Mitt Romney Was Right About ...EVERYTHING!

I was recently shown an article in Rolling Stone from August 29, 2012. Written by Matt Taibbi, it was titled  "Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital". I remember that one very well, having read it while on vacation in Kauai during the middle of September 2012 just after learning of an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. That attack had occurred on the 11-year anniversary of 9/11, something the Obama seemed to attribute to being coincidental to a fantastic and far from believable reason. Interested in  additional sources of information regarding the attack, and also looking for something to read while relaxing on the beach, (I was convalescing from a recent shoulder injury and surgery - so no surfing) I had bought the Rolling Stone at the Outrigger on Waikiki during a day trip to Oahu, along with a USA Today, a Vanity Fair and the Economist.  That article sticks in my mind precisely because of what had just happened in Benghazi, an event that had occurred the week that issue hit the newsstands.

Kicked back on on beach chair, I threw the USA Today down on the sand and sipped on a Mai Tai I just been served. The newspaper had run through a fuzzy timeline of the murderous events in Benghazi, conducted by a "wound up group" the president of the United States and his Secretary of State had repeatedly described as "protesters angered because of an anti-Mohammed video." Having recently been to that very location in  Libya, I wanted to know more about that event and what had lead to it. Disgusted with the flimsy explanation offered so far, I wanted something "light" to read. I decided I'd go for the Rolling Stone. Intrigued by the ridiculousness of the cover story, I opened the magazine and went straight to the story. 

Although I found the article well written and entertaining, as most of the contributions in Rolling Stone generally are, it still doesn’t change the fact that it was a very cynical, and biased piece, published in a magazine that was publically endorsing President Obama in 2012. There was plenty of name-calling, character assassination, but no real substance or accuracy, instead, from start to finish exaggeration and overkill, as well as conveniently using obvious hyperbole as sincerity.

“Last May, in a much-touted speech in Iowa, Romney used language that was literally inflammatory to describe America's federal borrowing. "A prairie fire of debt is sweeping across Iowa and our nation," he declared. "Every day we fail to act, that fire gets closer to the homes and children we love." Our collective debt is no ordinary problem: According to Mitt, it's going to burn our children alive.”

Really? Mitt Romney actually means the National Debt will literally “burn our children alive?” The writer even slammed Bill Clinton while he was at it, which wasn’t alarming since it’s well known Barack Obama and Bill Clinton despise each other.

As the founder and editor of Rolling Stone, Jann Wenner's can publish what he wants. That’s his prerogative. And since he has a readership that is predominately northeast and west coast, a demographic that trends heavily towards very liberal points of views, and always has, his writers will therefore have an exceedingly left-leaning slant. When that issue came out at the end of August 2012, both the Democratic and Republican conventions were over, and the campaigns were in the heat of battle. The media heavily supported Obama, and there was some serious ugliness being thrown at Romney from every corner, warning of the evil that lurked within, the Darth Vader that ran Bain Capital like the Evil Empire, killing Alderaans by the bushels. According to the mythology perpetuated by Taibbi and the 99% (occupy Wall Street and every other street you’ve cost millions of tax payer dollars to clean after wrecking) he was trying to fire up, Mitt Romney was forcing companies to take on unrealistic amounts of debt, then syphoned off that debt as investing banking fees until the company either filed for bankruptcy or fired most of its workers. That’s fallacy, and one of the examples of such unethical “fee layering” that Taibbi sites occurred in 2000 when Romney was in fact no longer even with Bain Capital, he was heading up the turnaround of the 2002 Winter Olympics financial meltdown, which Taibbi also paints as evil work because Romney got the U.S. Treasury to help. Huh?

Romney at opening of 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics. 

Taibbi uses a number even larger than what was touted by the DNC at their 2012 Convention, $1.3 billion. Taibbi’s figure is $1.5 billion; money that Taibbi claims was more taxpayer money than the previous seven U.S. hosted Olympic games combined. What Taibbi and the DNC failed to clarify was that most of the money was federal money previously earmarked for “Federal Highway Spending” on roads and interstate highway and bridges. According to the U.S. GAO report the government actually spent $342 million on direct costs related to the Olympic games, which was primarily associated with post 9/11 security measures. One other caveat mentioned in the GAO report, and overlook by Taibbi, who obviously has a problem writing the truth, was that the federal share of the costs associated with hosting the Olympic games has gone down over time. In1980 the federal government picked up 50% of the overall tab, and in 2002 it was 18%. If Romney hadn’t sought all sources of money, including that from local, state, and federal sources, he wouldn’t have been doing his job, but the far left tends to not support political candidates that can - Obama case in point. 

Another favorite misnomer of the hypocritical left, and Obama himself during the 2012 campaign, was the false claim that Governor Romney didn’t pay his “fair share” of taxes. Senator Harry Reid went even so far as to go on the floor of the Senate, make up a straw man, who he claimed he had from a reliable source that Romney “hadn’t paid any taxes” for the tax return years not made public. Unfortunately it’s not a crime to tell lies on the floor of the Senate. Taibbi called Romney a “private equity pirate,” who “pays less than half the tax rate of most American executives – less, even, than teachers, firefighters, cops and nurses,” which again, is grossly inaccurate. Taibbi continues, “Asked about the fact that he paid a tax rate of only 13.9 percent on income of $21.7 million in 2010, Romney responded testily that the massive windfall he enjoys from exploiting the tax code is ‘entirely legal and fair.’"

Not having a degree in accounting or finance, and having worked only as a journalist his entire career, I would hardly a view the calculations of Matt Taibbi as a credible source for financial accuracy, even though he’s considered an authority on financial matters, unfortunately only by obscure, rather dubious and irrelevant cable programs and magazines. Matt Taibbi’s accounting shouldn’t be trusted for even the simplest of tax returns. Forbes explained the Romney taxes based upon the latest tax return available at the time of the election this way:

“There are two reasons that the Romneys’ tax bill is below 15%. According to their 2010 tax return (the latest available), Mr. and Mrs. Romney reduced their taxable income by the $3 million they gave to charities. 

The second and most important reason is the majority of the Romneys’ income is taxed twice – first at the corporate level, and a second time when they report it on their personal income tax return. 

Taxable interest income accounted for $3.3 million of their $21.7 million in total income. Since companies are able to reduce their income dollar for dollar with the interest they pay out, interest income is not taxed at the corporate level, but only once as personal income.  In the case of the Romneys, it was taxed at 35%, the top marginal personal income tax rate. 

The Romneys also reported $4.9 million in ordinary dividends, of which $3.3 million qualified for the 15% tax rate.  Unlike interest payments, corporations may not deduct dividends from their income.  Dividend income therefore is taxed twice, first at the corporate level, and then again when it is reported on an individual’s personal income tax return. 

A precise calculation of this double tax is impossible to make because the tax rates paid by different corporations vary widely – from 0% by GE and General Motors to the top corporate tax rate of 35%.  A rigorous economic analysis would use the top marginal tax rate because that is the rate that affects economic decisions. However, for the purpose of this analysis, a reasonable estimate would use the average U.S. corporate tax-rate, which over longer periods of time, has been 25%. 

Based on a 25% tax rate, for every $133 a corporation earned, it had to first pay $33 in federal income taxes before it could distribute $100 in dividends.  Next, on every $100 of dividend income received, the Romneys paid an additional $15 in taxes.  The combined tax of $48 totals out to a 36% rate on dividend income ($48/$133), which approximates the top personal income rate imposed on interest income.”

In layman’s terms, what that means is that Romney’s actual “effective tax” before charitable donations, is greater than 30%.  Thus, the Romney’s total income and taxes paid must also be adjusted up by 33% (1.33-(.25*1.33)=1) of the amount of their $12.6 million in capital gains income, or $4.2 million.  After this adjustment, the Romney’s “Adjusted Total Income” is $27.0 million, and their “Adjusted Total Federal Income Tax Payments” are $8.3 million, $5.3 million more than reported on their tax return and 30.7% of their Adjusted Total Income.

Taibbi also goes on to create a guilt by association fable, tying Romney to Michael Milken, as if by just doing business with Milken makes him guilty wrongdoing that should have landed him in the “Big House,” in fact just working at a company with links to Wall Street in the 1980’s and during the “Internet Bubble of 1997-1999,” according to the Taibbi theory of finance, is in itself corrupt. The accusations leveled at Mitt Romney of tax evasion isn't even worth the electrons Taibbi, and every left leaning news organization from Mother Jones to ABC News used to make that claim.  Here are the facts yet again:

The trustee for the Romney family’s investments -- Brad Malt of the law firm Ropes & Gray -- set up the account in 2003. There were no tax advantages to holding the Swiss account, said Malt in a conference call with reporters in January 2012, when the campaign released Mitt and Ann Romney’s 2010 tax returns.

The account contained approximately $3 million, and it was held by Union Bank Switzerland, or UBS.

"The tax is fully paid, just as if this were a U.S. bank account, nothing more complicated than that," Malt said then.

In addition to that factoid, numerous Democrats that included Debbie Wasserman Shultz and even Obama himself had mutual fund accounts or trusts with assets located in "offshore" accounts.

Such was the ways of the 2012 Obama campaign as it was getting into full swing, and with a billion dollars in the war chest, the Chicago style politics was operating on all cylinders and at peak performance. In spite of that firepower, they had the added bonus of having unashamed media support from all three major television News Networks, Public Television Networks, all Cable News Networks with the exception of one, many high circulation newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc., on and one, and then a number of magazines such as Time, Newsweek, and Rolling Stone. Unfortunately for the Clintons, like Romney in 2012, the 2008 Hillary Clinton primary campaign saw some of that as well, when the Obama minions and their media surrogates so viciously, (and justifiably) attacked Hillary Clinton. Those particular wounds have never really healed, as the Clintons and the Obamas hate each other, although they do a good job of putting on a great game face when on stage and the lights for the cameras are on.  The animosity between them is so bad in fact, that among friends and in private Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama refer to Hillary Clinton as “Hildabeast.” And the next election campaign, 2016, will be just as ugly as 2012, if not uglier.

Romney family in 2012

I happen to personally know Mitt and Anne, and four of their sons. I first met Governor Romney the 90s after hanging up my flight helmet and G-suit for pinstripes.  Wall Street had been always been my plan following the joyrides of F-14’s while a twenty-something. I was planning on Harvard Business School, and then to seek my fortune. Desert Storm delayed that plan some, but I managed to finally get going, and perhaps with a bit more seasoning, as well as crucial character building under my belt.

I had interviewed with Bain Capital, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and a couple of others. In an era of post Michael Milken, Ivan Bosky and the Wall Street insider trading scandals of the late 1980’s, Mitt Romney was a real anomaly. He was far from the Gordon Gekko label Matt Taibbi tagged him as. He didn’t drink he didn’t smoke he didn’t cuss. He didn’t flaunt his money. He didn’t fly around in private jets. And he drove himself around in his own crappy car. He was very affable, very kind, and very complimentary.  And very, very smart. When it came to disseminating a sophisticated deal, he could see through the clouds of structured financing confusion quickly, much like Warren Buffet, and was swift and decisive - a hallmark of leadership. His management style was equally adroit. I would have gone to Bain Capital, but since I was geared more to the trading floor rather than investment banking, and Bain was still pretty small at that time in 1993, I chose instead to go with Morgan Stanley. That’s one decision I regret.  

Being an unusually humble man, especially for a politician, who seldom uses the word “I," you’ll never hear the Governor tell you about the following personal “attributes,” facts that speaks volumes for his character, and flies in the face of the insinuations made by Taibbi and Rolling Stone. Mitt Romney can’t change who his father was, who by the way was an honorable, self-made man, and passed on many of those positive traits to his youngest child son Mitt. George Romney was himself very successful, the youngest CEO of a major automobile manufacturer, in addition George Romney was very civic minded, serving on the board of directors or chairing numerous foundations, educational committees, Children’s Hospital of Michigan, mostly within the Detroit area, and ultimately the Governor of Michigan. In spite of George Romney’s successes, his did not receive money as inheritance. What they did receive was an education, love, family structure, and values. In reality, despite the blatantly false claims made by Obama campaign surrogates in an attempt to paint him as a privileged elitist, Mitt Romney didn't take one dime of “inheritance” from his father.

As a missionary in France during his college years Romney lived on a $100 a month. When Mitt Romney was at Harvard in the MBA/Law program, Mitt and Anne lived in married-student housing. There was no doubt in my mind that Mitt Romney was the right man for the job when the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics needed bailing out. He spent three years there and agreed to only take a salary and severance if the Games posted a profit, which they did. But instead of accepting the pay package, he gave it all to charity, plus another $1 million that he and Anne donated to the organizing committee. When he became governor of Massachusetts he refused to take the salary, instead, as before, directing it to charities, as did his lieutenant governor, which is indicative of his infectious management style. Of course by that time he was extremely wealthy from the investment banking deals done years and years ago, but his lifestyle had remained the same – simple.  Every year of his adult life and throughout his marriage to Anne, he has donated 20% of his gross income to charity. I recall that in 2011 he and Anne donated $4 million.

So it was very sad and heartbreaking to see how unfair the media was to the Mitt and Anne Romney. Especially by “hatchet job” writers, and unconscionable reporters bent on character assassination, and not one had even actually met either the governor or Anne in person. They still do it to this day, MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry recently making fun of the photo of Mitt and Anne with their grandchildren because one was an adopted African American. The entire panel that was on air then joined in with Harris-Perry ugliness they saw as being funny, zeroing in on Kieran who is an infant. That prompted an apology from MSNBC, but that kind of awfulness came after the election, after the Romney’s had returned to private life. Always a class act, when asked about the scurrilous MSNBC slurs, Romney simply shrugged it of saint, "It's fine - she apologized."  

Anne and Mitt with grandchildren in 2013

Melissa Harris-Perry

In my many years of association with politicians, and it goes back away, I’ve never met better man. I worked for Governor Bob Graham, yes Senator Bob Graham when he was governor. I was an intern. My dad worked for George Bush, and I’ve met them all, knowing Jeb the best. I went to prep school with Ed Chiles, the son of Florida Governor Lawton Chiles, and was invited into their home. I’ve known Charlie Crist for over thirty years, introduced him to Carol his wife. These are personal relationships, and not simply those that I’ve met and had my picture made with that person because I kicked in a donation or two. And there are more politicians that I've known, or whose campaigns I've been associated with; John McCain, Rudy Giuliani’s. None of them are like the Romney family.

I’ll even go a step further and say that even when I include private citizens, those never having been in the public spotlight, without an iota of fame, I've never seen a more loving family in my life, a family that so deeply cares about people from every corner of life, that are deeply patriotic, and love this country with historical pride. It's brutal when the surrogates attack unflinchingly. It's a shame that the fair Mitt Romney story couldn't have been told by the majority of the media. There were accurate sources of reporting for sure, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Fortune, and a few others. Fox told the truth, fair and balanced, about both candidates, but NBC, CBS, ABC, and most newspapers sought smear him at best and to destroy at worst. 

The 2012 election is history, but for me now, it's about setting the record straight regarding Mitt Romney "the man," the most honorable and humble man I've ever met. I receive Christmas Cards from Mitt and Anne Romney. And let me say one last thing about Mitt Romney "the candidate," he was right on almost everything he said regarding the economy and the disastrous effects that Obamacare would have on it's fragility, the threat that Russia posed to the United States, the calamity facing the world regarding Iraq, and most unfortunately, the utter failure of Obama as a president and the decline of the United States as a leader in the eyes of the world. 

THE HOWARD HUGHES BUNGALOW RULES - BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL

Subject: Proper operating procedure for Bungalow 1 C Date October 13, 1958

There are certain areas within the Bungalow 1 C area that have been set aside by Johnny Holmes for the storage of my personal things. There are also other areas that have been set aside for future use by Johnny and his people. These designated areas, which Johnny will mark clearly or designate verbally to all concerned, should be avoided by everyone outside of Johnny’s area of operation. I do not want anybody, under any circumstances, no matter what the emergency may be, to touch these areas or go anywhere near them. I do not want anyone to touch the telephone that Johnny uses, nor any of his equipment that he has put away in storage in the Bungalow or any of my things there, or anything connected with my things.

It is extremely important to me that nobody ever, under any circumstances, no matter what the emergency may be, no matter how extreme the emergency, no matter what pressures are put on, no matter how unusual the circumstances may be, goes into any room, closet, cabinet, drawer, or any other area which is either used by Johnny or indicated by Johnny to be reserved by him for my things in connection with my food operation or any other phase of my operation that Johnny takes care of. I want to make sure that nobody opens any doors to any rooms, closets, cabinets, drawers or in any way, touches any portion of these areas.

I say again, no matter how strong the emergency may be, no matter how extreme the emergency may be, no matter how unusual the circumstances may be, no matter how extreme the emergency, it is extremely important to me that nobody – nobody ever, ever goes into any room, closet, cabinet, drawer, bathroom, which is either used by Johnny or indicated by Johnny to be reserved for him, or which is used to store any of the things used in connection with my food, magazines or anything that is used for me.

I say once more, no matter, no matter what the emergency, no matter how extreme the emergency, no matter how unusual the circumstances, it is extremely important to me; I say once more, no matter how extreme the emergency, no matter how unusual the circumstances may be, no matter what may have arisen, it is extremely important to me that nobody ever goes into any room, closet, cabinet, drawer, bathroom or any other area used to store any of the things which are for me – either food, equipment, magazines, paper supplies, Kleenex – no matter what. And, it is also extremely important to me that no matter what the emergency, no matter how unusual the circumstances, no matter what may have come up, no matter what kind of emergency, it is also equally important to me that nobody ever goes into any room or bathroom or any other area which Johnny has indicated is to be reserved to him only, and it is also equally important that nobody ever touches my telephone or piece of furniture or any fixture or anything of that kind which Johnny has indicated is reserved for him.

Instructions should be given for the operators so that they are not allowed to put calls through there into Johnny’s telephone – which is Bung. I C – so that nobody calls there. Sometimes it rings and the third man has to stall around getting through to the operator to have it switched. Something should be done so the other phone is the one that rings – do you have that kind of deal? I don’t want the third man using that phone, and when it rings it’s a temptation for him to pick it up.

I want you to get the third man on the phone and give him all these Instructions and be awfully, awfully sure when you are talking to him, be sure, be certain, be absolutely positive when you are talking to your third man today or any other time, be sure that he is not using Johnny’s phone, that he is not in a room reserved for Johnny and that he is not in a room used to store any of my things. This is awfully, awfully important to me. I want you to be sure, awfully sure, be certain, be positive that nobody goes into any room or cabinet or closet that is used to store any things in connection with my operation. This is equally important to me – it is equally important to me that nobody ever opens any door or opening to any room, cabinet or closet or anything used to store any of my things, even for one-thousandth of an inch for one-thousandth of a second. This applies even when he does not go in, you understand, even if the man does not enter, it is equally important to me that nobody ever opens the door or the drawer even for a fraction of an inch for a fraction of a second – any drawer, closet, or room, you understand – that is used to store any of my things, whether they be stored or just sitting there, because I don’t want the possibility of dust or insects or anything of that nature entering. I want every thing I have indicated here to be followed to the letter.

I want everything I have said here to be clearly gone over, reviewed, and repeated to everyone concerned. Maybe it ought to be written up – typewritten – and given to the men out in Bungalow 1 C. In fact, I think it not only should be written up and handed to them, but they should commit it to memory and repeat it back to you (Kay) so that you are convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they have it down thoroughly.

Until further orders from me, I want nobody ever to set foot in that Bungalow (1 C) or any of those rooms we have anywhere near the Bungalow excepting only Johnny Holmes, and the two waiters – Karl and Charlie – and the number three men and Harvey. This instruction includes Roy, Harris and George.

…obtain a brand new knife, never used, to open a new box of Kleenex, using the knife to open the slot. After the box is open you are to take the little tag and the first piece of Kleenex and destroy them; then using two fingers of the left hand and two fingers of the right hand take each piece of Kleenex out of the box and place it on an opened newspaper and repeat this until approximately fifty sheets are neatly stacked…

TEN TIMES OBAMA "JUST LEARNED ABOUT IT." And if you don't agree, you're a racist.

Have you ever heard anyone that's disagreed with President Obama's policies being called a racist by the intellectually bankrupt leftist minions? You say say, "Only all the time." I figured as much. Me too! 

The race card accusation is the standard defensive argument hurled by blindly loyal Obama supporters, who like lemmings jumping off a cliff, or mice following the Pied Piper, have been carried away to the vapid noggin, "blank-stare" (aka BS) corral in 2008 and 2012, captivated by a cult of personality. The very limiting argument is used against a white person, usually male, when that person disagrees with the policies, or even just one policy of the Obama administration. If the person happens to be an African American and they disagree, they are called “Uncle Tom,” and said to be disloyal sell-outs to their race (Dr. Ben Carson, Col. Allen West, Herman Cain, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice). Such unintellectual proclamations further fuels a divisive narrative that Obama himself loves to fan via political and media surrogates. It should be pointed out however, that corruption and gross incompetence are conditions perfectly capable of being as racially blind as the theoretical application of justice is, when correcting that corruption and incompetence. With this administration, however, those conditions that violate the Constitution and break law after law have become so pervasive, reality itself has been warped and is now unrecognizable. 

“Oh a real CIA guy, the station chief in Afghanistan had his cover blown? Don’t worry about it. It’s not like he was as important as a desk clerk at Langley.” Unfortunately, the application of those checks and balances regarding justice is becoming more and more theoretical, while the wide scale corruption and gross incompetence is an unfortunate reality, and mushrooming in scale.

We have all but forgotten about the unfortunate White House slip up that blew the Station Chief’s cover (violation of law right? - Scooter Libby went to jail for the Valerie Plame cover leak), and that’s because it was squeezed in between the VA Scandal blowup and the Bergdahl fiasco. By the way, Valerie Plame had this to say about the White House's goof: that they (White House) were "Colossally Stupid." Is she a racist? Outed CIA agent Valerie Plame calls leak of Kabul operative 'colossally stupid' 

Former Outed CIA Agent Valerie Plame

And since the Bergdahl FUBAR situation we now have the crisis on the boarders with illegal immigrant children (60,000 since the beginning of the year) and of course, Iraq igniting (see my post from the June 18). All of those events have occurred in the just in the month of June, and we are only at the end of the third week.

Sad to break the news to the diehard defenders of Obama, the president's troubles do actually exist, and are not the making of a Congress that's bent on countering the administration at every turn because he’s a black man. The gridlock is primarily Obama's fault - he is the president, and is supposed to lead. Rather than attempt to work with Congress as the Constitution calls for, the president invents a Republican straw man, blames things on him, and then uses that awful fictitious person or persons to justify the use of his pen in an Executive Order.

Fortunately, in an effort to restore the balances designed by the establishment of three branches of power, and thwart Obama's further attempt at an unconstrained imperial presidency, executive order after executive order has been struck down by the Supreme Court, as being unconstitutional and in violation of the law, but not before the damage has been done. Obama's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was deemed unconstitutional. Obama's minimum wage executive order was deemed unconstitutional. During the 2012-2013 term the high court the court rejected Obama’s arguments on property rights, affirmative action, and voting rights. These were loses on significant cases with unanimous decisions, where Obama couldn't even hold the votes of its own appointees — Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. 2013-2014 is proving to be even more of a disaster for the Obama v. Supreme Court scorecard. Those mounting unanimous decisions going against Obama are not because Obama is black and the justices are nine racists. The failed policies are stacking up and coming home to roost as well, drooping the administration’s shoulders with the weight of an albatross weighing as much as $18 trillion in debt and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Aunt Jemima - Stacey Dash

The VA Scandal is not a right-wing, racist conspiracy, unless you believe that the veterans intentionally opted not to keep their appointments on the chance they would get sick and die in order to make Obama look bad because he’s black. Diane Feinstein did not criticize Obama for ignoring Congress and not informing them on the Bergdahl swap because she’s a racist – or are the racists just the Republicans that disagree with him? The real racists are those that continue to use the race card at every turn in order to suit their own agenda. Al Sharpton is a racist. Jesse Jackson is a racist. The rancher in Arizona is a racist. The NAACP is a racist organization, but not blind to honoring accused racists and praising them for benevolence after big dollar donations are made. Obama is failing on foreign policy and as a president, and I believe most reasonable Americans will agree with those observations. Recent polls support that notion, case in point a Washington Post/ ABC poll.

Obama’s overall approval according to that Washington Post/ABC poll is just 41%, and only 37% approve of his handling of Foreign Policy. 30% approved of the Bergdahl swap. Chuck Todd of NBC said that these numbers are “a disaster for the president.” He further added that scandals coming one after another, every single week a new one, are taking their toll, equivocating that “Essentially the public is saying, ‘Your presidency is over.’”

Show me successes that Obama has without detrimental consequences to a majority. Give me evidence of Obama’s engagement on relevant issues where decisiveness and the best interests of the people that elected Obama on both occasions, are major part the game plan - not his legacy. Remember, Obama doesn’t just represent the slightly more than one third of the country that now approves of his job handling skills, he also represents that other larger percentage, the majority of the country most negatively impacted by his weakness and dithering on foreign policy, and his horrendous executive orders that squeeze American businesses, target political opposition with the illegal use of government agencies such as the IRS, and writes off every actual scandal as something he just learned of on the news. He says that often - probably his most quotable comments. I believe he's said that at least ten (10) times - that he was blindsided or just learned about "it."

1. Islamist militants gaining in Iraq

AP
The New Yorker (1/27/2014): "In the 2012 campaign, Obama spoke not only of killing Osama bin Laden; he also said that Al Qaeda had been 'decimated.' I pointed out that the flag of Al Qaeda is now flying in Fallujah, in Iraq, and among various rebel factions in Syria; Al Qaeda has asserted a presence in parts of Africa, too.

'The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,' Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy. 'I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.'"

The Wall Street Journal (6/11/2014): Iraq Drama Catches US Off Guard

2. Russia's intervention in Ukraine

AP
Politico.com (3/4/14): "A White House spokeswoman declined to comment on whether Obama was satisfied with the intelligence he received on Russian intentions in Ukraine. But spokesmen for the U.S. intelligence community defended its work.

The Central Intelligence Agency says it’s always noted the possibility of aggressive military action.

'Prior to and throughout the situation in Ukraine, the intelligence community has provided timely and valuable information that has helped policy makers understand the situation on the ground and make informed decisions. That continues to be the case today,' said Shawn Turner, a spokesman for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. 'Any suggestion that there were intelligence shortcomings related to the situation in Ukraine are uninformed and misleading.'

... While officials appear to disagree about the insights offered by U.S. intelligence, it’s beyond dispute that a lot of public commentary pundits offered as the Ukraine crisis unfolded was less than clairvoyant."

3. NSA spying on foreign leaders

AP
Wall Street Journal (10/28/2013): "Obama was unaware for the last 5 years, the NSA had been spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other members of world leaders. Only after an internal Obama administration review in 2013 did the White House know of the spying."

President Obama news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan (5/16/2013): "I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the I.G. report before the I.G. report had been leaked through press -- through the press."

4. VA waiting list scandal

AP
Jay Carney during a White House press briefing (5/19/2014):

JIM ACOSTA, CNN: "When was the president first made aware of these problems? Of these fraudulent lists that were being kept to hide the wait times, when was he first made aware of those problems? And when did other White House officials, top White House officials, become aware of these problems?"

JAY CARNEY: "When you say these problems, the fact that there have been bureaucracies --"

ACOSTA: "The delays have been known for some time."

CARNEY: "You mean the specific allegations that I think were reported first by your news network out of Phoenix, I believe. We learned about them through the reports. I will double check if that is not the case. But that is when we learned about them and that is when I understand Secretary Shinseki learned about them, and he immediately took the action that he has taken."

5. IRS targeting scandal

AP
President Obama in a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Cameron (May 13, 2013): "Well, let me take the IRS situation first. I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday."

6. HealthCare.gov failing

Reuters
Remarks by President Obama on HealthCare.gov (10/21/2013): "Of course, you've probably heard that HealthCare.gov -- the new website where people can apply for health insurance and browse and buy affordable plans in most states -- hasn't worked as smoothly as it was supposed to work. And the number of people who visit the site has been overwhelming which has aggravated some of these underlying problems."

Jay Carney during a White House press briefing (10/23/2013): "While we knew that there would be some glitches and actually said publicly that we expected some problems, we did not know until the problems manifested themselves after the launch that they would be as significant as they have turned out to be."

7. DOJ obtaining AP phone records

AP
Jay Carney during a White House press briefing (5/14/2013):

QUESTION: "When did the president find out about the Department of Justice's subpoenas for the Associated Press?"

CARNEY: "Yesterday. Let me just be clear. We don’t have any independent knowledge of that. He found out about the news reports yesterday on the road."

QUESTION: "What was his reaction to that? Does he believe that this was an overreach?"

CARNEY: "All I can tell you is that I cannot and he cannot comment specifically on an ongoing criminal investigation or actions that investigators at the Department of Justice may or may not have taken. It would be wholly inappropriate. And if we did comment on it, or if we did have insight into it, you would appropriately ask why and is that correct procedure, because it would not be."

8. Fast and Furious scandal

AP
Jay Carney during a White House press briefing (6/27/2012): "The president did not know about this tactic until he heard about it through the media; the attorney general did not know about it."

9. Air Force One flyover in Manhattan

Reuters
President Obama during media availability on arrival at FBI headquarters (4/28/2009):

QUESTION: "Sir, what do think of the Air Force One incident --"

THE PRESIDENT: "No -- no questions --"

QUESTION: "-- over New York City yesterday, sir?"

QUESTION: "Are you concerned about New York City yesterday, sir, with the Air Force plane?"

THE PRESIDENT: "It was a mistake, as was -- as was stated. It was something we found out about along with all of you and it will not happen again. Thank you."

10. CIA Afghanistan Station Chief cover blown when a list of VIP attendees at Obama's surprise visit to Bagram Air Field was distributed by ?, in an e-mail to 6000 recipients, mostly news agencies including Al Jazeera, at e-mail addresses worldwide. Here's one case of saying "we learned about it from the news" that apparently can't be refuted. The White House actually did learn of this "colossally stupid" mistake from the news when the Washington Post's Scott Wilson caught the major blunder and told them. 

There you have it. And if you believe any of it, or don't agree with Mr. Obama's assertion that there's, "not a smidgen of corruption" at the IRS, you just might be labeled a racist, southern white man, even if you're name is Stacey Dash. 

THERE'S NO CRYING IN HORSE RACING!

Secretariat leading the field at the Preakness in 1973.
 

USA Sports Commentator Christine Brennan is completely wrong in her assertion that it was unfair for California Chrome to race at Belmont against horses that had competed in the other two Triple Crowns races. (Here's the link: "Why California Chrome owner is right about Belmont" ) Then she used an absurd comparison by saying it was analogous to a baseball team not playing any games during the regular season and showing up for the World Series. Huh? With that logic I suppose that a golfer that doesn't play any tournaments before the Masters has the advantage over the field when they tee it up at Augusta. We all know, and pardon the pun, that's a bunch of horseshit.

Perhaps one reasonable comparison would be the London 2012 Olympics and Ryan Lochte losing gold in the 200 Individual Medley to Michael Phelps. Some might say, "Hey, that wasn't fair. Ryan Lochte had just raced in the final of the 200 backstroke earlier that night." Actually, Phelps did the same thing to Lochte in the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Of course, and Ryan Lochte would be the first to agree, that kind of reasoning just doesn't hold water, pun intended.

So sorry Chrome fans, but all the horse had to do this year was tie Secretariat's track records in the Kentucky Derby, Preakness, and Belmont, and the Triple Crown would have been his. In fact, he could have won all three with much slower times than Secretariat's runs in 1973, and still have taken the coveted trophy.

Is the Triple Crown elusive? Yes it is, as it should be. Is it "unreasonably elusive," as Steve Coburn, the owner of California Chrome griped and Christine Brennan echoed? No it is not. Between Citation, who won the Triple Crown in 1948, and the great Secretariat in 1973, there was a 25-year dry spell for a Triple Crown winning thoroughbred. Certainly at 36 years the dry spell has been longer since Affirmed, the last Triple Crown winner, raced to immortality 1978 (Affirmed would have won it this year as well). To end the previous one it took a horse with the caliber of Big Red, Secretariat's real name for those didn't see the Disney flick on the "in flight movie."

How do you get another Triple Crown winner? It's very simple to explain, but not easily done, and it doesn't take a Secretariat to end the current drought. Just foal a race horse that can go ten furlongs in under two minutes, nine and a half furlongs under 1:54.00, and a mile and a half in 2:26, voilà, there is the next Triple Crown winner. But please future novice owners that win two of the Triple Crown events, guaranteeing millions in syndicate fees, yet fall short on the Belmont; don't whine and cry about it when your horse runs out of gas on that last one for all the marbles. After all, that's horse racing, that's sport. Just take a cue from Ryan Lochte; be a gracious winner, and never a sore loser.

BLOODY IRAQ: Where's A Saladin When You Need One?

“You break it, you own it,” it has been said. Besides The Pottery Barn, a retired four-star general had expressed that warning. The remark purportedly came from Colin Powell just prior to the invasion of Iraq. At the time of his declaration he was the Secretary of State under President George W. Bush. Who he made that comment to, and exactly when he said it is unclear. Irrespective of that bit of lore, eleven years later, post U.S. invasion and U.S. withdrawal, not to forget 4486 U.S. military killed in action, perhaps 100,000 casualties, Iraq is most certainly broken, however, Secretary Powell’s comment was hardly prophetic.  

In an Op-Ed on June 17, 2014 titled," Ghosts of Religious Wars Past Are Rattling In Iraq for "Foreign Policy" magazine and its’ online publication, retired four-star U.S. Navy Admiral James Stavridis, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, and current President of Fletcher School of Law at Tufts, states, "As Sunnis and Shi’ites tear their societies societies apart throughout parts of the Arab world, old ghosts are indeed rattling from the eastern Mediterranean and Levant to the northern Arabian Gulf. We watch with horror and near disbelief as radicalized elements on both sides of the Islamic faith take up arms in Iraq and Syria in increasingly vicious ways. But in the West, we have seen this play out before: in the Christian faith, during the wars of the Reformation.” Crafted with wit as the Admiral usually does, the piece is short, and therefore somewhat of an oversimplification of a much muddled reality, however he does go on to postulate that the spreading conflict is not just about religion. Roger that!

The events that have been unfolding in Iraq over the last six months, and rapidly escalating in recent weeks, are incredibly complicated, and cannot be reduced to comparisons of religious fervor gone widespread murderous, which would be akin to attributing the decimation of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and four murdered Americans, to an overzealous spontaneous protest against an obscure anti-Mohammed YouTube video. The movement of ISIS through Iraq with blitzkrieg speed has been calculated, and alarmingly successful, no doubt especially to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the terrorist group’s leader. It is so complex that if the diagram were to be looked at in the manner the FBI used to put the top mafia families up on an office wall, the convoluted mess of arrows going this way and that would probably take up half of the wall space at the Pentagon. And believe it or not, some of the arrows would originate at the CIA annex and U.S. consulate in Benghazi, before going across the Mediterranean to Turkey and then Syria, and then finally down to Iraq. The money trail is even more complicated, but here's a hint: Wahhabi Sunni - the Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Remember, Nouri al-Malaki and his government are Shi'ites, and so is Iran. So there are many conflicts of interest for the United States, but if you're a CIA guy looking for the assignment of a career, this is gourmet Italian bistro to a lover of pasta.

Once a ragtag, and relatively small band of radical Sunni fundamentalists aligned with Osama bi Laden and al Qaeda, ISIS is rapidly growing in numbers, newly equipped with billions of dollars of U.S. military hardware and weapons, perhaps even stinger missiles, freshly financed from plundered banks throughout Northern Iraq as well as from other sources in the Middle East, and emboldened as never before. For these particular radical Islamists, a group only ten years in the making, as all insurrectionists who have gone down in history before them, bin Laden’s al Qaeda included, success tends to breed success, and at the risk of being cliché, to ISIS, the ends justify the means.

As Iraq implodes into chaos, as never before seen in modern times, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s tactics have been seen as ruthless and barbaric, the atrocities being well covered by the media. And ISIS is not hiding anything, quite the contrary. The insurgents themselves are supplying video of the butchery, footage that includes summary executions of thousands of captured Iraqi army regulars, beheadings, crucifixions, and other various atrocities, which are mostly being committed against Shi’ites, the highest percentage of the Iraqi army’s compliment, or against those in opposition to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. There have also been reported cases of the random, intentional murder of untold numbers of unarmed civilians, which would be par for the course for any insurgent operation in that area of the world.

History over the last 1400 years has proven that such brutal tactics being employed by these new radical Islamists are nothing new to the region, or to Islam in general. What is new, and very effective is the use of YouTube, Facebook, and other forms of social media to publish the brutality in near real-time across the expanse of planet earth. The result, and a very calculated one, has been mass desertions of Iraqi army who don’t want to go the way of their previously captured fellow soldiers, comrades that they have watched being massacred on the screens of their mobile phones. The deserters are simply putting their weapons down on the ground, abandoning tanks, trucks, and HUMVs, and fleeing for their lives in fear, even before the greatly outnumbered ISIS has even engaged them, or attacked the objective. Now the ISIS victories across northern Iraq are a rallying cry for jihadists or wannabe jihadists everywhere. Their numbers will surely rapidly increase. Think Spartacus on steroids, building an army to fight Rome, and al-Baghdadi has more going for him than Spartacus did.  

ISIS may want to continue to strike while they have the momentum, however their numbers are still relatively small compared to the forces of any counter attack planned by Nouri al-Maliki in the defense of Baghdad. Seasoned ISIS commanders will want to wait. Ramadan which occurs in one week aside, the summers in Iraq are brutally hot and now al-Baghdadi can well afford to wait out 40 degree plus Celsius heat as his insurgent forces regroup, recruit, and train for a fall offensive of Baghdad and the oil refineries in the south. His new recruits will be made up of fanatics, disenchanted youth, unemployed and socially rejected, Americans included, who will all have a beacon, something to be a member of, a cause. The ISIS numbers will begin to swell suddenly, and as predictably as the illegal children immigrants flood into the United States across the southern borders was, a flood that continues unabated by the way, and that's here on our own soil. What will President Obama do about something half a world away? He doesn't think globally, at least not since he's been the president of the United States. In addition, calls for immediate drone attacks by politicians, political pundits, and media commentators are ridiculous. Use of UAVs, such as the Predator, or other airstrikes launched from the USS George Bush, would not only be ineffective ground-based spotters, but counterproductive due to civilian collateral casualties. The human shield defensive strategy is very popular and easily done by a fighting force willing to die for their cause and not having one relational connection to the indigent population. Even more of a bad idea than airstrikes is the notion of coordinating with Iran to squelch the hostilities, which would only result in the United States aiding Khamenei in seizing control of the entire Middle East. Has anyone at the State Department or in the Obama Administration thought to ask what Israel thinks about that?

With the absence of a modern day version of Saladin, the Kurdish Sunni from Syria, barbaric and ruthless in war, but merciful in surrender and peace, ISIS will not stop after Iraq. Their mission is the establishment of a new Islamic Caliphate with a greater reach than that of Saladin in the 12th century, or the Ottoman Empire at its zenith.  Since the United States cannot undo the past, the arguments for what should or should not have been done, and who’s fault is, etc., being irrelevant and inconsequential, we must focus on viable solutions, unfortunate as they may be, and all with consequences.

1.     Nouri al-Maliki is essentially ineffective and impotent at this point. There should be concentrated, covert efforts made to have him and his government ousted and replaced before some very radical element even more closely associated with Iran, or even worse, ISIS, does it for us. Jawad al-Bulani, an engineer in Saddam Hussein’s Air Force and former head of the Unity Alliance of Iraq is a logical choice to replace al-Maliki, as he is more sympathetic of the Sunni minority, as well as less myopically power hungry than the corrupt al-Maliki has proven to be.

2.      ISIS must be defeated in a conventional sense of the word, with whatever fire power and U.S. presence that it takes to do that.  By no means should such action be unilateral. There must be leadership on the part of the United States, as clear and unequivocal as the coalition that ousted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991. The cancer must be stopped before Baghdad, and other Arabic states of Sunni majorities, particularly those that are Wahhabi, must not only be supportive, but must also aid in the defeat of the ISIS insurgency. For balance in the region it must not be an Iranian led effort. In fact, Iran should be left completely out of the equation.

3.     Once ISIS is destroyed, and those ISIS leaders and commanders, and insurgents responsible for the war crimes, which also include the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Mosul, Tikrit, and other Iraqi villages and cities, are tried and executed under Iraq law, then and only then, the United States must have the “Status of Forces” Agreement that currently is not in place. At the end of the day however, the United States must keep a substantial presence, we must remain there, in order to protect our interests and preserve our way of life, freedom, and the safety of our nation and our people.

Although extremely doubtful that the Obama administration would actually do something before Baghdad becomes the next Saigon or falls into the hands of Iran for protection and control, the plan laid out is the wisest course of action for the United States to take, the best idea in a list of alternative choices that are all exceedingly bad.  The consequences of the above are numerous however, and include a divided Iraq, with the Kurds finally having a place to call home, as well as a Kurdish stake in Iraqi oil production. Relations with Russia might be further impacted negatively, but one must ask, “How much worse can it get from where we are now after the Clinton Reset?” Perhaps our relations with Putin might actually improve due to a demonstrated resolve on the part of the United States to finally lead. There are other consequences too numerous to discuss here, however the consequences of not doing what has been set forth above, or dithering further, as the president so often does, are perhaps, much worse, and include putting Israel into such a corner that they have no choice but to use the Samson option for the entire region. Samson of course killed all of the Philistines when pulled down the pillars, but unfortunately caused his very own death in the process; the "Samson Option" - Israel's hypothetical option of massive nuclear retaliation leaving the all of the Middle East a nuclear wasteland. That is not the place that we want to go. 

Finally, reiterating the point that Mr. Stavridis had made, the final chapter written about the events occurring in Iraq will be about power and not religion. Who ends up in power will be decided by the actions of the United States. It has always been predicted that World War III will be sparked by a series of events that have their genesis in the Middle East. Let’s see what happens.