Gawker and other news outlets are reporting that someone threw a book at President Obama at the rally in Philly this weekend. There is also speculation that a streaker was in the crowd trying to win a bet by billionaire Alki David, a self-described prankster, who wagered a million dollars to the first person who could streak across the President's line of vision (that means in the nude) with the prankster's website emblazoned on his or her chest.
While Gawker and other sites claim both these events occurred, others such as the Associated Press are not so sure.
In any event, where was the Secret Service on this? Apparently they interviewed the book thrower and determined that he didn't mean the president any harm. He was only trying to get publicity for a book.
This one is a head-scratcher, nevertheless. What will folks think of and do next?
Monday
Russian govt. wants to buy U.S. Uranium Company: Should Pres. Obama block sale using CFIUS
The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States ("CFIUS") reportedly is being urged by members of the U.S. congress to block the sale of an American Uranium processing company to Russian investors. Well, actually, they are urging president Obama to block the sale using the CFIUS process, which is a review panel whose job it is to make sure that any foreign investment in the United States does not threaten U.S. national security.
The senior members of congress sent off a letter to Treasury secretary Tim Geithner which, allegedly, stated in part:
So they are asking that government to use to the CFIUS process to block the transaction. The CFIUS process allows the president to review certain mergers and acquisitions and to block these if he feels that this "open capital market" scheme that allows foreign investors to be on the same footing as American investors, actually threatens he National security interests of the United States. The amazing scope of CFIUS is that the president's assessment is not subject to judicial review. So that means, he almost has "dictatorial" powers under CFIUS to not only block mergers, but to also dismantle deals that have already been done.
Haven't really heard much about this proposed Russian transaction in the mainstream press though. And while a Russian government ownership of a U.S. Uranium plant is worrisome, is it one that president Obama should seek to block necessarily? Or could there be some concessions made to allow the deal to go through?
The senior members of congress sent off a letter to Treasury secretary Tim Geithner which, allegedly, stated in part:
the take-over of essential nuclear resources by a government-owned Russian agency, as would occur under the proposed transaction, would not advance the national security interests of the United States.”
So they are asking that government to use to the CFIUS process to block the transaction. The CFIUS process allows the president to review certain mergers and acquisitions and to block these if he feels that this "open capital market" scheme that allows foreign investors to be on the same footing as American investors, actually threatens he National security interests of the United States. The amazing scope of CFIUS is that the president's assessment is not subject to judicial review. So that means, he almost has "dictatorial" powers under CFIUS to not only block mergers, but to also dismantle deals that have already been done.
Haven't really heard much about this proposed Russian transaction in the mainstream press though. And while a Russian government ownership of a U.S. Uranium plant is worrisome, is it one that president Obama should seek to block necessarily? Or could there be some concessions made to allow the deal to go through?
Should President Obama use the International Economic Powers Act to deal with China?
Should President Obama invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act against China?
Arguably, the situation in China rises to the level of an unusual and extraordinary threat to the economic stability and durability of the United States. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") is often used in conjunction with the Trading with the Enemy Act to impose sanctions against countries, individuals, and financial entities that do business with countries the United States deems an "enemy." Just this past summer, British heavy weight bank, Barclays, was hit with a major lawsuit by the Justice Department for trading with the enemies (Sudan, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Libya and Burma) and was made to pay nearly $300 million in fines.
The only trouble is, making China an "enemy" seems fraught with economic peril not just for the United States, but for the rest of the world. Thus, President Obama should think twice before he invokes this weapon against this "enemy."
Well, actually, China is not an enemy of the United States, is it? China is more like a frenemy of the United States. Whatever the status, though, President Obama must proceed with caution on this one.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Title II of Pub.L. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1626, enacted October 28, 1977, is a United States federal law authorizing the U.S. Presidents to regulate commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States which has a foreign source.
Arguably, the situation in China rises to the level of an unusual and extraordinary threat to the economic stability and durability of the United States. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") is often used in conjunction with the Trading with the Enemy Act to impose sanctions against countries, individuals, and financial entities that do business with countries the United States deems an "enemy." Just this past summer, British heavy weight bank, Barclays, was hit with a major lawsuit by the Justice Department for trading with the enemies (Sudan, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Libya and Burma) and was made to pay nearly $300 million in fines.
The only trouble is, making China an "enemy" seems fraught with economic peril not just for the United States, but for the rest of the world. Thus, President Obama should think twice before he invokes this weapon against this "enemy."
Well, actually, China is not an enemy of the United States, is it? China is more like a frenemy of the United States. Whatever the status, though, President Obama must proceed with caution on this one.
CURRENCY WAR: Will Obama be forced to have a full blown currency war with China?
It appears that China has been manipulating it's Yuan to gain trade advantages and all the rest of the world, not the least of which is the United States, are calling foul. Now, even the US House of Representatives have signed a bill that would give President Obama the power to impose stiff tariffs on US imports from any country that has an unfairly undervalued currency.
This move by China causes the jobs situation in the US to deteriorate even more, while, at the same time, it creates more jobs in China. It's very simple: If China's Yuan is cheaper, then other countries can increase their imports from China. That means China has greater demand for its products. That means more Chinese are working and increasing their standard of living.
But the reverse is not true in the U.S. American exports would not be as attractive to China and other countries because it's currency is more expensive and so trading with a country with higher value to its currency would not be as attractive as trading with China. So Americans will be put out of work even more and this would be bad not just for the American economy, but the global economy as well - only China would benefit from it's trade and currency manipulations in other words. But the Chinese don't see it that way. They say they will manipulate it gradually, and not in a "shock and awe" manner.
Yea. Okay.
But would Obama's placing of tariffs on Chinese imports violate the WTO rules? And would doing nothing force other countries to manipulate their own currencies? If so, at what cost to the global economic climate? Already, nearly sixty million people have been forced into poverty as direct consequence of the global recession.So, is a full blown currency war inevitable? Will countries be forced to "protect" themselves by lowering their own currencies to compete with China?
The president's treasury secretary Tim Geithner does not think a war is smart and the head of the World Bank President Robert Zoellick seems to agree. As does the head of the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
What should Obama do? Seems he has no choice but to get international support from other G20 countries to put pressure on China to stop the manipulations. Everyone seems to concur that a trade/currency war is the last thing the world needs right now. And that protectionism is not the answer. So the only other thing is cooperation. Isn't it?
This move by China causes the jobs situation in the US to deteriorate even more, while, at the same time, it creates more jobs in China. It's very simple: If China's Yuan is cheaper, then other countries can increase their imports from China. That means China has greater demand for its products. That means more Chinese are working and increasing their standard of living.
But the reverse is not true in the U.S. American exports would not be as attractive to China and other countries because it's currency is more expensive and so trading with a country with higher value to its currency would not be as attractive as trading with China. So Americans will be put out of work even more and this would be bad not just for the American economy, but the global economy as well - only China would benefit from it's trade and currency manipulations in other words. But the Chinese don't see it that way. They say they will manipulate it gradually, and not in a "shock and awe" manner.
Yea. Okay.
But would Obama's placing of tariffs on Chinese imports violate the WTO rules? And would doing nothing force other countries to manipulate their own currencies? If so, at what cost to the global economic climate? Already, nearly sixty million people have been forced into poverty as direct consequence of the global recession.So, is a full blown currency war inevitable? Will countries be forced to "protect" themselves by lowering their own currencies to compete with China?
The president's treasury secretary Tim Geithner does not think a war is smart and the head of the World Bank President Robert Zoellick seems to agree. As does the head of the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
What should Obama do? Seems he has no choice but to get international support from other G20 countries to put pressure on China to stop the manipulations. Everyone seems to concur that a trade/currency war is the last thing the world needs right now. And that protectionism is not the answer. So the only other thing is cooperation. Isn't it?
Pres. Obama holds rally in Philly; pundits predict Dems will do better on Nov 2 than expected
President Obama was in Philadelphia on Sunday hosting a rally aimed at firing up young people. About 20,000 people reportedly showed up. Not a huge number, but still, the pictures showed a sea of supporters so that is encouraging.
Pres has to reward the young people more by creating work/study grants aimed at students who can help combat terrorism - linguists, engineers, Internet technologists, etc. (See post below for more ideas of how he can create a million jobs, most of which should go to young people). The pres' rally followed a liberal rally in Washington on Saturday where many of the president's supporters, including Al Sharpton and others, similarly worked the crowds to fire up support for the beleaguered president and his legislative agenda which will be shot if the Republicans succeed at ousting democratic incumbents on November 2.
The Republicans are promising to roll back healthcare reform and to shrink government spending. How does that help the American people? What's in that for the American people? It's one thing to say that Obama did not nothing for the American people. But how does scaling back Healthcare and cutting spending right now solve the problem?
Many are predicting that more incumbent Democrats can win back their seats than predicted. It's going to be a question of how they frame the economic debate, and how good they are at turning out their people to the polls.
Pres has to reward the young people more by creating work/study grants aimed at students who can help combat terrorism - linguists, engineers, Internet technologists, etc. (See post below for more ideas of how he can create a million jobs, most of which should go to young people). The pres' rally followed a liberal rally in Washington on Saturday where many of the president's supporters, including Al Sharpton and others, similarly worked the crowds to fire up support for the beleaguered president and his legislative agenda which will be shot if the Republicans succeed at ousting democratic incumbents on November 2.
The Republicans are promising to roll back healthcare reform and to shrink government spending. How does that help the American people? What's in that for the American people? It's one thing to say that Obama did not nothing for the American people. But how does scaling back Healthcare and cutting spending right now solve the problem?
Many are predicting that more incumbent Democrats can win back their seats than predicted. It's going to be a question of how they frame the economic debate, and how good they are at turning out their people to the polls.
Sunday
Can the Democrats win in November and give the GOP and tea party the shock of their lives?
Will Democratic incumbents win in November? Can they rally and pull off a big upset? Bill Clinton thinks so and he ought to know. Here's what Mr. Clinton thinks the Dems need to do to win in November.
Doesn't this make complete sense? Democrats definitely have amnesia at the moment. Dems need to remember that just two short years ago, President Bush was the first to sign a bailout bill to bring the economy from the brink of collapse based on the failure of Republican policies. The Republicans had eight years to create this massive sink hole in the American economy - including its financial sector, its defense policy and many other aspects of American life. To sit back an allow the Republicans to dictate that Democrats only get two years to fix a problem that was brewing for eight years and maybe even going all the way back to President Reagan is inexcusable, and if the Republicans win, Democrats deserve exactly what is coming to them because they became apathetic.
Democrats need to get to the polls and pull off the biggest shock and awe and upset the GOP has seen since George Bush smoked Saddam Hussein out of his hole in Iraq. They need to show the Republicans that they are loyal to their party and to their party's principles and to their President and will not be ruled by the whim and caprice of angry, unreasonable people who don't have any better ideas of how to fix the problems. It's okay to be a critic, but the Republicans are just having a tough time with their own sour grapes, and they have no better ideas of what to do. But if Democrats don't vote, then they Republicans will win and we'll be right back where we started, if not worse off.
"if it's a referendum on anger, apathy, laced with amnesia, they're going to have a problem."Clinton says the Democrats should be telling voters that they gave the Republicans eight years "to dig this hole," double the debt, not produce jobs and while overseeing a financial collapse --
they should at least give the Democrats four years "to dig out of
it." If the Democrats fail after four years, he said, "throw us out,
but don't bring back the people who dug the hole."
Doesn't this make complete sense? Democrats definitely have amnesia at the moment. Dems need to remember that just two short years ago, President Bush was the first to sign a bailout bill to bring the economy from the brink of collapse based on the failure of Republican policies. The Republicans had eight years to create this massive sink hole in the American economy - including its financial sector, its defense policy and many other aspects of American life. To sit back an allow the Republicans to dictate that Democrats only get two years to fix a problem that was brewing for eight years and maybe even going all the way back to President Reagan is inexcusable, and if the Republicans win, Democrats deserve exactly what is coming to them because they became apathetic.
Democrats need to get to the polls and pull off the biggest shock and awe and upset the GOP has seen since George Bush smoked Saddam Hussein out of his hole in Iraq. They need to show the Republicans that they are loyal to their party and to their party's principles and to their President and will not be ruled by the whim and caprice of angry, unreasonable people who don't have any better ideas of how to fix the problems. It's okay to be a critic, but the Republicans are just having a tough time with their own sour grapes, and they have no better ideas of what to do. But if Democrats don't vote, then they Republicans will win and we'll be right back where we started, if not worse off.
Obama pushes out Gen. James Jones in favor of Thomas E. Donilon
James Jones out. Thomas E. Donilon in. White House officials are speaking on anonymity to the media regarding the "accelerated" resignation of National Security Adviser James Jones. Mr. Jones was due to resign in January after a two year stint with the Obama Administration, but he was apparently pushed out on the heels of the Rahm Emanuel resignation a last week, all under the guise of shaking up the White House and rejuvenating the sagging spirits of the electorate who voted for Change but don't see much in the way of making their lives any better than it was with Bush. This is a problem that the Obama Administration needs to work on fast.
True, the Electorate seems less concerned with President Obama's foreign policy than with his domestic policy at the moment. The high unemployment rate and dearth of jobs dominates political discourse. But there is no question that at the back of many people's minds is the nagging question that America is spending way too much on its defense programs and its wars (trillions!) and not enough on creating jobs for out of work Americans who are losing their homes and the clothes off their backs.
Donilon's appointment as the new National Security Adviser is a good next move for the Administration. First of all, he is in favor of the president's decision to have troops begin to withdraw from Afghanistan next summer, and is against the notion of an "endless war."
The New York Times:
"As deputy national security adviser, Mr. Donilon has urged what he calls a “rebalancing” of American foreign policy to rapidly disengage American forces in Iraq and to focus more on China, Iran and other emerging challenges. In the Afghanistan-Pakistan review, he argued that the United States could not engage in what he termed “endless war,” and has strongly defended Mr. Obama’s decision to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan next summer."
Bravo. Now we have someone who is making some sense on these issues in the White House. Time to get out of these ridiculous wars and focus on more important challenges. China, for one, is flying under the radar and unchecked in too many ways. Iran is a nightmare waiting to happen. Plus, as noted above, the domestic situation really needs the president's focus. What the heck are we doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Wasting money, time and lives. That's what. Thank God Donilon is on board. He sounds like he'll start to give the president some much needed sane, sound and sage advice. It's about time.
True, the Electorate seems less concerned with President Obama's foreign policy than with his domestic policy at the moment. The high unemployment rate and dearth of jobs dominates political discourse. But there is no question that at the back of many people's minds is the nagging question that America is spending way too much on its defense programs and its wars (trillions!) and not enough on creating jobs for out of work Americans who are losing their homes and the clothes off their backs.
Donilon's appointment as the new National Security Adviser is a good next move for the Administration. First of all, he is in favor of the president's decision to have troops begin to withdraw from Afghanistan next summer, and is against the notion of an "endless war."
The New York Times:
"As deputy national security adviser, Mr. Donilon has urged what he calls a “rebalancing” of American foreign policy to rapidly disengage American forces in Iraq and to focus more on China, Iran and other emerging challenges. In the Afghanistan-Pakistan review, he argued that the United States could not engage in what he termed “endless war,” and has strongly defended Mr. Obama’s decision to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan next summer."
Bravo. Now we have someone who is making some sense on these issues in the White House. Time to get out of these ridiculous wars and focus on more important challenges. China, for one, is flying under the radar and unchecked in too many ways. Iran is a nightmare waiting to happen. Plus, as noted above, the domestic situation really needs the president's focus. What the heck are we doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Wasting money, time and lives. That's what. Thank God Donilon is on board. He sounds like he'll start to give the president some much needed sane, sound and sage advice. It's about time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)