Friday, January 3, 2014

WAS HE OR WASN'T HE ADOPTED AND DOES IT REALLY MATTER? Someday all this may be resolved, but it will be long after Obama is out of office and somewhere else in the world.

Thursday, January 2, 2013

JE SUIS D'ACCORD: Boy, is this food for thought or what?  If what is going on Europe is the precursor to what is going to happen in the US, and if the liberals consolidate the gains of Obamacare and all the rest of this current corrupt regime it is, then all that is described in this article and the comment section deserves some serious thought.  Europe is turning into a unitary state before our eyes and the parallels between what they are becoming and what we see in the Obama administration is startling.

OBAMA'S NEW YEAR SPEECH: It's the same ole same ol from the same ole  Obama's reference to the decade preceding the Great Depression as rampant free market capitalism running amok is the line socialists have been pushing since the '30's when all their statist interventions failed miserably causing an 11 year depression instead of a 1 or 2 year one.  This one distortion is at the root of liberalisms' faux cures for the economy forever and it is promulgated by Paul Krugman in the NYTimes which is where the democrats get their marching orders.

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

JUST FOR THE RECORD THIS IS HOW OBMA BECAME A SENATOR AND POTUS:

ANN COULTER LETTER

OBAMA’S SIGNATURE MOVE: UNSEALING PRIVATE RECORDS

By: Ann Coulter  
8/1/2012 07:42 PM

RESIZE:AAA

PRINT

1.2K

Mitt Romney presents one enormous problem for Barack Obama’s campaign: No divorce records. That’s why the media are so hot to get their hands on Romney’s tax records for the past 25 years. They need something to “pick through, distort and lie about” — as the Republican candidate says.

Obama’s usual campaign method, used in 100 percent of his races, has been to pry into the private records of his opponents.

Democrats aren’t going to find any personal dirt on the clean-cut Mormon, so they need complicated tax filings going back decades in order to create the illusion of scandal out of boring financial records.

Romney has already released his 2010 tax return and is about to release his 2011 return. After all the huffing and puffing by the media demanding those returns, the follow-up story vanished remarkably quickly when the only thing the return showed was that Romney pays millions of dollars in taxes and gives a lot of money to charity.

Let’s take a romp down memory lane and review the typical Obama campaign strategy. Obama became a U.S. senator only by virtue of David Axelrod’s former employer, the Chicago Tribune, ripping open the sealed divorce records of Obama’s two principal opponents.

One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader. But then the Chicago Tribune leaked the claim that Hull’s second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.

Those records were under seal, but as The New York Times noted: “The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had ‘worked aggressively behind the scenes’ to push the story.” Many people said Axelrod had “an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story.”

Both Hull and his ex-wife opposed releasing their sealed divorce records, but they finally relented in response to the media’s hysteria — 18 days before the primary. Hull was forced to spend four minutes of a debate detailing the abuse allegation in his divorce papers, explaining that his ex-wife “kicked me in the leg and I hit her shin to try to get her to not continue to kick me.”

After having held a substantial lead just a month before the primary, Hull’s campaign collapsed with the chatter about his divorce. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.

As luck would have it, Obama’s opponent in the general election had also been divorced! Jack Ryan was tall, handsome, Catholic — and shared a name with one of Harrison Ford’s most popular onscreen characters! He went to Dartmouth, Harvard Law and Harvard Business School, made hundreds of millions of dollars as a partner at Goldman Sachs, and then, in his early 40s, left investment banking to teach at an inner city school on the South Side of Chicago.

Ryan would have walloped Obama in the Senate race. But at the request of — again — the Chicago Tribune, California Judge Robert Schnider unsealed the custody papers in Ryan’s divorce five years earlier from Hollywood starlet Jeri Lynn Ryan, the bombshell Borg on “Star Trek: Voyager.”

Jack Ryan had released his tax records. He had released his divorce records. But both he and his ex-wife sought to keep the custody records under seal to protect their son.

Amid the 400 pages of filings from the custody case, Jack Ryan claimed that his wife had had an affair, and she counterclaimed with the allegation that he had taken her to “sex clubs” in Paris, New York and New Orleans, which drove her to fall in love with another man.

(Republicans: If you plan a career in public office, please avoid marrying a wacko.)

Ryan had vehemently denied her allegations at the time, but it didn’t matter. The sex club allegations aired on “Entertainment Tonight,” “NBC Nightly News,” ABC’s “Good Morning America,” “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno,” and NBC’s “Today” show. CNN covered the story like it was the first moon landing.

(Interestingly, international papers also were ablaze with the story — the same newspapers that were supposed to be so bored with American sexual mores during Bill Clinton’s sex scandal.)

Four days after Judge Schnider unsealed the custody records, Ryan dropped out of the race for the horror of (allegedly) propositioning his own wife and then taking “no” for an answer.

Alan Keyes stepped in as a last-minute Republican candidate.

And that’s how Obama became a U.S. senator. He destroyed both his Democratic primary opponent and his Republican general election opponent with salacious allegations about their personal lives taken from “sealed” court records.

Obama’s team delved into Sarah Palin’s marriage and spread rumors of John McCain’s alleged affair in 2008 and they smeared Herman Cain in 2011 with hazy sexual harassment allegations all emanating from David Axelrod’s pals in Chicago.

It’s almost like a serial killer’s signature. Unsealed personal records have been released to the press. Obama must be running for office!

So you can see what a pickle the Obama campaign is in having to run against a Dudley Do-Right, non-drinking, non-smoking, God-fearing, happily married Mormon.

They’ve got to get their hands on thousands of pages of Romney’s tax filings so that the media can — as Romney says — lie about them. It will be interesting to see if Obama can pick the lock of the famously guarded IRS.

HE'S RIGHT: UNCERTAINTY IS THE KILLER APP OF ECONOMIC EXPANSION:

Anno Domini 2013 was an excellent opportunity to learn the lesson that we failed to learn in 1857,1933, 1971, and 2008: Uncertainty is the destroyer. Economic growth remains unsteady, with a consensus among experts that the economy is slowing down as the year closes — Bloomberg calculates the average of economic-growth forecasts at a tepid 1.8 percent. Key figures remained negative in 2013, from the labor-force participation rate (down 2.7 percentage points since Barack Obama took office) to the employment-to-population ratio (down 2 percentage points during the same period). The most important of those economic indicators, at least so far as future growth is concerned, is net domestic private investment, which remains far away from returning to pre-crash levels.

Weak private investment means weak growth and bleak long-term employment prospects. There is no way to finesse away that fact. The question is: Why are we still in this position, all these years after the end of the recession?

There is some debate on the right about whether President Obama is a fundamentally well-intentioned incompetent or a more Machiavellian figure so power-hungry that he is willing to kneecap key sectors of the U.S. economy in order to advance his political agenda. My own view is that the distinguishing feature of Obama’s ideology is the utter inability of the president and his partisans to distinguish between the national interest and their own political interests. (That is one problem with electing a messiah rather than a chief administrator.) If you believe that your guy is a uniquely gifted, once-in-a-lifetime transformational figure with a mandate to save the country, and that he is opposed by uniquely wicked servants of Mammon and partisans of unreason, then it follows that your political interests are identical to the national interest, and consequently you have such grey eminences as Bill Clinton, who has managed to secure for himself a career as an elder statesman without ever having been a statesman, insisting that Republicans are “begging for America to fail” — because they oppose large parts of the president’s health-care program, which the president now opposes, too, having set aside measures that are too unworkable or punitive to act on until some more politically opportune time.

Advertisement

Market orders are complex and organic; political orders are relatively crude and artificial. Obamacare, to take the year’s most dramatic example, is an attempt to impose a simpleton order on a much more sophisticated order, like trying to make microchips with cookie cutters. Such attempts generally end badly, succeeding only in bringing chaos out of order. Friedrich Hayek described the process in The Road to Serfdom: The plan never pans out the way it was expected to, and the planners are obliged by political necessity to take ever more arbitrary and authoritarian steps in order to give the appearance of success to an enterprise that cannot in fact achieve its goals. Even in a democratic society — perhaps especially in such a society — the effects are corrosive, undermining the rule of law, liberal institutions, and the mutual trust that enables meaningful social cooperation. Therefore the question of incompetence vs. malice is not entirely a question of A or B.

This is complicated by the fact that politics is about more than policy, to the extent that politics is about policy at all. Politics is emotional and tribal. There is, for example, nothing inherent in the socialist model that necessitates its being paired with anti-Semitism, but in practice it generally has been, in both its majorGerman and Russian expressions. There is really nothing in Deng Xiaoping’s dream of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” that requires such butchery as Beijing has executed — against Tibetans, Uighurs, Falun Gong, Christians, democrats, mothers, etc. — but it is difficult to imagine the Chinese national-socialist project without it. There is, likewise, nothing in the substance of Obamaite policy thinking on health care that necessitates an all-out assault on Catholic institutions, but those attacks are of fundamental importance to the political project of which those health-care policies are a part. For the Left, politics is heroic — and every hero must have an antagonist. In 2013, those nominated to wear the black hats were Catholics, the wrong kind of business executives, insurance companies, one half of Congress, more than half of the nation’s governors, the Koch brothers and their allies (real and imagined), gun owners and enthusiasts, and people who cling to what was the president’s own view regarding gay marriage until 600 days ago.

We find ourselves, then, in a kind of crossfire: The battle between competence and incompetence rages on one front, while another war — one in which the participants understand themselves to be in an epoch-defining contest between good and evil — is fought perpendicularly.

Whichever side you find yourself on, know this: No sane person builds a widget factory in the middle of a battlefield.

Robert Higgs, economic historian and author of the indispensable Crisis and Leviathan, describes a condition he calls “regime uncertainty,” under which the possibility of significant changes in the status of property rights makes investment decisions difficult or impossible. This is partly related to uncertainty regarding policy issues such as taxes and regulations, but it is a wider phenomenon, one that is partly cultural. Higgs writes: “Regime uncertainty pertains to more than the government’s laws, regulations, and administrative decisions. For one thing, as the saying goes, ‘personnel is policy.’ Two administrations may administer or enforce identical statutes and regulations quite differently. A business-hostile administration such as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s or Barack Obama’s will provoke more apprehension among investors than a business-friendlier administration such as Dwight D. Eisenhower’s or Ronald Reagan’s, even if the underlying ‘rules of the game’ are identical on paper. Similar differences between judiciaries create uncertainties about how the courts will rule on contested laws and government actions.”

The Obama administration has achieved a special distinction here: Investors are faced with considerable uncertainty vis-à-vis how it might interpret rules as compared with the Bush or Clinton administrations — and also about how it might interpret rules as compared with the Obama administration the day before yesterday. Now you see a mandate, now you don’t. And as bad as it is in 2013, the seething hostility of Elizabeth Warren is ascendant on the left, a fact that offers very little encouragement to entrepreneurs and investors considering illiquid, long-term positions — things like factories, stores, and buildings, as opposed to easily liquidated investments in financial instruments. Many on the left complain about the “financialization” of the U.S. economy, while unwittingly helping to encourage that very phenomenon. Given a choice between dividing up his investments between a couple of hedge funds and financial firms or locking it up for ten years in an assembly line in Indiana, a sane man will consider the question of uncertainty and predictability. And under current conditions, the assembly line is a risky bet.

Perhaps 2014 will be the year in which we learn the value of predictability. Who can say?

— Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent for National Review.

LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS:  THE BIGGEST ISSUE OF 2014 WILL BE OBAMACARE! 

There are major problems with healthcare delivery inn the US and they need addressing.  Everyone has his favorite single fix, mine is docs investing in clinics who financially benefit from their  referrals for procedures or services.  Example: Docs who practice orthopedics investing in MRI clinics and who refer patients to their very own clinic.  This is wrong, wrong, wrong!  And what's more 10 tone it results in many unnecessary MRIs.There is simply something about docs practicing for profit capitalism in this manner that doesn't set right.  Sure, they are entitled to a fair return  on their practice, if private practitioners, however does anyone believe they are not taking advantage of their own investment by referrals?  So what?  It's hard to see how this is anything other than crony capitalism which is not the free market at work.  Price of the service controlled and inflated in the absence of competition, and this means we are all subsidizing the profits for some doctor-investors in these clinics.  It appears this practice is fairly wide-spread.  I recently had a carpet tunnel syndrome procedure at an out-patient clinic and noticed while signing various releases, etc, the disclosure that my surgeon had a financial interest in this particular clinic.  I can hear the argument coming that this doc investment is a good thing because they know the value and need for the clinic and without their investment there may not be a clinic. A plausible argument if we didn't have third party payer healthcare system, however since we do it's hard to imagine these docs don't collude on prices (as I think they do) and in effect we have cartelized this delivery system.  Reforms are badly needed throughout the healthcare delivery industry however we will not have them without the proper free market incentives for producers and consumers.  We certainly do not have these incentives now and Obamacare (ACA) does not offer them.  Socialized medicine, which is where ACA takes us eventually, is bound to fail since there is no cost calculation or mechanism to determine market value for services.  This is why costs always run amok in the NHIS and Canadian worlds.

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

A GOOD SUMMARY OF MEDIA DUPLICITY AND HOW IT IS ALL DESIGNED TO COVER FOR DEMOCRATS AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.  UNFORTUNATELY NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE ARE SAVVY ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS DECEPTION GOES ON, AND HOW DESTRUCTIVE IT IS IN A DEMOCRACY.

As the year ends, I see that others have already conscientiously compiled lists of the most underreported and misreported stories of the year, with some even breaking matters down between foreign and domestic.

With that task addressed, I thought it would be worthwhile to compile a far from comprehensive list of ten of the more noteworthy techniques which those who pretend to be loyal to the tenets of journalism employed during 2013 to deceive, misinform, misdirect and smear.

1. Pretend that “no one” is saying something, when they really are.

Carol Costello of CNN claimed in January that “no one is talking about overturning the Second Amendment or confiscating guns in America.”

In the three preceding weeks, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had said that “confiscation could be an option”; an Iowa state representative had “said governments should start confiscating semi-automatic rifles and other firearms”; and Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California had suggested a gun-buyback program which “could be compulsory.”

In early December, New York City’s police department sent out “letters telling gun owners to turn over their rifles and shotguns — or else face the consequences,” i.e., confiscation.

2. Bury the party affiliation of Democrats involved in scandal and crime.

Even when local stories appropriately identify leftist offenders’ party affiliation, national press outlets work hard to scrub them.

One of the most notorious such examples last year involved Steven Brooks, a Nevada State Assembly member from North Las Vegas. The opening sentence at the related Las Vegas Sun story told readers that “a Democratic assemblyman is in jail, arrested for threatening Democratic Speaker-elect Marilyn Kirkpatrick, according to North Las Vegas Police and Democratic sources familiar with the situation.” By the time the Associated Press was done massaging it for national consumption, the D-word was held until the ninth paragraph, and reporter Martin Griffith was regaling readers with a list of the wonderful organizations and charities which Brooks had served.

3. Decide that really bad news doesn’t matter.

When the government’s initial report on fourth-quarter 2012 economic growth showed contraction, the editors at Bloomberg News decided that the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) is an “imperfect measure of progress,” and that we really should be looking at indicators of “social progress or human happiness.”

How convenient. Expect a recurrence of such nonsense if first-quarter data show that the no-growth, Obamacare Christmas I warned of in November materializes.

4. Commit statistical torture.

In February, the Associated Press, aka the Administration’s Press, was determined to show that government employment had steeply declined. Trouble is, it ignorantly and artificially pegged the “peak” at a point when hundreds of thousands of obviously temporary Census Bureau workers were on the federal payroll.

The truth is that government employment “grew by a ridiculous 1.2 million, or almost 6%,” from December 2003 to April 2009, and was long overdue for a correction.

5. Put on the moral blinders for leftists and horrible criminals.

While treating George Zimmerman as evil personified for defending himself against Trayvon Martin, the press was incredibly indulgent towards multiple baby-killer Kermit Gosnell, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, and China’s Mao Zedong.

AP reporter Maryclaire Dale described Gosnell as “an elegant man” who “smiled softly” in court as witnesses described his late-term abortion and infanticide house of horrors. The wire service rarely applied the “abortion” tag to its Gosnell stories, but frequently used “reproductive rights.”

The AP’s Paul Haven depicted the deceased Chavez’s funeral procession as “an epic farewell to a larger-than-life leader,” during which the authoritarian looter’s “flag-draped coffin floated over hundreds of thousands of supporters.”

Earlier this month, both CNBC and the New York Times ran headlines wishing the long-deceased “Chairman Mao,” who is responsible for the deaths of as many as 70 million during his multi-decade reign of terror, a “happy” 120th birthday.

6. Pretend that someone said something they never said.

Readers should always be on the alert for descriptions of what Republicans and conservatives allegedly “said” when quotation marks are absent.

In April, Politico’s Donovan Slack “reported” that House Speaker John Boehner had criticized “President Obama’s budget for failing to cut enough spending.” Boehner said no such thing. His press release merely noted that “it is time for Washington to deal with its spending problem.” Long-time budget watchers know that the left’s and the press’s dictionaries define a “cut” as a “reduction in projected spending increases.”

7. Act as if you’ve done your job when when you’re years late covering an important story.

If complete, this list would be exhaustive, and exhausting. Here are just a few examples:

• The New York Times devoted a 5,000-word piece to the Pigford “black farmers” scandal in April, over five months after the November 2012 elections when doing so would have mattered.
• The Associated Press suddenly discovered years-long trends involving employers’ heavier use of part-time andtemporary workers.
• The 2013 trophy for deferred disclosure surely goes to the AP. On September 30, the day before HealthCare.gov was set to go live, it finally determined that President Obama’s five-year “you can keep your health insurance plan” guarantee to the American people “was an empty promise, made repeatedly.”
• Just before Christmas, the New York Times astonishingly found that “the cost of premiums for people who just miss qualifying for (Obamacare) subsidies varies widely across the country and rises rapidly for people in their 50s and 60s … (and) can quickly approach 20 percent of a person’s income.” Imagine that. Anyone who studied Obamacare during the runup to its passage knew that almost four years ago.

8. Don’t believe our early reporting — and if you go looking for it, you won’t find it.

Though many news outlets irresponsibly send early news reports to the memory hole, the Times has become particular adept at the practice:

• In May, it “cleaned up” an early online report on the IRS conservative and tea-party group targeting scandal, completely changing the focus from Treasury Department admissions that it knew what the IRS was doing in 2012 to a tired “Republicans attack” exercise.
• In June, before it went to print, it scrubbed an Obama adviser’s inflammatory “a war on coal is exactly what’s needed” remark which had briefly appeared online.
• In September, it watered down the headline and content of an earlier report on Obama’s failure to form any kind of meaningful coalition for action on Syria.

9. Ignore or make excuses for inconvenient remarks by leftists and Democrats.

Here’s another list which could go on for miles. A few of the worst offenders in 2013 include the following:

• Only the relatively minor wire service AFP reported Ben Bernanke’s bombshell remark at a July congressional hearing that “the economy would tank” if the Federal Reserve were to significantly reduce the $1 trillion a year in funny money (since reduced to “only” $900 billion) it has been creating.
• Almost no one in the establishment press acknowledged the existence of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s August remark that the U.S. has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care towards a single-payer system.
• The Associated Press also took 2013′s prize in this category. In August, when Obama identified Savannah, Jacksonville, and Charleston as “along the Gulf (of Mexico)” reporter Russ Bynum parenthetically added words to what Obama had said to remove any appearance of a presidential misstatement. AP then issued a weaselly correction which still would not directly acknowledge that Obama misspoke.

10. Sit on important information if doing so helps the administration.

In November, the AP’s Julie Pace reveled in the fact that she and her employer knew of secret negotiations between the U.S. and Iran a full eight months before they were publicly disclosed. The wire service’s claim that doing so involved doing the Obama administration no favors blew up in its face when another news organization acknowledged that it and AP “were asked to not publish til end of Iran talks.”

In 2014, the failures associated with President Obama’s “signature achievement” will become far more widely visible, and its negative economic effects will become more widely felt. Other aspects of his presidential stewardship are on track for similar decay. As a result, the likelihood that the left will suffer serious damage in the fall’s congressional elections will increase. As that occurs, look for the establishment press’s alleged journalists to make heavier use of the techniques discussed above and many others in an attempt to stop the bleeding.

TOM COBURN IS RETIRING, SO HE CAN CALL THEM AS HE SEES THEM.  AND HE DOES HERE.  Tom Coburn's requiem.