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.

Secret panel can put Americans on “kill list’

Secret panel can put Americans on “kill list’

Wed, Oct 5 2011

By Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda’s Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama’s toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki’s killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush’s expansive use of executive power in his “war on terrorism,” is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder.

Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki. They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process.

Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

The process involves “going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law,” Ruppersberger said.

LAWYERS CONSULTED

Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described.

They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC “principals,” meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said.

The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

They confirmed that lawyers, including those in the Justice Department, were consulted before Awlaki’s name was added to the target list.

Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself.

Several officials said that when Awlaki became the first American put on the target list, Obama was not required personally to approve the targeting of a person. But one official said Obama would be notified of the principals’ decision. If he objected, the decision would be nullified, the official said.

A former official said one of the reasons for making senior officials principally responsible for nominating Americans for the target list was to “protect” the president.

Officials confirmed that a second American, Samir Khan, was killed in the drone attack that killed Awlaki. Khan had served as editor of Inspire, a glossy English-language magazine used by AQAP as a propaganda and recruitment vehicle.

But rather than being specifically targeted by drone operators, Khan was in the wrong place at the wrong time, officials said. Ruppersberger appeared to confirm that, saying Khan’s death was “collateral,” meaning he was not an intentional target of the drone strike.

When the name of a foreign, rather than American, militant is added to targeting lists, the decision is made within the intelligence community and normally does not require approval by high-level NSC officials.

‘FROM INSPIRATIONAL TO OPERATIONAL’

Officials said Awlaki, whose fierce sermons were widely circulated on English-language militant websites, was targeted because Washington accumulated information his role in AQAP had gone “from inspirational to operational.” That meant that instead of just propagandizing in favor of al Qaeda objectives, Awlaki allegedly began to participate directly in plots against American targets.

“Let me underscore, Awlaki is no mere messenger but someone integrally involved in lethal terrorist activities,” Daniel Benjamin, top counterterrorism official at the State Department, warned last spring.

The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks.

But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki’s hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy.

For instance, one plot in which authorities have said Awlaki was involved Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner on Christmas Day 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underpants.

There is no doubt Abdulmutallab was an admirer or follower of Awlaki, since he admitted that to U.S. investigators. When he appeared in a Detroit courtroom earlier this week for the start of his trial on bomb-plot charges, he proclaimed, “Anwar is alive.”

But at the time the White House was considering putting Awlaki on the U.S. target list, intelligence connecting Awlaki specifically to Abdulmutallab and his alleged bomb plot was partial. Officials said at the time the United States had voice intercepts involving a phone known to have been used by Awlaki and someone who they believed, but were not positive, was Abdulmutallab.

Awlaki was also implicated in a case in which a British Airways employee was imprisoned for plotting to blow up a U.S.-bound plane. E-mails retrieved by authorities from the employee’s computer showed what an investigator described as ” operational contact” between Britain and Yemen.

Authorities believe the contacts were mainly between the U.K.-based suspect and his brother. But there was a strong suspicion Awlaki was at the brother’s side when the messages were dispatched. British media reported that in one message, the person on the Yemeni end supposedly said, “Our highest priority is the US … With the people you have, is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US?”

U.S. officials contrast intelligence suggesting Awlaki’s involvement in specific plots with the activities of Adam Gadahn, an American citizen who became a principal English-language propagandist for the core al Qaeda network formerly led by Osama bin Laden.

While Gadahn appeared in angry videos calling for attacks on the United States, officials said he had not been specifically targeted for capture or killing by U.S. forces because he was regarded as a loudmouth not directly involved in plotting attacks.

White House: Libya fight is not war, it’s ‘kinetic military action’

White House: Libya fight is not war, it’s ‘kinetic military action’

In the last few days, Obama administration officials have frequently faced the question: Is the fighting in Libya a war?  From military officers to White House spokesmen up to the president himself, the answer is no.  But that leaves the question: What is it?

In a briefing on board Air Force One Wednesday, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes took a crack at an answer.  “I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone,” Rhodes said.  “Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.”

Rhodes’ words echoed a description by national security adviser Tom Donilon in a briefing with reporters two weeks ago as the administration contemplated action in Libya.  “Military steps — and they can be kinetic and non-kinetic, obviously the full range — are not the only method by which we and the international community are pressuring Gadhafi,” Donilon said.

Rhodes and Donilon are by no means alone.  “Kinetic” is heard in a lot of descriptions of what’s going on in Libya. “As we are successful in suppressing the [Libyan] air defenses, the level of kinetic activity should decline,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in a meeting with reporters in Moscow Tuesday.  In a briefing with reporters the same day from on board the USS Mount Whitney, Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, said, “The coalition brings together a wide array of capabilities that allow us to minimize the collateral damage when we have to take kinetic operations.”  On Monday, General Carter Ham, head of U.S. Africa Command, said of the coalition forces, “We possess certainly a very significant kinetic capability.”  And unnamed sources use it too. “In terms of the heavy kinetic portion of this military action, the president envisions it as lasting days, not weeks,” an unnamed senior official told CNN Saturday.

“Kinetic” is a word that’s been used around the Pentagon for many years to distinguish between actions like dropping bombs, launching cruise missiles or shooting people and newer forms of non-violent fighting like cyber-warfare.  At times, it also appears to mean just taking action. In a 2002 article in Slate, Timothy Noah noted a passage from Bob Woodward’s book, Bush at War:

For many days the war cabinet had been dancing around the basic question: how long could they wait after September 11 before the U.S. started going “kinetic,” as they often termed it, against al Qaeda in a visible way?

Now, White House officials are referring to the war in Libya not as a war but as a “kinetic military action.” As common as “kinetic” might be among those in government, it still seems likely to strike members of the public as a euphemism that allows the Obama administration to describe a war as something other than a war.

Soros fingerprints on Mideast chaos Billionaire tied to opposition leader, funded groups opposing U.S. allies

FROM
WND’S JERUSALEM BUREAU

Soros fingerprints on Mideast chaos

Billionaire tied to opposition leader, funded groups opposing U.S.
allies


Posted: February 06, 2011
4:28 pm Eastern

By Aaron
Klein

© 2011 WorldNetDaily


George
Soros
JERUSALEM – Philanthropist billionaire George Soros has funded opposition
organizations in Egypt and throughout the Middle East, where anti-regime chaos
has already toppled the pro-Western leader of Tunisia and is threatening the
rule of President Hosni Mubarak, a key U.S. ally.
Mohamed ElBaradei, one of the main opposition leaders in Egypt, has also sat
on the board of an international “crisis management” group alongside Soros and
other personalities who champion dialogue with Hamas, a violent offshoot of the
Muslim Brotherhood.
The Brotherhood, which seeks to spread Islam around the world in part by
first creating an Islamic caliphate in Egypt, now backs ElBaradai, who has
defended the group in the news media the last few weeks.
ElBaradei suspended his board membership in the International Crisis Group,
or ICG last week, after he returned to Egypt to lead the anti-Mubarak protests.
Soros is one of eight members of the ICG executive committee.
U.S. board members include Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security
adviser to Jimmy Carter; Samuel Berger, who was Bill Clinton’s national security
adviser; and retired U.S. ambassador Thomas Pickering, who made headlines in
2009 after meeting with Hamas leaders and calling for the U.S. to open ties to
the Islamist group.
Another ICG member is Robert Malley, a former adviser to Obama during the
2008 presidential campaign who resigned after it was exposed he had communicated
with Hamas. WND
first reported
Malley had long petitioned for dialogue with Hamas.
The ICG defines itself as an “independent, non-profit, multinational
organization, with 100 staff members on five continents, working through
field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to prevent and resolve deadly
conflict.”
Radio talk show host Michael Savage spent his entire show Friday discussing
the ICG’s ties to the current Islamic uprising in Egypt. Savage
also wrote a 13-page paper
outlining Obama’s links to the Egypt chaos.
(Story continues below)
Soros also has other ties to opposition groups in the Middle East.
His Open Society Institute’s Middle East and North Africa Initiative has
provided numerous grants to a wide range of projects that promote so-called
democratic issues across the region, including in Egypt, where the Muslim
Brotherhood stands to gain from any future election.
Soros’ Open Society also funded the main opposition voice in Tunisia, Radio
Kalima, which championed the riots there that led to the ouster of President
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.
In September, Soros’ group was looking to expand its operations in Egypt by
hiring a new project manager for its Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights,
which is run in partnership with the Open Society Justice Initiative. The group
is seeking to develop a national network of legal empowerment actors for
referral of public-interest law cases. Such organizations in the past have
helped represent Muslim Brotherhood leaders seeking election or more authority
in the country.
Soros himself on Friday made public statements in support of the protests in
Egypt, which the Mubarak government has warned will result in the rise of the
Muslim Brotherhood in the country.
In a Washington Post editorial entitled, “Why Obama Has to Get Egypt Right,”
Soros recognized that if free elections were held in Egypt, “the Brotherhood is
bound to emerge as a major political force, though it is far from assured of a
majority.”
He stated the U.S. has “much to gain by moving out in front and siding with
the public demand for dignity and democracy” in Egypt.
He claimed the “Muslim Brotherhood’s cooperation with Mohamed ElBaradei … is
a hopeful sign that it intends to play a constructive role in a democratic
political system.”
Soros did not mention his ties to ElBaradei.
Soros did, however, single out Israel as “the main stumbling block” in paving
the way toward transition in the Middle East.
“In reality, Israel has as much to gain from the spread of democracy in the
Middle East as the United States has. But Israel is unlikely to recognize its
own best interests because the change is too sudden and carries too many risks,”
he wrote.
The information comes as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today tentatively
welcomed Muslim Brotherhood involvement in the next Egyptian elections, saying
Washington would “wait and see” how talks develop.
“Today we learned the Muslim Brotherhood decided to participate, which
suggests they at least are now involved in the dialogue that we have
encouraged,” Clinton told National Public Radio from Germany.
“We’re going to wait and see how this develops, but we’ve been very clear
about what we expect.”
“The Egyptian people are looking for an orderly transition that can lead to
free and fair elections. That is what the United States has consistently
supported,” said Clinton.
“The people themselves, and leaders of various groups … will ultimately
determine if it is or not meeting their needs.”
She added: “I want to make very clear we have set forth the principles we
support. We are adamant about no violence.
“We want to see peaceful protests that are, so far anyway, embodying the
aspirations that are in our view very legitimate.
“And we want to see an orderly, expeditious transition.”
With research by Brenda J. Elliott

Read more: Soros fingerprints on
Mideast chaos
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=260577#ixzz1DICMcufc

McCain’s Wrong Again

McCain’s Wrong Again

Richard Kantro

 

If the
policies themselves of the Obama administration haven’t yet made you dizzy, then
perhaps its contradictory characterizations, from within and without — now that
the 2012 campaign, make no mistake about it, has begun in earnest — will do the
job for you.

There’s John Sidney McCain, just four
short days ago proclaiming that, Obama having molted, he is now more
malleable:

Speaking with Bloomberg Television a
day after a private meeting with President Obama, McCain said he could picture
working with Obama on several issues going forward.

“I think there’s a number of issues
we could work on together, and I think it’s pretty clear that the president has
really pivoted to a much more centrist position, which I think makes it much
more for us easier to work with him,” McCain said.  (See story here; other stories here
and here.)

That old hero’s old bipartisan urge
is as strong as ever.  And to be fair, Mr. Obama has praised Senator McCain
sometimes, too.  Take this demure pearl from January 19, 2009, for example,
which then-President-Elect Obama disgorged right before flubbing the oath of
office:

“It has not been a quest for fame or
vanity that has driven this man.  It has not been the need to compromise for
politics’ sake that has shaped his distinguished career,” Obama said in a . . .
serious tone talking about McCain.” It is rather a pure and deeply felt love of
his country that comes from the painful knowledge of what life is like without
it.”

[snip]

“John is not known to bite
his tongue,” Obama said with a smile, “and If I’m screwing up, he’s going to let
me know. And that’s how it should be because a presidency is just one branch of
a broader government by and for the people.”  (Story here.)

But of course, that was four long,
whole days before the new President was to put Senator McCain resoundingly in
his place — before lots of other members of Congress — with his famous, ornery
put-down, the conversation-stopping stunner:  “I won.”  (Story here.)  (And by the way, that
branch-of-government business still puzzles Obama’s good friend, Senator
Schumer.)

So
why does the President have to go and once again flummox Senator McCain, and
us?  After all, we just got comfortable with McCain becoming comfortable.  Then,
before complaining that he needed to wear a jacket on Super Bowl Sunday, Mr.
Obama ruined everything, bursting the centrist fantasy, by telling an eager Bill
O’Reilly,

[OBAMA]:  And now our focus is not on
refighting the battle of the last two years…

O’REILLY: So you’re not moving to the
center?

OBAMA: I
haven’t — I didn’t move to…

O’REILLY: You haven’t moved anywhere?
You’re the same guy?

OBAMA: I’m the same guy. My practical
focus, my common-sense focus right now is how to we out-innovate, out-educate,
out-building, out-compete the rest of the world? How do we create jobs here in
the United States of America? How do we make sure that businesses are thriving?
But how do we also — making sure that ordinary Americans can live out the
American dream?  (See story and Bill O’Reilly feeding the President his lines in
the full interview here; quotes begin at
7m30s.)

How
do we, indeed.  It’s hard to know what part of Mr. Obama’s reveries — of fewer
jobs, less income, lousy light bulbs, lower salt, higher taxes, bankruptcy law
subversion, industry takeovers, a much bigger IRS, subpoena-snubbing, contempt
of court, crummy hybrid cars, endless executive orders, less coal, less gas,
more regulation, unaccountable czars, drilling moratoria, state dinners for
dictators, food police, airport palpitations, internet kill switches, exhalation
levies, end-of-life “consults”, intentional inflation, and White House Ramadan
“iftar” dinners — he can possibly think are the dreamy parts of the American
dream.

Maybe
Senator McCain knows.

Richard Kantro
may be contacted at rk4at@hotmail.com.

Page Printed
from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/mccains_wrong_again.html

at February 07, 2011 – 10:28:22 AM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

Obama Eyeing Internet ID for Americans

Obama Eyeing Internet ID for Americans

Posted by Declan McCullagh


(Credit: istockphoto.com)

STANFORD, Calif. – President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today.

It’s “the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government” to centralize efforts toward creating an “identity ecosystem” for the Internet, White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt said.

That news, first reported by CNET, effectively pushes the department to the forefront of the issue, beating out other potential candidates including the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. The move also is likely to please privacy and civil liberties groups that have raised concerns in the past over the dual roles of police and intelligence agencies.

The announcement came at an event today at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, where U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Schmidt spoke.

The Obama administration is currently drafting what it’s calling the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, which Locke said will be released by the president in the next few months. (An early version was publicly released last summer.)

“We are not talking about a national ID card,” Locke said at the Stanford event. “We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities.”

The Commerce Department will be setting up a national program office to work on this project, Locke said.

Details about the “trusted identity” project are unusually scarce. Last year’s announcement referenced a possible forthcoming smart card or digital certificate that would prove that online users are who they say they are. These digital IDs would be offered to consumers by online vendors for financial transactions.

Schmidt stressed today that anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. “I don’t have to get a credential if I don’t want to,” he said. There’s no chance that “a centralized database will emerge,” and “we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this,” he said.

Inter-agency rivalries to claim authority over cybersecurity have exited ever since many responsibilities were centralized in the Department of Homeland Security as part of its creation nine years ago. Three years ago, proposals were were circulating in Washington to transfer authority to the secretive NSA, which is part of the U.S. Defense Department.

In March 2009, Rod Beckstrom, director of Homeland Security’s National Cybersecurity Center, resigned through a letter that gave a rare public glimpse into the competition for budgetary dollars and cybersecurity authority. Beckstrom said at the time that the NSA “effectively controls DHS cyber efforts through detailees, technology insertions,” and has proposed moving some functions to the agency’s Fort Meade, Md., headquarters.

New study shows zero impact of $800 billion stimulus

New study shows zero impact of $800 billion stimulus

Rick Moran

 

There have been other studies hinting at the same thing,
but this one by John
Cogan and John Taylor
of the Hoover Institution appears to be pretty
solid.

In September 2009, we reported on this page empirical research
showing that the temporary tax rebates and transfer payments in the Bush and
Obama administration’s stimulus programs were ineffective. Here we consider new
data on the impact of increases in government purchases, which were heralded as
a major stimulating factor in the Obama package.
The key tenet of Keynesian economics is that government purchases of goods
and services stimulate additional economic activity beyond the amount of the
purchase itself. The impact on GDP of the stimulus depends both on the dollar
volume of additional government purchases and on the size of the government
purchases multiplier, i.e., the effect of a change in government purchases on
real GDP.
Although the policy debate has mainly focused on the multiplier’s size, data
covering the first year and three quarters of the 2009 American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) show that, despite the large size of the program, the
dollar volume of additional government purchases that it has generated has been
negligible.

“Negligible” as in perhaps a 3% difference. One thing that the stim bill
accomplished was bringing down state indebtedness – about $130 billion less was
borrowed. That’s not to say that the states didn’t spend that money. They just
didn’t need to borrow against tomorrow to do it.
This won’t stop liberal economists like Paul Krugman from ranting about more
and more stimulus. But it least it gives the opposition a little ammunition to
stop the madness before we are forced into
insolvency.

Page Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/new_study_shows_zero_impact_of.html

at December 10, 2010 – 11:09:24 AM CST

// <![CDATA[//