Seeking Alpha

jdraiman's  Instablog

jdraiman
Send Message
Yehuda “YJ” Draiman - Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles 2017 YJ Draiman is the lead elected official for the Northridge East Neighborhood Council – NENC, he is also the liaison between the NENC and LADWP. As an Energy Efficiency Advocate YJ Draiman is known for his advancement in implementing... More
My company:
Energy Savers 2
My blog:
YJ Draiman for Mayor of Los Angeles
My book:
American Energy Independence
  • To The People Of Los Angeles – YJ Draiman 27 comments
    Jul 1, 2012 4:11 AM

    To the people of Los Angeles - YJ Draiman

    It is my understanding that based on our constitution; People "shall have the right to resist any person or persons seeking to abolish their constitutional rights, should no other remedy be possible".

    All the governments' authority emanates from the people. The people are not satisfied with the rather poor performance of our government. It is time to elect a new slate of candidates, whose main concern are the people.

    A nation's corruptive and corrosive power could only exist by the nation's apathy. Therefore as people of a democratic country, we must rise above this apathy and vote for the right people in public office. We should vote for people who care about the everyday working class, who want what is best for the people.

    My main interest is not making money, but building an organization. I am an efficiency expert and a troubleshooter. My goal is to bring Los Angeles back to economic prosperity.

    Instinct is no guide to political conduct. Effective leadership is always forced - whatever its motives - to represent itself as a carrier of ideas embodying purposes. All truly great achievements in history resulted from the actualization of principals, not from the clever evaluation of political condition. A good and effective leader must care about the people and address their needs.

    For a man to be elected as mayor of Los Angeles, he must have a strong will and the guts to prevail. To become mayor of the people you have to overcome the handicap of the political machine and special interests groups. You must motivate the people to vote for you in order for them to survive in these hard economic times.

    If you want to see a transformation of attitudes towards the people of Los Angeles, with the goal to improve economic conditions and a strong and effective government, I urge you to vote for me.

    Your humble servant

    YJ Draiman

    For Mayor of Los Angeles 2013

    http://www.yjdraimanformayor.org

Back To jdraiman's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (27)
Track new comments
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles for 2013 must have courage, wisdom, honesty, and vision with an added tenacity and perseverance? What we need is a gutsy political leadership and a realistic plan that includes sacrifices by everybody.

     

    Read more: http://bit.ly/LpZ3bD
    1 Jul 2012, 10:20 AM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Show your discontent with the present Administration at Los Angeles City Hall by voting for YJ Draiman as Mayor of Los Angeles in 2013.
    The enormous amount of monies raised by current elected insiders who are running for Mayor of Los Angeles proves that they sold their soul and office to the special interests and that they do not represent the people.
    Are the people of LA going to let those insiders buy the office of the Mayor or are they going to show some fortitude in ignoring the political deception and vote for a candidate who cares about the people and the City of Los Angeles and not sell the office to the highest bidder.
    Our city is in its most dire economic condition and on a verge of bankruptcy. Are the people of LA going to wake up and take back their city?

     

    When an elected official in Los Angeles performs his duties to the city for the people, he has no reason to campaign for re-election; he will be re-elected based on performance.
    When an elected official has to raise a fortune from special interests and campaign vigorously, it is a sign that the elected official has not performed the job and duties properly, therefore that elected official is not qualified for any office.

     

    YJ Draiman for Mayor of Los Angeles 2013
    http://bit.ly/Nz6mgm
    7 Aug 2012, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Can any Los Angeles Mayoral Candidate meet the following qualifications?
    Are current elected officials doing their job? The answer is no! Therefore they are not qualified as a candidate for any city Job!
    Human values drive sustainable success and Accountability
    Understanding the power of a quality relationship management depends a good deal on an awareness of people’s behavior and preferences. Soliciting from any group, community or department, what motivates, inspires and provides satisfying experiences is a key to creating strong bonds and powerful alliances that drive buy in and support, no matter the context.
    Currently relationship management, across all its various attributions, is poorly understood and even more abysmally executed. If the current understanding of relationship management is simply to monitor and respond to negative commentary on your reputation, your brand, your business or your services, or to follow up and cross sell when the customer, stakeholder or client has fallen off your radar, this is no better than shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted it. It is about listening, responding, reciprocating, acknowledging, modeling ethics and values, everywhere you are or your business is active.
    The value of building and maintaining a reputation built on the principles of the human mandatory behavior (accountability, boundaries, respect, responsibility, honesty, support and trust) means creating cooperative alliances and rewarding relationships. This cannot be short cut, avoided, undeserved or manipulated. We are each being held to account on our behaviors in regard to our commitments and on this we stand or fall in peer assessment.
    There is no excuse now, given the quantity and quality of tracking technologies and social media assets, not to create a formidable and very manageable strategy to build and sustain quality relationships and use all positive testimonials, word of mouth recommendations and quality referrals to build personal and professional capital as well as business advantage. To fail to implement such a strategy is to be asleep at the wheel in a fast moving and competitive world.

     

    An elected leader must represent all the people, with no exceptions, and no favoritism to any particular group. A leader is elected as the servant of the people. A leader must be proactive, and not wait to respond to crisis only. Any leader or elected official that can not perform the job honestly and faithfully must resign and make way for another to perform the duties as required.

     

    Our current elected leaders and officials at LA City Hall are asleep at the wheel; therefore, they have no business running for any job/position in the city of Los Angeles.

     

    An elected official that performs the job faithfully and honestly will be re-elected without abusing the job, diminishing the jobs performance and wasting money that could be used for better purposes.

     

    YJ Draiman
    http://bit.ly/MKE5pr
    7 Aug 2012, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Americans are in denial. Voters tell pollsters that while America may be in trouble, they and their kids will somehow be okay. A provocative new book explains why they will not. For three decades before the financial crash of 2008, real wages for most Americans were stagnant. But they could maintain their living standards by borrowing.

     

    That cushion is now deflated. The U.S. can no longer fulfill the dreams of Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the Middle Class. At least one dream must die. Despite partisan differences, both political parties have agreed to sacrifice the people. An economic recovery will eventually create more jobs, predicts Faux, but most will no longer pay a middle class salary. On our present track, real incomes by 2024 will be dramatically lower than they are today.

     

    Our much-touted service economy will become a “servant” economy. Debt-laden 20-something college graduates will become 30- and 40-somethings, still juggling dead-end jobs. Personal dignity will go the way of decent pay. Life at work for most Americans will return to what it was before the New Deal – insecure, underpaid and subject to the daily humiliations of an economy managed to benefit of the rich and powerful.

     

    The core problem, argues A, is not that we don’t know what to do. The main elements of a high wage strategy—re-directing capital from short-term speculation to long term investment and sharing the returns to rising productivity more broadly—are clear. But the influence of the richest “one percent” has blocked government’s capacity to shape our common future, no matter which party is in power.

     

    Restoring the American Dream will require a citizens’ movement to drive the big money out of our politics. Since large majorities of both Democratic and Republican voters agree that money dominates Washington, argues A, the time for such a movement is at hand.
    2 Nov 2012, 04:54 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » What creates the jobs and boosts the economy, Economists astutely observes, is a healthy economic ecosystem surrounding the company, which starts with the company's customers.

     

    The company's customers buy the company's products which in turn, creates the need for the employees to produce, sell, and service those products. If those customers go broke, the demand for the company's products will collapse. And the jobs will disappear, regardless of what the entrepreneur does.

     

    Now, of course entrepreneurs are an important part of the company-creation process. And so are investors, who risk capital in the hope of earning returns. But, ultimately, whether a new company continues growing and creates self-sustaining jobs is a function of customers' ability and willingness to pay for the company's products, not the entrepreneur or the investor capital. Suggesting that "rich entrepreneurs and investors" create the jobs, therefore, Economists observe, is like suggesting that mouse create evolution.

     

    It is imperative that we stop outsourcing products and services to foreign countries. We must rebuild American industry. This will create jobs, increase economic prosperity and boost tax revenues for the government.

     

    The motto should be “Made in the USA”

     

    YJ Draiman

     

    http://bit.ly/TjOgUc
    2 Nov 2012, 04:59 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Without consumers, there is no demand!

     

    Without demand, there are no jobs!

     

    Without sales and jobs, there are no tax revenues!

     

    An associate of mine owns his own business and, for years, has clamored about paying taxes until recently.

     

    He now wishes his business generated the revenue to pay taxes.

     

    He now cries for customers.

     

    He says his customer base is gone due to job losses and underemployment.

     

    He mentioned that he learned how consumers create demand and that businesses create supply.

     

    Without consumers, there is no demand. Without demand, there are no jobs. Without sales and jobs, there are no tax revenues.

     

    Keep outsourcing our jobs and service to foreign countries, and the situation will get much worse.

     

    We need to rebuild our Industries, our factories, our production lines and purchase made in America USA products – which are much better quality.

     

    YJ Draiman

     

    http://bit.ly/TjOgUc
    2 Nov 2012, 05:00 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » DO YOU REMEMBER JANUARY 3, 2007?

     

    I've been saying this for years, but this email probably explains it better and more clearly. This is NOT a political message, but rather a clarification to remind us all of the correct facts.

     

    Remember that on October 9, 2007, 11 months before our "economic crisis" occurred (that was actually created), the Dow hit its highest point ever, closing at 14,164.53 and reaching 14,198.10 intra-day level 2 days later. Unemployment was steady at 4.7%. But things were already being put in place to create the havoc we've all been experiencing since then. And it all started, as this email explains, on January 3, 2007.

     

    I'm sending this to each of you regardless of your party preferences because I believe it is something you may not have considered.

     

    This tells the story, why Bush was so "bad" at the end of his term.

     

    Don't just skim over this, it's not very long, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!

     

    The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, which was the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

     

    The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

     

    For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this: January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.

     

    At the time:

     

    The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

     

    The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

     

    The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

     

    George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH

     

    Remember the day...

     

    January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

     

    Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

     

    Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

     

    And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND FreddieMac? OBAMA. And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democratic Congress.

     

    So when someone tries to blame Bush. REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007....

     

    THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"

     

    Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.

     

    Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009, as well as, 2010 & 2011.

     

    In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which causedthem to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

     

    For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

     

    And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

     

    If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

     

    If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."

     

    There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!
    PLEASE DO YOUR PART !!!
    2 Nov 2012, 05:01 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » America: Time to Start Over
    By Matt Patterson
    This must have been what it was like living in the 1930s: politicians running around, fingers in their ears, unwilling or unable to confront a rising conflagration that they helped to light.
    Back then, the threat came from a revivified and revanchist Germany. Western leaders stood by while the Germans rearmed, then looked the other way as ever larger chunks of the Continent fell to the blitzkrieg. When the enervated Western elites finally took a stand over Poland, it was too late -- the fire was so large that, by the time it was finally quenched, the world lay in smoldering ruin.
    Today we face a different, though no less mortal, sort of threat: the wealth of the West has been revealed to be largely illusory, built on the foolish foundations of credit that shift and scatter like sands in the wind. Individuals, governments, and corporations for decades have borrowed against the future, gambling that later economic growth would finance current incredibly high living standards, standards which every good Westerner came to believe their birthright.
    It never occurred to these citizens and policy-makers that the economic growth they counted on may never arrive, that their obscene levels of borrowing would themselves be enough to strangle future wealth in its cradle, long before it had a chance to grow.
    The reality is this: the total debt portfolio of the United States is conservatively estimated at $130-150 trillion. And that's just us; add up the red ink of every person, nation, and company on the planet and we're talking many hundreds of trillions. To put that in perspective, the gross domestic product (GDP) of the whole world was last year a mere $65-70 trillion.
    In short, we have been living a "hundred of trillions" lifestyle on "tens of trillions" in actual wealth. The difference between the two sums is money that would have belonged to the future: future kids would have used it to pay for their education, future inventors to invest in their ideas, future couples to buy their first home. It is money they will now never have; we have plucked it from their pockets and purses before they were even born. It's easy, after all, to rob someone who doesn't yet exist. So that we could pretend to be richer than we are, we have ensured that our children will be poorer than they deserve to be.
    This is a monstrous moral failing, a horrendous crime against our heirs. The difference between ourselves and Bernie Madoff? Not much, really. It is the height of hypocrisy to put a man like Madoff behind bars for engaging in the same sorts of financial shell games that we like our politicians to play. Social Security is every bit as much of a scam as a crooked hedge fund, yet FDR is lionized while Madoff rots in a cell -- nothing could better encapsulate the moral and literal bankruptcy of our civilization.
    The consequence of all this debt is easy to predict -- decay, decline, demise. Such has been the fate of all entities, both public and private, whose commitments have so overwhelmed their resources, and such will be our own fate. We have murdered our future with a million papercuts; our republic was KIA by IOU.
    Watching the eunuchs in Washington squabble over the debt crisis is a sobering experience, in that it makes perfectly clear that our political class is every bit as unequal to the times as was its 1930's counterpart. I shudder to think how pale and poor are the hands that hold the reigns of state in these times of peril. Our politicians really haven't the slightest clue what they have wrought, nor the faintest idea of the severity that awaits us.
    Of course, the thing about democracies is they usually get the political class they deserve. The American voting public proved its utter unworthiness to govern itself when in 2008 it elected an attractive but empty suit to the most consequential office in the world. He shouted hope. What for? We didn't ask. He promised change. What kind? We didn't care. He looked good on TV, which is really, when you get right down to it, all that matters these days.
    I have come to the conclusion that this crisis is so vast that it is effectively beyond the scope of our present institutions to effectively address. That is because our institutions are part of the problem; indeed, they are the problem.
    The old way has brought us to this precipice, and will sooner or later push us over. Time to start dreaming of a new way.
    Time to start America all over again.
    Matt Patterson is a columnist and commentator and a contributor to Proud to Be Right: Voices of the Next Conservative Generation (HarperCollins, 2010).
    2 Nov 2012, 05:01 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Senator Obama's life story, from his humble roots, to his rise to Harvard Law School, to his passion as a community organizer in Chicago, has been at the center of his presidential campaign. But one chapter of the tale remains a blank — his education at Columbia College, a place he rarely speaks about and where few people seem to remember him.

     

    Contributing to the mystery is the fact that nobody knows just how well Mr. Obama, unlike Senator McCain and most other major candidates for the past two elections, performed as a student.
    The Obama campaign has refused to release his college transcript, despite an academic career that led him to Harvard Law School and, later, to a lecturing position at the University of Chicago. The shroud surrounding his experience at Columbia contrasts with that of other major party nominees since 2000, all whom have eventually released information about their college performance or seen it leaked to the public.
    For better or worse, voters have taken an interest in candidates' grades since 1999, when the New Yorker published President Bush's transcript at Yale and disclosed that he was a C student. Mr. Bush had never portrayed himself as a brain, but many were surprised to learn the next year that his opponent, Vice President Gore, did not do much better at Harvard despite his intellectual image. When Senator Kerry's transcript surfaced, reporters found that he actually had a slightly lower average at Yale than Mr. Bush did.
    Some political observers cite such disclosures as proof that candidates' intelligence cannot be judged solely by their political careers or the schools they attended. Grades provide a rare measure of intellect that is immune to political spin, proponents say.
    "We like to pretend IQ doesn't matter, but it really does with a lot of jobs, including the presidency," a professor at Smith College who studies the effects of human intelligence on the economy, James Miller, said. "We can't trust the information that candidates give us, so it's important to look for objective data that they can't falsify or distort."
    Mr. Miller acknowledged that Mr. Obama displayed academic achievement at Harvard, where he graduated magna cum laude and led the Harvard Law Review. Still, Mr. Miller said, he would like to see information about how Mr. Obama performed in various subjects at Columbia.
    That view is not shared by other election observers, including some who have themselves indulged the public's interest in candidates' academic records. One of them is Geoffrey Kabaservice, a political historian who in 2000 published Senator Bradley's relatively low score of 485 on the verbal SAT. Mr. Bradley, a Rhodes Scholar who was a star basketball player at Princeton, was running for the Democratic presidential nomination.
    "It's awfully hard to correlate anything, really, about a person on the basis of their grades," Mr. Kabaservice said, explaining that he published Mr. Bradley's score to highlight limitations in intelligence testing. He said he doubted that candidates' grades have affected the outcome of any recent presidential elections.
    "For people who didn't like George W. Bush, for example, the grade aspect only confirmed what they thought about him," Mr. Kabaservice said. "And for everybody else, it made him more of a regular guy."
    The Obama campaign declined to comment for this article and did not offer an explanation for why his transcript has not been released. But observers speculated that one reason might be the racially charged nature of the election. Mr. Obama has acknowledged benefiting from affirmative action in the past, and details about his academic performance might open him up to critics eager to accuse him, probably unfairly, of receiving a free ride, Mr. Kabaservice said.
    "Anyone who is a minority and who's come up partially through the meritocracy — getting into good colleges, and subsequently good law schools — is going to come under suspicion that there was some kind of affirmative action boost," he said. "I suspect this is an area of discomfort for Obama."
    In contrast with the rest of Mr. Obama's life story, little is known about his college experience. He attended Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years before transferring to Columbia in 1981. The move receives only a mention in Mr. Obama's 1995 memoir, "Dreams from My Father," which instead devotes that chapter to his impressions of race and class struggles in New York.
    2 Nov 2012, 05:02 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » What Happened to Obama? Absolutely Nothing.
    He is still the same anti-American leftist he was before becoming our president.

     

    http://on.wsj.com/TjQ3IE

     

    It's open season on President Obama. Which is to say that the usual suspects on the right (among whom I include myself) are increasingly being joined in attacking him by erstwhile worshipers on the left. Even before the S&P downgrade, there were reports of Democrats lamenting that Hillary Clinton had lost to him in 2008. Some were comparing him not, as most of them originally had, to Lincoln and Roosevelt but to the hapless Jimmy Carter. There was even talk of finding a candidate to stage a primary run against him. But since the downgrade, more and more liberal pundits have been deserting what they clearly fear is a sinking ship.
    Here, for example, from the Washington Post, is Richard Cohen: "He is the very personification of cognitive dissonance—the gap between what we (especially liberals) expected of the first serious African American presidential candidate and the man he in fact is." More amazingly yet Mr. Cohen goes on to say of Mr. Obama, who not long ago was almost universally hailed as the greatest orator since Pericles, that he lacks even "the rhetorical qualities of the old-time black politicians." And to compound the amazement, Mr. Cohen tells us that he cannot even "recall a soaring passage from a speech."
    Overseas it is the same refrain. Everywhere in the world, we read in Germany's Der Spiegel, not only are the hopes ignited by Mr. Obama being dashed, but his "weakness is a problem for the entire global economy."
    In short, the spell that Mr. Obama once cast—a spell so powerful that instead of ridiculing him when he boasted that he would cause "the oceans to stop rising and the planet to heal," all of liberaldom fell into a delirious swoon—has now been broken by its traumatic realization that he is neither the "god" Newsweek in all seriousness declared him to be nor even a messianic deliverer.
    Hence the question on every lip is—as the title of a much quoted article in the New York Times by Drew Westen of Emory University puts it— "What Happened to Obama?" Attacking from the left, Mr. Westen charges that President Obama has been conciliatory when he should have been aggressively pounding away at all the evildoers on the right.
    Of course, unlike Mr. Westen, we villainous conservatives do not see Mr. Obama as conciliatory or as "a president who either does not know what he believes or is willing to take whatever position he thinks will lead to his re-election." On the contrary, we see him as a president who knows all too well what he believes. Furthermore, what Mr. Westen regards as an opportunistic appeal to the center we interpret as a tactic calculated to obfuscate his unshakable strategic objective, which is to turn this country into a European-style social democracy while diminishing the leading role it has played in the world since the end of World War II. The Democrats have persistently denied that these are Mr. Obama's goals, but they have only been able to do so by ignoring or dismissing what Mr. Obama himself, in a rare moment of candor, promised at the tail end of his run for the presidency: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

     

    This statement, coming on top of his association with radicals like Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Rashid Khalidi, definitively revealed to all who were not wilfully blinding themselves that Mr. Obama was a genuine product of the political culture that had its birth among a marginal group of leftists in the early 1960s and that by the end of the decade had spread metastatically to the universities, the mainstream media, the mainline churches, and the entertainment industry. Like their communist ancestors of the 1930s, the leftist radicals of the '60s were convinced that the United States was so rotten that only a revolution could save it.
    But whereas the communists had in their delusional vision of the Soviet Union a model of the kind of society that would replace the one they were bent on destroying, the new leftists only knew what they were against: America, or Amerika as they spelled it to suggest its kinship to Nazi Germany. Thanks, however, to the unmasking of the Soviet Union as a totalitarian nightmare, they did not know what they were for. Yet once they had pulled off the incredible feat of taking over the Democratic Party behind the presidential candidacy of George McGovern in 1972, they dropped the vain hope of a revolution, and in the social-democratic system most fully developed in Sweden they found an alternative to American capitalism that had a realistic possibility of being achieved through gradual political reform.
    Despite Mr. McGovern's defeat by Richard Nixon in a landslide, the leftists remained a powerful force within the Democratic Party, but for the next three decades the electoral exigencies within which they had chosen to operate prevented them from getting their own man nominated. Thus, not one of the six Democratic presidential candidates who followed Mr. McGovern came out of the party's left wing, and when Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (the only two of the six who won) tried each in his own way to govern in its spirit, their policies were rejected by the American immune system. It was only with the advent of Barack Obama that the leftists at long last succeeded in nominating one of their own.
    To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
    And so it came about that a faithful scion of the political culture of the '60s left is now sitting in the White House and doing everything in his power to effect the fundamental transformation of America to which that culture was dedicated and to which he has pledged his own personal allegiance.
    I disagree with those of my fellow conservatives who maintain that Mr. Obama is indifferent to "the best interests of the United States" (Thomas Sowell) and is "purposely" out to harm America (Rush Limbaugh). In my opinion, he imagines that he is helping America to repent of its many sins and to become a different and better country.
    But I emphatically agree with Messrs. Limbaugh and Sowell about this president's attitude toward America as it exists and as the Founding Fathers intended it. That is why my own answer to the question, "What Happened to Obama?" is that nothing happened to him. He is still the same anti-American leftist he was before becoming our president, and it is this rather than inexperience or incompetence or weakness or stupidity that accounts for the richly deserved failure both at home and abroad of the policies stemming from that reprehensible cast of mind.
    Mr. Podhoretz was the editor of Commentary from 1960 to 1995. His most recent book is "Why Are Jews Liberals?" (Doubleday, 2009).
    2 Nov 2012, 05:07 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Obama: The Affirmative Action President
    By Matt Patterson
    Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
    Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.
    And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
    Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:

     

    To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

     

    Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:

     

    And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

     

    Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
    Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
    True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
    In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
    And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
    In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
    But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn't that all that matters these days?
    See also: The Era of Confronting Obama at Public Events
    Update:
    Author's Note. A lot of readers have written in asking me how I came to the conclusion that Obama was an unremarkable student and that he benefited from affirmative action. Three reasons:
    1) As reported by The New York Sun: "A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors..." In spite of not receiving honors as an undergrad, Obama was nevertheless admitted to Harvard Law. Why?

     

    2) Obama himself has written he was a poor student as a young man. As the Baltimore Sun reported, in:
    "'Obama's book 'Dreams from My Father,'....the president recalled a time in his life...when he started to drift away from the path of success. 'I had learned not to care,' Obama wrote. '... Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.' But his mother confronted him about his behavior. 'Don't you think you're being a little casual about your future?" she asked him, according to the book. '... One of your friends was just arrested for drug possession. Your grades are slipping. You haven't even started on your college applications.'"
    3) Most damning to me is the president's unwillingness to make his transcripts public. If Obama had really been a stellar student with impeccable grades as an undergrad, is there any doubt they would have been made public by now and trumpeted on the front page of the New York Times as proof of his brilliance? To me it all adds up to affirmative action.
    2 Nov 2012, 05:07 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Newsweek

     

    Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go
    Aug 19, 2012 1:00 AM EDT
    Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope.
    (Page 1 of 5)
    I was a good loser four years ago. “In the grand scheme of history,” I wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president, “four decades is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing.”

     

    Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.

     

    Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.

     

    In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

     

    Newsweek

     

    @Newsweek
    COVER STORY: Obama has broken his promises, and it's clear that the GOP ticket's path to prosperity is our only hope bit.ly/QQLouG

     

    19 Aug 12
    Reply

     

    In an unguarded moment earlier this year, the president commented that the private sector of the economy was “doing fine.” Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.

     

    In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.

     

    Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.

     

    Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.

     

    Niall Ferguson discusses Obama's broken promises on ‘Face the Nation.’

     

    And all this despite a far bigger hike in the federal debt than we were promised. According to the 2010 budget, the debt in public hands was supposed to fall in relation to GDP from 67 percent in 2010 to less than 66 percent this year. If only. By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration.

     

    Not only did the initial fiscal stimulus fade after the sugar rush of 2009, but the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue.

     

    His much-vaunted health-care reform will not prevent spending on health programs growing from more than 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent in 2037. Add the projected increase in the costs of Social Security and you are looking at a total bill of 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now. That is only slightly less than the average cost of all federal programs and activities, apart from net interest payments, over the past 40 years. Under this president’s policies, the debt is on course to approach 200 percent of GDP in 2037—a mountain of debt that is bound to reduce growth even further.

     

    Newsweek’s executive editor, Justine Rosenthal, tells the story behind Ferguson’s cover story.

     

    And even that figure understates the real debt burden. The most recent estimate for the difference between the net present value of federal government liabilities and the net present value of future federal revenues—what economist Larry Kotlikoff calls the true “fiscal gap”—is $222 trillion.

     

    The president’s supporters will, of course, say that the poor performance of the economy can’t be blamed on him. They would rather finger his predecessor, or the economists he picked to advise him, or Wall Street, or Europe—anyone but the man in the White House.

     

    There’s some truth in this. It was pretty hard to foresee what was going to happen to the economy in the years after 2008. Yet surely we can legitimately blame the president for the political mistakes of the past four years. After all, it’s the president’s job to run the executive branch effectively—to lead the nation. And here is where his failure has been greatest.

     

    On paper it looked like an economics dream team: Larry Summers, Christina Romer, and Austan Goolsbee, not to mention Peter Orszag, Tim Geithner, and Paul Volcker. The inside story, however, is that the president was wholly unable to manage the mighty brains—and egos—he had assembled to advise him.

     

    According to Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men, Summers told Orszag over dinner in May 2009: “You know, Peter, we’re really home alone ... I mean it. We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes [of indecisiveness on key economic issues].” On issue after issue, according to Suskind, Summers overruled the president. “You can’t just march in and make that argument and then have him make a decision,” Summers told Orszag, “because he doesn’t know what he’s deciding.” (I have heard similar things said off the record by key participants in the president’s interminable “seminar” on Afghanistan policy.)

     

    This problem extended beyond the White House. After the imperial presidency of the Bush era, there was something more like parliamentary government in the first two years of Obama’s administration. The president proposed; Congress disposed. It was Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts who wrote the stimulus bill and made sure it was stuffed full of political pork. And it was the Democrats in Congress—led by Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank—who devised the 2,319-page Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank, for short), a near-perfect example of excessive complexity in regulation. The act requires that regulators create 243 rules, conduct 67 studies, and issue 22 periodic reports. It eliminates one regulator and creates two new ones.

     

    It is five years since the financial crisis began, but the central problems—excessive financial concentration and excessive financial leverage—have not been addressed.

     

    Today a mere 10 too-big-to-fail financial institutions are responsible for three quarters of total financial assets under management in the United States. Yet the country’s largest banks are at least $50 billion short of meeting new capital requirements under the new “Basel III” accords governing bank capital adequacy.

     

    Photos: Obama Faces a Tough Crowd in Iowa
    Charles Ommanney for Newsweek

     

    And then there was health care. No one seriously doubts that the U.S. system needed to be reformed. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 did nothing to address the core defects of the system: the long-run explosion of Medicare costs as the baby boomers retire, the “fee for service” model that drives health-care inflation, the link from employment to insurance that explains why so many Americans lack coverage, and the excessive costs of the liability insurance that our doctors need to protect them from our lawyers.

     

    Ironically, the core Obamacare concept of the “individual mandate” (requiring all Americans to buy insurance or face a fine) was something the president himself had opposed when vying with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. A much more accurate term would be “Pelosicare,” since it was she who really forced the bill through Congress.

     

    Pelosicare was not only a political disaster. Polls consistently showed that only a minority of the public liked the ACA, and it was the main reason why Republicans regained control of the House in 2010. It was also another fiscal snafu. The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.

     

    Related
    Paul Krugman's Rebuttal—and Ferguson's Response
    The president just kept ducking the fiscal issue. Having set up a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed by retired Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles, Obama effectively sidelined its recommendations of approximately $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in added revenues over the coming decade. As a result there was no “grand bargain” with the House Republicans—which means that, barring some miracle, the country will hit a fiscal cliff on Jan. 1 as the Bush tax cuts expire and the first of $1.2 trillion of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts are imposed. The CBO estimates the net effect could be a 4 percent reduction in output.

     

    The failures of leadership on economic and fiscal policy over the past four years have had geopolitical consequences. The World Bank expects the U.S. to grow by just 2 percent in 2012. China will grow four times faster than that; India three times faster. By 2017, the International Monetary Fund predicts, the GDP of China will overtake that of the United States.

     

    Meanwhile, the fiscal train wreck has already initiated a process of steep cuts in the defense budget, at a time when it is very far from clear that the world has become a safer place—least of all in the Middle East.

     

    For me the president’s greatest failure has been not to think through the implications of these challenges to American power. Far from developing a coherent strategy, he believed—perhaps encouraged by the premature award of the Nobel Peace Prize—that all he needed to do was to make touchy-feely speeches around the world explaining to foreigners that he was not George W. Bush.

     

    In Tokyo in November 2009, the president gave his boilerplate hug-a-foreigner speech: “In an interconnected world, power does not need to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another ... The United States does not seek to contain China ... On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations.” Yet by fall 2011, this approach had been jettisoned in favor of a “pivot” back to the Pacific, including risible deployments of troops to Australia and Singapore. From the vantage point of Beijing, neither approach had credibility.

     

    His Cairo speech of June 4, 2009, was an especially clumsy bid to ingratiate himself on what proved to be the eve of a regional revolution. “I’m also proud to carry with me,” he told Egyptians, “a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu alaikum ... I’ve come here ... to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based ... upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.”

     

    Fact Check: Has Obama Kept His Promises?
    Charles Ommanney for Newsweek

     

    Believing it was his role to repudiate neoconservatism, Obama completely missed the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy—precisely the wave the neocons had hoped to trigger with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. When revolution broke out—first in Iran, then in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria—the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests. Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail.

     

    In the case of Iran he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. Ditto Syria. In Libya he was cajoled into intervening. In Egypt he tried to have it both ways, exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, then drawing back and recommending an “orderly transition.” The result was a foreign-policy debacle. Not only were Egypt’s elites appalled by what seemed to them a betrayal, but the victors—the Muslim Brotherhood—had nothing to be grateful for. America’s closest Middle Eastern allies—Israel and the Saudis—looked on in amazement.

     

    “This is what happens when you get caught by surprise,” an anonymous American official told The New York Times in February 2011. “We’ve had endless strategy sessions for the past two years on Mideast peace, on containing Iran. And how many of them factored in the possibility that Egypt moves from stability to turmoil? None.”

     

    Remarkably the president polls relatively strongly on national security. Yet the public mistakes his administration’s astonishingly uninhibited use of political assassination for a coherent strategy. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way. Yet somehow it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused of committing “war crimes.”

     

    The real crime is that the assassination program destroys potentially crucial intelligence (as well as antagonizing locals) every time a drone strikes. It symbolizes the administration’s decision to abandon counterinsurgency in favor of a narrow counterterrorism. What that means in practice is the abandonment not only of Iraq but soon of Afghanistan too. Understandably, the men and women who have served there wonder what exactly their sacrifice was for, if any notion that we are nation building has been quietly dumped. Only when both countries sink back into civil war will we realize the real price of Obama’s foreign policy.

     

    Related Stories
    Michael Tomasky: Romney's Wimp Factor
    Howard Kurtz: Why Campaigns Don't Need the Media
    America under this president is a superpower in retreat, if not retirement. Small wonder 46 percent of Americans—and 63 percent of Chinese—believe that China already has replaced the U.S. as the world’s leading superpower or eventually will.

     

    It is a sign of just how completely Barack Obama has “lost his narrative” since getting elected that the best case he has yet made for reelection is that Mitt Romney should not be president. In his notorious “you didn’t build that” speech, Obama listed what he considers the greatest achievements of big government: the Internet, the GI Bill, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam, the Apollo moon landing, and even (bizarrely) the creation of the middle class. Sadly, he couldn’t mention anything comparable that his administration has achieved.

     

    Now Obama is going head-to-head with his nemesis: a politician who believes more in content than in form, more in reform than in rhetoric. In the past days much has been written about Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s choice of running mate. I know, like, and admire Paul Ryan. For me, the point about him is simple. He is one of only a handful of politicians in Washington who is truly sincere about addressing this country’s fiscal crisis.

     

    Over the past few years Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” has evolved, but the essential points are clear: replace Medicare with a voucher program for those now under 55 (not current or imminent recipients), turn Medicaid and food stamps into block grants for the states, and—crucially—simplify the tax code and lower tax rates to try to inject some supply-side life back into the U.S. private sector. Ryan is not preaching austerity. He is preaching growth. And though Reagan-era veterans like David Stockman may have their doubts, they underestimate Ryan’s mastery of this subject. There is literally no one in Washington who understands the challenges of fiscal reform better.

     

    Just as importantly, Ryan has learned that politics is the art of the possible. There are parts of his plan that he is understandably soft-pedaling right now—notably the new source of federal revenue referred to in his 2010 “Roadmap for America’s Future” as a “business consumption tax.” Stockman needs to remind himself that the real “fairy-tale budget plans” have been the ones produced by the White House since 2009.

     

    I first met Paul Ryan in April 2010. I had been invited to a dinner in Washington where the U.S. fiscal crisis was going to be the topic of discussion. So crucial did this subject seem to me that I expected the dinner to happen in one of the city’s biggest hotel ballrooms. It was actually held in the host’s home. Three congressmen showed up—a sign of how successful the president’s fiscal version of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (about the debt) had been. Ryan blew me away. I have wanted to see him in the White House ever since.

     

    It remains to be seen if the American public is ready to embrace the radical overhaul of the nation’s finances that Ryan proposes. The public mood is deeply ambivalent. The president’s approval rating is down to 49 percent. The Gallup Economic Confidence Index is at minus 28 (down from minus 13 in May). But Obama is still narrowly ahead of Romney in the polls as far as the popular vote is concerned (50.8 to 48.2) and comfortably ahead in the Electoral College. The pollsters say that Paul Ryan’s nomination is not a game changer; indeed, he is a high-risk choice for Romney because so many people feel nervous about the reforms Ryan proposes.

     

    Newsweek

     

    @Newsweek
    Want to discuss this week's cover story? Use the hashtag #HitTheRoadBarack--just as it appears on the cover.

     

    19 Aug 12
    Reply

     

    But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out. This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for this country.

     

    Mitt Romney is not the best candidate for the presidency I can imagine. But he was clearly the best of the Republican contenders for the nomination. He brings to the presidency precisely the kind of experience—both in the business world and in executive office—that Barack Obama manifestly lacked four years ago. (If only Obama had worked at Bain Capital for a few years, instead of as a community organizer in Chicago, he might understand exactly why the private sector is not “doing fine” right now.) And by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the first real sign that—unlike Obama—he is a courageous leader who will not duck the challenges America faces.

     

    The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline.

     

    Or they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national security.

     

    I’ve said it before: it’s a choice between les États Unis and the Republic of the Battle Hymn.

     

    I was a good loser four years ago. But this year, fired up by the rise of Ryan, I want badly to win.
    2 Nov 2012, 05:12 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » THE WASHINGTON POST HITS OBAMA

     

    Finally, the Washington Post and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is timely and tough.
    As many of you know, the Washington Post and Newsweek have a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editors saw fit to print the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event,
    and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our
    President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the
    “protective wall” built around him by the liberal media.

     

    ______________________...

     

    I Too Have Become Disillusioned.

     

    By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San
    Francisco Examiner)

     

    Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack
    Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a
    baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the
    Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of
    professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could
    manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful
    military, execute the world's most consequential job?

     

    Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life:
    ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades
    and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community
    organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative
    achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did
    he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the
    United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his
    presidential ambitions.

     

    He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature
    legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his
    troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher
    who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life,
    actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political
    sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all
    and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

     

    Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
    addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be
    sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken
    hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist
    like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama
    was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have
    hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if
    they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama
    was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of
    his skin.

     

    Vote 'against Obama and his czar-appointed friends' ANYHOW... don't stay home...Express yourself !
    Make Sure the 'POTUS SCROTUM' is out cold....Don't leave it up to the other guy ....

     

    Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history
    matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself
    had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance
    to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of
    racism to rest?

     

    Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the
    Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of
    course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all
    affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily
    to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about
    themselves.

     

    Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat
    themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools
    for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the
    inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.
    Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't
    around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem
    resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes,
    racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the
    color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if
    that isn't racism, then nothing is.

     

    And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never
    troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many
    have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite
    undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough
    for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told
    he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the
    Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was
    good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the
    contrary.

     

    What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display
    every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked
    executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory
    skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives
    included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

     

    The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when
    he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent
    he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever
    issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that
    has failed over and over again for 100 years.

     

    And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and
    everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I
    inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the
    task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise
    his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But
    really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for
    anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

     

    In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the
    temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand
    that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of
    liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise
    with such a man in the Oval Office.
    2 Nov 2012, 05:14 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » "When will "ENOUGH BE ENOUGH?"

     

    We keep electing our political leaders from the same parasitic pool of privileged families.
    I challenge anyone to name the congressperson, or senator in Washington, or your state that was brought up in a middle income, middle class family, or had to work a real job to pay the bills. I'm not talking about attorneys, or corporate top level managers. These people are not what I consider workers! Show me the person in our government that has had to borrow money to send his kids to college, or take out an "inflated interest" loan to buy a house! Do any of them really care that we are mortgaging our children's future to China? How many of them have had to go to war, or serve in the military other than be an officer with the elitist mindset that permeates our armed forces?
    We as voters are getting exactly what we have reaped because we fail to elect any leaders that actually know who we are, and what we think. Our salvation can only come from our votes, and we should vote the man, not the party! Vote for the person that has proven his way from a humble beginning, and succeeded...oh yeah!
    That's right! You won't find any such person because unless they sell out to a special interest group with money, fat chance they will be able to afford to compete in the arena of the privileged elite! Money actually buys our leaders even before they are elected!
    The current job down turn was badly handles from the beginning and the government’s response to the crisis has, in some instances, made matters worse.
    The feds threw stimulus money at California which simultaneously cut its EDD staff precisely when the unemployed needed their help the most. Sacramento sent bailout money to local municipalities like Los Angeles, which used the money to save high paying government jobs only to subsequently eliminate those same jobs as part of the city’s cost saving measures.
    The state and federal government layered on large amounts of unemployment benefits that made people out of work feel good but did nothing to help them get back to work. The benefits have now run out and the unemployment recipients have been thrust back into the ranks of job seekers with no new work skills and no new job prospects.
    We have spent trillions of dollars and have nothing to show for it. What we need is a disaster plan and disaster response, which requires identifying those in need of critical attention from those who need minimal retooling of skills to reenter the job market. Is the consortium of people and foundations that we wrote about the answer to our critical need? Who knows but if they don’t address the critical steps needed to getting people back to work it will all be a waste of time.
    Regardless of our own personal beliefs and values; we must join together and address this unemployment issue before our great nation is permanently damaged. This is perhaps due to the greed and pettiness of some of our leaders; but now is not the time to be pointing fingers.
    We have a duty to help our fellow citizens. It is easy to point out what is wrong; harder to develop and implement solutions to problems and issues.
    I agree that working together in a spirit of cooperation and collaboration; we can address and resolve any challenge.
    I support and look forward to contributing and getting our country contributing solutions, ideas, approaches, and resources to our communities, our country and our world.

     

    http://yjdraiman.org
    2 Nov 2012, 05:16 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents. It is a place where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community. It is a place where men are more concerned with the quality of their goals than the quantity of their goods.”

     

    http://bit.ly/SCjgAg
    2 Nov 2012, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Go back to the Constitution. A president is responsible to submit the needs of the agencies with spending needs allocated according to his Priorities. Congress considers that, but then writes a budget according to what their priorities are and what they will allow the president to spend. A president cannot spend one nickel unless the spending was first approved by congress.
    Democrats had a stanglehold on Congress from 1957 - 1981. They still held the House of Representatives (according to the constitution the origin of all spending) through 1985, and then held both houses until 1995. All That spending was approved by a Democratic congress, including the tax cuts.
    And just so you know, the democrat congress approved the Reagan tax cuts, and the increase in defense spending, but did not approve the domestic spending cuts needed to keep the deficits small.
    Republicans took control of both houses in 1995 and were the driving force of lowing the spending and deficits, not Clinton. Clinton simply jumped on board instead of facing the wrath of the electorate in 1996. that is what Obama should have done after the whopping loss of 56 seats in the house and 6 seats in the senate. He didn't, and according to polls 62% of voters want a "drastic change of direction" from their president if he is re-elected. Of course some of those are progressives that despite the major losses think Obama should do more of their takeover.
    2001 - 2003 saw the Republicans run the House and the Senate in dispute. When the dust settled democrats held the Senate during the budget fights so the budgets increasing had their stamp on it too.
    2003 - 2005 saw the republicans with a 1 seat majority like in the beginning of 2001. What occured was moderate republicans getting behind democrat bills that spent more money. One of those was $50 Billion of 911 commission recommendations republicans refused to consider because they were not very cost effective.
    During these years the budget ballooned from 300 Billion to over 500 Billion. When regulators approached Congress with issues over increasing mortgage failures and having no authority to track where mortgages were being sold to and how, more than enough Republicans sided with Democrats saying there was absolutely nothing wrong. Without a majority really following their lead, the republican leadership was unable to advance any bills in finance issues.
    2005 - 2007 saw Republicans begin reigning in the runaway spending of 2003-2005 and be blessed with Two consecutive years where revenues jumped at two mind boggling record amounts of 231 Billion and 226 Billion. Despite the the deficits shrinking from 500 Billion to 350 billion, Democrats tagged Republicans as big uncontrolled spenders and turned them out in 2007. Trouble is that under a democrat congress, spending has jumped to 600 billion and then on to the levels of today, nearly 2.5 times larger on average than the worst year of the republicans in congress.
    But never mind the facts, just blame everything on the republicans.
    2 Nov 2012, 05:20 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » The choice of Paul Ryan as the presumptive Republican candidate for Vice President has ensured that budgetary arithmetic will be a central issue in the election campaign. But it’s important to remember, as the Mock Turtle says in Alice in Wonderland, that arithmetic consists of four basic operations – Ambition, Distraction, Uglification and Derision. Of these, Distraction is likely to be the tactic employed most frequently this election season. The economic problems that America faces are fairly clear, but all the possible solutions are unpalatable. So the candidates will probably try to avoid getting too specific or, alternatively, divert discussions into debates over technicalities. But even where technical questions are important, basic decisions about policy — and values — have to be made first. To see this in practical terms, it’s worth taking a quick look at six of the most daunting financial issues that need to be dealt with.
    The National Debt. Federal government debt now stands at 73% of annual GDP, not counting money the government owes to itself, such as the Social Security Trust Fund. If current spending and tax rates (including the Bush tax cuts) are extended, debt will reach 93% within a decade, and will go into the danger zone in 15 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In 25 years, it will reach nearly 200%, at which point the Federal debt will be insupportable, unless it is devalued significantly through inflation.
    (MORE: Junk Bonds: Wall Street’s Newest Bubble?)
    Taxes. Total federal taxes are around 18% of GDP today, roughly what they’ve been since the 1950s. State and local taxes, however, have increased substantially over that period. Total taxes from all sources are now a bit more than 34% of GDP, up from a low of 26% in the mid-1950s, but below highs of more than 36% reached several times in the past 15 years. So by historical standards, total taxes are not especially low. On the other hand, there is room to raise taxes a bit without going into unprecedented territory. To have a substantial impact, however, tax increases would have to fall on the middle class as well as the affluent. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and allowing taxes to rise to Clinton-era levels only for households with incomes over $250,000 (and singles over $200,000) would raise enough money to cut the deficit by just around 10% over the coming decade.
    Social Security. Benefits are paid mostly from current Social Security payroll taxes. The Trust Fund is largely an accounting device of money the government owes to itself. In any event, the Trust Fund will be exhausted in less than 25 years, well before today’s youngest workers retire. Eventually taxes will be sufficient to pay only 75% of the benefits that are currently promised. Either benefits have to be cut, Social Security taxes have to be raised, or the growing gap between the two has to be paid for with revenue from other taxes. By tinkering with various formulas, the 25% gap could be closed without too much pain. But the burden will still have to be spread between more and less affluent people, current and future retirees, and taxpayers in general.
    (MORE: Why We Must Change the Way We Police Banks)
    Pension Funds. Everyone knows that many pension funds for public-sector employees are in trouble. The shortfall between the amount that should have been saved to pay for future benefits and the amount that actually has been saved totals hundreds of billions of dollars. But even that is a massively understated figure – the real shortfall is probably more than five times as big, or more than $4 trillion. The reason: Pension funds are greatly overestimating their likely future investment returns. Many funds assume a 7% to 8% compound annual return, when in fact 5% to 6% would be more realistic.
    Medicare. The cost of Medicare and Medicaid is projected to rise from 5.4% of GDP to 7.2% in a decade and to at least 9.6% of GDP in 25 years. The Affordable Care Act tries to prevent even faster growth partly by trying to make the American health-care system more efficient. But it also shifts some costs to the states, which will not reduce the total tax burden over the long term. And it reduces payments to doctors and hospitals, which could lead to fewer doctors, longer waiting times or a two-tier system in which people who can pay cash receive significantly better care. Even if the positive aspects of the new health-care law succeed in containing costs as planned, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to consume more than 40% of Federal revenues in 25 years, substantially outpacing the growth of tax receipts even if all of the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire — including those for the middle class.
    Defense. Military spending was more than 10% of GDP in the 1950s and hit a low of 3.7% in 2000 before the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. Since then, the figure has more than doubled in dollar terms, after adjustment for inflation, and now accounts for more than 5.5% of U.S. GDP. At $900 billion a year, defense is a huge chunk of the Federal budget, and trimming it could lessen the need to raise taxes or cut social programs. But any consequential cuts to the defense budget would require a broad consensus for a significantly paired down U.S. defense mission, and such consensus does not exist right now.
    (MORE: Gadgets Go to Class)
    While any of these specific figures can be debated, collectively they make three things clear, in my view. First, America’s biggest challenges are not solely financial – they include the lack of clear objectives that are broadly supported by the electorate. Second, there are powerful political incentives to avoid facing the most fundamental problems – or to evade them with endless debates over minor policy changes. Third, if these problems are not dealt with seriously, the U.S. economy will slide along for a while with below-average growth and above-average unemployment until debt and other financial problems become insupportable. In the end, no amount of denial and evasion can overcome the power of basic arithmetic.
    2 Nov 2012, 05:21 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Obama has failed America!
    2.3% fewer Americans are employed today, then when Obama became President!
    Median Household income is down by 8.4%, since 2009, under Obama.
    Fewer women are working today then when Obama became President.
    19.9% of all female military vets cannot find a job, under Obama!
    12.1 million Americans are unemployed.
    10.9 million Americans have given up looking for work, or can only find partime work.
    1 in 6 Americans, live in poverty.
    There are 3.6 million more Americans on SSDI, then when Obama became President.They cannot find work.
    16% of all Black Americans, are unemployed.
    9.9% of all Hispanics, are unemployed.
    A gallon of gas has doubled, in price under Obama.
    51% of all college grads cannot find work!
    Obama has reduced licencing for permits to drill for oil on federal lands by 17%, in four years.
    Obama has increased US debt by 5.6 trillion dollars, more than any US President, in history.
    Obama increases US debt by 4 billion dollars every single day.
    Obama has given illegal immigrants backdoor amnesty. Violating US immigration law.
    Obama and fellow Democrats have not, passed a federal budget in four years. Violating US law.
    48 million Americans receive food stamps.
    Ambassador Stevens was murdered in Libya, And Obama lied about the cause of his death.
    Obama has wasted 90 billion dollars, in green energy failures.
    Obama has failed in foreign policy he has lost, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, and now Lebanon!
    Romney Ryan 2012, to save America!
    2 Nov 2012, 05:22 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Obama's Dangerous and Disastrous Presidency

     

    Name a single thing that has improved under his rule.

     

    How can any cogent American citizen possibly even consider voting for Barack Obama now? That's what lots of conservatives and moderates are asking each other, again and again. It's completely baffling, to those who grew up with any sort of sense of what America means and what the American character traditionally has been, that anybody can look at the man's record and want more of the same.
    Almost the entirety of the Muslim world is now rioting against an American president who promised that his olive branches to Muslims would secure peace. Like Jimmy Carter, Obama has only shown a weakness that has emboldened the Islamist haters. Meanwhile, our closest ally in the region, Israel, a stable representative democracy led by an American-educated, America-loving prime minister, has repeatedly been insulted, abandoned, and undermined. In short, the United States is in worse position with all sides in the Middle East/northern Africa. We are embarrassed, feckless, wounded... and in four tragic cases, dead.
    Allies in Poland and the Czech Republic have been repeatedly let down and sometimes insulted. The "re-set" with Russia earned us only Russian contempt. China and Russia ignore our entreaties around the world, with absolute disdain for our wishes, our olive branches, or Obama's supposedly Nobel-worthy and messianic genius for diplomacy.
    Domestically, our debt has increased by 50 percent in just four years, by some $5 trillion, with not a single observable benefit from the spending. Our bond rating already has been downgraded by one agency, and another major agency threatens to downgrade us. Our unemployment rate has never been beneath 8 percent since Obama's first month in office, even though his economic team said his outrageously expensive "stimulus" package would ensure that it would never rise above 8 percent, and indeed that it would drop below 6 percent within four years.
    Our politics is more fractured, less civil, than ever -- and as Bob Woodward, of all people, indicates in his new book, this is largely the fault of Obama. He has been the first president in history to push through a major new program without a single vote from the opposing party -- and while refusing to incorporate a single major idea from the other party, while ignoring overwhelming public sentiment to pass it, and while bending the rules in multiple ways to force it through Congress. Meanwhile, on the real business of Congress, his Senate allies have ignored longstanding law by refusing to pass a budget for three years now, while twice rejecting the president's own pitiful budget proposal by unanimous votes.
    Obama campaigned with a promise to rein in abuses of executive power, but instead he increasingly rules by executive decrees of dubious constitutionality. Congress won't pass cap-and-trade, so he orders it anyway. Congress won't pass amnesty for illegal immigrants, so he orders it anyway. Congress won't undermine the work requirement in the welfare system, so he guts the work requirements by executive order. And on and on go the abuses.
    His Justice Department is flagrantly corrupt and racialist. It told a black majority town in North Carolina that it could not hold nonpartisan elections because voters would fail to elect the black "candidates of choice" if the candidate weren't identified as Democrats. It intervened against the heroic Fire Department of New York to push racial hiring quotas on the department so outrageous that it would force admittance into the fire academy of candidates who missed as many as 70 percent (!!!) of the questions on a simple entrance exam; and, in blocking all applicants expected to be hired under the previous exam, it prohibited a number of black applicants who actually had met standards from being hired. So outrageous was this abuse that even the leftist Village Voice ran a long feature story taking up for the qualified black applicants whose chances for employment were dashed.
    And, of course, DoJ ran an idiotic gun-running program on the Mexican border that led to the deaths of two American agents and countless Mexicans while drawing a rebuke from the Mexican ambassador, and then covered up and even lied about its actions. Also, infamously, it dropped already-won cases against New Black Panther thugs for flagrant voter-intimidation outside a Philadelphia polling place in 2008 -- dropped the cases, indeed, just in time, meaning four days in advance, for one of those thugs again to serve as an official Democratic Party poll-watcher in municipal elections in 2009.
    Gasoline prices are twice what they were when Obama took office -- and rising again. The housing market remains in the doldrums. Food stamp use is by far at the highest level in history, and poverty is markedly up. Food prices are markedly higher. Small businesses are jettisoning the health-insurance benefits they offered employees until Obamacare made it prohibitively expensive. Doctors are retiring in record numbers rather than face Obamacare's scourges -- and most of the law hasn't yet taken effect. Coming soon are new taxes on medical device manufacturers: Patients will pay more for wheelchairs, prosthetics, insulin pumps, asthma inhalers, pacemakers, and other essential fruits of modern medical technology.
    Taxpayers are on the hook for huge losses from the auto bailouts, even as most of GM's new jobs have been created overseas rather than here, and even as auto dealerships across the nation were shut down by administration fiat on political bases rather than on the basis of which ones were profitable. Taxpayers are on the hook for politically inspired "investments" to Obama cronies in failing businesses such as Solyndra. Taxpayers are on the hook for higher electricity prices due to a backdoor cap-and-trade scheme imposed by (illegal) administrative fiat.
    Religious liberties, meanwhile, are under repeated and sustained attacked from an administration openly hostile to traditional faith. And the president even refuses to defend in federal court laws duly passed by Congress and signed by former President Clinton.
    The parade of abuses, incompetencies, extravagances, and illegalities goes on and on. The record of improvements in any sector of American life is… well, nil. Nothing is better, not a single thing, at home or abroad. And Obama has offered no recognizable plans, no new proposals, no substance at all, for making things better in a second term.
    This presidency is a disaster. Reasonable people are gobsmacked at the possibility that it could somehow be allowed to continue its degradations of American society.
    2 Nov 2012, 05:23 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » YJ Draiman values; ethics, trust and accountability

     

    It is my understanding that based on our constitution; People "shall have the right to resist any person or persons seeking to abolish their constitutional rights, should no other remedy be possible".
    All the governments' authority emanates from the people. The people are not satisfied with the rather poor performance of our government. It is time to elect a new slate of candidates, whose main concern are the people.
    A nation's corruptive and corrosive power could only exist by the nation's apathy. Therefore as people of a democratic country, we must rise above this apathy and vote for the right people in public office. We should vote for people who care about the everyday working class, who want what is best for the people.
    My main interest is not making money, but building an organization. I am an efficiency expert and a troubleshooter. My goal is to bring Los Angeles back to economic prosperity.
    Instinct is no guide to political conduct. Effective leadership is always forced - whatever its motives - to represent itself as a carrier of ideas embodying purposes. All truly great achievements in history resulted from the actualization of principals, not from the clever evaluation of political condition. A good and effective leader must care about the people and address their needs.
    For a man to be elected as mayor of Los Angeles, he must have a strong will and the guts to prevail. To become mayor of the people you have to overcome the handicap of the political machine and special interests groups. You must motivate the people to vote for you in order for them to survive in these hard economic times.
    If you want to see a transformation of attitudes towards the people of Los Angeles, with the goal to improve economic conditions and a strong and effective government, I urge you to vote for me.
    Your humble servant.

     

    YJ Draiman
    For Mayor of Los Angeles 2013
    http://bit.ly/MKE5pr
    2 Nov 2012, 05:25 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Yjdraiman Response to US restricting free speech –

     

    YJ Draiman

     

    Dear Reader, Apparently we have come full circle. 1936 is here again. The foundations of our democracy are under attack - the hallmark of America is the right to assemble, petition the government, speak out against injustice, and to practice our religions. The hallmark of the National Socialistic and/or Communist Society is to demonize people who disagree and the limit association and expression. The attempt to thwart the growing trend in guardianship abuse - illustrated by the various complaints against those who defend it, the various cases in Arizona and a host of similar prosecutions is chilling. The attempt to force the Catholic Church to pay for procedures and policies that are abhorrent to their religious beliefs is chilling. The bias against presidential candidates because of their religious beliefs is chilling. However, the 'hue and cry' that all Americans should beraising does not exist and as it was in 1936 no one cares! Senior citizens being deprived of their liberty, their property, their civil rights, and their human rights do not even raise a stir in the media. A Zillion dollars of waste and corruption created by ineffective and flawed programs is sweep under the rug - Even the Tea Party is silent as society loses the human capital of its seniors who the new order desires to strip of the gold in their teeth and warehouse. What are most disturbing are the names of the people who are intimately involved in the new order and the concerted efforts to strip America of its liberty and its citizens of their First and Fifth Amendment Rights. Some of the people intimately involved in the deprivation of seniors of the liberty, property, civil and human rights are children of the victims of Nazi and Communist Holocaust. Of course, this also occurred in 1934, 1935 and 1936 etc! It has been reported that thefirst victim of the guillotine was its inventor.

     

    YJ Draiman

     

    http://www.draiman.org
    2 Nov 2012, 05:28 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Yj Draiman How will YJ Draiman affect the campaign issues for Los Angeles Mayor in 2013

     

    YJ Draiman for Mayor of Los Angeles 2013

     

    Dear Fellow Los Angelinos Thank you for taking a few moments to learn more about my ideas for building a new Los Angeles.I appreciate your interest in my campaign and hope my jobs plan will provide you with a better understanding of the type of Mayor I hope to be – one focused on transparency and putting Los Angelinos back to work. Los Angeles faces one of the most challenging times in our city’s history.Because of the unfriendly business environment, along with some of the highest tax rates in the nation, families and businesses are being forced to make unthinkable trade-offs, including living the city they love. But I am optimistic about Los Angeles future. I am running for Mayor because I believe everything is still possible in Los Angeles. That is why as Mayor that makesLA attractive to business will create jobs will be my priority. It is the only way we are going to clean up the mess in Los Angeles. I have a unique skill set and the detailed plan to get Los Angeles going again. I have started businesses from the ground up and within a short time revenues exceeded $60 million a year. I have been involved in gentrification of whole neighborhoods; I have built a 5 star hotel and implemented energy efficiency for over 20 years. I operated a chain of electronics stores. I think Los Angeles needs a little bit more of a business-like attitude. We have to be honest about our problems, offer grown-up solutions and put an end to the partisan bickering and hand-wringing that is business as usual. I can effectively balance the interests of developers, big business and those who are well-situated and I am more concerned about the interests of everyday citizens." If you do not know and admit that there is a problem, you can not fixit. I am running to reinvigorate Los Angeles economic potential – it will take time and the effort of all the people of Los Angeles. We shall overcome there economic hardships if we work together as a unified force. If you have any suggestions on how we can move Los Angeles forward, please contact our campaign. We will listen. We want this campaign to be special, one that addresses your concerns and speaks to your hopes for what a new Los Angeles can be. Together, we can put Los Angeles back to work and make our City great again and call it the city that works.

     

    YJ Draiman for Mayor of Los Angeles 2013

     

    PS
    Draiman is determined to bring a new approach to Los Angeles. One that demands we help attract businesses that create jobs and lower taxes. One that provides better efficiency and expedited better services. One that makes it a priority commitment to improving our schools. One that is committed to improve public transportation. Draiman has a plan tomake Los Angeles economic vitality flourish.Make Los Angeles Competitive again, raise the standard of living, grow the tax base and help put an end to the yearly budget problems in Los Angeles.
    2 Nov 2012, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » This is the guy that should be running for President in 2012!

     

    A Speech Every American High School Principal Should Give........By Dennis Prager.

     

    To the students and faculty of our high school:

     

    I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.

     

    I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.

     

    First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships. The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity -- your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American. This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans. If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity, race and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America, one of its three central values -- e pluribus Unum, "from many, one." And this school will be guided by America's values. This includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.

     

    Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism -- an unhealthy preoccupation with the self -- while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interested in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.

     

    Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America's citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. And if you leave this school without excellent English language skills, I would be remiss in my duty to ensure that you will be prepared to successfully compete in the American job market. We will learn other languages here -- it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English --but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.

     

    Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning's elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.

     

    Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school's property -- whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can't speak without using the f-word, you can't speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as "Nigger," even when used by one black student to address another black, or "bitch," even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few your age to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.

     

    Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way -- the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago -- by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.

     

    Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will be devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue.. There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately lucky -- to be alive and to be an American.

     

    Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.
    2 Nov 2012, 05:33 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » "Do not punish the masses for the sins of the few"

     

    This applies to any and all rights and privileges stated in the Constitution of the United States.

     

    For example “The Right to Bear and Keep Arms”. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. There are many more.

     

    Nowhere does the Constitution give the President or the Congress the power to federalize state crimes or enact gun control legislation -- not even in a national emergency. One reads the Constitution in vain for such a delegation of authority by "We, the People" through the several states. Very instructive on this point are the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which were written by Thomas Jefferson.

     

    The federal government in 1798 enacted a law making it illegal to criticize a federal official (the Sedition Act). Kentucky and Virginia passed resolutions declaring that the national law was unenforceable in their states.
    These are among the arguments that Jefferson made in the Kentucky resolutions:
    ...whensoever’s the general government assumes un-delegated powers, its acts are un-authoritative, void, and of no force: ...that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself;...each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
    Jefferson went on to spell out that the only powers to punish crime delegated to the federal government were 1) treason, 2) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, 3) piracies and 4) offenses against the law of nations. In this context, Jefferson cited the Tenth Amendment as providing a limit to any expansion of authority for punishing crime by the federal government. He quoted it verbatim in the Kentucky resolutions: "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

     

    Anyone who has observed children will recognize that, ironically, they often demonstrate a more stringent and uncompromising sense of justice than the adults around them. A small child who must divide a piece of cake, for example, will be excruciatingly precise in cutting it lest the "chooser" glom on to a larger slice. Whether the issue is whose turn it is to clear the dishes, take out the trash, or who broke that lamp, young people appeal to an almost innate sense of propriety in demanding they be treated fairly and equitably.

     

    This tendency to rigor is perhaps even more evident when parents must mete out punishments and rewards. To be falsely penalized for something they did not do will stir up the loudest and shrillest of complaints among the innocent offspring.

     

    Too many adults, unfortunately, mildly, meekly, and silently accept such collectivist justice when dealing with social and political issues.

     

    The essence of a moral view of justice entails a recognition that only individuals can be held accountable for the right and wrong they do. Because each of us possesses free will and, thus, the capacity to make choices among alternatives, when we act upon our best (or sometimes worst) judgment, we and we alone are who should reap the benefits of selecting wisely and appropriately...and we and we alone should be the ones to suffer the negative consequences of picking hastily, foolishly, or ignorantly.

     

    If good and evil are to mean anything, our moral autonomy as beings with the capacity for rational behavior must be acknowledged and accepted. Any other basis for determining who is responsible for destructive or constructive outcomes leads to the kind of schizophrenic legal and political realm nipping at our heels today.

     

    This individualistic conception of justice did not always hold sway. Indeed, collectivistic guilt has a long history. In Christian theology, we are all guilty of sin because of the behavior of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Throughout the past, whole families -- sometimes entire cities -- were held responsible for what fathers or kings might have done. The average citizen of ancient Carthage would have had little influence on the policies of his leaders. Nevertheless, he paid the price of Rome's disfavor when his home was razed and the ground salted.

     

    Our Founding Fathers recognized the inherent injustice in accepting the doctrine of collective guilt, i.e., visiting unto the sons the sins of the father. Article III of the Constitution says that "no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood." In other words, the family of a traitor cannot be punished simply because the members are related to the perpetrator.

     

    The bulk of the legal code under which we labor today, however, is rife with violations of this principle. The general collectivization of our culture in the Twentieth Century permeates every crack and crevice of our relationship with the law. Incoherently, our politicians hold individual citizens blameless for many of the negative conditions in their lives (e.g., being poor, homeless, addicted to drugs, sexual promiscuous, or abysmally ignorant) while pointing a narrow finger at us all. "Society" does not provide enough resources (i.e., money) or understanding or opportunities.

     

    But "society" is only an abstraction, a way of describing the relationships, the actions, the beliefs of individuals. Despite what every dictator or tyrant or statist has proclaimed, society as a separate entity does not literally exist apart from and above the separate and distinct individuals who comprise it. Just as the ideas of "right" and "left" have no meaning when divorced from the people involved, so too, "society" loses its coherence when reified (and too often, deified).

     

    In addition to supplying a (poor) rationale for the plethora of social programs dragging us down -- from Social Security and Medicare to business subsidies and disaster relief -- the notion of collective responsibility, obligation, or guilt obliterates proper understanding and application of justice and equity by punishing the innocent majority for the transgressions of the criminal few.

     

    Most regulations, laws, and prohibitions are propounded by pointing out that certain abuses have occurred in the past. Thus, because certain people have engaged in improper behavior, everyone must be presumed to be a potential criminal and have his choices and actions inspected, constrained, or curtailed. Such legal machinations act as a kind of prior restraint. They sanction the notion that the agents of the government must, in essence, punish citizens -- for potential improprieties -- beforehand by means of dictates, fees, or restrictions on what they do and/or how they do it.

     

    But an implicit assumption of guilt -- before you have even acted -- violates the constitutionally recognized principle that you can only be punished after you have actually done something wrong. Even then, the legal system must assume the innocence of the accused. The courts must prove you are guilty. To make you prove you are innocent -- as most regulations on business and individuals do -- is rank injustice. To add insult to the injury, many of the laws strangling us today are based on some group's notion of morality regardless of whether or not you have actually violated anyone's rights (for example, with consensual "crimes" such as prostitution, drug use, and gambling).

     

    Affirmative action policies punish those who were never racist for the sins of those long dead, an indirect "corruption of blood." Business regulations assume that only state scrutiny prevents all entrepreneurs from being polluters, swindlers, and cheaters. Sexual harassment and anti-discrimination laws (whether for sex, race, ethnic background, age, or disability) squeeze us all into narrow-minded compartments of barely suppressed bigotry held in check only by the good graces of the bureaucrats.

     

    Tens of thousands of gun (i.e., people) control laws treat peaceful, rights-respecting individuals as criminals held at bay only because they must jump through arbitrary, unconstitutional hoops that disarm and endanger millions while leaving the field unchallenged to the rapists, robbers, and burglars.

     

    The "rule of law" has morphed into the "rule of men." Politicians, regulators, and law enforcement agents see us today as blank, faceless, and interchangeable segments of whatever particular group they have focused upon. No longer are we treated as distinct individuals. Instead we are lumped together, punished for no sin of our own, treated not as innocent individuals, but as untrustworthy villains-by-proxy.
    The Constitution has been turned on its head. Instead of the individual at the pinnacle of the pyramid, today he is crushed by the weight of the masses who take precedence in their anonymity over his unique and individual life and personality. Instead of the individual being able to do anything not prohibited and the state only that which is permitted, in modern society, the abstract (and literally nonexistent) state has virtually carte blanche to chase after every whim. The true, fundamental component of our culture -- a single, real, breathing person -- is bound and chained, able to choose only from a narrower and narrower range of what is allowed him as a privilege, not a right.
    As mentioned, the very notion of "rights" has itself been both bloated and choked. On the one hand, "rights" to health care, housing, food, education and on and on are manufactured out of thin air. On the other hand, property rights -- the foundation for implementing the right to your own existence -- is suppressed by the rampant moral inflation of bogus rights. Coupled with both malign neglect and direct attacks upon property, we drift without legal anchor or direction.
    To restore freedom, we must reclaim the moral initiative. We must re-consecrate respect for justice as a trait of the individual, not the collective. We must hold as sacrosanct our right to earn and hold property, to direct its use, and to wield it as a shield against malefactors. We must proclaim our right as free, autonomous, and sovereign individuals to do what we want, say what we will, and build our lives without the permission, sanction, or approval of any group. As long as we respect the same rights of all others, we should and must never be punished for the transgressions of the few.

     

    2 Nov 2012, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Menachem Begin Peace treaty with Egypt

     

    It is known that the whole of the Arab world was implacably opposed to the document to which the leaders had just put their signatures - the first treaty of peace between an Arab nation and the Jewish State.

     

    Begin's address was by far the most highly charged with personal emotion. "Peace is the beauty of life," he sentimentalized. "It is sunshine. It is the smile of a child, the love of a mother, the joy of a father, the togeth­erness of a family. It is the advancement of man, the victory of a just cause, the triumph of truth."

     

    To Sadat, he said, "It is a great day in your life, Mr. President of the Arab Republic of Egypt. In the face of adversity and hostility you have demonstrated the human value that can change history - civil courage. A great field commander once said, civil courage is sometimes more dif­ficult to show than military courage. You showed both, Mr. President. But now it is time for all of us to show civil courage, in order to pro­claim to our peoples and to others: no more war, no more bloodshed, no more bereavement - peace unto you; shalom, salaam, forever." And then, husky with emotion, "This is the proper place, and the appropriate time, to bring back to memory the song and the prayer of thanksgiving I learned as a child in the home of my father and mother, that doesn't exist anymore because they were among the six million people - men, women and children - who sanctified the Lord's name with their sacred blood which reddened the rivers of Europe from the Rhine to the Dan­ube, from the Bug to the Volga, because -only because -they were born Jews; and because they didn't have a country of their own, nor a valiant Jewish army to defend them; and because nobody - nobody - came to their rescue, although they cried out 'Save us! Save us!' deprofundis, from the depths of the pit and agony: that is the Song of Degrees written two millennia and five hundred years ago when our forefathers returned from their first exile to Jerusalem, to Zion."

     

    Here Begin felt into his pocket and took out a black silk yarmulke, which he placed on his head, and in a gesture pregnant with symbolism, recited in the original Hebrew the whole of the Psalm of David - "Shir hama'alot b'shuv Hashem et shivat Ziyon hayinu k'cholmim" - without ren­dering it into English.

     

    "I will not translate it," he said. "Every person, whether Jew, Christian or Moslem, can read it in his or her own language in the Book of Books. It is simply psalm one hundred and twenty-six."

     

    A general applause greeted his remarks, and one could tell from the areas of louder applause where the Jewish groups were sitting. Everybody
    2 Nov 2012, 05:39 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » THE WASHINGTON POST HITS OBAMA

     

    Finally, the Washington Post and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is timely
    and tough. As many of you know, the Washington Post and Newsweek have a

     

    reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editors saw fit to print
    the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek,

     

    makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the

     

    truth about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the
    “protective wall” built around him by the liberal media.

     

    ______________________...

     

    I Too Have Become Disillusioned.

     

    By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)

     

    Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack
    Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a
    baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the
    Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of
    professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could
    manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful
    military, execute the world's most consequential job?

     

    Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life:
    ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades
    and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community
    organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative
    achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did
    he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the
    United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his
    presidential ambitions.

     

    He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature
    legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his
    troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher
    who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life,
    actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political
    sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all
    and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

     

    Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
    addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be
    sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken
    hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist
    like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama
    was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have
    hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if
    they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama
    was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of
    his skin.

     

    Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history
    matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself
    had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance
    to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of
    racism to rest?

     

    Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the
    Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of
    course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all
    affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily
    to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about
    themselves.

     

    Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat
    themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools
    for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the
    inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.
    Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't
    around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem
    resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes,
    racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the
    color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if
    that isn't racism, then nothing is.

     

    And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never
    troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many
    have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite
    undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough
    for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told
    he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the
    Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was
    good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the
    contrary.

     

    What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display
    every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked
    executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory
    skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives
    included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

     

    The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when
    he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent
    he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever
    issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that
    has failed over and over again for 100 years.

     

    And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and
    everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I
    inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the
    task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise
    his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But
    really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for
    anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

     

    In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the
    temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand
    that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of
    liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise
    with such a man in the Oval Office.
    2 Nov 2012, 05:40 PM Reply Like
  • jdraiman
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Building Confidence in Our Economy

     

    We all know that the world cannot sustain itself without water. In today's economy energy is a very close second.

     

    Every week I read that American confidence is at an all time low. We no longer have the same level of faith in our institutions and leaders that we once had. Consequently, we are seeing a continued erosion of our outlook on the future. This outlook has to be changed by initiating a massive and sound education program that produces innovation and technology.

     

    We have an opportunity to jumpstart our economy, protect our environment and put our city on the path to energy security through greater use of our domestic energy production such as natural gas. This is a domestic energy resource of ours that has been delivered for decades to Americans and can serve as a foundation for our energy and economic independence while we enhance innovation and achievement to utilize other forms of energy sources. To realize this path we must do what is necessary to instill confidence in the responsible development of energy sources such as natural gas as a base with extensive R&D in renewable energy sources, efficient infrastructure and the mechanism to operate such an infrastructure in the most efficient and economical manner.

     

    Improving our educational system is the key to our economic survival. In a global, knowledge-driven economy, there is a direct correlation between engineering education and innovation. Our success or failure as a city will be measured by how well we do with the innovation agenda, and by how well we can advance medical research, create game-changing devices and improve our economy. Leadership is not a birthright. Despite what many Americans believe, our city does not possess an innate knack for greatness. Greatness must be worked for and won by each new generation. Right now that is not happening. However, we still have time. If we place emphasis anywhere, we should on education, research and innovation. We can lead the world in the decades to come. Nevertheless, the only way to ensure we remain great tomorrow is to increase our investment in science and engineering today. In addition, we must invest in trade schools to train our future workers in the technology; new and old. We have to learn how to balance the need of the people vs. the need to protect the environment. Any extreme to either side is not good. In today’s fast moving technologies government as well as companies must learn to adjust and maneuver quickly to the sign of the times or they will be out of business. Or incur deteriorating revenues and infrastructure. We must learn how to stay competitive and resourceful to survive economically. We must put all our differences aside and work together in harmony for the good of the people and the city of Los Angeles. This direction will be a win for all the people in LA.
    YJ Draiman
    23 Dec 2012, 09:51 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

  • Re: Israel - To Whom It May Concern In Europe, Asia, The US And Elsewhere: http://seekingalpha.com/p/24otv
    Dec 22, 2014
  • YJ Draiman For Mayor Of Los Angeles 2017 http://seekingalpha.com/p/1ph0p
    Apr 27, 2014
  • Common Sense - An Obituary - Interesting and sadly rather true Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has
    Dec 1, 2011
More »

Latest Comments


Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.