By Jack Kneafsey

This question posed by an editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal goes right to the heart of the way this country is being managed, or, in most cases, being mismanaged by this President. As we are seeing from the recent outbreak of political scandals, the White House’s defense is that they are disavowing all knowledge of any of these incidents. And, shockingly, their defense is that they just weren’t aware, or were never informed of these incidents by ANY of their huge staff of advisors, some of whom were, in fact, made aware months ago.

Clearly, in the IRS targeting, the White House is doing its best to try and convince us that they had no prior knowledge of any of this, and, of course, are blaming some rogue, lower-level employees for their actions. From my perspective, the White House has partially succeeded in their persuasive efforts. For years, like many of you, I have felt that Barack Obama was totally unqualified, inexperienced and unprepared to take on the role of our nation’s chief executive. Now, surprisingly, it seems the White House and all the President’s loyalists, as well as a large portion of the mainstream media, are doing their best to inadvertently bring the nation to a similar view, as they continue to argue that our President is not ‘hands-on’, had no ‘knowledge’, and is not ultimately accountable or responsible for governing or running our country.

Well, then, who is accountable?

The Journal’s editorial reflects on all this, and here are some of their comments:

Every day brings new revelations about who knew what about the IRS targeting conservative groups during President Obama’s re-election campaign, but the overall impression is of a vast federal bureaucracy run amok. While the White House continues to peddle the story of a driverless train wreck, taxpayers are being treated to a demonstration of the dangers of an unwieldy and unaccountable administrative state. Look, Ma, no hands!

… Mr. Obama’s lesson in lack of political accountability also seems to be trickling down: Lois Lerner was in charge of the IRS division that discriminated against conservative groups. But rather than take responsibility, Ms. Lerner on Wednesday invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to testify at the House hearing, though not before she read a statement saying that she had “not done anything wrong.”

If the scandal is showing anything, it is that the White House has a bizarre notion of accountability in the federal government. President Obama’s former senior adviser, David Axelrod, told MSNBC recently that his guy was off the hook on the IRS scandal because “part of being President is there’s so much beneath you that you can’t know because the government is so vast.”

… If the President isn’t accountable, then we really have the tea party nightmare of the runaway administrative state accountable to no one. If Mr. Obama and his aides are to be taken at their word, that is exactly what we have.    (my emphasis)

You can and should read all the Wall Street Journal’s editorial here.

I am reading a great deal of alarming information regarding impending economic collapse in the US.

I feel sure that most of the predictions I read are based on facts, and ought to scare the living daylights out of all readers.

What I fail to see is an explanation of the causes of this terrible, atrocious situation in which the US economy finds itself.

Let me cut through all the dire warnings and offer readers a solution. However difficult it may be to get a solution in place, it is absolutely necessary to understand that there is a solution; if you want it badly enough, it is there waiting to be implemented.

HOW TO GET THE US ECONOMY GOING AGAIN

In order to re-invigorate the US economy the following policy must be put in place:

The United States will only accept just as much imports from foreign countries, as foreign countries are willing to purchase from the US. (But the US will not resort to high tariffs to restrict imports and protect local production.)

Question: Then you are saying, Mr. Salinas, that the US should not just import what it wants from foreign countries, and pay in dollars for those imports?

Answer: That is just what I am saying. Because, you see, if you pay in dollars, there is no need for local industries in the US. They are not needed – and in fact, they have disappeared – because imports can be paid with dollars. What do you want: lots of Asian imports available at Walmart, but no jobs, and what jobs there are – at tattoo parlors and restaurants – paying miserable wages? Or do you want industries which will employ workers, pay higher wages and pay taxes to your government as well?

You see, what happened to your country, the USA, is that since 1971 the US has no need to pay for imports with EXPORTS – and exports require local industries to feed the export trade. Since 1971, the US has been paying for everything under the Sun with dollars. And the result has been that US industries just dried up. They were unnecessary. The jobs disappeared. Detroit shriveled up, and the whole US is shriveling up, without industries. All this has happened because US imports can be paid with dollars, and exports are not really necessary.

This was great for China and Asia in general. It was party-time there! They sold everything they could make, and received dollars in exchange. The US had a party – for a while; until the industries died out and unemployment took over. All because dollars can pay for imports. Exports – forget it! The exports which sustained the industrial base – and the employment base – of the US are not needed anymore. And so the heart of the US has been rotting away – bringing with it unemployment and 47 million on food stamps.

That’s where you are today.

So how do you solve the problem?

Very simple! I won’t say it won’t be painful, at first. But it’s the only solution:

GOLD MUST RETURN TO THE MONETARY SYSTEM OF THE US

The US must declare that as of now:

1. The US will pay for all imports either with goods and services or with gold.
2. The US will provisionally initiate the re-industrialization of the USA with a gold price of $10,000 an ounce of gold.

 Exporters to the US will have their choice:

a. Take their payment in US-made goods and services, or
b. Take their payment in gold at $10,000 dollars an ounce.

 The US will not attempt to reduce the flow of imports by means of tariffs. Tariffs offer no solution; in fact, tariffs derail the only solution.

The definitive price of gold will be determined this way:

1. As long as gold continues to leave the country, instead of goods and services, then the gold price must be hiked further, until the outflow of gold is stemmed and no gold leaves the country (because foreigners find American products more attractive than high-priced gold).

2. If gold pours into the country, then the price of gold in dollars is too high and American exports are too cheap. The price of gold will be trimmed down, until the movement of gold is practically nil, with exports paying for the mass of imports.

The result of this measure will be an immediate rebirth of manufacturing in the US, with a return to full employment and prosperity.

The only solution for the dire circumstances of the US is a return to gold as the international money on the part of the US.

Let me make it perfectly clear: This solution − which is the only solution − will absolutely wreck the whole financial system of the US, without a doubt.

What is more important:

The recovery of the US as a productive powerhouse, employing millions of Americans in reborn industries?

Or keeping alive a rotten, insolvent, bankrupt and corrupt financial system?

Do you want an America that is alive, working and prospering at work?

Or do you want to continue in the present situation of decay and eventual collapse, which is inevitable if the solution is not applied?

Yes, the financial system has to go down the tubes. The National Debt and its 16.8 Trillions will be cut to about 1/7 of its present weight.

In exchange, Americans get life and opportunity; a way out of this miserable situation, which will become impossible sooner or later anyway.

This is the meaning of gold at $10,000 dollars per ounce for the average American:

A reborn US, bursting with opportunity and jobs for everyone.   (my emphasis)

By Hugo Salinas Price for The Daily Bell

By permission The Daily Bell

www.thedailybell.com

http://www.thedailybell.com/29038/Hugo-Salinas-Price-How-to-Get-the-US-Economy-Going-Again

Hugo Salinas Price is a successful, retired businessman who lives in Mexico. A follower of the Austrian School of Economics since his youth, he has written three books on how and why silver should be instituted as money in Mexico, in parallel with paper money, and numerous related articles in English and Spanish, posted at his website. His organization, the Mexican Civic Association Pro Silver, has lobbied the Mexican Congress to approve legislation to institute the pure silver “Libertad” ounce as money.

By Andy Sutton, Chief Market Strategist, Sutton & Associates, LLC

The story broke from nowhere and caught many off guard. To others it was the manifestation of previously unspoken fears. It was, and is, by far the biggest story of 2013, the decade, and quite possibly the millennium. It was the crossing of another Rubicon. For years and decades, the financial piranhas had wandered around the edges, nibbling a little here and a little there. Inflation, bailouts, and other monetary mischief had already eroded the value of most currencies. But never before had they actually made the boldest of moves – to steal what were always considered to be the most liquid and secure of funds – bank deposits. In a weekend, the liquid became the illiquid and the secure became the repossessed. Hey, let’s not split hairs here, the money was stolen. The media dutifully came up with another new buzzword – the ‘bail-in’. Talk about putting a positive spin on outright theft.

We’ve already covered Cyprus in great detail. That story goes on and is largely ignored by the mainstream press corps; however, Cyprus was just a small prize. There are much bigger fish to fry – like you. This week’s column will cover the groundwork that has already been laid to turn America into the next Cyprus. I am not positing here that we will necessarily be the next in line chronologically, but it will happen eventually – and likely sooner than later. There are other pools of wealth in other parts of the world that may serve as additional beta tests prior and I claim no inside knowledge of the blueprint, but can only attest to the fact that it does in fact exist and more importantly, to make you aware of it now.

Spain, Canada, and New Zealand have already adopted specific measures using the ‘bail-in’ approach to guarantee the solvency of the ‘too big to fail and too big to jail’ banksters using depositor money. For simplicity’s sake, a bail-in is pretty much the opposite of a bailout. In a bailout, which we all know far too well, everyone shoulders the losses of the offensive, insolvent institution. Think of TARP. However, that ‘socialization’ of losses tends to annoy folks; especially those who had no prior pecuniary interest in the aforementioned offensive institution. And yes, I do mean offensive.

However, in a bail-in, instead of getting the funds from the general public, the strategy is to swipe (not write-down, not give a haircut, etc.) depositor assets. This is done by a bit of wordsmithing. Under previous customary definitions, depositor assets were also known as the bank’s liabilities. Obviously an insolvent bank has more liabilities than assets (in simple terms) and as such changing the status of account holders from ‘depositors’ to ‘unsecured creditors’ means the bank can ‘repatriate’ your money to pay off its bad debts. Truth told, this is nothing new; there is already the precedent of a series of frighteningly similar situations that are already part of America’s decaying reputation as an advocate for private property rights.

The Precursor – Sentinel Management Group

If all this is starting to sound a bit familiar, that is because in principle a variation of this has already happened in the case of the Sentinel Group. Late on Friday August 17, 2007 (always over a weekend, don’t EVER forget that), the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Blockage of the sale of firm assets to the hedge fund Citadel Investment Group caused lawsuits to be filed against Sentinel by two brokerages: Farr Financial and Velocity Futures. On August 20, 2007, the SEC filed a complaint in US District Court in Chicago alleging that Sentinel had used falsified statements to obtain a $321 million line of credit and had comingled $460 million of segregated client assets with assets in its proprietary ‘dealer’ or ‘house’ account. On June 1, 2012, the former CEO and head trader were indicted on federal fraud charges for defrauding more than 70 customers of over $500 million.

Here’s where it gets dicey. BNY Mellon is the firm that provided the $321 line of credit and it filed suit and the courts have ruled (in error and on the side of criminal behavior) that customer funds may be used by Sentinel to pay off BNY Mellon’s credit line. There have been two similar subsequent cases in the brokerage world – MFGlobal and Peregrine Financial Group. The Sentinel ruling is going to make it awfully difficult, if not impossible, for the clients of those firms to recoup lost funds. This is precisely the type of moral hazard that we need to be avoiding, not encouraging. To allow a few too big to fail – too big to jail firms to leverage the entire system is not only insanely foolish, but criminal as well.

Granted, Sentinel was a brokerage house that went belly up because it made bad bets, but allowing the firm to steal customer money to make good on its line of credit was little more than a precursor for a savings and loan entity to do the same thing. Or in the case of Cyprus, several savings and loan entities. However, given the incestuous relationship between commercial banks and brokerages thanks to the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall, there is ostensibly no difference between the situations at Sentinel, MFGlobal, and PFG and what happened in Cyprus. Can the brokerage arm of a big bank put the entire operation at risk? Absolutely. Are you protected if you happen to have deposits in such a bank? Absolutely not.

Of course in any case, the big insiders will be tipped off well in advance and have the opportunity to move their money elsewhere long before the hammer falls, leaving the Proletariat scrambling for ATMs after the banks close on a Friday afternoon.

Act Two – Canada, Spain, New Zealand, or America?

Let’s look at the blueprints and what we’ve got regarding Canada, Spain, New Zealand, and even from our ever quiet, perpetually underfunded friends at the FDIC. There has been a bevy of whitepapers released over the past few months that outline how various jurisdictions are going to deal with future crises. Note that the emphasis is on cleanup rather than prevention. Nobody is interested in preventing another disaster and that is precisely why we’re going to have one. I am going to link these whitepapers from our site so that you can look for yourself and draw your own conclusions. I challenge everyone reading this paper to do exactly that.

Exhibit One:  “Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions” – FDIC / Bank of England

They call them G-SIFIs; short speak for Globally Active, Systemically Important Financial Institutions. These are your Citigroup, JP Morgan, Lloyds of London, BNP Paribas, and Societe Generale folks. They’re intertwined in a web of deceit, corruption, and astronomical leverage and when one goes, they all go. That is why the paper refers to them as being ‘Systemically Important’. Like we need these characters for something. These aren’t even banks really; they’re casinos on steroids. Let’s take a look at some of the bankerspeak from the Bank of England and FDIC shall we?

“These strategies have been designed to enable large and complex cross-border firms to be resolved without threatening financial stability and without putting public funds at risk.” – Note the emphasis on ‘public funds’ ie: bailouts and the concomitant promise that bailouts will no longer be used.

“A process to ensure the equitable treatment of the creditors, depositors, counterparties and shareholders of group entities, regardless of the jurisdiction in which they are located, which would require careful assessment of the provision of intra-group financing;” – Note ‘equitable treatment’ clause.

Here’s the London Whale and the essence of the entire paper:

In the U.S., the strategy has been developed in the context of the powers provided by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Such a strategy would apply a single receivership at the top-tier holding company, assign losses to shareholders and unsecured creditors of the holding company, and transfer sound operating subsidiaries to a new solvent entity or entities. – Still no specific mention of where depositors fit in.

And a bit more on who ultimately takes the hit, but in vague terms:

Title II (of the Dodd-Frank Act) requires that the losses of any financial company placed into receivership will not be borne by taxpayers, but by common and preferred stockholders, debt holders, and other unsecured creditors, and that management responsible for the condition of the financial company will be replaced.

Note that depositors are not mentioned anywhere in this exchange. It only says that taxpayers won’t take the hit. So there will be no more bailouts. Allegedly. The portion of interest to depositors is the bit about ‘other unsecured creditors’. If only equity and debt holders are going to be held responsible for ‘making the firm whole’ in receivership, then what happens when a hundred dollar stock can’t get a bid at five bucks because the firm is insolvent? Look at Lehman. Confiscating every share and selling it wouldn’t have even come close to righting the ship. Double that for bonds. Besides, who would even want it? Even assuming there were buyers at par, thanks to leverage, the amount needed to effectively resolve the insolvent firm could easily be many times the proceeds of any sale. The ONLY liquid assets within reach for an insolvent bank are the deposits. Yet deposits and depositors aren’t even mentioned in the FDIC/BOE report. Follow along:

“An efficient path for returning the sound operations of the G-SIFI to the private sector would be provided by exchanging or converting a sufficient amount of the unsecured debt from the original creditors of the failed company into equity. In the U.S., the new equity would become capital in one or more newly formed operating entities.”

And this is where the noose closes around the necks of depositors. Pay close attention. Unsecured debt is money that is OWED by the now insolvent bank to creditors. That debt is unsecured, meaning that the creditors can’t repossess buildings, etc. to make good on the unpaid debt. So they’re going to take a bunch of people that are owed something and turn them into owners of the company by converting debt to equity. So what you have is the common and preferred stockholders wiped out and a bunch of creditors now owning the company. But where does the capital come from that is mentioned in the above paragraph? All we’ve done to this point is shuffled some deck chairs on the SS BrokenBank. We’ve wiped out the original capital/owner’s equity and replaced it with ‘unsecured debt’ holders.  This resolution mechanism ONLY works if you assume that the deposits fall into the same category as ‘unsecured debt’ and as such are written-down along with unsecured debt (a la Cyprus). Otherwise you’d be in a situation where public money would be needed to re-liquefy the new firm and both Dodd-Frank and the FDIC/BOE report specifically state that public money will not be put at risk. Instead, depositor money will be at risk. Yet the FDIC/BOE report does not explicitly say that, and in fact does quite a bit of outstanding grammatical grandstanding to avoid even alluding to it.

It must also be noted that the FDIC/BOE report was dated 10-December-2012; well in advance of the Cypriot bank holiday. The blueprints for America and Europe were laid well ahead of the beta test.

Exhibit II – “Report and Recommendations of the Cross-Border Bank Resolution Group” – Bank for International Settlements – 2010

This report pre-dated the combined FDIC/BOE report by nearly 2 years and was one of the first whitepapers released by a major banking ‘authority’ after the demise of Lehman Brothers and several other firms in 2008. Again, the ambiguity of the language must be noted and the not-so –subtle grouping of depositors with ‘other creditors’. See below:

“The operation of national regulatory, corporate and insolvency regimes in home/host jurisdictions including the scope of potential ring fencing measures, the treatment of intra-group claims, safe harbour provisions for financial contracts, the treatment of depositors and other creditors under the relevant resolution frameworks, and market, regulatory and legal constraints that may require early disclosure of an impending crisis;”

Note again as in the FDIC/BOE report the lumping together of depositors and ‘other creditors’. Formerly, depositors were NOT considered creditors and had separate and distinct rights under the law. For US bank account holders, the biggest ‘right’ is FDIC protection afforded depositors. That protection is not afforded to creditors.

Below is another example of where depositors are amalgamated with creditors. What obligations do depositors have to a bank anyway? And even further, what obligations do they have when a bank goes bust other than to safeguard their assets? Follow along as the BIS report begins to shift the definition of and mindset concerning depositors:

A commitment of national jurisdictions to undertake the necessary legal reforms, which may require a harmonization of national rules governing cross-border crisis management and resolutions, including rules on core issues such as a common definition for bank insolvency, avoidance powers, minimum rights and obligations of creditors including depositors, treatment of intra-group claims, ranking of claims, rights to set-off and netting, and the treatment of certain financial contracts, submission and admission of claims, and distributions to creditors;

Also, and perhaps ironically, the BIS paper and the FDIC/BOE paper differed dramatically with regards to the possibility of public bailouts for compromised firms such as Lehman. Banks shoot their own wounded. When one gets in trouble, credit lines are withdrawn, loans refused, and the failing institution is isolated. That is what caused the need for tremendous publicly funded bailouts in 2008. Obviously such actions are politically unfavorable, especially when you have a Treasury Secy who blatantly lies about how the money will be used.

Making a note of the change in tenor from 2010 to 2012 is critical. The emphasis shifted from taxpayer-funded bailouts to the model of swiping depositor money to sustain broken firms. Of course nobody was really sure how that would work out. Hence the perfect test in Cyprus. Physically isolated, the Cypriots never had a chance. And, right on schedule, the biggies were forewarned and made their quiet exit before D-Day. This part always comes out later and is released very quietly.

In Conclusion – Some Pointers

In America, the segment of folks who are actually awake are pretty upset about all this and have noticed the change in tone from the bailout to bail-in model. Understandably, they’re not too happy about it and seek insight.  There are a couple of signposts and points to remember about these types of events:

1)     Beware of Friday afternoons after market close. This is when the big actions occur. Bankruptcy filings are made and these crises are whipped up to a frenzy state. This is done for a reason. It gives the powers that be the entire weekend to plot behind closed doors while nobody can do a thing. In Cyprus they closed the banks and when the ATMs were empty, that was it. The crisis was on. Lehman happened over a weekend. That is no guarantee, but that has been the modus operandi in the past.

2)     We’re one headline from an identical crisis here. The same applies to the EU and the rest of the world. This is the nature of the game that is played. It is literally impossible for any person to fully comprehend the amount of leverage that is being employed in terms of the OTC derivative market alone. The exposure is tremendous and systemic. The BIS and the rest can write all the whitepapers and talk about orderly this and that all they want. The truth is when (not if) that mountain starts shaking, all bets are off. And again, the focus of the banking ‘authorities’ has been on cleanup rather than prevention. Understanding this is key to grasping the concept that these folks realize they can’t control these markets or events. It’s a financial Frankenstein and nobody really knows what it is going to do.

3)     Follow the blueprints – and the money. The BIS paper, and more importantly, the FDIC/BOE paper, lay the blueprints on how these crises will be dealt with moving forward. I find it hilarious that the papers cite a public distaste for bailouts. I guess they figure that swiping bank accounts is going to be more palatable. Of course it won’t be packaged that way. We’ll be told that the ‘haircut’ will only be for the ‘rich’. However, by the time it is over, everyone will be cleaned out to some extent. Just look at the end result in Cyprus. They knew all along the Proletariat was going to take a beating. Class warfare is the oldest weapon in the book when it comes to getting people to subscribe to draconian social measures. Yep, nail the other guy, just leave me alone. It works every time.

There are many analysts who believe these events are imminent. I tend to disagree. Don’t forget that this is, in many ways, a psychological warfare operation. There is always the potential of a black swan event, however, I would think that there would be some time separation between Cyprus and the next event(s) to allow the public to go back to sleep. That said, those who adequately prepare now should be prepared to maintain those preparations – perhaps indefinitely. This is not a one or two month, then back to the party type situation. Our world has changed many times in the last decade. This is just another step in that progression away from liberty.   (my emphasis)

The FDIC/BOE report may be found by clicking here.

The BIS report may be found by clicking here.

By Andy Sutton, Chief Market Strategist, Sutton & Associates, LLC

By permission Andy Sutton

www.sutton-associates.net

“‘Clearly the IRS is in a state of crisis right now. But I don’t think this story is about any individual within the IRS and their bad behavior,’ Kibbe explained. ‘I think the real scandal is a culture of intimidation that appears to be widespread and accepted practice within the IRS. I think the accountability has to start at the top. And it’s not really about who talked to who, or who know what when, but this whole notion that we would use the executive power of the federal government to choose winners and losers and intimidate people based on their political philosophy,’ he asserted.”

Fox News Poll: 56 Percent Want to Go Back to Pre-ObamaCare System – Fox News   “Majorities of American voters say their family will be worse off under the Affordable Care Act, and think it would be better to go back to the pre-ObamaCare health care system. A Fox News poll released Wednesday finds that while 26 percent of voters say their health care situation will be better under the new law, twice as many — 53 percent — say it will be worse.  Another 13 percent say it won’t make a difference.”

“The desire to go back to the 2009 system is widespread.  Majorities of higher and lower income groups feel that way, as do men, women, voters with and without college degrees, and voters across all age groups.”

IRS: A Battering Ram Becomes a Stonewall – Wall Street Journal    “The IRS’s leaders refuse to account for the agency’s corruption and abuse. ‘I don’t know.’  ‘I don’t remember.’  ‘I’m not familiar with that detail.’  ‘It’s not my precise area.’  ‘I’m not familiar with that letter.’  These are quotes from the Internal Revenue Service officials who testified this week before the House and Senate. That is the authentic sound of stonewalling, and from the kind of people who run Washington in the modern age—smooth, highly credentialed and unaccountable.”

“…Again, if what happened at the IRS is not stopped now—if the internal corruption within it is not broken—it will never stop, and never be broken. And that, actually, would be tragic.”  The American people will never again be able to have the slightest confidence in the revenue-gathering arm of their government.

“…The problem here is that ObamaCare’s architects seem to misunderstand the concept of insurance. … If large numbers of employees are enrolled in “skinny” health insurance plans, as the Journal article suggests, ObamaCare will have produced an unanticipated outcome no one wants. People stuck with these policies will have insurance that pays for the equivalent of oil changes (up to six a year!) but not for the equivalent of wrecked car. Just the opposite of real insurance.”

COMMENT: Simply more Obama administration incompetency!

Texas, Red States Beat Blue States On Jobs, Growth – Investor’s Business Daily   “… That outlook ranking is based on more than a dozen public policies that the authors say are closely related to economic growth — including various tax rates, workers compensation costs, minimum wage laws, right to work laws, government jobs as a share of the workforce, and debt service as a share of tax revenues.”

“In addition, an IBD analysis of the data finds that conservative, Republican states vastly outperformed liberal, Democratic states over the past decade on jobs and economic growth, and attracted more people to their states. In fact, of the 10 states that had the best economic performance over the past decade, all but two — Nevada and Washington — are solid red states, based on the past four presidential elections. At the other end of the spectrum, all but two of the worst-performing states are solidly blue.”

Millions Remain Trapped by ‘Effective’ Negative Equity, Even If They’re Not Underwater – Zillow   “The number of American homeowners in negative equity — or ‘underwater,’ owing more on their mortgages than their homes are worth — continues to fall. But even if homeowners are no longer underwater, they still may be stuck in their current homes.”

“Slightly more than 13 million homeowners with a mortgage were in negative equity at the end of the first quarter. But when including homeowners with less than 20 percent home equity, the ‘effective’ negative equity rate at the end of the first quarter was 43.6 percent, or a total of 22.3 million homeowners. These homeowners likely cannot afford a down payment for a new home or other costs associated with buying and selling a home, tying them to their current homes and contributing to inventory shortages.”

By Geoffrey P. Hunt

Remember president Obama’s first pitch of the MLB 2010 season at the Washington Nationals ballpark? It sailed towards the home team dugout.

While he couldn’t throw a baseball within ten feet of home plate — even if it took a double bounce on the way in — Obama has tossed perfect incendiary strikes inside his own clubhouse, sending his entire team to the disabled list, demoted to the minor leagues, or banned from the game for life.

In fact Obama’s entire liberal-progressive league has forfeited the rest of the season — and then some. How fitting that Obama, the inspirational bonus-baby whose identity alone rescued the Democrats from their own consigned occupation of last place and lifted them to World Series champs, now has to give it all up for cheating, steroid abuse, gambling against his own team, and lying to the commissioner.

The liberal progressive momentum is at least stalled, if not dead. Benghazi killed the Dems foreign-policy agenda, the IRS intimidation has dealt a deadly blow to “trust” in big government and crippled the administrative mechanics necessary for ObamaCare. The AP wiretapping and overreach into news reporters First Amendment sanctuaries has spoiled the ball park franks and ten-cent beers shared between Obama and his fawning press corps.

Of course the American people, the fans, are most damaged by Obama’s gambling with foreign policy in Libya, losing in Benghazi, then lying about it. The American people, the fans, have been defrauded into thinking their century-old pastime — pick-off moves and base stealing with the IRS, even with its alternating euphoria and grief — was at least played on a level field, where natural talents won or lost, rather than tainted by widespread steroid users, bulked up to intimidate.

And the American people, the fans, now wonder whether any accounts of the game can be reliable? Will sports reporters be free to form opinions unpopular with managers and owners without clubhouse keys revoked? Will umpires be able to call balls and strikes as they see fit, or must they download league office outcome cards before “Play Ball” can commence?

So much of this is “old news”, as press secretary Jay Carney labeled the Benghazi disaster and cover-up. But the old news here is that Obama is both incompetent and loathes the American people. And he would just as well use facsimiles of the U.S. Constitution to wrap catfish and hush puppies, rather than use sports pages from the Chicago Tribune describing Obama’s favorite team — the 1919 scandal-ridden White “Black” Sox.

More of the old news is that Obama is lazy, disengaged, and unfit to compete without enjoying a multiple-run head start. He can win if his opponents bat only right handed, pitch only left handed, take only one base on a double or triple. Obama gets four strikes and five balls, while everybody else gets called out on one pitch.

Well, it’s over. The “new” news is that the progressives’ god is dead. In a Nietzsche-esque narrative, they killed him by relying on identity politics alone. Never insisting on engagement, mastering details of policy, lawfully cultivating political capital, nor requiring accountability. The smartest man in the room thought his clever manipulations, while feigning deniability with his personal lack of proximate cause to keep his opponents at arms’ length, would seal his legacy. Instead he firebombed his own motorcade.

Who shall inherit this carnage? Joe Biden, the Bobby Valentine of baseball managers, whose incoherent monologues baffle his own players, and bumfuzzle everyone else?

Hillary Clinton, whose pathetic — and impeachable — “What Difference Does It Make” testimony before the Senate subcommittee channeled the Baltimore Orioles first baseman Rafael Palmeiro, who in 2005 defiantly denied using steroids in front of the House Government Reform Committee … “Let me start by telling you this: I have never used steroids. Period. I don’t know how to say it more clearly than that. Never.” …only to test positive for using the anabolic steroid stanozolol?

Moreover, how would Hillary mount a successful tenure as president when the two tricks she learned from Richard Nixon — using the IRS and DOJ to destroy her enemies, the baseball equivalents of corked bats and sign stealing — have already been taken by Obama?

During Obama’s ascendency to the White House, presidential historians, role-playing as baseball chewing gum card hagiographers, couldn’t run fast enough to their typewriters gushing how Obama would be the most transformative slugger ever, rewriting the record-books.

Instead, Obama’s aloofness and hubris on steroids led to his own self-destruction. He sealed his real legacy by giving up the winning run when he failed to cover home plate.  Now, perhaps the American people, the only fans who matter, in the 2014 elections can regain and restore the only game that matters.        (my emphasis)

By Geoffrey P. Hunt for American Thinker

By permission American Thinker

www.americanthinker.com

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/obama_tosses_a_grenade_into_his_own_dugout.html#ixzz2U52z3bEQ

By Jack Kneafsey

I thought you would find these comments from Carl Cannon rather interesting, as he compares President Obama’s mindset with that of President Nixon. Carl is the son of Lou Cannon, a very well-respected reporter for the Washington Post a number of years ago, and who provided his readers at that time with great reporting during the Nixon Years.

Unfortunately, we don’t have permission for a full republishing of all his comments, so I have selected a few key passages from his article for your fuller understanding, and I suggest that you read all his comments by clicking on the link below:

He’s compared himself to Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, evoked nostalgia for John F. Kennedy, sought to emulate Ronald Reagan, (belatedly) praised George W. Bush, and enlisted the assistance of Bill Clinton in his 2012 re-election effort, but as his second term stumbles along, the president with whom Barack Obama finds himself being compared is Richard M. Nixon.

… In the past week, Nixon’s name has been invoked often, and not in a way that pleases the current president or his loyalists. … Richard Milhous Nixon was thin-skinned, felt persecuted by the opposition party, had a penchant for classifying political adversaries — and journalists — as “enemies,” and tried to control his image so fiercely that, ultimately, zealous aides committed illegal acts to further his re-election.

… Barack Obama often displays contempt for the proper role of news-gatherers and, by extension, for the value of reporting that seeks to be unbiased. Often, officials in his White House or re-election campaign seem uncomprehending of the concept of straight reporting.

… In the Obama administration, it’s not uncommon for a White House press official to scream profanely over the phone at journalists whose stories they dislike, plant questions from friendly media outlets, and deny access to briefings to reporters who ask tough questions. This administration has aggressively used the Justice Department to ferret out news leaks, declared open season on a media organization out of sync with his philosophy (Fox News), and routinely questioned the professionalism of reporters and the patriotism of the opposition political party. That disquieting sound you hear is an echo from the Nixon years.

… Those who work for this president have a fetish for stage managing the news. They never simply trust the facts; or maybe a better way of saying it is that they don’t trust the American people to be able to handle the facts.

… The Republicans don’t merely have a difference of opinion with the president. They are rabid, and craven, and willing to sacrifice their own children’s futures to win elections. This Nixon-esque attitude constitutes a toxic brew: whining, boasting, and name-calling all overlaid with persecution-complex and a profound contempt for his opponents — along with a determination to make them pay.    (my emphasis)

You can read all of Carl Cannon’s article from Real Clear Politics here.

By Susan Stamper Brown

Not even Barack Obama can defy the laws of physics.

Certain things are absolute. As Newton said, what goes up must come down. The wrinkles you see staring back at you in the mirror validate the second law of thermodynamics: eventually things fall apart. And, as any farmer will tell you, if you plant cucumbers in the spring, no matter how hard you try, you will never reap watermelons in the summer.

It’s the same with deeds; good and bad, we reap what we sow. From the onset, the Obama administration has woven a web of fabrications so thick it is hard to see where reality ends and make-believe begins. Over time, Obama has woven that web tighter by installing a gang of Chicago allies, confidants, tongue-biters and tale-tellers as a “shadow government” answerable only to him. There was safety in this tight-knit crew of like-minded associates, or so they thought, until recently when parts of Obama’s web began to unravel.

As the old time pastor R.G. Lee once said, “Nature keeps books pitilessly. Man’s credit with her is good. But Nature collects.” And now it seems Nature has come knocking on the front door of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

It all began with Benghazi. We now know celebrating in the end zone about bin Laden’s death made for good re-election bumper stickers and water cooler conversation but had little impact on America’s security or the security of the grossly under protected consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Farfetched stories about a video spun by a circle of close confidants desperately desiring four more years of power fell apart during recent testimonies. We reap what we sow.

Now we hear the IRS was party to Soviet-style scare tactics in the inappropriate targeting of conservative groups prior to the 2012 election. The Washington Post reports the tentacles of this scandal reach beyond the supposed few rogue agents in Cincinnati to Washington. Doing what they do best, Progressives deflected the blame to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision — purporting had it not been for it, there would be no need for the IRS’s intrusion into the private lives of conservatives. Had the IRS targeted liberal groups, Democrats would have blamed it on a Republican plot to steal the election. And of course, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney remains steadfast: the administration is beyond reproach. Sure.

So, how about a sprinkle of invasion of privacy to go with that healthy those of scare tactics? The Associated Press (AP) discovered Attorney General Holder’s Department of Justice secretly seized two months of reporters’ phone records, including both work and personal numbers; something the AP called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into newsgathering. While the jury’s still out regarding motives, it should be noted this was not the first time for this administration. As originally reported by Breitbart.com, former Holder spokesperson Tracy Schmaler colluded with the far-left group Media Matters for America to “smear media figures, whistleblowers, and members of Congress.” Transparency? Not.

Scandal by scandal, the president remains resolute and does his sanctimonious best to remain blameless. The dominoes are dropping it is harvest time for this corrupt administration which believes justice is due for everyone but itself and will do everything in its power to avoid reaping the consequences for which it has sown.    (my emphasis)

By Susan Stamper Brown

By permission Cagle, Inc.

www.susanstamperbrown.com

©2012 Susan Stamper Brown  Susan Stamper Brown is an opinion page columnist, motivational speaker and military advocate who writes about politics, the military, the economy and culture.

“‘…Obama administration officials often talk about the balance between protecting secrets and protecting the constitutional rights of a free press,’ concludes the Times.  ‘Accusing a reporter of being a ‘co-conspirator,’ on top of other zealous and secretive investigations, shows a heavy tilt toward secrecy and insufficient concern about a free press.’”

Embattled IRS Official Lois Lerner’s Husband’s Law Firm Has Strong Obama Connections - Daily Caller   “The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) official who apologized for targeting conservative nonprofit groups for extra scrutiny is married to an attorney whose firm hosted a voter registration organizing event for the Obama presidential campaign, praised President Obama’s policy work, and had one of its partners appointed by Obama to a key ambassadorship.”

“IRS Exempt Organizations Division director Lois G. Lerner, who has been described as ‘apolitical’ in mainstream press coverage of the IRS scandal, is married to tax attorney Michael R. Miles, a partner at the law firm Sutherland Asbill & Brennan. … This is not the first of Lerner’s connections to the president to surface. Earlier this week The Daily Caller reported that Lerner personally signed the tax-exemption approval for a shady charity run by Obama’s half-brother, after an inexplicably brief one-month application process.”

How Hope and Change Gave Way to Spying on the Press – Daily Beast   “Much of the Fourth Estate shrugged when the Obama administration attacked Fox News, writes Kirsten Powers. But now it’s coming for them, too. … Turns out it’s a fairly swift sojourn from a president pushing to ‘delegitimize’ a news organization to threatening criminal prosecution for journalistic activity by a Fox News reporter, James Rosen, to spying on Associated Press reporters. In between, the Obama administration found time to relentlessly persecute government whistleblowers and publicly harass and condemn a private American citizen for expressing his constitutionally protected speech in the form of an anti-Islam YouTube video. Where were the media when all this began happening? With a few exceptions, they were acting as quiet enablers.”

“Trashing reporters comes easy in Obama-land. Behind the scenes, Obama-centric Democratic operatives brand any reporter who questions the administration as a closet conservative, because what other explanation could there be for a reporter critically reporting on the government? … What all of us in the media need to remember—whatever our politics—is that we need to hold government actions to the same standard, whether they’re aimed at friends or foes. If not, there’s no one but ourselves to blame when the administration takes aim at us.”

“Representative Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Lerner might have waived her constitutional right against self-incrimination by making a substantive opening statement.”

With Some More Clarity, White House Adds to Confusion on IRS – Washington Post   “It is never good for an administration when a front-page newspaper article about an ongoing controversy begins as follows: ‘The White House offered a new account Monday of how and when it learned . . . ‘ That’s what readers of The Post awoke to on Tuesday. In trying to contain the controversy and protect President Obama, White House officials have only added to questions about what happened.”

“None of the focus on the changing White House accounts should detract from the bigger outrage, which is the actions of the IRS officials who targeted the conservative groups. But what has happened this week highlights that in trying to contain the controversy and shield the president, White House officials have left themselves open to more criticism. Another question is now being asked by officials from past administrations: Why were Treasury officials not more proactive in pursuing tea party groups’ complaints that they were being harassed by the IRS? Why didn’t anyone in the White House raise questions about whether these accusations were real?”

Obama Pushes to Accommodate, Not Protect, Freedom of the Press – National Journal   “The Justice Department’s secret subpoena of AP phone logs begs questions about Obama’s attitude toward the First Amendment and government scrutiny. Unconstitutional. Sweeping. Secretive. Abusive. Harassing. Gary Pruitt, the president and CEO of the Associated Press, used those words on CBS’s Face the Nation to describe the Justice Department’s seizure of two months of AP reporters’ phone records in New York, Washington, and Hartford, Conn.”

“The broader question here is Obama’s attitude toward press freedom, the First Amendment, and scrutiny of the government he leads. Obama reversed course on press freedoms when he became president, and the shield law he now champions would have provided no protection to the AP.”