Friday, November 9, 2012

US Economy in Freefall?


Where the US Economy is headed:  Beep Beep!               (c) Warner Bros
Click here for related report [US Dept of Commerce]

For those of you inclined to wonder how the economy is doing, here's an extract from the Bureau of Economic Analysis Third Quarter Report on the US Gross Domestic Product [GDP], which the Bureau attempts to paint in a positive light.

The Third Quarter economic results were a disaster; but, this information was not carried in the Main Stream Media, even though it was released two weeks before the election; not that the average voter could make heads or tails out of the convoluted bureaucratese presented.  So, we've taken the basis of the report and translated it for you.

[GDP is the output of Goods and Services produced by labor and property in the USA]




"The acceleration in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected

/>1) An upturn in federal government spending,

TRANSLATION:  The Government increased spending [food stamps, welfare payments, etc.]

2) a downturn in imports,  

TRANSLATION:  Consumers bought fewer imports [e.g., TVs, Blue Rays, foreign cars, etc.]

 

Containers look similar - with less content - higher price
3) An acceleration in PCE  [Personal Consumption Expenditures] 

TRANSLATION: Consumers spent more because prices were higher.  Real inflation is increasing dramatically; grocery staples like bread and meat have doubled or tripled in price in the last few years.  Suppliers are altering their containers with smaller volumes, but charging slightly more.


 

4) A smaller decrease in private inventory investment, 

TRANSLATION:  Consumers bought fewer durables [e.g., cars, TVs, refrigerators,  etc]. 
Note the wording "smaller decrease" which translates that consumers had severely reduced their spending in the second quarter, but in this quarter it wasn't quite as bad.







5) An acceleration in residential fixed investment,  

TRANSLATION:  The number of foreclosures declined, and some existing foreclosures were purchased by investors.

 





6) A smaller decrease in state and local government spending that were [sic] partly offset by downturns in exports and in nonresidential fixed investment."

TRANSLATION: 
    a)  State and local governments spent more of what was left of the Stimulus money,
    b)  But that spending was offset by fewer US exports
    c)  There were fewer US exports due to
          (1) Increased labor costs/taxes
          (2) Lower production
          (3) Businesses shutting down and not renewing their leases
          (4) A halt in construction of new office buildings or facilities
                [e.g., warehouses, manufacturing plants, etc.


(c) Noahopinionblog.com
All of the above translates to a faltering economy and a harbinger of further economic deterioration 
-- and massive inflation under the continuing Obama Administration.

Romney may be glad he lost the election!

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

US Loses Election





This election documented that the GOP succeeded in defeating itself.  It snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, not only losing the Presidency, but two critical Senate seats as well.

The American voter was desperately looking for the candidate who could relieve the misery they've experienced in the past four years; they didn't want one who dictated their morals.

As we monitored the results, and grieved, we concluded that Conservatives needed several things.
  • A massive overhaul of the GOP leadership.
  • A coherent message that connects with the voters.
  • Establish a platform that has broad appeal and matches the voters' needs.
  • Ditch the attack ads!
  • The American voter wants a strong, dynamic President.   
  • When your opponent gives you the opportunity for a hay-maker, take the shot!

1)  A massive overhaul of the GOP leadership. 

     a)  In 2010, the Tea Party formed and rose up against the Democrats and led the way to an overwhelming Conservative victory in the House; they could have taken the Senate as well had it not been for GOP leadership [i.e., Karl Rove] who disapproved of the popular Tea Party candidates who had won the Primaries -- and set about [successfully] to defeat them -- in the case of Nevada, joining forces with the Democrats to defeat the Conservative candidate, and assuring the victory of Harry Reid.

     b)  Since then, this GOP leadership has done its best to undercut, denigrate and belittle the Tea Party, gutting the Tea Party, and the GOP itself of its strength and cohesiveness.  The Democrats could not have had a stronger ally than our GOP leadership; and a slam dunk win in many states was handed over to the Democrats, so that not only did Conservatives NOT win majority seats, they LOST seats in a political environment which guaranteed Conservative wins.

Karl Rove: GOP Destructor
    c)  Rather than destroy an ally that helped the GOP win in 2010, it would have made sense to invite the Tea Party leadership in to share in developing a combined strategy and control Capitol Hill.  But, Mr Rove, the unelected but self-appointed director or GOP policy and candidate selection decided it was better to destroy the valuable Tea Party allies since they seemed to have a mind of their own.


2)  A coherent message that connects with the voters.

      a)  Religious Beliefs should NOT be the Litmus Test for Conservative [or any] Candidates.

           --- Although issues like abortion are important and relevant, they are also volatile, highly divisive, and not politically addressable because there are so many levels of interpretation, even within the Religious Right.  The Democrats reduced it to "A woman's right to choose", while the Conservative Movement was ripped to shreds trying to parse the issue into varying degrees of religious fervor and righteousness.  This was a critical issue to many Catholic voters, and yet within the Catholic fold, there was/is no consensus. This is not an issue a President, no matter how powerful, can resolve.

Candidate Akin [R] Self-Inflicted Defeat


 --- The statements of GOP candidates Akin and Mourdock seemingly glorifying the issue of "Rape" as an instrument of God caused the general population -- particularly the under-40 population -- to shudder and turn away from the Conservative movement as they would in response to radical Islamic Mullahs demanding that their daughters be stoned for offending Allah.





Gay Conservatives count - and vote
         --- The anti-Gay rhetoric may have helped GOP homophobes feel better about themselves, but it was a turn-off to a powerful segment of the Conservatives consisting of Gays, to include the Log Cabin Republicans -- whose motto is "Inclusion Wins".  The GOP excluded them, and their powerful influence over the very active Gay community organizers in the urban areas.

Good troops are hard to find!

Who gives a happy damn about the personal lifestyles of Gays; they've been around for as long as mankind.  They have served well in government, politics, and the military.  As one SF commander put it:

"I'd rather have a unit full of Gays who can shoot and fight than one full of politically correct and self-righteous bigots who can't sight in on the enemy."

     
b)  Candidates MUST grasp the issues of importance to the voters.  Just as Bill Clinton captured the message when George H.W. Bush dithered about his "thousand points of light", his vague management references, and his astonishment at how grocery store scanners operated, Clinton reduced the mood of the country to a single sentence:
                                
                                      "It's the ECONOMY, stupid!

          --- Clinton didn't offer any solutions, he merely identified the problem, and the voters identified with him because they could not identify with a Boston patrician who didn't understand consumer basics.  In reality, Clinton and Greenspan managed to destroy the healthy economy growing out of the 1990's IT boom [which the Media dubbed a "bubble"], but, Clinton's grasp of the needs of the Common Man won the election for him -- or should we say -- lost the election for Bush.

c)  The best message of the campaign came from Clint Eastwood with his Empty Chair dialog. 


 --- It was simple; it was direct; it was a picture which captured the emptiness of the Obama Administration and the imagination of the American people.  And the GOP ignored it as a campaign slogan because -- Karl Rove did not approve that message!



3)   Establish a platform that has broad appeal and matches the voters' needs.


Long Term Unemployment: 43%
      a)  The operative word in this election was the ECONOMY! 
Millions of people have been out of work for years now; they ran out of benefits, families have consolidated out of necessity; students have dropped out of school; new graduates can't find jobs; and EVERYONE is in debt!




      --- Voters desperately wanted to hear Romney spell out how he was going to FIX the economy; he WAS after all, a businessman and had funded start-ups which became very prosperous companies employing millions of workers and paying massive taxes. 
But not once did he mention those successes, but instead talked in vague terms about managing a successful Olympics, and, oh yeah, he converted Massachusetts from a failing economy to a stable one with a surplus, and he built the best school system in the country.  But, we didn't hear that message reinforced - except by vague reference.  It seemed he didn't want to brag -- but, a politician HAS to brag to let people know what his record is, and how he can use that record to address current problems.

One of many Romney Start-Ups
         --- NOT ONCE did we hear the names of companies like Burger King, or Domino's Pizza, or Toys"R"Us, or Burlington Coat Factory -- all of which Mainstream America can identify with -- and which Romney financed into successful taxpaying companies employing millions of employees. 

He could have used those companies as the basis for his Economic Recovery program, but he never once uttered their names, missing a huge opportunity to connect with the common people.



  b)  Voters wanted a success story!  Not another human interest story about how he had met still another miserable unemployed parent trying to make ends meet.  Most of the country already knew that story; what most of the country wanted to hear was how Romney would remedy that problem.  The simple answer would have been:

"I created these companies; I know how to create companies that employ people, and I'll do that. 
I am experienced at creating companies that hire people."

       --- But, we never heard that message; so people never understood that Romney was a businessman who knew how to create jobs, and wealth -- and could use that experience to turn the national economy around.

4)  Ditch the attack ads!

Karl Rove made his reputation on sleazy, vicious, negative attack ads.  But, then again, so did David Axelrod.  The difference is that those seem to work only for the incumbent.  The American people finally tired of the non-stop attack ads from both sides, and simply processed the basics:

     
a)  Romney is a rich guy who bankrupts companies and sends your jobs overseas and hates Gays.

b)  Obama is a corrupt black guy from Kenya.



The Democrats' propaganda was more powerful. 

The GOP did not counter the Democrats' attack ads; they simply launched attack ads of their own, which annoyed voters.

5)  The American voter wants a strong, dynamic President. 

     a)  They loved Reagan even if they objected to his platform and policies because  he portrayed "STRENGTH".  His defining moment was when, after he had financed the New Hampshire debate, the GOP moderator tried to turn off Reagan's microphone and Reagan bellowed:
"I  am paying for this microphone, Mr Green"  causing the audience to explode in applause and cheering.

     ---- Reagan established himself, in that moment, as a man who could, and would take charge -- and not be bullied.  And the American voters rewarded him with an overwhelming victory against Jimmy Carter -- who had embarrassed the US by allowing Iran to bully him.

    b)   During the debates, when Obama acted like a street thug bullying Romney, Romney reacted calmly and answered respectfully and quietly -- which portrayed him as the consummate diplomat, and allowed himself to be dominated by a bully! which was not the image the American voter wanted.  They wanted a candidate who would stand up to a bully, show some emotion, and fight back. 

       ---- The underlying message was
"If you won't fight back against this bully face to face, what will you do if the US is attacked?  
Will you back down, negotiate, or be calm and let the bully kick sand in your face!"


6)  When your opponent gives you the opportunity for a hay-maker, take the shot!

       a)  The Benghazi debacle was a clear opening for Romney to question Obama's handling of the issue, particularly of Obama's lying about the circumstances of the event and then blocking efforts to save Americans under attack. 

           --- That was Obama's weakest moment -- and yet Romney failed to express outrage, or even a modicum of emotion; and the moment -- and election was lost.

      b)  Obama attacked Romney on his "exporting jobs to China" -- and Romney didn't counter.

            --- It was the perfect opportunity for Romney to remind the voters how the companies he had created in the US, how many jobs those companies created, and how the expansion of those companies internationally had created consumers for American products.

           --- Romney's response instead was that he wouldn't allow China to manipulate its currency, an issue far beyond the comprehension of 99% of the American voters.

You fight to win!  Not to be a nice guy!
In sum, Obama was on the ropes in this election.

Obama had failed miserably in the past four years, and he had nothing to offer but more empty promises.  It should have been a slam dunk; but Romney came to a Chicago knife fight with a Bible and platitudes -- and he got knifed, and so did America. 








     

 


Thursday, November 1, 2012

Obama Alliance with Muslim Brotherhood?

US-Muslim Brotherhood alliance gives Syrians rebels sophisticated weapons 
-- Soon to be used against the US?

1) The assault force was al-Qaeda, dispatched by Egyptian President Morsi -- of the Muslim Brotherhood; and
2) The Libyan military force defending the Consulate was al-Qaeda; and
3) The defense force was ordered to stand down by the head of security -- a revered member of al-Qaeda, and
4) Four Americans were killed by al-Qaeda, and
5) The US President ordered the US military to "stand down" rather than assist Americans under attack.


Click here for related video [Glenn Beck]

We watched Glen Beck's take on Benghazi.

It appears that Beck, and others, are following the latest subtle spin put out by the Obama's Chicago Choom gang; i.e., that Ambassador Stevens was shipping weapons to Syrian rebels.

Beck is on the right track, but he is mistaken in his belief that Ambassador Stevens was himself running weapons via the Muslim Brotherhood to Syrian rebels.

Al Entisar carried arms to Muslim Brotherhood
In reality, it appears that Ambassador Stevens discovered the gun-running through the contractors [including the ex-SEALs killed at Benghazi] whom he had hired to investigate the disappearance of tons of weapons in Qadafi's warehouses.

The Libyan ship, Al Entisar, made a port call to Iskenderun near the Syrian border on 5 September, apparently unloading weaponry for the Syrian rebels; Ambassador Stevens met with the Turkish Ambassador at the Benghazi Consulate, perhaps to query the Turkish Ambassador about the delivery; minutes after his departure from the US Consulate, the al Qaeda attack began.

Stevens had just returned from Italy where he had reported to the State Department and to the CIA the details of the weapons movements via the Muslim Brotherhood.

Once filed, those reports became his death warrant from the Oval Office.

Beck is correct in his assumption that [some of] the weapons transferred to the Muslim Brotherhood were for delivery to Syrian rebels, but the final destination of the bulk of this weaponry was likely al Qaeda -- via the Muslim Brotherhood; but, in fact, the Muslim Brotherhood will distribute the weaponry far beyond just the Syrian rebels and al Qaeda.

In fact, it appears that the Oval Office, in sanctioning Stevens' assassination, sought to cover up its collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood as a conduit of sophisticated weaponry for the Muslim Brotherhood's political and military goals around the world.

The linkage to the Oval Office derives from statements from the leadership of the assault force in Benghazi ["Don't shoot!  Morsi sent us!"] which revealed that the al-Qaeda assault force was dispatched by Egypt's President Morsi [of the Muslim Brotherhood] -- to whom Mr Obama provided considerable support to have him emplaced as President of Egypt -- thus the riots against Hillary Clinton when she visited Morsi in July.

al-Qaeda in charge of Libyan Security
Meanwhile, the head of Libyan military security is Abdel Hakim al-Khuwailid Belhaj; his responsibilities included protection of the US Consulate at Benghazi.

According to a COMINT report,  he ordered the Libyan unit guarding the Consulate to "Stand Down" immediately before the assault began.

Did we mention that he is a revered member of al Qaeda?  Al-Qaeda leader [and Osama bin Laden's successor] Ayman al-Zawahiri praised him in 2007 with these words:

"Your brothers are continuing your march after you ... escalating their confrontation with 
the enemies of Islam: Qadafi and his masters, the crusaders of Washington."

Did our Intelligence Community not notice that the Libyan Security Chief was al-Qaeda?

Imagine that!


THE WEAPONS:

The weapons missing from Qadafi's warehouses included RPGs [Rocket Propelled Grenades], 23mm anti-aircraft guns, mortars, infantry assault weapons, and, of greatest concern, as many as 20,000 shoulder fired SAMs [Surface to Air Missiles].


FARC Guerrilla trains recruits on SA-24
The SAMs range from the antique SA-7s, an infra-red [IR] heat-seeking missile with a range of 11.000 feet [it downed many US fighters and helicopters in Southeast Asia], to the highly sophisticated SA-24 equipped with passive IR homing device for night-time targeting, with a range of up to 18,000 feet.

The SA-24 is effective against jet fighters, the AC-130 Gunship, helicopters -- and Drones.

[Officially, the SA-24 can't be used in "shoulder-fire" mode since the Libyan models lacked hand grips; but experts advise that hand grips were readily available on the black market.]

DISTRIBUTION OF THE WEAPONS

FARC Guerrillas armed with SAM

Ironically, we witnessed the first stage of the Administration's distribution of assault weapons with Fast&Furious, and the Mexican drug cartels have used those weapons against US law enforcement officers.

Many of the Libyan weapons were shipped to Venezuela, and those weapons were further distributed to the FARC [People's Revolutionary Army] and the ELN [National Liberation Army], which are Marxist-Leninist guerrilla/terrorist organizations in Colombia.

It is assumed that these weapons are now also in the hands of the Mexican narcotics cartels.

They have also turned up in the Far East, again through the Muslim Brotherhood.

And, the SA-24 has been confirmed in Iran, and will be highly effective against US [or Israeli] military forces should a conflict arise.

Ultimately, we will speculate that this weaponry will also be directed to the Muslim Brotherhood in the US -- where it will be used against the US Military.

Why is the Oval Office working with the Muslim Brotherhood to supply weapons to terrorists around the world.


As Pogo once noted:
"We have met the enemy, and he is us!"