Barry's ObamaNation

 preface:

Dr. Hunt is a social and cultural anthropologist.  He has had nearly 30 years experience in planning, conducting, and managing research in the field of youth studies, and drug and alcohol research.  Currently Dr. Hunt is a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute for Scientific Analysis and the Principal Investigator on three National Institutes on Health projects.  He is also a writer for American Thinker.

An article from American Thinker by Geoffrey P. Hunt

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.  In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ.  Failed presidents have one strong common trait--they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out.  Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party.  Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China .

But, Barack Obama is failing.  Failing big.  Failing fast.  And failing everywhere:  foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people.  The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it:  He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them.  Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed.  Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong:  How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months?  His poll ratings are in free fall.  In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage.  This truly is unbelievable.  What's going on?

No narrative.  Obama doesn't have a narrative.  No, not a narrative about himself.  He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else.  But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us.  He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us.  All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans.  We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are.  Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own:  Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.

But not this president.  It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task--all contributory of course.  It's that he's not one of us.  And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper.  Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense.  His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up.  They are not existential.  His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job.  Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012:  "For those of you I offended, I apologize.  For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive.  An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year.  With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them.  The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

...

SPIEGEL ONLINE

01/21/2010 01:30 PM

The World from Berlin

The World Bids Farewell to Obama

US President Barack Obama suffered a painful defeat in Massachusetts on Tuesday. With mid-term elections looming, it means that Obama will have to fundamentally re-think his political course. German commentators say it is the end of hope.

US President Barack Obama has had a number of difficult weeks during his first year in the White House. Right after he took office, he had to wade through a week full of partisan bickering over his economic stimulus package combined with a tax scandal surrounding Tom Daschle, the man Obama had hoped would lead his health care reform team.

Then there was the last week of 2009, when a failed terror attack on a flight inbound for Detroit exposed major flaws in US efforts to identify and stop potential terrorists.

This week, though -- a week when Obama should have been celebrating the first anniversary of his inauguration --may have been the president's worst yet. Scott Brown, an almost unknown Republican member of the Massachusetts Senate, defeated the Democratic candidate Martha Coakley for the US Senate seat vacated by the death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy. The defeat in a heavily Democratic state not only highlights Obama's massive loss of popular support during his first year in office, but it also could spell doom for his signature effort to reform the US health care system.

There were immediate calls for a suspension of health care votes in the Senate until Brown is sworn in. The loss of the Massachusetts seat means that the Democrats no longer control the 60 Senate seats necessary to avoid a filibuster. Obama's reform package, which aims to provide health insurance to most of the over 40 million Americans currently lacking coverage, may ultimately fail as a result.

More than that, though, the vote shows just how quickly the political pendulum has swung back to the right following Obama's election. The seat Brown won had been in Democratic hands for all but six years since 1926. Now, its new occupant is a man who not only opposes the health care bill, but also favors waterboarding as a method of interrogation for terrorism suspects and rejects carbon cap-and-trade as a means of limiting carbon emissions.

The omen could be a dark one for the Obama administration heading into a mid-term election year.

German commentators take a closer look.

Center-left daily SüddeutscheZeitung writes on Thursday:

"Obama made a serious misjudgement. Right at the beginning of his first year in office, he saved the banks, rescued the automobile industry from collapse and passed a huge economic stimulus package. He had hoped that these enormous deeds would give him the space to address those issues which are dearest to him: health care reform, climate change and investment in education."

"Those issues, however, are clearly not priorities for people in the US at the moment. Scott Brown campaigned on two promises, both of which apparently struck a nerve with the electorate. He wants to block health care reform and he wants to find ways to reduce the enormous budget deficit.

It is here where the roots of dissatisfaction with Obama are to be found. His reform agenda, in its current form, is highly suspect to Americans. And they have the impression that, if he continues piling up debt, he will be gambling away the country's future."

The Financial Times Deutschlandwrites:

"For Obama, the election in Massachusetts means that he will have to re-evaluate his political style. He could now focus his concentration on his political base and push through his policy agenda. After all, he still has a majority in Congress -- he could backaway from his strategy of bipartisanship ... which would mean giving up much of what he spent his first year in office creating."

"More likely, however, is that Obama will interpret the Massachusetts loss as a signal that he should move further toward the middle and make more concessions to the conservatives --even if this alienates his base even further, a base which had high expectations from the 'yes we can' candidate."

"For everyone else in the world, this means that they will have to bid farewell to a candidate for whom the hopes were so high. They will have to say goodbye to the charisma they fell in love with. Obama will be staying home after all."

The left-leaning daily DieTageszeitung writes:

"In addition to health care reform, Obama's reputation has primarily been harmed by the high unemployment rate and the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan. It will become even more difficult in the future for the president to push projects through successfully. Not just because Republicans now have a means of preventing it,but also because the Democratic camp is deeply divided. Some would like to see the party shift toward the center -- wherever that may be -- whereas others want the party to position itself to the left. Such a battle is hardly a good sign for the mid-term elections in November. Massachusetts could prove to be an omen."

The center-right Frankfurter AllgemeineZeitung writes:

"Of course the president rejects the interpretation that the Massachusetts election was a referendum on his first year in the White House. But he cannot ignore the fact that his health care reform package is not popular, the situation of the country's finances is seen as threatening and many voters blame the high unemployment rate on the party in power -- on the Democrats, led by Obama. The result is a second year in office full of very different challenges than the first. To save what there is to be saved, Obama will have to be prepared to fashion a bipartisan compromise on health care -- a compromise with a Republican Party which has tasted blood and can now dream once again about a return to power."

-- Charles Hawley

...

Contact Information:

Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC

JudicialWatch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2009 list of Washington's"Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians."

The list, in alphabetical order,includes:

1-   Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 "Ten Most Corrupt" list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch's complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms. However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee.

2-   Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year's worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign. Ensign admitted in June to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special favors from the Nevada Republican in exchange for his silence. According to The New York Times: "The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide…" The former staffer, Douglas Hampton, began to lobby Mr. Ensign's office immediately upon leaving his congressional job, despite the fact that he was subject to a one-year lobbying ban. Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair. (These are potentially criminal offenses.) It looks as if Ensign misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to cover up his sexual shenanigans.

 3-    Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Judicial Watch is investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use." Rep. Frank admitted he spoke to a "federal regulator," and Treasury granted the funds. (The bank continues to flounder despite Frank's intervention for federal dollars.) Moreover, Judicial Watch uncovered documents in 2009 that showed that members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even as liberals led by Rep. Frank continued to block attempts to rein in the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: "I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury." Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008. Frank also engaged in a relationship with a Fannie Mae Executive while serving on the House Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 4-  Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner: In 2009, Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that he failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes from 2001-2004 on his lucrative salary at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization with 185 member countries that oversees the global financial system. (Did we mention Geithner now runs the IRS?) It wasn't until President Obama tapped Geithner to head the Treasury Department that he paid back most of the money, although the IRS kindly waived the hefty penalties. In March 2009, Geithner also came under fire for his handling of the AIG bonus scandal, where the company used $165 million of its bailout funds to pay out executive bonuses, resulting in a massive public backlash. Of course as head of the New York Federal Reserve, Geithner helped craft the AIG deal in September 2008. However, when the AIG scandal broke, Geithner claimed he knew nothing of the bonuses until March 10, 2009. The timing is important. According to CNN: "Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG's impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28. That is ten days before Treasury staffers say they first learned 'full details' of the bonus plan, and three days before the [Obama] Administration launched a new $30 billion infusion of cash for AIG." Throw in another embarrassing disclosure in 2009 that Geithner employed "household help" ineligible to work in the United States, and it becomes clear why the Treasury Secretary has earned a spot on the "Ten Most Corrupt Politicians in Washington" list.

 5-   Attorney General Eric Holder: Tim Geithner can be sure he won't be hounded about his tax-dodging by his colleague Eric Holder, US Attorney General. Judicial Watch strongly opposed Holder because of his terrible ethics record, which includes: obstructing an FBI investigation of the theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory; rejecting multiple requests for an independent counsel to investigate alleged fundraising abuses by then-Vice President Al Gore in the Clinton White House; undermining the criminal investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr in the midst of the Lewinsky investigation; and planning the violent raid to seize then-six-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint in order to return him to Castro's Cuba. Moreover, there is his soft record on terrorism. Holder bypassed Justice Department procedures to push through Bill Clinton's scandalous presidential pardons and commutations, including for 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that orchestrated approximately 120 bombings in the United States, killing at least six people and permanently maiming dozens of others, including law enforcement officers. His record in the current administration is no better. As he did during the Clinton administration, Holder continues to ignore serious incidents of corruption that could impact his political bosses at the White House. For example, Holder has refused to investigate charges that the Obama political machine traded VIP access to the White House in exchange for campaign contributions – a scheme eerily similar to one hatched by Holder's former boss, Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The Holder Justice Department also came under fire for dropping a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. On Election Day 2008, Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary garb threatened voters as they approached polling stations. Holder has also failed to initiate a comprehensive Justice investigation of the notorious organization ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), which is closely tied to President Obama. There were allegedly more than 400,000 fraudulent ACORN voter registrations in the 2008 campaign. And then there were the journalist videos catching ACORN Housing workers advising undercover reporters on how to evade tax, immigration, and child prostitution laws. Holder's controversial decisions on new rights for terrorists and his attacks on previous efforts to combat terrorism remind many of the fact that his former law firm has provided and continues to provide pro bono representation to terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Holder's politicization of the Justice Department makes one long for the days of Alberto Gonzales.

6-   Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL): One of the most serious scandals of 2009 involved a scheme by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to sell President Obama's then-vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. Two men caught smack dab in the middle of the scandal: Senator Roland Burris, who ultimately got the job, and Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, emissaries for Jesse Jackson Jr., named "Senate Candidate A" in the Blagojevich indictment, reportedly offered $1.5 million to Blagojevich during a fundraiser if he named Jackson Jr. to Obama's seat. Three days later federal authorities arrested Blagojevich. Burris, for his part, apparently lied about his contacts with Blagojevich, who was arrested in December 2008 for trying to sell Obama's Senate seat. According to Reuters: "Roland Burris came under fresh scrutiny…after disclosing he tried to raise money for the disgraced former Illinois governor who named him to the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama…In the latest of those admissions, Burris said he looked into mounting a fundraiser for Rod Blagojevich -- later charged with trying to sell Obama's Senate seat -- at the same time he was expressing interest to the then-governor's aides about his desire to be appointed." Burris changed his story five times regarding his contacts with Blagojevich prior to the Illinois governor appointing him to the U.S. Senate. Three of those changing explanations came under oath.

7-    President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. Consider just a few Obama administration "lowlights" from year one: Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's scheme to sell the President's former Senate seat to the highest bidder. (Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and slumlord Valerie Jarrett, both from Chicago, are also tangled up in the Blagojevich scandal.) Moreover, the Obama administration made the startling claim that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House. The Obama White House believes it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability. President Obama boldly proclaimed that "transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," but his administration is addicted to secrecy, stonewalling far too many of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act requests and is refusing to make public White House visitor logs as federal law requires. The Obama administration turned the National Endowment of the Arts (as well as the agency that runs the AmeriCorps program) into propaganda machines, using tax dollars to persuade "artists" to promote the Obama agenda. According to documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the idea emerged as a direct result of the Obama campaign and enjoyed White House approval and participation. President Obama has installed a record number of "czars" in positions of power. Too many of these individuals are leftist radicals who answer to no one but the president. And too many of the czars are not subject to Senate confirmation (which raises serious constitutional questions). Under the President's bailout schemes, the federal government continues to appropriate or control -- through fiat and threats -- large sectors of the private economy, prompting conservative columnist George Will to write: "The administration's central activity -- the political allocation of wealth and opportunity -- is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption." Government-run healthcare and car companies, White House coercion, uninvestigated ACORN corruption, debasing his office to help Chicago cronies, attacks on conservative media and the private sector, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors – this is Obama's "ethics" record -- and we haven't even gotten through the first year of his presidency.

 8-   Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): At the heart of the corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement. Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline. These documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, include internal Pentagon email correspondence detailing attempts by Pentagon staff to accommodate Pelosi's numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker's 11th hour cancellations and changes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also came under fire in April 2009, when she claimed she was never briefed about the CIA's use of the waterboarding technique during terrorism investigations. The CIA produced a report documenting a briefing with Pelosi on September 4, 2002, that suggests otherwise. Judicial Watch also obtained documents, including a CIA Inspector General report, which further confirmed that Congress was fully briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques. Aside from her own personal transgressions, Nancy Pelosi has ignored serious incidents of corruption within her own party, including many of the individuals on this list. (See Rangel, Murtha, Jesse Jackson, Jr., etc.)

 9-   Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven: Rep. John Murtha made headlines in 2009 for all the wrong reasons. The Pennsylvania congressman is under federal investigation for his corrupt relationship with the now-defunct defense lobbyist PMA Group. PMA, founded by a former Murtha associate, has been the congressman's largest campaign contributor. Since 2002, Murtha has raised $1.7 million from PMA and its clients. And what did PMA and its clients receive from Murtha in return for their generosity? Earmarks -- tens of millions of dollars in earmarks. In fact, even with all of the attention surrounding his alleged influence peddling, Murtha kept at it. Following an FBI raid of PMA's offices earlier in 2009, Murtha continued to seek congressional earmarks for PMA clients, while also hitting them up for campaign contributions. According to The Hill, in April, "Murtha reported receiving contributions from three former PMA clients for whom he requested earmarks in the pending appropriations bills." When it comes to the PMA scandal, Murtha is not alone. As many as six other Members of Congress are currently under scrutiny according to The Washington Post. They include: Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-VA), Norm Dicks (D-WA.), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-KS.). Of course rather than investigate this serious scandal, according to Roll Call House Democrats circled the wagons, "cobbling together a defense to offer political cover to their rank and file." The Washington Post also reported in 2009 that Murtha's nephew received $4 million in Defense Department no-bid contracts: "Newly obtained documents…show Robert Murtha mentioning his influential family connection as leverage in his business dealings and holding unusual power with the military."

10-  Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man in charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to adequately explain how he could possibly "forget" to pay taxeson $75,000 in rental income he earned from his off-shore rentalproperty. He also faces allegations that he improperly used hisinfluence to maintain ownership of highly coveted rent-controlledapartments in Harlem, and misused his congressional office to fundraisefor his private Rangel Center by preserving a tax loophole for an oildrilling company in exchange for funding. On top of all that, Rangelrecently amended his financial disclosure reports, which doubled hisreported wealth. (He somehow "forgot" about $1 million in assets.) Andwhat did he do when the House Ethics Committee started looking into allof this? He apparently resorted to making "campaign contributions" todig his way out of trouble. According to WCBS TV,a New York CBS affiliate: "The reigning member of Congress' top taxcommittee is apparently 'wrangling' other politicos to get him out ofhis own financial and tax troubles...Since ethics probes began lastyear the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the HouseEthics Committee who are charged with investigating him." CharlieRangel should not be allowed to remain in Congress, let alone serve asChairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and he knowsit. That's why he felt the need to disburse campaign contributions toEthics Committee members and other congressional colleagues.

...

latimes.com

Small-business bankruptcies rise 81% in California

With credit tight and consumers still pinching their pennies, many business owners find they can't go on.

By Nathan Olivarez-Giles

December 22, 2009

The Obama administration's new plan to give a boost to small businesses reflects continued trouble in that sector, which is facing new failures even as much of the nation's economy is stabilizing.

As credit lines have shrunk and consumers have cut back on spending, thousands of small businesses have closed their doors over the last year. The plight of struggling firms has been aggravated by the reluctance of banks to lend money, said Brian Headd, an economist at the Small Business Administration's office of advocacy.

"While bankruptcies are up, overall, small-business closures are up even more," Headd said.

California has been particularly hard hit. The latest data show small-business bankruptcies up 81% in the state for the 12 months ended Sept. 30, compared with the previous year.

Filings nationwide were up 44%, according to the credit analysis firm Equifax Inc.

The actual number of small businesses in trouble is probably higher, experts said, because many owners file for personal bankruptcy rather than seek protection for the business.

Dennis McGoldrick, a bankruptcy lawyer in Torrance, said his clients are all stuck in similar situations -- capital is hard to come by, customers are tough to attract and debt is piling up.

"We can't keep up," McGoldrick said. "There's more people that want to come in every day than I can see."

Cecily McAlpine, who filed for bankruptcy protection for her Cold Stone Creamery franchise this spring, said the experience was humiliating but she had no choice.

Receipts at the fledgling Compton ice cream shop plunged dramatically during the recession, and by late 2008 she was paying her employees out of her pocket.

"When the refrigerator died, that was it; I'd just had it," McAlpine said. "That was the day I broke. I just started throwing stuff away."

McAlpine recently withdrew her bankruptcy filing after selling all the store equipment and paying off her creditors. She is slowly paying off some back-rent and utility debt, and will officially dissolve her business in the next couple of weeks, she said.

"I still feel scarred and like a loser," she said. "Even though I'm not in it anymore, it's still there."

Recognizing the problems of business owners like McAlpine, the Obama administration has proposed using federal stimulus money to help funnel more loans to small businesses.

The White House has also asked Congress to eliminate capital gains taxes for one year on new investments in small-business stock, and called for a new tax incentive to encourage small businesses to hire more employees.

On Dec. 14, Obama called a meeting of executives of Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and nine other large banks, and told them that they owed it to the nation to make more loans to small businesses and help rebuild the economy.

In California, the need is great.

Over the last year, the Los Angeles, Riverside/San Bernardino and Sacramento metropolitan areas have led the nation in small-business bankruptcy filings, said Tim Klein, a spokesman for Equifax.

About 19,000 small businesses filed for bankruptcy in California during the 12 months ended Sept. 2009, up from 10,500 the previous year.

During September alone, 2,229 small businesses filed for protection, up from 1,503 filings in September 2008, the firm reported.

Kathleen March, a bankruptcy lawyer in Los Angeles, said she often pushes her clients to file for personal bankruptcy instead of a business filing because it's easier.

Many people also close down their businesses thinking that will solve their problems, only to find their companies' debt lives on, March said.

"The norm is if you're running a small business, you will have to either cosign or personally guarantee the significant debts," she said. "The business itself can shut down, but the people cosigned all the debts. So, the individuals are then saddled with these huge debts."

A client who owned a surf shop was paying for business expenses from the client's own funds long before filing for personal bankruptcy, she said.

"In this economy, anything that isn't a necessity is a tough business to be in," March said. "And the majority of my clients have waited too long to file for bankruptcy and in the process made things worse on themselves financially as a result."

nathan.olivarezgiles

@latimes.com

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

...

As a nation, we are so totally screwed up:

Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a politician, believes that a person does not become human until years after birth.

Senator Barbra Boxer, another politician, equates the killing of an unborn child, to a man’s right to buy Viagra.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, another politician, believes it is morally right to force people, regardless of their own moral beliefs, to pay for abortions.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, another politician, agrees with Ms Feinstein.

By making these statements, they are showing two things:

First, they have no idea what qualifies as moral behavior,or Who set the standard for moral behavior.

Second, they are trying to dissuade fence sitters into believing that politicians are not only the best qualified to spend our money, but are also stalwart examples of righteousness, and thereby uniquely qualified to tell us what is moral, and what isn’t.

All references from CNSnews.com

 ...

When I wrote this rant, part of me thought that the idea of our soldiers being charged for inflicting harm on opposing combatants was completely absurd.

But here it is.

Three Navy Seals are facing Court Marshall for allegedly hurting Ahmed Hashim Abed.

Mr. Abed, who has been given the code name 'Objective Amber', was one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq.

He is the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Backwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004.

He is saying one of our guys hit him in the mouth and made his lip bleed.

Here is the story

...

11/23/2009 01:34 PM

US Foreign Policy

By Gabor Steingart

When he entered office, US President Barack Obama promised to inject US foreign policy with a new tone of respect and diplomacy. His recent trip to Asia, however, showed that it's not working. A shift to Bush-style bluntness may be coming.

There were only a few hours left before Air Force One was scheduled to depart for the flight home. US President Barack Obama trip through Asia had already seen him travel 24,000 kilometers, sit through a dozen state banquets, climb the Great Wall of China and shake hands with Korean children. It was high time to take stock of the trip.

Barack Obama looked tired on Thursday, as he stood in the Blue House in Seoul, the official residence of the South Korean president. He also seemed irritable and even slightly forlorn.

The CNN cameras had already been set up. But then Obama decided not to play along, and not to answer the question he had already been asked several times on his trip: what did he plan to take home with him? Instead, he simply said "thank you, guys," and disappeared.

David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, fielded the journalists' questions in the hallway of the Blue House instead, telling them that the public's expectations had been "too high."

The mood in Obama's foreign policy team is tense following an extended Asia trip that produced no palpable results. The "first Pacific president," as Obama called himself, came as a friend and returned as a stranger. The Asians smiled but made no concessions.

Lost Some Stature

Upon taking office, Obama said that he wanted to listen to the world, promising respect instead of arrogance. But Obama's currency isn't as strong as he had believed. Everyone wants respect, but hardly anyone is willing to pay for it. Interests, not emotions, dominate the world of realpolitik.

The Asia trip revealed the limits of Washington's new foreign policy: Although Obama did not lose face in China and Japan, he did appear to have lost some of his initial stature.

In Tokyo, the new center-left government even pulled out of its participation in a mission which saw the Japanese navy refueling US warships in the Indian Ocean as part of the Afghanistan campaign.

In Beijing, Obama failed to achieve any important concessions whatsoever.

There will be no binding commitments from China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A revaluation of the Chinese currency, which is kept artificially weak, has been postponed. Sanctions against Iran?

Not a chance.

Nuclear disarmament?

Not an issue for the Chinese.

The White House did not even stand up for itself when it came to the question of human rights in China.

The president, who had said only a few days earlier that freedom of expression is a universal right, was coerced into attending a joint press conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao, at which questions were forbidden.

Former US President George W. Bush had always managed to avoid such press conferences.

Relatively Unsuccessful

A look back in time reveals the differences. When former President Bill Clinton went to China in June 1998, Beijing wanted to impress the Americans.

A press conference in the Great Hall of the People, broadcast on television as a 70-minute live discussion, became a sensation the world over.

Clinton mentioned the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, when the government used tanks against protestors. But then President Jiang Zemin defended the tough approach taken by the Chinese Communists.

At the end of the exchange, the Chinese president praised the debate and said: "I believe this is democracy!"

Obama visited a new China, an economic power that is now making its own demands. America should clean up its government finances, and the weak dollar is unacceptable, the head of the Chinese banking authority said, just as Obama's plane was about to land.

Obama's new foreign policy has also been relatively unsuccessful elsewhere, with even friends like Israel leaving him high and dry.

For the government of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, peace is only conceivable under its terms. Netanyahu has rejected Obama's call for a complete moratorium on the construction of settlements.

As a result, Obama has nothing to offer the Palestinians and the Syrians. "We thought we had some leverage," says Martin Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel under the Clinton administration and now an advisor to Obama. "But that proved to be an illusion."

Even the president seems to have lost his faith in a genial foreign policy. The approach that was being used in Afghanistan this spring, with its strong emphasis on civilian reconstruction, is already being changed. "We're searching for an exit strategy," said a staff member with the National Security Council on the sidelines of the Asia trip.

'A Lot Like Jimmy Carter'

An end to diplomacy is also taking shape in Washington's policy toward Tehran.

It is now up to Iran, Obama said, to convince the world that its nuclear power is peaceful. While in Asia, Obama mentioned "consequences" unless it followed his advice.

This puts the president, in his tenth month in office, where Bush began -- with threats. "Time is running out," Obama said in Korea. It was the same phrase Bush used against former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, shortly before he sent in the bombers.

There are many indications that the man in charge at the White House will take a tougher stance in the future. Obama's advisors fear a comparison with former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, even more than with Bush.

Prominent Republicans have already tried to liken Obama to the humanitarian from Georgia, who lost in his bid to win a second term, because voters felt that he was too soft. "Carter tried weakness and the world got tougher and tougher because the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators, when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead,"

Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker in the House of Representatives, recently said. And then he added: "This does look a lot like Jimmy Carter."

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

URL:

    * http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662822,00.html

 ...

Just a thought:

Isn’t it a coincidence that as we are hearing about how this health care bill is suppose to lower costs but in actuality will only lower the quality of service and halt currently routine procedures for older persons, that we are beginning to read that government agencies are now saying breast exams and exams for cervical cancer can be put off until later in life?

Here is the Story

PDF Backup

...

NO. This is not bunk to mislead. This is fact. Not a partisan scare tactic.

Another moment that makes one wonder what they are thinking in Washington.

According to the government agency that is suppose to crunch the numbers and do the math for government programs, the Congressional Budget Office, the Health Bill as submitted by the Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid, will cost $194,000,000,000.00 (194 billion) per year.

Now if you think that this is all well and good, hope that you are not one of the 24 million that still will not be covered by the bill.

Here is the full story

Here is a PDF backup

Reid-Senate Health Care Bill PDF
...

When asked about the conflict, Obama refered the reporter to this site

Our guests from Gitmo are going to be tried in New York.

The people of New York will again have to be exposed to Islamic Extremists.

Fear and paranoia will grip some New Yorkers. Some feel that by bringing these guys in will bring added threats from those who sympathize with them.
 

And for what?

Aren’t trials for people who have been charged with crimes?

If fighting against the U.S. is a crime that terrorists have to go to court over, then how much longer will it be, before this wacko politically correct attitude mandates that our boys also be charged for attempting to do them harm as well?

These guys are people who have either conspired, or have actively attempted to kill Americans in battle situations.

These guys are people who want harm done to the U.S.

If one were to follow the logic of trying the Gitmo guys for trying to hurt us then why is it ok to fire back on them? Isn’t that wrong?  In a Civil Court of law, what applies to one party, applies to the other.

Aren’t the soldiers being fired on, taking justice into their own hands by firing back? I mean after all, according to the Civil Justice System that the Gitmo terrorists will be held to, isn’t a person considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?  And if they are innocent, then what right do our guys have to fire back?

Why can’t the Gitmo guys say that two different rules of law are being used?  One used by our guys that say it is ok to shoot someone who is trying to shoot you (Rules of Engagement), but another law for those who try to kill our guys? (Right to face your Accuser)

By firing back aren’t they becoming Judge and Jury, thereby possibly doing harm to the other guy? Aren’t they denying due process to the other guys and denying them of their rights as accused terrorist?

 Keeping in mind that the whole idea of trying a combatant in a civil court is insane, why would it not be fair for each and every terrorist that has ever been harmed by an American Soldier have to right to sue the United States for bodily harm and emotional distress?

Why are people of Iraq not able to sue for losses of income,destruction of property, destruction of their environment, denial of their Human Rights?

Why can’t terrorists sue for the loss of their right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression, not to mention the loss of their right to make a living?

Why?  Because war is not fair.

It never has been.
To inject such an idea as fairness in a battle situation is insane. 
War is kill or be killed. Simple, harsh, and final.
Military justice is the only applicable justice due to combatants.

If they want to go to civil court, then let them refuse to pay for health insurance.

These will be politically correct issues that will be addressed during the trial and that will strangle our justice system.

If and when this comes up in a Civil Court, the line that will have to be drawn drawn between the Militarys’ view of Justice and the Civil Courts’ idea of justice will be the point of fracture that will cause either a mistrial or an acquittal.

By the way, there are two groups of people that have strong feelings on this whole idea of giving civil rights to enemy combatants.

One group is our guys fighting over there. How do you think they feel about the guys that tried to kill them having a chance to go free?

The other group, are the guys trying to destroy us. They are laughing at how we are willing to risk our soldiers, our families, and our nation over the fear of not being politically correct.

We have become weak and we are ripe for the picking.

...

Speaker Pelosi's Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium

Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on November 5th, 2009

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it.

Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi's 2,032-page government takeover of health care does just that.  On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under 'Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed' the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. 

The Speaker's plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan.  It's right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under 'Insurance Rating Rules.'  The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

Section 213 describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan.  The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.

A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage.

Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees' health benefits plan.

Speaker Pelosi's 2,032-page health care monstrosity is an affront to the American people and drastically moves away from current policy.  The American people deserve more from their government than being forced to pay for abortion.

House Republicans are offering a common-sense, responsible solution that would reduce health care costs and expand access while protecting the dignity of all human life. The Republican plan, available at HealthCare.GOP.gov, would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. And under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage may not receive federal funds.

Entire Pelosi Health Plan PDF

Back up PDF of this Story

 
...

OK. If you want to know how any Government Health Care program will work, just look around at how other government programs are working.
 

Keep in mind, that civil servants or government employees do not have the sting of possible termination or accountability hanging over their heads to help assure they do their job properly.

As a result, the end effect of any government program is inefficiency and unaccountability.
  

They are not, and cannot be held accountable for any errors they make because they work for the government.

Their incompetence and inability to do the job they were hired for is not viewed as a defect or fault, but rather a personality trait that must be tolerated.

 It is nothing more than a quirk in their personality that the people that pay their salary and ‘serve’ must put up with.
 
The indifference they display toward those they ‘serve’ is only matched by their complete lack of personal responsibility they have for any of their actions.

They always want to pass the blame to some other person or department.

What got me going was a story about school nurses who gave flu shots to students who were not suppose to get them. 
Not only did one nurse administer the shot, but the first thing he/she did was to try and get out of it, rather than caring for the student:    

After the mistake was discovered, officials summoned Troy to the school, she said.

Troy said the nurse - a Department of Health employee - tried to get her to sign a consent form, after the fact.

"I was insulted. I was really angry. 'You just incriminated yourself even more,'" Troy recalled thinking.

"If they'd taken proper precautions in the school this never would have happened."

 Officials for the nurses union declined to comment. The Health Department said the incidents were under investigation.

Why is it no one ever publishes a result of ‘investigations’?

So, go ahead. Get a hold of your rep and let him know that we need more government involvement in our lives. That we need this Heath Care Bill passed.
That we need more irresponsible non-caring, completely inept people on the government payrolls who couldn’t hold down jobs in the private sector due to competition that dictates they take responsibility for their own abilities, or lack of them.

Here is the original story.

...

Yes, end of life 'Counseling' as well as ‘pay up or go to jail’ are still in it.

Click here for PDF of entire bill

I have to give the White House Press Pool credit.

Even though most of them need tissues to clean their nose's after a meeting with the administration, they have come together to defy Barry's latest attempt at divide and conquer.

In an uncharacteristically cooperative move, the press pool let Barry know that he has gone too far in proclaiming Fox News was not invited to the news conference.

Barry's Communications Director, Anita Dunn has proclaimed, that Fox News is their enemy, and is attacking them, and has every right to isolate Fox in order that the White House and the Obama Administration can see to it that only friendly, like minded news services are allowed to participate in their news conferences.

Obama it seems is under the impression that the news services, and the people of America for that matter, are subject to his whims.

That those of opposing views, like the Republicans, should be quiet, and do as they are told. That he is the Alpha Dog, and that what he says and wants is of more importance, and a more valid vision of what is best for America. 

When a country has a leader, that sees it as Obama does, then that country has big problems.

There have been many comparisons of Obama to Adolf Hitler.

And though it is true, it is a rather shocking, and currently an incomplete comparison, one thing cannot be denied:

Obamas policies, and plans for Americas direction, and how he wants to get there, have strong similarities to Hitlers plan for Germany when he first started out.They both have the same smell to them.

Forget about how the world ended up, and how many people Hitler ended up killing and hurting. Just think about how he started. Slowly. Gradually. With the consent of the German people.

He ran on a platform of change and hope. Germany was in dire straits, and was looking for a new and better beginning.

Just as Obama, he started mandatory community service programs that established an outlet for his propaganda to the youth of Germany.

The kids were assigned sent to camps to be indoctrinated into the philosophy of the Nazi movement. Even though mandatory participation is not yet in effect, who is to say, even as then, that it will not someday be?

The Nazi's even had their own logo. Just as Obama has.

Currently, the Obama administration is building internment camps here in America. Re-training centers if you will. And just as we are going along with it now, so did they then.

Just as Obama now, Hitler preached of the evils of capitalism and proclaimed the virtues of a communal system of sharing the wealth.

What harm could it do, to be a more civically minded populous?

To be unified in a cause of rebuilding your country.

Just as Obama, Hitler sought to control, or remove those who disagreed with him and his views.

He, just as Obamas' Communications Director Anita Dunn, has proclaimed of Obama, has enemies in the press, and is seeking ways to isolate, and silence them.

Nationalizing privately owned companies, and dictating who gets paid what, was and is, another ploy in an attempt to gradually and subtlety gain more and more control of the people under the guise of being what is best, and what is right, and what is politically correct thinking.

Those on the left, dismiss ramblings as this, as unfounded, invalidated conservative rhetoric.

The left, is willing to focus only on what they want, voted for, and have set their minds and hearts on, perfectly willing to give Obama the benefit of all doubts simply because they, as human nature dictates, are not willing to admit, that maybe, they have made a mistake.

Maybe they have placed their trust, in someone who is not as they seems. Or, at least, not as billed.

The people of 1930'3 and 40's Germany had the same patriotic fervor as the Obamaites do today.

They were not willing to listen, to hear what opponents were saying. They dismissed opponents as uncooperative misfits that needed to be silenced.

People do not learn from history.

People continually think that those who came before were somehow less enlightened, less intelligent, and less discerning than we are today.

We can't be fooled. We are too intelligent for that. We have developed well beyond someone's abilities to control us.

To make us believe, and to assure us that what we are thinking, and what we believe, are indeed, our own uninfluenced thoughts.

As you can guess, this sort of blatant attempt at control of the press by the Executive Branch of Government has not gone over too well with members of either party, and, is not likely to leave a pleasant taste in the mouths of those who have willingly partook of Barry's agendas.

Here is a more illiterate, and complete story about the reactions by both parties to Obama's latest power grab.

here is a PDF backup copy

...

(Back up video)

...

Obama said today that people should start volunteering their service to America.

That the government can't do it all.

Well, if you use his accomplishments in office as a gauge of what it means to do what is right for America, then what he is really saying is to sit down and do nothing. 

Don't bother with doing what is right for America, just do what is right for you.

If one were to look at his record of failures and  alienations he has fostered, then the only patriotic conclusion one can come to is that he is not good for this country.

Obama is in no position to proclaim what is good for America.
He is a failure.
Failures have no credibility.
He needs to sit down and shut up.

If he was truly interested in the best interest of America, he would step down, fork over his ever present race cards, walk away and never be heard of again.

But, then again, some people think he is doing a great job. (I mean besides the radical Muslims, his socialistic friends he has hired, and those fellow leftist who can't stomach a right wing 'porch sitter' as proclaimed by left wing wacko Warren Ballantine, toward Juan Williams.)

Obama is a bad joke, a token positional payment for atrocities toward our black ancestors, a onetime experiment that has failed, and must be removed from office ASAP.

Or, don't you think America is worth fighting for?

...