Enough.
I have had enough. The knuckles are bared. Yesterday Politico ran an article
We have witnessed the media assault Republican candidates viciously and repeatedly. Politico has declared war on Sarah Palin. Politico, the journolistas who would never question Barack Obama’s brain creds have no qualms about opening speculating about Rick Perry’s intelligence.
Enough.
Now we know why the media struggles so mightily to demean opposing candidates. Barack Obama is the product of affirmative action.
A year ago Jack Cashill wrote the article
In it, Cashill Barack Obama’s sponsor into higher education.
In the summer of 2008, I was tipped to a story that the media were scrupulously ignoring. It involved the venerable African American entrepreneur and politico, Percy Sutton.
A Manhattan borough president for 12 years and a credible candidate for mayor of New York City in 1977, Sutton had appeared in late March 2008 on a local New York City show called ” Inside City Hall.”
When asked about Obama by the show’s host, Dominic Carter, the octogenarian Sutton calmly and lucidly explained that he had been “introduced to [Obama] by a friend.”
The friend’s name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction had taken place about 20 years prior. Sutton described al-Mansour as “the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men.” The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.
While we have no idea of the grades Barack Obama earned at Columbia as he has never released his transcripts, we learn something of them from David Remnick:
Nor does David Remnick. His new book,The Bridge, stands as the authoritative book on Obama’s “life and rise,” but he only inadvertently addresses the question of how Obama got into Harvard Law.
The reader learns from Remnick that Obama was an “unspectacular” student in his two years at Columbia and at every stop before that going back to grade school.
Obama wrote something for the Harvard Review that also provided some insight
“I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not felt stigmatized within the broader law school community or as a staff member of the Review.”
Today in the American Thinker Cashill pulls off the shroud of secrecy hiding Barack Obama’s intellectual depth. He describes a response Obama wrote to a letter written in criticism of Harvard’s affirmative action policy.
The response is classic Obama: patronizing, dishonest, syntactically muddled, and grammatically challenged. In the very first sentence Obama leads with his signature failing, one on full display in his earlier published work: his inability to make subject and predicate agree.
“Since the merits of the Law Review’s selection policy has been the subject of commentary for the last three issues,” wrote Obama, “I’d like to take the time to clarify exactly how our selection process works.”
If Obama were as smart as a fifth-grader, he would know, of course, that “merits … have.” Were there such a thing as a literary Darwin Award, Obama could have won it on this on one sentence alone. He had vindicated Chen in his first ten words.
Although the letter is fewer than a thousand words long, Obama repeats the subject-predicate error at least two more times. In one sentence, he seemingly cannot make up his mind as to which verb option is correct so he tries both: “Approximately half of this first batch is chosen … the other half are selected … ”
Another distinctive Obama flaw is to allow a string of words to float in space. Please note the unanchored phrase in italics at the end of this sentence:
“No editors on the Review will ever know whether any given editor was selected on the basis of grades, writing competition, or affirmative action, and no editors who were selected with affirmative action in mind.” Huh?
Cashill then notes that Obama’s style is the least of our concerns:
Scarier than Obama’s style, however, is his thinking. A neophyte race-hustler after his three years in Chicago, Obama is keen to browbeat those who would “even insinuate” that affirmative action rewards the undeserving, results in inappropriate job placements, or stigmatizes its presumed beneficiaries.
Barack Obama has been described in many a term- narcissist being among the most common. “Touchy” is another. Let’s throw in “insecure” as well.
Obama is the author of such erudition as this:
“On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.”
“How many people are getting insurance through their jobs right now? Raise your hands. All right…your employer…would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a raise.”
“Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s. It will be a strong friend of Israel’s under a McCain…administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel’s under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change.”
”The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system.”
‘It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There’s a lot of — I don’t know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing.”
”The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries.”
”In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.”
”I’ve now been in 57 states — I think one left to go.”
“And I want to be very clear that we are resolved to halt the rise of privacy in that region.”
“Bienvenidos. Welcome to Cinco de Cuatro”
Let us face the truth. Barack Obama is just not all that bright and he knows it. He will not release his transcripts because they would prove him to be what is becoming painfully obvious- an affirmative action President.
See author page
The quote from Obama about benefiting from affirmative action is in the letter that Cashill is discussing. See here.
American voters were hoodwinked – absolutely. His very evident narcissism means he cares little about the far left base which seems to still anticipate much redistribution from him, even as it begins to suspect it’s not quite coming as it had assumed. He will use everything in the campaigning bag of tricks, including the incitement of racism, to bring the Nation back to the not so old Good old days of rioting in the streets.
His only dream is re-election and living well in the wealth and style of Slick Willy.
@nohype: . . . That letter is something to behold – an insight into a limited mind similar to some of the drive-by trolls who land on FA with some regularity. That last paragraph puts to rest the debate on whether or not his synapses are energized appropriately.
Is it any wonder . . . . .
Rick Perry says Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme” and a “monstrous lie”
That strikes me as a fairly dumb statement for anyone hoping to become President of the United States to be making.
Reality generally hurts, Greg. If the US voters prefer to be fooled, pandered to, and are happy to have the beltway continue to ignore the two entitlement programs that lie at the heart of our debt and spending, then we will continue to have politicians dodging real solutions. And that means reforming the entitlement programs to secure the current recipients and those who would be receiving it in the near future, and weening the young off of the ponzi scheme robbery. Contrary to how some in your party prefer to falsely portray it, no reform ever pushed granny off the cliff. However the IMAB will be instrumental in dragging granny’s chair to the edge, merely to keep the ponzi scheme in place.
@Greg:
Saying that he planned to make our electricity rates skyrocket didn’t hurt someone else….
Obama does learn from experiences…..most especially those experiences that embarrass him.
Remember when he was running and early in office, that his speech was filled with ”uuuuuhhhhhhhhhs,” and “uuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmms” and “eeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrs?”
Well someone pointed out to him how stupid these made him sound.
So, then we were regaled with ”aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd’s.”
But someone pointed those out to him as well.
So now what do we hear?
Canned speech.
Even when Obama is merely introducing a friend!
Yes, two, count ‘en, TWO teleprompters for a three minute speech introducing a friend!
LOL!
And did you know that speeches can be scored based on the grade level they are written toward?
I only recently learned this.
It is called the Flesch-Kincaid score.
Analysis of 69 orally delivered State of the Union Addresses since the mid-1930s finds the text of Obama’s 2011 SOTU speech to have notched the second lowest score on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test recorded by a U.S. President.
He targeted his words to 8th graders. (8.1 years education)
Kennedy and Ike aimed at 12th graders.
Nixon, Roosevelt and Ford aimed at 11th graders.
Carter, Truman, Bush 43, Johnson and Reagan aimed at 10th graders.
Even Clinton aimed at 9th graders.
Obama aimed for applause over content.
He used little, short catch phrases so he 1. might get applause, and 2. wouldn’t need to explain the details of the policies he was advocating.
That’s why the CBO said of Obama’s budget ”plan,” “I don’t score speeches.”
Content-free Obama.
And that’s WITH teleprompters.
You’re right, Obama is an overpromoted, overhyped, and narcissistic incompetent.
But unfortunately, as far as I can tell Rick Perry actually is dumb as well.
@bbartlog:
Perry has been more than competent as Governor of Texas. There was no track record of any significance for Obama, who quit his job as Senator.
Doc, I commend you for lifting this banner. We have a very small medium to work within and the propaganda machine of the MSM is in damn the torpedoes full speed ahead mode. They are desperate to reelect Obama and keep the momentum until they can find a competent replacement.
Unfortunately, the public is overly impressed with graduates of the ivory towers no matter how dubious the results.
My suggestion to you is to become the teflon man and let the criticism be deflected by a tough exterior shell. These whores who lie and sell out their professionalism to promote the hoax of Obama have no honour or integrity. We have only seen a pittance of what is in store for any candidate who wants to challenge the Obama Hoax. Just come out swinging like a blacksmith with a twelve pound hammer in each hand. The battle has begun in earnest.
@MataHarley, #6:
“Phasing it out” translates to “cutting current and near-future benefits”, because we’re currently at a point where money coming in equals money going out. This is a long-foreseen moment in program demographics: The post-WW2 baby boomers are just now reaching retirement age. The resultant imbalance will continue until baby boomers begin reaching another predictable moment in growing numbers.
Where would republicans get the money to make up the difference if they began reducing FICA revenue as part of a phase-out? From general revenue? That would necessitate immediate tax increases, which seems to be total anathema to republicans. So, what are they really talking about, and what does it really mean?
In other words, you are admitting this is a ponzi scheme. Congratulations for finally getting there, Greg. There’s a few sitting in federal prisons for similar behavior, ya know.
Sigh… this false meme about the GOP being an “anathema” does get so tiresome. Not to mention highly offensive. You and your party’s continued debate based on fomenting a hatred for the opposition views really does little to solve the problems, and contributes mightily to the increasing divide.
But let’s to get the detail reality, shall we? Increasing revenue has indeed been proposed by some in the GOP… just not in the form of class targeted income tax increases that you and your party advocate. And considering the pathetic amount of revenue that would result, it’s really a dumb move to even keeping flogging that dead horse.
Some in the GOP, myself, and many others here are all for IRS tax reform, and elimination of most the loopholes and tax credits, which indeed increase revenue. Conversely, it will also affect the amount of shared profits by corporate stockholders, resulting in less revenue taxable for capital gains. But it was a combination of both cuts (individual income tax) and increases (minor IRS reform for business) that Reagan implemented to effect an economy rebounding. It was also this same type of combination that Obama’s own, ignored, Debt Commission advocated.
That takes care of your problem with increased revenue for eliminating a ponzi scheme. Now let’s talk about having less to spend on… i.e. reduction and/or elimination of federal agencies. In other words, stop robbing the future generations for the results of bad legislative ponzi schemes, , and start tightening the belt of a bloated and inefficient central government. Also, reform of federal pension plans, similar to that happening in various states to accommodate for their own budget shortfalls. And last, but perhaps most important, a repeal of O’healthcare – which is nothing more than an attempt to price fix insurance premiums – and implementing genuine reform that would actually reduce the costs of health providers overhead when giving health care. Reduce the overhead for medical providers, and the payout required to sustain the current and near future recipients of the ponzi scheme can be more easily addressed.
Considering that the costs of medical will be runaway, and that O’healthcare does nothing but limit what the feds will pay medical providers on Medicare (via IMAB recommendation), and also prohibits private insurers from raising their premiums more than what the HHS deems “reasonable”, you can count on tons of benefits being slashed between Medicare and privately insured anyway with the current path. To assume that any of this is cured by O’healthcare reveals deep partisan bias, and the willing suspension of disbelief.
Isn’t it Obama who keeps lowering the amount of payroll deduction younger (well, all) workers pay into SS?
Seems to me the Republicans oppose cutting THAT tax.
Obama’s uncle busted in MAssachusetts for drunk driving (Very drunk driving). He is an illegal alien with a valid driver’s license and SS number. He apparently votes Democratic.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1362374&format=comments&cnum=3
Hangs out at the urban country club, The Chicken Bone Saloon and drinks till he can’t walk and then drives drunk.
@Greg:
You should read some proposals by conservatives on the subject that are not colored by the liberal/progressive colors of your info sources.
But all that is beside the point, concerning the OP itself. How is it that liberal/progressives continue to insist that Obama is an intellectual giant when the proof of his meager faculties is so public?
Notice that I asked “how”, instead of “why”. The “why” is apparent. It must be done in order to keep up the glamour of Obama. The “how” is interesting, since it involves the reasons liberal/progressives can sell this lie to themselves.
@johngalt, #14:
What’s interesting is that an Is Perry Dumb? title has resulted in more tu quoque responses than direct rebuttals.
Bbart must be mad Perry is kicking the crap out of “con man paul”. Like I said Bbart, you are a pompous, self aggrandizing ass.
@skookum 2: The question is, which Republican will Obama’s smear machine in the NYT go after because of this? For “Gunwalker” they went after Issa. So far the Times has issued four retractions but they are sticking by their story regardless.
@Greg:
Maybe because the OP itself is directed at the MSM again, and their failure to properly vet Obama in 2008. How much more proof do liberal/progressives need that the MSM is in the Democratic Party’s pocket? I, personally, don’t have a problem with a media entity delving into candidate’s past, present, record, ideology, associations, statements, and YES, EVEN INTELLIGENCE. However, when they fail to do the same for ALL candidates involved, it belies an intent, by the entire MSM, to tilt the political landscape in one party’s favor. And people such as yourself find it ok, somehow. Does the ends really justify the means, Greg?
@MataHarley, #13:
No. As I said, it represents a long-foreseen imbalance that relates to a specific demographic group; a group that tends to show up to vote.
If you reduce FICA revenue and don’t increase taxes elsewhere to make up the difference, you’ll have a choice of either cutting current Social Security benefit payments or pushing the national debt up even faster.
@Greg: Social Security is almost the very definition of a Ponzi scheme.
Are you saying it is dumb to point this out? Or dumb because you don’t believe it?
@Greg:
So, you admit that Obie is pushing up the national debt at an accelerated pace?
That’s a good first step.
@skookum 2: Thanks, Skook. Your counsel is always of value.
My my… you actually define it as a ponzi scheme yourself… i.e. “Phasing it out” translates to “cutting current and near-future benefits”, because we’re currently at a point where money coming in equals money going out.”
Greg, the money “coming in” comes from the young who contribute to insurance they cannot have if/when they live to a certain age. The money “going out” is their money, paying for current retiree Medicare benefits.
aka a ponzi scheme where the lower tier of the pyramid (those who are not on Medicare, but paying) pay for the top tier of the pyramid (those who have reached Medicare age and draw benefits). The top tier’s money has been long gone, paid out on those retirees before them. As I said, and you describe, a ponzi scheme.
You then strengthen that description by noting it’s “a long-foreseen imbalance that relates to a specific demographic group;” Yessir… ponzi schemes that depend on an ever increasing population growth tend to portend an “imbalance”. And that should have been thought of at the inception.
Oh, but now you back peddle, saying what you meant is about a voting demographic, and not the rob Peter, pay Paul redistribution of cash?
okay… It seems you can accurately look at that bird of feather, but you are reluctant to call it a bird at all.
Did I, or did I not @already address that in my comment #13?
Apparently I can see more options available for weening off the young, increasing revenue in general, and cutting spending than you can. It’s always a two trick monkey with you guys… raise taxes, and cut benefits. You never think about reforming the source of the debt, and cutting the size of all agencies that operate outside of the central government’s mandated duties. That, of course, does not include the military/DOD, which is a Constitutional mandate of federal government. However even that can be streamlined to be far more efficient in use of cash.
@Aye, #21:
Why not stop rephrasing what I said and simply deal with the statement?
Owing to the baby boomers, Social Security is now paying out a bit more each year than it is taking in.
Therefore:
If you reduce FICA revenue and don’t increase taxes elsewhere to make up the difference, you’ll have a choice of either cutting current Social Security benefit payments or pushing the national debt up even faster.
These statements are either true or false. I say that they’re both true, and that voters should understand republican intentions while keeping that in mind.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe one of those statements can be demonstrated not to be true.
Actually, Greg, owing to Congress, spending the funds in the SS Trust Fund (what an oxymoron that is…), the reason that SS is paying out more every year is because they have to cash in the Treasury IOUs. To cash those IOUs, Congress has to borrow more money… which adds to the interest that was already being paid on the original amount seized from the Trust Fund to spend elsewhere.
Is there any way we can explain how the SS funds work that you might actually grasp in concept? I know we’d all like to help you out there…
SS is the worst of the two of a ponzi schemes. You are paying into retirement benefits that you cannot pass on to your heirs if you die prior to retirement age, pays very little on the dollar over the years, have no personal control over how it is “invested” on your behalf, and is put into an account for Congress to use for spending other than SS benefits. It was designed, from inception, to be a Congressional piggy bank. They collected more than they paid out, and they had their eye on the overage.
So every bit of that overage, per the original law, unchanged in amendments, ends up being part of the general spending funds by way of the Treasury.
Mata:
As I understand the kitty has been raped at every opportunity by every politician with a perversion for a pet project. This is one of the major reasons this situation has become a ponzi scheme or a carnival barker’s con game. It was not designed to raise money for the general fund. This is what happens when you send thieves and pimps to DC.
To paraphrase the great Eric Stratton…
“Greg is right! Psychotic, but absolutely right!”
Rick Perry is making the mistake of being honest with the American people. As our president has proven, you say whatever everyone wants to hear on the campaign trail, and speaking truth gets you branded a terrorist.
I never thought I’d find myself agreeing with you, Greg!
Greg: do your research. Ponzi was an historical figure. He collected money from people, promising a wonderful rate of return on their money. He paid those contributors from new investors. Eventually he ran out of investors, and the whole thing went bust. A similar story applies to Bernie Madoff.
VP Gore, campaigning for President in 2000, promised us that the Social Security Trust Fund was a Lockbox, that the money in that Fund could not be touched, and that payments were guaranteed in perpetuity.
When President Obama recently addressed the issue of the Debt Limit, he stated that, if the Debt Limit were not raised, he would not guarantee payment of Social Security benefits, because “there would not be money in the kitty.”
We have two choices. If Social Security is insurance, then the premiums collected are invested, and payments made from the money made on those investments. If Social Security is a Federal Program, then premiums collected are spent, and benefits are paid from future contributions by others. To claim that the premiums are invested in Government Bonds is circular: the Government cannot invest in itself.
There are no other choices.
VP Gore claimed that SS was insurance. Pres Obama claims SS is paid from current contributions.
One of them must be incorrect.
If SS is insurance, what’s the investment? And where is all that money?
@Greg:
I didn’t rephrase what you said you dolt!
I asked you a question. Why are you avoiding it?
I would rather have the Truth, Bob, and be labeled the Infidel in the Democratic/Liberal eyes then live in fantasy chained to their whims and agendas.
@mathman, #28:
Where–and how real–is the $1.2 QUADRILLION in derivatives that lurk behind the global financial system?
It’s odd that people would question Social Security while blithely ignoring an accumulation of imaginary value that’s 20 times larger than the total annual global economy. Some things are real and useful only to the extent that we continue to believe in them. When we stop believing, the useful magic vanishes.
An economy can crash simply because of a crisis of confidence. A one-hundred dollar bank note is nothing but a piece of paper. An ounce of gold is a bit of yellow metal, mainly useful to jewelers and dentists, and for plating electrical contacts. Most of our net worth takes the form of numbers on various computers. The whole freaking world of monetary values is a Ponzi scheme. Ultimately, the only thing humans can count on is getting old–if they’re lucky–and eventually falling over dead. Maybe people should stop recklessly kicking away at the damn props holding up the illusions that make our time here more comfortable.
I wonder how many people who respond sympathetically to Perry’s hyperbole receive Social Security, or have older relatives who do, or are counting on it in the near future? When you get down to brass tacks, I wonder how many Americans would consider investments in the stock market to be as safe and reliable as our 75-year-old Social Security retirement system?
Ouch, Greg. By federal law, since inception, the only allowed direct “investments” for overage SS funds was in securities held by the Secretary of the Treasury. All investments with SS Trust Fund money must be special issue – securiitis only issued to the trust fund. i.e. Certificates of Indebtedness and Bonds. The SSA site has a history of types of investments…:
You’re sorta hopscotching here, ya know. The SS Trust Funds can only be in the US Treasury securities. The Treasury is also limited as to how they can use those funds. So what’s the left hand turn into the world derivatives market, en toto, got to do with the what you’re having for dinner tonight? Yup… they are about as related. Your dinner, your link, and the SS Funds discussion.
Now, if you’d like to say you have worry about the US dollar and value of the T-note on the market, you won’t find much disagreement. But that’s got nothing to do with the Treasury, taking overage SS money, putting it into non marketable securities that ends up in the sticky fingers of Congress as a general fund piggy bank. You might want to consider the US Treasury as doing a form of “laundering”… So we would welcome you to the reality of out of control spending, wreaking havoc on the “security” you seem to think the SS Funds have.
But then, as you say, “The whole freaking world of monetary values is a Ponzi scheme.” So why this unnatural faith in that 75 year old ponzi scheme’s security? If the US dollar falls, the US economy follows… including those ponzi schemes you defend.
I wonder why you are still demonstrating this tunnel vision? If an individual keeps the money, they can choose to invest it as they see fit. From real estate, stocks or stuffing a mattress. Their choice. And guess what… whatever they do, at least they can pass it on to family in the estate.
I happen to work with many older couples who saved their pennies and invested in real estate. They weren’t insane, pulling out all the equity when the market values exploded to unsustainable values. They were frugal, logical and realized that parlaying an asset in those times for fake values would kick them in the teeth later. I also know others who only have the one primary residence, but have used safe investments for their cash… CDs and money markets.
So why do you think that any individuals choice only lies in the stock market? Are you that limited in your exposure to the careful planning of the greatest generation? Or only just exposed to the boomers, who want it all and want it now?
Back on ”is Perry dumb?”
Perry was apparently asked about what is dumb today.
He had a great answer.
(I’ll paraphrase)
People who sit in Ivory Towers on university campuses seem smart and have a bunch of knowledge.
But they lack WISDOM which is APPLIED knowledge.
Obama is smart and has a bunch of facts and figues.
He never got any real world experience so as to ever be able to apply his knoweldge.
AND Obama surrounds himself with like-minded individuals.
More and more university professors and intellectuals are around Obama.
No real world wisdom.
That just compounds Obama’s problem.
No wisdom.
No applied knowledge.
That’s what’s dumb.
@Greg: There you go again with the window in your stomach all fogged up. With your head up your @#$%(*&, you need to keep the window clean.
@Greg: My, my, my! You doth protest to much. Mighty fogged window to the world.
@Greg:
Greg, I am really having a hard time understanding you. On the one hand, you admit that SS and Medicare are now paying out more than they are taking in. You also admit that SS and Medicare act like “Ponzi schemes”, while not exactly admitting that they are, in fact, Ponzi schemes.
In doing the above, you note that with the boomers soon to be completely overloading the system, and yet, your answer to this is;
So, you know that SS and Medicare cannot continue on as they are. You know that if that happens, that enormous amounts of debt are likely to be added to the national debt. It is likely that we will reach a point of a Greece or Ireland and then rioting will be rampant as benefits are cut because their IS NO MORE MONEY. And even knowing all of that, you suggest that we just continue on, to make our lives more comfortable, in the here and now. What’s the matter, Greg? Do you not think the problem should be addressed?
Your reaction reminds me of the stories about the unions that insist on either maintaining, or increasing, their pay and benefits, even as the companies warn of impending plant closures and layoffs due to the Unions demands. But the unions are so involved in their own well-being, and not being able to see the forest for the trees, they continue their demands, the plants close, they lose their jobs, and then have the audacity to complain about the plant closing, not stopping to think, even once, that their own actions were the cause of their current misery.
But you call Perry dumb because he dares to tell the truth. And, in a way, you are right, but that speaks to the idiocy of a great number of voters in this country more than it does Perry. Bush tried to do something to save the system and was condemned for it. Perry suggests something drastic must be done to save the system and liberal/progressives are condemning him for it. Who are those liberal/progressives going to complain to, and about, when their bennies stop coming? It’s nearly a 100% guarantee that they won’t be looking in the mirror when they do so.
You forgot one gaffe which proves Obama’s business acumen. It was his talking about ‘profits to earnings’ ratios.
We don’t need any more lawyers to become President. None. (I’m fine with a Constitutional Amendment to ban them from running for President.) We need some solid business people, someone who can deregulate the hell out of the Federal Government’s intrusions into our everyday lives because they’ve been there, done that, and got the red tape scars to prove it.
Linked by Doug. Thanks!
@RickZ: #37,
“. . . . ‘profits to earnings’ ratios”
Noticed that one as well. While I should no longer be surprised, it is still amazing that the media won’t “go there” when that kind of ignorance prevails in the White House.
Margins, profits, net profits, earnings, . . . . are at the core of what floats America and this groups of complete incompetents have no idea what the terms refer to. We can’t expect a President to necessarily be able to understand some of the finer subtleties of a Balance Sheet, but damn . . . .
Is there any question that this President has no idea how to create jobs? He evidently doesn’t even understand the term.
BTW, more evidence that California’s “hole” isn’t about to get back-filled soon, . . . I had a long discussion yesterday with a very successful entrepreneur who’s located right smack in the middle of Silicon Valley – he formed a new company in the high tech game he was looking for advice on – located it in Nevada.
That story gets repeated again and again. No one wants to fly the California flag. The rules, regulations, taxes, etc., are too onerous and no one in Sacramento has the guts to act. I can’t recall the last time I talked to anyone incorporating in California.
NO competence in sight. Quoting Douglas MacKinnon – Could Obama Have Made It as a Top Gun?
“Beyond the mandates of political correctness, how is a man who refuses to release the results of his SAT scores, his I.Q. test, or his transcripts from Occidental college deemed “brilliant?”
As the left and some in the liberal mainstream media seem more open to asking that very legitimate question, maybe they can also take a field trip to an Air Force base and observe the rigid screening process, dedication, and yes, high degree of intelligence needed to become an Air Force pilot.
It will be an eye-opening education for them. Especially those who avoided asking Obama the proper questions in 2007 and are now desperately trying to manufacture discredited attacks against Perry.
As the American people watch our nation spiral further and further into chaos under the “leadership” of Obama, they are onto this smear game and recognize the real-deal when they see it.”
If Obama and the dems/libs don’t like ”racism,” wait til they see what their buddies in Libya are up to now!
Libyan Arabs are rounding up black Africans in Libya and putting them in detention centers.
Sure. Tolerance. Freedom. Not revenge. Because a tolerant, freedom-loving nation totally rounds up people just because of their skin color and puts them into detention camps. For no reason other than their skin color. Look how tolerant the Arab Libyans are to their darker-skinned Muslim brethren….
Substitute Palestinians and Israelis for black Africans and Libyans, and imagine the world’s outrage.