Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘American president Obama’ Category

>The Coming Disaster: If Your President Knew It Was Coming What Would He Do?

>“Crude Oil” to:

By Don White

<a class="DiggThisButton DiggMedium"></

If your president and Congress knew it was coming, what would they do to protect the public? It is their sworn duty to protect the public in all cases to the best of their ability.

Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin who, along with other House members, has formulated a budget for fiscal 2012 that promises to cut six trillion dollars from our deficit over ten years and save the country from fiscal disaster. He says a president, if he knew the nature of the disaster, when it was happening, and how it would happen would take dramatic steps to avert disaster. Well, Barak Obama knows all of that. Yet he is dawdling, doing nothing about it.

The Congress has a plan for the next ten years, but what about the president and the Democrat Party?

Where is the president’s plan, where is his cooperation to get the job done? The federal government will shut down by Friday if this vacationing, traveling, lollygaging, party-loving, beach-combing president doesn’t do something quick. But what should he do? He should not allow the government to shut down because that has dire consequences. But it is precisely where the U.S. government is headed unless the Democrats get off this kick they are on to make the Republicans look bad by shutting down the government for lack of a budget.

What! Yes, I said “for lack of a budget.” But when the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives we didn’t have a budget in all of 2009. That’s because they are humanists first. They wanted wiggle room to spend, spend, spend and not be accountable to a budget. Democrats failed in their duty to budget money for government expenditures including paying our troops. They failed in their duty not to spend more money than we had. Now we have a fourteen trillion-plus deficit that translates into borrowing money from China. It means that two years from now, or sooner, the interest on that paper will exceed what we have to spend for everything else. By then you have no country left to run.

Democrats don’t seem to care. In fact, it appears it is their plan to close down the government and then turn around during election time and say, “Look what you did,” to Republicans who in this case are the good guys because they have passed several temporary budgets and got no takers from Barak Obama or Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader.

What is the disaster? It is that America will lose its credit rating. Its money won’t be worth anything. We could see a dramatic fall of the dollar and the entire nation could be sent into bedlam. We hope and pray that won’t happen because if our dollar value declines to zero, how are we going to feed our families? How is the country going to conduct commerce? Well, Washington might, for starters, take a look at a well-ruin government, the State of Utah.

This week the State of Utah House of Representatives passed a bill that would make gold and silver legal tender. We should do that nationwide in anticipation of the coming uber-inflation and resultant fall of the dollar. When the dollar is worth zilch, it is too late to act. Now is the time for our government to live up to their promise. That is to protect its people and not wave goodbye at us as our nation falls into oblivion.

Or does Obama have a different agenda? Would he like to see chaos take hold here in America, a foreign country take us over without firing a shot? I believe that is his future goal. But his near-term goal is to get relected–and to get all the Democrats elected. To take control of the House of Representatives again and to fundamentally change this nation to the communist-socialist country he envisions. Obama, then, loves chaos, sometimes referred to as the butterfly effect.

Chaos is not a good place to live. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.or the butterfly effect.

Maybe chaos is what Obama craves. He has flitted around much like a butterfly of late, flying here and there with no apparant aim in mind. Result: spending more money, more time away from the Oval Office than in it. The aim of all of this is to play politics to build up his constituents and win election after election. If a democrat wins all the elections, doesn’t that make this country a demagog nation or a tyrant paradise – a darned dictatorship?

If I’m wrong–and I hope to God I am–then I challenge our president and majority leader in the Senate to turn around and see what their playing politics is about to do to the greatest nation on earth.Somehow I think they understand perfectly…and that’s the scary part.
Share this: 
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via FacebookShare this page via Twitter

>Is America An Irrelevant World Pussy Cat?


NEW YORK – America Doesn't Matter AnymoreAs Europe takes the lead on the Libyan intervention, it’s a powerful signal of America’s weakening global influence. Peter Beinart on Obama’s Jeffersonian turn—and the end of an empire.
Some commentators love the Libya war; others hate it. But most agree that it’s profoundly unnatural that we were pushed into it by… France. Welcome to the post-American world. In the age we’re entering, most of the time, the choice will no longer be between humanitarian interventions controlled by the United States and humanitarian interventions where other nations take the lead. The choice will be between humanitarian interventions where other nations take the lead and no humanitarian interventions at all.
A comparison with the 1990s illustrates the point. In the early 1990s, when the former Yugoslavia began breaking up, and Slobodan Milosevic decided to try to put it back together via genocide, the governments of Western Europe insisted that they would handle things. But they couldn’t handle things, partly because of their disunity and military weakness, and partly because they refused—in a clash of civilizations sort of way—to make clear moral distinctions between the murderers and the murdered. In the summer of 1995, when the Clinton administration—after more than two years of deference—forced the Europeans into a humanitarian war against the Serbs, then-Lieutenant General Wesley Clark exulted “The big dog barked today.”
Back then, the big dog was not fighting any other wars. It was unchallenged in East Asia; its economy was beginning to boom and its fiscal problems were melting away. And even then, Americans only supported the Bosnia war, and its kid brother Kosovo, on the condition that no Americans died.
Today, by contrast, America’s fiscal condition is terrifying and the Pentagon is fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, trying to stay out of one with Iran, and keeping one eye on a rising China. I don’t know what it took to convince an obviously reluctant Robert Gates to permit American involvement in the Libyan no-fly zone, but it’s a reasonable bet that had Barack Obama not been able to promise that it would be a mostly European affair, Gates would now be a military analyst on Fox News. It’s not the 1990s anymore. The American public’s appetite for humanitarian war has always been meager. And now the American government’s capacity for waging it is meager, too.
But in a strange twist, Europe’s appetite has grown. The continent’s military capacity is still tiny compared to America’s, and it still lacks unity, but the shame of European inaction in Bosnia lingers in British, French, Italian, and German minds. Overall, Western Europeans remain more dovish than Americans, but when it comes to genocide, the gap narrows. In the U.S., for instance, anti-terrorism is the only rationale that sustains public support for the Afghan War. In Europe, by contrast, the humanitarian argument sells best.
Libya is also a Mediterranean country. For France and Italy, it’s the equivalent of Mexico, or at least Guatemala. Economically, geopolitically, and culturally, Europe is also the dominant outside force. European countries, especially Southern European ones, have a lot more to gain, and lose, in Libya than we do, so it’s normal—indeed, healthy—that they’re trying to take the military lead.
Whether they’ll be able to—whether they have the capacity and stomach for what it would take to push Gaddafi from power—is another question. But it’s not surprising that Barack Obama is giving them a chance to try. Obama is what you might call a roundabout Jeffersonian. Jeffersonians, to borrow Walter Russell Mead’s phrase, believe that preserving America’s economic and political solvency requires reining in American empire. Presidents usually become Jeffersonian in times of economic crisis, public exhaustion, and unpopular war. The problem is that Jeffersonianism—which in different ways both Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter embraced as a result of Vietnam—is perilous politics. Retrenchment can look a lot like cynicism, if not defeatism.
The White House’s humanitarian hawks don’t want a Srebrenica on their watch, but they know they need other countries to bear more of the load. Enter Nicolas Sarkozy.
So Obama is trying to do it on the sly, to reduce the costs of American foreign policy without reining in our ambition. In Afghanistan, he’s moving inexorably toward greater reliance on drones—just as Nixon turned to air power in the latter stages of Vietnam—because it’s cheaper in blood and treasure. And he’s trying to burden-share, just as Nixon tried to get regional allies like South Vietnam and the shah’s Iran to do more of the work of containing the USSR. The Libya operation is a good example of this. The White House’shumanitarian hawks don’t want a Srebrenica on their watch, but they know they need other countries to bear more of the load. Enter Nicolas Sarkozy.
Will it work? Beats me. But it’s an illusion to believe we could have done this the old way. One of the crucial questions of our age is whether America’s liberal ideals can flourish despite the decline of American power. Libya will be one of the places we find out.
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book,Twitter and Facebook.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at
Follow Yahoo! News on , become a fan on 

“Crude Oil” to: