By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press ServiceWASHINGTON, Oct. 26, 2011 – Because U.S. forces are coming home from Iraq by the end of the year, the U.S. Postal Service will stop accepting mail addressed to military post offices in Iraq starting Nov. 17, Defense Department officials said today.
Military post offices in Iraq also will stop processing mail Nov. 17, and service members there should begin now to advise those who send them mail about the Nov. 17 deadline.
Mail still in the postal system through Nov. 17 will be processed and delivered to service members in Iraq, officials said.
In November, U.S. military postal service responsibilities in Iraq will transition to State Department embassy or consulate post offices for service members assigned to Office of Security Cooperation or the Chief of Mission in Iraq.
These sites will provide letter and parcel mail services to service members assigned to the Office of Security Cooperation or the Chief of Mission in Iraq.
The transition will be closely coordinated with the U.S. Postal Service Agency, which will delete ZIP codes for Iraq military post offices from the USPS database to prevent undeliverable mail from entering the postal system after Nov. 17, according to defense officials.
If APO mail arrives in Iraq after a service member departs, mail will be redirected to the new mailing address provided or, if no mailing address was provided, returned to sender.
Any mail mistakenly accepted by a USPS post office after Nov. 17 will be returned to sender once it reaches the International Gateway in New Jersey.
U.S. service members in Iraq who do not receive an absentee ballot by Nov. 17 should contact their U.S. Local Election Office to change their address. Unit voting assistance officers can provide state-specific voting details.
Service members who are remaining in Iraq after Nov. 17 and who are there on behalf of or are assigned to the Office of Security Cooperation or the Chief of Mission in Iraq should coordinate with their chain of command and the servicing State Department mail location to receive a new mailing address.
According to defense officials, conditions and situations in the Iraq transition change often. Officials recommend that service members check the Military Postal Service Agency website and USPS Postal Bulletins frequently for updates.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Military Post Offices in Iraq to Close Nov. 17
From the DoD:
Thursday, October 27, 2011
#OWS Occupiers Complain About 'Freeloaders' And Forced To Eat Peanut Butter And Jelly Sandwiches
By Susan Duclos
Seems the volunteers that do the cooking for the Wall Street Occupiers have a few complaints, feeling they are “overworked and underappreciated,”and are tired of working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.
Here is the kicker though:
NewsFlash: The Occupiers themselves are squatters!!!!
So, the Occupiers (original squatters) don't want the homeless squatting on the land that they themselves are squatting on, and a subset of the Occupiers, the cooks, do not wish to cook and provide food for the actual homeless, people that truly do not have a home, but would rather only provide food for those that choose to live as homeless people.
Let me get this straight- The Occupiers are protesting "greed", they believe the rich should be taxed more to "share the wealth" via wealth distribution, by taking from those that have and giving it to those have not.
Does this mean they are now protesting against themselves?
Others discussing this:
William Teach over at Pirate's Cove calls this "Sweet, Sweet Irony":
Sister Toldjah sends out the hypocrisy alert on tent searches by Occupier "security" without warrants and Occupier requests for winter items to be donated and she notes that it is "absolutely shameless for these *voluntarily* “homeless” people who really aren’t “needy” to be pleading for the type of assistance that the truly homeless and poor desperately need in this city, especially at this time of year around the holidays."
JammieWearingFool wonders if now the Occupiers see "where the Tea Party is coming from" or if the person reported in the Post now "understands how the 53% who pay the freight in this country feel." He doubts it.
Don Surber gets the quote of the day with "In their protest against greed on Wall Street, the dirty, smelly hippies are telling the destitute: Mine, Mine, Mine."
Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit says "The squatters at Camp Poopstock are protesting that they are wasting their time, energy and resources preparing gourmet meals for ex-cons, homeless people, drug addicts and other freeloaders. Welcome to the real world."
From the Crawdad Hole "Irony so thick you could cut it with a knife and serve it to the homeless. Next thing they’ll be yelling “Get a job you smelly hippies!“"
Needless to say, we are all having a little bit of fun with this and the fact that the Occupiers are completely oblivious to their own hypocrisy here.
[Update] You can find all WuA's Occupier antics posts at the class warfare label page here.
.
Seems the volunteers that do the cooking for the Wall Street Occupiers have a few complaints, feeling they are “overworked and underappreciated,”and are tired of working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.
“We need to limit the amount of food we’re putting out” to curb the influx of derelicts, said Rafael Moreno, a kitchen volunteer.
A security volunteer added that the cooks felt “overworked and underappreciated.”
Many of those being fed “are professional homeless people. They know what they’re doing,” said the guard at the food-storage area.
Today, a limited menu of sandwiches, chips and some hot food will be doled out -- so legitimate protesters will have a day to make arrangements for more upscale weekend meals.
Protesters got their first taste of the revolt within the revolt yesterday when the kitchen staff served only peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and chips after their staff meeting.
Here is the kicker though:
Organizers took other steps to police the squatters, who they said were lured in from other parks with the promise of free meals.
NewsFlash: The Occupiers themselves are squatters!!!!
So, the Occupiers (original squatters) don't want the homeless squatting on the land that they themselves are squatting on, and a subset of the Occupiers, the cooks, do not wish to cook and provide food for the actual homeless, people that truly do not have a home, but would rather only provide food for those that choose to live as homeless people.
Let me get this straight- The Occupiers are protesting "greed", they believe the rich should be taxed more to "share the wealth" via wealth distribution, by taking from those that have and giving it to those have not.
Does this mean they are now protesting against themselves?
Others discussing this:
William Teach over at Pirate's Cove calls this "Sweet, Sweet Irony":
This is like Lord Of The Flies on steroids. Child-like Marxists living like the proverbial pigs, though pigs tend to not live in their own “filth”, and are actually rather fussy eaters. They just like mud. And now they’re learning that people are going to try and take advantage of “the government” and get stuff for free because they feel entitled because “the government” is just there to help. The massive amounts of irony cannot be put into words.NewsBusters points out in their headline "Occupiers Don't Like Redistributing Their Own Wealth."
Sister Toldjah sends out the hypocrisy alert on tent searches by Occupier "security" without warrants and Occupier requests for winter items to be donated and she notes that it is "absolutely shameless for these *voluntarily* “homeless” people who really aren’t “needy” to be pleading for the type of assistance that the truly homeless and poor desperately need in this city, especially at this time of year around the holidays."
JammieWearingFool wonders if now the Occupiers see "where the Tea Party is coming from" or if the person reported in the Post now "understands how the 53% who pay the freight in this country feel." He doubts it.
Don Surber gets the quote of the day with "In their protest against greed on Wall Street, the dirty, smelly hippies are telling the destitute: Mine, Mine, Mine."
Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit says "The squatters at Camp Poopstock are protesting that they are wasting their time, energy and resources preparing gourmet meals for ex-cons, homeless people, drug addicts and other freeloaders. Welcome to the real world."
From the Crawdad Hole "Irony so thick you could cut it with a knife and serve it to the homeless. Next thing they’ll be yelling “Get a job you smelly hippies!“"
Needless to say, we are all having a little bit of fun with this and the fact that the Occupiers are completely oblivious to their own hypocrisy here.
[Update] You can find all WuA's Occupier antics posts at the class warfare label page here.
.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Why Commercial Crew Is Doomed
NASA's Commercial Crew Development program, or "CCDev", has been a resounding success - and that's why they're not doing it anymore.
Inspired by the earlier Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, or "COTS", and funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 stimulus to the tune of $50M, CCDev came out swinging in 2010 with five US companies producing impressive results on what was essentially bonus pay to NASA. As such, it was no surprise when a further $270M was provided for the second round, or "CCDev2". This round is now coming to a close, with continuing achievement from US companies with minimal oversight from NASA. Also, a number of "unfunded" CCDev agreements have been made which receive only use of NASA facilities and expertise - they too have been successful.
With all this success, it might seem strange that NASA is dropping the CCDev program - but they are. They intend to move on to a "procurement" process where a number of companies will be required to submit designs, to be reviewed by NASA, with an eventually "down select" to one or possibly two approved providers for the next phase. The Commercial Crew Program, or "CCP", requested funding for the next five years is $850M/year or $4250M total, but at this time it appears unlikely that they will get more than $500M in the first year.
No, that's not a misprint. Here's a graph to hammer home the point.
Why the massive jump? The simple answer is given by acting program director Phil McAlister's comments at the 2011 International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight - the commercial crew office has grown to 250 people, many of which are spending their days writing requirements and regulations and have been for "the last two years". In the near future, a number of these staff will be "embedded" into the companies doing their initial design work. This massive increase in oversight comes with a switch from Space Act Agreements - where NASA pays the partner only after agreed upon milestones have been met - to Federal Acquisition Regulation contracts. Although it is increasingly obvious that "partners" are becoming contractors, and NASA is taking control over the industry, McAlister continues to downplay the change, stating that it is "just rhetoric from people who don't want to engage in debate".
Well here's some debate. Fundamentally, the COTS and CCDev rounds were about partnership. NASA was not in control and this was a good thing - for the industry, for NASA and for the taxpayer. Yes, Space Act Agreements have been proven to work, but it's not just about that - it's about who has control in this relationship. Under the COTS/CCDev program, a partner could say no. They could say they weren't interested in pursuing a proposed milestone and NASA had to negotiate. The pay-on-performance standard encouraged partners to only take on milestones they knew they could achieve and, with good faith, NASA had clearly defined. Those milestones represented where the goals of the partner matched the goals of NASA - which many don't seem to understand are necessarily different.
During a congressional testimony today, where Elon Musk was a witness for the first time (see this summary in PopMech), Congressman George Miller (D) asked two questions which insisted that eventually NASA will have just the one provider for commercial crew. Later, Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D) expressed concern that NASA is creating a US monopoly on commercial crew. Setting aside that these people are supposed to be telling NASA what to do, not meekly asking for a forecast of the future, the NASA representative - William Gerstenmaier - essentially agreed with the assessment, stating a lack of funding to support two providers.
Oh, did I not mention that? Yes, NASA thinks nearly five billion dollars isn't sufficient to get commercial crew providers to a point where they can start actually paying them for seats. How much exactly they're going to pay them for seats is anyone's guess. SpaceX will happily tell you that they can do $20M/seat, but that assumes 28 seats per year. Which could mean anything because NASA can't actually tell you how many seats they want. NASA at least wants the price of seats on US commercial crew providers to be below the price of seats on Soyuz, but they seem to have no clue anymore why that is. As such, this has encouraged a number of hilarious Congress-does-math moments where the representative will add together the cost of development, price per seat by estimated number of seats, get a number which is bigger than just continuing to buy seats from the Russians and wonder how this is going to save NASA money. Hint: it's not. That's not the goal. The goal is to kickstart the industry by having NASA as an anchor tenant. The only reason to care about the Soyuz price at all is to ensure the US commercial crew providers are competitive in the international market. This should be obvious but NASA/Congress are stocked with morons.
Here's a prediction.. you heard it here first.. that whole lower-than-Soyuz-price thing will go away real soon. I think this will not be the last way NASA breaks the former-partners making them uncompetitive. Ultimately, the product that NASA wants - the mythical space transportation system that will keep the precious astronauts safe on their purposeless jaunts to "occupy" the ISS, maintaining international relations and supervising ants sorting tiny screws in space - is incompatible with actual productive use of human spaceflight. When the commercial markets fail to materialize, the government can say "we told you so!" and essentially nationalize the industry, as they did with launch vehicles.
Briefly, how was it ever supposed to work? The vision, for those who can remember it, was for NASA to simply buy tickets on commercial crew transportation providers. It was supposed that a promise to buy some number of seats per year would have been enough to encourage private development of the vehicles. This of course was naive, as a promise from NASA is about as bankable as a promise from Congress - that is, worthless. So instead, some money was thrown over the wall with a minimum amount of whatcha-gunna-use-it-for? The hope being that private investment would come to the table. This worked! So the sensible next step is to keep doing the thing that works.
Part II: The Market
What would happen if NASA continued to encourage the industry to develop, instead of embarking on a premature "procurement" process for their own piddling little needs? The answer is glorious: multiple commercial crew transportation providers racing to be the first available to offer seats. Actual price competition and ongoing innovation. This would open new markets and the virtuous cycle would open up the entire frontier.
But... so many people can't remember this vision - if they ever knew it at all. We regularly hear the proud proclamation that the government is the only "market" for human spaceflight. Ok, maybe they're willing to grant that there's a market for a few "overly rich tourists", yes, they really use that word, and maybe there's some other countries that would like to have a space program but don't have the wherewithal to slap together their own big-rocket-and-capsule program, but that's just icing on the cake. Even the commercial crew transportation providers seem to be ignorant of the actual market which is out there waiting to be tapped. Even Elon Musk seems to be ignorant of the real market.. there, I said it. Talk of colonizing Mars someday is great, but that's not where the money is right now.
I can hear the space solar power people screaming from the balcony. They know the answer! And while I appreciate their enthusiasm, I think they're wrong. Someday, space solar power will be operational and human spaceflight to maintain those massive solar arrays will be necessary, but that day is not here. We should keep them firmly in mind and think about their needs when making decisions about on-orbit capabilities, but right now they're still on the ground.
No, the market I'm talking about is the one space market that has consistently made profits since the beginning of the space age. In 2005 PanAmSat launched the Galaxy 15 telecommunications satellite, its ownership was later transferred to Intelsat. In April of 2010 control was lost and the satellite starting drifting, causing significant hazard to other satellites. More importantly, the satellite was out of commission and losing money every day. An estimate of the loss of the satellite, was required for accounting purposes and a figure of around $4194M was given, or ~$400M per year for the expected remaining lifespan.
This gives us some idea of the acceptable price for a satellite "rescue" mission out to geostationary Earth orbit. It's hard to imagine NASA screwing up commercial crew so much that such a mission could be made unaffordable by US suppliers, but if seats are available on the Russian Soyuz - as they will be when NASA finally switches to commercial crew - the inability of US human spaceflight providers to beat the Soyuz price will suddenly become important.
Much more interesting, I think, is to consider the current SpaceX pricetag of a Falcon 9 / crew Dragon flight, upgraded to the Falcon Heavy, and before any of the price reductions promised by reusability.. let's say, $200M. At this price it is not inconceivable to imagine sending a crew out annually to service a number of satellites in a constellation. When we consider that routine maintenance has never been done on communication satellites, it becomes obvious that extended lifetimes can be achieved that would more than offset the cost.
In short, NASA isn't the market for human spaceflight, it isn't even the icing, it's the free frogurt - don't eat it.
Inspired by the earlier Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, or "COTS", and funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 stimulus to the tune of $50M, CCDev came out swinging in 2010 with five US companies producing impressive results on what was essentially bonus pay to NASA. As such, it was no surprise when a further $270M was provided for the second round, or "CCDev2". This round is now coming to a close, with continuing achievement from US companies with minimal oversight from NASA. Also, a number of "unfunded" CCDev agreements have been made which receive only use of NASA facilities and expertise - they too have been successful.
With all this success, it might seem strange that NASA is dropping the CCDev program - but they are. They intend to move on to a "procurement" process where a number of companies will be required to submit designs, to be reviewed by NASA, with an eventually "down select" to one or possibly two approved providers for the next phase. The Commercial Crew Program, or "CCP", requested funding for the next five years is $850M/year or $4250M total, but at this time it appears unlikely that they will get more than $500M in the first year.
No, that's not a misprint. Here's a graph to hammer home the point.
Why the massive jump? The simple answer is given by acting program director Phil McAlister's comments at the 2011 International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight - the commercial crew office has grown to 250 people, many of which are spending their days writing requirements and regulations and have been for "the last two years". In the near future, a number of these staff will be "embedded" into the companies doing their initial design work. This massive increase in oversight comes with a switch from Space Act Agreements - where NASA pays the partner only after agreed upon milestones have been met - to Federal Acquisition Regulation contracts. Although it is increasingly obvious that "partners" are becoming contractors, and NASA is taking control over the industry, McAlister continues to downplay the change, stating that it is "just rhetoric from people who don't want to engage in debate".
Well here's some debate. Fundamentally, the COTS and CCDev rounds were about partnership. NASA was not in control and this was a good thing - for the industry, for NASA and for the taxpayer. Yes, Space Act Agreements have been proven to work, but it's not just about that - it's about who has control in this relationship. Under the COTS/CCDev program, a partner could say no. They could say they weren't interested in pursuing a proposed milestone and NASA had to negotiate. The pay-on-performance standard encouraged partners to only take on milestones they knew they could achieve and, with good faith, NASA had clearly defined. Those milestones represented where the goals of the partner matched the goals of NASA - which many don't seem to understand are necessarily different.
During a congressional testimony today, where Elon Musk was a witness for the first time (see this summary in PopMech), Congressman George Miller (D) asked two questions which insisted that eventually NASA will have just the one provider for commercial crew. Later, Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D) expressed concern that NASA is creating a US monopoly on commercial crew. Setting aside that these people are supposed to be telling NASA what to do, not meekly asking for a forecast of the future, the NASA representative - William Gerstenmaier - essentially agreed with the assessment, stating a lack of funding to support two providers.
Oh, did I not mention that? Yes, NASA thinks nearly five billion dollars isn't sufficient to get commercial crew providers to a point where they can start actually paying them for seats. How much exactly they're going to pay them for seats is anyone's guess. SpaceX will happily tell you that they can do $20M/seat, but that assumes 28 seats per year. Which could mean anything because NASA can't actually tell you how many seats they want. NASA at least wants the price of seats on US commercial crew providers to be below the price of seats on Soyuz, but they seem to have no clue anymore why that is. As such, this has encouraged a number of hilarious Congress-does-math moments where the representative will add together the cost of development, price per seat by estimated number of seats, get a number which is bigger than just continuing to buy seats from the Russians and wonder how this is going to save NASA money. Hint: it's not. That's not the goal. The goal is to kickstart the industry by having NASA as an anchor tenant. The only reason to care about the Soyuz price at all is to ensure the US commercial crew providers are competitive in the international market. This should be obvious but NASA/Congress are stocked with morons.
Here's a prediction.. you heard it here first.. that whole lower-than-Soyuz-price thing will go away real soon. I think this will not be the last way NASA breaks the former-partners making them uncompetitive. Ultimately, the product that NASA wants - the mythical space transportation system that will keep the precious astronauts safe on their purposeless jaunts to "occupy" the ISS, maintaining international relations and supervising ants sorting tiny screws in space - is incompatible with actual productive use of human spaceflight. When the commercial markets fail to materialize, the government can say "we told you so!" and essentially nationalize the industry, as they did with launch vehicles.
Briefly, how was it ever supposed to work? The vision, for those who can remember it, was for NASA to simply buy tickets on commercial crew transportation providers. It was supposed that a promise to buy some number of seats per year would have been enough to encourage private development of the vehicles. This of course was naive, as a promise from NASA is about as bankable as a promise from Congress - that is, worthless. So instead, some money was thrown over the wall with a minimum amount of whatcha-gunna-use-it-for? The hope being that private investment would come to the table. This worked! So the sensible next step is to keep doing the thing that works.
Part II: The Market
What would happen if NASA continued to encourage the industry to develop, instead of embarking on a premature "procurement" process for their own piddling little needs? The answer is glorious: multiple commercial crew transportation providers racing to be the first available to offer seats. Actual price competition and ongoing innovation. This would open new markets and the virtuous cycle would open up the entire frontier.
But... so many people can't remember this vision - if they ever knew it at all. We regularly hear the proud proclamation that the government is the only "market" for human spaceflight. Ok, maybe they're willing to grant that there's a market for a few "overly rich tourists", yes, they really use that word, and maybe there's some other countries that would like to have a space program but don't have the wherewithal to slap together their own big-rocket-and-capsule program, but that's just icing on the cake. Even the commercial crew transportation providers seem to be ignorant of the actual market which is out there waiting to be tapped. Even Elon Musk seems to be ignorant of the real market.. there, I said it. Talk of colonizing Mars someday is great, but that's not where the money is right now.
I can hear the space solar power people screaming from the balcony. They know the answer! And while I appreciate their enthusiasm, I think they're wrong. Someday, space solar power will be operational and human spaceflight to maintain those massive solar arrays will be necessary, but that day is not here. We should keep them firmly in mind and think about their needs when making decisions about on-orbit capabilities, but right now they're still on the ground.
No, the market I'm talking about is the one space market that has consistently made profits since the beginning of the space age. In 2005 PanAmSat launched the Galaxy 15 telecommunications satellite, its ownership was later transferred to Intelsat. In April of 2010 control was lost and the satellite starting drifting, causing significant hazard to other satellites. More importantly, the satellite was out of commission and losing money every day. An estimate of the loss of the satellite, was required for accounting purposes and a figure of around $4194M was given, or ~$400M per year for the expected remaining lifespan.
This gives us some idea of the acceptable price for a satellite "rescue" mission out to geostationary Earth orbit. It's hard to imagine NASA screwing up commercial crew so much that such a mission could be made unaffordable by US suppliers, but if seats are available on the Russian Soyuz - as they will be when NASA finally switches to commercial crew - the inability of US human spaceflight providers to beat the Soyuz price will suddenly become important.
Much more interesting, I think, is to consider the current SpaceX pricetag of a Falcon 9 / crew Dragon flight, upgraded to the Falcon Heavy, and before any of the price reductions promised by reusability.. let's say, $200M. At this price it is not inconceivable to imagine sending a crew out annually to service a number of satellites in a constellation. When we consider that routine maintenance has never been done on communication satellites, it becomes obvious that extended lifetimes can be achieved that would more than offset the cost.
In short, NASA isn't the market for human spaceflight, it isn't even the icing, it's the free frogurt - don't eat it.
Note To Media: STFU About Obama's Birth Certificate
By Susan Duclos
Back when everyone was speculating on whether Donald Trump was going to jump into the 2012 presidential race and the Birther issue (Obama's birth certificate fiasco) was constantly talked about in the media, I headlined a piece with "Donald Trump's So-Called 'Birther' Claims: The Media Continues To Bring It Up, Trump Just Responds," where I showed examples of the media consistently harping on the issue, then asking Trump about it, then claiming HE was the one bringing it up again and again.
I see the media is doing it again, with Rick Perry after he met with Donald Trump, only this time the media is being called out about it by one of their very own.
MediaIte:
Kudos to MediaIte for pointing out the media's deliberate attempt to create the news instead of just reporting it.
.
Back when everyone was speculating on whether Donald Trump was going to jump into the 2012 presidential race and the Birther issue (Obama's birth certificate fiasco) was constantly talked about in the media, I headlined a piece with "Donald Trump's So-Called 'Birther' Claims: The Media Continues To Bring It Up, Trump Just Responds," where I showed examples of the media consistently harping on the issue, then asking Trump about it, then claiming HE was the one bringing it up again and again.
I see the media is doing it again, with Rick Perry after he met with Donald Trump, only this time the media is being called out about it by one of their very own.
MediaIte:
Let start with the origin of the controversy, the Parade Magazine interview published Sunday:
Q. Governor, do you believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States?
A. I have no reason to think otherwise.Q. That’s not a definitive, “Yes, I believe he”—
A. Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate.
Q. But you’ve seen his.
A. I don’t know. Have I?
Q. You don’t believe what’s been released?
A. I don’t know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night.
Q. And?
A. That came up.
Q. And he said?
A. He doesn’t think it’s real.
Q. And you said?
A. I don’t have any idea. It doesn’t matter. He’s the president of the United States. He’s elected. It’s a distractive issue.
Affording these comments the sort of attention that ought to be reserved for important issues like the economy or national security, while Perry seems to laugh the subject off, makes the media appear petty, humorless and a bit ridiculous (by the way the reference to Obama showing his grades is a more serious and legitimate issue to raise with Perry than the birth certificate). By constantly revisiting the birther issue, the media not Perry, affords this non-issue the sort of credibility it never deserved. A CNN reporter later followed up asking what it will take to “convince” Perry “that the President was born in this country?” At this point, Perry was right to avoid continuing the “distraction” by shooting down the reporter’s question.
In his “keeping them honest” segment last night Anderson Cooper claimed “its a distraction that the Governor himself revived for no apparent reason.” No, Perry didn’t revive it. Cooper and the rest of the media did. Sure, Perry didn’t help the situation, but it’s time for those who find it so outrageous to start taking the lead from Perry and even Trump and accept that, at this point, it is just a “distractive issue.”
Kudos to MediaIte for pointing out the media's deliberate attempt to create the news instead of just reporting it.
.
Paul Ryan Beats Obama Over The Head For Class Warfare Rhetoric
By Susan Duclos
Flashback to a October 6, 2011 piece I wrote where I said:
I also pointed out that by mid-July, Obama started reaping his profits from his political calculation to distract from his dwindling poll numbers and failed economic policies when his class warfare rhetoric gave way to an idea to protest "greed" by occupying Wall Street by a George Soros funded group called Adbusters.
Jump to today, and House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), in a speech at the Heritage Foundation, calls Obama out publicly for "sowing social unrest and class resentment."
Via The Politico:
Rick Moran at American Thinker states "It's about time someone pointed out the consequences of Obama's reckless class warfare rhetoric."
I agree.
It should not just be Ryan beating Obama over the head for putting his reelection campaign above the country and for stoking a complete class war . Every single Republican presidential candidate, every GOP Senate and House politician needs hammer home the point relentlessly.
.
Flashback to a October 6, 2011 piece I wrote where I said:Barack Obama gave an obvious campaign speech aimed towards his base on June 29, 2011 where he mentioned breaks for "corporate jet owners" six times.
With a dismal failure of a record on economy where the majority of the public disapprove of his handling of it, the U.S. suffering the highest rates of unemployment under Obama, higher deficits than have ever been seen, and raising the national debt higher than any other president , Obama made a deliberate political calculation to distract from those issues and focus his base on a perceived unfairness of some people being more successful in business than others.
I also pointed out that by mid-July, Obama started reaping his profits from his political calculation to distract from his dwindling poll numbers and failed economic policies when his class warfare rhetoric gave way to an idea to protest "greed" by occupying Wall Street by a George Soros funded group called Adbusters.
Jump to today, and House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), in a speech at the Heritage Foundation, calls Obama out publicly for "sowing social unrest and class resentment."
Via The Politico:
“Instead of working together where we agree, the president has opted for divisive rhetoric and the broken politics of the past,” Ryan said. “He is going from town to town, impugning the motives of Republicans, setting up straw men and scapegoats, and engaging in intellectually lazy arguments, as he tries to build support for punitive tax hikes on job creators.”
Ryan accused Obama of using “class-based rhetoric” in his re-election campaign. Obama’s tactics, he said, make “America weaker, not stronger.”
“Instead of appealing to the hope and optimism that were the hallmarks of his first campaign, he has launched his second campaign by preying on the emotions of fear, envy, and resentment,” Ryan said.
“This has the potential to be just as damaging as his misguided policies. Sowing social unrest and class resentment makes America weaker, not stronger. Pitting one group against another only distracts us from the true sources of inequity in this country – corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless."
Rick Moran at American Thinker states "It's about time someone pointed out the consequences of Obama's reckless class warfare rhetoric."
I agree.
It should not just be Ryan beating Obama over the head for putting his reelection campaign above the country and for stoking a complete class war . Every single Republican presidential candidate, every GOP Senate and House politician needs hammer home the point relentlessly.
.
Video- Rick Perry 'Creating Jobs'
By Susan Duclos
The Rick Perry campaign releases a 31 second campaign ad called "Creating Jobs', which is launching Wednesday in Iowa.
Description via YouTube:
More at Business Insider.
Just yesterday Perry released his tax and spending reform plan (embedded at link)called "Cut, Balance and Grow" and coupled with the launching of this video in Iowa, Perry is playing to his strong suits which are energy issues and job creation and growth.
[Update] Via Memeorandum, I see others are discussing this new "Creating Jobs" video release"
The Daily Caller:
Hot Air:
.
The Rick Perry campaign releases a 31 second campaign ad called "Creating Jobs', which is launching Wednesday in Iowa.
Description via YouTube:
As president, Rick Perry will create at least 2.5 million jobs. In Texas, he created over 1 million new jobs while the rest of the nation lost nearly 2.5 million. He will open American oil and gas fields and eliminate Obama's regulations that hurt domestic energy. We'll reduce our reliance on oil from countries that hate America.
More at Business Insider.
Just yesterday Perry released his tax and spending reform plan (embedded at link)called "Cut, Balance and Grow" and coupled with the launching of this video in Iowa, Perry is playing to his strong suits which are energy issues and job creation and growth.
[Update] Via Memeorandum, I see others are discussing this new "Creating Jobs" video release"
The Daily Caller:
Rick Perry’s introductory TV ad, “Creating Jobs,” is set to debut in Iowa on Wednesday.
“Governor Perry’s new TV ad signals two priorities, American job creation and the families of Iowa,” said Perry spokesman Ray Sullivan. “The ad, which will be widely seen on Iowa TV and cable stations, underscores Rick Perry’s commitment to sparking millions of new jobs and his record as America’s jobs governor.”
Hot Air:
It’s an effective ad, concise while covering the broad strokes of Perry’s economic platform. In fact, it’s so good that it prompts the question of why Perry didn’t start off his campaign running ads like these and sticking to this narrative, rather than go negative so early against Mitt Romney.
.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Biden Complains After Reporter Catches Him Off Guard With Question About Rape Reference
By Susan Duclos
Video below of Jason Mattera confronting Joe Biden on rape reference if Republicans don't support Obama's "jobs" bill.
The Hill reports:
More:
Here is a link to that Washington Post Fact Checker piece where they call Biden's claim about rising rape and murder rates, "absurd."
After providing the 2008, 2009 and 2010 FBI tallies on rapes and murder, The Fact Checker continues on:
Biden got called on a lie and then got caught off guard when asked about his rape reference, was even given the chance to retract them but doubled down and now he wants to blame it all on a reporter that dared question him when he wasn't prepared.
[Update] Related- Thug Administration: White House Wants Jason Mattera Investigated for Biden Question
(Spelling correction made to this post)
.
Video below of Jason Mattera confronting Joe Biden on rape reference if Republicans don't support Obama's "jobs" bill.
The Hill reports:
Jason Mattera, who works for Human Events, a conservative magazine, used a pretext to catch Biden off guard in a Senate hallway and grill him on claims the vice president has made about jobs legislation.
Biden’s office has also contacted the standing committee of correspondents, which oversees the gallery, regarding whether Mattera broke the rules by ambushing him.
More:
Biden looked momentarily frozen as what he thought was a friendly gesture turned into a pointed line of tough questions from a conservative interlocutor. Biden had just signed an autograph for an admirer and still had the pen in his hand, according to a source familiar with the incident.
“I didn’t use — no, no, no,” Biden said, furrowing his brow and shaking his finger at the reporter. “What I said — let’s get it straight, guy, don’t screw around with me. Let’s get it straight.
“I said rape was up three times in Flint, [Mich.]. There are the numbers. Go look at the numbers. Murder’s up, rape is up and burglary’s up. That’s exactly what I said,” Biden added.
After initially balking at the questions, Biden stood by his argument that if Republicans continue to block the Democratic jobs bill, “murder will continue to rise, rape will continue to rise, all crimes will continue to rise.”
The Washington Post’s fact-checker ripped Biden’s claims over the weekend, giving the vice president “four Pinocchios” and writing that he “should know better than to spout off half-baked facts in service of a dubious argument.”
Here is a link to that Washington Post Fact Checker piece where they call Biden's claim about rising rape and murder rates, "absurd."
After providing the 2008, 2009 and 2010 FBI tallies on rapes and murder, The Fact Checker continues on:
More important than the raw figures is the rate per 100,000 individuals. Murder did go up—though the rate did not double from 2009 to 2010, as Biden claimed. But rape has gone down. Biden actually asserted it had tripled.
Biden got called on a lie and then got caught off guard when asked about his rape reference, was even given the chance to retract them but doubled down and now he wants to blame it all on a reporter that dared question him when he wasn't prepared.
[Update] Related- Thug Administration: White House Wants Jason Mattera Investigated for Biden Question
(Spelling correction made to this post)
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)