Obama Chooses American Defeat

Obama Chooses American Defeat

James G.
Wiles

In April, 2007, at the height of
American casualties during the Surge in Iraq, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D. Nev.) famously announced
“the war is lost.” His remark attracted national headlines – and a big push-back
from Republicans, who, in the wake of the 2006 elections, controlled neither
House of Congress.

An American President – George W.
Bush of Texas – had refused to accept defeat. He changed his military leaders,
launched the Surge and victory followed. And, even though, the Republicans had
lost control of Congress, President Bush’s control of the Executive branch and
the American people’s refusal to accept defeat prevailed over leading Democrats’
desire for American defeat.. It enabled the forces of the Sunni Awakening,
General Petraeus and the coalition’s troops to crush the Iraq
insurgency.

Over a thousand American soldiers died  in
Iraq
after Leader Reid’s remarkable press conference.

Democrats, like Reid, who’d predicted
defeat, never changed their views.  Now, President Barack Obama has just
guaranteed that Senator Reid’s remark will come true. Iraq is not Vietnam and
the Middle East is not Southeast Asia. Yet, the parallels – 36 years after a
Democratic Congress cut off U.S. funding for South Vietnam – are
unsettling.

Once again, a leader of the
Democratic Party has opted for American defeat – after a splendid American field
army has achieved military victory. Former New York Times Baghdad
bureau chief John Burns predicted  disaster as a result of Mr. Obama’s decision
on Hugh
Hewitt
on October 24.  “We’ll see” was the most optimism Pulitzer-Prize
winner Dexter
Filkins
could muster  on his New Yorker blog.

These guys aren’t
conservatives
. But, with Michael Yon, these famous war correspondents are
not hopeful about whether America’s sacrifice in Iraq will be
redeemed..

How can Democrats ever be trusted
with America’s national security again?

It’s a simple as
that.

Read Fred and Kimberly Kagan’s
excellent piece this weekend in the new issue of the  Weekly
Standard
for the post-mortem. The Kagans were part of the intellectual
brain trust behind the Surge – the Surge which President Obama has just thrown
away.

 

Obama takes risky stance against the rich

 

Obama takes risky stance against the rich

By Richard McGregor in Washington

With the US economy suffering through its deepest slump since the Great  Depression, the Obama administration has designed a political strategy to match,  with echoes of the campaign rhetoric deployed by Franklin Roosevelt in the  1930s.

Throwing out the standard presidential playbook dictating an aspirational  pitch to centrist voters, the White House is cementing a high-risk message that  strikes firmly at wealth and privilege.

“There is surging sentiment out there among voters that the economy is  weighted towards the wealthy,” said a senior White House official. “Public  opinion has changed dramatically.”

The White House strategy will make the 2012  election a generational test of the Republican push of the past three  decades for cutting taxes, in ways their critics say have been constantly skewed  towards the highest earners.

The after-tax income of the wealthiest 1 per cent of US households increased  by 275 per cent over the past three decades, compared to an average of 62  per cent for all Americans, the independent Congressional Budget Office reported  this week. For the poorest 20 per cent, the growth was only 18 per cent.

The “Occupy  Wall Street” protests that are spreading raggedly across the US and the  world have thrown a spotlight on mounting popular anger at economic stagnation  and income inequality.

But the factors driving the White House go further, to their inability to  strike any substantive deals on their terms with congressional Republicans  emboldened by their smashing victory in last November’s mid-term elections.

The failure of the economic recovery to yield many jobs during its mild  upswing of the past two years has also transformed the political calculus for a  president facing a perilous re-election battle.

“In normal circumstances, this pitch might be suicidal. But these are not  normal circumstances,” said William Galston of the Brookings Institute.

Mr Galston has been reading the speeches of Franklin Roosevelt’s winning  campaign for the 1936 presidential election and finds striking comparisons to  the emerging line from Mr Obama.

“Roosevelt wasn’t just saying: ‘I am fighting for you.’ It was: ‘I am  fighting against them,’” he said.

All sides of politics have been regrouping since the fraught negotiations in  August over the country’s  borrowing limits that bought the US to the edge of sovereign default.

While Mr Obama was widely depicted as weak in his dealings with Congress, the  clash damaged the Republican majority in the House of Representatives even more.  Congressional approval ratings are now in single digits.

Although they have offered little fresh on policy, Republicans are tweaking  their public message, with the hardline house majority leader, Eric Cantor,  recently acknowledging the need to address the rich-poor gap.

Mitt Romney, the frontrunner in the Republican race to challenge Barack Obama  in 2012, has taken to saying that he is standing up for the “middle class” because the rich “can look after themselves”.

For the White House, this is just the terrain that it wants to fight on. “The  Republicans want to give the average millionaire a $200,000 tax cut, while the  middle class is struggling,” said the White House official.

The majority of Republican voters polled by the White House agree with the  president, the official added, meaning “they hold a different opinion from their  lawmakers and their candidates”.

Mr Obama has been barnstorming the country for the past month, highlighting a  jobs package which his aides acknowledge little of which has any chance of  passing.

The aim is put Mr Obama back at the centre of the debate after a period in  which he seemed marginalised and ineffective, the worst position a sitting  president can be in.

“Let’s re-emphasise what powers we have! What we can do on our own! Push the  envelope!” William Daley, the White House chief of staff, said in an interview  with Politico, the Washington publication.

Despite Mr Obama’s battered standing, senior Republicans remain wary of a  rejuvenated president.

“What the president wants to turn this into is the proposition that you may  hate us, but you will hate these people more,” said a senior Republican  congressional official. “We need to make sure we do not allow him to turn this  election into an anti-incumbent election.”

Besides the inherent risk in making wealth the central issue in a country  which has prided itself on the ability of anyone to get rich, Mr Obama must also  surmount a credibility gap in taking on Wall Street.

“He has blown hot and cold on the finance sector, so he is widely regarded as  having fallen between two stools,” said Mr Galston.

In the White House, there is no doubt that it is entering the election year  with its back against the wall.

“You can just feel this electorate is very volatile,” Mr Daley told Politico. “So strap yourself in.”

Who is Barack Obama?

Who is Barack Obama?

By Mondo
Frazier

There are so many things the public does not know
about the man who sits in the White House.  Who is Barack Obama?  In my search
to find out the answers I embarked on a journey that has lasted three years and
counting — and nearly made my head explode.

As usual, when Obama is the subject, Americans can’t
count on the progressives in the Corporate Mainstream Media (CMM) for much
help.  So, what’s one to do?  The foreign press proved helpful.  Therefore,
gleaned from the foreign press: a few stories which didn’t rate any coverage
from the U.S. CMM.

In 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama went on a mission
to Russia with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN).  The  newly-minted U.S. senator was
invited to be part of a Russian fact-finding tour that inspected a nuclear
weapons site in Perm, Siberia.  The base Lugar and Obama visited was where
mobile launch missiles were being destroyed under the Cooperative Threat
Reduction program (CTR), which also went by the name of the Nunn-Lugar
program.

What happened next — after the inspections were over
— was at the time reported by several foreign news sources but was never
reported in the USA by the CMM.  The Russians detained Obama and Lugar for three
hours at the airport, demanding to examine both Obama’s and Lugar’s passports
and search their plane.  Some sources reported that the Russians accused Barack
Obama of being a spy.

But wait — there’s more!

According to an Italian source, the Russians did not
accuse Obama of being an American spy; they accused him of being a spy for the
British!  The report went on to say that the incident ended up involving the
White House, the U.S. State Department, and military officials, along with their
counterparts in Moscow.

Strangely enough, an official report from Lugar’s
office about the trip never mentioned the incident.  Neither did Barack Obama in
2008 when he was desperate to exhibit some foreign policy
chops.

One other oddity: in the fall of 2008, Obama admitted
on his Fightthesmears.com site that he had held dual citizenship with both the
United States and Great Britain (the site explained that this was due to Barack
Obama, Sr. being a foreign national) until 1982.  Did the Russians know
something about Obama’s citizenship in 2005 that ordinary Americans don’t know
in 2011?

Another story no one has seen fit to ask about:
Obama’s Most Excellent Pakistani Adventure.

In the summer of 1981, 20-year-old Barack Obama
embarked on a two-week trip to Pakistan.  At least what little reporting that
has been done claimed the length of the trip was two weeks.  The only proof that
the trip didn’t turn into a longer stay is that we (supposedly) have records
which show that Barack Obama enrolled at Columbia University later that same
summer.  Of course, the public hasn’t seen those records, but that’s what we’ve
been told.  Anyone in doubt will be directed to Obama’s autobiography,
Dreams from My Father.

Obama clearly gave the impression in DFMF that he was
this penniless, somewhat confused young man, in search of an identity.  Obama
makes sure readers don’t miss the point by writing that he was forced to wear
“thrift store clothing” during this time.  Yet he somehow managed to find the
cash to finance a two-week trip to Pakistan.

Which he never wrote about.  Which in itself is odd:
here’s a guy who wrote two autobiographies that explored events real, imagined,
and totally fictional that supposedly forged the modern-day Barack Obama from
humble beginnings.  That’s according to the Obama NarrativeTM
which gets most of its facts from Dreams from My
Father
.

Not only did a poor, nearly destitute Obama manage to
afford the trip to Pakistan, but once there he somehow financed two weeks in the
Lahore Hilton International.  In addition, Obama was introduced to the future
prime minister and president of Pakistan — and went bird-hunting with him.
Which the prime minister mentioned in the Pakistani press in 2008.  There’s so
much more, including one question the CMM never asked Obama: who arranged all of
this?  For a 20-year-old nobody.

Another curious piece to the queer Obama puzzle is the
connection — which hasn’t been made in the CMM (attention, Fox News!) –
between illegal foreign contributions to the Obama campaign and subsequent
billions in Stimulus money to foreign companies and banks.  During and after the
2008 election, accusations of illegal foreign contributions — which flowed into
the Obama campaign when credit card safeguards were disabled on the campaign’s
website — were documented in the conservative press and
elsewhere.

Who were these mysterious donors, and in what
countries did they live?  Unfortunately, due to the chicanery of Team Obama, we
may never know.  Fast-forward to 2009.  Obama’s multi-billion-dollar Stimulus is
rushed through Congress, and billions of dollars in Stimulus money are doled out
to foreign companies and banks.  Finland, China, Brazil, and India are just a
few of the beneficiaries of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars. Might these have
been payoffs for those shady, unknown donations?

Bill Clinton was the first president to benefit from a
foreign spoils system, but Barack Obama has made Clinton look like an
amateur.

One more coincidence in shady fundraising.  The lady
involved with Obama’s fundraising in the Caribbean?  None other than Vera Baker,
who packed up and hurried left the country after the National Enquirer
started exploring a possible tryst between her and Obama in a Washington
hotel.

Barack Obama can only hope that ObamaCare covers
“extreme stress” — because whoever on his staff is responsible for keeping
track of all of the weird stuff in the president’s life is definitely a
candidate for burnout.

One final item involves that most elusive of
documents: Obama’s long-lost long-form birth certificate.

A Chicago-area activist, Sherman Skolnick, writing for
a radio show/website (now defunct) by the name of Cloak and Dagger uncorked this
headline on his readers.  It referred to another story he’d written in 2005 –
three years before anyone in the media coined the term “birther” to tamp down
curiosity about our 44th president’s past.  (All-caps headline in the
original story.)

CLOAK’S EXCLUSIVE AUGUST 2005 STORY EXPOSING OBAMA’S
KENYAN BIRTHPLACE FORCES OBAMA TO SANITIZE HIS PASSPORT
FILE.

Just another day in the life of anyone attempting to
pierce the shroud of mystery that surrounds our 44th president.  The
final result is the publication of The Secret Life of Barack Hussein
Obama
.

Mondo Frazier is the editor/founder
of the website DBKP – Death By 1000
Papercuts
and the
author of
The Secret Life of Barack Hussein
Obama
, published
by Threshold Editions/Simon &
Schuster.

Is the POTUS Stirring Up a Revolution?

Is the POTUS Stirring Up a Revolution?

By Mercer
Tyson

Obama was hailed as a healing president, promising
peace and harmony.  What we have seen, however, is a president distinctively
divisive on racial issues, and instigating class warfare.  His actions are a
prescription for a violent revolution.

During his campaign Obama gave the highly acclaimed
speech on race (excerpt):

“Throughout the first year of this campaign, against
all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for
this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a
purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the
whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate
Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white
Americans.”

My, how things have changed; and it didn’t take long.
Shortly after Obama took office there was Obama’s reaction to the
incident
involving Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the Cambridge Police
Department: “President Obama said that police in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
‘acted stupidly’ in arresting a prominent black Harvard professor last week
after a confrontation at the man’s home.”  He never should have stuck his nose
into this.  And if he were going to say something, he should have understood the
situation prior to butting in.  Instead, he routinely took the professor’s side,
showing his real and sincere bias, and managing to anger folks on both sides of
the debate.

More recently the POTUS told a
group of Hispanics, “And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying,
we’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends…”  Punish?
Enemies?  Not exactly harmonious, peace-inspiring words.

Then in his speech
before the Congressional Black Caucus he said, “I expect all of you to march
with me and press on. Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching
shoes.”

And let’s not forget the work of Eric Holder when his
Justice Department went easy in a Philadelphia voting rights case against
members of the New Black Panther Party because they are African
American.

This is our post-racial president.

And then there’s the class warfare.

In 2008, then-candidate Obama’s remarks in his
interview
with Charles Gibson should have been a clue.  When Gibson pointed out that
recently when tax rates were increased government revenues decreased and when
tax rates decreased revenues increased, Obama replied “Well, Charlie, what I’ve
said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of
fairness.”
  He has accusingly said ad nauseam that wealthy Americans should
pay their “fair share,” which means that no matter how much they are paying,
they should pay more.

Mr. Obama’s repetitive attacks on the wealthy have led
to growing divisions between them and the less fortunate, such as the current
Occupy Wall Street protestors who
“want to see the rich pay a fair share of their profits in wages, wealth and
income in taxes…”  When asked about the protestors, Obama replied: “”I think
it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel.”

Usage of words such as greed, selfish, and mean, while
always a part of the liberal description of Republicans, has escalated more in
recent years.

While most pundits seem to think of this as just
another chapter in American politics, albeit somewhat intense, I’m less blasé
about it.  I see this as a potential beginning of serious violence in our
streets and neighborhoods.  At worst, problems could escalate to a point
requiring national action — possibly a declaration of a state of emergency with
military involvement.  Is it possible we could have martial law imposed on us
around next November, and, coincidentally, have the elections postponed?  Not
likely, but possible.

More certain, however, is the extended racial and
class tension that will exist for decades.  While I never expected racism to go
away completely, racial harmony in this country has been gaining momentum and
is, essentially, more of a problem to the left-wing media and certain
race-baiting politicos than to folks on the ground.  I’m afraid the actions of
this administration may reverse the positive course that people of all races
have worked so hard to establish.  Barack Obama has done his best to delay
racial harmony.

And class warfare?  The vociferous screams from the
left have prompted normally silent, tax-paying Americans to denigrate those who
don’t pay taxes: adding their voices to the argument and elevating
hostilities.

I don’t generally subscribe to conspiracy theories,
and I’m not postulating such right now.  However, you have to wonder, given Rahm
Emanuel’s remarks at
the beginning of Obama’s administration: “You never want a serious crisis to go
to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you
could not do before.”  Do what? Fully implement socialism?  Create a
fascist-left country?  Simply elevate the problems with our economy and
instigate tension between the people, and you have the perfect storm for such a
scenario.  Even if this isn’t being done by design, it could happen
anyway.

This is one reason why so many on the right believe it
is absolutely critical that we remove Mr. Obama from office in 2012.   A GOP
president will certainly stir up anxiety on the left, and the cries of foul play
that existed during George Bush’s administration will resume.

Certainly a Republican will not be able to do much to
mend recent wounds.  But the GOP is never as hostile in its criticism of the
left, and the dissention will slow down and possibly stop.  Maybe after a few
years and if the economy improves progress in this area will again move
forward.

And yes, while there are not many high-profile,
moderate Dems, a more moderate and sensible Democrat could lessen the problem as
well.  However, it is highly unlikely that any Democrat (even Hillary) will
challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination.  And if one did, of course,
additional hostilities would generate from that.

Thanks to Barack Obama (with help from the media and
left-wing pundits) hostility in America is a high as I can recall, and close to
a breaking point.  With regard to this situation, the 2012 election represent a
break even or lose situation.  If Obama wins, we lose.  If any Republican wins,
we break even.

The Justice Department’s war on the truth

The Justice Department’s  war on the truth


Posted: October 25, 2011
3:31 pm Eastern

© 2011

 

The U.S. Department of Justice is becoming a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Obama administration is bowing to Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups and stopping the use of all training materials for law enforcement and  national security officials that refer to jihad and any and all references to  Islam. Yet Anwar al-Awlaki was a devout imam who preached the Quran. So  let me understand this: Obama executed Awlaki for preaching  jihad. That was all he did. Awlaki did not kill anyone. And yet Obama  orders law enforcement to drop all mention of jihad and the Islamic motivation  of terrorists. What’s the difference?

Why did he kill Awlaki?

The Justice Department held a seminar last week on  “Confronting Discrimination in the Post 9-11 Era.” Among the treacherous  conspirators indoctrinating believers and non-believers was the notorious Jew-hating pollster James Zogby and the ghastly leader of the  Muslim Brotherhood-tied Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Mohammed Magid.

James Lafferty, a board member of my organization, the American Freedom  Defense Initiative (AFDI), was there and reported: “Speaker after speaker  recited anecdote after anecdote which demonstrated that, except for the Justice  Department, law enforcement is conspiring with ‘bigoted’ Americans to suspend  the First Amendment protections of religious expression and free speech.”

The DOJ promised to fight that “bigotry” by changing training materials  designed to help law enforcement officials understand the jihad threat. Dwight  Holton, the U.S. attorney in Oregon, said: “I want to be perfectly clear about  this: Training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a  tendency toward violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to  everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice  stands for. They will not be tolerated.”

The only ones really responsible for the idea that Islam  is “a religion of violence or with a tendency toward violence” are the Muslims  who act violently and justify their violence by quoting the Quran. That isn’t  “bigotry.” It’s the truth.

This comes fresh on the heels of my recent WND column, “Obama’s  Department of Shariah,” describing how the DOJ is actively pursing cases to  gain special privileges for Muslims. In case after case, the Department of  Justice’s pursuit of the Shariah is surpassed only by that of the Supreme  Council of Al-Azhar, the most prestigious institution in Sunni Islam.

How can Obama enforce the blasphemy laws of the Shariah (do not criticize,  offend or speak truthfully about Islam) and order the killing of Imam Awlaki?  Think about that.

Banning study of the religious motivation of Muslim  terrorists has been a cornerstone of this national-security policy  throughout the Obama administration, but Obama orders the executions of those  who are proselytizing for and advancing what they present as pure Islam,  authentic Islam.

What is this policy? Perhaps Obama prefers the stealth  jihad, and the violent jihad only calls attention to  the true nature of Islamic law. Incoherent is a best-case scenario  explanation on this, but I do not believe that. In my book “The  Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America,” I give  the details of his pro-Islam leanings from the beginning of his career. And now  as president, on foreign policy, he has aided and abetted the overthrow of  secular governments. Libya, like Tunisia and Egypt, is heading toward becoming  an Islamic state. His anti-Israel policies have led to the increased isolation  of the tiny Jewish state, making it a ripe target for Islamic imperialists and  devout Muslims.

And his Department of Justice is on the offense against America. While doing  research for my book “Stop  the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance,” I  discovered some startling information about the full extent  of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the Department of Justice and its brazen  pro-Muslim activities, including the creation  of Muslim-majority legislative districts. And when I inquired  for documentation related to these activities, the DOJ’s response to me  indicated that the agency’s ties with Islamic supremacist groups are far more  extensive than anyone has realized. Nelson Hermilla of the DOJ responded,  telling me that my request involved 14,100 documents that I could only get by  paying $1,400.

It is a bombshell that there would be more than 14,000 documents identified  as a result of the FOIA request I made to the Department of Justice. I made a  relatively isolated request on a narrow topic the Civil Rights Division really  doesn’t even have direct jurisdiction over (“Muslim outreach”), and they come up  with over 14,000 documents.

Hermilla complained that “it is not clear in what manner the collection of  all five-year’s records might contribute to the general public understanding.”  That they would challenge the “public interest” aspect of my request is also  astounding. Given the recent coverage of the DOJ’s scuttling  of the prosecution of CAIR officials in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas funding  case, and its advocacy for the Muslim schoolteacher  who demanded a month off to go to Mecca and was given $75,000 in a  settlement, their claim is flimsy.

Hermilla is flouting the law by making me wait for eight months now since my  first request, making a mockery of Obama’s promise to run a transparent  administration and suppressing information that is critical for the American  public to know. They still have not turned over any of these documents.

Concurrently, DOJ whistleblower J. Christian Adams has  revealed that “all 10 new hires to the Justice  Department’s Criminal Section have far-left resumes.” Every hire Holder  is making is one that America will have to live with long after Obama is gone.  They have put in place the legal apparatus to pursue a  treasonous agenda.

The American people should demand that the next president prosecute the  Muslim Brotherhood co-conspirators and pledge to purge their operatives in the  Department of Justice, Department of State and Department of  Defense.

Obama: 1, Informed Public: 0

Obama: 1, Informed Public: 0

By Randall
Hoven

“The Statistical Abstract of the
United States
, published since 1878, is the authoritative and
comprehensive summary of statistics on the social, political, and economic
organization of the United States.” That is how the Abstract describes
itself. Click on this New York Post infographic to
get a feel some of the data in the Abstract.

I first encountered the Abstract in 1979
while killing time in the college library. I was blown away. I had no idea such
a thing existed: an entire book, a thick one, full of nothing but tables of data
– relevant data. Instead of a little snippet or partial fact, the
Abstract provided the whole context. You could find, for example, what
the federal government actually spent, over history and in each category, in
current dollars, inflation-adjusted dollars and as fractions of Gross Domestic
Product.

Your knowledge of the world no longer had to rely on
what 20 seconds CBS decided to quote from Senator X.

Ben
Wattenberg

explained one of his books this way:

“What I did in the book, as I’ve done in some earlier
books, is say, ‘Look, these arguments that we get into, be it about poverty, or
race, or education, or infant mortality, or housing or whatever, people are
ignoring the central numbers on these things.’ You get the rhetoric of activists
on either side and they are flailing around with this number or that number, but
the reader, the observer, the participant rarely gets census reports, he doesn’t
get the reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, he doesn’t sit down for a
week with the statistical abstract of the United States, he doesn’t get
business indicators. So I designed 125 little, sort of, pocket-size charts. I
made them lean and mean and just run them in a simple column so people –because
people can get a little turned off by too many
numbers.”

I happen to be a person who is not turned off by too
many numbers. In fact, I like looking things up myself, rather than relying on a
middleman to interpret for me. I would spend hours at the library looking things
up in the Abstract, since it could not be checked out. I spent
countless nickels and dimes copying pages from it to take home for further
analysis. One year I bought my own copy of the Abstract. They came out
every year.

Then came the internet. The Abstract was
right at my fingertips! I could even download the tables directly in Excel and
calculate to my heart’s content: averages, trends, comparing time periods,
etc.

Here is what I encountered on the web site of the
Abstract this morning:

“The U.S. Census Bureau is terminating the collection
of data for the Statistical Compendia program effective October 1, 2011. The
Statistical Compendium program is comprised of the Statistical Abstract of the
United States and its supplemental products – – the State and Metropolitan Area
Data Book and the County and City Data Book. In preparation for the Fiscal Year
2012 (FY 2012) budget, the Census Bureau did a comprehensive review of a number
of programs and had to make difficult proposals to terminate and reduce a number
of existing programs in order to acquire funds for higher priority programs. The
decision to propose the elimination of this program was not made lightly. To
access the most current data, please refer to the organizations cited in the
source notes for each table of the Statistical
Abstract.”

Out of the $3.6 trillion the government spends, the
Census Bureau thought the relative pennies it spends on collecting and
disseminating data about the government itself and the country at large were
among the most expendable.

Almost no one wants to cut government spending as much
as I do. Ron Paul made a good start. But if we live in a world where our federal
government spends one of every four dollars, and regulates virtually every
aspect of our lives and businesses, it is a matter of democracy that we
have that data. If government ever gets out of the business of trying to
engineer the economy and society, I can relax about the Abstract. But
that is not the world we live in now.

At the very moment our government is trying to do more
than ever, it is informing us less than ever.

When our President is intent on spreading the wealth,
it is imperative that we have an idea of how that wealth is actually spread, how
much the government already takes, etc. If someone says the rich pay lower tax
rates than their secretaries, how will we be able to check
that?

I’ve been worried about this for some time: the
government would start either manipulating the data or hiding it altogether.
Eliminating the Abstract is not just a matter of crimping the mirth of
data hobbyists like me; it is ominous. It is hiding the truth. It is
Soviet-like. It is a short step from airbrushing people out of photos. The
Abstract has been around for 133 years, or about a century longer than
the Department of Education has.

It is not often (I would say never) that you will find
me agreeing with Paul
Krugman
and Ezra
Klein
. But on this, saving the Abstract, I’m with
them. You can also read what Robert Samuelson had to say about it
here.

I read their warnings, but did not take them
seriously. I thought the Abstract would be saved, when push came to
shove. But it is now October 18. The Census Bureau terminated data collection
October 1. It has already happened. This is not good.

Obama on Occupy Wall Street: ‘We Are on Their Side’ Help he needs thier votes ?????

Obama on Occupy Wall Street: ‘We Are on Their Side’

Daniel Halper

October 18, 2011 3:02 PM

In an interview that will be aired tonight on ABC News, President Obama continues to express his commitment to the Occupy Wall Street protesters.

“The  most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership  letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on  their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work,  responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded,” Obama  tells ABC News. “And that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who  don’t feel a sense of obligation to their communities and their  companies and their workers that those folks aren’t rewarded.”

The president also compares the protesters to the Tea Party. “In  some ways, they’re not that different from some of the protests that we  saw coming from the Tea Party,” Obama says. “Both on the left and the right, I think  people feel separated from their government. They feel that their  institutions aren’t looking out for them.”

But it wasn’t too long ago that President Obama openly mocked the Tea Party movement:

“Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I’m not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around,["] Obama said, “let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers