THE US ECONOMY IS RECOVERING…WAIT…NO IT ISN'T…WAIT…YES IT IS--BUT OH, SO SLOWLY AND ERRATICALLY
Lots of jobs are being created, but they are not the most lucrative or highest pay, thus wage growth overall is slow and stagnant. Many people still must work two or more jobs to make ends meet. Many others, more than since the 1970s are just dropping out of the work force--and many are claiming (bogus or marginal) disability or just living off the Obama Welfare State goodies (see below). As long as the government keeps growing it sucks the capital and opportunities out of the private sector, which necessarily reduces economic growth. Only a change in ideology and policies that support and encourage growth can reverse this. As long as Barack Obama (or any other liberal Democrat) is in the White House, this will not happen. That's why stagnant, slow growth is the new normal--and it can't support all the government programs that have been introduced and need funding.
DEMOGRAPHICS ARE DESTINY…A POPULATION/ECONOMY THAT ISN'T REPLACING ITSELF AS PEOPLE DIE OFF.
As the US population ages (like that of Japan and most Euro countries) the number of people working dwindles and the number of people they are expected to support grows. This is a very, very difficult problem to solve. As population growth slow, so does the ability of the economy to grow at much more than 1-2% per year. Current population growth in the US has dropped way below the "replenishment rate" (2.1 births/per household) to an all time low of 1.86. Many any European countries (including Russia), and Japan have fertility rates in the 1.0-1.5 range--and this cannot change for decades, if ever. Even China's one-child laws have dropped its fertility rate to below replenishment, but with billions of people, China is not worrying about it. The only thing propping the US fertility rate up that high is Hispanic immigrants' higher birth rate. When a country's fertility rate drops too low, the population doesn't "replace itself," resulting in a dramatic drop off in working adults/wage earners, needed to support the economy
BARACK OBAMA STILL HASN'T LEARNED
He can issue an executive order that would double the number of people eligible for overtime pay. What does he think employers will do? Of course! They will simply change their practices to alter the work hours and in effect, Obama's increase will result in a decrease in pay. Just like his Obamacare 30 hour week has replaced the 40 hour week at so many places. The result of his shallow attempt to manipulate the economics of the free enterprise--there are unexpected consequences--and the result is the opposite of what he thought would happen. This is no surprise considering that he is clueless about how the free enterprise system works. That's why he never really create any jobs. He just subdivided the ones that were out there so everyone can have one but it is worth less and pays less.
LET GREECE GO IT ALONE--SEE HOW FAR IT GETS--FRANCE IS NOT FAR BEHIND…(MASS EXODUS OF WEALTH--SEE VIDEO)
I can't help but recall Margaret Thatcher's famous observation . . . "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." I hope Germany and the other Euro-states tell Greece to either get some sense of begone. It never should have been in the Eurozone in the first place as it didn't meet the criteria for fiscal responsibility.
WHAT ELSE IS GOING WRONG?
Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, watch this very short video. It is a real eye opener. (Get your kids--teens and older--to watch it with you!) http://cbn.com/tv/3255110732001
=================
IN CASE YOU HAVE NOT FIGURED OUT HOW TO GET THE MOST OUT OF THE WELFARE STATE—(and totally kill the will to work):
HOW THE WELFARE MINDSET WORKSWonder why so many of our young people are skipping marriage and are just living together?Follow these 13 proven steps to financial well-being, courtesy of the Obama Welfare State:1. Don't get married to her.2. Use your mom's address for mail.3. Guy (YOU) buys a house.4. Guy rents out house to his girlfriend who has 2 of his kids.5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a 3 bedroom home.6. Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so guy doesn't have to pay for medical insurance7. Girlfriend gets to go to college free for being a single mother.8. Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps.9. Girlfriend gets free cell phone.10. Girlfriend gets free utilities.11. Guy moves into home but uses mom's house to get mail sent to.12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims one kid on taxes. Now they both get to claim head of household at $1800 credit!13. Girlfriend gets disability for being"crazy" (mental illness due to stress?) or having a "bad back" (almost impossible to disprove) at $1800 a month … and never has to work again.This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people.A married couple with a stay-at-home mom yields $0.00 dollarsAn unmarried couple with stay-at-home mom nets:$21,600 disability +$10,800 free housing allowance +$6,000 free Obamacare medical coverage/subsidy +$6,000 free food SNAP (Food Stamps) +$4,800 free utilities +$6,000 Pell grant money to spend +$12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell grant +$8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother= $75,000 a year in cash or benefits…if attending college,Or $57,000 ($27.40/hr.) if not in collegeAny idea why the country is 18+ trillion $$$ in debt?And why workforce participation is at the lowest point since the 1970's?And that doesn't include money they make, paid in cash/no records, for doing whatever odd jobs they can find--if they want to work at all.
===================
TOO MANY PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULS--A DILEMMA--OR AN OPPORTUNITY--COMPARE AND CONTRAST
2016 PRESIDENTIAL THOUGHTS FROM A VERY SMART COLLEAGUE**
In answer to someone who asked what he thought about Trump and others. "TRUMP IS BULLWORTH" (did you see that movie?)Yes, Trump says some things others are not willing to say, but unfortunately, he also says things no responsible leader should say. Trump has the arrogance of the Pharisees, and you probably know what Jesus said about them and their arrogance. If you looked at the “balance sheet” Trump offers to prove he is very wealthy, your eyes might roll when he lists $3.3 billion as an asset because of his “brand.” Even Apple, IBM and Coca-Cola don’t list brand as an asset on the balance sheet, and their brands are much more valuable than Trump’s. The media may also be ignoring, for now, how many of his corporations have declared bankruptcy. Trump is skilled in publicity, but questionable as a manager. However, if he won primaries in a few states, that could turn out well (for him).Jeb, on the other hand, is a nice man, and has a very competent father who was probably the most qualified person by his experience and record elected president in recent decades. I have worked with President Bush 41 on several occasions and believe he is one of the finest people in politics. But, he failed to get re-elected.Jeb’s older brother is also a really nice person (despite his early irresponsible days when he rarely went to class, I was told by people who knew him in school, and spent much of his time in raucous nights and illegal activities). But people who see him frequently say W is a really nice, fun person to be around.Jeb has a lot of things to recommend him and probably can win more Republican primaries than anyone because of his name, and would probably lose the general election because of his name. Jeb’s Spanish is so flawless he knows the correct words when speaking to voters of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican or Central American descent. Donald Trump probably wouldn’t want Jeb’s wife to be in the United States, let alone the White House. But, fluency in Spanish could help Jeb win a few state primaries, Florida and Texas being the most obvious.Rubio is one of the most attractive candidates in the race. He is young, handsome, articulate, but unfortunately has less experience than Obama did when he ran for President. Then there’s the problem of Rubio’s financial budgeting. Buying an expensive yacht when he didn’t have the money for it and buying three houses he couldn’t afford and having to sell one at a huge loss to avoid bankruptcy; those are indicators of a financial philosophy which seems to approve spending more than you earn. That’s not a good reference for someone asking to be in charge of the nation’s finances. But Rubio is an excellent speaker and would probably be more effective than Trump debating Hillary. It could be useful if Rubio wins primaries in a few states, maybe Arizona and New Mexico, maybe even California.Walker seems to be a good man and very competent and could well win the primary and caucus of both Wisconsin and Iowa. That could be useful, and he does have actual experience in running a governmental organization and the ability for a Republican to win in a Democratic electorate.Ben Carson would be my choice of a person I would most like as a friend, and he is clearly the most intellectually accomplished, with an amazingly inspirational story. I would vote for him for any position in medicine, although it is troubling that he has no actual experience in managing large scale organizations, since that is probably the single most important attribute determining effectiveness as a president (or, for that matter, governor or CEO of a major organization).Maybe Carly? She has been a CEO---but not a very effective one.Huckabee? We have elected three Baptists as President since World War II, so maybe we should have another, and that would make two presidents born in Hope, Arkansas. Being Baptist and from Hope Arkansas are good credentials, and Huckabee does speak well on TV. His idea of a “fair tax” (similar to flat tax) has some merit, and some of the other candidates seem to agree.So what happens if several candidates (maybe even one from New Jersey!) each pick up delegates committed to them on the first or second ballot, and the convention opens in Cleveland in July 2016 with no one having a majority? That could be America’s best dilemma. Then, the delegates use their collective wisdom and influence to determine which candidate will be selected. That process used to happen more often in the past. For Republicans, the first time was in 1860 and the last time was 1976 in a battle between Ford and Reagan. (Ford won)The 1860 Republican National Convention was held in Chicago, Illinois from May 16 to 18, 1860. Candidates included former New York Governor William H. Seward, U.S. Senator Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, former U.S. Representative Edward Bates of Missouri, and U.S. Senator Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania. Seward was the favorite going into the convention, and led on the first two ballots. His lead soon melted away to a “dark horse,” who captured the nomination on the third ballot, former Representative Abraham Lincoln of Illinois for President and Senator Hannibal Hamlin of Maine for Vice President. Lincoln and Hamlin went on to defeat the highly-favored Democratic nominee Stephen A. Douglas, U.S. Senator from Illinois.Could that happen in Cleveland? Yes, if there are enough Republicans running who can split the delegates so there is no clear winner on the first or second ballot. The most visible person to the media at a national convention is usually the Mayor of the host city or the Governor of the host state. To be successful, the dark horse should not be a person clearly identified with one of the extreme factions of the party, but should be one not well known to most people, but with no unique or offensive statements on race, religion, and the economically poor or other maligned groups.The best candidate should have a good understanding of politics at both the federal and state level and a pragmatic understanding of how budgets, economics and business really function. None of the currently announced candidates have all three, with the exception of Jeb, who has good entrepreneurial skills, helpful in understanding how jobs are created. I respect the fact that a boy born with a silver spoon chose to go to the University of Texas instead of Yale, unlike others in his family. But his biggest advantage in the primaries, his name, would be difficult to overcome in the general election.Who then, among the possible dark horse candidates, has all the qualifications needed to be President? An examination of credentials and experience would uncover the fact that the person who contributed to the biggest reduction in federal debt since Harry Truman was the Chairman of the Budget Committee at the time the federal budget was balanced---a Congressman from Ohio. Newt Gingrich was the “mouth” during that time period, but Congressman Kasich did the nitty-gritty number crunching and across-the aisle negotiations that made it happen along with progress on welfare reform, the economy and social issues. Clinton and Gingrich got the credit, but Kasich made it happen.Kasich has done the same thing as Governor of Ohio, re-elected by 65% of the vote. As the son of a mailman, Kasich may be the only college-educated Republican who can pull large numbers of blue-collar male Democrats away from Hillary’s current “entitlement.” Kasich speaks middle-class, dresses middle-class and appeals to middle-class concerns. He is direct, sometimes blunt, but highly credible speaking about his beliefs, whether the topic is jobs, faith, welfare, schools or over-crowded prisons. He may not be as polished as Reagan was or Hillary is, but he would have more Populist appeal as a campaigner than anyone since Truman. He might turn out to make more important decisions on principles rather than politics than any President since Lincoln and Truman.But who should Kasich’s Vice-President be? Some might say Ben Carson because he could draw votes away from Hillary among African-American voters. The problem is that Ben Carson is better known among white voters than African-Americans. Some African-Americans would switch from voting Democratic to Republican, but probably no more (or not as much) as to Ken Blackwell against Strickland. Kasich’s most effective VP probably would be Rubio—who might attract a substantial Hispanic vote, mostly otherwise going to Hillary. And the Hispanic population is now much larger than the African-American population. And Rubio would be fun to watch as an attack-dog against Hillary during the campaign. After serving an apprenticeship with Kasich, Rubio is young enough eight years later to keep the Presidency Republican.I am not bothered by Kasich’s current invisibility among voters outside Ohio. The day after the Republican convention, everyone in America will know the names of the Republican candidates for President and Vice-President. If those names are Kasich and Rubio (or some of the other of the current candidates other than Trump), there will be a new Sheriff in Washington!I know you only asked about Trump, and I sorry for the length of my answer, but don’t expect professors to give short, simple answers. With 70 million female voters and 60 million males, females more likely to vote than males, and 62% of females favoring Hillary, it will be difficult for any Republican team to win, but I believe Kasich-Rubio would be the most effective campaigners and leaders the Republicans have.
======================
I SEE NO REASON TO REWRITE WHAT CHARLES SAYS SO WELL…"Obama and Kerry's Folly"
The worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history
By Charles Krauthammer Opinion writer July 2 at 7:36 PM
The devil is not in the details. It’s in the entire conception of the Iran deal, animated by President Obama’s fantastical belief that he, uniquely, could achieve detente with a fanatical Islamist regime whose foundational purpose is to cleanse the Middle East of the poisonous corruption of American power and influence.
In pursuit of his desire to make the Islamic Republic into an accepted, normalized “successful regional power,” Obama decided to take over the nuclear negotiations. At the time, Tehran was reeling — the rial plunging, inflation skyrocketing, the economy contracting — under a regime of international sanctions painstakingly constructed over a decade.
Then, instead of welcoming Congress’ attempt to tighten sanctions to increase the pressure on the mullahs, Obama began the negotiations by loosening sanctions, injecting billions into the Iranian economy (which began growing again in 2014) and conceding in advance an Iranian right to enrich uranium.
It’s been downhill ever since. Desperate for a legacy deal, Obama has played the supplicant, abandoning every red line his administration had declared essential to any acceptable deal.
Inspections. They were to be anywhere, anytime, unimpeded. Now? Total cave. Unfettered access has become “managed access.” Nuclear inspectors will have to negotiate and receive Iranian approval for inspections. Which allows them denial and/or crucial delay for concealing any clandestine activities.
To give a flavor of the degree of our capitulation, the administration played Iran’s lawyer on this one, explaining that, after all, “the United States of America wouldn’t allow anybody to get into every military site, so that’s not appropriate.” Apart from the absurdity of morally equating America with the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, if we were going to parrot the Iranian position, why wait 19 months to do so — after repeatedly insisting on free access as essential to any inspection regime?
Coming clean on past nuclear activity. The current interim agreement that governed the past 19 months of negotiation required Iran to do exactly that. Tehran has offered nothing. The administration had insisted that this accounting was essential because how can you verify future illegal advances in Iran’s nuclear program if you have no baseline?
After continually demanding access to their scientists, plans and weaponization facilities, Secretary of State John Kerry two weeks ago airily dismissed the need, saying he is focused on the future, “not fixated” on the past. And that we have “absolute knowledge” of the Iranian program anyway — a whopper that his staffers had to spend days walking back. Not to worry, we are told. The accounting will be done after the final deal is signed. Which is ridiculous. If the Iranians haven’t budged on disclosing previous work under the current sanctions regime, by what logic will they comply after sanctions are lifted?
Sanctions relief. These were to be gradual and staged as the International Atomic Energy Agency certified Iranian compliance over time. Now we’re going to be releasing up to $150 billion as an upfront signing bonus. That’s 25 times the annual budget of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Enough to fuel a generation of intensified Iranian aggression from Yemen to Lebanon to Bahrain. Yet three months ago, Obama expressed nonchalance about immediate sanctions relief. It’s not the issue, he said. The real issue is “snap-back” sanctions to be reimposed if Iran is found in violation.
Good grief. Iran won’t be found in violation. The inspection regime is laughable and the bureaucratic procedures endless. Moreover, does anyone imagine that Russia and China will reimpose sanctions? Or that the myriad European businesses preparing to join the Iranian gold rush the day the deal is signed will simply turn around and go home?
Nonnuclear-related sanctions. The administration insisted that the nuclear talks would not affect separate sanctions imposed because of Iranian aggression and terrorism. That was then. The administration is now leaking that everything will be lifted. Taken together, the catalog of capitulations is breathtaking: spot inspections, disclosure of previous nuclear activity, gradual sanctions relief, retention of nonnuclear sanctions.
What’s left? A surrender document of the kind offered by defeated nations suing for peace. Consider: The strongest military and economic power on earth, backed by the five other major powers, armed with what had been a crushing sanctions regime, is about to sign the worst international agreement in U.S. diplomatic history.
How did it come to this? With every concession, Obama and Kerry made clear they were desperate for a deal.And they will get it. Obama will get his “legacy.” Kerry will get his Nobel. And Iran will get the bomb.
===================
EVER WONDER WHY OBAMA ALWAYS REFERS TO ISIS AS ISIL? THERE'S A REASON, AND TYPICAL FOR OBAMA, IT IS NEFARIOUS.
IT'S AS MALEVOLENT AS IT CAN BE: The Sinister Difference Between "ISIS" and "ISIL"
Here is an explanation of the difference between the terms ISIS and ISIL. I have been suspicious of the term ISIL to which the administration stubbornly clings.
ISIS = Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Iraq is to the east of Jordan (shaped like the hatchet) and Syria is to the north.
ISIL = Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Iraq is still to the east of Jordan, and "the Levant" is a term that comes from "the rising (of the sun, i.e., to the east)" - and is basically the land along the Mediterranean - that includes Lebanon, Israel, and those countries along there.
By saying ISIL, you "negate" Israel as its own country and lump it in with the rest of the countries along the Mediterranean - and Israel sort of disappears (loses its sovereignty) and becomes part of "the Levant " - which is therefore part of ISIL.
If you've wondered, as I have, why all government agencies and especially BHO calls it ISIL and even spells it out every time it's used, instead of ISIS as the rest of the world does here's the answer. Decoding Obama's speech reveals some startling revelations. In one press conference after another, when referring to the Muslim terror super-group ISIS, United States President Barack Obama will use the term ISIL, instead of their former name ISIS, or current name Islamic State.
Have you ever wondered about that? Here is the difference: What makes up the near exact center of the Muslim Levant ? Israel. ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. Now, to us Westerners we don't really make much of a distinction, do we? No, honestly from our perspective it's all about the same. But how would a Muslim living in the Middle East view it?
Just what is the Levant anyway? Let's take a look. The geographical term LEVANT refers to a multi-nation region in the Middle East. It's a land bridge between Turkey to the north and Egypt to the south.
If you look on a map, however, in the near exact middle of the nations that comprise the Levant, guess what you see? Come on, guess! It's Israel.
Here is an explanation of the difference between the terms ISIS and ISIL. I have been suspicious of the term ISIL to which the administration stubbornly clings.
ISIS = Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Iraq is to the east of Jordan (shaped like the hatchet) and Syria is to the north.
ISIL = Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Iraq is still to the east of Jordan, and "the Levant" is a term that comes from "the rising (of the sun, i.e., to the east)" - and is basically the land along the Mediterranean - that includes Lebanon, Israel, and those countries along there.
By saying ISIL, you "negate" Israel as its own country and lump it in with the rest of the countries along the Mediterranean - and Israel sort of disappears (loses its sovereignty) and becomes part of "the Levant " - which is therefore part of ISIL.
If you've wondered, as I have, why all government agencies and especially BHO calls it ISIL and even spells it out every time it's used, instead of ISIS as the rest of the world does here's the answer. Decoding Obama's speech reveals some startling revelations. In one press conference after another, when referring to the Muslim terror super-group ISIS, United States President Barack Obama will use the term ISIL, instead of their former name ISIS, or current name Islamic State.
Have you ever wondered about that? Here is the difference: What makes up the near exact center of the Muslim Levant ? Israel. ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. Now, to us Westerners we don't really make much of a distinction, do we? No, honestly from our perspective it's all about the same. But how would a Muslim living in the Middle East view it?
Just what is the Levant anyway? Let's take a look. The geographical term LEVANT refers to a multi-nation region in the Middle East. It's a land bridge between Turkey to the north and Egypt to the south.
If you look on a map, however, in the near exact middle of the nations that comprise the Levant, guess what you see? Come on, guess! It's Israel.
When Barack Obama refers over and over to the Islamic State as ISIL, he is sending a message to Muslims all over the Middle East, that he personally does not recognize Israel as a sovereign nation, but as territory belonging to the Islamic State. Now you know why Obama says that he has no plan, no goal, and no stated aim for dealing with ISIS. But he does have a plan, and it's a really nasty, diabolical one.
Obama's plan is to drag his feet for as long as he can, doing only the bare minimum that Congress forces him to do. His plan to buy ISIL as much time as possible to make as many gains as they can. Listen as Obama and his press secretary and the spokesperson for the State Department and his Joint Chiefs of Staff painstakingly spells out the letters I-S-I-L so there is no doubt in your mind.
And it's working.
The Islamic State has garnered millions of dollars, a vast cache of weapons, and in their latest foray have captured Syrian fighter jets and now 12 commercial passenger planes. With each passing day that Obama fulfills his stated aim of doing nothing, the Islamic State grows by leaps and bounds. The ultimate goal, of course, has not changed and will never change.
The ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. Now you know a little bit more about why Obama chooses his words so carefully. "A Jew who votes for Obama is like a chicken who votes for Col. Sanders."
And it's working.
The Islamic State has garnered millions of dollars, a vast cache of weapons, and in their latest foray have captured Syrian fighter jets and now 12 commercial passenger planes. With each passing day that Obama fulfills his stated aim of doing nothing, the Islamic State grows by leaps and bounds. The ultimate goal, of course, has not changed and will never change.
The ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. Now you know a little bit more about why Obama chooses his words so carefully. "A Jew who votes for Obama is like a chicken who votes for Col. Sanders."
======================
Here are 4 Simple questions from an attorney...are there ANY logical answers ?"BIRTHERS" ARE STILL AROUND--AND THEIR QUESTIONS STILL GO UNANSWERED: IS BARACK OBAMA AN IMPOSTOR?FOUR Simple questions from an attorneyYou be the judge: Here's what I would like to know. If the TRUTH ever comes out and itIs decided that Obama was never eligible to be president, what happens to all the laws he signed into being and all the executive orders? Should they all be null and void?Here are 4 Simple questions from a reputable attorney...This reallyshould get your "gray matter" to churning, and raise your blood pressure, even if you are an Obama fan. For all you "anti-Fox News" folks, none of this information came from Fox. All of it can be verified from other sources (Wikipedia, theKapiolani hospital website itself, and a good history book, as noted herein). It is very easy to check out.4 Simple Questions .....1. Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes." So how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is "African-American" when the term wasn't even used at that time?2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961 and Lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father.No big deal, Right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in "Kenya, East Africa". This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet Exist ?Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate". (check it below) (Commonwealth realm)
Kenya When British rule ended in 1963, the Kenya Colony was given independence as a Commonwealth realm in which form the state existed until 1964. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_%28http:/en.wikipedia..org/wiki/Kenya%29
3. On the Birth Certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital".This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani MaternityHome", respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
In 1890, in response to an unusually high infant mortality rate in Hawaii, Queen Kapiolani founded the Kapiolani Maternity Home to care for Hawaii’s mothers and babies. The hospital later merged with Kauikeolani Children’s Hospital in 1978 to become Kapiolani. The legacy of care that began more than a century ago continues today, as Kapiolani remains dedicated to providing Hawaii’s families with the very best medical care available.Why hasn't this been discussed in the major media?4. Perhaps a clue comes from Obama's book on his father. He states how proud he is of his father fighting in WW II. I'm not a math genius, soI may need some help from you. Barack Obama's "birth certificate" says his father was 25 years old in 1961 when Obama was born. That should have put his father's date of birth approximately 1936 - if my math holds (Honest! I did that without a calculator!) Now we need anon-revised history book-one that hasn't been altered to satisfy the author's goals-to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in Wars? Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn't have been more than 9 years old.Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes ?Very truly yours,RICHARD R. SILVERLIEBAttorney at Law
THAT'S WAY TOO MUCH, BUT AFTER THE HOLIDAY WEEKEND, MAYBE YOU CAN DIGEST IT ALL…
JOHN
**NOTE: The colleague who wrote the piece above on Trump and the presidential hopefuls, and sent it to me was Dr, Roger Blackwell, and old friend and very bright guy.
---------------------------
PLEASE USE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
See my commentary at http://www.brennerbrief.com/author/johnmariotti/ and
---------------------------
Comments