Sandy Hurricane on the Elections

Could this Sandy hurricane shift the election towards Romney?  Hey Bronx dudes, I think it can, and maybe she will save our butts. 

Is the oncoming Sandy storm, a storm for Mitt Romney? This weather pattern could knock out power in large regions from Virginia and Pennsylvania, into Ohio. It could get people sour against Obama, as our aging infrastructure rots and collapses in a major storm. Sandy could actually interfere with voting some some areas, going from Pennsylvania and even into Eastern Ohio, Cleveland area, etc.

This may somehow shift the vote towards Romney. Maybe this is a divine sign to save the United States from the otherwise Obama election and subsequent path to thermonuclear confrontation, and launch of thermonuclear war.

Do You want to Survive, Break Banks

If you want to survive, Bronx and Harlem dudes, you have to break up the big banks now. Obama is trash, so throw him out. Reich has some good ideas here, though he sees the world with Democratic colored glasses. On Oct. 18, Robert Reich called on Obama to break up the nation's biggest banks and to resurrect Glass- Steagall. The op ed argues that if the President took such action it would be good policy and would smoke out Mitt Romney. Earlier this year, in July, immediately after Sandy Weill had recanted his opposition to Glass-Steagall, Reich had written an op ed in the Huffington Post entitled: "The Man Who Invented 'Too Big to Fail' Banks Finally Recants. Will Obama or Romney Follow?" in which he concluded in a manner not based on the party system: "What's the betting that one of the presidential candidates will take up Weill's proposal?"

Three months later Reich ostensibly launches into an attack on Romney as Wall Street's candidate, knowing full well that it has been Obama who has opposed Glass-Steagall, implemented the bailout of Wall Street, and pushed the Dodd-Frank Act, which maintains the too big to fail policy. He does so even though in the first debate, Romney called for repealing Dodd-Frank and eliminating the policy of too big to fail. Reich writes: "The President should counter Romney's extraordinary solicitude toward the Street with a proposal to cap the size of the nation's biggest banks so that no bank is ever again too big to fail. And to resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act, which once separated commercial from investment banking. In the 1980s the ten biggest banks had less than 30 percent of bank depositary assets.

Now they have 54 percent. And the four biggest now dominate the Street almost completely. Because lenders and investors know they're too big to fail, the four biggest banks have a competitive advantage over smaller rivals that pose larger financial risks. That means they'll only get bigger. Breaking up the biggest banks and capping the size of all banks is hardly a radical suggestion these days. The Dallas Federal Reserve Board, which has never been accused of excessive liberalism, has called for it. So has Sanford Weill, the creator of Citigroup, one of the biggest of the big. So has Daniel Tarullo, the Federal Reserve governor charged with bank regulation. So have conservative commentators such as George Will.... Calling for a breakup of the biggest banks and a resurrection of Glass-Steagall would smoke out Mitt Romney — revealing clearly and decisively he's not on the side of most Americans." Reich is correct that Romney, like Obama, has not endorsed Glass-Steagall. It is also true that on economic policy he is presently in large part captive to Republican Party ideology. However, the fact that Sandy Weill and a number of conservatives have endorsed Glass-Steagall points to the potential of freeing Romney from the Republican Party ideologues who oppose it. Is it possible that Reich, in making this proposal, is actually trying to smoke out not just Romney but also Obama, who for the last four years, with help from Geithner and Holder, among others, has in fact defended and bailed out Wall Street at the behest of the Queen of England to the detriment of the American people?

Genocide people obamanation

Obama is the obamanation.  Genocide baby from Libya to the killer drones to nuclear war.  Try some of that on your real estate deals!

or the second time in about a week, a study has been issued examining the terrible human costs of the drone wars being carried out and expanded under President Obama. Entitled "The Civilian Impact of Drones: Unexamined Costs, Unanswered Questions," the new report was issued on Oct. 1 by the Columbia Law School and the Center for Civilians in Conflict, and it constitutes another damning indictment of the policy using covert drone strikes to kill targets in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, much of which is personally overseen and approved by Barack Obama.
A major theme of the study is to debunk the notion of "precision" in drone strikes. It quotes Obama, for example, as describing drone strikes as "precise, precision strikes against Al Qaeda and their affiliates." There is no "precision" in either targetting before strikes, or in assessing casualities and damage after the fact, the study documents.
The Columbia study notes the difficulty in determining civilian casualties caused by drone strikes, but notes that the CIA and JSOC (the military's Joint Special Operations Command) have the same problem: the lack of active intelligence in areas where the U.S. does not have boots on the ground. In the Pakistan tribal areas, Yemen, and Somalia — the U.S. has little if any human intelligence, little signals intelligence (because of the low-technology environment), and a lot of drone video surveillance. But the latter is of limited value because of the inability to distinguish individuals on the ground, and the "soda straw" effect — a very narrow view, missing the wider picture. (For example, one drone operator targetted a truck thought to be full of "insurgents;" after the missile was fired, two young boys riding bicycles unexpectly appeared on the screen, and the drone operator could do nothing as he watched the missile kill the two boys as well as the "insurgents" on the truck.)
The Columbia report, in addition to detailing the harm to civilians caused by drone strikes, delves deeper into the legal implications of Obama's policy, and its flagrant violations of the laws of war and interational humanitarian law. It also does a more thorough analysis of the roles of the CIA and JSOC, and the different legal authorities under which they operate, but pointing out that they have become virtually indistinguishable in practice. As a number of observers have pointed out, JSOC, sometimes called "the President's army," has a particular fascination for Obama, and it is his favorite killing instrument.
The super-secret JSOC operates without any significant public scrutiny and it also evades Congressional oversight, the Columbia report notes (which may be why Obama loves it so much). JSOC, as Gen. Barry McCaffrey noted, is "a parallel universe." It operates in almost total secrecy, outside of the conventional military command structure and rules of engagement. And it maneuvers in the cracks, in-between Congressional oversight of either military operations, or intelligence operations. Many if not most of the drone strikes with high civilian casualties, often attributed to CIA, are actually carried out by JSOC.
There are many indications that drone strikes are actually increasing overall violence and contributing to anti-American sentiment. A number of studies have found that the effect of the drone strikes has been a radicalization of the population and increased recruiting by Al-Qaeda and related groups. A lawyer in Yemen said the following in a May tweet: "Dear Obama, when a US drone kills a child in Yemen, the father will go to war with you, guaranteed. Nothing to do with al-Qaeda."