The Obama Bear Market

Here is an interesting story...

A new Bloomberg review shows that the stock market has fallen faster under President Obama than under any president in the last century.  Bloomberg reports that since Inauguration Day, the Dow has fallen 20 percent, leading investors to dub this the "Obama Bear Market."  The Dow has also dropped 31 percent cince Election Day.

Despite a string of government bailout offers (or because of them) and Obama's "advice" earlier this week that Americans should be buying stock while shares are low, the Dow has continued to freefall.  

Obama, according to the report is "at risk" of breaking a historical tread in which the Dow soars an average of close to 10 percent in the first year after a Democrat wins the presidency. 

I'd say "at risk" is an understatement.

....And remind me not to take investment advice from Illinois politicians.

Read more...

Obama: "...mutual respect..."

How's this for naivety:

President Barack Obama promised to improve U.S. ties with the Muslim world in his inauguration address on Tuesday, after tensions that followed the September 11 attacks and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect" said Obama, who became the first black president of the United States.

As I understand the word "mutual," Mutual interest and mutual respect would require that the Muslim world has some of the same interests as the U.S. and that they respect us.

As I understand it, however, much of the world of Islam considers us "The Great Satan".  In fact, the very Muslims that The ONE was referencing in his speech are the ones who hate us the most.

Let me be clear:  That hatred is not based (primarily) on anything we've done.  It's not based on our relationship with Israel.  It's not based on the war on terror.  It's not based on what we've done in Iraq or Afghanistan.  

The hatred that the radical Islamic Fundamentalists have toward us, as well as much of the rest of the western world, is based on the fact that we are not Muslim. 

That's right.  All we have to do for them to "respect" us, is for all of us to convert to radical Islam.  Otherwise, we will continue to be "the Great Satan".  

Actually, I'm even wrong about that.  Muslims don't even respect other Muslims.  Prior to 9/11, 23 of the 24 world conflicts were between Muslims and their neighbors (the 24th was the Irish Republican Army and Great Britain.)  Of those, many have been between Muslims and other Muslims.  Muslims have no problem killing other Muslims if they have political issues with them, if they don't subscribe to the same brand of Islam, or if they are just having a bad day.

Jeff Emmanuel of redstate.com puts it this way:

Though the far left often claims that President Bush’s policy was unnecessarily heavy-handed and reckless, the reality is that “mutual interest and mutual respect” was exactly the basis for Bush’s policy with the post-Taliban government and people of Afghanistan, the post-Saddam government and people of Iraq, and with so many others the world over.

Further, Obama’s message “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist,” hints at a view of international relations which is hopelessly Utopian, and which has no place the affairs of this world. All too many residents of the Muslim world are happy to judge their leaders on what they destroy, rather than on what they build (case in point: Hamas in the Gaza Strip, which has sacrificed infrastructure for the chance to convert water pipes into homemade rockets built to fire at civilian populations in the sovereign country to their north).

In short, recent history shows that the residence of the Muslim world buy into the hyperbole of their leaders.  Barack Obama is either hopelessly deluded, or he's lying to appease his constituency. 

Read more...

Inauguration makes two Senators Sick.

The AP reports the following:

WASHINGTON – Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., battling a brain tumor, became ill at a post-inauguration luncheon for President Barack Obama on Tuesday and was taken by ambulance to a hospital. There was no immediate word from medical personnel on his condition.

Kennedy, 76, had appeared in good health and spirits hours earlier when he stepped out of the Capitol and onto the inauguration platform where Obama took the oath of office.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, 91, also was taken from the luncheon but it was not clear whether his departure was prompted by his health.

I wonder if there was something that they found hard to swallow, or if the whole process was so disgusting that it could even turn the stomach of Ted Kennedy!

Read more...

The Inauguration and Global Warming: Will Al Gore Attend?

Here’s an environmental impact story you’re not likely to see in the mainstream media. Neither NBC’s chief environmental affair correspondent Anne Thompson, nor ABC correspondent Bill Blakemore nor CBS “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley – all of whom have been eager over the years to expose so-called crimes against the environment – have rushed to report on the massive carbon footprint of the Obama inauguration.

 

But a comprehensive new study by The Institute for Liberty (IFL)took an in-depth look at each component of the Jan. 20 inauguration in Washington, D.C., and estimated that 575 million pounds of carbon dioxide will be emitted in the atmosphere for the inauguration – which is roughly equal to what the average American household would produce in 57,598 years.

 

Speaking with the Business & Media Institute, IFL President Andrew Langer noted the hypocrisy of the event having so large an environmental impact, especially in light of the strong stands promoting the case for manmade global warming of many of Obama’s cabinet picks. Even Secretary of State Designate Hillary Clinton characterized climate change as a national “security threat.”

 

“I think it’s certainly hypocritical that as they’re doing all of this – gauging these celebrations and they’re using them and some might say wasting a lot of energy,” Langer said. “But they are using a great deal of energy in this celebration. They can’t, on one hand ignore their own very real CO₂ impact, while at the same time hamstringing everybody else.”

 

As news reports point out, it won’t be business as usual for in Washington for the inauguration. A query to the three Washington, D.C. airports – Baltimore-Washington International, Washington-Reagan and Washington-Dulles International revealed 22,364 additional airline seats will be added for the inaugural festivities.

 

A story by Nafeesa Syeed for the Associated Press on Jan. 10 predicted 10,000 buses will descend upon Washington. And Jeanne Meserve reported on CNN on Jan. 13 that 1 million personal vehicles (a slightly higher estimate than the IFL used) would be on Washington-area roads for the inauguration.

 

But all of this is not necessarily a bad thing, according to Langer.

 

“Small businesses in D.C. are going to do extremely well under the inaugural celebration over the weekend,” Langer said. “Folks are going to go out, they’re going to spend money, they’re going to buy food, go into taxi cabs – they’re going to do a lot of things and the fact is, that’s a very good thing.”

 

The IFL report included private airplanes, trains, subway trains, taxis, public transit buses, hotels and of course – horses. Livestock has recently been a target of environmentalists, andthe federal government has considered charging a carbon tax on cows and pigs.

 

Langer admitted the report was incomplete because some elements were difficult to get data on.

 

“There are some things we couldn’t get data for,” Langer said. “Like the electricity for the equipment – the stage equipment up on the Hill and all the big-screen televisions they’re putting around the Mall. We couldn’t get data for that. We obviously didn’t know how many police cars were going to be out there idling – things of that nature.”

 

Langer said the intent of the study was to point out that, although there is some hypocrisy, the events surrounding the inauguration are a good thing. They’re serving a purpose in the economy, and any attempt to regulate carbon dioxide emissions would hurt the economy.

 

“The point we’re really raising is that it doesn’t really matter,” Langer added. “The point is, what we’re talking about is – production. We’re talking about productivity. And productivity means using energy and using energy means creating emissions. And so this whole effort to regulate CO₂ as a pollutant is effectively hindering and hampering our ability to be a productive nation.”

Read more...

Inaugural Extravagance and MSM Bias

Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s inauguration. AP writer Will Lester calculated the impact that kind of money would have on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Lester thought the party should be cancelled: “The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?”

Fast forward to 2009. The nation is still at war (two wars, in fact), and now also faces the prospect of a severe recession and federal budget deficits topping $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. With Barack Obama’s inauguration estimated to cost $45 million (not counting the millions more that government will have to pay for security, which will be much tighter and more expensive than four years ago, nor does it count the cost for those who plan to attend, which should be triple what it was four years ago), is the Associated Press once again tsk-tsking the high dollar cost?

Nope. “For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy,” a Tuesday AP headline advised. The article by reporter Laurie Kellman argued for extravagance:

So you're attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations. Can you get away with glitzing it up and still be appropriate, not to mention comfortable and financially viable?

To quote the man of the hour: Yes, you can. Veteran ballgoers say you should. And fashionistas insist that you must.

"This is a time to celebrate. This is a great moment. Do not dress down. Do not wear the Washington uniform," said Tim Gunn, a native Washingtonian and Chief Creative Officer at Liz Claiborne, Inc.

"Just because the economy is in a downturn, it doesn't mean that style is going to be in a downturn," agreed Ken Downing, fashion director for Neiman Marcus.

And if anyone does raise an eyebrow at those sequins, remind them that optimism is good for times like these. "Just say you're doing it to help the economy," chuckled good manners guru Letitia Baldridge.

That spin is a far cry from four years ago, when the AP seemed interested in spurring resentment of the Bush inaugural’s supposedly high cost. Of course, displays of Republican wealth are routinely slammed by the media as elitist or aristocratic, while reporters seem to consider rich Democrats as stylish paragons whom we all should copy.

To get a real feel for the contrast, here’s an excerpt of Lester’s January 13, 2005 piece, which was designed to rain all over Bush’s parade and included the suggestion from two liberal Democrats that Bush eat cold chicken salad and pound cake instead:

President Bush’s second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?

■ 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.

■ Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.

■ A down payment on the nation’s deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year....

The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?

New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, suggested inaugural parties should be scaled back, citing as a precedent Roosevelt's inauguration during World War II.

"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," according to a letter from Weiner and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. "During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."...

Billionaire Mark Cuban, owner of the National Basketball Association's Dallas Mavericks, voted for Bush -- twice. Cuban knows a thing or two about big spending, once starring in ABC's reality TV show, "The Benefactor," in which 16 contenders tried to pass his test for success and win $1 million.

"As a country, we face huge deficits. We face a declining economy. We have service people dying. We face responsibilities to help those suffering from the...devastation of the tsunamis," he wrote on his blog, a Web journal.

Cuban challenged Bush to set an example: "Start by canceling your inauguration parties and festivities."

Obviously, that’s not the media’s message to Barack Obama this year. And no one in the press is going to argue that, with the nation at war, the new President should be satisfied with cold chicken salad and pound cake.

Read more...