Cyprus Wealth Tax A Dangerous Punishment For Saving

March 18, 2013 2 Comments

News out of Cyprus over the weekend should concern everyone. Cyprus is in need of an EU bank bailout. Not surprisingly the Germans are tired of bailing out fiscally unstable European nations. With Germany refusing to bail Cyprus out the EU came up with another plan: Tax savings. Just three weeks ago the President of Cyprus laughed off such a proposal as ridiculous. Early Saturday morning in a massive document dump the President’s plan to tax savings (10% for savings over $50k, just under 7% for those with less savings) was revealed. Only the press didn’t pay attention. It took individual citizens complaining on Twitter about not being able to use ATM’s for people to figure out what was going on.

American leftists such as Robert Riech are hailing the taxation of wealth as a great thing. In reality what Cyprus is doing is incredibly dangerous. They’re basically setting up bank runs all across the EU. The people in Cyprus learned too late that their savings were going to be taken from them. Don’t for a second think the folks in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal aren’t taking notice. If people believe their country might tax their savings, they’ll pull their savings out of the bank. Because of fractional reserve banking, most banks won’t have enough cash on hand to give back to depositors. Thus we could see bank runs that collapse banks in Italy, Spain and several other countries.

This is both good news and bad news for the United States. It’s bad because the Euro zone is one of our biggest trading partners. Bank runs such as what is likely to happen due to the situation in Cyprus will slow economic growth throughout the EU. Bank runs creat chaos and chaos is never good for economic growth. The only bright side to this is that some large depositors might move their money to the United States. Though having said that banks in Germany and Britain are as stable as ours.

This entire situation sets up a dangerous precedent. While we aren’t likely to see our savings taken from us via a bank enforced wealth tax in the US, there is legitimate concern that it could happen here. We’re a nation that has over $16 trillion in debt. It would hardly be surprising if one day the government decided to tax us in this manner to pay off debts to avoid financial collapse. It’s not likely now but it could be in the future. There have been talks from the left about nationalizing our 401k’s, which would serve a similar end. If people become fearful of banking, the entire financial system could be in major trouble.

In the short run the message being sent by Cyprus is that there is no gain in savings. Savings are one of the most important functions of the family and of an economy. It’s bad enough that governments discourage savings by creating artificially low interest rates and taxing middle class capital gains. With governments in the Euro Zone either taxing bank accounts or considering them, the incentive to save decreases. Without savings, families don’t have a hedge against unexpected unemployment or expenses. Thus they look to government, which of course doesn’t have the money to be our hedge anymore. Especially in socialist countries like Cyprus, Greece, Italy etc.

Make no mistake, the US government is engaging in the same mistakes concerning savings. The Fed keeps interest rates artificially low, thus there is incentive to consume today rather than save for tomorrow. Our national debt is such that at some point we will no longer be able to afford the massive government we’ve created. Our states and local governments are in debt as well. Taxpayers are being taxed to death, wealth is the only avenue the left haven’t explored via taxation. With people not saving and expecting personal bailouts from government, we’ll have a problem on our hands when we can no longer afford our national debt. It’s a matter of time. We can’t add $1 trillion a year to the national debt and expect that to be sustainable forever. We’re not Cyprus yet but we aren’t far off.

Filed under economy Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Like Other Second Terms, Obama’s Won’t Be A Success

November 12, 2012 1 Comment

President Obama is now a lame duck. Unable to run for re-election, Obama is now free to do whatever he pleases as President. What that means remains to be seen. We still have a Constitutional republic, which means Obama must contend with Congress and in particular a Republican House. He’s going to have to negotiate a deal to increase the debt ceiling and he’ll have to negotiate a deal around the upcoming expiration of the Bush tax cuts. If history is any indication Obama’s second term will be a dismal failure. It will feature scandal, top staff turnover and weakening influence over domestic policy. Historically a President’s second term is only successful on the international front.

If we look at the last five second terms (we’ll include LBJ’s term which was a continuation of the Kennedy term) they have been largely failures. LBJ’s second term didn’t get much passed through Congress, his most important legislation was passed shortly after Kennedy’s death. LBJ oversaw an escalation of the Vietnam War, which was becoming increasingly unpopular. There was civil unrest throughout the country that LBJ was inept at responding to. He had several scandals, including one involving an appointee to the Supreme Court. So bad was LBJ’s second term that his party prevented him from running for a full second term in 1968.

Nixon’s second term was arguably the most disastrous in American history. He got little done legislatively, most of his international accomplishments occurred during his first term. Nixon’s second term was dominated by Watergate and a tax scandal involving Vice President Spiro Agnew. Both resigned, leaving Gerald Ford as President. It’s hard to imagine Obama having a worse second term than Nixon had. Considering the partisan bitterness in DC today, it seems almost unimaginable that Obama would be removed from office if impeached no matter what the offense.

Reagan’s second term was a mixed bag. Internationally he had several successful summits with the Soviet Union Ultimately the success of his second term could be seen in the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the Soviet Union in 1991. But as successful as Reagan was internationally, domestically he made huge blunders and was forced to defend the Iran-Contra scandal. His blunders include amnesty for illegals in 1986 and raising taxes in 1987. He lost many of his important first term advisers and cabinet members and his administration never recovered from these important losses.

Clinton also had a failed second term. He got almost nothing done domestically during his second term. He had modest successes internationally. But his second term was dominated by the Monica Lewinsky scandal wherein the President lied under oath. Clinton was ultimately impeached, becoming only the second President in American history to be impeached by the House. Clinton defenders will blame Republicans but the fact is his second term was derailed by Clinton’s lying under oath and other scandals surrounding him and his administration.

Bush 43 had the same problems as Clinton. He got nothing done domestically, failing immediately at his social security privatization attempt. Bush oversaw two wars that became increasingly unpopular during his second term while scandal resulted in Scooter Libby’s conviction for obstruction of justice. While Bush was able to turn around the wars, particularly Iraq during the second half of his term, he was never overcome the unpopularity of the wars.

Obama is looking at a failed second term, just like the others. Scandal is already looking him in the face with Benghazi and the Petraus’ affair/resignation. He’s looking at losing Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton, as well as several other advisers which will hurt Obama’s ability to run a smooth White House. Domestically what piece of legislation is Obama going to be able to pass that will be significant in any way? He won’t have a Democrat Congress, it’s highly unlikely he’ll win the House back in 2014. His best hope for success is in foreign affairs. But even there, war seems to be on the horizon in Israel.

People might not like hearing it but Obama’s second term is unlikely to be successful. Of the last five second terms, none of them could be considered incredible successes. Reagan’s was the closest but only because his second term helped destroy a long time enemy and end the 40 year long Cold War. If that hadn’t happened we would be lying to ourselves if we said Reagan’s second term was a success. Obama won’t be any different. He’s not nearly as smart or politically astute as he thinks he is. Little will happen during his second term, he’ll get very little passed through Congress. He’ll lose continuity in his administration and scandal will hang over the White House. Hope and Change has been gone for awhile, it won’t come back during the second term.

Filed under Obama Tagged with , , , , ,

White House Failed To Act In Benghazi

October 26, 2012 7 Comments

The White House sat and watched the Benghazi attack for seven hours and did nothing about it. CIA agents  who were at a CIA annex only one mile from the Benghazi consulate was told to “stand down” rather than aid the soon to be killed people at the consulate. We had two drones over head, which could have dropped a bomb or two that would have either ended the siege or allowed the four Americans to escape. Instead the White House did nothing. In fact the White House won’t even release any information about where the President was during the seven hour siege. Was Obama even paying attention?

Leon Panetta claims the administration couldn’t do anything because we didn’t know enough about what was going on. That’s curious considering they could have watched the siege in real time via security cameras at the compound or watched live video from the drones flying over head. They had direct phone and email contact with the people inside and we know they had contact with the CIA annex one mile away. Yet we’re to believe the administration simply couldn’t do anything because they didn’t have enough intelligence. What more information did they need?

The father of Navy Seal Tyrone Woods who died in the siege doesn’t appreciate the cowardice in the Obama administration. While the Obama campaign is busy creating pictures of Mitt Romney in a dunce cap, the Obama administration is spinning stories about what happened in Benghazi. It’s becoming clear that the administration is engaged in some sort of cover up in this matter. It isn’t clear why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi but it is becoming clear that the administration failed to protect him and the three others who died that day when they in fact could have been protected. Telling the CIA agents a mile away to stand down while drones fly over head and do nothing while an ambassador is murdered below is the height of incompetence.

Here’s what probably happened. The administration was afraid of having some sort of blackhawk down incident less than two months before the election. As such, they told the CIA to stand down and refused to allow the military to attack via the two drones flying over head. Perhaps the White House thought the Navy Seals in the Benghazi consulate could hold off the attack. When after seven hours it the terrorists had killed our ambassador and three other Americans while burning down our consulate the administration as stuck coming up with an explanation for the attack. They had all night to come up with it. That’s when the video was declared the excuse.

The Obama administration knew all along this was a terrorist attack, they knew that they were the ones who made up the video story. They counted on radical Muslims in other parts of the middle east piggy backing on the video story, which is why the media initially took the word of the White House. Ambassador Rice went on 5 Sunday talking head shows claiming it was the video, Obama said it as the video numerous times including at his UN Speech and Secretary of State Clinton said it was the video. Now it’s clear it wasn’t a video, it was a terrorist attack.

We know now more of the truth than we have before. We know the administration knew this was a terrorist attack within two hours after it started. We know that people in the White House can and did watch the attack in real time. We know the administration could have ordered the CIA, which was just one mile away, to counter attack. We know Obama could have ordered the military to fire via one of the two over head drones. We know the administration did nothing to protect these four souls during a seven hour siege. We know after their failure to act led to the deaths of four people, the administration made up the video story to cover for themselves. This isn’t Monday morning quarterbacking, four people died and the administration is lying about it to protect Obama’s chances for re-election. Will anyone be held accountable?

UPDATE: CIA director David Patraeus seems to be throwing the President under the bus by denying that anyone at the CIA refused to aid those under attack in Benghazi. So that means that the “stand down” order had to come directly from the White House. This wouldn’t surprise me at all. Patreaus is a long time military man and it’s highly unlikely he would refuse to save these guys if it was possible. This order came from the White House, likely the President.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

White House Knew Benghazi A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours

October 24, 2012 2 Comments

Romney’s base was driven into a state of panic on Monday night when he failed to attack President Obama’s response to the Benghazi attack. We wanted to hear Romney call Obama a politicizer, we wanted to hear him attack Obama for calling the death’s “not optimal.” Instead Romney let Benghazi slide and shifted topics. He may turn out to be right in doing so. By not going on the attack, he didn’t allow Obama to act incredulous. We can’t forget that Obama and his team are disciples of Saul Alinsky, they’ll outright lie if it gets them to their end. If Obama lied, the media likely wouldn’t report it and Romney will have looked bad for attacking the President unjustly.

Romney likely decided that debates aren’t really the place to attack specific actions. We’ve all heard the President’s explanation for Benghazi, we all remember the UN speech. Romney is banking on the truth coming out, preferably before the election. Reuters reports that the White House had emails which said the Benghazi attack was being claimed by a Jihadi group two hours after it began. Keep in mind it took the White House nearly two weeks to admit the attack was a terrorist act. UN Ambassador Rice went on 5 Sunday talk shows claiming the attack was a riot caused by a You Tube video, Obama said the same thing at his UN speech.

The truth is slowly trickling out on Benghazi, Romney clearly wants Obama to hang himself on his own words and explanations. Romney didn’t need to do it on Monday and arguably couldn’t do it without facing the snearing scorn of Obama directly. This isn’t a foreign policy election, it’s a domestic policy election. People aren’t going to vote for Romney because Obama screwed up in Libya. But Benghazi could be the minor background issue that tips the scales for voters, it may be the last straw for an electorate that is 95% focused on the economy.

If Romney wins, this is the genius of his decision not to attack Obama on Benghazi during the last debate. (of course if Romney loses then he’s a complete idiot, such is politics) He didn’t allow Obama to go on national television, not answer the question yet again and point the finger at his opponent with indignant outrage. As such, he has no opportunity to go before the country and amend his story, he has no opportunity to make excuses and perhaps more importantly he can’t blame the Republicans before a captive audience of 60 million voters. As such, the last two weeks of the election will be driven by news stories on Benghazi and we’ve already seen they aren’t positive for Obama. Obama won’t be able to respond with such a large audience of voters watching. He might even have to waste money on ads. If this works, it’s pure genius by Romney.

Make no mistake, the issue of Benghazi isn’t going to bring down President Obama. As outrageous as the situation is, as evident to Republicans that Benghazi is an example of Obama’s foreign policy failure this issue isn’t important to the American voter. Voters care about the economy, they care about the national debt. Foreign policy is a minor side issue this election. But with the economy not going Obama’s way and $5 trillion in new debt, voters who are on the fence might look at Benghazi and think to themselves ‘even his foreign policy hasn’t worked’ and vote Romney. The more news coming out of Benghazi the worse it is for Obama, they clearly spun a tall tale about what the attack was. The more we learn about Benghazi before the election the more likely it is that Obama loses.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

3rd Presidential Debate Review

October 23, 2012 2 Comments

What to make of last nights debate. Romney spent the whole night agreeing with Obama on Syria, Pakistan and Libya. He never attacked Obama on his handling of Libya. But while he seemed to agree with Obama on substantive issues he attacked Obama for his apology tour and his handling of China. Who won? It all depends on how you look at it. Romney agreed with Obama on so many substantive issues you’d think Obama won. But what exactly was Romney’s goal tonight? He wanted to make it clear he wouldn’t take the country to war. He was successful in that. He came off as a potential Commander in Chief. So in that regard Romney looked very good.

But of course foreign policy wasn’t the only issue discussed tonight. The economy was discussed in detail as it is a foreign policy issue. Romney strongly attacked the policies of the past four years, burdening Obama on his record. How can we be strong abroad when the nation is so weak at home? Obama did a terrible job responding on economic issues. He did a terrible job telling us what the future would hold for the country. So in that regard, Romney perhaps came out slightly ahead. Especially in his attacks on China and his defense of his position on the auto bailout.

Let’s talk about semantics. Obama was definitely forceful tonight and there’s no doubt that forceful comes off better than passive, which let’s be honest Romney was when he agreed with Obama. But like with the VP debate, we got to see the candidates reaction to the other guys comments. Obama looked angry, he smirked a number of times. He had some very sarcastic arguments on the military. For some reason we shouldn’t invest in Navy ships because we don’t need bayonets or horses in the military anymore. Incidentally bayonets aren’t an old timey military item, they still use them. Apparently we have something called aircraft carriers, we wouldn’t have known about this but for Obama. That sarcasm wasn’t Presidential.

So on semantics Obama looked angry and sarcastic while Romney appeared Presidential and he appeared like someone who isn’t a wild Bush style cowboy looking for a war. Romney did a good job avoiding that. But let’s look at their closing statements, which I think might determine the winner. Romney asked the country for our vote, Obama did not. That might seem small but it says something about their character. People will notice. So on semantics Romney won, in that regard people who might be leaning towards voting for him are likely to do so now.

Let’s face it, this is not a foreign policy election. As such foreign policy doesn’t matter as much as it did in an election such as 2004. The economy is the #1 issue. As such, Romney needed to look capable on foreign policy which he did. Obama needed to defend his position, which he largely did. But the big issue here is the economy and on the economy it’s becoming abundantly clear to voters that Romney is winning that debate. Voters aren’t particularly interested in Pakistan or Syria, they’re interested in the fact that the economy is in rotten shape.

So who won the debate? My initial thought is that it was a tie because while Romney clearly won on the economy he agreed with a lot of Obama’s foreign policy and he failed to go after the President on Benghazi. But when looking at the whole debate, I think Romney barely squeaked out a victory. Obama looked angry, he didn’t ask us for our vote. Romney looked Presidential, he sounded like a capable Commander in Chief who wasn’t looking to take the country to war. Most importantly he asked for our vote. He’s earned mine and he won the 3rd debate.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , ,

3rd Presidential Debate Preview

October 22, 2012 4 Comments

Tomorrow will be the third and final Presidential debate. It will focus on foreign policy and will be moderated by Bob Schieffer. On one hand this isn’t a foreign policy election so on first glance one wonders how this debate could change things for either candidate. Foreign policy is a subject matter that tends to favor the incumbent President. For whatever reason Americans don’t like debating foreign policy with a sitting President. We want to support the Commander in Chief, we want to support the foreign policy currently in place. So on that front Obama has a built in advantage. Romney is already behind the eight ball.

On the other hand foreign policy has suddenly come into play in this race. The terrorist attack in Libya which cost the life of our Ambassador there has made foreign policy a more important issue than it otherwise would have been. Couple that with the administration’s claim that there wasn’t a terrorist attack but instead a riot in Benghazi caused by an obscure anti-Muslim video on You Tube and suddenly foreign policy seems to matter. Romney is obviously going to go after Obama on Benghazi and this time he knows the President’s line of attack. Expect Romney to attack Obama hard on this matter. After all, the President’s UN Ambassador said it was the video on 5 Sunday talking head shows and the President said as much in his UN speech. Yet it was a terrorist attack, by al Qaeda no less.

There are reports today that Iran has agreed to enter direct negotiations with the United States concerning its nuclear weapons program. The White House has denied these reports. Some have thought the potential October surprise of this election would be something with Iran. Either something secretly negotiated or an agreement to negotiate. Iran obviously would rather deal with Obama than with Romney, so perhaps they’re the ones floating this story in the hopes that they can affect the US election. This issue will come up, or at least it should, in the debate tomorrow. How the candidates respond will be critical, especially for Romney.

The NY Post reported yesterday that the Obama campaign is violating election law by accepting foreign donations. This has been discussed before, the Obama campaign doesn’t use a credit card program that requires that the address provided to the web site and the one the credit card company has matches. This means anyone can provide a fake address to the Obama campaign web site while using their own credit card. Obviously this means that a foreign national could use their own credit card and provide the Obama web site a fake address in the United States. Schieffer might not ask the question but Romney ought to ask Obama if he can guarantee that all the donations to his campaign are legal. Romney could create a wedge issue here and he could score some points because Obama can’t make such a guarantee.

Romney is going to have a few issues to go after Obama with tomorrow. How he handles those attacks and how Obama responds to them will decide the winner of the debate. These two have clear differences in foreign policy but they won’t be as clear to causal voters as their differences in domestic policy. As such it will be these attack issues that will be the difference between winner and loser. Benghazi may very well decide the winner. Obama won’t have Candy Crowley to save him, Schieffer wouldn’t dare at this point. I wouldn’t bet against Obama. As such, I’m picking him as the winner. But it won’t matter in the polls because foreign policy isn’t going to decide this election.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Why We Need Energy Independence

September 14, 2012 2 Comments

The madness in the Middle East continues. It has spread to Tunisia, Sudan and Lebanon. Reports today suggest the intensity of the riots is picking up in Cairo. In London a mob is protesting outside of the US Embassy. Jay Carney suggested that the protests weren’t aimed at the United States. You almost wonder what planet he’s on, except he’s only saying what the administration told him to say. Which of course means it’s the position of the United States that these riots aren’t aimed at us. Who exactly does Obama think they’re aimed at? Of course to admit that these attacks are aimed at the US is to admit that Obama was wrong when he suggested in 2009 that Muslim hostility will ease when he gets into office.

The media is running around suggesting we limit free speech. God forbid people have free speech, they might offend Muslims. Offending Christians is of course acceptable speech. Whether it’s the National Endowment for the Arts funding “art” such as “piss Jesus” (a jar of urine with a crucifix) or Obama forcing Christians to fund contraception, offense of Christians is acceptable. But Muslims, we can’t say anything bad about them. The administration is even pressuring You Tube to take down the supposedly offending video. It’s amazing how quickly the left is willing to give up what is American, make no mistake there’s nothing more American than free speech.

With all of the chaos in the middle east, what is the most important national security issue we face. The answer isn’t being fat as Michelle Obama suggested recently. The answer is energy independence. Romney really needs to make this point loud and clear. He’s already supported energy independence during this campaign, he needs to link the chaos in the middle east to our need for energy independence. Yes, Egypt isn’t the biggest supplier of oil in the world. Libya provides about 2-3% of the world’s oil, most of it going to Europe. But if we look at the middle east, there are riots and/or trouble all over the place. The sooner we become energy independent, ie not dependent on the middle east for oil, the more secure our nation will be.

Because we are dependent on foreign oil, we’re stuck being involved in an intricate way in the middle east. It’s becoming abundantly clear that this isn’t a good idea. We’ve tried to make this work and clearly it isn’t working out very well. We’ve suffered the 9-11 terrorist attacks, we’ve fought two wars, Obama supported the Arab Spring which has resulted in widespread riots and the deaths of four Americans, including an Ambassador. To say nothing of the first Gulf war and the endless trouble we’ve had with Iran. At what point do we say that oil isn’t worth all of this?

Yet we can’t ween our dependence on oil from the middle east because the Democrats won’t allow us to. While they’re chasing expensive green energy, which is largely a fantasy, they’ve opposed oil exploration in the United States. We’re still not drilling Anwar in Alaska because the Democrats won’t authorize it. Obama has actively tried to prevent new offshore drilling, going as far as to defy a court order. Under Obama oil permits on Federal lands are down substantially. First on board with shale oil and gas extraction, the left is suddenly against it now that natural gas prices are down substantially. Meanwhile Obama continues to oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline which would bring us oil from friendly Canada.

Romney needs to be making this argument. We need energy independence now. If the United States cannot get the overwhelming majority of the oil we use from within our borders or from friendly nations such as Canada, then we’re going to have to continue to be involved in the decidedly unfriendly middle east. Obama opposes every measure that will reduce our dependence on middle east oil. Romney supports energy independence. We need to be making this argument and we need to make it forcefully. Especially so while our Embassy’s are on fire and our Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets are smoldering. Romney has a real opening here but he’s not taking advantage of it.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Pro-Abortion Condi Rice A Disaster For Romney

July 13, 2012 10 Comments

According to Matt Drudge, Condoleezza Rice is emerging as a frontrunner in the Romney VPstakes. Bill Kristol also offers some reasons why Condi might be the frontrunner. Condi was a great Secretary of State, no one had a handle on the middle east more than Condi did. But Condi presents a major problem for Mitt Romney. While she’s great on foreign affairs, she’s also a neo-con. As such it should surprise no one that Condi doesn’t want to see Roe v Wade overturned. In short, Condi is not pro-life. That’s a major problem for a top of the ticket candidate who is viewed with suspicion by conservatives.

What is a neo-con? It isn’t simply a term to describe modern conservatives. A neo-con is born out of the progressive, socialist movement who nevertheless viewed the Soviet Union as a threat to the United States. Keep in mind, not all progressives go all the way to communism. Neo-cons flocked to Reagan because he was willing to stand  up to the Soviet Union. After the collapse, they turned their attention to the middle east and other foreign affairs. These people believe in a robust American military presence which would be fine accept their foundation lies in progressive politics. Most of the neo-cons look the other way on social issues, willing to tolerate conservative social views in order to push their international agenda.

Condi is most certainly a neo-con. Her base is in progressivism and we see that in her social views. If we were simply talking about foreign policy, conservatives have enough agreement with the neo-cons to tolerate one another despite our base disagreements. There is no doubt Condi was terrific as Secretary of State and as a foreign policy adviser to President Bush. But there is a huge difference between being Secretary of State and being a heartbeat away from becoming President. It is this that should have conservatives outraged at the idea of having Condi as Romney’s running mate.

Drudge is running a poll which shows that only 35% of his readers, a largely conservative base, oppose Condi for Vice President. You can’t help but wonder how many people realize that she isn’t a conservative, that she doesn’t believe in protecting the unborn. These are issues that matter, this is the sort of issue that will make someone like me stay home on election day. Pro-life voters may be able to swallow Romney’s recent conversion on the issue, we will not be able to swallow Condi’s outright pro-abortion position.

We can only hope that either Drudge is wrong or that there is enough of an uproar that Romney looks in another direction. Condi would be a terrific running mate, if only she were a pro-life conservative. If Romney picks her, then we really do have to wonder whether Romney is really the conservative he has said he is. This isn’t a foreign policy election, it might be understandable (but still unacceptable) if this were 2004. But it isn’t 2004, the War on Terror is largely over. This election isn’t about foreign policy it’s about domestic policy, in particular the economy. Condi does nothing for Romney on these issues, in fact she hurts him with his base. This will especially be so once the base figures out she’s pro-abortion. Hopefully Romney will take some time and reconsider Condi because she could really hurt his chances of victory.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Obama Looks Weak, Incompetent At G20 Press Conference

June 20, 2012 11 Comments

Did any of you catch President Obama’s prime time press conference yesterday at the G20 meeting in Mexico? Yours truly had the misfortune of watching it. It was one of the worst press conferences I’ve ever witnessed. It makes one wonder if this President is really as smart as his sycophants in the media claim. It makes one wonder what his team was thinking when they decided to hold a prime time press conference. One thing is certain though, when Obama doesn’t have his teleprompter and when he doesn’t anticipate the questions he really doesn’t speak very clearly. He isn’t the amazing orator he’s been billed as.

Three of his answers stood out to me. The first concerned the economic situation in Europe. Obama droned on for 4 minutes about Europe and it honestly sounded like he was giving a class presentation in his freshman economics class. It is apparent that Obama doesn’t really understand how the economy works. His cursory understanding was on full display last night as he explained in detail that if there isn’t any money in Paris or Berlin they can’t buy products made in Pittsburgh or Cleveland. All hail Obama’s genius! The scary thing is that he made that comment in such a way that makes one believe he thought it was a terrific point. Instead, he looks like an economic moron. That’s if viewers were even paying attention by the time he made it.

Putin apparently lectured Obama at the G20 meeting, which of course prompted a question about Russia’s involvement in Syria. Obama once again droned on for 4-5 minutes and was all over the place in his answer. His thesis seemed to be that eventually Russia will see the wisdom of Obama’s position and follow it. Because of course Obama is a genius and eventually everyone will recognize it. His answer was ridiculous. Putin isn’t going to accept the Obama position because Obama refuses to throw the weight of the American Presidency around. Obama would have been better off saying diplomacy is taking place and not commenting further. Instead he was all over the place, he looked weak and pathetic. The world was watching, including the Kremlin.

Obama was asked about a Romney advisor who questioned Obama’s economic policy in a German publication. Obama once again pointed out that he’s the President, a sign of weakness if there ever was one. He also suggested that American disagreements end at our shores. That’s interesting considering Obama’s campaign speech in Berlin in 2008. Once again though Obama droned on for several minutes not answering the question and making thinly veiled attacks on Bush and Romney. It was a weak answer that didn’t make any sense. Anytime the President feels the need to throw his weight around by declaring he’s the President, he’s already lost the issue at hand.

What is perhaps most interesting about all of this is that the Obama team thought it would be a good idea to put this press conference on during primetime hours when more people will be watching. The Obama presser was the lead in to the most watched hour of news on the news channels, so more people watched than had it been on at 2 in the afternoon. They clearly thought they could accomplish something politically with the timing and they did. They boosted Romney’s chances. Obama has never given such a poor performance and it couldn’t come at a worse time for him.

Obama looked incompetent and weak last night. He sounds like he has no idea what he’s doing, he sounds like he’s over his head. He doesn’t understand the economy, he doesn’t understand foreign diplomacy. Worst of all, he doesn’t understand the power of the American Presidency and he doesn’t understand how to use it. We have a very weak man in the White House and we have very serious situations facing us at home and abroad. Nothing could be worse for Obama than showcasing his weakness during primetime like he did yesterday. What was his team thinking when they scheduled this press conference?

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Dems Lose NY-9; Should Be Concerned About Losing Jewish Vote

September 14, 2011 Leave a comment

The GOP scored an upset win in New York’s 9th district last night. Rep. Weiner’s old seat has been held by Democrats since 1923. That didn’t stop Dem spin doctors like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz from declaring that NY-9 is a “tough district for Democrats.” I guess in her mind losing once every 88 years makes for a tough district. This was not so much a Republican victory as it is a Democrat defeat. Make no mistake, the GOP will lose this seat if not next year than in 2014. Yesterday’s vote was a vote against Obama, which does not bode well for him or his party.

Why did NY-9 vote against Obama and the Democrats? No doubt a down economy is really hurting Obama right now. But one thing that should be noted about NY-9 is that it has a large number of Orthodox Jews and they aren’t particularly happy with Obama’s position on Israel. I’m not sure that Orthodox Jews living in Queens and Brooklyn are alone enough to swing a district that Weiner won by 20 points, but they clearly aren’t pleased.

Obama’s foreign policy is not well thought out. Obama makes a lot of grand sweeping statements and gestures that sound great at the time they’re said. But they aren’t thought out and as a result they’ve created more problems for this administration and our nation. Obama has gone over to the middle east several times to appease Muslim countries. He’s gone so far as to support a Palestinian state with the 1967 borders. He’s even demanded a September 2011 vote on Palestinian statehood in the UN.

No doubt these statements have made Muslim leaders happy. But Obama’s problem is that they weren’t thought out. Now we’re approaching the September vote in the UN and the administration is scrambling to stop the vote. Why? We can begin with the fact that the Palestinians are still run by terrorists who continue to launch bombs into Israel as well as kidnap Israeli citizens. The Muslim nations Obama has tried to appease are currently attacking Israeli embassy’s. Obama’s appeasement made these leaders happy at the time but now they want to move to the next stage in the destruction of Israel and Obama isn’t ready for it yet.

Obama’s foreign policy has been inconsistent and it leaves everyone wondering what he’s really up to. His administration is full of Muslim Brotherhood supporters who at the end of the day want to wipe Israel off the map. Obama has spent most of his administration appeasing these people and opposing Israel. But the flip to that is that Obama relies on Jewish financiers here in the US for his election. He on some level depends on a Jewish vote that is overwhelmingly Democrat.

Obama is now in trouble because his poorly thought out middle east policy is hitting him in the pocketbook and at the ballot box. Who does he support, the Muslim Brotherhood supporters who want to destroy Israel (not to mention capitalism and western society) or does he support Israel and reap the campaign cash and votes that come with it? His base position is more in line with the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks to destroy not only Israel but also capitalism and western society. My guess is that he will make a big show of suspending the UN vote until after the November 2012 election. He’ll try to patch up his Jewish base while continuing to bow to the Muslim Brotherhood types.

In the end, it likely won’t work. Obama is clearly on record supporting the 1967 borders, which is unacceptable to Israel or most American Jews. In fact, bizarrely, it isn’t acceptable to a legion of evangelical Christians who foolishly believe that modern Israel is the reincarnation of ancient Israel. The 1967 borders are unacceptable for the simple fact that the Palestinians continue to bomb Israel and the old borders only allow Israel an 8 mile stretch of land between the northern and southern portions of the state. It’s a military disaster in the making for Israel, independent of any theological or emotional reason one might have to oppose the old borders.

Obama is clearly losing the support of his base Democrats. He cannot afford to lose the Jewish vote for if Obama loses the Jewish vote he may lose it for the Democrats forever. Obama probably doesn’t care about this, Democrats should. Democrats should especially be concerned after yesterday’s election. Obama is trying to suspend the Palestinian statehood vote, likely until after the election. If it becomes clear that Obama isn’t going to win, it’s entirely possible he’ll push for statehood before he leaves office. Democrats should oppose this across the board. If Obama allows a Palestinian state, American Jews and their money will forever leave the Democrat Party. As a Republican, I’m happy to have more people join the party and spend their money on our pro-Israel candidates. The Democrats should be very, very concerned about this. Obama is no longer simply an economic liability, he’s turned into a foreign policy and fundraising liability for the Dems.

Filed under 2012 election, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 143 other followers