Advertisement

Posts tagged with Barack Obama

Was Obama DUI in Denver – Debating Under the Influence?

Was President Barack Obama under the influence of alcohol during the debate in Denver? Could alcohol consumption combined with the high altitude explain his poor performance?

I'm not suggesting that Obama was drunk. It's not necessary for someone to be noticeably drunk for alcohol to adversely affect performance.

If Obama had a few drinks before the debate it's probably a normal part of his preparation for public appearances. If he did drink, he was probably unaware that the alcohol combined with the altitude could affect his performance.

The old belief that altitude can cause someone to become drunk faster appears to be a myth. However, alcohol can impair judgment and perception as well as depressing respiration. The reduced oxygen availability in the mile high city could have further slowed Obama's brain and reduced his ability to process information The U.S. Army Public Health Command recommends against alcohol consumption at higher altitudes for this reason .

Altitude alone could not explain Obama's behavior because it would have affected him and Mitt Romney the same.

There's a strong possibility that Obama is an alcoholic like his father Barack Obama, Sr., and his half brother George Obama. Susceptibility to alcoholism is hereditary. As a nephew of a few alcoholics, I know that the only way alcoholics can avoid the negative affects of alcoholism is to not drink alcohol. Moderate use is not an option for alcoholics.

Obama admitted in his autobiography that he drank heavily when he was young. Such drinking could have helped him develop a high tolerance for alcohol so he could drink significant amounts without it having a noticeable affect. Union General Ulysses S. Grant won the Civil War even though he was a very heavy drinker.

Obama could be a "high functioning alcoholic" (HFA). They usually don't give obvious signs of being affected by alcohol and can function without those around them noticing any adverse affects on judgment or behavior. The fact that those around Obama praise everything he does would reinforce any feelings Obama has that his drinking isn't adversely affecting him. Their tendency to idolize him would blind them to any indications he had a problem with alcohol

Two years ago "White House physician, Navy Capt Jeffrey Kuhlman, said Obama should stick with 'moderation in alcohol intake' and ‘smoking cessation efforts’, the use of nicotine gum, and come back in August 2011 after he turns 50."

Some suggest that the recommendation for "moderation in alcohol intake" is some type of standard recommendation. Others such as the writer of Mountain Republic, who has a family history of alcoholism, believes that the doctor wouldn't have brought the subject up unless he detected a possible alcohol related problem. The writer suggests that the beer summit involving Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge police Sergeant Jim Crowley provides an example of how alcoholics think alcohol is a solution to problems.

The beer summit isn't the only time Obama has invited someone to the White House for a drink.

Sandra Rose believes that alcoholism would be consistent with Obama's narcissist personality. She agrees that a recommendation of moderation wouldn't be needed if a patient was already drinking in moderation.

A doctor would have to be careful about recommending moderation in alcohol consumption. Some patients who drink in moderation might complain because they think the recommendation means they are drinking too much. An alcoholic might interpret the statement about "continued moderation" as an indication that his consumption is within acceptable limits.

At a time when the nation faces significant economic and foreign problems, would any president who wasn't an alcoholic brag about setting up his own brewery? Obama's decision to brew his own beer indicates alcohol plays a major role in his life. Working class individuals might brew their own beer because they don't get a feeling of personal accomplishment from their jobs. Obama is President of the United States. He shouldn't need to brew his own beer to feel he's accomplishing anything.

Maybe events in Libya would have been different if Obama had been taking care of presidential business instead of brewing beer.

I've been watching presidents speak for decades. I know I'm being subjective, but something about Obama's facial expressions have looked a little off, particularly a tendency to smile or almost smile at inappropriate times. I had thought this was an example of the way liars smile when they think they are getting away with a lie. However, his expressions could also indicate he is being affected by alcohol.

An alcoholic Obama could appear to be functioning normally.but still have impaired judgment that would affect decision making. He might fail to recognize a threat such as happened in Libya. He could also exhibit paranoid tendencies. He might treat normal criticism as a major attack on him. He might overestimate the threat to the United States from some foreign event.

A Duke University study lists President Richard Nixon as one of our previous alcoholic presidents. He was forced to resign from office because of poor decisions associated with the Watergate scandal. President Ulysses S.Grant who was an alcoholic is considered to have had one of the most corrupt administrations.

Reply

Mitt Romney the Intimidator

Megyn Kelly on Fox made an interesting observation on the first debate. Mitt Romney would watch Barack Obama during the debate while Obama tended to look at Jim Lehrer or the cameras. I had halfway noticed this situation during the debate but didn't really consider the implications until she commented.

I went back and fast forwarded through the debate. Romney would look at Obama for significant periods, but Obama only occasionally glanced at Romney before looking away or looking down.

An obvious explanation for Obama not looking at Romney is that Obama felt intimidated by Romney. The debates cannot resolve differences on issues because the responses are too short. Romney apparently recognizes that the debates allow a candidate to show who has the strongest personality and would be best able to stand up to the leaders of other countries, the leaders of special interest groups and congressional opponents.

Watching one's opponent is important in verbal combat as well as in physical combat. A boxer watches his opponent to look for an opening for a punch or an indication of what type of punch the opponent may throw. A verbal combatant watches body language and facial expression for signs of weakness.

I was a boxing fan when Mohammad Ali was the champ. I still recall him trying to stare down opponents to try to shake their self confidence. Romney at times seemed to be trying to stare down Obama who occasionally glanced at Romney and then quickly looked away.

Romney obviously understands personal conflicts in a political, or business, situation and how to appear to be a tough opponent. Obama does not.

The 1962 Cuban missile crisis occurred because Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev felt American President John F. Kennedy could be intimidated. The recent attack on the American consulate in Libya may have occurred because al Qaeda believes Obama can be intimidated.

Before the debate I was planning to vote for Romney only as a means of getting Obama out of the White House. Now I will vote for Romney the Intimidator to be our leader in foreign affairs.

Reply 6 comments from Losmortales Thomas Bryce Tange Asaneperson Gl0ck0wn3r

No, Mr. Obama, We Don’t “Belong” to the Government

President Barack Obama made a major gaffe when he recently said that we are owned, or "belong to", government. In the United States the government is supposed to "belong to" the people instead of the other way around as he suggests.

We the people are supposed to own the government and tell it what to do. Obama and other elitists believe that government exists to control our personal lives and even tell us how much we can eat or drink.

Some government controls are necessary to prevent people from harming others. Government needs to restrict sale of some substances that can adversely affect physical or mental health or can cause people to harm others. However, there is no reason for government to regulate the size of soft drinks or treat all school children as if they had the same nutritional needs. Active children need more calories than those who spend all their time playing video games.

Too many officials at all levels of government think they are better than the rest of us and have some special right or knowledge to make decisions for us. Government officials who believe themselves superior will sometimes say "if you only knew what we know" when they really mean "if you knew only what we know."

One of my favorite movie quotes is by Glenn Ford's character in "Teahouse of the August Moon". Ford plays an American military officer helping the Japanese develop democratic government after World War II. He tells them: "Democracy is where the people have the right to make the wrong decisions."

All humans can make mistakes. I read a book review several years ago about some incredibly stupid things done by the high IQ members of Mensa. During President Lyndon Johnson's administration men who were considered to be the best and the brightest put half a million of us in Vietnam for no apparent reason other than that they didn't want to lose the war before the next election. They had no idea what victory meant and thus didn't know how to win.

President Thomas Jefferson once said: "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."

"It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from its Government."- Thomas Paine

Reply 42 comments from Liberty275 Fiddleback Kirk Larson Moderate Gl0ck0wn3r Jonas_opines Fretster Armstrong Mommatocharlie Klumma and 14 others

Dear Mr. Romney, Everyone Pays Federal Taxes

How can a Republican ignore the fact that there are many more federal taxes than just the federal income tax? Republicans have long reminded people that businesses don't pay taxes, their customers do. Normally, I would expect Democrats to try to con lower income groups into believing that the fact they don't pay the federal income tax means they are not being forced to pay for extravagant federal programs.

Workers making the minimum wage pay the Social Security and Medicare taxes based on their income. Winos pay federal liquor taxes on their cheap booze. The whiskey tax was one of first federal taxes. The federal government taxes shoes, phone calls, tobacco and the gasoline used in cars among other things.

Businesses set the prices of their goods to get the necessary money to pay various taxes including taxes on their incomes.

Instead, of criticizing those who don't make enough to pay federal income tax, Romney should be blaming Obama's unworkable economic program for forcing people to take jobs that don't provide them enough income to pay the income tax. Millions of those among the 47% who don't pay the income tax would love to pay it if they could only find jobs that pay enough for them to pay the income tax.

Romney should be reminding those who don't make enough to pay the federal income tax that they still pay other taxes which might be reduced if the federal government would cut its spending.

Romney should be criticizing Obama's welfare for the rich that allows them to spend their federal tax money on themselves. If the child of someone with low income wants federal assistance to attend college, the parents must fill out forms proving they lack income. The more income they have, the less assistance is available. Parents with high incomes can write out a check for the child's tuition and claim a federal tax credit. The more they make the more assistance they can provide.

High income homeowners who want federal assistance for certain home improvements can write out a check and claim the money spent as a tax credit. Low income homeowners must find a grant program in their community and compete with others for the funds.

Reply 3 comments from Reasonmclucus Roedapple Autie Grigori

Democrats Don’t Care About Women or Minorities

Democrats care so little about minority women that they allow unlicensed facilities to kill them. The old civil rights leaders will protest when someone shoots a black man but do nothing when a doctor in an unlicensed health facility kills a black woman. Nothing better demonstrates the hypocrisy of President Barack Obama than the fact that unlicensed medical facilities are allowed to [mis]treat women in his hometown of Chicago.

When a black man dies a violent death black leaders like Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton descend on the location and ask for an investigation while sometimes alleging that racism might be a factor.

On July 20 a 24-year-old black woman named Tonya Reaves bled to death http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/03/planned-parenthood-never-called-911-for-abortion-victim/ after a botched abortion at an unlicensed Chicago Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic. I've checked Google and can find no indication that either Jackson or Sharpton have protested Reaves' death. Is it because she's a woman? Is it because she died from negligence rather than someone firing a gun? Or is it because they don't believe abortion providers need to be medically competent?

The 14th Amendment requires states to guarantee "equal protection of the laws" regardless of race or sex. Illinois allows facilities run by Planned Parenthood that only treat women to operate without the licensing requirements of facilities that treat men as well as women. Are Jackson and Sharpton ignoring this violation of the Constitution because the denial of equal protection is based on sex rather than race?

Tonya Reaves received a second trimester dilation and evacuation (D & E) abortion http://women.webmd.com/dilation-and-evacuation-de-for-abortion at 11 A.M. at Planned Parenthood's Chicago Loop Health Center. She began bleeding after the procedure, but for unexplained reasons wasn't treated until she was transferred to Northwestern Memorial Hospital by a fire department ambulance at 4:30 P.M. There is no record that the clinic called 911.

Hospital personnel had to start from scratch to examine her because they received no information about her treatment at Planned Parenthood. According to WBBM's Steve Miller http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/documents-shed-light-on-womans-death-after-abortion/ reporting on documents provided by Northwestern: “at 5:30 p.m., doctors performed an ultrasound, and another dilation and evacuation procedure – basically, another abortion – this time at Northwestern. But after that, there were then more problems, and pain. That warranted a new ultrasound, and a perforation was discovered. At 10:12 p.m., Reaves was taken back to surgery – and 'an uncontrollable bleed' was discovered.”

Reaves was pronounced dead an hour later.

Dr. James C. Anderson, M.D., a 30-year veteran emergency room doctor has complained that abortion clinics never informed him about their patients’ conditions. “I have always had to evaluate the situation, come to my own conclusions, and initiate what I thought was appropriate treatment. This definitely created some time delays that were not in the patient’s best interest,” stated Dr. Anderson. “These delays can have life-threatening implications when dealing with hemorrhage or infection.”

In a written statement, http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/documents-shed-light-on-womans-death-after-abortion/ Planned Parenthood of Illinois CEO Carole Brite said “We were shocked and saddened upon learning of a tragic development at a nearby hospital. Our hearts go out to the loved ones of this patient. While legal abortion services in the United States have a very high safety record, a tragedy such as this is devastating to loved ones and we offer our deepest sympathies. Planned Parenthood of Illinois cares deeply about the health and safety of each and every patient. We do not publicly discuss private patient matters and we follow HIPAA laws that forbid the disclosure of patient information.” The statement that Planned Parenthood cares about the health and safety of its patients is an obvious lie. If Planned Parenthood really cared about its patients' welfare it would subject its facilities to the same rigid licensing requirements of other health facilities. Its clinics would be prepared for the known complications of abortions and send patients to a nearby hospital if necessary. Patient privacy rules provide a convenient excuse for not releasing any potentially self incriminating information about how they mistreated Reaves.

Prominent civil rights leaders may have ignored Reaves death, but the daughter of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, brother Rev. A.D. King has spoken out. Dr. Alveda C. King has protested what she calls the "tragic slaughter of Tonya Reaves, a young woman, who was butchered in a Planned Parenthood abortion mill in Chicago?" http://www.priestsforlife.org/staff/alvedaking.htm

King goes on to say the people at Planned Parenthood "are going to a lot of trouble to make it seem that murders like Tonya’s are a fluke. Planned Parenthood promised Tonya a solution to her problems, and they killed her. Now, she is dead; a beautiful victim of the nefarious liars at Planned Parenthood. Yes friends, Tonya and her dead baby are victims. For those who want to point the finger at Tonya and say that nobody made her go to Planned Parenthood, think again. Planned Parenthood is a master of false advertising, and Tonya fell into their trap. They seduce vulnerable women into their web by promising that abortion and killer birth control drugs will solve all of life’s problems. They lie!"

She continued, " I was once a victim of the lies of Planned Parenthood". http://www.priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/howcandreamsurvive.htm

One of the arguments for legalizing abortion is that it supposedly would put unlicensed "back alley abortionists" out of business. That isn't the case in Illinois where unlicensed abortionists are able to ply their trade in visible locations. They may use sterilized instruments instead of rusty coat hangers, but patients can still die needlessly. Legalized abortion hasn't put "back alley abortionists" out of business. Legalized abortion merely allows the old back alley abortionists to operate legally.

Competent caring professional health care providers should have recognized that something had gone wrong with Tonya's operation and either provided her the help she needed or taken her to a facility that could help her.

Reaves death isn't anything new. Chicago Sun Times reporter Mary Mitchell recalled that when she was a teenager two of her friends had complications from abortions. They went home afterward, went to bed and bled to death. http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/13957308-452/death-of-tonya-reaves-after-an-abortion-is-a-reminder-that-abortions-carry-risks.html

Removing any material from deep inside the body is major surgery and should not be taken lightly. Competent doctors recognize that mistakes can happen and things can go wrong for no apparent reason, They must be prepared to take immediate corrective action. Women who experience significant bleeding after an abortion should at the very least stay in a hospital for observation. Bleeding after an operation isn't necessarily the same as the bleeding associated with a woman's period. Bleeding after an operation can indicate a broken blood vessel that must be fixed.

Unlicensed medical facilities are what we might have expected to find serving black residents in southern cities like Birmingham, Alabama, or Philadelphia, Mississippi, during the Jim Crow era 60 years ago. There is no excuse for women of any color to have to rely on unlicensed medical facilities in major cities in the 21st Century.

Democrats falsely claim that by supporting abortion they are doing something to benefit women. The Democrats willingness to allow unlicensed and thus possibly incompetent personnel to provide abortion services that kill women indicates that Democrats don't care about women. If Democrats really cared about women they would have required states to provide women the same protection from poorly run health facilities that states provide men many years ago. If President Barack Obama cared about women he would have already closed down the unlicensed Planned Parenthood abortion mills in his home state instead of allowing them to kill black women.

Reply 22 comments from Reasonmclucus Greg Cooper Cait McKnelly Pastor_bedtime Oldexbeat Grammaddy Scarlett Mike Ford Autie Beatrice and 9 others

Mexico’s Obama Rifles

Historian Tim Stanley in the "London Telegraph" suggests "The Fast and Furious scandal is turning into President Obama's Watergate". Stanley reminds everybody that President Richard Nixon was hurt by the ill advised cover up of the operation rather than by the second rate burglary itself. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100166854/the-fast-and-furious-scandal-is-turning-into-president-obamas-watergate/

A better comparison to a past scandal might be what is called the "Iran Contra" scandal. Both Iran Contra and Fast and Furious involved the United States helping groups in Latin American countries obtain weapons without the approval of the government of that country. In both cases drug money was used to purchase the weapons. The United States helped the Nicaraguan Contras obtain weapons to help the group overthrow what the Reagan Administration considered to be a communist government. http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm

So far there is no evidence the United States wants the Mexican drug cartels it helped obtain weapons to overthrow the Mexican government. However, in the past U.S. policy was to restrict the ability of rebel groups from obtaining assistance if the U.S. supported a Latin America government and to allow or even encourage rebel groups to obtain assistance if the U.S. opposed that government. The 2,020 weapons purchased during Fast and Furious would have been enough to equip four battalions of troops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunw...

The drug cartels continue to pose a major threat to the Mexican government. Obama's rifles continue to kill people.

Fast and Furious was conducted more like an operation to provide weapons to insurgents in another country than an operation to catch criminals. If the Obama administration had wanted to catch criminals it would have tried to keep the weapons under surveillance such as by implanting tracking devices and would have coordinated the operation with the Mexican government like the Bush administration had done in Operation Wide Receiver.

The U.S. Congress is currently investigating Fast and Furious. An international investigation by the Organization of American States or United Nations is needed because the operation involved the U.S. illegally aiding a criminal element in another country. Did the U.S. have an ulterior motive in helping the group? Were any of the U.S. officials involved taking money from the drug cartels obtaining the weapons? Did any U.S. official take an action that should be prosecuted before the World Court?

Watergate happened as I was beginning graduate school. I thought about doing a Master's Thesis on the subject until my adviser convinced me it wasn't practical to do a history thesis about an event that was still happening. One thing I remember from my research was that there was virtually no change in public opinion polls regarding how deeply people thought Nixon was involved in Watergate from early 1973 to early 1974 with most believing he was involved in some way. However, there was a change in how serious people thought Nixon's actions were.

Nixon's decision to invoke executive privilege to keep his White House tapes secret insured that some conversations would be interpreted as indicating involvement in Watergate. For example, a conversation with John Dean was interpreted as indicating Nixon's approval of Watergate even though the conversation didn't specifically refer to any such operation.

President Barack Obama's claim of executive privilege in the Fast and Furious operation strongly implies that he was directly involved in it. Obama is committing a major blunder if he is trying to protect Attorney General Eric Holder. If Holder has any loyalty to Obama, he should be willing to figuratively "fall on his sword" for his boss. Holder should have already taken personal responsibility for the misguided operation and resigned because as Attorney General he is responsible for what happens in his department. At the very least Fast and Furious indicates Holder failed to adequately supervise the department.

The timing of Obama's announcement of amnesty for children who grew up in the United States after being brought here illegally is suspicious. Obama's amnesty could be an attempt to distract people from the fact Obama's rifles continue to kill Mexican citizens. The decision could be an admission of guilt by Obama who wants to prevent children raised in the United States from being killed by Obama's rifles.

Reply 124 comments from Tange Jafs Snap_pop_no_crackle Beatrice Roland Gunslinger Crazy_larry Lateralis Markoo Mike Ford Jim Phillips and 17 others

Same Sex “Marriage” Is Biologically Impossible

Marriage is a biological function, not something created by government to discriminate against homosexuals.

Regardless of how government may artificially define marriage in legal terms, marriage is really the union of the two different types of human beings -- males and females. Two members of the same sex cannot have a marriage relationship regardless of what ignorant politicians like President Barack Obama say.

Marriage unites members of the different sexes to form a unit that has all the human characteristics. Two men or two women cannot form such a unit. They are like two left shoes or two right shoes. A man and a woman fit together like two puzzle pieces. Two people of the same sex are just mirror images.

Males and females not only have anatomical differences, they have different biochemistries, including different skin PH ( http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_pH_in_the_human_skin ) . Men's and women's brains function differently. ( http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog/2009/10-big-differences-between-mens-and-womens-brains/ )

Males produce chemicals called pheromones that are beneficial to females. ( http://www.athenainstitute.com/discovery.html ) ( http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro03/web2/kshiner.html ) The research on how males might benefit from pheromones women produce is less clear because most research on female pheromones deals with how they attract men. Research does indicate that men benefit from marriage and the benefits may involve biochemistry. ( http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mens_Health_Watch/2010/July/marriage-and-mens-health http://www.themedguru.com/20110128/newsfeature/marriage-good-mens-physical-womens-mental-health-86143466.html

The fact that men's and women's brains function differently complicates relationships, but provides the couple with the benefit of viewing the problems faced from two different perspectives. This difference stimulates the relationship and makes the opposite sex more intriguing. A member of the opposite sex is more likely to respond "unexpectedly" to a situation than a member of one's own sex.

The brain differences can potentially allow an opposite sex partner to provide a type of support that someone with the same type of brain cannot. However, some people may be psychologically unable to provide or accept support from others.

Having sex with a member of the opposite sex allows an individual to experience the physical sexuality of the opposite sex. Having sex with a member of one's own sex provides no such benefit.

To women, men are strength. To men, women are energy.

In many cultures a man will refer to his wife as his "better half". A woman may call her husband her "other half". A husband or a wife is half of a unit. Both together are a complete unit. http://originalwavelength.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-does-man-call-his-spouse-his-better.html

When a man calls his partner a wife he is indicating she is his female half. For a woman, a husband is her male half.

A woman who calls her partner a "wife" is implying the partner, rather than her, is the female part of the unit making her the "male". A woman who calls her partner a "wife" and expects her partner to have any children is acting like a man and is very likely a transsexual rather than a homosexual. She may call herself a lesbian because she fails to understand that she is attracted to other women because she has the brain of a man.

Some male homosexuals claim that they look at other men the same way men look at women. However, scientific research by Dr. Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicates that in their brains, homosexual men "look at" other men the way women look at men. This tendency could indicate that these homosexual men have female brains and are thus transsexuals. They call their partners "husbands" because subconsciously they think of themselves as women. http://www.naturalattraction.com/research/nytimes_2.html

A study by of lesbians by Dr. Savic indicates their brains responded to certain chemicals that might be pheromones in the same way as the brains of heterosexual men rather than in the way that heterosexual women's brains responded. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9125-clue-to-sexual-attraction-found-in-lesbian-brain.html

Homosexuals don't understand that the characteristics of the human body only determine how the body can engage in sexual activity. Human sexuality is determined by the sexual identity of the brain. A female brain is attracted to a male body. A male brain is attracted to a female body. A person attracted to someone with the same type of body most likely has a brain of the other sex.

A study of brain structure by Dr. Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström, of the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicates that homosexual men and heterosexual women have similar brains and that homosexual women and heterosexual men have similar brains.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

Heterosexuals desire a marriage relationship to gain a feeling of completeness by being part of a unit that contains a member of each sex. Homosexuals cannot become complete by having a relationship with a member of their own sex, even though they may think that calling a relationship a marriage gives them what heterosexuals have in a marriage. Homosexuals who want to call their relationship a "marriage" are implying they are dissatisfied with being homosexuals and want what they believe heterosexuals have by being married.

Homosexuals don't understand sex. They don't understand marriage. They don't understand their own medical condition.

Reply

Will Democrats forfeit the 2012 election like they did the 1980 election?

In 1980 President Jimmy Carter was in trouble with voters because of economic conditions and the capture of the American embassy in Iran by students. Democrats decided to renominate him in spite of efforts by Sen. Ted Kennedy and Gov. Jerry Brown to replace him as the Democratic presidential candidate. Gov. Ronald Reagan buried Carter in a landslide. Republicans also gained control of the Senate and picked up 34 House seats.

Democratic incumbent President Lyndon Johnson was in trouble in 1968 because of his handling of the Vietnam War. Johnson wisely decided to drop out of the race after a strong showing in the New Hampshire primary by Sen. Eugene McCarthy and the entry of Sen. Robert Kennedy into the race. Although the assassination of Kennedy robbed Democrats of their best candidate, they nearly won anyway in a close popular vote. They retained control of the House and Senate.

Obama may be an even weaker candidate than Carter was. Unemployment in the Carter administration was only 7.5% compared to over 9% under Obama. Many voters are very upset about Obama's health care program. As in 1968 there are widespread student protests about a national policy.

Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush were all voted out of office with unemployment around 7.5%. President Ronald Reagan is the only post Depression president to win reelection with unemployment over 6%, but Reagan had gotten unemployment down to 7.4% from 10%. If Obama is the Democratic candidate, the Republican candidate will likely suggest voters ask themselves Reagan's question in 1980: "are you better off than you were four years ago."

Republicans have already taken control of the House under Obama and will likely take over the Senate if GOP candidates can run against Obama. Replacing Obama as the presidential candidate would free Democrats challenging Republican incumbents in the House of the need to support Obama's policies. Democrats could suggest that voters needed to change the House of Representatives as well as the White House.

Democrats who think the Republican candidates have too many problems need to review the 1992 election. Their candidate in 1992, Gov. Bill Clinton, won in spite of questions about how he avoided military service and possible involvement in the White Water savings and loan scandal that eventually led to his impeachment.

Changes in filing deadlines mean those wanting to challenge Obama cannot wait as long to decide as Bobby Kennedy did in 1968. A few Democrats must decide quickly whether to challenge Obama or risk sitting by and watching Republicans choose the next president.

Reply

S & P’s Decision Appears Justified

Standard and Poor's decision to downgrade the U.S. debt rating appears justified because of the inadequacy of the U.S. response to the debt issue. Allowing the U.S. to keep the top rating would falsely indicate the U.S. is doing the best it can to correct its debt problem. American voters are choosing politicians who lack the ability or willingness to deal realistically with the U.S. debt problem.

I waited to write about Standard and Poor's decision to downgrade the U.S. debt rating because I wanted to think about it for awhile instead of taking a knee jerk reaction.

Dealing with a major crisis requires a strong experienced president. Unfortunately, Barack Obama is the weakest president since Gerald Ford. Obama's only apparent skill is an ability to read a teleprompter.

A smart president would have recognized he couldn't change the minds of House members and ended the debate early so he could prepare for a return match later.

Obama won the election because neither the voters nor the media understand the qualifications for an effective president. The President is the chief executive officer of the most powerful country in the world. Electing an president without executive experience makes no more sense then asking a high school quarterback to play quarterback in the Super Bowl.

Too many voters will support someone who promises to do "this, that and the other thing" even though the candidate has never demonstrated an ability to deliver on his promises. It's easy to make promises, but delivering on those promises can be difficult. Any quarterback can say he will win the Super Bowl, but very few are capable of doing so.

Unfortunately, many Republicans want to make the same mistake the Democrats did. These Republicans support Michele Bachmann who is just as inexperienced and unprepared for the presidency as Obama was.

The deficit debate was what we used to call the game of chicken. Two cars would approach each other in the same lane. The driver who veered off first was "chicken". Both sides seemed more interested in scoring political points than in conducting a serious discussion of the issue. They reminded me of the old beer commercials in which one side yelled "less filling" and the other side yelled "great taste".

One editorial cartoonist suggested the old Looney Tunes cartoon debate in which Daffy Duck says "Rabbit Season" and Bugs Bunny says "Duck Season". Bugs eventually gets Daffy to say "Duck Season", but Obama doesn't have Bugs Bunny's ability.

Too many members of Congress are either incapable of understanding the nature of the deficit crisis or don't care about dealing with the deficit in a realistic manner. Fixing the deficit will require an increase in revenue, preferably a tax on those with surplus income.

Cutting spending won't reduce the deficit as much as some expect because the federal government gets a kickback in the form of Social Security and income taxes from those it employs or from businesses government, and its employees, purchases from. Money given to welfare recipients goes to those they purchase goods and services from who in turn pay taxes.

If unemployment increases due to spending cuts, the next Congress may feel it needs to spend even more borrowed money to stimulate the economy.

Republicans and their supporters seem incapable of understanding the fact that it is not the amount of money someone has, but the financial status of the United States that is important. The financial health of the U.S. determines what its money is worth. For the rich, taxes are an investment in the financial health of the United States. Reducing the deficit would improve the financial health of the U.S. and make the money the rich have worth more.

There is a danger if the "rich" have too much money. Money can be addictive. As people obtain a certain amount of money they start wanting more and more. Like alcoholics they need more and more money to be satisfied.

When the "rich" obtain too much money a boom psychology can develop in which investors ignore the possibility of risk. They don't think they can lose money. They may think the stock market can only go up as many believed in the 20's.

The crisis of 2008 occurred because the rich had too much money and had bid stock prices up too high because too many expected everything to go up "forever". Many invested money in garbage like mortgage derivatives or gave it to crooks like Bernie Madoff who promised to make them even richer. If they had invested it in taxes, the country's financial health would be better today and many of them wouldn't have lost so much.

Talk about defaulting on debts incurred in the past raises concerns that the U.S. might default on newer debts. Those who started working 40 some years ago were told the Social Security taxes they were paying were for a pension program. They were loaning money to the federal government in return for a promise to provide them with retirement income. Congress may have handled Social Security funds like the program was a Ponzi scheme, but "investors" (Social Security taxpayers) were told they were investing in a pension plan.

Social Security and Medicare are debts, not entitlements. Benefits go to those who have paid in advance for them.

If the current Congress decides to default on the promise of Social Security payments to those who will be retiring in the next few years because the program was poorly administered by previous Congresses, how can those who purchase U.S. government securities today be sure that a future Congress won't decide to default on that debt because Congress in 2011 was not borrowing responsibly.

Reply

Obama’s Silly Conspiracy Theory

President Barack Obama suffers from the delusion that there must have been some massive conspiracy to hide Osama bin Laden from the U.S.

President Barack Obama apparently thinks that the fact that he needed an army of attorneys to keep his stupid birth certificate secret means that bin Laden must have had a large group helping him stay hidden. Or, maybe Obama doesn't believe that an Arab could be smart enough to hide from the U.S. without help, even an Arab smart enough to be responsible for the 9/11 attack. .

Obama should know better because the CIA has already said that the most any of the al Qaeda members they captured knew was that there was some mysterious courier who might have direct access to bin Laden. If bin Laden didn't trust members of his own organization with his hiding place, why would he trust Pakistani government agencies which he certainly was aware could have been infiltrated by agents working for the CIA or other intelligence agencies particularly Mossad (Israel) and MI6 (Britain) .

There is a claim that India's RAW and Mossad have combined efforts to infiltrate Pakistan government agencies. Even if a foreign agent didn't learn where he was hiding, someone in the government might have found the $25 million reward too tempting to pass up.

Any ability al Qaeda might have to obtain inside information from Pakistani agencies would not be the same as those agencies helping al Qaeda anymore than an ability to obtain inside information from American agencies would indicate those agencies were helping al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda likely has agents planted in governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as on some NATO bases in Afghanistan, much like the Viet Cong had agents planted in the South Vietnamese government and on American bases during the Vietnam War. If al Queda/Taliban can plant potential suicide bombers on American base they can plant spies. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong often had radios capable of eavesdropping on American radio traffic.

The Wikileaks situation demonstrates that the Obama administration has poor information security. The administration has alleged that an army PFC in Iraq was able to place documents on the web he should not have been able to access. The leaking of the fact that the U.S. was attempting to track bin Laden's cell phone in 2001 came from Americans rather than Pakistanis.

If Pakistani agencies were supposedly helping bin Laden stay hidden what were they doing while the SEALS were at his compound. Military or intelligence officials would have been aware of the possibility of Americans coming in by helicopter.

Why wasn't the compound surrounded by command detonated mines in case that happened? Why wasn't someone in a protected position with a weapon capable of disabling a helicopter? Why, in a military area well inside Pakistan, didn't his "protectors" call for a force to keep the Americans from leaving?

The ease with which the SEALS got in and out indicates that bin Laden had no support from individuals in the Pakistan government. If Pakistan's forces were involved their role was to allow the Americans to leave without interference while pretending to be unaware of what was happening.

Obama cannot understand the obvious fact that the best way to keep something secret is to limit the number of people who know the secret. If you had a $25 million buried treasure that you didn't want someone else to dig up, you wouldn't tell anyone you had any doubts about, particularly strangers in a government agency.

Many fiction writers recognize that keeping locations secret involves limiting who knows the location. On the old "Batman" tv series even Batgirl and the police commissioner didn't know the location of the bat cave. Limiting who knows a secret hideout reduces the chances of someone inadvertently revealing the location or revealing the location under torture. One way to get someone to reveal a hideout is to trick him into going to the hideout while he's being followed.

Bin Laden's choice of a hiding place was brilliant. The last place anyone would expect to find him would be in an area away from his supporters. Living in a mansion sized compound would create the impression that the occupant was wealthy, possibly with a fear of being robbed or kidnapped, or someone involved with drugs or smuggling.

The presence of cannabis plants in the area would be consistent with a drug dealer as the resident of the compound. The media have referred to the plants as marijuana, but they were more likely being grown for production of hashish which has been used in the Middle East for centuries. Marco Polo and others suggested it was used by members of the Medieval Order of Assassins from which al Qaeda is descended.

Osama bin Laden probably wasn't familiar with American masked avengers but his choice of accommodations is similar to Batman and Zorro. When Batman wasn't running around catching criminals he was the liberal wealthy philanthropist Bruce Wayne. When Zorro wasn't riding around carving a "Z" with his sword he was wealthy foppish Don Diego de la Vega.

Reply

1 2 3 4