Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Why Senator Menendez is in trouble

Sunday, March 8th, 2015


Senator Bob Menendez has been in hot water for over two years, and now the water is coming to a boil.

All of the reasons given for this are camouflage. Menendez is a criminal and a Jew-worshipping slime-ball, but so are most other politicians.

The reason why Obama and his Wall Street handlers are preparing to take Menendez down is that Menendez refuses to get onboard with the Iran Project and the Cuba Project.

Keep one thing in mind as you proceed: all politicians are owned by billionaires, and if one politician (like Menendez) opposes the billionaires, then he will be expelled, and perhaps even imprisoned. It has happened many times before

The global money-powers want to have more normalized relations with Iran and Cuba, so that Iran and Cuba can be reduced to miserable sweat-shops, and both can join the global financial community. (Iran’s nuclear program is trivial and irrelevant.)

International oligarchs and Iranian oligarchs (including President Rouhani) want this very badly. There are billions in profits at stake. (Obama tried to launch a coup to put the Iranian oligarchs in power in 2009, but the coup failed. The media outlets called this the “Green Revolution.”) The Iranian oligarchs have managed to imposed a great deal of neo-liberalism on the Iranian masses, but so far the Revolutionary Guard has denied the oligarchs a total victory. The Iran Project is intended to change that.

Meanwhile US oligarchs want to get into Cuba.

The Iran Project will  be worth billions in profits for the oligarchs inside and outside Iran. And since the Iranian oligarchs are loyal only to profits, the Iran Project will also pull Iran away from Russia, Syria, and Hezbollah.

Meanwhile US oligarchs, if they get control of Cuba, will pull Cuba away from the leftist governments of South America.

Obama explained all this to key congressmen who actually have power. All are onboard except Sen. Menendez, who opposes both projects. Therefore Obama has been gradually turning up the heat on Menendez. I suspect that Obama quietly gave support to the attempt by New Jersey voters to have Menendez recalled in 2010. (Menendez was saved by the New Jersey Supreme Court.)

Menendez has always been a problem for Obama. He has blocked Obama’s nominees to federal judgeships. And Obama has retaliated. In November 2012, Menendez was accused of soliciting underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic. This was supposedly a Republican effort, but I suspect that Obama supported it. A month later Menendez was accused of using an interns who was an illegal alien and a registered sex offender.

Still Menendez opposed Obama. Menendez wants more sanctions against Iran and Cuba. Many Congressmen want this, but only Menendez has the power to actually checkmate both projects. Menendez heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is one of the oldest and most powerful in the Senate. It is in charge of approving treaties and international agreements. It also holds confirmation hearings for Obama’s ambassadors, Obama’s judges, and Obama’s appointments to and high-level positions in the State department.  Menendez has sponsored legislation that will let Congress checkmate the Iran Project if it includes any reduction in congressionally issued sanctions.

(Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida also sits on the senate foreign Relations Committee, and he too opposes the Iran Project, and especially the Cuba Project – but Rubio has no power. As for clowns like McCain, Graham, and Ted Cruz, they are nobodies. Netanyahu is screaming about Iran so he can be re-elected next week. His own billionaire sponsors allow this, since the “Iranian threat” is useful for controlling the Israeli peasants. But at this stage, if Netanyahu does something to complicate the Iran Project, such as bomb Gaza again, then his own billionaire sponsors will remove him. The Iran Project is too important, and it is only weeks from being sealed.)

Even though Menendez heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama has shut him out of almost all foreign policy negotiations, especially those connected with Iran and Cuba.

Obama also said he would veto any new sanctions on Iran or Cuba brought by Menendez or anyone else.

Obama and his billionaire handlers wanted to seal the Iran deal by the end of March, but on 2 March 2015 Menendez told the cheering crowd at the AIPAC meeting that he would never give an inch regarding Iran.

That did it.

Four days later, Obama’s attorney general (Eric Holder) announced that he was preparing criminal corruption charges against Menendez for his role in advocating for the business interests of Florida ophthalmologist Salomon Melgen.

If that sounds strange to you (as in: how is that different from what all politicians do?) you are correct.

Still Menendez refused to get on board. He immediately gave a press conference in which he said the White House is smearing him for his “patriotism.” Ted Cruz agrees, and is trying to defend Menendez — but it is useless. The billionaires want the Iran Deal and the Cuba Deal, since this will bring new billions in profits to the billionaires.

Therefore, within the next two or three weeks at most, one of two things will happen.

[1] Menendez will suddenly do an about-face, and will support the Iran Project and the Cuba Project. His reasons for this will be total bullshit, but the public will believe it, since the public craves bullshit. Eric Holder’s threats of indictments will vanish, and no one will ask why. The Menendez affair will be forgotten by everyone in the USA.

[2] Menendez will continue to put his foot down, in which case he will be quickly destroyed. After he is removed from office, his arch enemy Chris Christie (governor of New Jersey) will take Menendez’s seat in the Senate until a special election can be arranged.

We will know the outcome by the end of this month.

Tagged: Bob Menendez, Cuba Project, Iran Project, obama

How Many People Around You Receive Food Stamps?

Thursday, May 2nd, 2013

Since the turn of the millennium, participation in the food stamp program, known officially as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, has more than doubled to 15 percent of all U.S. residents in January. In some parts of the country, as few as 1 in 20 people receive food stamps. In others, the figure is more than 1 in 3. Low-income households that meet SNAP eligibility requirements receive a payment card that can only be used to buy government-approved essential foods.

Under President Obama’s watch, the value of the benefits distributed by the program each year has more than doubled as more people have fallen below the poverty line and more households have joined the program.  Due to the high unemployment rate, the Obama administration has also waived a 1996 job requirement—a rule that made finding a job or enrolling in job training a prerequisite for receiving SNAP benefits—for 46 states.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Obama’s America Will Become Detroit

Thursday, December 13th, 2012

President Barack Obama travelled to Michigan this week and made his case for class war in defense of the welfare state.

“Our economic success has never come from the top down,” said Obama. “It comes from the middle out. It comes from the bottom up.”

Obama spoke these words a few miles from Detroit—the reductio ad absurdum of his argument.

If America continues down the road to Obama’s America—a road that began when President Franklin Roosevelt started building a welfare state here—our entire nation will become Detroit.

Obama’s economic and moral vision has played out in that city. What he seeks has been achieved there.

Last week, as reported by the Detroit Free Press, Michigan’s state treasurer told Detroit’s mayor and city council that the state may soon appoint an emergency financial manager for the city. Under Michigan law, the paper said, only such a manager can initiate the steps leading to a bankruptcy filing for the city.

By current calculations, Detroit faces obligations over the next six months that exceed its revenues by $47 million. The city, the Free Press reported, now pays $1.08 in benefits to municipal workers and retirees for every $1.00 it pays in salary.

Traditional two-parent families and the productive taxpaying citizens they produce have fled. In 1950, according the U.S. Census Bureau, Detroit had 1,849,568 people and was the fifth-largest city in the nation. By 2000, its population had dropped to 951,270; by 2010, to 713,777; and by 2011, to 706,585.

What has happened to the people who remain? The Census Bureau estimates there are 563,055 people age 16 or older in the city who could potentially work and be part of the labor force. But only 54.3 percent of these—or 305,479 individuals—actually do participate in the labor force, meaning they either have a job or are looking for one. Another 257,576 of Detroit residents age 16 or older—45.7 percent of that demographic—do not participate in the labor force. {snip}

In fact, these 257,576 people in Detroit who do not have a job and are not looking for one outnumber the 224,846 residents who do have jobs. But of the 224,846 residents who do have jobs, 34,500—or 15.3 percent—have jobs with the government. Thus, this city that boasted 1,849,568 residents in 1950 has only 190,346 private-sector workers today.

There are 264,209 households in Detroit, and 91,204 of them—or 34.5 percent—get food stamps.

Very few of the people who are staying out of the labor force in Detroit are staying out because they are stay-at-home moms with working husbands. Of the 264,209 households in Detroit, only 24,275—or 9.2 percent—are married couple families with children under 18. Another 78,438 households—or 29.7 percent of the total—are “families” headed by women with no husband present. Of these, 43,742 have children under 18.

There were 12,103 babies born in Detroit in the 12 months prior to the Census Bureau survey, and 9,124 of them—or 75.4 percent—were born to unmarried women.

Of the 363,281 housing units in Detroit, 99,072 are vacant. Indeed, vacant houses have become a powerful visual symbol of what advancing socialism has done to the city.

Obama said in Michigan that if the federal government does not take more money away from people who have earned it, the public schools may not be able to buy school books. But the Department of Education says that in the Detroit public schools—which have books—only 7 percent of the eight graders are grade-level proficient in reading and only 4 percent are grade-level proficient in math.

School books are not lacking here. Self-reliance, the spirit of individualism, and the Judeo-Christian values that support marriage and family are.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Whites Stayed Home and Re-Elected Obama

Wednesday, December 12th, 2012

Now that all the data is in, the fundamental reason for Romney’s defeat is apparent, if largely unreported. It is not just that blacks, Latinos, and single women showed up in record numbers at the polls. It’s that whites didn’t.

The final numbers suggest that 91.6 million votes were cast by whites—seven million less than the 98.6 million that were cast in 2008! Meanwhile, 16.6 million blacks voted—300,000 more than in 2008; 11 million Latinos voted—1.7 million more votes than were cast by Hispanics in 2008.

We lost because whites stayed home! Particularly among the elderly, the voter turnout was disappointing with seniors casting only 16% of the vote, much less than had been anticipated. (Seniors were the only age group that Obama lost by a significant margin—15 points).

Why didn’t whites vote and why didn’t we all spot it sooner?

The answer lies in the fundamental strategic mistake the Romney campaign and the super PACs made in June and July—of not answering Obama’s Bain Capital attacks.

These withering attacks undermined Romney’s standing among white voters and led directly to their diminished turnout. The Romney campaign and the Super PACs were so wedded to their attack ads that they failed to realize that Bain posed a mortal threat to the credibility of their candidate.

There is a very good story to be told about Bain and it was masterfully captured in an ad produced by Romney media guru Stuart Stevens but was aired for only limited times and there was no follow up. Had that very ad been run more, Romney would, in my opinion, have been elected president!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Assessing How Pivotal the Hispanic Vote Was to Obama’s Victory

Thursday, November 22nd, 2012

In the wake of the 2012 presidential election, there has been extensive discussion about the Republican Party’s failure to appeal to Hispanic voters, whether this failure was responsible—at least in part—for Mitt Romney’s defeat, and whether a change in immigration policy would be sufficient to shift the Latino vote rightward in the next election.

Looking at actual vote counts and the exit poll results from the recent election can provide insight into answering two important questions: First, was Mr. Obama’s electoral victory dependent on high Hispanic turnout and support from a large percentage of the Hispanic vote? And second, if the Hispanic vote did prove decisive in the outcome, how easy would it be for a Republican candidate to gain a significantly greater share than Mr. Romney in future elections, assuming the Republicans agree to some type of comprehensive immigration reform?

In states where polling data on the two candidates’ shares of the Hispanic vote were not available, we allocated the national Hispanic support level of 71 percent to Mr. Obama, and the remaining 29 percent to Mr. Romney.

By then removing the number of Hispanic votes from each candidate’s vote total and reallocating them back to the two candidates in order to equalize their total votes, one can determine what percentage of the Hispanic vote Mr. Obama needed to carry each of the key states. For example, in Wisconsin, 3,056,613 votes were cast, of which 4 percent, or 122,264 votes, were cast by Hispanics according to exit polls. Mr. Obama’s margin of victory in Wisconsin was over 200,000 votes—even if all Hispanics had voted for Mr. Romney instead of voting for Mr. Obama by more than two to one, he would have won the state.

Not unexpectedly, the Hispanic vote was also not decisive in Iowa or New Hampshire where Mr. Obama could have carried the states even if he had won none of the Hispanic vote whatsoever.

In Ohio, where the president received an estimated 54 percent of the Hispanic vote, according to exit poll data, we find he could have won the state with as little as 22 percent of the Hispanic vote, and in Virginia, where he received 64 percent of the Hispanic vote, we find that he could have carried the state with just over 33 percent.

It is also worth noting that in states that were not considered battleground territory, Mr. Obama could still have won without a majority of the Hispanic vote. In California, Mr. Obama took the state’s 55 electoral votes with 72 percent of the Hispanic vote, but could have won with as little as 25 percent. And in Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), where Mr. Obama received an estimated 80 percent of the Hispanic vote, he could have still carried the state with just over 37 percent.

With these five swing states, along with the safe Democratic states that Mr. Obama should have carried regardless of the Hispanic vote, the president would have reached 283 electoral votes, winning the Electoral College without needing to win a majority of the Hispanic vote in each state.

In the remaining swing states—Nevada, Florida and Colorado—along with New Mexico, Mr. Obama did require a majority of the Hispanic votes cast in order to carry those states, although the shares he achieved still exceeded the threshold minimums he needed. In Colorado, where Mr. Obama received an estimated 75 percent of the Hispanic vote, we estimate that he could have won with just over 58 percent, and in Nevada, where he won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote, he could have carried the state with just under 54 percent. In the key battleground of Florida (29 electoral votes), Mr. Obama’s 60 percent share of the Hispanic vote was just above the 58 percent share required for victory in that state.

In New Mexico, Florida, Nevada and Colorado, slightly higher shares (but still less than a majority) of the Hispanic vote could have swung them to Mr. Romney, and this may well put these states in play in the next election if the Republican candidate and platform have broader appeal among Hispanic voters.

The exit poll results suggest that the Republicans’ assertion that Hispanics are socially conservative is not necessarily true.

Two-thirds of Hispanic voters said that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, compared with slightly more than half of white voters, according to exit poll results. Hispanics were also more liberal when it came to same-sex marriage, with 59 percent saying it should be legal in their state, compared with 51 percent of blacks and 47 percent of white voters.

Exit poll results also indicate that Hispanics are not necessarily racing to adopt the Republican platform of smaller government. Nearly 6 in 10 Hispanics said Mr. Obama’s health care law should be expanded or left as is, compared to about a third of white voters. And 57 percent of Hispanics said that government should be doing more to solve the problems of individuals, compared to 36 percent of whites. Hispanics, like the rest of the electorate, were also in favor of raising income taxes in order to reduce the federal deficit.

Enhanced by Zemanta