Sunday, June 3, 2012

Bill Clinton hands Mitt Romney the Presidency


Flopping Aces ^ | 06-02-12 | DrJohn




With friends like this....
If he could somehow get hold of his hair, Barack Obama would surely be pulling it out right now. Obama has made it clear that the direction for his re-election campaign is to attack Mitt Romney on Bain.
Obama camp doubles down on Bain attacks

(CBS News) Attempting to drive home the message that Mitt Romney is a corporate executive concerned with the bottom line and not American jobs, the Obama campaign released a new video on Monday attacking Romney and Bain Capital for laying off workers at an Indiana office supply factory.
It's a loser. Bill Clinton just made it a huge loser.

Many democrats object to attacks on Bain and on private equity.
Deval Patrick

Host Willie Geist had asked Patrick whether Romney’s past at Bain at all impacted “the way he governed or drew up policy.” “I think that the issue isn’t about Bain,” Patrick responded. “It’s about whether he’s accomplished, in either his public or private life, the kinds of things he says he wants to accomplish for the United States. And when it comes to growing jobs in the public sphere or fixing government, the record on that is not very strong. In fact, I would say that there is one profoundly important thing that Governor Romney did when he was governor of Massachusetts, and that’s to sign the health care reform bill.”
Jeff Bussgang

But the attacks against Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital—by both his Republican brethren and Democrats—and the demonization of the private equity industry are really starting to annoy me. I won't vote for him for president based on his policies and the policies of the party he represents, but I believe Mitt Romney's business track record at Bain Capital, and the private equity industry as a whole, is deserving of a full-throated defense. First, Bain Capital is a great firm.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)

This morning on MSNBC, former venture capitalist Sen. Mark Warner D-Va. admitted that Bain Capital was "very successful" and "did what they were supposed to do." When asked about whether attacks on private equity were fair, Warner said that he was "proud" of his previous career in the private sector but noted that public service required a "different skill set."
"Bain Capital was a very successful business. They got a good return for their investors. That is what they were supposed to do," Warner said.
Cory Booker

“It’s nauseating to the American public,” Booker said on NBC's "Meet the Press." “Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity."
Artur Davis

It's hard to imagine a more instructive couple of days for those who want to know where the Democratic Party's head is at: its only high-profile African American moderate just got a brushback pitch for leaning in too close to the Independent thought zone; the Obama camp looks ominously like a cult of personality that tolerates no dissent; and the reelection campaign just doubled down on the European leftist notion that business is fair only when it operates in a sanitized, risk free manner.
Even Steny Hoyer
[VIDEO AT SITE] or HERE
Then there is the irony of Obama harping on private equity while fundraising at the home of the CEO of a private equity firm.
But nothing is as damaging as Bill Clinton.
On the one hand Clinton proclaims that he believes Obama will win "big" and then on the other hand tells Obama to stop attacking Bain:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...

Paul Krugman: 'It's Terribly Unfair Obama's Being Judged on the Failure of the Economy'


By Noel Sheppard 

Noel Sheppard's picture
Readers are strongly advised to remove food, fluids, and flammables from proximity to their computers prior to reading any further. You've been warned!
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said on ABC's This Week Sunday, "It's terribly unfair that [President Obama is] being judged on the failure of the economy to respond to policies that had been largely dictated by a hostile Congress" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Can I just -- these are -- these are -- we're talking as if $1 billion was a lot of money, and in $15 trillion economy is not. Solyndra was a mistake as part of a large program, which has been -- by and large had a pretty good track record. Of course you're going to find a mistake. I think, to be fair, that's probably true in Massachusetts, as well.
But this is -- this is ridiculous, that we are taking these tiny, tiny missteps which happen in any large organizations, including corporations, including Bain -- Bain Capital had losers, too, right, even from the point of view of its investors? So this is ridiculous.
And the fact of the matter is, this president has not managed to get very much of what he wanted done. He -- it's terribly unfair that he's being judged on the failure of the economy to respond to policies that had been largely dictated by a hostile Congress.
I guess the Nobel laureate in economics was out of the country when Obama controlled the House of Representatives and enjoyed a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, something that according to Time magazine's Karen Tumulty hadn't really happened since the Great Depression:
You have to go all the way back to 1937 to find the last American President who enjoyed what was, in practice, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, according to Senate Associate Historian Donald Ritchie. That was when Franklin D. Roosevelt, having just won what was then the biggest re-election victory in history, permanently alienated Southern Democrats by trying to “pack” the Supreme Court with the addition of two more justices. [...]
In Jimmy Carter’s first term, for instance, there were more than 60 Democrats in the Senate. However, conservatives such as James Allen of Alabama often voted more to the right than their Republican colleagues, while there were liberal Republicans such as New York’s Jacob Javits who rarely sided with their own party. [...]
With Arlen Specter’s switch (and assuming, as Joe notes below, that Al Franken ever gets sworn in), Barack Obama has the Magic 60 Votes — and an opportunity that his predecessors would greatly have envied.
So Obama from the position of political power had in the first two years of his presidency "an opportunity that his predecessors would greatly have envied."
But in Krugman's view, "it's terribly unfair that he's being judged on the failure of the economy to respond to policies that had been largely dictated by a hostile Congress."
Is it possible to be more wrong about something and still be considered a "journalist" worthy of coveted invitations on the nation's top political talk shows?


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/06/03/paul-krugman-its-terribly-unfair-obamas-being-judged-failure-economy#ixzz1wlXZqU5r

Romney's Bain Capital Vs. Obama's Solyndra: Game On


IBD editorials ^ | June 3, 2012



Industrial Policy: At the NATO Summit, President Obama said his opponent's private equity success vs. the administration's failed industrial policy was what this election was all about. Speaking at the bankrupt Solyndra headquarters, his GOP opponent agreed.

It is said a picture is worth a thousand words. The photo of Mitt Romney holding a surprise press conference in front of the headquarters of the bankrupt solar energy firm Solyndra poster may just be worth a good portion of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory in November.

"Two years ago President Obama was here to tout this building and this business as a symbol of the success of his stimulus," said Romney, stepping off a bus and onto the public sidewalk in front of the Solyndra buildings just outside Silicon Valley. "Well you can see that it's a symbol of something very different today."
Indeed, it is a symbol of the failure of the administration's green energy boondoggle, where over a half billion dollars has been spent to reward donors while subsidizing an uncompetitive company with a doomed business model.
Solyndra, where 1,100 employees lost their "green jobs," is only one of many green failures that included companies like Beacon Power, First Solar and Ener1, battery maker for President Obama's fantasy fleet of electric cars.
During a visit to Solyndra Inc.'s Fremont, Calif., facility in spring 2010, President Obama boasted of what the company was going to do with the $535 million in loan guarantees his stimulus package provided.
"We can see the positive impacts right here at Solyndra," he said. "(T)hrough the Recovery Act, this company received a loan to expand its operations. This new factory is the result of those loans." Loans, that Romney pointed out, the taxpayers were left on the hook for.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

Not Exactly


TERRY ANDERSON, A BLACK LOS ANGELES TALK RADIO HOST, WENT DOWN A LIST OF THINGS SENATOR OBAMA SAID THAT AREN'T EXACTLY CORRECT.

1.) Selma March Got Me Born -
NOT EXACTLY,
your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.
(Google 'Obama Selma ' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder -
NOT EXACTLY,
he was a privileged, well-educated youth, who went to work with the Kenyan Government.

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter -
NOT EXACTLY
he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom -
NOT EXACTLY;
your cousin Raila Odinga created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007
in Kenya . It was the first widespread violence there in decades.
The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law.
Your half-brother, Abongo Obama, is Odinga's follower.
You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone.
Check out the following link for verification of that....and for more.

Obama's cousin Odinga ran for president in Kenya and tried to get Sharia Muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter... Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian -
NOT EXACTLY,
she does her daily Salat prayers at 5 AM according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African Swahili -
NOT EXACTLY,
your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language.
Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.

Barack Hussein Obama is not half black.
Obama is the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. Although Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was mainly Arabs..
Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate states he's Arab, not African Negro). From....and for more....go to..... http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-Americ
an,_only_6.25%25_African
7.) I Never Practiced Islam -
NOT EXACTLY,
you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years,until your wife made you change so you could run for office.

4-3-08 Article 'Obama was 'quite religious in Islam''

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view

8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian -
NOT EXACTLY,
you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).

February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the " New York Times " a year ago:
" Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent.
In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.'
This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says 'Obama's narrative is being altered,
enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.' "

9.)
I Was Fluent In Indonesian -
NOT EXACTLY,
not one teacher says you could speak the language.

10.)
Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience -
NOT EXACTLY,
you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't speak the language.
What did you learn except how to study the Koran and watch cartoons?

11.)
I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY,
except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise); you have never been
anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.

12.)
I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion -
NOT EXACTLY,
you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine

13.)
An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office -
NOT EXACTLY,
Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.

14.)
A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life -
NOT EXACTLY,
Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 -
NOT EXACTLY,
here you are, despite saying, live on TV, which you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.

16.)
Voting 'Present' is Common In Illinois Senate -
NOT EXACTLY,
they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.

17.)
Oops, I Miss-voted -
NOT EXACTLY,
only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.

18.)
I Was A Professor Of Law -
NOT EXACTLY;
you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

19.)
I Was A Constitutional Lawyer -
NOT EXACTLY,
you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill -
NOT EXACTLY,
you didn't write it, introduce it, change it or create it.

21.)
The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY,
it took just 14 days from start to finish.

22.)
I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill -
NOT EXACTLY,
your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation –mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

23.)
I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY,
as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.

24.)
I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess -
NOT EXACTLY,
you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens .
You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.

25.)
My Economics Bill Will Help America -
NOT EXACTLY,
your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0,
and even YOU voted against your own bill.

26.)
I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois -
NOT EXACTLY,
even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

27.)
I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year -
NOT EXACTLY,
they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you,after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.

28.)
No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA -
NOT EXACTLY,
the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

29.)
I Am Tough On Terrorism -
NOT EXACTLY,
you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel .

30.)
I Want All Votes To Count -
NOT EXACTLY;
you said let the delegates decide.

31.)
I Want Americans To Decide -
NOT EXACTLY,
you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote and only operate during small windows of time.

32.)
I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate -
NOT EXACTLY,
you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.
33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics -
NOT EXACTLY,
you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

34.)
I Don't Take PAC Money -
NOT EXACTLY,
you take loads of it.

35.)
I don't Have Lobbyists -
NOT EXACTLY,
you have over 47 lobbyists and counting.

36.)
My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad -
NOT EXACTLY,
your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

37.)
I Have Always Been Against Iraq -
NOT EXACTLY,
you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.

38.)
I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care -
NOT EXACTLY,
your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.

39.)
My uncle liberated Auschwitz concentration camp -
NOT EXACTLY,
your mother had no brothers and the Russian army did the liberating.
So, who EXACTLY is this Obama guy and what is he trying to sell us?!

You have to wonder why African Americans with SLAVE HERITAGE would accept as a leader a man whose entire ancestry connects back to Muslim SLAVE TRADERS who captured their fellow Africans to sell into the world's human market.  I should think if I were a decedent of AMERICAN SLAVES - I would want someone from my cultural heritage who had a heritage of OVERCOMING the great injustices of the SLAVE ERA. Obama represents a privileged heritage that arose from those making money off the slave trade.  

Class Warfare's Losing Record


Townhall.com ^ | June 3, 2012 | Salena Zito



EAST PALESTINE, Ohio – Newspaper accounts of the day described with shock the “enormous crushing crowds” that gathered in cities and towns (including this one) to see William Jennings Bryan, the Democrats’ presidential candidate of 1896, as he made his way to Pittsburgh.

The old master of class warfare did not disappoint: Paper after paper chronicled his rhetoric and the “unheard of” adulation he received from what he termed “the masses.”

The nation had been in a deep depression, with high unemployment and violent labor strikes, in the three years leading to the presidential election between Bryan and Republican William McKinley, Ohio’s former governor.

Despite the social unrest, economic uncertainty and a 90 percent voter turnout in many areas, Bryan and his class-based message failed.
Fast forward to today: President Barack Obama has decided that class warfare will be his winning message for re-election – and Bain Capital will be his code word for that message, implicitly conveying all the meanings of his greater theme.
Bain is the venture-capital firm that Republican Mitt Romney helped to create; it has invested in or acquired hundreds of companies, including Staples, Burger King, Dunkin' Donuts, The Sports Authority, Toys "R" Us and The Weather Channel.
In some cases, it loaned seed money to promising entrepreneurs. It also engaged in leveraged buyouts and attempts to turn around struggling companies with new management, re-organizations and cash infusions.
Jobs usually are saved or created by firms such as Bain. However, the leveraged-buyout process often is messy, and people sometimes lose jobs in pursuit of greater profitability.
Traveling much the same path as Bryan here in Ohio and in neighboring Pennsylvania, Vice President Joe Biden has escalated Obama’s class warfare with fevered cries – “They don't get us! They don't get who we are!”
The attacks on Bain also can be seen as part of Team Obama's progressive narrative, according to Baylor University political science professor Curt Nichols. It “stresses distrust in the free market and champions greater governmental intervention in social and economic life.”
“Without care, sometimes this narrative can … promote simplistic ‘us versus them’-type views that stress conflict between the haves and have-nots” – classic class-warfare language, Nichols said.
Appeals to economic populism – pitting people against so-called “interests” – are as old as the Democratic Party; Andrew Jackson successfully used them in the presidential election of 1828.
Jacksonian Democrats never opposed capitalism, however, and most certainly did not support a stronger central government.
“It wasn't until decades after Karl Marx really got the idea going that American politics witnessed the first mainstream appeals to class warfare made by Bryan,” said Nichols.
Since Bryan remains the only major-party candidate to lose three elections, you have to wonder how well class warfare works with Americans.
This is why Newark Mayor Cory Booker and former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell both dismissed the argument as wrong.
What the Obama campaign misses is that the working class – white, middle-income, blue-collar Democrats – deeply resents the dependency class and will not respond positively to such rhetoric.
Successful populists such as Republican Teddy Roosevelt and Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did not allow their championing of “the little guy” to devolve into class warfare.
They realized that Americans tend to view the United States as a land of opportunity and do not begrudge anyone for becoming wealthy.
The line between these two attitudes is sometimes fine. Yet class warfare has never won an election, while appeals to economic populism sometimes have succeeded.
Besides the attacks on Bain Capital, the Obama campaign appears to be using an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink appeal. Gone are 2008’s lofty appeals to “Hope” and “Change” – but what remains?
In the fashion of Chicago pols throughout history, Obama appears to be targeting his appeals to each faction of the Democrats’ coalition – women, African-Americans, big labor, young voters, gays – with values-based appeals and material offerings.
These tactics may add up to less than a complete strategy, however.
And how does his new campaign theme – “Forward” – fit into this puzzle?
Perhaps it is just a catchy phrase. Yet those who consider it another code word know that it traditionally has been part of the lexicon of the European socialist movement.
Another appeal to class warfare?

The Immorality of Obamanomics


Townhall.com ^ | June 3, 2012 | Austin Hill



“I only care about the moral issues."


If I’ve heard that phrase once, then I’ve heard it a few hundred times. It’s a common response among social conservatives during campaigns and election cycles.

And this year, as Washington compromises our nation’s future with profligate spending and economic turmoil threatens nations abroad, we need to add to that category called “moral issues.” It’s time to recognize that economic policy matters are, themselves, moral concerns, and America is currently on a very immoral economic path.
As a writer and talk show host I covered the last presidential election cycle in detail. Hosting daily talk radio in Washington, DC in 2008, it would become apparent when I was speaking with a socially conservative caller to my show - such callers would frequently express concerns over a specific set of issues. “I don’t think McCain is really pro-life” was a common concern. And “Obama says he opposes gay marriage, but I don’t believe him” was another.
To these types of statements about abortion and the definition of marriage, I would often respond with questions about economics, just to see where the discussion would go. “But what do you think of Senator Obama’s plan to raise taxes on rich people – is that a good idea?” I might ask. Or “Do you think John McCain is right about the stock market crash when he says that it’s all because of ‘greed on Wall Street?’”
Generally speaking, my economic questions would bring these brief talk show conversations to an abrupt end. “I only care about the moral issues” was the response I’d usually hear – as though economic issues are morally neutral or of no moral significance at all – and then the caller would say goodbye.
That was in 2008. Today, all Americans – social conservatives included - need to be resolute, and recognize that our government’s disposition towards private enterprise and wealth must change. Simply allowing politicians to control more of our economic resources is a formula for more trouble, and more trouble lies ahead if our current President – and his ideology – remain in power.
Given what has happened over the course of the Obama presidency thus far, it should be apparent that America is now in the midst of an economic policy revolution. Both by legislation from the Congress, and by executive orders from the White House, President Obama has in less than three years emerged as a de facto CEO over huge chunks of our economy.
Car companies, banks, energy and insurance companies – the President has the power to hire and fire CEO’s, determine their compensation rates, and decide which products and services these formerly private enterprises will create. When government wields this kind of power, individuals lose their freedoms. And while President Obama has perhaps fulfilled some of his own wishes, it has come at the cost of private people’s money, and the future solvency of our government.
The costs of the United States government’s “acquisition” of G.M, and portions of the Chrysler Corporation, have yet to be fully calculated. But the two companies – especially GM – have become high-priced tools with which the President has sought to carry out his agenda.
Unionized assembly workers at G.M. have gotten pay increases over the past couple of years – and they are a key voter block for the President and his party. And GM has led the charge with electric vehicles (the Chevy Volt) – the car has proven unsellable and has wasted future generations of American wealth, but no matter. The President fulfills his needs to create a so-called “green energy future.”
The President’s executive mandate for insurance companies to provide abortion and contraception coverage is indeed a violation of religious freedom, but it also must be viewed through the lenses of economic morality. As a result of this mandate, the President has now used the power of his office to require an entire industry (the insurance industry) to provide a service, without getting paid for it. This has dealt a crushing blow to personal economic liberty, and such heavy handedness creates a huge disincentive for would-be business owners to create new enterprises.
Empowering politicians to take-over more control of our private economic resources and choices is NOT a pathway to prosperity. Is America seeing the “moral issues” more clearly this time, and are we ready to make an economic “about face?”

Bloomberg Can’t Save New York Times Co. (NYT stock price is in free fall, needs bailout...)


InvestorPlace ^ | 6/3/12 | Jonathan Berr



New York magazine’s recent profile of New York Times Co. (NYSE:NYT) Chairman Arthur Sulzberger does a great job portraying the family drama and economic pressures that led to the ouster of his one-time friend CEO Janet Robinson. Perhaps hoping to end the depressing story on an optimistic note, the article raised the notion that Bloomberg L.P., the private media company founded by New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, would ride to the rescue of the beleaguered publisher “and save the paper from itself, a kind of best worst-case scenario for the Ochs-Sulzberger family.”

New York Times Co. is adrift. Its share price is in free fall, and it lacks a CEO. Neither Bloomberg nor any other suitor owns a big enough magic wand to make the company’s problems disappear.

(Excerpt) Read more at investorplace.com ...

These Are The Reasons US Companies Are Terrified Of Hiring Right Now


Business Insider ^ | 06/03/2012 | AP



NEW YORK (AP) — Business has picked up. Yet American companies are too nervous to step up hiring.

The economy seems so gripped by uncertainties that many employers have decided to manage with the staff they have. They aren't convinced their customer demand will keep growing. Or they worry that Europe's festering debt crisis could infect the global economy. Or they aren't sure what Congress will do, if anything, about taxes and spending in coming months.

All that helps explain why U.S. employers added just 69,000 jobs in May, the fewest in a year and the third straight month of weak job growth.
"If you're anxious, you sit on your hands," said Chad Moutray, chief economist at the National Association of Manufacturers.
The U.S. government is also nearing its debt ceiling. It was just last summer that bickering Congress rattled markets by nearly allowing the government to default on its debt.
State and local spending levels are uncertain or shrinking as governments try to shrink their own debts. The result is smaller budgets for schools, transportation projects and services.
Companies also complain that changes in environmental regulations and business subsidies are too hard to predict and plan for.
Here's a look at why some individual employers remain hesitant to hire:
___
For many companies that build highways, hiring plans are on hold while Congress debates long-term plans to pay for construction projects.
"I've got paving crews that are ready, willing to go to work next week, but I don't have contracts that I can have them go to work on," said Ed Dalrymple, vice president of Chemung Contracting Corp., based in Elmira, NY.
The company, which operates gravel quarries and asphalt plants and does highway and airport runway paving, relies heavily on government work in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...

Opening Obama’s Playbook – by Ayn Rand


The Red Side of Life ^ | 6/3/12 | RedInNewYork



“The Fountainhead” is to “Atlas Shrugged” what “Animal Farm” is to “1984.” Just like “Animal Farm” is not about farming, “Fountainhead” is not about architecture – it is about socialist ascent.

While “Atlas Shrugged” is all the rage these days – and appropriately so – I strongly suggest that anyone who is truly interested in defeating Obama in November read “The Fountainhead,” because it subtly lays bare the Obama playbook. However, at some points, subtlety gives way to blunt frankness – the gloating revolutionary. In this case Ellsworth Toohey, the socialist villain, spells out several ways of accomplishing a socialist takeover. I urge you to read this carefully – I will reproduce his words, in relevant part, in a manner that constitutes “fair use.” If you read and understand these points, you will know – in your own way – what you can do to defeat Obama and socialism in general.

From “The Fountainhead”:

If you learn how to rule one single man’s soul, you can get the rest of mankind. It’s the soul, Peter, the soul. Not whips or swords or fire or guns. That’s why the Caesars, the Attilas, the Napoleons were fools and did not last. We will. The soul, Peter, is that which can’t be ruled. It must be broken. Drive a wedge in, get your fingers on it—and the man is yours. You won’t need a whip—he’ll bring it to you and ask to be whipped. Set him in reverse—and his own mechanism will do your work for you. Use him against himself. Want to know how it’s done?

There are many ways. Here’s one. Make man feel small. Make him feel guilty. Kill his aspiration and his integrity. That’s difficult. The worst among you gropes for an ideal in his own twisted way. Kill integrity by internal corruption. Use it against itself. Direct it toward a goal destructive of all integrity. Preach selflessness. Tell man that he must live for others. Tell men that altruism is the ideal. Not a single one of them has ever achieved it and not a single one ever will. His every living instinct screams against it. But don’t you see what you accomplish? Man realizes that he’s incapable of what he’s accepted as the noblest virtue—and it gives him a sense of guilt, of sin, of his own basic unworthiness. Since the supreme ideal is beyond his grasp, he gives up eventually all ideals, all aspiration, all sense of his personal value. He feels himself obliged to preach what he can’t practice. But one can’t be good halfway or honest approximately. To preserve one’s integrity is a hard battle. Why preserve that which one knows to be corrupt already? His soul gives up its self-respect. You’ve got him. He’ll obey. He’ll be glad to obey—because he can’t trust himself, he feels uncertain, he feels unclean. That’s one way.

Here’s another. Kill man’s sense of values. Kill his capacity to recognize greatness or to achieve it. Great men can’t be ruled. We don’t want any great men. Don’t deny the conception of greatness. Destroy it from within. The great is the rare, the difficult, the exceptional. Set up standards of achievement open to all, to the least, to the most inept—and you stop the impetus to effort in all men, great or small. You stop all incentive to improvement, to excellence, to perfection... Don’t set out to raze all shrines—you’ll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity—and the shrines are razed.

Then there’s another way. Kill by laughter. Laughter is an instrument of human joy. Learn to use it as a weapon of destruction. Turn it into a sneer. It’s simple. Tell them to laugh at everything. Tell them that a sense of humor is an unlimited virtue. Don’t let anything remain sacred in a man’s soul—and his soul won’t be sacred to him. Kill reverence and you’ve killed the hero in man. One doesn’t reverence with a giggle. He’ll obey and he’ll set no limits to his obedience—anything goes—nothing is too serious.

Here’s another way. This is most important. Don’t allow men to be happy. Happiness is self-contained and self-sufficient. Happy men have no time and no use for you. Happy men are free men. So kill their joy in living. Take away from them whatever is dear or important to them. Never let them have what they want. Make them feel that the mere fact of a personal desire is evil. Bring them to a state where saying ‘I want’ is no longer a natural right, but a shameful admission. Altruism is of great help in this. Unhappy men will come to you. They’ll need you. They’ll come for consolation, for support, for escape. Nature allows no vacuum. Empty man’s soul—and the space is yours to fill. I don’t see why you should look so shocked, Peter. This is the oldest one of all. Look back at history. Look at any great system of ethics, from the Orient up. Didn’t they all preach the sacrifice of personal joy? Under all the complications of verbiage, haven’t they all had a single leitmotif: sacrifice, renunciation, self-denial? Haven’t you been able to catch their theme song—‘Give up, give up, give up, give up’? Look at the moral atmosphere of today. Everything enjoyable, from cigarettes to sex to ambition to the profit motive, is considered depraved or sinful. Just prove that a thing makes men happy—and you’ve damned it. That’s how far we’ve come. We’ve tied happiness to guilt. And we’ve got mankind by the throat. Throw your first-born into a sacrificial furnace—lie on a bed of nails—go into the desert to mortify the flesh—don’t dance—don’t go to the movies on Sunday—don’t try to get rich—don’t smoke—don’t drink. It’s all the same line. The great line. Fools think that taboos of this nature are just nonsense. Something left over, old-fashioned. But there’s always a purpose in nonsense. Don’t bother to examine a folly—ask yourself only what it accomplishes. Every system of ethics that preached sacrifice grew into a world power and ruled millions of men.

Of course, you must dress it up. You must tell people that they’ll achieve a superior kind of happiness by giving up everything that makes them happy. You don’t have to be too clear about it. Use big vague words. ‘Universal Harmony’—‘Eternal Spirit’—‘Divine Purpose’ —‘Nirvana’—‘Paradise’—‘Racial Supremacy’—‘The Dictatorship of the Proletariat.’

Internal corruption, Peter. That’s the oldest one of all. The farce has been going on for centuries and men still fall for it. Yet the test should be so simple: just listen to any prophet and if you hear him speak of sacrifice—run. Run faster than from a plague. It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master. But if ever you hear a man telling you that you must be happy, that it’s your natural right, that your first duty is to yourself—that will be the man who’s not after your soul. That will be the man who has nothing to gain from you. But let him come and you’ll scream your empty heads off, howling that he’s a selfish monster. So the racket is safe for many, many centuries. But here you might have noticed something. I said, ‘It stands to reason.’ Do you see?

Men have a weapon against you. Reason. So you must be very sure to take it away from them. Cut the props from under it. But be careful. Don’t deny outright. Never deny anything outright, you give your hand away. Don’t say reason is evil—though some have gone that far and with astonishing success. Just say that reason is limited. That there’s something above it. What? You don’t have to be too clear about it either. The field’s inexhaustible. ‘Instinct’—‘Feeling’—‘Revelation’—‘Divine Intuition’—‘Dialectic Materialism.’ If you get caught at some crucial point and somebody tells you that your doctrine doesn’t make sense—you’re ready for him. You tell him that there’s something above sense. That here he must not try to think, he must feel. He must believe. Suspend reason and you play it deuces wild. Anything goes in any manner you wish whenever you need it. You’ve got him. Can you rule a thinking man? We don’t want any thinking men.

Rand, Ayn, The Fountainhead 

The Bad Jobs Report Is Just A Very Small Taste Of The Nightmare That Is Coming


The Economic Collapse Blog ^ | 06/02/2012 | Michael Snyder




Another month, another bad jobs report. For the month of May, the U.S. economy only added 69,000 jobs and the unemployment rate rose to 8.2%. Many are calling this a total "disaster" and are worried that the U.S. economy could be headed back into another recession. Economists had been expecting 150,000 payroll jobs would be added, so the 69,000 number really shocked a lot of people. The truth is that the economy needs to add approximately 125,000 new jobs every single month just to keep the unemployment rate steady. So yes, this bad jobs report is not welcome news at all - especially for the Obama administration. When Barack Obama first took office the unemployment rate was sitting at 7.6 percent and now it is sitting at 8.2 percent. Some "recovery", eh? But the reality is that this jobs report was really not that "devastating" even though the stock market had its worst day of the year. Unemployment in America is still about at the same level as it was back at the beginning of 2012. The tough stretch that we are going through right now is only a very small taste of the economic nightmare that is on the horizon. If you think that things are a "disaster" right now, just wait until you see what is coming.
At the moment, 53 percent of all Americans with a bachelor's degree under the age of 25 are either unemployed or underemployed, and there are more than 100 million working age Americans that do not currently have jobs.
But this is only just the beginning.
During the next major economic downturn, the unemployment rate in the United States is going to soar well up into the double digits.
Many Americans will look back on 2010, 2011 and 2012 as "the good old days".
Right now, there are only small pockets of the country that are total economic hellholes.
For example, Yuma, Arizona has an unemployment rate of 26 percent, and El Centro, California has an unemployment rate of 26.2 percent.
In the future, those kinds of numbers are going to become the norm all over the nation.
Sadly, most Americans have no idea what is coming.
Today, I wanted to share with you all a couple of chilling economic forecasts that I have been made aware of recently.
The first is from Raoul Pal. According to Zero Hedge, Raoul Pal "previously co-managed the GLG Global Macro Fund in London for GLG Partners, one of the largest hedge fund groups in the world. Raoul came to GLG from Goldman Sachs where he co-managed the hedge fund sales business in Equities and Equity Derivatives in Europe... Raoul Pal retired from managing client money in 2004 at the age of 36 and now lives on the Valencian coast of Spain, from where he writes."
The following is from a Zero Hedge summary of a recent presentation by Raoul Pal....
  • We don’t know exactly what is to come, but we can all join the very few dots from where we are now, to the collapse of the first major bank…
  • With very limited room for government bailouts, we can very easily join the next dots from the first bank closure to the collapse of the whole European banking system, and then to the bankruptcy of the governments themselves.
  • There are almost no brakes in the system to stop this, and almost no one realises the seriousness of the situation.
  • The problem is not Government debt per se. The real problem is that the $70 trillion in G10 debt is the collateral for $700 trillion in derivatives…
  • Yes, that equates to 1200% of Global GDP and it rests on very, very weak foundations
  • From an EU crisis, we only have to join one dot for a UK crisis of equal magnitude.
  • And then do you think Japan and China would not be next?
  • And then do you think the US would survive unscathed?
  • That is the end of the fractional reserve banking system and of fiat money.
  • It is the big RESET.
It continues:
  • Bonds will be stuck at 1% in the US, Germany, UK and Japan (for this phase).
  • The whole bond market will be dead.
  • Short selling on bonds - banned
  • Short selling stocks – banned
  • CDS – banned
  • Short futures – banned
  • Put options – banned
  • All that is left is the Dollar and Gold
It only gets better. We use the term loosely:
  • We have around 6 months left of trading in Western markets to protect ourselves or make enough money to offset future losses.
  • Spend your time looking at the risks of custody, safekeeping, counterparty etc. Assume that no one and nothing is safe.
  • After that…we put on our tin helmets and hide until the new system emerges
So how soon does Raoul Pal think all of this is going to happen?....
From a timing perspective, I think 2012 and 2013 will usher in the end.
You can find his entire presentation entitled "The End Game" right here.
What Raoul Pal is saying lines up very well with what Steve Quayle's anonymous international banking source is telling him....
There is no stopping this...We are still on track as I have been predicting for a while now for a fall/winter collapse of the Eurozone and naked exposure of all derivative markets the world over. Europeans will go through a major reset, after time they will recover as Europeans do not carry the type of personal debt that Americans do. It is for America that I worry. Look for these signs next:
1- JPM will be bailed out again but it will not stop the coming market crash. More details will emerge about their derivative swap failure $150 billion and counting.
2-BOA (BAC Bank of America) will fold and be absorbed into JPM as a way to prop up the bleeding Giant. JPM will get the best picking of this deal just like they got with Bear Stearns.
3- Massive layoffs at Citigroup and Wells Fargo
4- Goldman Sachs finally pays the piper, look for massive cuts there as well as BIG Losses
5- Bond market bust which leads to freeze of all bond sales
6- Derivative bust the next one will be BOA followed by Citigroup
7- All CDS shorts and swaps will freeze.
8- Total Meltdown
You can read the rest of what that source is saying right here.
As I have been saying all along, there are two keys that you need to be watching right now....
#1 Europe
#2 Derivatives
Sadly, the articles that I write about Europe tend to get far less of a response than my other articles get. Most Americans simply do not understand that what is happening in Europe right now is going to significantly affect their daily lives.
And most Americans have very little understanding of derivatives. But as you just read, there are some in the financial community that are warning that we could see the derivatives bubble burst very soon.
Time is running out. This period of relative stability that we are currently experiencing will not last forever.
You better get ready.

Pelosi Predicts Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Roberts Will Side With Administration on Obamacare!


CNS News ^ | 5/31/2012 | Elizabeth Harrington



(CNSNews.com) – House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on Thursday that the Supreme Court will vote 6-3 to uphold the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s health care law, meaning that one member of the court's 4-vote conservative wing--which includes Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts--will side with the administration on the challenges to the legislation that the court heard earlier this year.
"6-3. That's it. 6-3," said a seemingly confident Pelosi.

In addition to Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, the other five justices on the court are Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Pelosi was also confident about the constitutionality of the individual mandate back in 2009 when it the bill was under consideration in Congress. When CNSNews.com asked her at that time where specifically the Constitution authorized Congress to force people to buy health insurance, she said: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
At a Capitol Hill press conference on Thursday, a reporter asked Pelosi, “Madame Leader, the Supreme Court is getting ready to rule in the next month or so on the health care bill, and you’ve expressed pretty high confidence – I think you said 6-3 – but I’m just wondering if Democrats and the Democratic leadership have had any discussions or meetings to plan for any sort of contingency plan given the possibility that the court could strike any provisions from the law or the whole law, I’m wondering if Democrats are having any meetings to discuss contingency plans?”
Pelosi, in reference to how the nine-judge court will rule, said, “6-3. That’s it. 6-3.”
She was then asked why she was so confident about her prediction, "Do you have a crystal ball or what is your confidence -- you wrote the bill but why do you have this confidence?"
Pelosi said: “Because I know the Constitution. This bill is ironclad. It is ironclad.”
“Nobody was frivolous with the Constitution and the health of the American people in writing the bill,” she said. “So, that’s where my confidence springs from, the merit of the bill and the nature of the Constitution.”
“The makeup of the court, well, we’ll see,” Pelosi said.

(President Barack Obama embraces Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, left, and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in the East Room of the White House in Washington after signing the health care bill into law on March 23, 2010.)

In March, the Supreme Court heard three days of oral arguments on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in Obamacare, which would require nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance, either through their employer, by themselves, or from the government or face financial penalties.
A decision is expected at the end of the court’s session in late June.
Pelosi previously predicted a 6-3 decision on April 3, during a speech at the Paley Center for Media in New York. But back on Mar. 28, when asked whether the mandate would be ruled constitutional or not, Pelosi said, “I have no idea. None of us does. We are all now talking about something of which we have no knowledge because we are not members of the Supreme Court. We have knowledge of the legislation. We have knowledge of the arguments. But we have no idea of what the outcome will be.”