again and again, over and over.  They have the ability to make money in ways the rest of us do not.  They have taxpayer funded enterprises, and inside information, not to mention enrichment from the lobbyists bent on continuation of their respective ‘special statuses.’  We as citizens continue to believe we have a choice – but that choice comes from a finite pool of the same damn people.  We continually attempt to vote for the lesser of two evils even if we have to overlook some glaring facts in order to conclude exactly which candidate IS the lesser of those two evils.   Let’s examine the ‘conservative’ perspective on Mitt Romney.

I do understand the Republican argument that ANYTHING is better than Obama, really I do.  But one has to consider that very carefully.  IS Romney REALLY better than Obama, or is he just going to be better at making people believe his lies about upholding your ideas because he wears a red shirt instead of a blue one?  Let’s consider the widely-accepted Republican and conservative principles:

Romney is NOT pro-life – he’s fine with government-mandated funding of abortion as required by Obamacare.  But wait.  I thought conservatives thought this issue was of the utmost importance?  I guess when weighing the lesser of two evils, less consideration is given to this issue.

Romney is NOT pro-2nd Amendment – his record on this is long and abysmal in Massachusetts.   But wait.  I thought conservatives held gun rights near and dear.  I guess when weighing the lesser of two evils, less consideration is given to this issue too.

Romney will NOT appeal Obamacare. He’s even publicly stated that he acknowledges Obamacare was built on the foundation of Romneycare – and he has unequivocally stated that he is ‘proud’ of Romneycare (this despite its terrible reputation and citizen dissatisfaction in Mass.).  But wait.  I thought that conservatives believed that this issue was so important, they literally took a movement (the Tea Party), which was originally about economics and bailouts, and turned it into an anti-Obamacare movement?  I guess when weighing the lesser of two evils, all this effort can be entirely overlooked.

Romney has stated publicly that he supports The Patriot Act, NDAA and CISPA.   Granted, conservatives were slow to wake up to these issues in the first place; so this isn’t ‘traditionally’ something that self-styled Republicans have cared about in the past.  These are traditionally issues of civil rights infringements, long a focus of liberals and the Democrats.  However, since Obama has been in office, conservatives and some Republicans have taken up this fight.  In reality, this should be a fight for ALL of us.  These are issues of basic human freedoms.  The fact that Republicans have ignored the creeping Big Brother statism is just as egregious as the Democrats forgetting about it just because ‘their man’ is in office.

Romney has no intention to disentagle us from foreign wars.  He’s stated that he would actually be more aggressive in this regard.  I won’t rehash this because we just featured two articles yesterday about our folly in the Middle East and how the policies of government are getting our own troops killed.  Suffice it to say, Romney states that it will be business as usual in this department.  Obama on the other hand, ran on ‘hope and change’ and part of that change was supposed to be, as many liberals and Democrats were demanding, getting the hell out of the Middle East.  What he’s done instead has been the complete opposite, and in fact, he’s made at least one unilateral, Executive act of aggression on a foreign power, which entirely bypassed congress.  Weren’t liberals foaming at the mouth about George W. Bush doing just this same thing?  The Democrats have been deafeningly silent.  Democrats are apparently only anti-war when their guy isn’t in office.

So, let’s summarize:  What we have in Romney is a white Obama, who has built a false belief around himself that he is a pro-business capitalist, despite the fact that he made the majority of his wealth based upon government picking his sector as a ‘winner,’ resulting in it being the recipient of extreme preferential treatment.  So, what he IS, is an adept cronyist, not a capitalist.  With help from the Republican Party and a desperate ’conservative’ American public, despite the above-listed facts, Republicans and conservatives have now convinced themselves that Mitt Romney is somehow going to represent conservative principles and is somehow going to be better than Obama.   Uh, okay.

Consider the consequences:  IMAGINE how much more legislation Romney can pass than Obama has been able to accomplish. Think of the success a person could have without the baggage of the intentional racial divide, the lack of documented history and shady past, and without blatant ties to socialists/communists, and without having to speak with a teleprompter…..yet this person HAS the SAME agenda: More preference for the elite through the ‘some are more special than others’ ideology (cronyism).

By his actions, Romney has already proved that he has no problems eroding the same protected freedoms to accomplish his goals  at which Obama has been chipping away. The ONLY reason Obama has been opposed so vehemently by those who have conservative ideals is because he was too overt and blatant.  If Romney wins, you’ve then got covert and all the legislation that Obama didn’t get to pass, WILL, unless the Democrats stand up and oppose it because conservative/Republicans have already been willing to overlook everything on the list above in order to vote for Romney.   So who will oppose all of these acts of tyranny now if not conservatives?  Suddenly the Dems will be anti-war again. Bet on it. They will scream about NDAA when they were silent. They’ll rail against restriction of Internet freedom, when they were nearly all silent on CISPA. Yet, it will be useless because the GOP will (potentially) have a majority.  Of course, there will be no one to oppose government-funded abortions or defend the 2nd Amendment because those people will have been the ones to put Romney in office.  They wouldn’t dare be hypocritical by then opposing the man they elected, would they?

IMO, a majority-controlled Republican government is far more dangerous than our current makeup.  A wholly Democrat controlled government is equally dangerous.  Gridlock is much preferable to what they’re going to be able to do if Romney wins and the GOP retains the House or even *shudder* gains control of the Senate too.

Think long and hard about what the ‘lesser of two evils’ REALLY means.

Cut The Crap And Come Home

****************************************************************

Obama’s ROE Are Getting Our Warriors Killed

 

Did you watch the presidential debate on Wednesday night?  It is absolutely amazing how they can have an hour and a half debate about the economy and say so little.  It seemed like both candidates were falling all over each other wanting to talk about how much they value education, but will more education really solve our problems?  After all, 53 percent of all Americans with a bachelor’s degree under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed in 2011.  So perhaps they should just both agree that education is a good thing and start talking about how to create more jobs for all of us.  If you want to grade the debate from a technical standpoint, clearly Romney was the winner of the debate.  Romney was full of energy and was generally sharp with his answers.  Obama looked like he had just popped a couple of antidepressants and was ready for nap time.  As a result, this might have been the worst blowout in the history of presidential debates.  A CNN/ORC International poll that was taken right after the debate found that 67 percent of all Americans that had watched the debate thought that Romney was the winner.  Never before had any presidential candidate crossed the 60 percent mark in the history of their post-debate polling.  So Romney definitely had a big night.  But the reality is that both candidates were telling the American people what they want to hear.  If either Obama or Romney told the truth about what we are facing they would lose votes, and in a race this tight both of them really want to avoid doing that.  Obama and Romney both desperately want to win this election, and the words that are coming out of their mouths have been carefully crafted to appeal to the “undecided voters” in the swing states.  If you actually believe that they can deliver on everything that they are promising, then you must not have been paying much attention to U.S. politics over the past several decades.

Perhaps the biggest failure on Wednesday night was debate moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS.  His questions were about as far from “hard hitting” as you could get.

The hour and a half debate was almost entirely about the economy, and yet almost all of the critical economic issues were ignored.

Yes, Obama and Romney have slight differences when it comes to tax rates and regulations, but those small differences are not going to do much to change the direction of this country one way or another.

Meanwhile, there were some really huge issues about the economy that were not addressed at all last night….

1 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the Federal Reserve was not mentioned a single time.

2 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, Ben Bernanke was not mentioned a single time.

3 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, quantitative easing was not mentioned a single time.

4 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the term “derivatives” was not used a single time.  Considering the fact that derivatives could bring down our financial system at any moment, this is an issue that should be talked about.

5 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, there was no mention of the millions of jobs that have been shipped out of the country.  Considering the fact that both Obama and Romney have played a role in this, it is probably a topic they both want to avoid.  Overall, the United States has lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001.

6 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, neither candidate mentioned that the velocity of money has plunged to a post-World War II low.

7 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the fact that the rest of the world is beginning to reject the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency was not mentioned a single time, but this has enormous implications for our economy in the years ahead.

8 – The fact that the Social Security system is headed for massive trouble was only briefly touched on during the debate.  At the moment, there are approximately 56 million Americans that are collecting Social Security benefits.  By 2035, that number is projected to grow to an astounding 91 million.  Overall, the Social Security system is facing a 134 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 75 years.  When are our politicians going to honestly address this massive problem?

9 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the nightmarish drought the country is experiencing right now was not mentioned a single time.

10 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the financial meltdown in Europe was basically totally ignored.  But considering the fact that Europe has a larger economy and a much larger banking system than we do, perhaps someone should have asked Obama and Romney what they plan to do when the financial system of Europe implodes.

11 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the student loan debt bubble was only briefly mentioned.

12 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, there was not a single word about the fact that the gap between the wealthy and the poor is now larger than it has been at any point since the Great Depression.

13 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, there was no mention of TARP (which they both supported at the time).  Would they both bail out the big banks if another financial crisis erupted?

14 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, there was no mention of the economic stimulus packages (which they both supported at the time).  Would they both want more “economic stimulus” if we entered another recession?

15 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, neither candidate talked about the fact that most of the jobs our economy is producing now are low income jobs.  In fact, since the end of the last recession, 58 percent of the jobs that have been created are low paying jobs.

16 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, neither candidate mentioned that more than 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government or that more than half of all Americans are now at least partially financially dependent on the government.  I can’t blame Romney for avoiding this point though – he probably wanted to avoid the phrase “47 percent” at all costs.

Is this really the best that America can do?

Tens of millions of Americans tuned in hoping to become more informed about the candidates, and instead what they got was an hour and a half of tap dancing as Obama and Romney constantly tossed out buzzwords such as “education”, “energy independent” and “middle class”.

I honestly don’t know how you can possibly have a debate about the economy without talking about the Federal Reserve, quantitative easing, the trade deficit, Europe or the decline of the U.S. dollar.

But it just happened right in front of our eyes.

I don’t think that I can ever remember another presidential debate that lacked substance as much as this one did.

So what did you all think about the debate?  Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below….

 

 The Economic Collapse