Friday, August 31, 2012

A PICTURE SPEAKS WHAT MANY ARE THINKING


http://demmwits.com/2012/04/its-trueal-gore-invented-the-rice-cake/á
[]
á
http://demwits.com/2012/04/three-years-three-years-without-a-vacation-and-that-idiotic-muslim-and-his-wife-get-one-every-week/
á
http://demwits.com/2012/03/do-you-hear-that-its-the-sound-of-nobody-giving-a-rats-ass-what-i-say-anymore/
á
http://demwits.com/2012/03/i-am-now-this-close-to-being-irrelevant/
á
http://demwits.com/2012/03/dont-take-this-personally-but-i-think-youre-a-bitch/
á
á
http://demwits.com/2012/03/ive-got-two-microphones-darn-that-means-i-have-to-say-everything-twice/
á
http://demwits.com/2012/03/lets-hide-his-teleprompter/
á
http://demwits.com/2012/03/i-told-you-he-would-be-a-crappy-president-hes-half-white/
á
http://demwits.com/2012/03/we-can-put-the-polling-booth-right-over-there-next-to-the-hole-in-the-fence/
á
http://demwits.com/2012/02/give-it-up-al-even-i-dont-believe-you-any-more/
á
[]
á
http://demwits.com/2012/02/queen-kong/
á
http://demwits.com/2012/02/wait-a-minute-i-cant-do-this-interview-until-my-teleprompter-gets-here/
á
mip://01e98db0/default.html??
á
http://demwits.com/2012/02/all-of-this-constitution-crap-is-giving-me-a-headache/
á
á
http://demwits.com/2012/01/signing-my-own-pardon-genius/
á
http://demwits.com/2012/01/you-with-the-facts-take-them-and-leave-we-dont-want-them-we-dont-need-them-we-hate-them/
á
http://demwits.com/2012/01/man-its-harder-to-destroy-america-than-i-thought/
á
á
http://demwits.com/2011/12/i-know-as-much-about-health-and-human-services-joe-as-you-know-about-being-vice-president/
á
http://demwits.com/2011/12/im-serious-larry-how-much-do-you-think-i-could-pull-in-if-i-put-that-cigar-up-on-ebay-before-christmas/
á
http://demwits.com/2011/12/nancy-takes-curtain-3-and-wins-free-plastic-surgery-for-life/
á
http://demwits.com/2011/12/see-all-them-black-folks-out-there-they-aint-gotta-clue-were-using-them-as-slaves/
á
http://demwits.com/2011/12/but-at-least-now-when-they-say-worse-than-carter-they-wont-be-thinking-of-me/
á
http://demwits.com/2011/12/what-the-hell-is-the-constitution/
á
http://demwits.com/2011/12/clinton-obama/
á

























MECCA, CARIO, … NOPE … NYC FIFTH AVENUE


FREEDOM OF RELIGION DOESN'T MEAN THE FREEDOM TO DISRUPT MY FREEDOM … 


We'd better wake up before it's too late; if it's not already.  Looks like France 


I wonder why this isn't on the news! 

cid:A0C97C8EDB9D48E688DEC55314655B74@shirley7f671c7
cid:A11264C8063E418FB3505A396FB95038@shirley7f671c7
cid:EE108DFAD86F4B1383CEDEC3692F61E6@shirley7f671c7
cid:8D4F2AE7ABBE4630AE33F2695BB38907@shirley7f671c7
 
Scary!  Isn't it?  
   
A Christian Nation cannot put up a Christmas scene of the baby Jesus in a public place, but the Muslims can stop normal traffic every Friday afternoon by worshiping in the streets. 

Something is happening in America that is reminiscent of what is happening in  Europe. This is Political Correctness gone 
crazy!


This  is NYC on Madison Ave. This is an accurate picture of every Friday
afternoon in several 
locations  throughout NYC where there are mosques with a  large  number  of Muslims that cannot fit into the mosque -  They fill the surrounding  streets, facing east for a couple of hours  between  about  2 & 4 p.m. Besides this one at 42nd St & Madison Ave.,  there  is another, even larger group, at 94th St & 3rd Ave., etc.,  Also,  I presume, you are aware of the dispute over  building another "high rise" Mosque a few  blocks from "ground zero" -

 
With regard to that one, the "Imam" refuses to  disclose where the $110 million dollars to build it is coming from and there is a lawsuit filed to force disclosure of that information - November can't come soon enough.  

This  is in New York City on Madison Avenue, not in 
France or the Middle East or Yemen or Kenya.


Is  there a message here????  Yes, there is, and they are 
claiming America for Allah. If we don't wake up soon, we are going to "politically  correct" ourselves right out of our own 
country!










 

Monday, August 27, 2012

IN ITALY LNG HAS BEEN USED IN PASSENGER CARS FOR OVER 20 YEARS …


Natural gas cars: A look under the hood

March 22, 2012 | Posted by Ken Cohen
With U.S. natural gas production booming, and the price of natural gas right now lower than the price of gasoline or diesel fuel, some are asking: Why don’t more of our cars run on natural gas?

Compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles – the most common type of natural gas vehicle – have been around for decades.Today, natural gas accounts for about 2 percent of U.S. demand for transportation fuel, with most of that demand coming from fleet vehicles like buses and taxis.

Looking forward, we do see opportunities for natural gas to make an increasingly important contribution to U.S. transportation when it comes to certain fleet uses; I will talk more about this later. But for average consumers, there are a number of challenges that limit the widespread adoption of natural gas vehicles. These include:
Vehicle cost. CNG vehicles are nearly 25 percent more expensive than conventional gasoline or diesel vehicles andnearly 10 percent more expensive than hybrids, based on equivalent models. For example, a CNG-powered passenger car available in the United States costs about $5,600 more than a similarly equipped conventional model, and a CNG-powered 18- wheeler costs an additional $60,000. Even with today’s low natural gas prices, it would take years for motorists to recoup these extra costs.

Infrastructure cost. For American motorists to fuel up on CNG as easily as they do today on gasoline and diesel, the U.S. would need to build an entirely new network of pipelines and service stations to accommodate high-pressure fueling. In a 2010 study, IHS-CERA estimated it would cost between $8 and $12 billion to have CNG facilities installed in just 10 percent of existing U.S. fueling stations. A single CNG station costs anywhere from $300,000 to $3 million more than a regular gas station.

Obviously, these two challenges are economic, and you’ve likely heard some supporters of CNG vehicles advocate for taxpayer subsidies and government support to overcome them. But other challenges to CNG as at transportation fuel areperformance-related. For example:
Energy density. Just as foods like nuts and granola bars are popular with hikers because they pack a lot of calories into a small, light package, gasoline and diesel are popular with drivers because they are the fuels with the highest energy density. CNG has relatively low energy density; it contains nearly 70 percent less energy per gallon equivalent than gasoline or diesel. As a result, CNG vehicles pack less horsepower.
Frequency and duration of fill-ups. The lower energy density of CNG also means that drivers will have to fill their tanks more frequently to go the same distance. For example, you would have to fill a CNG-fueled passenger car about 1.7 times to go the same distance as its gasoline-powered equivalent. Refueling a CNG vehicle also takes longer – about twice as long as a standard passenger vehicle.
Cargo space. Because of CNG’s lower energy density – and its need to be kept under very high pressure – CNG vehicles are equipped with large, heavy fuel tanks (200 pounds versus 10 pounds for gasoline). These tanksreduce a car’s fuel economy and its cargo capacity. CNG-powered passenger vehicles currently have about half the cargo space of their conventional equivalents.

Given all these factors, where might natural gas-powered vehicles play a role? One important application for CNG vehicles is for commercial and municipal fleets with limited driving distances. For these vehicles, CNG can make economic sense because they can benefit from shared refueling locations and infrastructure costs. According to theNatural Gas Vehicle Coalition, buses account for more than 60 percent of all natural gas vehicles in the world.

We also are beginning to see expanded interest in the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a vehicle fuel for commercial trucks in the United States. LNG, which is natural gas super-cooled to its liquid form, has a much higher energy density than CNG.

Demand for fuel for trucks, buses and other heavy-duty vehicles exerts a strong influence on U.S. transportation trends. Today, these vehicles — which are generally tied to commercial activity — account for about 20 percent of total U.S. demand for transportation fuels; by 2040, they will account for about 30 percent.

ExxonMobil supports the market-driven use of natural gas as a vehicle fuel. But a government push to subsidize or mandate the expanded use of natural gas in the transportation sector is a wrong turn.

National energy goals in the transportation sector – such as reducing Americans’ transportation costs and strengthening U.S. energy security – are better (and more economically) met through other methods, such as the expanded use of hybrid vehicles or improved fuel efficiency in conventional vehicles. This is, in fact, what we expect to happen.ExxonMobil’s Outlook for Energy projects that the average new car on U.S. roads in 2040 in will get 45 miles per gallon, compared to 22 MPG today, with hybrids and efficiency accounting for most of that improvement.

Like any fuel or technology, natural gas should compete with other transportation fuels on a level playing field – not one distorted by governments trying to pick which fuels and technologies will ultimately be the most successful. In this way, the nation’s energy needs are met at the lowest possible cost to consumers and taxpayers.

GEEKS, TAP DANCING ON QUICKSAND, AND OVER THE RAINBOW

Obama should pray that China overtakes US


By John Authers

Fellow Financial Times columnist Niall Ferguson has received some fierce criticism for a piece he wrote in Newsweek, under the provocative headline: “Hit the road, Barack”.

Among various complaints, critics cried foul over a graph showing that the International Monetary Fund predicts that, on current trends, China will overtake the US to have the world’s largest economy in 2017.

On that basis, China should be causing sleepless nights in the White House. The latest flash estimates for China’s purchasing manager data, designed so that 50 should be the dividing line between expansion and recession, are now at a nine-month low of 47.8.They have a point. Nobody disputes this claim (in a chart headed “A nation losing ground”). But this event would be no indictment of US economic policy under President Obama, or his predecessors. China has four times the population of the US; parity would mean that Americans were still on average four times richer.

Indeed, US business and the US economy desperately need China to keep growing. Mr Obama need not be embarrassed when China’s economy overtakes that of the US; but he should lose a lot of sleep over any suggestion that China might fail to do so. - THIS IS IT NOT A STOIC VIEW LACKING IN DEPTH AND VISION.

Western analysts are notoriously nervous of official Chinese data. However, commodity prices are something of a truth teller. Iron ore prices, driven almost exclusively by Chinese demand, have fallen by a third since April. Copper prices are also mired in decline.

Stock markets, too, are raising red flags. China’s domestic stock market is the most eye-catching. The Shanghai Composite index this week dropped to a low last seen in March 2009 – the month the developed world’s stock markets started their great recovery. It is down 66 per cent from its 2007 peak, and has underperformed the S&P 500 by 32 per cent since the beginning of last year. - WHO ARE THE DRIVERS OF THE CHINESE STOCK MARKET? THE COMMON MAN WADING IN THE RICE PADDY (?) … THE IMBALANCE IN POPULATION BETWEEN THE USA AND CHINA IS AN ILLUSION WHEN IT COMES TO THE ECONOMY … ESPECIALLY A GLOBALLY ECONOMY. THE LARGEST SINGLE PURCHASE AN AMERICAN FAMILY MAKES IS THEIR HOME … WHAT IS THE PENETRATION RATE IN CHINA OF HOME OWNERSHIP, AUTOMOTIVE, ETC.

True, Shanghai stocks enjoyed a classic speculative bubble in 2007. Their collapse follows a pattern typical after such incidents. (Charts showing how similar the Shanghai bubble was to the earlier Nasdaq bubble are to be found on the FT’s Long-Short blog). In any case, stock market growth is not closely tied to economic growth, at least on a year-by-year basis.

But then look at how woefully Chinese stocks open to western investors, as represented by the MSCI China index, are underperforming MSCI’s index of US stocks. Since the beginning of last year, they have underperformed by 26 per cent. But this measure is also imperfect. Big US companies are themselves heavily exposed to the Chinese economy.

When western stocks are analysed by their exposure to the Chinese economy the problem becomes most apparent. Deutsche Bank’s baskets of large European stocks, divided according to their greatest international exposures, show that China-exposed companies have underperformed US-exposed stocks by 40 per cent since the end of 2010. This is chiefly driven by mining companies, who cannot counter investors’ alarm about China’s attempt to refocus growth away from investment projects and towards consumption.

Miners’ share prices already appear adequately to discount the low materials prices, and indeed seem to be projecting them far into the future.

Globally, materials companies have underperformed developed world stocks as a whole by 20 per cent since the beginning of last year, according to MSCI indices.

Some sectors fare better. Luxury goods companies, also heavily exposed to China, have been doing fine. - A SIMILAR MENTALITY EXISTS IN INDIA WITH REGARD TO GOLD, WHERE FAMILY WEALTH IS DISPLAYED AND WORN FOR EVERYONE TO SEE

But this is not just an issue for miners. The grain of what executives in other industries are telling their investors suggests that they, too, are concerned about the consequences of investment decisions in China. In combination with the political risks in Europe and the US, this has led many decisions to be postponed.

Goldman Sachs produces a quarterly “beige book” compiling managements’ comments during their investor briefings. One of the clearest themes of the latest edition is concern over global growth, which largely comes from China. Caterpillar, for example, said that it was lowering production there and intended to cut production further.

The greatest hope of optimists among executives, at least as parsed by Goldman, is that China can rebound and execute its growth shift successfully. United Technologies, for example, rhapsodised over the possibilities for growth in demand over the next 15 years. IBM reported very strong growth in computer sales.

The upshot for the US is clear. Everyone needs to be offering up a prayer that China does indeed overtake the US on schedule, three years from now. That would help Americans grow richer.



High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/31b4fb2a-edcd-11e1-8d72-00144feab49a.html#ixzz24l9e8jOP

Saturday, August 25, 2012

THE MORNING AFTER IS ALWAYS REFRESHING … EXCEPT WHEN …


The Most Divisive Campaign in American History
In 1980, when President Reagan asked Americans, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago", it was still possible to campaign on a theme as simple as the job performance of the other guy. But now, 32 years later, the campaign hinges on a much more fundamental split among the voting population.
Romney appeals to voters who are dissatisfied with the last four years. Obama appeals to voters who are dissatisfied with America. PERHAPS THE REAL ISSUE IS VOTERS ARE DISSATISFIED WITH CONGRESS … THOSE SPINELESS EXCUSES FOR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.

This basic gap was obscured in the 2008 campaign by the window trappings of inspiration. Among all the plastic pillars and stolen quotes from poets who stole them from sermons, it was harder to see that the underlying theme of the campaign was dissatisfaction with America. But in 2012, Obama can no longer run as a reformer or an optimist.

The coalition that he committed to last year is a coalition of those who are unhappy with America, not in the last four years, but in the last two-hundred years. Its core is composed of groups that fear democracy and distrust the will of the people. There is no optimism here, but a deeply rooted pessimism about human nature and the country as a whole. It is the Democratic Party's coalition against democracy.

After 2010, the numbers were crunched, and it was clear that Obama and the Democrats could not win a mainstream campaign. Instead, they targeted narrow groups, stirred up conflicts over issues aimed at that group, whether it was union pensions, racism or birth control. There was no more pretense of a national election, only a frenzied rush to polarize as many groups as possible and join them together into an acrimonious coalition, not so much for anything, as against Republicans.

There isn't any inspiration here. Just paranoia over everything from gay marriage to abortion to racial profiling to illegal immigration. A dozen illegal benefits being handed out with the explicit threat that they will be lost if Romney wins. A dozen mini-civil wars being stirred up to divide Americans and set them at each other's throats for the benefit of the Obama campaign.

From Occupy Wall Street to Wisconsin, from Trayvon Martin to Chick-fil-A, the goal of these manufactured conflicts has been to divide and conquer the electorate by emphasizing group rights over individual economic welfare.

Obama can't win on the economy. He can't win on foreign policy. He can't win on any aspect of his administration. All he can do is stir up violence and then promise to heal the country in his second term while winking to all the representatives of the grievance groups. It's not a new game, but the Democratic Party has never played it quite this baldly in a national election. And if it succeeds, then national politics will have finally been reduced to the level of a Chicago election.

We were expected to believe that the typical Obama voter in 2008 was hoping for a better country, but in 2012 there is no more hope, only hate and fear. The typical Obama voter is not acting as an American, but as a representative of an entitled group looking to secure and expand those entitlements at the expense and the detriment of the country at large.

To vote for Obama after years of grotesque economic mismanagement that has no precedent in history, that exceeds the worst actions of Andrew Jackson or Ulysses S. Grant, is not the instinct of an American, but a selfish greedy looter scrambling to grab a few dinner rolls off the tray while the ship is going down. There is no policy justification for voting for a man with the worst economic and foreign policy record in the country's history. There is no American justification for voting for him. Only the Un-American motivation of carving up a dying country into group fiefdoms privileging identity politics over the common good.

This is an Un-American campaign. It is an Anti-American campaign. It is a campaign by those who hate and fear what America was and who resent having to care about anyone outside their own group. Its group jingoism, its dog whistles and special privileges are repulsive and cynical, treating the people of a great nation like a warren of rats eager to sell each other out for a prize from the Cracker Jack box of identity politics entitlements.

There is not a single Obama voter anywhere in the land who believes that another four years of him will make this country better. Not a single one from coast to coast. No, what they believe is that he will make the country a worse place for those people that they hate. That he will have four more years to sink their ideas deeper in the earth, regardless of how many families go hungry and how many fathers kill themselves because they can no longer take care of their families. What they believe is that Obama will grant their group more special privileges and the rest of the country can go to hell.

In his DNC keynote address in 2004, Obama said, "There is no Black America or White America or Latino America or Asian America, there is just the United States of America." And now he has completely disavowed it. He isn't campaigning to lead the United States of America; instead he is running for the presidency of a dozen little Americas, Trayvon Martin America, Abortion America, Illegal Alien America, Sharia America, Gay Marriage America, Starbucks America and any others you can think of. And if he can collect enough of these little Americas together, then he may get the privilege of running the United States of America into the ground for another four years.

Obama has never been the President of the United States of America. He has been the president of Washington D.C., of Wall Street and of Solyndra. He has been the President of Green America and of Chicago. He has been the President of Warren Buffett, George Soros, Bill Gates, Penny Pritzker and James Crown. He is the President of George Clooney, Harvey Weinstein and Anne Hathaway. And now, facing disaster, he still isn't running to be President of a country, but of a dozen little countries with money from freshly bailed out Green America and Wall Street, not to mention Hollywood.

The Obama campaign is not accidentally divisive. It did not stumble into divisiveness. It is not even divisive as a byproduct of its real aims. Divisiveness is its aim. Divisiveness is the only way that a divisive administration can hold on to power. The anger and the violence are not an accident, they are the whole point. Set one group against another, feed the hate, massage the grievances and very soon there is no longer a nation but a handful of quarreling groups being roped into a mutual alliance to reelect their lord protector whose appeal is that of the outsider becoming the insider.

Bain is a metaphor whose details don't truly matter. The target audience for that swill doesn't really care where Romney was when a steel plant was shut down. It doesn't care that like so many private equity bigwigs, the man who actually was in charge is one of Obama's bundlers. This isn't about truth, it's about menace. The Bain message is that Romney is a man who takes things away. That is the image that the Un-American alliance is meant to take away. The ominous sense that Obama's era of giving them things is about to come to a close and Romney's era of taking away things will begin.

It doesn't take much prompting for the Un-American to come to this conclusion. Thieves are always looking over their shoulders. They always expect to have their ill-gotten gains taken away from them. And that is Obama's true achievement. Like Tammany Hall, he has corrupted a massive section of the population and made it complicit in his criminality. What the old political machines did to cities or small groups of vested interests, the Zero has done to tens of millions, if not a hundred million people, who want him in power not because they think he's the best man for the job, but because he's their crook. The middle man for a crime ring that begins with him and ends with them.

The true insidious evil of the man is that he is the face of a machine of power and privilege that turns Americans into Un-American, that corrupts and degrades every ideal and principle, suborns every office and picks every pocket, while wrapping that thievery in the flag and every bit of history that it can filch. The Hussein Way is the clearest expression of the rot at the heart of the Democratic Party, the marriage of leftist agitation and power mongering with the old urban political machines for a level of abuse usually seen only in banana republics.

The abomination in Washington is a welfare-state technocracy that mixes crony capitalism with radical social policy. It steals from everyone and gives back to some. It plays the game of divide and conquer with the panache of marketing executives knowing that the worse the economy is, the more likely everyone is to look in everyone else's mouth. Its worst aspect is its insistence on cloaking its cynicism as righteousness, wrapping every ugly means in the glorious flag of the ends when the truth is that its means are its ends.

Divide and conquer isn't just a means to the greater end of giving Zero Hussein another four years. And perhaps another four years after that. It's also the end. Every tyrant from Joseph Stalin to Saddam Hussein knew that a divided people are easier to rule. The more you divide them, the less likely they are to give you any trouble when you're raiding their last pennies to pay for the latest Green gimmick that your billionaire backers have thrown up all over Wall Street.

Obama is the ultimate Post-American figure passing himself off as the embodiment of all that is truly American. But the Un-American got the real message in 2008 and in 2012 there is no other message. There is no more hope and faith, and the ones who have been waiting for are the Un-American who think that they are about to come into their own, when they are little more than pawns being used to rob and destroy a great nation.

This is the Post-American, Anti-American and Un-American campaign to divide up, carve up and toss aside the laws and traditions of the United States and replace them with the power of arrogance. It is the last stand of a beleaguered nation facing barbarians inside its gate. Every previous election was a contest between two American candidates who wanted to preside over the United States.
This is an election contest between the United States and an emerging Post-American order. That entity will be an American EU run by unelected bureaucrats, governed by politically correct technocrats and upheld by corrupt financial pirates disguising the collective bankruptcy with numbers games so elaborate that they make every billion-dollar con game and pyramid scheme that has come before seem as simple as child's play.

The entity is already here. Its czars are running things in D.C., and its judges are dismantling both constitutional government and democratic elections. It creates a crisis and then makes sure that it doesn't go to waste. It has excellent design skills and terrible planning skills. It has all the money in the world and none at all. It is the Post-American America, and 2012 is its big referendum. The one that will decide whether this Post-American America, this horrid graft of E.U. governance and Mussolini economics, Soviet propaganda and FDR volunteerism, Tammany populist criminality and U.N. foreign policy will be permitted to devour the United States of America.

Obama cannot win an American election. But he isn't running in an American election. He's running in a Post-American election.
















Friday, August 24, 2012

GIDDY-UP, WHOA, WHY DID IT GO SO WRONG?


No Horses, But Detroit Water Department Employs 'Horseshoer'

Union head says it's 'not possible' to eliminate positions from bloated city entity

Despite having no horses, the water and sewerage department for the city of Detroit employs a horseshoer.
Yet even with a department so bloated that it has a horseshoer and no horses, the local union president said it is "not possible" to eliminate positions.
Union rules have turned the department into a government jobs program, some critics say.
The horseshoer’s job description is "to shoe horses and to do general blacksmith work … and to perform related work as required." The description was last updated in 1967.
The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) has a large debt, rising water prices and inefficient services — using almost twice the number of employees per gallon as other cities like Chicago.
recent independent report about the DWSD recommends that the city trim more than 80 percent of the department’s workforce. The consultant who wrote the report found 257 job descriptions, including a horseshoer. Capitol Confidential sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the department for the salary, benefits and job description of the horseshoer position.
In response to the report, John Riehl, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 207, which represents many of the DWSD employees, told the Detroit Free Press that the department needs more workers.
"They don't have enough people as it is right now," Riehl said. "They are just dreaming to think they can operate that plant with less."
But critics say this is just another example of city departments operating as a jobs program for union employees.
"They have said for years that they don't have enough people," said Roi Chinn, a former city administrator and 2013 mayoral candidate for Detroit. "As the bureaucracy thickens and union power grows, there is always a built in reflex … to want more.
"Whenever you think you’ve heard the bad about the city of Detroit, it gets worse."
Chinn said if he was mayor he would sell the water department.
Stephen Henderson, editorial page editor for the Detroit Free Press, wrote last week about the "intolerable waste" in the water department.
"For unions and the whole idea of collective bargaining, this is the kind of report that just makes any sort of future very, very hard to negotiate," Henderson wrote. "It suggests that collective bargaining turns government into a provider of jobs instead of public services."
Daniel Edwards, a construction contracts manager with the DWSD, said the employee was transferred from the Detroit Police Department five years ago. The police department has horses, though the DWSD horseshoer no longer works with animals. [MAYBE ITS TIME TO LEAVE THE PAST AND JOIN THE HERE AND NOW! OR JUST MAYBE OUT-SOURCE THE ACTIVITY AND SAVE THE BENEFITS.]
"DWSD has a blacksmith shop in our Central Services Facility," Edwards said. The shop "also ... repairs equipment and works with various metals and welding for the department when needed." The horseshoer now works at the Central Services Facility.
The city pays $29,245 in salary and about $27,000 in benefits for the horseshoer position.

BOY AM I CONFUSED … IS HE OR ISN'T HE?


… FINALLY the REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE …

Obamas authentic birth certificate from Coast Memorial Hospital , in Mombasa , KENYA . Now the task is to get the courts to authenticate it and then kick Obama out of office, something they are loathe to do.
Here it is! The document we have been waiting for! Now if only SOMEONE in Congress or the Supreme Court will act on this!
This is what Obama has spent almost $2M (so far) to hide.

Here's a close-up of the top of the document where you can plainly read his name and his parent's names, etc....
A British history buff was asked if he could find out who the colonial registrar was for Mombasa in 1961.
After only a few minutes of research, he called back and said "Sir Edward F. Lavender Note the same name near the bottom of the photo above.
Source(s): Kenya Dominion Record 4667 Australian library."
And here is a close-up of the bottom of the document where you can read "Coast Providence�of Kenya " and the
Official signature of the Deputy Registrar.....
The above document is a "Certified Copy of Registration of Birth", but below is a copy of the actual Certificate of Birth...
The real-deal legal kind of certificate.
The Mombasa Registrar of Births has testified that Obama's birth certificate from Coast Province General Hospital in
Mombasa is genuine. This copy was obtained by Lucas Smith through the help of a Kenyan Colonel who recently got it
Directly from the Coast General Hospital in Mombasa , Kenya .. Here it is.....

Note the footprint!!
The local Muslim Imam in Mombasa named Barack with his Muslim middle name Hussein so his official name on this certificate is Barack Hussein Obama II.
The grandmother of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Reveals the story of his birth in Mombasa , Kenya , a seaport, after his mother suffered labor pains while swimming at ocean beach in Mombasa ....
"On August 4, 1961 Obama's mother, father and grandmother were attending a Muslim festival in Mombasa , Kenya ..
Mother had been refused entry to airplanes due to her nine month pregnancy. It was a hot August day at the festival so the Obama s went to the beach to
Cool off. While swimming in the ocean his mother experienced labor pains so was rushed to the Coast Provincial
General Hospital , Mombasa , Kenya where Obama was born a few hours later at 7:21 PM on August 4, 1961(what a sad day for the USA !). Four days later his mother flew to Hawaii and registered his birth in Honolulu as a certificate of live birth which omitted the place and hospital of birth."
Letter from Kitau in Mombasa , Kenya .......
"I happen to be Kenyan. I was born 1 month before Obama at Mombasa medical center. I am a teacher here at the MM Shaw Primary School in Kenya . I compared my birth certificate to the one that has been put out by Taitz and mine is exactly the same. I even have the same registrar and format. The type is identical. I am by nature a skeptical person. I teach science here and challenge most things that cannot be proven. So I went to an official registrar today and pulled up the picture on the web. They magnified it and determined it to be authentic. There is even a plaque with Registrar Lavenders name on it as he was a
Brit and was in charge of the Registrar office from 1959 until January of 1964. The reason the date on the certificate says republic of Kenya is that we were a republic when the "copy" of the original was ordered. I stress the word "copy". My copy also has republic of Kenya . So what you say is true about Kenya not being a republic at the time of Obama's birth, however it was a republic when the copy was ordered.
The birth certificate is genuine. I assure you it will be authenticated by a forensic auditor. We are very proud Obama was born here. We have a shrine for him
and there are many people who remember his birth here as he had a white mother. They are being interviewed now by one of your media outlets.
Fortunately they even have pictures of his parents with him immediately after his birth at the Mombasa hospital with the hospital in the back ground.
It will be a proud day for us when it is proven that he was born here and a Kenyan became the most powerful man in the world.
I encourage anyone to come here and visit. I will be happy to take you and show you the pictures at the hospital myself as well as
my document and many others that are identical to what Taitz posted. God Bless. Kitau"
So, how much more proof do we need?
Well, Here it is...{SJC}
Lolo Soetoro, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, baby Maya Soetoro, and 9 year old Barry Soetoro.
This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi
school inJakarta, Indonesia , shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name
Barry Soetoro made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro.
Name: Barry Soetoro
Religion: Islam
Nationality: Indonesian
How did this little INDONESIAN Muslim child - Barry Soetoro, (A.K.A. Barack Obama)
get around the issue of nationality to become President of the United States of America ?
PART 2:
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the
group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of President Obama's
college transcripts from Occidental College ....
The transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a
foreign student from Indonesia while an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released
by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the
Superior Court of California . The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial
aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program.
To qualify for this scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
This document provides the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking -
that he is NOT a natural-born citizen of the United States - necessary to be President of these
United States. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya , here we see that there is
no record of him ever applying for US citizenship..
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation
of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000
in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block
disclosure of any of his personal records.
Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still on-going but that the final report will be provided
to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused comment on this matter.
LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS - THE MEDIA WON'T!




























WALK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG BIG STICK …

OUR NEXT VICE-PRESIDENT:

Well, early Saturday morning we learned that Congressman Paul Ryan, Republican from Wisconsin, is to be Mitt Romney's pick for the next Vice President of The United States.

What are we to think of this selection? He's not a graduate of Columbia University. He's not a graduate of Harvard. He wasn't selected as the President of the Harvard Law Review. He didn't get a special free quota scholarship ride to any prestigious university and, instead, had to work his way through Miami University of Ohio. For God's sake the man drove the Oscar Mayer Wiener Truck one summer and waited tables another!

One morning when Paul Ryan was sixteen years old he went in to wake his father up and found him dead of a heart attack. He didn't write two books about that experience. Instead, he assumed the role of adult at an early age, never having the luxury to pursue youthful drug use and the art of socialist revolution.

Instead, Paul Ryan and his mother took his grandmother, suffering from Alzheimer, into the household and served as the primary care provider for his grandma. His grandma wasn't the Vice President of the Bank of Hawaii so she could offer nothing in return, except the element of "need".

Once Paul Ryan got his BA in Economics from Miami University of Ohio he was hired as a staff economist in Wisconsin Senator Kastin's office. The job must have not paid well because young Ryan moonlighted as a waiter and fitness trainer. No one offered him a "token honor" position at the University of Chicago and a $200,000 dollar a year salary.

When a still young Paul Ryan returned to Wisconsin to run for Congress he didn't demonize his opponent and dig up dirt to shovel against him. He waited until the standing Congressman vacated the office before seeking the office. In Janesville, Wisconsin they don't have a big political machine to promote you, to criminalize your opponent; instead Paul Ryan had to go door to door and sit at kitchen tables and listen to his future constituents.

After getting elected to Congress Paul Ryan didn't triumphantly march into Washington, buy himself a Georgetown townhouse and proceed over to K Street to rub elbows with lobbyists. He bunked in his Congressional office and used the house gym for showers and a fresh change of clothes.

Paul Ryan then married and took his bride back to Janesville. He lives on the same street he lived on as a kid and shares the neighborhood with eight other members of the Ryan clan. He hunts with the local Janesville hunt club and attends PTA meetings and other civic functions.

For those who can't make those public functions, Paul Ryan bought an old bread truck, converted it into a "mobile constituent office" and drives around to meet with those who need his help and attention.

No, I don't know if we can vote for a guy like this. He doesn't have a regal pedigree; he's Irish for God's sake! No one awarded him a Nobel Peace Prize two months after getting elected. No one threw flowers or got "chills down their leg" as a he took his seat in Congress.

What is most despicable about Paul Ryan is that he has had the nerve to write the House Budget for three years in a row. He's is brazen and heartless in advocating in that budget for a $5 trillion dollar reduction in federal spending over the next ten years! The House passed his budget three years in a row and three years in a row the Democratically controlled Senate has let it die in the upper house, without ever proposing a budget of their own. What is wrong with this guy? If Congress were to cut $5 trillion dollars from the budget where would the President get the money to give $500 million dollars to a bankrupt Solyndra? Or $200 million dollars for bankrupt Energy 1? Or $11 billion dollars to illegal aliens filing INIT, non-resident tax returns to claim $11 billion big ones in child tax credits, even for their children living in Mexico?

I don't know. Paul Ryan seems heartless to me. He keeps wanting to cut government waste, he keeps wanting to put a halt to those big GSA conventions in Vegas and, worse, he keeps trying to make people look at that $16.7 trillion dollar deficit! The guy's no fun at all!

Who wants a numbers cruncher? Who wants someone spoiling the party by showing folks the bill? Nothing will spoil a party quicker than sending the host the bill before the party's over.

Party Hearty folks! At least until November.

Monday, August 20, 2012

THE 'KILLING OF HOPE' WITH SHALLOW AND HOLLOW DREAM OF CHANGE …

The Democrat Community Reinvestment act forcing banks to make bad loans to minorities … the 6 times Barney Frank and Chris Dodd blocked George Bush from an audit of Fannie and Freddie … Obama's cheap little game of hide and seek with his own damn birth certificate from a guy who once authorized an autobiography bragging about being born in Kenya … The Fast and Furious gun scandal now hiding behind executive Privilege … The Billions wasted on phony green Energy schemes run by his campaign cronies … the canceling of the Keystone XL pipeline … his complete failure of leadership on the BP Oil Spill disaster … his failure in Afghanistan the increasing Green on Blue killings and the increasing US suicide rate and lack of a cohesive plan … his 2 years of offering up only phony Bills designed to give him political advantage … his insertion into the Trayvon Martin justifiable self defense case … his unwillingness to address inner city violence … his and hers 18 vacations and more …

Sadly, I have been thoroughly disappointed with his performance as president, for some of the reasons pointed out in this article. I don't entirely blame Obama for the state of the economy (and therefore don't agree with everything Ferguson says). But I don't like the way Obama constantly "goes around" Congress using executive orders (like the recent Dream Act fiat), "recess" appointments during non-recesses, unchecked rule-making authority, selective enforcement of laws, etc. This behavior doesn't bode well for the future, and I don't think I want to see what another four years of Obama will bring when he has more "flexibility." 

Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go

Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope.

 | 


Newsweek








I was a good loser four years ago. “In the grand scheme of history,” I wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president, “four decades is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing.”

Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.


Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.

In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.


GDP GraphicIn an unguarded moment earlier this year, the president commented that the private sector of the economy was “doing fine.” Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.
Deficit Graphic


In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.

Niall Ferguson discusses Obama's broken promises on ‘Face the Nation.’


Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.

Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.

Jobs Graphic


And all this despite a far bigger hike in the federal debt than we were promised. According to the 2010 budget, the debt in public hands was supposed to fall in relation to GDP from 67 percent in 2010 to less than 66 percent this year. If only. By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration.


Not only did the initial fiscal stimulus fade after the sugar rush of 2009, but the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue.


His much-vaunted health-care reform will not prevent spending on health programs growing from more than 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent in 2037. Add the projected increase in the costs of Social Security and you are looking at a total bill of 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now. That is only slightly less than the average cost of all federal programs and activities, apart from net interest payments, over the past 40 years. Under this president’s policies, the debt is on course to approach 200 percent of GDP in 2037—a mountain of debt that is bound to reduce growth even further.


And even that figure understates the real debt burden. The most recent estimate for the difference between the net present value of federal government liabilities and the net present value of future federal revenues—what economist Larry Kotlikoff calls the true “fiscal gap”—is $222trillion.

The president’s supporters will, of course, say that the poor performance of the economy can’t be blamed on him. They would rather finger his predecessor, or the economists he picked to advise him, or Wall Street, or Europe—anyone but the man in the White House.


There’s some truth in this. It was pretty hard to foresee what was going to happen to the economy in the years after 2008. Yet surely we can legitimately blame the president for the political mistakes of the past four years. After all, it’s the president’s job to run the executive branch effectively—to lead the nation. And here is where his failure has been greatest.


obama-has-to-go-FE01-main


On paper it looked like an economics dream team: Larry Summers, Christina Romer, and Austan Goolsbee, not to mention Peter Orszag, Tim Geithner, and Paul Volcker. The inside story, however, is that the president was wholly unable to manage the mighty brains—and egos—he had assembled to advise him.


According to Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men, Summers told Orszag over dinner in May 2009: “You know, Peter, we’re really home alone ... I mean it. We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes [of indecisiveness on key economic issues].” On issue after issue, according to Suskind, Summers overruled the president. “You can’t just march in and make that argument and then have him make a decision,” Summers told Orszag, “because he doesn’t know what he’s deciding.” (I have heard similar things said off the record by key participants in the president’s interminable “seminar” on Afghanistan policy.)


This problem extended beyond the White House. After the imperial presidency of the Bush era, there was something more like parliamentary government in the first two years of Obama’s administration. The president proposed; Congress disposed. It was Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts who wrote the stimulus bill and made sure it was stuffed full of political pork. And it was the Democrats in Congress—led by Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank—who devised the 2,319-page Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank, for short), a near-perfect example of excessive complexity in regulation. The act requires that regulators create 243 rules, conduct 67 studies, and issue 22 periodic reports. It eliminates one regulator and creates two new ones.


It is five years since the financial crisis began, but the central problems—excessive financial concentration and excessive financial leverage—have not been addressed.


Today a mere 10 too-big-to-fail financial institutions are responsible for three quarters of total financial assets under management in the United States. Yet the country’s largest banks are at least $50 billion short of meeting new capital requirements under the new “Basel III” accords governing bank capital adequacy.


And then there was health care. No one seriously doubts that the U.S. system needed to be reformed. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 did nothing to address the core defects of the system: the long-run explosion of Medicare costs as the baby boomers retire, the “fee for service” model that drives health-care inflation, the link from employment to insurance that explains why so many Americans lack coverage, and the excessive costs of the liability insurance that our doctors need to protect them from our lawyers.


Ironically, the core Obamacare concept of the “individual mandate” (requiring all Americans to buy insurance or face a fine) was something the president himself had opposed when vying with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. A much more accurate term would be “Pelosicare,” since it was she who really forced the bill through Congress.


Pelosicare was not only a political disaster. Polls consistently showed that only a minority of the public liked the ACA, and it was the main reason why Republicans regained control of the House in 2010. It was also another fiscal snafu. The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.


The president just kept ducking the fiscal issue. Having set up a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed by retired Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles, Obama effectively sidelined its recommendations of approximately $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in added revenues over the coming decade. As a result there was no “grand bargain” with the House Republicans—which means that, barring some miracle, the country will hit a fiscal cliff on Jan. 1 as the Bush tax cuts expire and the first of $1.2 trillion of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts are imposed. The CBO estimates the net effect could be a 4 percent reduction in output.


The failures of leadership on economic and fiscal policy over the past four years have had geopolitical consequences. The World Bank expects the U.S. to grow by just 2 percent in 2012. China will grow four times faster than that; India three times faster. By 2017, the International Monetary Fund predicts, the GDP of China will overtake that of the United States.


Obama

Charles Ommanney for Newsweek

Meanwhile, the fiscal train wreck has already initiated a process of steep cuts in the defense budget, at a time when it is very far from clear that the world has become a safer place—least of all in the Middle East.


For me the president’s greatest failure has been not to think through the implications of these challenges to American power. Far from developing a coherent strategy, he believed—perhaps encouraged by the premature award of the Nobel Peace Prize—that all he needed to do was to make touchy-feely speeches around the world explaining to foreigners that he was not George W. Bush.


In Tokyo in November 2009, the president gave his boilerplate hug-a-foreigner speech: “In an interconnected world, power does not need to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another ... The United States does not seek to contain China ... On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations.” Yet by fall 2011, this approach had been jettisoned in favor of a “pivot” back to the Pacific, including risible deployments of troops to Australia and Singapore. From the vantage point of Beijing, neither approach had credibility.


His Cairo speech of June 4, 2009, was an especially clumsy bid to ingratiate himself on what proved to be the eve of a regional revolution. “I’m also proud to carry with me,” he told Egyptians, “a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu alaikum ... I’ve come here … to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based … upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.”


Believing it was his role to repudiate neoconservatism, Obama completely missed the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy—precisely the wave the neocons had hoped to trigger with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. When revolution broke out—first in Iran, then in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria—the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests. Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail.


In the case of Iran he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. Ditto Syria. In Libya he was cajoled into intervening. In Egypt he tried to have it both ways, exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, then drawing back and recommending an “orderly transition.” The result was a foreign-policy debacle. Not only were Egypt’s elites appalled by what seemed to them a betrayal, but the victors—the Muslim Brotherhood—had nothing to be grateful for. America’s closest Middle Eastern allies—Israel and the Saudis—looked on in amazement.


“This is what happens when you get caught by surprise,” an anonymous American official told The New York Times in February 2011. “We’ve had endless strategy sessions for the past two years on Mideast peace, on containing Iran. And how many of them factored in the possibility that Egypt moves from stability to turmoil? None.”


Remarkably the president polls relatively strongly on national security. Yet the public mistakes his administration’s astonishingly uninhibited use of political assassination for a coherent strategy.
According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way. Yet somehow it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused of committing “war crimes.”


The real crime is that the assassination program destroys potentially crucial intelligence (as well as antagonizing locals) every time a drone strikes. It symbolizes the administration’s decision to abandon counterinsurgency in favor of a narrow counterterrorism. What that means in practice is the abandonment not only of Iraq but soon of Afghanistan too. Understandably, the men and women who have served there wonder what exactly their sacrifice was for, if any notion that we are nation building has been quietly dumped. Only when both countries sink back into civil war will we realize the real price of Obama’s foreign policy.


America under this president is a superpower in retreat, if not retirement. Small wonder 46 percent of Americans—and 63 percent of Chinese—believe that China already has replaced the U.S. as the world’s leading superpower or eventually will.


It is a sign of just how completely Barack Obama has “lost his narrative” since getting elected that the best case he has yet made for reelection is that Mitt Romney should not be president. In his notorious “you didn’t build that” speech, Obama listed what he considers the greatest achievements of big government: the Internet, the GI Bill, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam, the Apollo moon landing, and even (bizarrely) the creation of the middle class. Sadly, he couldn’t mention anything comparable that his administration has achieved.


Now Obama is going head-to-head with his nemesis: a politician who believes more in content than in form, more in reform than in rhetoric. In the past days much has been written about Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s choice of running mate. I know, like, and admire Paul Ryan. For me, the point about him is simple. He is one of only a handful of politicians in Washington who is truly sincere about addressing this country’s fiscal crisis.


Over the past few years Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” has evolved, but the essential points are clear: replace Medicare with a voucher program for those now under 55 (not current or imminent recipients), turn Medicaid and food stamps into block grants for the states, and—crucially—simplify the tax code and lower tax rates to try to inject some supply-side life back into the U.S. private sector. Ryan is not preaching austerity. He is preaching growth. And though Reagan-era veterans like David Stockman may have their doubts, they underestimate Ryan’s mastery of this subject. There is literally no one in Washington who understands the challenges of fiscal reform better.


Just as importantly, Ryan has learned that politics is the art of the possible. There are parts of his plan that he is understandably soft-pedaling right now—notably the new source of federal revenue referred to in his 2010 “Roadmap for America’s Future” as a “business consumption tax.” Stockman needs to remind himself that the real “fairy-tale budget plans” have been the ones produced by the White House since 2009.


obama-has-to-go-FE01-third
Charles Ommanney for Newsweek

I first met Paul Ryan in April 2010. I had been invited to a dinner in Washington where the U.S. fiscal crisis was going to be the topic of discussion. So crucial did this subject seem to me that I expected the dinner to happen in one of the city’s biggest hotel ballrooms. It was actually held in the host’s home. Three congressmen showed up—a sign of how successful the president’s fiscal version of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (about the debt) had been. Ryan blew me away. I have wanted to see him in the White House ever since.


It remains to be seen if the American public is ready to embrace the radical overhaul of the nation’s finances that Ryan proposes. The public mood is deeply ambivalent. The president’s approval rating is down to 49 percent. The Gallup Economic Confidence Index is at minus 28 (down from minus 13 in May). But Obama is still narrowly ahead of Romney in the polls as far as the popular vote is concerned (50.8 to 48.2) and comfortably ahead in the Electoral College. The pollsters say that Paul Ryan’s nomination is not a game changer; indeed, he is a high-risk choice for Romney because so many people feel nervous about the reforms Ryan proposes.


But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out. This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for this country.


Mitt Romney is not the best candidate for the presidency I can imagine. But he was clearly the best of the Republican contenders for the nomination. He brings to the presidency precisely the kind of experience—both in the business world and in executive office—that Barack Obama manifestly lacked four years ago. (If only Obama had worked at Bain Capital for a few years, instead of as a community organizer in Chicago, he might understand exactly why the private sector is not “doing fine” right now.) And by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the first real sign that—unlike Obama—he is a courageous leader who will not duck the challenges America faces.


The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline.


Or they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national security.


I’ve said it before: it’s a choice between les États Unis and the Republic of the Battle Hymn.

I was a good loser four years ago. But this year, fired up by the rise of Ryan, I want badly to win.