The State of the Union? At least we are out of Iraq (sorta)

I got one paragraph into the State of the Union address before I literally laughed out loud and looked to the DVR and found Mondays episode of "The Bachelor". I figured if I'm going to watch some superficial, shallow empty suit lie to me about something; I prefer it be about how much in awe he is over some 20-year old bimbo's  on national TV looking for true love rather than the (sorry) state of our beloved nation. 

The President was at it again, trying to appeal to every segment of the population without offending none all the while detailing ideas that basically amounted to nothing more than, well... nothing. But for our commander in Chief to lead off with Iraq, sums up his tenure at President. Uninspiring.

For a President who promised and represented so much, especially in the name of transparency; his failures have been catastrophic. Iraq is no exception. This is what Mr Obama said from the very top.

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought – and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq.

It made me remember an article I read a month ago at Salon.com. Its surprising the President didnt mention the private contractors still stationed over there, all 3,000 - 5,000 of them. Names like Triple Canopy, Global, SOC Inc and Academi (formerly known as Blackwater) are private American security contractors that do not have to be held to the US Military rules of engagement, yet there they still remain just as the giant embassy and its 15,000 people to run it. How about those "fellow citizens"? But hey, we are out of there... I guess.

Death, Mittens' and Taxes... What doesnt fit?

You have to admire Mittens'. He’s the Charlie Brown of this election and more so than any other election to my recollection. Here is a guy teetering on the edge (of what feels like has been years) of being anointed the Republican nominee; and all he does is have the football pulled out from underneath him at almost every turn. The problem is it’s not Lucy doing it. Lucy (the Establishment) has been there the whole time. Mitt himself is the one who is doing the tripping.  

Everyone from the media - to the Democrats - to the Establishment moderate Republican base all wants Mitt Romney. He looks the part; he would be the opposite of President Obama in background and job experience. Romney could be a brand name; in the Bush and Clinton mold. His father was a Governor and he has kids involved in politics; he's the Manchurian Candidate. So why can’t he close the deal?

“I don’t know how many years I’ll release,” said Romney over-top of a booing crowd. Romney pauses then puts on his best presidential smile. “I’ll release multiple years, I don’t know how many years.” 

Look no further than the issue surrounding his taxes for a perfect example of why. Romney has always been known for doing or saying whatever pleases whomever he is standing in front of. Or whomever his handlers inform him of who is in needing of some spooning. That’s why his insistence to not reveal his taxes is incredibly uncharacteristic of Mr Romney. It’s got him booed in the debates. Its gotten him beat up on the trail. And it justified or not, cemented people’s views of him being an elite-out of touch-aristocrat.

Mittens’ own father, former Michigan Governor George Romney, released 12 years of taxes during his 1967 presidential bid. Mittens’ is on record in the Boston Globe, in 1994 calling out Ted Kennedy for not releasing his taxes: “It’s time the biggest-taxing senator in Washington shows the people of Massachusetts how much he pays in taxes.” And Romney won’t release his taxes?

This is a guy who everyone knows to be a flip flopper. He has changed his positions unlike anyone since the day of YouTubes inception. Why, considering the heat… considering his past demands for his opponents to release them… considering his own father felt it a need to be transparent. Romney has always preferred political expedience above everything else including character; why not simply release them?

I see it either or both two ways:

1. His tax rate. Romney is said to worth anywhere between 90-250 million. Gingrich for example showed income of 3.1 Million in 2010 and paid 31% of it to taxes. If Romney is using the 15% Capital gains tax; it would mean he is paying half the tax rate of say a Newt Gingrich who is worth considerably less. That wouldn’t fly in this economy nor would it do much to divorce him from the picture of him being an elitist taking advantage of loopholes (regardless if they are legal).

2. Romney wants to just get to Super -Tuesday and then coast. Thus wrapping up the nomination and then promptly releasing his returns in April long after the dust is settled. Romney knows he isn’t a conservative, thus getting out of this vetting process will (in his eyes) be his biggest hurdle because he knows the Republicans will choose him over President Obama. Its then, when Romney’s true strengths will take over. His blend of moderate ideals coupled with his keen business acumen can go head to head with Obama in where the election will be won and lost. In that 15-20 percentile of independent voters.

Just one problem with his strategy, he has hit his ceiling. We now know he didn't win Iowa, only won New Hampshire because he lives there and now he looks like he will lose South Carolina. We could be witnesses to a meltdown of epic proportions. One that has been years in the making.

The Most Powerful, Moving NDAA Video I've Seen Yet

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-powerful-moving-ndaa-video-ive-seen-yet-2012-1#ixzz1kD0LAmqt

 

 David Seaman, David Seaman Online

This is what the mainstream media doesn't want you to see. (Video below; sent to me by a reader earlier tonight.) They've whitewashed and, at times, altogether blacked out and distorted the groundswell of protests throughout the United States. You know this is the case, even if you want to deny it: your Facebook feed and Google+ stream are flooded with protest invites, photos, videos, and yet there's nothing about it on the evening news.

The silence is deafening.

 

The Tea Party and Occupy and other groups have vast ideological differences, to be sure. Yet they all realize the grave threat posed by the NDAA, signed into law by President Obama on New Year's Eve. They all realize the censorship and terror that SOPA & the Protect-IP Act would enable, casting a dark cloud over the entire planet's Internet communications in the 21st century.

It is not an exaggeration to say that America is at stake here.

Wake up, readers, friends, and colleagues. As the man in the video says, "I will not stand by and just watch!" Occupy Congress is on January 17th. And the nationwide protests against NDAA are to be held on February 3rd. Continue the conversation, follow me: I don't write articles every day, but when I do, they are on subjects you should know about. You can follow me on Google+ or on Twitter to see my newest posts and keep in touch. I publish content and editorial opinion regarding NDAA and SOPA on my Google+ account that you won't find anywhere else.

Hi, I my name is DOD and Im a bloated bureaucracy ...

Part 1 of a 3 part story on the Department of Defense and its coming to the realization of its own shortcomings and the realities it faces; and the motivation for those that will not go down swinging.

It appears the Department of Defense annual increasing budget; coupled with the unsuitability of our foreign policy is finally starting to coalesce. Later this week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will unveil $450 Billion in cuts over at least a 10 year span. If we remember, it was the “supercommittee” last fall who were supposed to put together cost cutting measures that would help reduce the deficit (through in part) of $600 Billion in defense cuts.
The “supercommittee” that President Obama put together to reduce the federal deficit of 1.2 Trillion dollars over ten years went up in smoke as we seen unfold back in November of last year. So, the default 1.2 Trillion reductions will take effect effective in 2013 unless Congress can work it out before then. Knowing Congress has been a huge failure, one that seems to trip on its own feet at every step - 2013 is the only option.
Then, to try and blunt the coming hatchet, Panetta went on the offensive. Panetta has said the 600 Billion cuts coming would be like: "we'd be shooting ourselves in the head." That however seems just a tad heightened dose of hyperbole if you consider what 450 Billion actually amounts to in context of the sum of fighting two wars and the base cost of the defense’s annual budget (excluding wars and nukes) over that span.
According to the New York Times, its about 8 percent of that sum. Now quick… what would it be versus the proposed cuts to enter in 2013 automatically? It is only 10.6% of the stated total cost - hardly earth shattering are those 2.5 points in the grand scheme of things now is it?
But why is 2.5% such a drastic change? What in that 150 Billion over 10+ years is so damaging? Something just doesnt make sense in all of this or does it?

The assault on the constitution continues...

It was 98 years ago that the Federal Reserve Act was passed during Christmas vacation under much scrutiny then as it is today. It was just ten years ago, weeks after 9-11, that the “Patriot Act” was signed into law while the country was in a state of absolute shock. Take another arrow out of the quiver of freedom today as we enter a period of unimaginable potential consequences. NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) was signed into the books last night as President Obama paves the way for the indefinite detention without charge or trial into law thus eliminating due process of law.
President Obama is on record saying:

“Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.”

In other words: I don’t have to do it if I don’t want to but you better know i can and will if it deems necessary. It was the Magna Carter that first contained the workings of due process of law. Then it was stripped out over time by the King of England. You cant help but to think we are entering that threshold of trading liberty for peace. And along the way, the oval office over the last 10 years is starting to resemble a throne. Happy New Year people!

Is Mitt Romney the "hope and change" candidate of '12?

It’s kind of funny to watch Mitt Romney nestle up to the American working man of the mid-west. You see it all over Iowa as if he feels in his heart of heart… he understands their problems and really feels their plight. The man who once joked he was “also unemployed” to a table of alleged people in Florida who were actually… unemployed. All this despite that he sits on a net worth that’s said to be over 200+ million. Hardly, the same situation the almost 10% of Americans face, no doubt.

See, Romney chooses to be unemployed. He quit his job as Governor. What has he done since? He’s run for President ... yes, for four years. So, in reality, Romney should be the shoe in for the Republican nomination. He has obviously concentrated four years on this moment, thus his organization is strong and built up. He has the biggest war chest of anyone running. Last but not least, he has K-Street and big business on his side.

Politico ran a story in July about the super PAC: Restore Our Future, where 90 of the wealthiest citizens poured in 12.2 million dollars for Mr Romney. This was the same month where Jonathen Martin of Politico reported a fundraiser where Romney joined Trent (super lobby) Lott in a “lawyers for Romney” dinner that included a who’s who of lobbyists. According to OpenSecrets.com, Romney at this time, leads all candidates (including Pres Obama) in fundraising in the following sectors:

Commercial banks

Hedge Funds & Private Equity

Securities and Investment

And not just leading; he’s cleaning up, at a rate of at least 2:1 in all three sectors. Why do you suppose Romney attracts the elite? Because, Mr. Romney is quite frankly, one of them. Good or bad he is big business through and through. He’s Wall Street incarnate. He presents both the ideals and the soul of Wall Street. That isn’t necessarily bad, but the soul and ideals of Wall Street are on separate paths.

The soul of Wall Street was and will always be the investing in America. It’s the place where mice become giants; both individually and corporately. It goes back to the time where people bought into companies for the long term because they believed in them. Not because of some algorithm or day trader of the modern era... it was but the true investing in the future of Americana. Mitt Romney is proof of that. He climbed the ladder. However, the ideals of Wall Street are much less clear. The best description would be murky at best; while many might say – haughty and insatiable. And it appears that is how some see Mr Romney as well.

This is a guy who made a fortune off leveraged buyouts; buying up struggling companies (with borrowed money) and then slashing personnel, shipping jobs overseas and selling off assets to pay off his company; while many of them filed for bankruptcy afterwards. If he views corporations as people, what does he see the people inside those corporations as? This is hardly a job creator...think of him more in the Ryan Bingham mold. But, its part of that Wall Street ideal he is a part of. How can anyone go into a job creation business (i don’t agree with this Presidential notion of job creating, it’s the general economy, but I digress) when all they have done is take them away?

Some might point to his tenure at governor where he left with a 2 Billion dollar surplus as an indication of fiscal conservatism and it would be hard to argue but should the government be running a profit? If you think about it, shouldn’t all levels of government look to break even? In an economy where jobs are at the forefront his term as Governor paints a picture that isn’t as rosy as his profits. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in his time in office the state only seen 1.2% more jobs then when he entered office, hardly a guy “who knows jobs”. If you factor in population and other variables; 1.2% isn’t worth a hill of beans. In fact during that time period, it ranked 47^th in the nation.

What does this all mean? It means the country faces an era of uncertainty and a looming battle for what we want and how we will have to pay (without borrowing) for it. There is going to come a time where Americans have to understand that our way of life as we know it cannot be sustained on its current path and tough choices are going to have to be made. Is Mitt Romney a guy to do so? On the outside it appears, yes, he is. He has the credentials and the reputation as a “cleaner” and in this environment that could play well; we need someone to do just that, clean up the mess in Washington. However, underneath the surface what does that entail? His constant politicking and coming off chameleon like has put people off and the perception is he will say anything to anyone to win their vote; that just isn’t principled.

Then you have his ties to Wall Street. President Obama ran on a platform that was about as anti-establishment/Wall Street as you can get; however his cabinet was anything but. We didn’t see any change but instead more of the same old failures. How will Mitt Romney be any different, despite his proven ability to do so? From my view it’s hard to take the Establishment out of an Establishment candidate and if his backers are any indication - it looks like business as usual.

"GOP leaders want Ron Paul to lose" by JOHN KASS , Chicago Tribune

With the Iowa caucuses just a few days away, the Republican establishment is busy with some frightening new themes, like:

What happens in Iowa stays in Iowa.

Or: Who cares what happens in Iowa anyway?

My favorite comes direct from the unyielding mind of Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican who insists that American voters don't care which candidate wins the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3.

"People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third," said Branstad. "If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and other states."

Losing Iowa helps in New Hampshire? So it's not winning that counts, it's losing? What the?

Is he high?

Republican bigwig minds can't be besotted by Hopium. That's a liberal Democratic leaf for Democratic pipes depressed that Chicago's City Hall has run the country into the ground.

No, Republicans must be smoking something else, something just as potent: Dopium, a leaf so powerful that it allowed many Republicans to call themselves "conservatives" while embracing a series of big-government programs and federal bailouts from the Bush administration, not to mention two wars.

Gov. Branstad isn't alone. The entire Republican establishment is babbling similar nonsense about the importance of being earnest -- and a loser in Iowa.

Meanwhile, the Republican-media high priests are now in full-throated roar. From the secular pulpits they predict unending torment and Obamanation for anyone foolish enough to embrace the current heretical teachings.

And the name of this heretic? Ron Paul, the Texas congressman and libertarian who is leading most polls in Iowa with a message of cutting government, including the defense budget, and staying out of wars.

The problem isn't that he's saying it. Paul has been consistent for years. The problem for the GOP establishment is that the American people are now listening.

And this threatens the coalition that can put Karl Rove and Wall Street and the religious right at the same table to slice the pie of power.

The fact that voters, particularly younger voters, are edging toward Paul has sent the GOP into a panic.

"His supporters are younger and more likely to [use] a cellphone, so he's probably going to perform better than his polling suggests," Iowa State associate professor Dave Peterson told cbsnews.com. "His supporters are also dedicated and will likely turn out on caucus night and not change their minds."

Republicans sure changed their minds about Mitt Romney, a moderate who yearns to be conservative during party primaries. Republicans pegged him for what he is, a corporate stiff, every hair in place, who'll run left the second he secures the nomination.

Tim Pawlenty? Just another can of Spam. Rick Perry stuck both boots in his mouth and kept them there. It's a wonder he has any lips left.

Michele Bachmann had her troubles with American history, and Rick Santorum seems ready to punch anyone who won't let him attack Iran tomorrow morning.

And Herman Cain? With so many "girlfriend" stories buzzing around him, he was tagged on the Internet with an M.C. Hammer-type parody theme song: "Cain Touched This."

Now it's Newt Gingrich's turn to drop his blossoms. What was it exactly?

That $1.6 million chunk that his consulting firm took from federal mortgage giant Freddie Mac as it was getting a massive federal bailout? Or that pledge of marital fidelity he signed the other day, suggesting that his oath to his third wife wasn't nearly enough?

Since August, the media has desperately avoided mentioning Paul. I'm not endorsing him here. But you'd have to be blind not to see Republican bosses in panic. Because if Paul wins Iowa, his ideas might catch fire.

Once there was no more amusing sight for me than watching Democratic mouthpieces appearing on TV, claiming then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Rezko -- backed by all those guys from Chicago's City Hall -- would bring hope and change as he transcended the broken politics of America's past.

The journalistic high priests, their brains swollen by several bowls of Hopium, chattered and repeated the slogans of City Hall's favorite mouthpiece, David Axelrod.

So Americans never quite realized that the man they were electing president had been an earnest but inexperienced back-bencher in the Illinois Legislature who spent his entire career taking orders from machine bosses while trying to get ahead.

Hopium was bad enough. But what worries me are all those clouds of Dopium wafting across Iowa.

NASA - the PR machine

This week, NASA unveiled a new strategy…public relations. That’s right; our brightest minds in not just aerospace but some of the sharpest in the country are now set to tackle the task of: re-inspiring children, expanding our international relationships and last but not least…reaching out to the Muslim world.

That’s right, the same commander in chief who defunded the constellation project to get us back to the moon by 2020 (you know its only been 38 years since our last visit) and start making progress again in what would have to be called a very disappointingly flat program in terms of growth and scientific advances. The same commander in chief that PolitiFact researcher Louis Jacobson said “dramatically broke with recent space policy -- and in so doing, he broke one of his campaign promises". But what do you expect, from a President who wants private enterprise to be more involved with NASA while the government overtakes healthcare, essentially flopping roles… now wants NASA to engage in “winning the hearts and minds”.

Is NASA equipped to engage in these PR missions? Im not sure, but the smart money is leave the space stuff to the space guys and the PR stuff to the PR guys. But hey, when you have a government running actual businesses and firing CEO’s or reaching out to a population with an open scientific hand that is generally controlled by theocracy’s stuck in the dark ages whom reject science or humanity…does anything really make sense anymore? Can we really look at these Muslim nations and praise their work in mathematics and contributions to science when they haven’t made any since the industrial revolution? What’s next off to Italy and praise them for the Roman accomplishments? Why not reach out to Spain and thank them for their work in the naval game?

This is a population that doesn’t educate half their population because of gender. It’s a population where same sex relationships are illegal. Populations where pornography and women not being dressed from head to toe are all punishable by law. It’s a population that through its leaders and religious gurus have kept a good chunk of their civilizations in the dark ages. Its obvious President Obama wants to engage this population in other ways besides the gun, although he doesn’t mind that route either. But is this really possible? Can you reach out with logic to a person of faith and convince them that logic and reason are beneficial?

The Enlightenment gave us our revolution and our liberty and that spurned our technology and our way of life. Through this we evolved socially as well. What Obama wants is what we all want… moderate Muslim nations that will start to evolve into democratically elected nations. But, it’s not likely to happen if the leaders of these nations have their say. Enlightenment for them would mean the end of their power. So, one asks to ask himself is it better to knock on doors and “hope” or is it more productive to clean your house, and lead by example? America needs to get back to being the shining beacon of hope but not by wishing upon a star… but instead by reaching for them.

Lets play connect the dots...

From Barack Obama 7-16-2009:

“First of all, if you’ve got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.”

Ok, so your only really talking about the 40+ million of uninsured Americans getting on board with this plan then, right? I mean this has nothing to do with the majority of the population already happy with their healthcare, right? Something just doesnt sit right with this, lets think about this in broad terms.


According to Healthcarevoices.org:

U.S. employers have been shifting costs to workers: workers’ payments toward premiums have more than doubled since 2000. Or, the employers drop coverage altogether: the number of employers offering health insurance has dropped from 69 percent to 60 percent in the same eight-year period

Why the push the cost onto their employees?

The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $12,700 in 2008. Workers contributed nearly $3,400, or 12 percent more than they did in 2007.*Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Now what can we expect in future costs? Here is the last four decades, as we can see, the industry cost wise is expanding and exploding exponentially.

According to The Congressional Budget Office:

Health care will grow from 16% of the country’s gross domestic product in 2007 to 25% in 2025, unless efforts are made to rein in cost growth.

So because the price of Healthcare is exploding exponentially and with the government now increasing the tax burden on business at a time where the economy is on the ropes, is there a better remedy then to have government come in and offer healthcare to all people, freeing business to turn those savings into capital? Of course not and if implemented, not so long after will you see American businesses stop offering healthcare thus pushing everyone on "Obamacare."

Broadly speaking, the difference between Socialism and Fascism are simply who owns the companies. Both are funded by the state, but in a fascist state we do still have private owners of businesses, so rest at ease...at least we wont be socialists.

Yes we can (but do we know we shouldnt?)

Its been just six months and socialized medicine is officially being introduced into the homes of every American as Universal Health care takes stage front and center as this years top priority for the Obama administration. Make no mistake, this is not just a Clintonian like mantra revived to just maintain some political capital leveraged during the ’08 election… this is on its way to becoming reality. The transformation to socialism started long ago, but it really came obvious last year with George W Bush and his corporate bailouts for Wall Street bets went wrong. That was then - this is now and now is seeping into the private lives of every Americans, no doubt a bold and drastic attempt not seen since the days of LBJ. Obamacare has kicked into full throttle as we embark on a descent into uncharted waters of organizational upheaval, encroachments into our private lives but above all: paralyzing debt like we have never seen before.

With the Democrats having carte blanche, everyone knew this type of scenario was possible but for some reason most just chalked it up as lip service. After all, how could we possibly entertain the idea of paying for such a monstrosity as Universal Health care when we already have an entitlement tsunami on the way? A tsunami so large that it threatens to wipe out the budget as we know it, so much so that its estimated by 2030 we could be seeing health care take up 80% of federal expenditures.

First of all the 1 Trillion or 500 billion, whatever the number the Senate decides on from week to week to fund Universal Health care initially will be funded by… your great grandchildren. That’s right, we are still running budget deficits, so therefore we have no money to expand the size and scope of government any more then we have. So what do we do? You borrow it. This means the needed funding will come from money that will be printed and borrowed at interest from the Federal Reserve. Change you can believe in? Hardly.

No doubt that is obviously not sustainable, so with Medicaid spiraling out of control and Social Security on the verge of going bankrupt Universal Health care not only just a bad idea, its not mathematically probable. You would think that with the quagmire we are facing, the federal government would not want to put itself into another situation where even more of your health care is primarily funded by the state. You would think that in an era of record budget deficits and in turn an escalating national debt that is nearing 100% of GDP we would just have to say…”No”.

However, this is not the case. Obviously the ramifications of this measure are monumental and monstrous. And we could beat this topic to death with its obvious encroachments on personal choice and the invasion of privacy with even more detail of the ridiculous cost. Above all this however, I want to focus on just one small problem that gives this idea legs. And that is the premise, laid out by this administration and the people that put him into power. The same people that put back into power one of the most inept congresses (according to polling) that we have ever seen.

Because when your entire platform and political prowess is built upon the phrase “Yes we Can” then you will naturally have a President, his allies and his supporters who will ignore the hurdles and reality of a situation and shoot for the moon. Sure, the idea sounds good, the idea that we can overcome anything we want because we are headstrong to do it. But this isn’t a sporting event. There is no level playing field.

We have bills and fighting fire with gasoline may be a great ‘Bowie hook but its not however a strategy to get out of this train wreck that we are indeed facing. Now here comes the rub. Sixty-six percent of voters that voted for Obama were under the age of 30. Two thirds of his voting bloc was an idealistic population that by nature is incapable of making any sound rational decisions because they for the most part are inexperienced and are disciples of the moment. This is the generation of downloads and hi-speed, the first generation that was born inside the spectacle that is the 24 hours news cycle. Thus the ability to look down the road isn’t something that most of these people are capable of.

It was this population that would elect a man that clearly saw government as the answer not the wild beast that it always becomes. No matter how many times you pat it on the head, government is a rabid infested dog lunging at your throat and in this case your pocketbook and your consciousness. Which, leads me to my point, and let me just say, that irony obviously has a sense of humor.

Its this pie in the sky, idealistic segmentation that was the driving force in getting BO elected who will one day have to deal with carnage and insolvency that is coming as entitlements old and new merge into one death blow that will bring this country to its knees. If things are left "as is" the pain will be great, as stated before. However, if you compound obligations the nightmare will only increase ten fold when we add even more government intervention and responsibility.

Time is ticking and dealing with the past obligations before we undertake new ones is not just good political clout its just common sense. Unfortunately, common sense doesn’t apply to idealism. In fact common sense doesn’t allow it. So, yes we can. We can make the choice, all beit not a sexy one and it wont impact your reelection but it is a choice that must be made because its looking into the future and getting your hands dirty now as opposed to when your sinking. That’s a thought, a government forward looking and not basing its politics on a four year election window? That would be change I could believe in.

The idealist is incorrigible: if he is thrown out of his heaven he makes an ideal of his hell: Friedrich Nietzsche