Stock Market Update

Market Update - 4/16/20 Coronavirus – Uncertainty Still Ahead As we continue to hear stories about cases plateauing in some parts of the world, and countries and states discussing how to reopen after the shelter-in-place restrictions have been lifted, we are heartened knowing that our temporary pain was not in vain.  However, we believe that we are still in the early chapters of this story. No one has a crystal ball to predict how the rest of the story will play out.  We would also caution against listening to anyone that is able to deal in absolutes at this time. Over the next few weeks and months, there will be a lot of uncertainty in the market, economy, and world in general and a lot of conclusions being drawn around when a return to “normalcy” will happen and what that will look like.  Earnings Uncertainty We are beginning to enter earnings season for companies to report earnings for first quarter.  We believe that the market has priced in the impact on first quarter earnings from the coronavirus.  The uncertainty will come during the second quarter of the year as companies withdraw guidance on future earnings.  Depending on how long the economy is slowed there will be a lot of uncertainty generated as the market tries to decide what to pay for unknown future earnings. To put this in context, imagine a star athlete has a season ending injury in the last year of their contract.  When teams are offering a contract for the next year, they will have to make a prediction about whether the athlete’s future performance will be similar to their past performance once they recover from the injury, even though the team might have limited information about the severity of the injury or the success of the rehabilitation. Some teams will be willing to gamble that the player will come back to full form and make offers to that athlete, while others will avoid making an offer Economic Uncertainty Similarly, as economic news is released, there will be uncertainty on two fronts.  One will be the unknown of if and when economic activity and consumer spending will return to pre-virus levels.  The other front will regard economic data releases and how the market responds.  In the short-term, we predict that there will be numerous data points that will be the “worst ever” regarding sales, spending, manufacturing, and employment among others. Uncertainty with the Covid-19 Battle All of the above will ultimately come down to the progress that we make battling this new coronavirus and what the new normal will look like after the fact.  It is important to remember that we are four months into this virus being a known quantity and are learning more about it daily.  There are still a lot of unknowns out there and countries, states and individuals are all processing them in real time. The response in the U.S. compared to other countries has been delayed, but fortunately, other countries can provide a playbook that the U.S. can follow.  So far, mass testing has been shown to be the best path to getting economic activity rolling again.  As more testing goes online in the U.S. as well as effective antibody tests being created, we see this as a positive to get our economy back on track. As we stated, we are not trying to be alarmist, but want to disseminate the facts as we see them as well as the uncertainties that we see in the market.  We believe that we are going to get through this and our portfolios are designed to weather the storm and our asset allocations are made to help you stay the course.  During these trying times, we encourage you to not give in to the “news of the day” and not succumb to overreaction.  Time in the market and not timing the market is the best way to long-term financial success. We are all in this together, and we are here for you.  As always, please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or concerns. -The Investment Committee WealthQuest

Interrogation report about CIA a travesty

Interrogation report about CIA a travesty

By Charles Krauthammer
The report by Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding CIA interrogation essentially accuses the agency under George W. Bush of war criminality. Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein appears to offer some extenuation when she reminds us in the report’s preamble of the shock and “pervasive fear” felt after 9/11.

It’s a common theme (often echoed by President Barack Obama): Amid panic and disorientation, we lost our moral compass and made awful judgments. The results are documented in the committee report. They must never happen again.

It’s a kind of temporary-insanity defense for the Bush administration. And it is not just unctuous condescension but hypocritical nonsense. In the aftermath of 9/11, there was nothing irrational about believing that a second attack was a serious possibility and therefore everything should be done to prevent it. Indeed, this was the considered opinion of the CIA, the administration, the congressional leadership and the American people.

Al-Qaeda had successfully mounted four major attacks on American targets in the previous three years. The pace was accelerating and the scale vastly increasing. The country then suffered a deadly anthrax attack of unknown origin. Al-Qaeda was known to be seeking weapons of mass destruction.

We were so blindsided that we established a 9/11 commission to find out why. And we knew next to nothing about the enemy: its methods, structure, intentions, plans. There was nothing morally deranged about deciding as a nation to do everything necessary to find out what we needed to prevent a repetition, or worse. As Feinstein said at the time, “we have to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves.”

Nancy Pelosi, then ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, was briefed about the interrogation program, including the so-called torture techniques, as were the other intelligence committee leaders. “We understood what the CIA was doing,” wrote Porter Goss, Pelosi’s chairman on the House committee. “We gave the CIA our bipartisan support; we gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.”

Democrat Jay Rockefeller, while the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was asked in 2003 about turning over Khalid Sheik Mohammed to countries known to torture. He replied: “I wouldn’t take anything off the table where he is concerned.”

There was no uproar about this open countenancing of torture-by-proxy. Which demonstrates not just the shamelessness of Democrats today denouncing practices to which, at the time and at the very least, they made no objection. It demonstrates also how near-consensual was the idea that our national emergency might require extraordinary measures.

This is not to say that in carrying out the program there weren’t abuses, excesses, mismanagement and appalling mistakes (such as the death in custody – unintended but unforgivable – of two detainees). It is to say that the root-and-branch denunciation of the program as, in principle, unconscionable is not just hypocritical but ahistorical.

To make that case, to produce a prosecutorial brief so entirely and relentlessly one-sided, the committee report (written solely by Democrats) excluded any testimony from the people involved and variously accused. None. No interviews, no hearings, no statements.

The excuse offered by the committee is that a parallel Justice Department inquiry preclud­ed committee interviews. Rubbish. That inquiry ended in 2012. It’s December 2014. Why didn’t they take testimony in the interval? Moreover, even during the DOJ investigation, the three CIA directors and many other officials were exempt from any restrictions. Why weren’t they interviewed?

Answer: So that committee Democrats could make their indictment without contradiction. So they could declare, for example, the whole program to be a failure that yielded no important information – a conclusion denied by practically every major figure involved, including Democrat and former CIA Director Leon Panetta; Obama’s current CIA director, John Brennan; and three other CIA directors (including a Clinton appointee).

Perhaps, say the critics, but we’ll never know whether less harsh interrogation would have sufficed.

So what was the Bush administration to do? Amid the smoking ruins of Ground Zero, conduct a controlled experiment in gentle interrogation and wait to see if we’d be hit again?

A nation attacked is not a laboratory for exquisite moral experiments. It’s a trust to be protected, by whatever means meet and fit the threat.

Accordingly, under the direction of the Bush administration and with the acquiescence of congressional leadership, the CIA conducted an uncontrolled experiment. It did everything it could, sometimes clumsily, sometimes cruelly, indeed, sometimes wrongly.

But successfully. They kept us safe.

News You Missed 9.20.13

The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom and individual liberty

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington                                       

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

~~~~~~

Climate experts weigh lull in warming: Trend is tough to explain as gas emissions rise by Karl Ritter
STOCKHOLM — Scientists working on a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising. Leaked documents obtained by The Associated Press show there are deep concerns among governments over how to address the issue ahead of next week’s meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Climate skeptics have used the lull in surface warming since 1998 to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that humans are cooking the planet by burning fossil fuels and cutting down CO2-absorbing forests. The IPCC’s conclusions are important because they serve as the scientific underpinnings of U.N. negotiations to rein in emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. A global climate treaty is supposed to be adopted in 2015. The IPCC report is expected to affirm the human link with greater certainty than ever, but the panel is under pressure to also address the recent lower rate of warming, which scientists say is likely due to heat going deep into the ocean and natural climate fluctuations.

“I think to not address it would be a problem because then you basically have the denialists saying, ‘Look the IPCC is silent on this issue,’ ” said Alden Meyer, of the Washington based Union of Concerned Scientists. In a June draft of the report’s summary from policymakers, the IPCC said the rate of warming in 1998-2012 was about half the average rate since 1951. It cited natural variability in the climate system, as well as cooling effects from volcanic eruptions and a downward phase in solar activity. But several governments that reviewed the draft objected to how the issue was tackled, in comments to the IPCC obtained by the AP.  Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.  The U.S. also urged the authors to include the “leading hypothesis” that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean. First, the deny "long cycles" to explain warming, now they want to use "long cycles" to explain away their error in the whole Global Warming debacle!

Many skeptics claim that the rise in global average temperatures stopped in the late 1990s and their argument has gained momentum among some media and politicians, even though the scientific evidence of climate change is piling up: the previous decade was the warmest on record and, so far, this decade is even warmer.

~~~~~~

Administration Presses Ahead With Limits on Emissions From Power Plants  By MICHAEL D. SHEAR

A year after a plan by President Obama to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants set off angry opposition, the administration will announce on Friday that it is not backing down from a confrontation with the coal industry and will press ahead with enacting the first federal carbon limits on the nation’s power companies.

The proposed regulations, to be announced at the National Press Club by Gina McCarthy, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, are an aggressive move by Mr. Obama to bypass Congress on climate change with executive actions he promised in his inaugural address this year. The regulations are certain to be denounced by House Republicans and the industry as part of what they call the president’s “war on coal.” In her speech, Ms. McCarthy will unveil the agency’s proposal to limit new gas-fired power plants to 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per megawatt hour and new coal plants to 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide, according to administration officials who were briefed on the agency’s plans. Industry officials say the average advanced coal plant currently emits about 1,800 pounds of carbon dioxide per hour.  Get Ready for sky high electric bills!!

~~~~~~~

Voters Question Fed’s Independence

With a change of leadership pending, voters remain skeptical of the Federal Reserve’s independence and continue to think the nation’s central bank is overly influenced by the president and big bankers. Forty-two percent (42%) of Likely U.S. Voters now have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of the Federal Reserve, while 48% view it unfavorably, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. This includes 11% with a Very Favorable opinion and 19% with a Very Unfavorable one.

~~~~~~

Democrats no Longer Following Obama's Agenda A Commentary By Michael Barone

Bottom of Form

Presidents tend to set the agenda for their parties. Most of the party's members of Congress tend to go along. This has been increasingly the case as Americans over the last two decades have got out of the habit of splitting their tickets and have voted, in proportions not seen since the 1940s, entirely for candidates of one party or the other. When Barack Obama first took the oath of office in January 2009, his fellow Democrats, with their large majorities in Congress, hurried to pass his key legislation.  The $787 billion stimulus package was passed in February. In June, the House of Representatives passed cap-and-trade legislation intended to reduce carbon emissions.  Obamacare took longer and was nearly derailed when Republican Scott Brown won the special Senate election in Massachusetts in January 2010. But in March, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Obama rallied the House of Representatives to pass it anyway.   Democrats didn't need and didn't do much to seek Republican support. Three Republican senators voted for the stimulus. Eight House Republicans voted for cap-and-trade. Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare.   

The large majority of Democrats voted for all three. Some paid a political price when Democrats lost 63 House seats in November 2010. But even after that, almost all Democrats continued to support Obama's positions on major issues.   Democratic voters went along, too. The 2012 exit poll shows that 92 percent of Democrats voted for Obama.  Now, suddenly, we are seeing some signs of Democratic discontent. The revelations of National Security Agency surveillance disturbed many Democratic voters and a not-inconsiderable number of Democratic senators and congressmen.   This was not the change they were seeking.  

 

In the past two weeks, congressional Democrats have done more than express dismay. They have stymied two presidential initiatives on important public policies.    After Obama called for a congressional authorization of the use of military force in Syria, Democrats did not line up in large numbers in support. The whip counts of various news organizations and blogs showed some Democrats opposed and many Senate Democrats and most House Democrats as uncommitted.  The White House might have lined up enough to pass a resolution in the Senate. But with most House Republicans opposed, that seemed impossible in the lower chamber.  Obama's policy turnaround might have made this academic. Perhaps the unwillingness of Democrats to accept this agenda item may have undermined the credibility of any presidential threat to use force in Syria or elsewhere.   

Congressional Democrats also prevented Obama from nominating the person he evidently wanted for one of the most important jobs a president can fill, chairman of the Federal Reserve.   

In a television interview in June, Obama signaled that current chairman Ben Bernanke would retire -- or at least not be re-nominated.   When attacks were launched on his former economic counselor and Clinton administration treasury secretary, Lawrence Summers, Obama responded with angry defenses. His body language suggested Summers was his choice.  Summers might have been confirmable in July. But there was a crescendo of opposition in left-wing blogs. Many on the feminist left endorsed Janet Yellen, currently Fed vice chairman and like Summers, an economist of genuine intellectual heft.   

Last week, four of the 14 Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee came out against Summers. That meant that confirmation would require the other 10 Democrats and at least a few of the 10 Republicans.   

You don't have to be an economist of genuine intellectual heft to read those numbers. On Sunday, Summers withdrew -- or was persuaded to withdraw -- from consideration.  One reason for Democrats' discontent with Obama is that he doesn't schmooze with them. As Tip O'Neill used to say, people like to be asked. Obama doesn't like to ask.   Much more important, many Democrats have principled reasons for opposing Obama on NSA, Syria and Summers.  Critics of George W. Bush's war on terror have reason to oppose Obama on NSA and Syria. Economist populists have reason to block a Fed chairman with recent Wall Street ties who is associated with moderate Clinton policies.   The danger for Obama is that he may lose his party base, as Bush did after Katrina and the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers. In which case, his job approval could plummet below the current 44 percent, as Bush's did.    A president with low approval still has executive powers. But he no longer sets the agenda for his party.   

~~~~~~

Americans Fault Mental Health System More Than Guns for Mass Shootings By Susan Jones

Americans place more blame on the mental health system than on easy access to guns for mass shootings in the United States.

A new Gallup Poll -- conducted Sept. 17-18 (those were the two days after the Washington Navy Yard shooting), found that compared with two years ago, fewer Americans (40 percent) put a "great deal" of the blame on guns while almost half blamed the mental health system. Almost half of Americans -- 48 percent -- blame the mental health system "a great deal" for mass shootings in the United States, and that percentage was unchanged from January 2011.

~~~~~~

Obama: ‘Raising the Debt Ceiling…Does Not Increase Our Debt,’ Though It Has ‘Over 100 Times’

The debt limit is like an empty bucket to Washington needing to be filled! Obama is trying to argue semantics. It’s still more money spent no matter how he tries to spin it. In a speech at the Business Roundtable headquarters in Washington, D.C., Obama dismissed concerns about raising the debt ceiling by noting that it’d been done so many times in the past: “Now, this debt ceiling — I just want to remind people in case you haven’t been keeping up — raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote profligacy. All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you’ve already racked up, Congress. It’s a basic function of making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved.” Obama went on to suggest that “the average person” mistakenly thinks that raising the debt ceiling means the U.S. is racking up more debt: “It’s always a tough vote because the average person thinks raising the debt ceiling must mean that we’re running up our debt, so people don’t like to vote on it, and, typically, there’s some gamesmanship in terms of making the President’s party shoulder the burden of raising the — taking the vote.”

~~~~~~

It is very imprudent to deprive America of any of her privileges. If her commerce and friendship are of any importance to you, they are to be had on no other terms than leaving her in the full enjoyment of her rights." –Benjamin Franklin, Political Observations

Top of Form

† † † † † † † † † † †

News You Missed 9.19.13

The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom and individual liberty

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington                                       

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rubio: Only Obama Wants to Shut Down Government By Jim Meyers and John Bachman

Republicans should do "anything and everything" to prevent the "disaster" of Obamacare, Sen. Marco Rubio tells Newsmax. But he insists it can be done without shutting down the government. The Florida Republican asserts that President Barack Obama actually wants a government shutdown to achieve a "political win," and the administration is going to fight to the bitter end to defend its Healthcare reforms.

~~~~~~

U.S. military arsenal frustrates Iran

The position held by the United States is lopsided when it comes to chemical and nuclear weapons stockpiles, an Iranian judicial chief said. White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Wednesday "there is an opportunity for diplomacy" with new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. President Barack Obama sent his Iranian counterpart a letter saying Washington was "ready to resolve the nuclear issue" with Iran. Iran is suspected of pursuing the technology needed to manufacture a nuclear weapon. Rouhani repeated in an NBC interview Iran's long-time claim the country's nuclear program is meant for peaceful purposes. Ayatollah Sadeq Amoli Larijani, Iran's top judicial official, said Washington has a double standard when it comes to nuclear and chemical weapons. He noted the United States was the only country to use a nuclear weapon in war and had the largest stockpile of such weapons. "The Islamic Republic does not seek nuclear weapons, not because of U.S. threats or claims, but because we have religious standards in our defense and military affairs," he was quoted by state-funded broadcaster Press TV as saying Thursday. The White House said there are no plans for a presidential meeting on the sidelines of next week's annual meeting of the U.N. General Assembly. The International Atomic Energy Agency last week said it suspected there may be a military dimension to certain aspects of Iran's nuclear program. Knowing the U.S. can wipe them out is a great deterrent.  However, Obama does not understand!

~~~~~~

The Tide FINALLY Turns On Obamacare   By Frank Camp

Cat Stevens said: “I am confident that, in the end, common sense and justice will prevail. I’m an optimist, brought up on the belief that if you wait to the end of the story, you get to see the good people live happily ever after.”  I would like to be so confident as to always expect the end result to be the success of logic and justice. Generally speaking, I’m not an optimist; I’m a cynic. I expect the worst from people, from jobs, from politicians, and from life in general. That way, if something better comes along, I will be pleasantly surprised. And guess what? A new survey from Pew and USA Today has me pleasantly surprised. According to the survey:

“Currently, 53% disapprove of the health care law, while 42% approve. This is among the most negative assessments of the law since it was enacted in March 2010. In July 2012, shortly after the Supreme Court upheld most of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, 47% approved of the legislation and 43% disapproved…40% of Americans say Republicans would do the better job [with health care], while 39% say Democrats would. This is the best relative showing for Republicans since April 2011 on an issue that has traditionally been an advantage for the Democratic Party. As recently as last December, Democrats were seen as the party better able to deal with health care by a 48%-38% margin.”

There it is, a shining glimmer of hope for our country. In less than a year, the percentage of Americans who believe that Democrats have a better handling of healthcare has dropped precipitously, from 48% to 39%. That’s a staggering number, considering the sheer volume of propaganda pumped out by the Obama administration and their media allies. It seems as though the more that people understand Obamacare and its implications, the less they like it. To anyone reading this article, that fact may be as obvious as a Stephanie Meyers plot-line, but many people aren’t as well versed in politics. Many people—low information voters—simply watch CBS, NBC, and CNN. They hear the President and the media prattle on about the virtues of Obamacare, and fall into lock-step. We may be witnessing a paradigm shift. If even the lowest common denominator can understand that Obamacare is insanity, we may have a chance to elect someone who is actually capable of running a country. The low information voters may have finally caught up with the politically savvy. Perhaps it was for the best that Obama represented Liberalism so well. Maybe it was the imposition of his strident socialist views upon the American people that has driven the masses to rationality. I guess that to reach the green grass, sometimes we have to crawl through the mud. Time will tell if I’m correct in my prediction.

~~~~~~

How The Left Creates Heroes To Push Their Agenda  By Frank Camp

Joseph Campbell said: “A hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself.”

We all want to be remembered. In all of us, there is a need to play a part in the larger scheme of life. Participating in something that is bigger than ourselves has a mythic quality, a feeling of heroism. Generally speaking, humans crave the extraordinary, to be set free from the mundane and ascend to greatness. That is why old Greek myths have lasted for thousands of years. That is why we watch superhero movies; to live out powerful, mythic fantasies.

We all know that in reality, we can’t fly, or save the world from Zod, so we find small ways to make a difference in the world. However, the Left has found a way around the mundane; the Left has discovered how to create gods and heroes out of regular people. They take a person, and build a story around them, exaggerating the facts, and blowing everything out of proportion. It is through this creation of heroes that they advance their agenda.

First example: Matthew Shepherd. According to Breitbart:

“Almost everything you think you know about the Matthew Shepard narrative is false. Matthew Shepard was the winsome young homosexual in Laramie, Wyoming who in October 1998 was tortured, killed, and left hanging grotesquely from a fence. He was discovered almost a day later and later died in the hospital from his horrific wounds…Almost immediately Shepard became a secular saint, and his killing became a kind of gay passion play where he suffered and died for the cause of homosexuality against the growing homophobia and hatred of gay America. Indeed, a Mathew Shepard industry grew rapidly with plays and foundations along with state and even national hate crimes legislation named for him.”

An author by the name of Steven Jiminez is revealing the truth in his new title, The Book of Matt.

Second example: Michael Bloomberg. According to Breitbart:

“POLITICO’s September 8 Playbook signature letter contained an ad from NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun group claiming ‘seven kids are murdered with guns…every day in America.’”

As it turns out, once you run the statistics, that is not true in the slightest. It’s a patent exaggeration. This is Liberal hero-making in action.

First, you have Matthew Shepherd, whose image the Liberal community has used for years to wage their war on Conservatives. Obviously, what was done to Shepherd was evil, but that’s not the point I’m trying to demonstrate. The Left only needs this story for purposes of ginning up their base to fight the opposition. The Left saw a murder—among numerous others—plucked it out, and proceeded to build a myth around it. They glorified Shepherd. Any time anything related to gay people comes up in politics, the Left trots out Matthew Shepherd. It’s a glorified version of the victim game the Left is so good at playing, using people like Michael J. Fox to promote embryonic stem cell research. Because he’s a victim of disease, he may not be criticized. The same thing is going on with Shepherd. If you criticize the gay community, you are personally attacking the Martyr.

Moving on to Bloomberg: Michael Bloomberg cites a false statistic to build a case for gun control. In this case, the hero-making is a bit different. In this case, the hero is conceptual: a dead child. Any dead child will do, so long as Liberals can use them to get what they want. They begin by constructing the story that seven children are murdered every day by guns. The faux statistic seems just reasonable enough that many people won’t attempt to verify it. They then proceed to trot that statistic around, so that gun advocates will look evil and thoughtless. How dare those Conservatives! They’re practically killing the children themselves! But the statistic is a lie to begin with. The Left has lied to create a hero: fictional dead children.

The elite Liberals know that the average Democrat Joe will fall right into these hero-traps because they also know that human beings want to be extraordinary. And if the average Joe cannot be extraordinary, they will cling to people that are. Liberals will use the story of Matthew Shepherd, and the statistic about the seven murdered children to make their acolytes feel like heroes themselves. It’s a very attractive idea.

Truth is often simple, not grandiose. Matthew Shepherd was brutally murdered; that is the truth. Guns sometimes kill children; that is the truth. But it is the perspective applied to these stories that makes all the difference. The Left knows that, and they warp any story they can to advance their agendas.

~~~~~~

Saved From the 'Stupid' Man By Sean Goldsmith
Not to worry… "One of the stupidest people ever placed in a position of leadership in the history of the United States" will not become the next Federal Reserve Chairman. Over the weekend, Larry Summers – the reported frontrunner for the top spot at the Fed – bowed out of the race. As you can glean from the quote above, we think this move is for the best. Summers almost single-handedly ruined Harvard University's endowment, losing $1.8 billion. And as Treasury Secretary under former President Bill Clinton, Summers championed many of the policies that led to the credit bubble and subsequent crisis. He also used public money to bail out hedge fund Long Term Capital Management in 1998.  Unfortunately for the U.S. dollar, the new frontrunner, Janet Yellen, won't do any better…

At its core, the Fed is a flawed institution. Our currency shouldn't be manipulated and debased by the men in power.  So by our measures, whoever takes the helm of the Fed will be a failure… We need to stop printing money. And we know current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's replacement won't do that… Especially Yellen, who is likely to keep interest rates low for years and keep the printing press running.
The thought of Yellen running the Fed – and the subsequent easy-money policies that would likely come with her at the helm – pushed the stock market to a record high. Ten-year Treasury yields fell from 2.98% less than two weeks ago to 2.80%. Gold rose nearly $10 to $1,316 an ounce.

~~~~~~

You Didn’t Build These Ten Things – Barack Obama Did

It’s not like he didn’t warn us that his goal was to fundamentally transform America – but most of us didn’t think that meant wrecking the economy, killing the golden goose, giving away the farm and generally screwing the pooch. But here we are and here are the top ten things Obama owns – despite him blaming everyone else – he built them:

10. Created the Food Stamp Nation: The government said the recession ended in 2009, but people getting on food stamps didn’t. The Obama Administration dispatched armies of workers into the streets to find people eligible to get on the program and it’s worked: A record 47.8 million people are on food stamps as of December 2012 — a 70 percent rise since 2008. It will be over 100% by this year’s end.

9. The Sin, Envy of Success: It used to be not that long ago that folks who succeeded were looked up to and emulated. Not anymore, because after 5+ years of Obama propaganda, the successful, go-getters, job-creators, upwardly mobile, wealth-creating Americans are nothing more than evil white devils who exploit poor working families – then don’t pay taxes. Forget that the top ten percent of taxpayers pay .. oh forget it -you’ve heard it a million times and would rather hear Obama’s pitch I guess. Anyway – he built it, he owns it.

8. Destruction of the greatest healthcare system in the world: They’ve been trying for 100 years to control us by controlling our health care, but it took a community organizer to force, lie and bribe it through. Everyone, Barack Obama included, knew the American people didn’t want socialized medicine. Polls showed it. Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s seat by promising to vote against It. He forced and bribed it through anyway and now is ignoring key parts of it and issuing waivers to keep it alive.

7. Burdening Our Children’s Future with Debt: $17 trillion in debt and $90 trillion in unfunded mandates assures many generations of economic slavery. Yes, it’s you President Obama. You. Not Bush, Not the fairy god spender. You.

6. Lowering The Bar for Future Presidents: When future presidents rewrite legislation, ignore the separation of powers or flaunt the Constitution – we can point to the pioneer of those practices – Barack Obama. This partially explains why folks like John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, etc. do so little to curtail Barack Obama’s obvious unconstitutional behaviors. They see the box he’s opened up for future Republicans, should they ever get in power. It’s very tempting for them to allow Barack to test how deep the waters are – to see exactly what he might get away with. They aren’t against his spending – they’re just mad it’s not going to their folks.

5. Re-creating Race Wars: This was supposed to be our shining achievement – to show the world we could evolve and put the final nail in the coffin of slavery by electing a black president. Barack Obama had the opportunity to be the greatest leader since Lincoln, but instead he chose to not just divide us along racial lines, but to incite hatred between the races. He doesn’t like white people – it’s clear – and perhaps the resentment he feels toward the black side of his family may fuel it. I personally don’t care – he’s been bad for this country whatever his skin color or psychological problems.

4. Declaring Season on Christians: If Barack Obama is a Christian, I’m a diving board. At every single turn, the President has sided with Muslims over Christians and radical Muslims when possible and Islamo-Nazis on more than one occasion. In Egypt and other locales, Christians are tortured and murdered with impunity and this president does nothing, says nothing and hears nothing. It’s un-Christian, even though he swears he’s a Christian. You can stick a branch in your eye and it doesn’t make you a tree.

3. Hustler for The Muslim Brotherhood: Barack Obama owns the Muslim Brotherhood, brotha. The gains they’ve made in the world are part and parcel because of the assistance of Mr. Obama, their brother from a white American mother. Nice one, Mr. President. I’m sure this will end well when a future president will have to clean up your mess with young boots on the ground.

2. Dumbing Down, Not Extolling Excellence: Whether it’s Common Core, Amnesty, or kids living at home until they feel it’s time to put the bong down and drive over to get their welfare check themselves – this president does not demand excellence. He doesn’t believe America is exceptional and does not inspire hard work or entrepreneurship. The answer to all problems is government. But we know from history this doesn’t work, will never work and isn’t working now. But you built this belief Barack Obama and people are being hurt by it.

1. One Good Thing Will Happen: You reminded us how great we are, sir. We’re going to bounce back from this and you’re going to go down as the worst thing that ever happened to this country. People will eventually get educated as to just what happened and how it should never happen again. We’ve been through this before – a couple centuries ago. We threw those bastards aside and we’ll do the same now. You’ll fly off with your family to some Muslim country where you’ll be lauded as the man who tried to bring America down and almost succeeded.

~~~~~~

~~~~~~

Census on Obama’s 1st Term: Real Median Income Down $2,627; People in Poverty Up 6,667,000; Record 46,496,000 Now Poor By Terence P. Jeffrey

 During the four years that marked President Barack Obama’s first term in office, the real median income of American households dropped by $2,627 and the number of people in poverty increased by approximately 6,667,000, according to data released today by the Census Bureau. The record total of approximately 46,496,000 people in the United States who are now in poverty, according to the Census Bureau, is more than twice the population of Syria, which, according to the CIA, has 22,457,336 people.

In 2008, the year Obama was elected, real median household income in the United States was $53,644 according to the Census Bureau. In 2012, the last full year of Obama’s first term, median household income was $51,017. Thus, real median household income dropped $2,627—or 4.89 percent—from 2008 to 2012.  In fact, real median household income dropped in every year of Obama's first term. In 2008, when he was elected, it was $53,644. In 2009, the year he was inaugurated, it dropped to $53,285. In 2010, his second year in office, it dropped to $51,892. In 2011, his third year in office, it dropped to $51,100. And, in 2012, his fourth year in office, it dropped to $51,017.

At the same time the number of people living in poverty in the United States increased. In 2008, according to the Census Bureau, there were approximately 39,829,000 people living in poverty in this country. In 2012, there were 46,496,000. That is an increase of approximately 6,667,000—of 16.73 percent—from 2008 to 2012.  The number of people in poverty increased during three of the four years of Obama's first term--taking a slight dip from 2010 to 2011, but then rising again from 2011 to 2012. In 2008, there were 39,829 people in poverty in the U.S. In 2009, it climbed to 43,569. In 2010, it climbed again to 46,343. In 2011, it dipped to 46,247. And, in 2012, it climbed to an all-time high 46,496. In 2008, the year Obama was elected, people in poverty represented 13.2 percent of the national population. In 2012, they represented 15.0 percent of the population.  The income threshold at which a person was determined to be in “poverty,” according to the Census Bureau, depended on the size of their household. If a person lived by themselves and earned less than $11,270 in 2012, they were considered to be in poverty. A family of two people was considered in poverty if they earned less than $14,937. The threshold for a family of three was $18,284, for a family of four it was $23,492, and for a family of five it was $27,827.

~~~~~~

$1.29 Billion in Disability Checks Sent to 36,000 Workers Still on the Job  By Alissa Tabirian

House investigators say Social Security is approving state-rejected claims for disability benefits at strikingly high rates for people who might not deserve them. Compounding the problem, the agency often fails to do required follow-up reviews to make sure people still qualify for benefits months or years later. Since January, the Social Security Administration (SSA) sent disability insurance (SSDI) checks worth $1.29 billion to an estimated 36,000 people who were still on the job and thus ineligible for benefits, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released Friday. (See GAO -13-635.pdf)

Yes, let's demand the federal government run healthcare!!

~~~~~~

'We have the bad guys in the halls of power'  Erick Stakelbeck reveals Muslim Brotherhood's quiet invasion of America

 “People would be shocked to know about the Muslim Brotherhood presence in the United States,” terrorist expert Erick Stakelbeck told an interviewer recently. “They are here.”  “Individuals with strong ties to the global Muslim Brotherhood network absolutely are advising our government, the U.S. government, on its counterterrorism and Middle East policies. This is the epitome of the fox guarding the hen house,” Stakelbeck continued. “And you wonder why America’s Middle East policies right now are kind of a mess and we see all this chaos in the Middle East? We have the bad guys, the Brotherhood, in the halls of power and in our lawmakers’ ears.” Watch...

~~~~~~

Obama proposes what country wants and still gets hammered David Ignatius is a left wing columnist for the Washington Post.
How did it happen that, less than a year after Barack Obama convincingly won reelection, his every move as president now draws hoots and catcalls from nearly every point on the political spectrum? Perhaps his Syria policy really is a story of “epic incompetence,” as Charles Krauthammer opined last week. Maybe he has an “unbelievably small” presidency, as Marc Thiessen commented, or that no one is afraid of him, as Ruth Marcus argued. And that’s just a sampling of opinion from my colleagues at the Washington Post.

What’s puzzling about this latest Obama-phobia is that recent developments in Syria have generally been positive from the standpoint of U.S. interests. Obama has accomplished goals that most Americans endorse, given the unpalatable menu of choices. [No, he screwed up royally and Putin jumped into the fray]  Polls suggest that the public overwhelmingly backs the course Obama has chosen. [actually they opposed a military strike that Obama declared he was going to conduct unilaterally] Asked in a Washington Post-ABC News survey if they endorsed the U.S.-Russian plan to dismantle Syrian chemical weapons as an alternative to missile strikes, 79 percent were supportive. Yet elite opinion is sharply negative. [not about the agreement but on the Presidents performance]

Here’s what I see when I deconstruct the Syria story:
» Russia has been drawn into a process of collecting and destroying Syria’s chemical arsenal. This has been a goal of U.S. policy for two years. It finally worked thanks in part to Obama’s pledge to use military force to punish Syria if the Russians didn’t step up. [there is no evidence Obama's cowboy tactics caused anything]  In this messy world, there is considerable value in agreement by Moscow and Washington on the “soonest and safest” destruction of Syrian chemical weapons, with a timetable for implementation.

» The United Nations has taken new steps to affirm the international norm against use of chemical weapons. The 41-page report delivered this week to Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon isn’t a joke, as some predicted; it’s a surprisingly thorough, careful documentation of the horrific attack on Aug. 21. The report doesn’t directly accuse Syrian President Bashar Assad of using the weapons; assessing blame unfortunately wasn’t part of the U.N. mandate. But the evidence demolishes the absurd Russian-Syrian claim that the weapons were used by the rebels. [on the contrary; that assertion cannot be proven. The rebels made the claim they used the chemical weapons]  If you’re frustrated by a feckless and unreliable U.N., [up until now, the U.N. was "it" for Friedman] you should be encouraged by a line in the opening paragraph of the report: “The international community has a moral responsibility to hold accountable those responsible and for ensuring that chemical weapons can never reemerge as an instrument of warfare.”

» The U.S. and Russia have restarted their push for negotiations in Geneva toward a cease-fire and a political transition in Syria. Yes, it’s unfortunate that Assad is still in power, but is his hold really stronger now that he has been forced to admit he has chemical weapons and agreed to destroy them? I’m not so sure. The U.S. and Russia have agreed to meet in New York in late September with U.N. representative Lakhdar Brahimi to continue this political process. The Russians know that Assad must go eventually; they’ve now moved a little closer to a framework for beginning the transition. Suggestion: Assad’s official “term of office” expires next year. [More "hope" from the left, not realistic]

» Amid all this diplomacy, Obama has pressed ahead with a covert program of training and assistance for the moderate Syrian rebel forces headed by Gen. Salim Idriss. My Syrian sources say that as these CIA trained commandos take the field, they make a difference: They begin to tip the balance away from the jihadist fighters associated with al-Qaida, who (as the Russians correctly warn) are a dangerously potent factor in the opposition. [You have read plenty where the rebels are heavily infiltrated by terrorists]

The showdown that’s ahead between the moderates and extremists was signaled this week when the al-Qaida-linked Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams announced a military campaign emphatically code-named “Expunging Filth” against two of Idriss’ brigades in Aleppo. This second Syrian war is coming, and even the Russians may end up relieved that the CIA is training fighters who can counter the jihadists. [Here we go again, just like Vietnam]

The mystery is why this outcome in Syria is derided by so many analysts in Washington. Partly, it must be the John McCain factor. The Arizona senator is in danger of becoming a kind of Republican version of Jesse Jackson, who shows up at every international crisis with his own plan for a solution, sometimes through personal mediation (as with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), other times demanding military intervention (as in Syria). Because McCain is a distinguished figure, he commands respect, even when his proposals have no political support at home. [The norm for the Left; have to have a boogey man and someone to blame] Not so, Obama. He can propose what the country wants, and succeed at it, and still get hammered as a failure. [This is probably the most outrageous statement in the whole article and you know why!]

~~~~~~~

White House, GOP Clash over Obamacare Fraud Claims

The fight over Obamacare’s rollout intensified on Wednesday, as the White House and Republican leaders clashed over whether the public can trust the government to properly manage new health insurance exchanges. Sensitive about growing public uncertainty over the president’s signature legislative achievement, the Obama administration sought to convince Americans that Obamacare benefits would only go to eligible recipients and that their personal information would be protected. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Attorney General Eric Holder, and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough held a meeting with state health officials at the White House on Wednesday to tout anti-fraud measures. They outlined measures including a call center for consumer complaints, a website to report fraud and an education campaign offering tips for how to avoid insurance scams. “With these initiatives, we think we’re making significant contributions toward preventing … prosecuting and punishing activities that we will not in any way accept,” a senior administration official said Wednesday. Republicans, though, are hardly convinced that the administration’s efforts will protect Americans’ private information. GOP officials targeted their concerns on the so-called “navigators” who will handle the data of those enrolling in health exchanges beginning in October. [see above]

~~~~~~

Cost Curve: Federal Study Finds Obamacare Accelerating Health Spending

The federal government’s own bookkeepers have once again determined that President Obama’s so-called “Affordable” Care Act is driving up overall health spending. In the lead-up to the law’s passage, Obama and his Democratic allies promised the American people that the new measure would have the opposite effect, bending down the “cost curve.” Not even close:

The nation’s health care spending will jump by 6.1 percent next year as the big coverage expansion in President Barack Obama’s overhaul kicks in, government experts predicted Wednesday. That’s more than 2 percentage points higher than the growth rate forecast for this year, and compares with a growth rate that has hovered under 4 percent, historically low, for the past four years. Much of the increase projected for next year is attributed to the new health care program…Without it, the estimated growth would be 4.5 percent, according to the report Wednesday from Medicare’s Office of the Actuary. The findings were published online by the journal Health Affairs.

Re-read the sentence in bold font. Without Obamacare, national health spending would be projected to increase 4.5 percent. Not great, obviously, but comparable to the recent historical average.

~~~~~~

Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." –George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

"[T]he government must be a weak one indeed, if it should forget that the good of the whole can only be promoted by advancing the good of each of the parts or members which compose the whole." –John Jay, Federalist No. 64, 1788