Pres "Gimmick" proposes more gimmicks to distract and avoid the real issues facing the US

It's been a very tough 3 years for seriousness.  Instead, the Obama administration has been all about avoiding responsibility and telling too many people what they want to hear.

Let's look at where the country is today, or 3 years after a campaign of "hope and change", "cliches" and "slogans": 

1) No serious proposal to deal with entitlement reform.  All we hear from the Obama White House is that Republicans want to throw your grandmother over the cliff.  They criticize Rep Ryan's plan but he had the courage to put a plan on the table.  We don't have one from Pres BO.

2) No serious proposal to deal with our federal budget deficit.  It is now 10% of GDP in contrast to 3% under Pres Bush.  We recall how candidate BO beat up Pres Bush over the deficit.  Yet, it is now 3 times larger than it was before.

3) No speech explaining to the American public what we are doing in Afghanistan and why we must be there.  We recall how Pres Bush spoke often about the national security implications of Iraq, the war on terror, or Afghanistan.  We have not heard such a speech except reminders every 5 minutes that "Obama killed Osama".  It won't be long before we see a campaign commercial of "Navy Seal Obama" leading the brigade to Osama's home.

4) No serious proposal to deal with immigration or border security.  All we hear from the Obama administration is scary talk about "racial profiling".   However, Pres BO's government did did not accuse Arizona of racial profiling or civil rights violations.  AG Holder's brief was about states interfering with the federal government over  immigration issues.   ("Justice Department Sues Arizona for Immigration Law — But Does Not Make Charges of “Discrimination”)

5) A stimulus that injected $787 billion but did not create jobs.

6) Crony capitalism that has "guaranteed loans" for people who contributed the Obama campaign.  By the way, why does Robert F Kennedy, Jr, a very wealthy man, need a loan guarantee anyway?  Why doesn't he use the family estate to finance "green companies".  Why is he risking the taxpayers' money rather than his own?

7) The Democrat Senate has not passed a budget in 3 years.  This is an outrage.

We can go on and on.

Yesterday, Pres BO came out with another of those "gimmicks" that has been the hallmark of his presidency.

Pres BO wants to go after "speculators".  

Again, this is a "gimmick" and not a responsible solution to fix our energy crisis.

High gasoline prices reflect supply and demand.  Unfortunately, Pres "Gimmick" has not done a thing to increase supply, or to unleash the oil resources right here in the US.

Winston Churchill was one of the great men of the 20th century.  He was great because he was a leader rather than a "punter". He said this:

"The price of greatness is responsibility."

---

Tags: Pres "Gimmick" proposes more gimmicks to distract and avoid the real issues facing the US  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!

The Cartagena summit: Where does Pres BO stand on the Falklands

The Latin America summit in Cartagena has turned into a massively embarrassing episode for the US.  

First, the "prostitution" scandal is a real problem because security can not be breached. 

Second, there were no agreements because Pres BO spent most of his time on the defensive about Cuba and drug legalization.  

Let me be fair to Pres BO.  All of this love with Cuba is posturing to the left and not very serious.  All of the talk about drug legalization is a distraction.   Nevertheless, these two issues isolated Pres BO from most leaders.

Third, Pres BO, who was once opposed to free trade agreements like NAFTA or the CFTA for purely political reasons, now finds himself telling Latin American leaders that they shouldn't oppose free trade agreements for purely political reasons.   (Wonder how strange that is?)

We were happy to hear Pres Calderon's warning about protectionism.   However, Pres BO has a big credibility problem when it comes to protectionism.  Unlike Pres Bush, who fought to open markets and increase trade, Pres BO used free trade agreements to score political points in the US.  (My guess is that a lot of Latin Americans remember his calls to renegotiate NAFTA and the attacks on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement)

However, the big issue that came out of Cartagena was the Falklands or Malvinas.  This is the one problem that will haunt Pres BO, specially the next time he is sitting down with the UK about supporting US military operations in Afghanistan or an attack on Iran.  

They are very concerned in the UK over the Falklands because of Pres BO's statement:

""And in terms of the Maldives or the Falklands, whatever your preferred term, our position on this is that we are going to remain neutral. We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue. But this is not something that we typically intervene in."

Keep in mind that the UK is our # 1 military ally.  It was PM Blair and the UK that courageously supported Pres Bush in Iraq.   He did the same with Afghanistan.  They will be asked to do the same if we have to hit Iran's nuclear facilities.

I'd agree that the Falklands/Malvinas issue should be settled diplomatically but it may not be, specially if another Argentine president decides to use the islands to rally public opinion.

We are already seeing some signals that Pres Fernandez of Argentina is getting very irrational, such as going after foreign companies. 

Like Pres Reagan, Pres BO will ultimately support the UK because he has no choice.  The UK is our # 1 and Argentina isn't.

Pres BO's decision to support the UK over Argentina will disappoint lots of people in Latin America who got invested in the "si se puede" nonsense, or the idea that Obama was different.

My guess is that Pres BO, and "the dancing Hillary", are hoping that Argentina and the UK wait until 2013 to go to war.  In other words, Pres BO & Sec HC are hoping that Pres Romney gets to deal with that issue next year.

Click here for Tuesday's show: 

Listen to internet radio with Silvio Canto Jr on Blog Talk Radio

---

Tags:  The Cartagena summit: Where does Pres BO stand on the Falklands To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!

Pres BO rather confused about "racial profiling"

During the Sunday Univision interview, Pres BO said this:

""We now have a Republican nominee who said that the Arizona laws are a model for the country, that -- and these are laws that potentially would allow someone to be stopped and picked up and asked where their citizenship papers are based on an assumption," President Obama said in an interview with Univision that aired over the weekend.

"Racial profiling?" Univision reporter Enrique Acevedo asked.

"Very troublesome. And this is something that the Republican nominee has said should be a model for the country," Obama said."  (RCP)

We were a bit surprised to hear this because it conflicts with reality.

First, Gov Romney has simply stated that immigration laws should be respected, a rather modest idea in a nation invested in "the rule of law".

On the other hand, what is Pres BO proposing?  What has he proposed beyond slogans, speeches or cliches?  What has he sent to Congress beyond the annual "Cinco de Mayo" speech or that silly visit to El Paso last year?

Second, I'm surprised that Mr Acevedo of Univision did not ask this:

"President Obama....if you are so concerned about racial profiling....then why didn't your Justice Department actually say "racial profiling" in your lawsuit of the summer of 2010"?

We recall reading the following from Jack Tapper of ABC News:

"As widely anticipated, Attorney General Eric Holder today filed a lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer over the state’s immigration law. The suit seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being implemented.

The court filing states that Arizona law is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The filing makes no assertion that the law is discriminatory or risks being applied in a discriminatory fashion, as the president and other officials said they feared would be the case. Interestingly, this suit makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law.
You can read the complaint HERE and the preliminary injunction brief HERE."

Let me repeat:  The lawsuit "....makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law."

Let's refresh our memory:  The main point of the lawsuit against the Arizona was the idea that immigration is a federal rather than a state matter.

I agree that immigration is a federal matter, unless the federal government is incapable of enforcing current laws or your state is flooded by criminals carrying AK-47's. 

It is very troubling to see Pres BO intentionally "scare Hispanics" by raising the "racial profiling" issue.  

Why didn't the Obama administration say that the Arizona law had the potential for "racial profiling" when they filed the brief in the courts?

The answer is simple:  There is no "racial profiling" allowed under the Arizona law.  The text was revised to ensure that no one would be stopped solely on the basis of appearance.

Racial profiling?  NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE ARIZONA LAW.

Desperate presidential candidate trying to scare Hispanics?  YES.

Click here for our Tuesday show:

Listen to internet radio with Silvio Canto Jr on Blog Talk Radio

---

Tags: Pres BO confused about "racial profiling" and the Arizona law  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!