We can thank Pres. Woodrow Wilson, an Ivy League academic turned Democrat politician, for turning the keys for the financial destiny of the United States over, in 1913, to an Internationalist Banking cabal called the "Federal Reserve"- a group of people whose loyalty is to their own financial interests and 'bottom line', not to the United States.
Wilson, by the way, is the SAME president who introduced the American people to the Internal Revenue Service, took the United States into World War One (after promising in his election campaign that he wouldn't), and pushed hard for U.S.membership in the "League of Nations", an impotent forerunner to the current impotent United Nations.
Since Wilson turned U.S. financial policy over to the Federal Reserve, the U.S. economy has been held on the 'short leash' by International bankers, pursuing their global agenda.
Compliant and well-rewarded U.S.politicians in the Congress and White House have implemented the policies and goals of these bankers.
We are in the 'end-game' of a subversion of U.S.sovereignty, and an undermining and debasement of its economic system, that has been going on for a long, long time. And it all began with an Ivy League internationalist, turned Democrat politician, named Woodrow Wilson.
Pulling the United Nations OUT of the Federal Reserve is the first step to restoring U.S.sovereignty and economic freedom.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
To All Our Liberal Friends
Please accept with no obligation, implied or explicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2010, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great.
Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere.
Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
To All Our Conservative Friends:
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!
We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2010, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great.
Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere.
Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
To All Our Conservative Friends:
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
The Senator's Slurs &c.
Regarding the recent comments by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.):
Resorting to polemical and outrageous claims of racism is the last refuge (or sometimes the first) of liberals who can’t win substantively on issues.
They remind me of a law professor who once told me that if you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you don’t have the law but you have the facts, ignore the law and argue the facts.
If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, then attack your opponent to distract the jury from the fact that your client is guilty as hell.
Resorting to polemical and outrageous claims of racism is the last refuge (or sometimes the first) of liberals who can’t win substantively on issues.
They remind me of a law professor who once told me that if you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you don’t have the law but you have the facts, ignore the law and argue the facts.
If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, then attack your opponent to distract the jury from the fact that your client is guilty as hell.
Advice To Avatars Galaxy Wide
Andrew Bolt From Herald Sun December 23, 2009 (Australia)
MOST people will date the death of the great global warming scare not from the Copenhagen fiasco - boring! - but from Avatar.
It won't be the world's most expensive warmist conference but the world's most expensive movie that will stick in most memories as the precise point at which the green faith started to shrivel from sheer stupidity.
Avatar, in fact, is the warmist dream filmed in 3D. Staring through your glasses at James Cameron's spectacular $400 million creation, you can finally see where this global warming cult was going.
And you can see, too, everything that will now slowly pull it back to earth.
December 2009. Note it down. The beginning of the end, even as Avatar becomes possibly the biggest-grossing film in history.
Cameron, whose last colossal hit was Titanic, has created a virtual new planet called Pandora, on which humans 150 years from now have formed a small settlement.
They are there to mine a mineral so rare that it's called Unobtainium (groan), of which the greatest deposit sits right under the great sacred tree of the planet's dominant species, humanoid blue aliens called Na'vi.
If Tim Flannery, Al Gore and all the other Copenhagen delegates could at least agree to design a new kind of people, they'd wind up with something much like these 3m-tall gracelings.
The Na'vi live in trees, at one with nature. They worship Mother Earth and, like Gaians today, talk meaningfully of "a network of energy that flows through all living things". They drink water that's pooled in giant leaves, and chant around a tree that whispers of their ancestors.
They are also unusually non-sexist for a forest tribe, with the women just as free as men to hunt and choose their spouse. Naturally, like the most fashionable of Hollywood stars, they are also neo-Buddhist reincarnationists, who believe "all energy is borrowed and some day you have to give it back".
And, of course, the Na'vi reject all technology that's more advanced than a bow and arrow, for "the wealth of the world is all around us".
Sent to talk dollars and sense into these blue New Agers and move them out of the way of the bulldozers is a former Marine, Jake Sully (played by Australian Sam Worthington), who drives the body of a Na'vi avatar to better gain their trust.
(WARNING: Spoiler alert! Don't read on if you plan to see the movie.)
But meeting such perfect beings, living such low-emission green lives, Sully realises instead how vile his own species is.
Humans, he angrily declares, have already wrecked their own planet through their greed.
"There is no green" on their "dying world" because "they have killed their mother". Now we land-raping humans plan to wreck Pandora, too, with our "shock-and-awe" bombings, our war on "terror" and our genocidal plans to destroy the Na'vi and steal their lands.
So complete is Cameron's disgust with humans - and so convinced he is that his audience shares it - that he's made film history: he's created the first mass-market movie about a war between aliens and humans in which we're actually meant to barrack for the aliens.
(WARNING: Second spoiler alert!)
In fact, so vomitous are humans that Sully, the hero, not only chooses to fight on the side of the aliens but to actually become an alien, too. He rejects not just humans but his own humanity.
All of this preaching comes straight from what's left of Cameron's heart after five marriages and a professional reputation of on-set meanness.
Avatar, he's said, tackles "our impact on the natural environment, wherever we go strip mining and putting up shopping malls", and it warns "we're going to find out the hard way if we don't wise up and start seeking a life that's in balance with the natural cycle on life on earth".
Mind you, most of this will be just wallpaper to the film's real audience, which won't be greenies in Rasta beanies or wearing save-the-whale T-shirts made in Guatemala.
No, scoffing their popcorn as they wait impatiently for the inevitable big-bang shoot-'em-up after a fairground tour of some cool new planet will be the usual bag-laden crowd from the Christmas-choked megaplex - the kind of bug-eyed folk who thrill most to what Cameron claims to condemn, from the hi-tech to the militaristic.
Still, you can hardly blame them if they don't buy the message that Cameron's selling, since he doesn't really buy it himself.
Here's Cameron condemning consumerism by spending almost half a billion dollars on a mass-market movie for the Christmas season complete with tie-in burger deals from McDonald's and Avatar toys from Mattel.
Here's Cameron damning our love of technology by using the most advanced cinematographic technology to create his new green world.
In fact, here's Cameron urging his audience to scorn material possessions and get close to nature, only to himself retire each night to the splendid comfort of his Malibu mansion.
Not even his own creations live up to the philosophy he has them preach.
For all their talk of the connectedness of nature, the Na'vi still kill animals for food - although not before saying how sorry they are, of course, since we live in an age in which seeming sorry excuses every selfishness.
Likewise, despite all their lectures on not exploiting nature, the Na'vi still come out top dog in the food chain.
Even when they physically become at one with wild pterodactyls, by hooking up to them through some USB in their blue tails, they manage to convince their flying reptiles to act like their private jets.
Isn't this against the rules? I mean, in this caring and at-one-with-nature world, shouldn't a plugged-in pterodactyl just once in a while get to direct its human passenger instead - by either telling it to take a flying jump or to at least act like lunch?
In all of this, Avatar captures precisely - and to the point of satire - the creed of the Copenhagen faithful.
Rewind what you've seen from those Copenhagen planet-savers in the past two weeks.
There were the apocalyptic warnings of how we were killing the planet. There were the standing ovations the delegates gave last week to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's furious denunciations of capitalism, consumerism and the US military.
There was Bolivian President Evo Morales' cry for a simpler life: "It's changing economic policies, ending luxury, consumerism ... living better is to exploit human beings."
THERE were great crowds of activists such as Australia's Professor Clive Hamilton, who, like Avatar's Jake Sully, sermonises on the need to embrace "Gaian earth in its ecological, cybernetic way, infused with some notion of mind or soul or chi".
And there was the romanticising of the primitive by the demonstrators outside dressed as ferals and wild bears, as they banged tribal drums or chanted "Om" to Mother Earth.
Of course the Cameron-style have-it-both-ways hypocrites were there, too, luxuriating in the very lifestyles they condemned.
Take Prince Charles, who flew in his private RAF jet to Copenhagen to deliver a lecture on how our careless use of resources had pushed the planet "to the brink".
And then had his pilot fly him home to his palace.
But, yes, you are right. How can I say this great green faith is now toppling into the pit of ridicule, when Avatar seems sure to do colossal business? Won't a whole generation of the slack-jawed just catch this new green faith from the men in the blue costumes?
That's a risk. But having the green faith made so alien and such fodder for the entertainment of the candybar crowds will rob it of all sanctimony and cool.
Would a Cate Blanchett really be flattered to now be likened to a naked Na'vi, running from a pack of wild dogs in a dark forest?
Would an Al Gore really like to have millions of filmgoers see in 3D where his off-this-planet faith would lead them - up a tree, and without even a paddle?
No, we can now see their green world, and can see, too, it's time to come home.
MOST people will date the death of the great global warming scare not from the Copenhagen fiasco - boring! - but from Avatar.
It won't be the world's most expensive warmist conference but the world's most expensive movie that will stick in most memories as the precise point at which the green faith started to shrivel from sheer stupidity.
Avatar, in fact, is the warmist dream filmed in 3D. Staring through your glasses at James Cameron's spectacular $400 million creation, you can finally see where this global warming cult was going.
And you can see, too, everything that will now slowly pull it back to earth.
December 2009. Note it down. The beginning of the end, even as Avatar becomes possibly the biggest-grossing film in history.
Cameron, whose last colossal hit was Titanic, has created a virtual new planet called Pandora, on which humans 150 years from now have formed a small settlement.
They are there to mine a mineral so rare that it's called Unobtainium (groan), of which the greatest deposit sits right under the great sacred tree of the planet's dominant species, humanoid blue aliens called Na'vi.
If Tim Flannery, Al Gore and all the other Copenhagen delegates could at least agree to design a new kind of people, they'd wind up with something much like these 3m-tall gracelings.
The Na'vi live in trees, at one with nature. They worship Mother Earth and, like Gaians today, talk meaningfully of "a network of energy that flows through all living things". They drink water that's pooled in giant leaves, and chant around a tree that whispers of their ancestors.
They are also unusually non-sexist for a forest tribe, with the women just as free as men to hunt and choose their spouse. Naturally, like the most fashionable of Hollywood stars, they are also neo-Buddhist reincarnationists, who believe "all energy is borrowed and some day you have to give it back".
And, of course, the Na'vi reject all technology that's more advanced than a bow and arrow, for "the wealth of the world is all around us".
Sent to talk dollars and sense into these blue New Agers and move them out of the way of the bulldozers is a former Marine, Jake Sully (played by Australian Sam Worthington), who drives the body of a Na'vi avatar to better gain their trust.
(WARNING: Spoiler alert! Don't read on if you plan to see the movie.)
But meeting such perfect beings, living such low-emission green lives, Sully realises instead how vile his own species is.
Humans, he angrily declares, have already wrecked their own planet through their greed.
"There is no green" on their "dying world" because "they have killed their mother". Now we land-raping humans plan to wreck Pandora, too, with our "shock-and-awe" bombings, our war on "terror" and our genocidal plans to destroy the Na'vi and steal their lands.
So complete is Cameron's disgust with humans - and so convinced he is that his audience shares it - that he's made film history: he's created the first mass-market movie about a war between aliens and humans in which we're actually meant to barrack for the aliens.
(WARNING: Second spoiler alert!)
In fact, so vomitous are humans that Sully, the hero, not only chooses to fight on the side of the aliens but to actually become an alien, too. He rejects not just humans but his own humanity.
All of this preaching comes straight from what's left of Cameron's heart after five marriages and a professional reputation of on-set meanness.
Avatar, he's said, tackles "our impact on the natural environment, wherever we go strip mining and putting up shopping malls", and it warns "we're going to find out the hard way if we don't wise up and start seeking a life that's in balance with the natural cycle on life on earth".
Mind you, most of this will be just wallpaper to the film's real audience, which won't be greenies in Rasta beanies or wearing save-the-whale T-shirts made in Guatemala.
No, scoffing their popcorn as they wait impatiently for the inevitable big-bang shoot-'em-up after a fairground tour of some cool new planet will be the usual bag-laden crowd from the Christmas-choked megaplex - the kind of bug-eyed folk who thrill most to what Cameron claims to condemn, from the hi-tech to the militaristic.
Still, you can hardly blame them if they don't buy the message that Cameron's selling, since he doesn't really buy it himself.
Here's Cameron condemning consumerism by spending almost half a billion dollars on a mass-market movie for the Christmas season complete with tie-in burger deals from McDonald's and Avatar toys from Mattel.
Here's Cameron damning our love of technology by using the most advanced cinematographic technology to create his new green world.
In fact, here's Cameron urging his audience to scorn material possessions and get close to nature, only to himself retire each night to the splendid comfort of his Malibu mansion.
Not even his own creations live up to the philosophy he has them preach.
For all their talk of the connectedness of nature, the Na'vi still kill animals for food - although not before saying how sorry they are, of course, since we live in an age in which seeming sorry excuses every selfishness.
Likewise, despite all their lectures on not exploiting nature, the Na'vi still come out top dog in the food chain.
Even when they physically become at one with wild pterodactyls, by hooking up to them through some USB in their blue tails, they manage to convince their flying reptiles to act like their private jets.
Isn't this against the rules? I mean, in this caring and at-one-with-nature world, shouldn't a plugged-in pterodactyl just once in a while get to direct its human passenger instead - by either telling it to take a flying jump or to at least act like lunch?
In all of this, Avatar captures precisely - and to the point of satire - the creed of the Copenhagen faithful.
Rewind what you've seen from those Copenhagen planet-savers in the past two weeks.
There were the apocalyptic warnings of how we were killing the planet. There were the standing ovations the delegates gave last week to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's furious denunciations of capitalism, consumerism and the US military.
There was Bolivian President Evo Morales' cry for a simpler life: "It's changing economic policies, ending luxury, consumerism ... living better is to exploit human beings."
THERE were great crowds of activists such as Australia's Professor Clive Hamilton, who, like Avatar's Jake Sully, sermonises on the need to embrace "Gaian earth in its ecological, cybernetic way, infused with some notion of mind or soul or chi".
And there was the romanticising of the primitive by the demonstrators outside dressed as ferals and wild bears, as they banged tribal drums or chanted "Om" to Mother Earth.
Of course the Cameron-style have-it-both-ways hypocrites were there, too, luxuriating in the very lifestyles they condemned.
Take Prince Charles, who flew in his private RAF jet to Copenhagen to deliver a lecture on how our careless use of resources had pushed the planet "to the brink".
And then had his pilot fly him home to his palace.
But, yes, you are right. How can I say this great green faith is now toppling into the pit of ridicule, when Avatar seems sure to do colossal business? Won't a whole generation of the slack-jawed just catch this new green faith from the men in the blue costumes?
That's a risk. But having the green faith made so alien and such fodder for the entertainment of the candybar crowds will rob it of all sanctimony and cool.
Would a Cate Blanchett really be flattered to now be likened to a naked Na'vi, running from a pack of wild dogs in a dark forest?
Would an Al Gore really like to have millions of filmgoers see in 3D where his off-this-planet faith would lead them - up a tree, and without even a paddle?
No, we can now see their green world, and can see, too, it's time to come home.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
A Note From The Donkeys
Friend --
2009 has been a year of many important accomplishments for Democrats, and I'm grateful for all your help in making these successes possible.
So with the help of our friends at Organizing for America, the grassroots project of the Democratic National Committee, we put together a special holiday message, personalized for you, and I think you'll like it.
Click here to view it:
http://my.democrats.org/holiday
Thanks again for everything you do -- and happy holidays!
Governor Tim Kaine
2009 has been a year of many important accomplishments for Democrats, and I'm grateful for all your help in making these successes possible.
So with the help of our friends at Organizing for America, the grassroots project of the Democratic National Committee, we put together a special holiday message, personalized for you, and I think you'll like it.
Click here to view it:
http://my.democrats.org/holiday
Thanks again for everything you do -- and happy holidays!
Governor Tim Kaine
The Good News Is. . .
. . .this:
Feast, my friends, on the bitter tears of our enemies:
Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77: "This deal . . . has the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It's nothing short of climate change scepticism in action."
John Lanchbery, Birdlife International: "It sounds very vague. There's no next step, nothing to link through to how to get a final deal done."
Carl Pope, Sierra Club: "President Obama and the rest of the world paid a steep price here in Copenhagen because of obstructionism in the United States Senate."
John Ashe, Chair of Kyoto Protocol: "Given where we started and the expectations for this conference, anything less than a legally binding and agreed outcome falls far short of the mark."
John Sauven, Greenpeace: "It seems there are too few politicians in this world capable of looking beyond the horizon of their own narrow self-interest, let alone caring much for the millions of people who are facing down the threat of climate change."
Kate Horner, Friends of the Earth: "This toothless declaration, being spun by the US as an historic success, reflects contempt for the multilateral process and we expect more from our Nobel prize winning president."
Tim Jones, World Development Movement: "This summit has been in complete disarray from start to finish, culminating in a shameful and monumental failure that has condemned millions of people around the world to untold suffering."
Feast, my friends, on the bitter tears of our enemies:
Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77: "This deal . . . has the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It's nothing short of climate change scepticism in action."
John Lanchbery, Birdlife International: "It sounds very vague. There's no next step, nothing to link through to how to get a final deal done."
Carl Pope, Sierra Club: "President Obama and the rest of the world paid a steep price here in Copenhagen because of obstructionism in the United States Senate."
John Ashe, Chair of Kyoto Protocol: "Given where we started and the expectations for this conference, anything less than a legally binding and agreed outcome falls far short of the mark."
John Sauven, Greenpeace: "It seems there are too few politicians in this world capable of looking beyond the horizon of their own narrow self-interest, let alone caring much for the millions of people who are facing down the threat of climate change."
Kate Horner, Friends of the Earth: "This toothless declaration, being spun by the US as an historic success, reflects contempt for the multilateral process and we expect more from our Nobel prize winning president."
Tim Jones, World Development Movement: "This summit has been in complete disarray from start to finish, culminating in a shameful and monumental failure that has condemned millions of people around the world to untold suffering."
Friday, December 18, 2009
Capitalism, Copenhagen & Chavez
Our president is in Copenhagen. Perhaps while there he can sharpen his killing-capitalism skills. The Australian reports on the Hugo Chavez summit speech:
President Chavez brought the house down.
When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.
When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.
But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell...let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.
A standing ovation. Just thought you'd like to know. After all, this isn't just some activist with nutty ideas at a specialized, quirky side rally. It's the president of Venezuela at a global summit our president is now attending.
President Chavez brought the house down.
When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.
When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.
But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell...let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.
A standing ovation. Just thought you'd like to know. After all, this isn't just some activist with nutty ideas at a specialized, quirky side rally. It's the president of Venezuela at a global summit our president is now attending.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Global Warming v. Iran
A theme I have sounded before: the immense, world concern for global warming versus the concern over a nuclear Iran, and what some call “Islamofascism” more generally.
Tehran just test-fired a new missile, which is capable not only of hitting Israel but of hitting Europe.
The leaders in Copenhagen, waxing apocalyptic about global warming, were forced to take a little timeout to talk about Iran. Then they returned to Topic A, the obsession over climate.
Obviously, the world — “the world,” I should say — can address more than one concern at the same time (and must). But priorities come into play as well.
A friend sent me a quotation from Dennis Prager, which I’d like to share with you: “One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.”
That sums up neatly.
Tehran just test-fired a new missile, which is capable not only of hitting Israel but of hitting Europe.
The leaders in Copenhagen, waxing apocalyptic about global warming, were forced to take a little timeout to talk about Iran. Then they returned to Topic A, the obsession over climate.
Obviously, the world — “the world,” I should say — can address more than one concern at the same time (and must). But priorities come into play as well.
A friend sent me a quotation from Dennis Prager, which I’d like to share with you: “One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.”
That sums up neatly.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
I'm Not Dead Yet
Last August, we were told that the Lockerbie bomber, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, had prostate cancer and would be dead within three months.
The authorities then returned him from his Scottish prison to his home town of Tripoli in Libya, but you would have to be pretty simple to believe that they had acted purely from humanitarian motives, as they claimed.
Were they not inspired by vast oil and gas contracts with Libya? Six months have now passed, and al-Megrahi is still with us.
More than that, he has broken the terms of his release, which involved keeping in touch by telephone with Scottish authorities — not much of a restriction either. The guard outside his house says al-Megrahi is not there, and he is not in the hospital either.
The British government evidently has played its part in effecting a miraculous cure for that terminal cancer. It is easier to imagine al-Megrahi in a tuxedo in the Monte Carlo casino than in the morgue in Tripoli.
The authorities then returned him from his Scottish prison to his home town of Tripoli in Libya, but you would have to be pretty simple to believe that they had acted purely from humanitarian motives, as they claimed.
Were they not inspired by vast oil and gas contracts with Libya? Six months have now passed, and al-Megrahi is still with us.
More than that, he has broken the terms of his release, which involved keeping in touch by telephone with Scottish authorities — not much of a restriction either. The guard outside his house says al-Megrahi is not there, and he is not in the hospital either.
The British government evidently has played its part in effecting a miraculous cure for that terminal cancer. It is easier to imagine al-Megrahi in a tuxedo in the Monte Carlo casino than in the morgue in Tripoli.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Obama's Business Smart Administration
This extract from the Glen Beck show presents the percentage of each president's cabinet appointees who had previously worked in the private sector.
Roosevelt: 38%
Taft: 40%
Wilson: 52%
Harding: 49%
Coolidge: 48%
Hoover: 42%
FDR: 50%
Truman: 50%
Eisenhower: 57%
Kennedy: 30%
LBJ: 47%
Nixon: 53%
Ford:42%
Carter: 32%
Reagan: 56%
George HW Bush: 51%
Clinton: 39%
George W Bush: 55%
And...
Obama: 8%
Obama's guys are holding a "job summit." That ought to go really well.
Roosevelt: 38%
Taft: 40%
Wilson: 52%
Harding: 49%
Coolidge: 48%
Hoover: 42%
FDR: 50%
Truman: 50%
Eisenhower: 57%
Kennedy: 30%
LBJ: 47%
Nixon: 53%
Ford:42%
Carter: 32%
Reagan: 56%
George HW Bush: 51%
Clinton: 39%
George W Bush: 55%
And...
Obama: 8%
Obama's guys are holding a "job summit." That ought to go really well.
Friday, December 11, 2009
We Got Another One!
Reports about this have been floating around for a while but this is the first I've seen with a name—and that of a "natural successor to Bin Laden" to boot.
(CBS)--A U.S. government official says a top al Qaeda operative has been killed in a drone attack in western Pakistan, and local media says that the strike killed al Qaeda's number 3 in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi.
The U.S. is still not confirming the report, CBS News has learned.
Abu Yahya al-Libi is the spiritual successor to Palestinian philosopher Abu Azzam - and the inspiration for much of Bin Laden's beliefs, according to CBS News chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan. He is very powerful and believed by some to be the natural successor to Bin Laden.
Intelligence officials have confirmed that the pace of attacks by armed unmanned aerial vehicles has increased during the Obama administration.
As Jim Geraghty tweeted: "If our drone killed an al-Qaeda bigwig DURING Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech, it would be as cool as the closing scenes of The Godfather."
(CBS)--A U.S. government official says a top al Qaeda operative has been killed in a drone attack in western Pakistan, and local media says that the strike killed al Qaeda's number 3 in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi.
The U.S. is still not confirming the report, CBS News has learned.
Abu Yahya al-Libi is the spiritual successor to Palestinian philosopher Abu Azzam - and the inspiration for much of Bin Laden's beliefs, according to CBS News chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan. He is very powerful and believed by some to be the natural successor to Bin Laden.
Intelligence officials have confirmed that the pace of attacks by armed unmanned aerial vehicles has increased during the Obama administration.
As Jim Geraghty tweeted: "If our drone killed an al-Qaeda bigwig DURING Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech, it would be as cool as the closing scenes of The Godfather."
Monday, December 7, 2009
Pearl Harbor Day 2009
'I think of Pearl Harbor probably every day'
JOHN BURGESS/ PD Don Blair, 89, is the president of the local Pearl Harbor Survivors Association.
Published: Monday, December 7, 2009 at 4:02 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, December 7, 2009 at 4:02 a.m.
There are times, some marked by panicky midnight dreams or haphazard flashbacks, when Don Blair would rather forget Pearl Harbor.
"It's not as vivid now as it was," said the private and contemplative ex-sailor and retired postal employee. "But I think of Pearl Harbor probably every day, one way or another."
At 89, Blair is president of the regional chapter of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association whose membership has dwindled to a handful of old salts.
The Rohnert Park resident is proud to have served with the Navy and to have been at Pearl Harbor, even though the terror of what he saw and experienced aboard the beleaguered battleship Nevada 68 years ago today still haunts him.
At 7:55 a.m. on Sunday, Dec. 7, 1941, 23 members of a Navy band launched into the National Anthem for the morning's raising of the flag aboard the 29,000-ton battleship USS Nevada.
The Nevada -- America's 36th battleship, named for the 36th state -- was moored just off Pearl Harbor's Ford Island near the clustered battleships Arizona, Tennessee, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Maryland and California.
Suddenly, waves of Japanese torpedo bombers and dive-bombers attacked. All members of the Nevada's band stood their ground until finishing "The Star-Spangled Banner," then sprinted to their battle stations.
Blair, who served as a yeoman, has plenty to say about Pearl Harbor, but he is reluctant to say anything for fear it may sound like he's complaining. As grateful as he is that some people still honor WWII vets and show an interest in their war, he recoils at the thought of anyone equating him with his fellow warriors who demonstrated great valor under fire.
"I'm not unique," Blair said. "And I'm no hero."
At 8:10 a.m., a torpedo struck the port side of the Nevada and exploded. Water streamed in through the damaged hull.
The dreadnought's acting commanders -- Capt. F.W. Scanland had begun the day in Honolulu and was racing back to Pearl Harbor -- decided to make a run for the open sea.
As the ship groaned past the mortally damaged USS Arizona, an explosion on the Arizona blew a shower of metal debris onto the Nevada, killing several of its sailors.
Blair was born in North Dakota and grew up a hardworking and poor Depression-era farmboy. He enlisted at 19 in 1939 after a man-to-man with his girlfriend's uncle, a Navy recruiter.
"My gal friend and he talked me into it," he said. For Blair, putting on a military uniform was a pinch-me moment.
"I couldn't believe it," he said. "Me? Joining the Navy?"
It was mind-bending for him, too, to step aboard the 583-foot-long USS Nevada in San Pedro in September 1939.
"It was overwhelming," he remembered.
A petty officer, Blair was assigned to a steady stream of clerical duties related to the upkeep and repair of the battleship. He vividly remembers gazing out a porthole in his office as the ship lay moored on Battleship Row in sunny Pearl Harbor the morning of Dec. 7, 1941.
"I saw this plane flying in low -- and it had a meatball on it," he said. Then bombs fell.
As the only battleship to get under way that morning, the Nevada came under intense dive-bomber attack when it entered the harbor's main channel and made for the ocean.
Fearful it would be sunk and would block the entrance to the harbor, harbor officers ordered the Nevada to intentionally run aground at the channel's edge.
Crewmen worked fiercely to extinguish fires ignited by bombs as, shortly after 9 a.m., tugboats pushed the listing battleship onto the mud.
Blair's battle station was the central station, several decks below the Nevada's conning tower. He spent the entire morning of Dec. 7 down there and well into the afternoon, receiving and forwarding damage reports and standing ready to answer ship-structure inquiries that would require review of the Nevada's blueprints.
The great ship shivered and rocked as divebombers scored hits and near-misses. Blair could only imagine what was happening on deck and in the harbor.
By midafternoon, the seawater seeping into the damaged Nevada reached Blair's ankles and he requested permission to come up onto the deck. "I was afraid of getting electrocuted," he said.
When the attack ended, the Nevada had lost 50 officers and crewmen and it sat beached and swamped at the side of Pearl Harbor's channel.
Still, she had come through in far better shape than other battleships that had sat like ducks off Ford Island.
More than 1,100 sailors perished in the massive explosion aboard the Arizona. The Oklahoma lay on its side and both the California and West Virginia were sunk.
Across Oahu, the death count would reach 2,390.
Blair at last received permission to come up onto the main deck at the rear of the Nevada. There, the 21-year-old petty officer gulped the fresh air and got a taste of what had happened that morning.
"I could see blood all over the deck," he said. He came upon pallets waiting to be moved off the grounded ship. They were loaded with bodies and pieces of bodies.
"I didn't start to grasp any of it until I was standing on the main deck aft," Blair said. He remembers, too well, the sheer terror that occurred below deck later that night, when planes roared in that turned out to be American but everyone believed were returning Japanese.
The Nevada lay idled alongside the channel until she was refloated on Feb. 12, 1942.
The battleship was repaired and upgraded on the West Coast, then raced to rejoin the fight. It served in the Aleutians in mid-1943 and a year later became the only Pearl Harbor battleship to take part in the Normandy invasion.
The ship returned to the Pacific in 1945 to assist in the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa and await, if necessary, the invasion of Japan.
Blair was among the sailors transferred off the Nevada as 1942 dawned and America switched fully into war mode. Though sorry to leave the ship, he served as a yeoman at several Pacific posts and was in San Francisco when the war ended.
He remained in the Navy's active reserves for most of his working life. A highlight of his retirement in Sonoma County was discovering the Santa Rosa-based Chapter 23 of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association.
As old age and deaths have reduced the active members to only four or five, there was talk earlier this year of shutting the chapter down. Blair was among the old vets who wouldn't hear of it.
"When it folds up, it just puts us in the final hole in the ground," he said.
Too antiquated for further military duty, the USS Nevada was used as a target in the 1946 atomic bomb tests at Bikini in the Marshall Islands.
The Navy decommissioned the storied battleship in August of 1946. She was towed into the open ocean off of Hawaii and on July 13, 1948, was sunk by gunfire and torpedoes.
Blair has by now pondered the lessons of Pearl Harbor for almost 70 years. He learned for sure the true meaning of the National Anthem.
When it streamed through the fractured fleet's radios the day after the attack, he said, it resounded within him much more personally than it had when the Nevada's band struck it up just as hell broke loose the previous morning.
". . . the bombs bursting in air . . . our flag was still there." His flag was still there, and so was he and so was the now unified resolve of his nation.
"You never saw so many people cry" as when the anthem rallied hope across Pearl Harbor that Dec. 8, the old sailor said. "They tried to hide their crying. I did, too."
JOHN BURGESS/ PD Don Blair, 89, is the president of the local Pearl Harbor Survivors Association.
Published: Monday, December 7, 2009 at 4:02 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, December 7, 2009 at 4:02 a.m.
There are times, some marked by panicky midnight dreams or haphazard flashbacks, when Don Blair would rather forget Pearl Harbor.
"It's not as vivid now as it was," said the private and contemplative ex-sailor and retired postal employee. "But I think of Pearl Harbor probably every day, one way or another."
At 89, Blair is president of the regional chapter of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association whose membership has dwindled to a handful of old salts.
The Rohnert Park resident is proud to have served with the Navy and to have been at Pearl Harbor, even though the terror of what he saw and experienced aboard the beleaguered battleship Nevada 68 years ago today still haunts him.
At 7:55 a.m. on Sunday, Dec. 7, 1941, 23 members of a Navy band launched into the National Anthem for the morning's raising of the flag aboard the 29,000-ton battleship USS Nevada.
The Nevada -- America's 36th battleship, named for the 36th state -- was moored just off Pearl Harbor's Ford Island near the clustered battleships Arizona, Tennessee, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Maryland and California.
Suddenly, waves of Japanese torpedo bombers and dive-bombers attacked. All members of the Nevada's band stood their ground until finishing "The Star-Spangled Banner," then sprinted to their battle stations.
Blair, who served as a yeoman, has plenty to say about Pearl Harbor, but he is reluctant to say anything for fear it may sound like he's complaining. As grateful as he is that some people still honor WWII vets and show an interest in their war, he recoils at the thought of anyone equating him with his fellow warriors who demonstrated great valor under fire.
"I'm not unique," Blair said. "And I'm no hero."
At 8:10 a.m., a torpedo struck the port side of the Nevada and exploded. Water streamed in through the damaged hull.
The dreadnought's acting commanders -- Capt. F.W. Scanland had begun the day in Honolulu and was racing back to Pearl Harbor -- decided to make a run for the open sea.
As the ship groaned past the mortally damaged USS Arizona, an explosion on the Arizona blew a shower of metal debris onto the Nevada, killing several of its sailors.
Blair was born in North Dakota and grew up a hardworking and poor Depression-era farmboy. He enlisted at 19 in 1939 after a man-to-man with his girlfriend's uncle, a Navy recruiter.
"My gal friend and he talked me into it," he said. For Blair, putting on a military uniform was a pinch-me moment.
"I couldn't believe it," he said. "Me? Joining the Navy?"
It was mind-bending for him, too, to step aboard the 583-foot-long USS Nevada in San Pedro in September 1939.
"It was overwhelming," he remembered.
A petty officer, Blair was assigned to a steady stream of clerical duties related to the upkeep and repair of the battleship. He vividly remembers gazing out a porthole in his office as the ship lay moored on Battleship Row in sunny Pearl Harbor the morning of Dec. 7, 1941.
"I saw this plane flying in low -- and it had a meatball on it," he said. Then bombs fell.
As the only battleship to get under way that morning, the Nevada came under intense dive-bomber attack when it entered the harbor's main channel and made for the ocean.
Fearful it would be sunk and would block the entrance to the harbor, harbor officers ordered the Nevada to intentionally run aground at the channel's edge.
Crewmen worked fiercely to extinguish fires ignited by bombs as, shortly after 9 a.m., tugboats pushed the listing battleship onto the mud.
Blair's battle station was the central station, several decks below the Nevada's conning tower. He spent the entire morning of Dec. 7 down there and well into the afternoon, receiving and forwarding damage reports and standing ready to answer ship-structure inquiries that would require review of the Nevada's blueprints.
The great ship shivered and rocked as divebombers scored hits and near-misses. Blair could only imagine what was happening on deck and in the harbor.
By midafternoon, the seawater seeping into the damaged Nevada reached Blair's ankles and he requested permission to come up onto the deck. "I was afraid of getting electrocuted," he said.
When the attack ended, the Nevada had lost 50 officers and crewmen and it sat beached and swamped at the side of Pearl Harbor's channel.
Still, she had come through in far better shape than other battleships that had sat like ducks off Ford Island.
More than 1,100 sailors perished in the massive explosion aboard the Arizona. The Oklahoma lay on its side and both the California and West Virginia were sunk.
Across Oahu, the death count would reach 2,390.
Blair at last received permission to come up onto the main deck at the rear of the Nevada. There, the 21-year-old petty officer gulped the fresh air and got a taste of what had happened that morning.
"I could see blood all over the deck," he said. He came upon pallets waiting to be moved off the grounded ship. They were loaded with bodies and pieces of bodies.
"I didn't start to grasp any of it until I was standing on the main deck aft," Blair said. He remembers, too well, the sheer terror that occurred below deck later that night, when planes roared in that turned out to be American but everyone believed were returning Japanese.
The Nevada lay idled alongside the channel until she was refloated on Feb. 12, 1942.
The battleship was repaired and upgraded on the West Coast, then raced to rejoin the fight. It served in the Aleutians in mid-1943 and a year later became the only Pearl Harbor battleship to take part in the Normandy invasion.
The ship returned to the Pacific in 1945 to assist in the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa and await, if necessary, the invasion of Japan.
Blair was among the sailors transferred off the Nevada as 1942 dawned and America switched fully into war mode. Though sorry to leave the ship, he served as a yeoman at several Pacific posts and was in San Francisco when the war ended.
He remained in the Navy's active reserves for most of his working life. A highlight of his retirement in Sonoma County was discovering the Santa Rosa-based Chapter 23 of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association.
As old age and deaths have reduced the active members to only four or five, there was talk earlier this year of shutting the chapter down. Blair was among the old vets who wouldn't hear of it.
"When it folds up, it just puts us in the final hole in the ground," he said.
Too antiquated for further military duty, the USS Nevada was used as a target in the 1946 atomic bomb tests at Bikini in the Marshall Islands.
The Navy decommissioned the storied battleship in August of 1946. She was towed into the open ocean off of Hawaii and on July 13, 1948, was sunk by gunfire and torpedoes.
Blair has by now pondered the lessons of Pearl Harbor for almost 70 years. He learned for sure the true meaning of the National Anthem.
When it streamed through the fractured fleet's radios the day after the attack, he said, it resounded within him much more personally than it had when the Nevada's band struck it up just as hell broke loose the previous morning.
". . . the bombs bursting in air . . . our flag was still there." His flag was still there, and so was he and so was the now unified resolve of his nation.
"You never saw so many people cry" as when the anthem rallied hope across Pearl Harbor that Dec. 8, the old sailor said. "They tried to hide their crying. I did, too."
The Speech That Will Live In Infamy
EDITORIAL: Leadership in war
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Today is the anniversary of a day that will live in infamy. On Dec. 7, 1941, Imperial Japan launched surprise attacks that brought America into the Second World War. The United States and our allies were blessed with leaders who were dedicated to doing whatever it took to defeat the enemy, no matter how long that took. As General Douglas MacArthur put it so succinctly, "In war, there is no substitute for victory." That's a lesson our current president still needs to learn.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dec. 8, 1941: "No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory. ... With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God."
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, May 10, 1940: "Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. ... The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us.
"Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.
"Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'"
President Harry S. Truman, July 19, 1950: "We know that the cost of freedom is high. But we are determined to preserve our freedom - no matter what the cost."
President Barack H. Obama, Dec. 1, 2009: "There are those who oppose identifying a time-frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort. ... I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests."
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Today is the anniversary of a day that will live in infamy. On Dec. 7, 1941, Imperial Japan launched surprise attacks that brought America into the Second World War. The United States and our allies were blessed with leaders who were dedicated to doing whatever it took to defeat the enemy, no matter how long that took. As General Douglas MacArthur put it so succinctly, "In war, there is no substitute for victory." That's a lesson our current president still needs to learn.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dec. 8, 1941: "No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory. ... With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God."
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, May 10, 1940: "Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. ... The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us.
"Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.
"Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'"
President Harry S. Truman, July 19, 1950: "We know that the cost of freedom is high. But we are determined to preserve our freedom - no matter what the cost."
President Barack H. Obama, Dec. 1, 2009: "There are those who oppose identifying a time-frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort. ... I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests."
Tiger's Wood
So the count has reached nine. Do you suppose we'll eventually end up at Tiger's 19th hole?
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Obama's Ebb & Flow
The surge in troops is to be followed immediately by the drawdown in troops.
Even while we make it clear that we’re not planning to stick around, we will somehow persuade Afghan Muslims to carry on the fight on our behalf against their fellow Afghan Muslims.
And in that 18-month bat of an eye, we will do what we haven’t been able to do in seven years, namely, turn Afghan security forces into competent soldiers and police who are motivated to do what we’re telling them it’s not worth our effort to do: battle the Taliban (who are not leaving in 18 months, by the way).
And, in that same blink of an eye, we’ll also do what no one’s been able to do in history: Turn Afghanistan into a functioning country.
This would be preposterous if it were actually a national-security strategy. But it’s not. It’s a political strategy. It’s incoherent, but it’s working: The Right is snowed, the Left is appeased.
We’re coming, but we’re leaving.
We’re sending thousands of warriors, but they won’t be making war. We’re nation building in a place we’d have to occupy for a century to build a nation, but we’re not occupiers, and we’ll be calling it a wrap in 18 months.
In the interim, Afghanistan can go off the radar while we socialize medicine, save the planet from the contrived heat death, and get ACORN busy on the midterms.
We can deal with Afghanistan again in July 2011, when we’ll have a better read on the landscape for Obama’s 2012 reelection bid.
Saul Alinsky would be proud.
Even while we make it clear that we’re not planning to stick around, we will somehow persuade Afghan Muslims to carry on the fight on our behalf against their fellow Afghan Muslims.
And in that 18-month bat of an eye, we will do what we haven’t been able to do in seven years, namely, turn Afghan security forces into competent soldiers and police who are motivated to do what we’re telling them it’s not worth our effort to do: battle the Taliban (who are not leaving in 18 months, by the way).
And, in that same blink of an eye, we’ll also do what no one’s been able to do in history: Turn Afghanistan into a functioning country.
This would be preposterous if it were actually a national-security strategy. But it’s not. It’s a political strategy. It’s incoherent, but it’s working: The Right is snowed, the Left is appeased.
We’re coming, but we’re leaving.
We’re sending thousands of warriors, but they won’t be making war. We’re nation building in a place we’d have to occupy for a century to build a nation, but we’re not occupiers, and we’ll be calling it a wrap in 18 months.
In the interim, Afghanistan can go off the radar while we socialize medicine, save the planet from the contrived heat death, and get ACORN busy on the midterms.
We can deal with Afghanistan again in July 2011, when we’ll have a better read on the landscape for Obama’s 2012 reelection bid.
Saul Alinsky would be proud.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Searching In Vain for the Obama Magic
President Barack Obama's Tuesday speech left a bad taste in many mouths. This is a solid piece.
Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.
One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama's speech would be well-received.
Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond "enthusiastically" to the speech. But it didn't help: The soldiers' reception was cool.
One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.
An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan -- and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.
Just in Time for the Campaign
For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama's re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.
The speech continued in that vein. It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the "world's great religions." He promised that responsibility for the country's security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai -- a government which he said was "corrupt." The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But "America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars," he added.
It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage.
Obama's Magic No Longer Works
But in this case, the public was more disturbed than entertained. Indeed, one could see the phenomenon in a number of places in recent weeks: Obama's magic no longer works. The allure of his words has grown weaker.
It is not he himself who has changed, but rather the benchmark used to evaluate him. For a president, the unit of measurement is real life. A leader is seen by citizens through the prism of their lives -- their job, their household budget, where they live and suffer. And, in the case of the war on terror, where they sometimes die.
Political dreams and yearnings for the future belong elsewhere. That was where the political charmer Obama was able to successfully capture the imaginations of millions of voters. It is a place where campaigners -- particularly those with a talent for oration -- are fond of taking refuge. It is also where Obama set up his campaign headquarters, in an enormous tent called "Hope."
In his speech on America's new Afghanistan strategy, Obama tried to speak to both places. It was two speeches in one. That is why it felt so false. Both dreamers and realists were left feeling distraught.
The American president doesn't need any opponents at the moment. He's already got himself.
This is an International Opinion from Spiegel Online International by Gabor Steingart.
Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.
One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama's speech would be well-received.
Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond "enthusiastically" to the speech. But it didn't help: The soldiers' reception was cool.
One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.
An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan -- and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.
Just in Time for the Campaign
For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama's re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.
The speech continued in that vein. It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the "world's great religions." He promised that responsibility for the country's security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai -- a government which he said was "corrupt." The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But "America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars," he added.
It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage.
Obama's Magic No Longer Works
But in this case, the public was more disturbed than entertained. Indeed, one could see the phenomenon in a number of places in recent weeks: Obama's magic no longer works. The allure of his words has grown weaker.
It is not he himself who has changed, but rather the benchmark used to evaluate him. For a president, the unit of measurement is real life. A leader is seen by citizens through the prism of their lives -- their job, their household budget, where they live and suffer. And, in the case of the war on terror, where they sometimes die.
Political dreams and yearnings for the future belong elsewhere. That was where the political charmer Obama was able to successfully capture the imaginations of millions of voters. It is a place where campaigners -- particularly those with a talent for oration -- are fond of taking refuge. It is also where Obama set up his campaign headquarters, in an enormous tent called "Hope."
In his speech on America's new Afghanistan strategy, Obama tried to speak to both places. It was two speeches in one. That is why it felt so false. Both dreamers and realists were left feeling distraught.
The American president doesn't need any opponents at the moment. He's already got himself.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Jobs And Reality
The jobs report might, to borrow a phrase, "hide the decline" in employment.
Two economists who predicted that the November numbers would be better than expected say the improvement may be attributable to quirks in the Labor Department's statistical models.
The models adjust for regular seasonal fluctuations in employment, but give added weight to fluctuations in recent years.
So the 610,000 jobs that were lost last November in the wake of the Lehman Brothers collapse — the first decline in that month since 2001 and the largest ever recorded —figured heavily into the Department's estimate of new jobless claims, and could have given "the impression the labor market is improving faster than it actually is."
Said one of the economists: "It may not be a sign that we have gotten to the point where we are going to see sustainable gains in employment.”
The seasonal adjustment issue seems to have worked in reverse for October, making it appear as though the economy shed more jobs than it actually did.
The economists cited in the story also correctly predicted that the jobs report would revise October assessments downward.
Two economists who predicted that the November numbers would be better than expected say the improvement may be attributable to quirks in the Labor Department's statistical models.
The models adjust for regular seasonal fluctuations in employment, but give added weight to fluctuations in recent years.
So the 610,000 jobs that were lost last November in the wake of the Lehman Brothers collapse — the first decline in that month since 2001 and the largest ever recorded —figured heavily into the Department's estimate of new jobless claims, and could have given "the impression the labor market is improving faster than it actually is."
Said one of the economists: "It may not be a sign that we have gotten to the point where we are going to see sustainable gains in employment.”
The seasonal adjustment issue seems to have worked in reverse for October, making it appear as though the economy shed more jobs than it actually did.
The economists cited in the story also correctly predicted that the jobs report would revise October assessments downward.
Stimulating, Baby!
So what can Recovery.gov tell us about the impact of the stimulus on Allentown, Pennsylvania, the first stop on President Obama's jobs tour?
Examining Zip Code 18102 on Recovery.gov tells me that the "City of Allentown" was awarded $672,157 in total gifts, and 0.00 jobs were created or saved from it.
Then another $2,258,098 was awarded to the "City of Allentown", with another 0.00 jobs created or saved.
The "Allentown Housing Authority" was awarded $2,274,904, with another 0.00 jobs created or saved.
The "School District of the City of Allentown" was awarded $5,967,031 with the space for "jobs created/saved" left blank.
So there's $10 million with no jobs created.
Then the "Roberto Clemente Charter School" was listed as "amount for location" of $100,560, with the space for "jobs created/saved" left blank.
"Allentown Art Museum Inc." was listed as "amount for location" of $50,000, with the space for "jobs created/saved" left blank.
"Boys and Girls Club of Allentown" was listed as "amount for location" of $42,500, with the space for "jobs created/saved" left blank.
"Valley Youth House Committee" was listed as "amount for location" of $85,111, with the space for "jobs created/saved" left blank.
The "Lehigh County Conference of Churches" was listed as "amount for location" of $225,000, with the space for "jobs created/saved" left blank.
Hey, I think I spotted the problem with the economy! All of this money is being thrown around, but nobody's created any jobs with it!
Examining Zip Code 18102 on Recovery.gov tells me that the "City of Allentown" was awarded $672,157 in total gifts, and 0.00 jobs were created or saved from it.
Then another $2,258,098 was awarded to the "City of Allentown", with another 0.00 jobs created or saved.
The "Allentown Housing Authority" was awarded $2,274,904, with another 0.00 jobs created or saved.
The "School District of the City of Allentown" was awarded $5,967,031 with the space for "jobs created/saved" left blank.
So there's $10 million with no jobs created.
Then the "Roberto Clemente Charter School" was listed as "amount for location" of $100,560, with the space for "jobs created/saved" left blank.
"Allentown Art Museum Inc." was listed as "amount for location" of $50,000, with the space for "jobs created/saved" left blank.
"Boys and Girls Club of Allentown" was listed as "amount for location" of $42,500, with the space for "jobs created/saved" left blank.
"Valley Youth House Committee" was listed as "amount for location" of $85,111, with the space for "jobs created/saved" left blank.
The "Lehigh County Conference of Churches" was listed as "amount for location" of $225,000, with the space for "jobs created/saved" left blank.
Hey, I think I spotted the problem with the economy! All of this money is being thrown around, but nobody's created any jobs with it!
Thursday, December 3, 2009
House Cancels Estate Tax Repeal
From the Washington Post:
The House votes 224-199 to cancel a one-year repeal of the estate tax, set to begin next month, and instead permanently extends the current tax, with a top rate of 45 percent on estates larger than $3.5 million.
The House votes 224-199 to cancel a one-year repeal of the estate tax, set to begin next month, and instead permanently extends the current tax, with a top rate of 45 percent on estates larger than $3.5 million.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Here Comes Santa Claus (Again)
For 20 years, they have put up a Christmas tree in the Orange County Superior Courthouse. I’m talkin’ California — Bob Dornan country (at least it used to be that).
The tree is part of “Operation Santa Claus,” which gives gifts to poor children. This year, a member of the public complained about the tree, and, on the basis of that one person’s complaint, the court ditched the tree.
Said a spokeswoman, “It’s a public building and we have to serve the diversity of our community.”
But other people were not willing to accept that view of American life and law.
Court employees petitioned for the reinstatement of the tree; citizens at large gave the court an earful, too. Long story short: The court’s powers-that-be brought back the tree.
Who said every one of these “War on Christmas” stories has to have an unhappy ending?
And who said that, on hearing the word “diversity,” every Christmas tree must wilt?
The tree is part of “Operation Santa Claus,” which gives gifts to poor children. This year, a member of the public complained about the tree, and, on the basis of that one person’s complaint, the court ditched the tree.
Said a spokeswoman, “It’s a public building and we have to serve the diversity of our community.”
But other people were not willing to accept that view of American life and law.
Court employees petitioned for the reinstatement of the tree; citizens at large gave the court an earful, too. Long story short: The court’s powers-that-be brought back the tree.
Who said every one of these “War on Christmas” stories has to have an unhappy ending?
And who said that, on hearing the word “diversity,” every Christmas tree must wilt?
Poker According To Hoyer
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer seems as out of date as the Huffington Post: "House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) lashed out at the Bush administration's handling of Afghanistan in a morning press conference Tuesday."
That's not an old story; that's from yesterday.
Also note that Hoyer said back in October that he had "reservations" about sending more troops to Afghanistan, but that yesterday he accused the Bush administration of "abandoning the effort" in Afghanistan and claimed they "turned tail."
Somehow President Bush managed to abandon Afghanistan while the number of troops in the country increased every year.
So, just to clarify, Hoyer contends when Bush didn't send troops in previous years, he was abandoning the effort, even though Hoyer is not sure sending more troops will do any good.
Look, sir, perhaps you should just stick to "it's all Bush's fault" and save the rest of us some time.
That's not an old story; that's from yesterday.
Also note that Hoyer said back in October that he had "reservations" about sending more troops to Afghanistan, but that yesterday he accused the Bush administration of "abandoning the effort" in Afghanistan and claimed they "turned tail."
Somehow President Bush managed to abandon Afghanistan while the number of troops in the country increased every year.
So, just to clarify, Hoyer contends when Bush didn't send troops in previous years, he was abandoning the effort, even though Hoyer is not sure sending more troops will do any good.
Look, sir, perhaps you should just stick to "it's all Bush's fault" and save the rest of us some time.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Beating The Bushes
Even if this report, http://foreign.senate.gov/, is true the dubious timing should be alarming to any clear-thinking observer.
That the release of the report blames the Bush Administration for everything that's wrong the the War on Terror--Whoops!, rather the "Overseas Contingency Operation" comes as no surprise.
That the release of the information, written by Democrats, preceeds yet another major teleprompted speech by just days is shameless. And a disgrace to the nation.
That the release of the report blames the Bush Administration for everything that's wrong the the War on Terror--Whoops!, rather the "Overseas Contingency Operation" comes as no surprise.
That the release of the information, written by Democrats, preceeds yet another major teleprompted speech by just days is shameless. And a disgrace to the nation.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
If This Doesn't Keep You Up At Night, Nothing Will
By Clifford D. May
The Heritage Foundation recently convened a meeting of experts to discuss “Weapons of Mass Destruction and America’s Communities,” the various ways our terrorist enemies might attack us and our allies in the future, and what might be done to stop them. You can imagine what a merry gathering this was.
The most obvious concern: the spread of nuclear weapons. Within the group, there was consensus that if Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, is not prevented from acquiring nukes, the result will be a nuclear proliferation “cascade.” Before long, so many countries would have so many nuclear devices that the chances of terrorist groups getting their hands on at least a few would increase exponentially.
A scenario perhaps even more frightening: Terrorists using biological weapons, setting off epidemics of smallpox, Ebola virus, or other hemorrhagic fevers; a crop duster spreading ten pounds of anthrax causing more deaths than in World War II; genetically engineered pathogens — for example, a super-contagious form of HIV. A bio attack would be much easier to carry off than a nuclear attack; biological weapons can be manufactured in hidden laboratories and spread by unarmed and innocent-looking individuals.
We also discussed radiological dispersal devices (RDD), more commonly known as “dirty bombs.” Such weapons are fairly simple to construct: radioactive materials — e.g. radium, radon, thorium — are wrapped around a core of conventional explosives. Though an RDD would not carry the lethality of a nuclear or biological weapon, its psychological and economic impact could be substantial.
How else might terrorists advance toward their goal, succinctly articulated by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as “a world without America”? Adm. Mike McConnell, until February of this year the director of National Intelligence — America’s top spy — recently told Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes that he was increasingly concerned about cyber warfare, the use of computers and the Internet as weapons.
“If I were an attacker and I wanted to do strategic damage to the United States . . . I probably would sack electric power” throughout as much of the country as possible, he said. McConnell worries also about the possibility that a cyber attacker could destroy the electronic processes and records that keep track of money and its movements, thereby setting off an economic collapse.
In the same report, Jim Lewis, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Kroft: “In 2007 we probably had our electronic Pearl Harbor. It was an espionage Pearl Harbor. Some unknown foreign power, and honestly, we don’t know who it is, broke into the Department of Defense, to the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, probably the Department of Energy, probably NASA.”
Another way to destroy the electric grid as well as everything computerized: an Electromagnetic Pulse Attack. In 2001 the U.S. government established a commission to “assess the threat to the United States” from an EMP attack. The commission reported to Congress that if a nuclear warhead were to be detonated at high altitude over the American mainland the blast would produce a shockwave so powerful that it would “cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure.” Before long, millions of Americans would, as the Wall Street Journal flatly phrased it, “die of starvation or want of medical care.” The CIA has translated Iranian military journals in which EMP attacks against the U.S. are explicitly discussed.
Among the experts attending this conference, all agreed that the use of such terrorist weapons is a more serious and imminent threat than is “global warming.” Yet no summits are being organized to decide how the U.S. and other targeted nations can best defend themselves.
I would argue also — as I did at the Heritage meeting — that defensive measures alone, while necessary, are not enough. Instead, we must recognize that we are engaged in a great global conflict, one that is no less serious because it is unconventional and asymmetrical.
Outreach, engagement, and exercises in “conflict resolution” are useful when the U.S. has a dispute with Mexico or when the Netherlands disagrees with Luxembourg. But this approach makes no sense when dealing with self-proclaimed jihadis eager to use 21st-century weapons to achieve 7th-century goals.
Iran’s ruling mullahs have been killing Americans for decades — for example, in Beirut, Iraq, and most recently in Afghanistan. They write “Death to America!” on their missiles. It would be both foolhardy and irresponsible to let such extremists acquire nuclear weapons in the hope that somehow, when their capabilities match their intentions, they will suddenly decide they would prefer our respect rather than our destruction.
If we are to prevent our enemies from doing the kind of damage they intend, we must stay on offense. We need to keep our enemies nervous, under pressure, and on the run. We’ll need to go after the bad guys in their training camps, laboratories, and safe houses — wherever those may be. We’ll need to force them to continually look over their shoulders and worry that they may be killed or captured — and being captured should not mean they are rewarded with a global stage to spout their propaganda at American taxpayer expense.
We need to choose: Do we intend to advance or retreat, hunt or be hunted — win or lose? There is no fortress we can construct, no balance of power and terror we can achieve, no gesture or concession that will make us inoffensive to our enemies. When the barbarians are at the gate, you need to do more than lock up — and we haven’t even done that yet.
George Orwell articulated a fundamental rule of national security: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” Most of the West is now led by people who believe that rule may have once applied but no longer. If that doesn’t keep you awake at night, nothing will.
Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.
The Heritage Foundation recently convened a meeting of experts to discuss “Weapons of Mass Destruction and America’s Communities,” the various ways our terrorist enemies might attack us and our allies in the future, and what might be done to stop them. You can imagine what a merry gathering this was.
The most obvious concern: the spread of nuclear weapons. Within the group, there was consensus that if Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, is not prevented from acquiring nukes, the result will be a nuclear proliferation “cascade.” Before long, so many countries would have so many nuclear devices that the chances of terrorist groups getting their hands on at least a few would increase exponentially.
A scenario perhaps even more frightening: Terrorists using biological weapons, setting off epidemics of smallpox, Ebola virus, or other hemorrhagic fevers; a crop duster spreading ten pounds of anthrax causing more deaths than in World War II; genetically engineered pathogens — for example, a super-contagious form of HIV. A bio attack would be much easier to carry off than a nuclear attack; biological weapons can be manufactured in hidden laboratories and spread by unarmed and innocent-looking individuals.
We also discussed radiological dispersal devices (RDD), more commonly known as “dirty bombs.” Such weapons are fairly simple to construct: radioactive materials — e.g. radium, radon, thorium — are wrapped around a core of conventional explosives. Though an RDD would not carry the lethality of a nuclear or biological weapon, its psychological and economic impact could be substantial.
How else might terrorists advance toward their goal, succinctly articulated by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as “a world without America”? Adm. Mike McConnell, until February of this year the director of National Intelligence — America’s top spy — recently told Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes that he was increasingly concerned about cyber warfare, the use of computers and the Internet as weapons.
“If I were an attacker and I wanted to do strategic damage to the United States . . . I probably would sack electric power” throughout as much of the country as possible, he said. McConnell worries also about the possibility that a cyber attacker could destroy the electronic processes and records that keep track of money and its movements, thereby setting off an economic collapse.
In the same report, Jim Lewis, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Kroft: “In 2007 we probably had our electronic Pearl Harbor. It was an espionage Pearl Harbor. Some unknown foreign power, and honestly, we don’t know who it is, broke into the Department of Defense, to the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, probably the Department of Energy, probably NASA.”
Another way to destroy the electric grid as well as everything computerized: an Electromagnetic Pulse Attack. In 2001 the U.S. government established a commission to “assess the threat to the United States” from an EMP attack. The commission reported to Congress that if a nuclear warhead were to be detonated at high altitude over the American mainland the blast would produce a shockwave so powerful that it would “cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure.” Before long, millions of Americans would, as the Wall Street Journal flatly phrased it, “die of starvation or want of medical care.” The CIA has translated Iranian military journals in which EMP attacks against the U.S. are explicitly discussed.
Among the experts attending this conference, all agreed that the use of such terrorist weapons is a more serious and imminent threat than is “global warming.” Yet no summits are being organized to decide how the U.S. and other targeted nations can best defend themselves.
I would argue also — as I did at the Heritage meeting — that defensive measures alone, while necessary, are not enough. Instead, we must recognize that we are engaged in a great global conflict, one that is no less serious because it is unconventional and asymmetrical.
Outreach, engagement, and exercises in “conflict resolution” are useful when the U.S. has a dispute with Mexico or when the Netherlands disagrees with Luxembourg. But this approach makes no sense when dealing with self-proclaimed jihadis eager to use 21st-century weapons to achieve 7th-century goals.
Iran’s ruling mullahs have been killing Americans for decades — for example, in Beirut, Iraq, and most recently in Afghanistan. They write “Death to America!” on their missiles. It would be both foolhardy and irresponsible to let such extremists acquire nuclear weapons in the hope that somehow, when their capabilities match their intentions, they will suddenly decide they would prefer our respect rather than our destruction.
If we are to prevent our enemies from doing the kind of damage they intend, we must stay on offense. We need to keep our enemies nervous, under pressure, and on the run. We’ll need to go after the bad guys in their training camps, laboratories, and safe houses — wherever those may be. We’ll need to force them to continually look over their shoulders and worry that they may be killed or captured — and being captured should not mean they are rewarded with a global stage to spout their propaganda at American taxpayer expense.
We need to choose: Do we intend to advance or retreat, hunt or be hunted — win or lose? There is no fortress we can construct, no balance of power and terror we can achieve, no gesture or concession that will make us inoffensive to our enemies. When the barbarians are at the gate, you need to do more than lock up — and we haven’t even done that yet.
George Orwell articulated a fundamental rule of national security: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” Most of the West is now led by people who believe that rule may have once applied but no longer. If that doesn’t keep you awake at night, nothing will.
Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.
We're Crashing At The White House
It's looking more and more like the cable network Bravo helped Tareq and Michaele Salahi crash the recent White House state dinner.
Bravo is owned by NBC. If Bravo is found to have helped these two idiots, what penalty is appropriate for NBC?
I'm sure if FOX NEWS were somehow involved, the Left would be calling for a ban of FOX NEWS. Let's see if the same applies for NBC News.
Bravo is owned by NBC. If Bravo is found to have helped these two idiots, what penalty is appropriate for NBC?
I'm sure if FOX NEWS were somehow involved, the Left would be calling for a ban of FOX NEWS. Let's see if the same applies for NBC News.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Ronald Reagan's Thanksgiving Day Address, 1985
“Good morning, everyone. You know, the Statue of Liberty and this wonderful holiday called Thanksgiving go together naturally because although as Americans we have many things for which to be thankful, none is more important than our liberty. Liberty: that quality of government, that brightness of mind and spirit for which the Pilgrim Fathers braved the seas and Americans for two centuries have laid down their lives.
“Today, while religion is suppressed in perhaps one third of the world, we Americans are free to worship the Almighty as we choose. While entire nations must endure the yoke of tyranny, we are free to speak our minds, to enjoy an unfettered and vigorous press, and to make government abide by the limits we deem just. While millions live behind walls, we remain free to travel throughout the land to share this precious day with those we love most deeply – the members of our families.
“My fellow Americans, let us keep this Thanksgiving Day sacred. Let us thank God for the bounty and goodness of our nation. And as a measure of our gratitude, let us rededicate ourselves to the preservation of this: the land of the free and the home of the brave.
“From the Reagan family to your family: happy Thanksgiving and God bless you all.”
Thanks to Mark Levin for finding this gem.
Brought to you by the editors and research staff of FamilySecurityMatters.org.
“Today, while religion is suppressed in perhaps one third of the world, we Americans are free to worship the Almighty as we choose. While entire nations must endure the yoke of tyranny, we are free to speak our minds, to enjoy an unfettered and vigorous press, and to make government abide by the limits we deem just. While millions live behind walls, we remain free to travel throughout the land to share this precious day with those we love most deeply – the members of our families.
“My fellow Americans, let us keep this Thanksgiving Day sacred. Let us thank God for the bounty and goodness of our nation. And as a measure of our gratitude, let us rededicate ourselves to the preservation of this: the land of the free and the home of the brave.
“From the Reagan family to your family: happy Thanksgiving and God bless you all.”
Thanks to Mark Levin for finding this gem.
Brought to you by the editors and research staff of FamilySecurityMatters.org.
Monday, November 16, 2009
RE: Is There Anyone Our President Won't Bow Before?
I think what we are seeing with Obama's latest tour is the long-anticipated political reckoning concerning our gargantuan national debt and epic annual deficit spending.
If Obama is going to bow, he should do it before the Chinese, who don't want to hear any more sermonizing about their human-rights record, their coal-burning, or their protectionist mercantile economy — not when the present U.S. government is running a near $2 trillion annual deficit, with plans to pile on another $9 trillion in aggregate annual debt.
Getting to the first $10 trillion in national debt meant an erosion of our national autonomy, but nearly doubling that in just a few years under Obama has brought us the present spectacle.
Bowing, apologizing, and granting concessions may be Obama's preferred style, but it is increasingly a realistic reflection of the catastrophic position in which the United States over the last decade has put itself — by living far beyond its means, borrowing from those it lectures, and expecting energy to be produced abroad under any conditions while selfishly declaring its own resources off limits.
[This will be my last post for a few days due to a family medical emergency.]
If Obama is going to bow, he should do it before the Chinese, who don't want to hear any more sermonizing about their human-rights record, their coal-burning, or their protectionist mercantile economy — not when the present U.S. government is running a near $2 trillion annual deficit, with plans to pile on another $9 trillion in aggregate annual debt.
Getting to the first $10 trillion in national debt meant an erosion of our national autonomy, but nearly doubling that in just a few years under Obama has brought us the present spectacle.
Bowing, apologizing, and granting concessions may be Obama's preferred style, but it is increasingly a realistic reflection of the catastrophic position in which the United States over the last decade has put itself — by living far beyond its means, borrowing from those it lectures, and expecting energy to be produced abroad under any conditions while selfishly declaring its own resources off limits.
[This will be my last post for a few days due to a family medical emergency.]
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Is There Anyone Our President Won't Bow Before?
For the love of God, who's next Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Our Leader
Does the man know he's the President of the United States? If he can bow to foreign leaders could he pledge our flag or salute our country?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
We Figured Him Out
By Ben Stein
Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?
Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:
The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008.
They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.
They ignored his anti-white writings in his books.
They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.
They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student.
They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.
The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.
Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth.
Barack Obama is a super-likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.
The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.
Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.
The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.
These are perilous times. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State,
has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation.
Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care.
It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud if believed to be caused by man.
Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms. There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America.
Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes "Ben Stein's Diary" for every issue of The American Spectator.
[H/T Ruthie]
Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?
Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:
The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008.
They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.
They ignored his anti-white writings in his books.
They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.
They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student.
They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.
The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.
Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth.
Barack Obama is a super-likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.
The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.
Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.
The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.
These are perilous times. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State,
has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation.
Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care.
It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud if believed to be caused by man.
Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms. There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America.
Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes "Ben Stein's Diary" for every issue of The American Spectator.
[H/T Ruthie]
The "Victim" Obama
George W. Bush inherited a recession.
He also inherited the Iraq no-fly zones, a Middle East boiling after the failed last-minute Clintonian rush for an imposed peace, an intelligence community wedded to the notion of Saddam's WMD proliferation, a Congress on record supporting "regime change" in Iraq, a WMD program in Libya, a Syrian occupation of Lebanon, Osama bin Laden enjoying free rein in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, a renegade Pakistan that had gone nuclear on Clinton's watch with Dr. Khan in full export mode, and a pattern of appeasing radical Islam after its serial attacks (on the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers, U.S. embassies, and the U.S.S. Cole).
In other words, Bush inherited the regular "stuff" that confronts most presidents when they take office.
What is strange is that Obama has established a narrative that he, supposedly unlike any other president, inherited a mess.
He also inherited the Iraq no-fly zones, a Middle East boiling after the failed last-minute Clintonian rush for an imposed peace, an intelligence community wedded to the notion of Saddam's WMD proliferation, a Congress on record supporting "regime change" in Iraq, a WMD program in Libya, a Syrian occupation of Lebanon, Osama bin Laden enjoying free rein in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, a renegade Pakistan that had gone nuclear on Clinton's watch with Dr. Khan in full export mode, and a pattern of appeasing radical Islam after its serial attacks (on the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers, U.S. embassies, and the U.S.S. Cole).
In other words, Bush inherited the regular "stuff" that confronts most presidents when they take office.
What is strange is that Obama has established a narrative that he, supposedly unlike any other president, inherited a mess.
Friday, November 13, 2009
KSM, Want Fries With That?
Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda, tie up our courts for years on issues best left to the president and Congress, and further cripple our intelligence agencies’ efforts to fight terrorists abroad.
KSM and his co-defendants will have all of the benefits and rights that the U.S. Constitution accords those who live here, most importantly the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it was obtained.
KSM and his co-defendants will have all of the benefits and rights that the U.S. Constitution accords those who live here, most importantly the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it was obtained.
Eric Holder, Attorney General
This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution.
The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign.
It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments.
Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.
Today's announcement that KSM and other top al Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials.
They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.
Let's take stock of where we are at this point.
KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission.
As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them.
The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.
Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.
So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence.
That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America.
Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it.
The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war.
It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts.
And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.
[Andrew McCarthy--Prosecutor of the "Blind Sheik."]
The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign.
It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments.
Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.
Today's announcement that KSM and other top al Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials.
They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.
Let's take stock of where we are at this point.
KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission.
As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them.
The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.
Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.
So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence.
That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America.
Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it.
The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war.
It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts.
And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.
[Andrew McCarthy--Prosecutor of the "Blind Sheik."]
Your House Is My Bond
As has been widely speculated, the Federal Housing Administration is in serious financial trouble. It admitted as much yesterday. From the Boston Globe:
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he’s concerned that higher unemployment could curtail the agency’s ability to back loans. “We’re just going to keep watching them carefully’’ to determine whether they need congressional help to stay above water, he said.
Frank also said he has proposed taking $2 billion from funds repaid after the Wall Street bailout to “lend money to people facing foreclosure because of unemployment. I am pressing hard to get that done. I believe we can substantially reduce that second wave if we do that.’’
Yep, that’s the solution to the problem — put marginal borrowers further into mortgage debt by putting taxpayers further into bonded debt.
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he’s concerned that higher unemployment could curtail the agency’s ability to back loans. “We’re just going to keep watching them carefully’’ to determine whether they need congressional help to stay above water, he said.
Frank also said he has proposed taking $2 billion from funds repaid after the Wall Street bailout to “lend money to people facing foreclosure because of unemployment. I am pressing hard to get that done. I believe we can substantially reduce that second wave if we do that.’’
Yep, that’s the solution to the problem — put marginal borrowers further into mortgage debt by putting taxpayers further into bonded debt.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Stop Obamerica By Halting The So-Called Health Care Bill
If you want to have an impact on the future of this country you need to contact your senators to stop a health care bill that will have a negative impact for generations. Phone calls and letters work better than e-mail.
Example: Sen. Jack Reed
Call: (401) 943-3100
Fax: (401) 464-6837
Write:
The Honorable Jack Reed
1000 Chapel View Boulevard, Suite 290
Cranston, RI 02920
Example: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
Providence Office:
170 Westminster Street
Suite 1100
Providence, RI 02903
401-453-5294 phone
401-453-5085 fax
Washington Office:
Hart Senate Office Building
Room 502
Washington, D.C. 20510
202-224-2921 phone
202-228-6362 fax
It's the only way to make the difference fellow patriots.
Example: Sen. Jack Reed
Call: (401) 943-3100
Fax: (401) 464-6837
Write:
The Honorable Jack Reed
1000 Chapel View Boulevard, Suite 290
Cranston, RI 02920
Example: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
Providence Office:
170 Westminster Street
Suite 1100
Providence, RI 02903
401-453-5294 phone
401-453-5085 fax
Washington Office:
Hart Senate Office Building
Room 502
Washington, D.C. 20510
202-224-2921 phone
202-228-6362 fax
It's the only way to make the difference fellow patriots.
No Jihad Here (cont'd.)
Many in the media are arguing there is nothing more to the Major Hasan mass murder than derangement and the various personal "issues" that "set him off."
But there are two considerations that argue against such an interpretation.
First, we look for patterns in all cases of individuals' shooting others on a mass scale. Hasan gave every indication that he was channeling his own personal sense of frustration into a larger Islamic writ against the West — as have some 20 other killers since 9/11 who have shot, stabbed, or run over innocents at malls, airline counters, military facilities, and Jewish-affiliated centers.
If we once focused on postal conditions and security at post-office installations when workers (between 1986 and 1997) snapped under the thematic pretense of job stress, and if we investigated the nexus of video games, drugs, cults, and counter-culture alienation when suburban youths went on shooting sprees, then it seems legitimate to look for commonalities when someone self-identifies as a rather radical Muslim and shouts "Allahu Akbar!" as he fires — in the same manner that the mad driver in North Carolina, or the killer in Seattle, or the homicidal driver in San Francisco afterwards said they were acting out of Islamic religious fervor against Jews or Westerners.
Second, if we counted up the number of "lone wolf" incidents and added it to the number of Islamist terrorist plots that have been foiled since 9/11, we would arrive at more than 40 incidents of terrorist killings or efforts to kill on a wide scale.
If anyone could find a comparable series of anti-abortion terrorist acts, backlash attacks on Muslims, anti-Semitic attacks perpetrated by non-Muslims, Jewish attacks on Middle Easterners, or radical environmentalist killings, then one could argue that the public was unduly focusing on Islam.
It seems, instead, that about every three to four months, either a single Muslim male will shoot or run over somebody and tie the violence to some sort of jihadist theme, or a group of Muslim males will be caught trying to blow up something or shoot someone, usually on a mass scale.
The general conclusions one would draw, based on the statements of the authorities, those in the military, the media, and the general public, are something like the following:
(1) Most people do not wish to be smeared as bigots, racists, or anti-Muslim, and therefore they will resist suggesting that such violence fits a pattern involving radical Islamic hatred.
(2) Most people assume either that the authorities will break up the plot before it reaches 9/11 proportions, or that the lone-wolf attacker will kill someone else far away, and therefore conclude that they are safe enough and it is a tolerable problem.
(3) Most also accept that (a) most Muslims in the U.S. are not violent, and therefore (b) we have no way in a free society to pick out in advance possible bad actors, and (c) the most likely preemptive strategies — screening imams, infiltrating "charities," monitoring hate literature, reporting radicals at work, and screening web postings — are all fraught with civil-liberties and political-correctness land mines, and are as likely to boomerang on the authorities or well-intended citizens as they are to produce firm evidence that deters an Islamist killer before he acts.
Bottom line:
The society at large, driven by the sermonizing of its elites, has come to an unstated conclusion that, unfortunately, a few Americans will have to be sacrificed from time to time, for the larger goal of establishing the fact that Americans in no way think Muslims are any more likely than any others to commit either random or premeditated terrorist violence.
That is the initial lesson of Fort Hood. (Remember something similar from the 1980s and 1990s, when we accepted that to be a diplomat or a soldier stationed in the Middle East or Africa or anywhere in the Muslim world meant that there was some chance that your barracks, camp, hotel, embassy, or ship would be attacked — and very little chance that the U.S. government would do much in response other than launch an occasional ineffectual cruise missile or offer a bombastic "this will not stand" speech?)
If the lone-wolf incidents start happening ten times a year, rather than three or four, and if one or two terrorist plots succeed and result in several hundred killed, then attitudes may change (at least for a while).
But there are two considerations that argue against such an interpretation.
First, we look for patterns in all cases of individuals' shooting others on a mass scale. Hasan gave every indication that he was channeling his own personal sense of frustration into a larger Islamic writ against the West — as have some 20 other killers since 9/11 who have shot, stabbed, or run over innocents at malls, airline counters, military facilities, and Jewish-affiliated centers.
If we once focused on postal conditions and security at post-office installations when workers (between 1986 and 1997) snapped under the thematic pretense of job stress, and if we investigated the nexus of video games, drugs, cults, and counter-culture alienation when suburban youths went on shooting sprees, then it seems legitimate to look for commonalities when someone self-identifies as a rather radical Muslim and shouts "Allahu Akbar!" as he fires — in the same manner that the mad driver in North Carolina, or the killer in Seattle, or the homicidal driver in San Francisco afterwards said they were acting out of Islamic religious fervor against Jews or Westerners.
Second, if we counted up the number of "lone wolf" incidents and added it to the number of Islamist terrorist plots that have been foiled since 9/11, we would arrive at more than 40 incidents of terrorist killings or efforts to kill on a wide scale.
If anyone could find a comparable series of anti-abortion terrorist acts, backlash attacks on Muslims, anti-Semitic attacks perpetrated by non-Muslims, Jewish attacks on Middle Easterners, or radical environmentalist killings, then one could argue that the public was unduly focusing on Islam.
It seems, instead, that about every three to four months, either a single Muslim male will shoot or run over somebody and tie the violence to some sort of jihadist theme, or a group of Muslim males will be caught trying to blow up something or shoot someone, usually on a mass scale.
The general conclusions one would draw, based on the statements of the authorities, those in the military, the media, and the general public, are something like the following:
(1) Most people do not wish to be smeared as bigots, racists, or anti-Muslim, and therefore they will resist suggesting that such violence fits a pattern involving radical Islamic hatred.
(2) Most people assume either that the authorities will break up the plot before it reaches 9/11 proportions, or that the lone-wolf attacker will kill someone else far away, and therefore conclude that they are safe enough and it is a tolerable problem.
(3) Most also accept that (a) most Muslims in the U.S. are not violent, and therefore (b) we have no way in a free society to pick out in advance possible bad actors, and (c) the most likely preemptive strategies — screening imams, infiltrating "charities," monitoring hate literature, reporting radicals at work, and screening web postings — are all fraught with civil-liberties and political-correctness land mines, and are as likely to boomerang on the authorities or well-intended citizens as they are to produce firm evidence that deters an Islamist killer before he acts.
Bottom line:
The society at large, driven by the sermonizing of its elites, has come to an unstated conclusion that, unfortunately, a few Americans will have to be sacrificed from time to time, for the larger goal of establishing the fact that Americans in no way think Muslims are any more likely than any others to commit either random or premeditated terrorist violence.
That is the initial lesson of Fort Hood. (Remember something similar from the 1980s and 1990s, when we accepted that to be a diplomat or a soldier stationed in the Middle East or Africa or anywhere in the Muslim world meant that there was some chance that your barracks, camp, hotel, embassy, or ship would be attacked — and very little chance that the U.S. government would do much in response other than launch an occasional ineffectual cruise missile or offer a bombastic "this will not stand" speech?)
If the lone-wolf incidents start happening ten times a year, rather than three or four, and if one or two terrorist plots succeed and result in several hundred killed, then attitudes may change (at least for a while).
Three Card Monty
In Copenhagen our president may give away our money to third-world nations.
If he signs this there will be no going back for our country, ever.
No president in our history has been able to change such all-inclusive legislation.
Please write and stop this redistribution of our hard-earned tax dollars to third-world countries.
This is equally frightening as our country is becoming a socialist nation. The signing of the bill begins the downward spiral of our economy from which we may never recover.
As with health care the presidential plan will not take effect until he has won a second term.
Current trends suggest that may not occur.
[Submitted by Ruthie]
If he signs this there will be no going back for our country, ever.
No president in our history has been able to change such all-inclusive legislation.
Please write and stop this redistribution of our hard-earned tax dollars to third-world countries.
This is equally frightening as our country is becoming a socialist nation. The signing of the bill begins the downward spiral of our economy from which we may never recover.
As with health care the presidential plan will not take effect until he has won a second term.
Current trends suggest that may not occur.
[Submitted by Ruthie]
Senator Lindsey Grahamnesty
The senator warns against going after "every soldier who shows discontent with the war and every soldier that has a bad performance report."
He adds, "You can be in the military and disagree with policy." (Who is taking the other side of that argument?)
And: "Don't accuse people of basically giving him a pass because he's a Muslim because I don't think there's any evidence of that."
No, no, none at all. Anyone who presents any is probably a phobe.
He adds, "You can be in the military and disagree with policy." (Who is taking the other side of that argument?)
And: "Don't accuse people of basically giving him a pass because he's a Muslim because I don't think there's any evidence of that."
No, no, none at all. Anyone who presents any is probably a phobe.
Another Brick In The Wall
In "The Ambition and The Power" (p. 486) John Barry reports how House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas) reacted to President Reagan’s speech at the Berlin Wall:
Wright’s face hardened. Reagan’s declaration had destroyed any chance of the wall coming down, since Gorbachev could not appear to bow to him.
Wright fumed, “It just makes me have utter contempt for Reagan. He spoiled the chance for a dramatic breakthrough in relations between our two countries. It bespeaks his pettiness and self-centeredness. He just couldn’t bear Gorbachev doing it of his own volition.”
Thankfully President Obama made us proud.
Wright’s face hardened. Reagan’s declaration had destroyed any chance of the wall coming down, since Gorbachev could not appear to bow to him.
Wright fumed, “It just makes me have utter contempt for Reagan. He spoiled the chance for a dramatic breakthrough in relations between our two countries. It bespeaks his pettiness and self-centeredness. He just couldn’t bear Gorbachev doing it of his own volition.”
Thankfully President Obama made us proud.
NYT Spot-On Reporting
In this New York Times story on Muslims serving in the U.S. military, the Times presents Navy SEAL Michael Monsoor, who earned the Congressional Medal of Honor for throwing himself on a grenade to save his team members in 2006, as a Muslim.
It quotes a Muslim Army reservist who cites Monsoor as an example of a Muslim service member who gave his life for his country, and the Times lets the assertion stand.
But Monsoor was a devout Catholic, as his Department of Defense official biography clearly states.
[Update: The link has been disabled. Go figure.]
It quotes a Muslim Army reservist who cites Monsoor as an example of a Muslim service member who gave his life for his country, and the Times lets the assertion stand.
But Monsoor was a devout Catholic, as his Department of Defense official biography clearly states.
[Update: The link has been disabled. Go figure.]
Sunday, November 8, 2009
No Jihad Here
The Sunday Telegraph reports:
Major Nidal Malik Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a "spiritual adviser" to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001.
Hasan's eyes "lit up" when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday's horrific shooting spree.
Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt [sic]. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.
The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations [sic].
Major Nidal Malik Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a "spiritual adviser" to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001.
Hasan's eyes "lit up" when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday's horrific shooting spree.
Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt [sic]. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.
The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations [sic].
Starve A Cold, Feed A Bureaucracy
Speaker Pelosi and President Obama are declaring political victory today over health reform, but in so doing, they are going against the will of the American people who know they will be the real losers in the massive bill the House passed late last night that would turn our health sector into a nightmare of government bureaucracy.
Many Democrat members of Congress were strong-armed into voting for a bill that they know violates the basic freedoms upon which this country was founded because they didn't want to be the ones to hand defeat to their own party.
But next week they will head home to answer to constituents who will be learning more and more of the details about the bill they supported — the jobs-killing mandates on businesses, higher taxes, burgeoning entitlement programs, government intrusion into personal medical decisions, higher health costs, and federal dictates about the kind of health insurance Americans must have to avoid federal penalties — for starters.
And members of Congress will have to explain the false promises that the president made to win passage of the bill.
In his statement Saturday, Mr.Obama said: "The bill that the House has produced will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality, affordable options for those who don't; and lower costs for American families and American businesses."
In fact, the bill the House passed Saturday night violates every one of those promises, as numerous independent studies have proven.
And members will have to explain to their constituents why they supported legislation that dramatically changes the relationship between the American people and their government — forcing them to relinquish freedom over health care decisions for themselves and their families to the political will of Washington.
This bill is awakening a sleeping giant — Americans who are deeply concerned about the growing size and reach of government and trillions of dollars in deficit spending. They are not going to be swayed by flowery rhetoric. They are going to want real answers.
Many Democrat members of Congress were strong-armed into voting for a bill that they know violates the basic freedoms upon which this country was founded because they didn't want to be the ones to hand defeat to their own party.
But next week they will head home to answer to constituents who will be learning more and more of the details about the bill they supported — the jobs-killing mandates on businesses, higher taxes, burgeoning entitlement programs, government intrusion into personal medical decisions, higher health costs, and federal dictates about the kind of health insurance Americans must have to avoid federal penalties — for starters.
And members of Congress will have to explain the false promises that the president made to win passage of the bill.
In his statement Saturday, Mr.Obama said: "The bill that the House has produced will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality, affordable options for those who don't; and lower costs for American families and American businesses."
In fact, the bill the House passed Saturday night violates every one of those promises, as numerous independent studies have proven.
And members will have to explain to their constituents why they supported legislation that dramatically changes the relationship between the American people and their government — forcing them to relinquish freedom over health care decisions for themselves and their families to the political will of Washington.
This bill is awakening a sleeping giant — Americans who are deeply concerned about the growing size and reach of government and trillions of dollars in deficit spending. They are not going to be swayed by flowery rhetoric. They are going to want real answers.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Why One Shouldn't Buy The Farm
Here's part of a speech that Candidate Obama gave in Ohio in October 2008, a few weeks before he was easily elected president of the United States:
"Part of the reason this crisis occurred is that everyone was living beyond their means—from Wall Street to Washington to even some on Main Street. CEOs got greedy. Politicians spent money they didn't have. Lenders tricked people into buying homes they couldn't afford and some folks knew they couldn't afford them and bought them anyway. We've lived through an era of easy money, in which we were allowed and even encouraged to spend without limits; to borrow instead of save."
Here the president identifies several state actions that caused or enabled the financial meltdown, ranging from problems in the financial sector to the collapse of housing prices.
He noted both monetary and fiscal policy that made money incredibly cheap, thus incentivizing anybody who could to borrow more and more money.
The government spent too much money AND he tips his hat to government programs designed to increase the percentage of people who owned homes.
Yet, all he has done since he took office is to do more of the same things that got us in this mess in the first place — just on a bigger scale.
The extension and expansion of the $8,000 tax credit is a good example of that.
The cost of the whole thing is $11 billion.
And who wants to bet it will be more, not to mention the terrible distortions such a program introduces to the economy?
Even the Washington Post and the New York Times editorialized against the tax credit.
Here is the Post:
The credit is a bad idea. It merely shifts demand from elsewhere in the economy to one sector government has chosen to help — having been urged to do so by a powerful lobby — and from the future to the present.
And here is the Times:
Congress threw good money after bad this week when it voted to extend and expand a wasteful home buyer’s tax credit set to expire at the end of the month.
Note that the New York Times has nothing against the government spending more money than it has already. It just wants the money spent on other bad programs.
"Part of the reason this crisis occurred is that everyone was living beyond their means—from Wall Street to Washington to even some on Main Street. CEOs got greedy. Politicians spent money they didn't have. Lenders tricked people into buying homes they couldn't afford and some folks knew they couldn't afford them and bought them anyway. We've lived through an era of easy money, in which we were allowed and even encouraged to spend without limits; to borrow instead of save."
Here the president identifies several state actions that caused or enabled the financial meltdown, ranging from problems in the financial sector to the collapse of housing prices.
He noted both monetary and fiscal policy that made money incredibly cheap, thus incentivizing anybody who could to borrow more and more money.
The government spent too much money AND he tips his hat to government programs designed to increase the percentage of people who owned homes.
Yet, all he has done since he took office is to do more of the same things that got us in this mess in the first place — just on a bigger scale.
The extension and expansion of the $8,000 tax credit is a good example of that.
The cost of the whole thing is $11 billion.
And who wants to bet it will be more, not to mention the terrible distortions such a program introduces to the economy?
Even the Washington Post and the New York Times editorialized against the tax credit.
Here is the Post:
The credit is a bad idea. It merely shifts demand from elsewhere in the economy to one sector government has chosen to help — having been urged to do so by a powerful lobby — and from the future to the present.
And here is the Times:
Congress threw good money after bad this week when it voted to extend and expand a wasteful home buyer’s tax credit set to expire at the end of the month.
Note that the New York Times has nothing against the government spending more money than it has already. It just wants the money spent on other bad programs.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Check Under The Hood
The narrative after 9/11 largely remains that Americans have given in to illegitimate "fear and mistrust" of Muslims in general.
A saner approach would be to acknowledge that there is a small minority of Muslims who channel generic Islamist fantasies, so that we can assume that either formal terrorist plots or individual acts of murder will more or less occur here every three to six months.
At some point, if organized plots (see the most recent in Boston) and isolated acts of lone gunmen and homicidal drivers continue, and if the prevailing theme continues to be fears of American intolerance and unfairness to Muslims after 9/11, the public will resent the disconnect between what they are told to think and what they believe, on the basis of the overwhelming evidence.
A saner approach would be to acknowledge that there is a small minority of Muslims who channel generic Islamist fantasies, so that we can assume that either formal terrorist plots or individual acts of murder will more or less occur here every three to six months.
At some point, if organized plots (see the most recent in Boston) and isolated acts of lone gunmen and homicidal drivers continue, and if the prevailing theme continues to be fears of American intolerance and unfairness to Muslims after 9/11, the public will resent the disconnect between what they are told to think and what they believe, on the basis of the overwhelming evidence.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Kick The Can
It was noted earlier that the Democratic health-care can might get kicked into 2010.
Now that Christie has defeated Corzine, this was officially a bad election night for the Democrats, which raises the question of whether this kicks that can beyond the tenure of the Obama administration.
Blue Dogs nervous about the trillion-dollar Pelosi bill or Harry Reid adding the public option to the Senate bill despite having insufficient votes to get it through committee will be even more nervous after Tuesday's demonstration of the public mood.
If scoring issues and other delays require the vote to take place in 2010, when members themselves are actually up for reelection, expect even more skittishness from the Blue Dogs.
And if 2010 is a bad election year for the Democrats, as off-year elections often foreshadow, the Pelosi Democrats may not control the House schedule for the last two years of the presidential term.
Let us pray.
Now that Christie has defeated Corzine, this was officially a bad election night for the Democrats, which raises the question of whether this kicks that can beyond the tenure of the Obama administration.
Blue Dogs nervous about the trillion-dollar Pelosi bill or Harry Reid adding the public option to the Senate bill despite having insufficient votes to get it through committee will be even more nervous after Tuesday's demonstration of the public mood.
If scoring issues and other delays require the vote to take place in 2010, when members themselves are actually up for reelection, expect even more skittishness from the Blue Dogs.
And if 2010 is a bad election year for the Democrats, as off-year elections often foreshadow, the Pelosi Democrats may not control the House schedule for the last two years of the presidential term.
Let us pray.
Why You Owe It To Your Country
Because while I was receiving CNN Breaking News about Economy growing for first time in a year, with GDP rising 3.5 percent in the third quarter, the receptionist in my office was being laid off because my company – a company that employs engineers repairing RI’s bridges – has no work because there’s no money to fix them.
Because I can’t get an H1N1 Vaccination unless I conspire against my country and end up at Gitmo.
Because the Government that can’t even get enough vaccines to all who want it feels that they can run an entire health care industry.
Because nobody seemed to care that the President fired the CEO of a publicly held company, and wants to limit the pay of others.
Because while the liberal press oohs and aahs over the sparring between Rush, Fox News, and the White House, the President is quietly building an administration so ripe with avowed socialists, anti-gun activists, illegal alien supporters, and left-wing anti-capitalist initiatives that we’ll likely be goose stepping before the next general election (assuming there is one).
Because eight years ago we were attacked. We were attacked in our offices, on our way to our honeymoons, standing in line for coffee. We were attacked without provocation – without warning (well, that’s up for debate I suppose), and without mercy. Dads. Moms. Sons. Daughters. Aunts. Uncles. Children. Grandchildren. Pets. Murdered...
Because after we were attacked, we did what any sovereign state would –we retaliated – we pursued villains – we extracted information – we “Tortured” – although I would have to defer the defining of the term “Torture” to John McCain as I don’t think receiving an H1N1 Vaccination before my pregnant sister is able to qualifies as torture, but…
Because now, eight years later, people have forgotten. No no, not the average, reasonable person; but the people who have taken over our Government – this concentration of elite left who feel that the members of our Government that kept us safe and prevented further attacks should be prosecuted as war criminals – they are more concerned with the rights of those who proliferated these atrocities than the victims.
Because for the first time in my almost 40 years I’m scared.
Because for the first time in their almost 70 years, my parents are scared.
Because people who voted thinking they were one of the 95% who would get a tax cut – haven’t – but still think they will, because their head is in the sand.
Because no matter where I turn, it seems the majority of people I talk to think and feel like I do, yet our government still spends trillions of dollars against our wishes, mortgages our future without our permission, spends months pushing their health care agenda when 12% of the country can’t find a job (and those are the ones who want to).
Because I’m angry.
Because you should be too.
Because we can’t stop this unless we do step out of the shadows and lend our voices – loud.
Because if you don’t tell everyone you know about this blog – and tell them again – and again – and again – we may not be able to stop it.
Because your country – our country – the country that gave you the highest standard of living in the world, the best medical care available, the right to think how you please and to be as successful as you want to, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – is dying.
You Owe It To Your Country.
[Submitted by Gordon Horton]
Because I can’t get an H1N1 Vaccination unless I conspire against my country and end up at Gitmo.
Because the Government that can’t even get enough vaccines to all who want it feels that they can run an entire health care industry.
Because nobody seemed to care that the President fired the CEO of a publicly held company, and wants to limit the pay of others.
Because while the liberal press oohs and aahs over the sparring between Rush, Fox News, and the White House, the President is quietly building an administration so ripe with avowed socialists, anti-gun activists, illegal alien supporters, and left-wing anti-capitalist initiatives that we’ll likely be goose stepping before the next general election (assuming there is one).
Because eight years ago we were attacked. We were attacked in our offices, on our way to our honeymoons, standing in line for coffee. We were attacked without provocation – without warning (well, that’s up for debate I suppose), and without mercy. Dads. Moms. Sons. Daughters. Aunts. Uncles. Children. Grandchildren. Pets. Murdered...
Because after we were attacked, we did what any sovereign state would –we retaliated – we pursued villains – we extracted information – we “Tortured” – although I would have to defer the defining of the term “Torture” to John McCain as I don’t think receiving an H1N1 Vaccination before my pregnant sister is able to qualifies as torture, but…
Because now, eight years later, people have forgotten. No no, not the average, reasonable person; but the people who have taken over our Government – this concentration of elite left who feel that the members of our Government that kept us safe and prevented further attacks should be prosecuted as war criminals – they are more concerned with the rights of those who proliferated these atrocities than the victims.
Because for the first time in my almost 40 years I’m scared.
Because for the first time in their almost 70 years, my parents are scared.
Because people who voted thinking they were one of the 95% who would get a tax cut – haven’t – but still think they will, because their head is in the sand.
Because no matter where I turn, it seems the majority of people I talk to think and feel like I do, yet our government still spends trillions of dollars against our wishes, mortgages our future without our permission, spends months pushing their health care agenda when 12% of the country can’t find a job (and those are the ones who want to).
Because I’m angry.
Because you should be too.
Because we can’t stop this unless we do step out of the shadows and lend our voices – loud.
Because if you don’t tell everyone you know about this blog – and tell them again – and again – and again – we may not be able to stop it.
Because your country – our country – the country that gave you the highest standard of living in the world, the best medical care available, the right to think how you please and to be as successful as you want to, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – is dying.
You Owe It To Your Country.
[Submitted by Gordon Horton]
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Definition of "Is"
Something strange is afoot with the story about H1N1 vaccination for Gitmo detainees.
Robert Gibbs denied it earlier, saying that “There is no vaccine in Guantanamo. There is no vaccine on the way to Guantanamo." Case closed, right?
Apparently, though, the statement was not as definitive as one would think. FoxNews reports that:
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Gibbs was correct in saying the vaccine is not currently on its way, but clarified that it is scheduled to be at the naval base on Cuba by the end of November.
This reminds me of a former president who famously said that a question of perjury turned on the definition of what the word is is.
Fond memories aside, Gibbs’s statement is exactly the kind of issue Rush Limbaugh warned about last week when he said that credibility is one of the most valuable commodities the federal government has in a public-health crisis.
If the White House press secretary is juggling verb tenses to create a misleading impression that is directly contradicted by a Pentagon spokesman, it calls into question the veracity of other statements by federal officials on that subject, which is a problem we can ill afford should there be a more serious flu outbreak.
Robert Gibbs denied it earlier, saying that “There is no vaccine in Guantanamo. There is no vaccine on the way to Guantanamo." Case closed, right?
Apparently, though, the statement was not as definitive as one would think. FoxNews reports that:
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Gibbs was correct in saying the vaccine is not currently on its way, but clarified that it is scheduled to be at the naval base on Cuba by the end of November.
This reminds me of a former president who famously said that a question of perjury turned on the definition of what the word is is.
Fond memories aside, Gibbs’s statement is exactly the kind of issue Rush Limbaugh warned about last week when he said that credibility is one of the most valuable commodities the federal government has in a public-health crisis.
If the White House press secretary is juggling verb tenses to create a misleading impression that is directly contradicted by a Pentagon spokesman, it calls into question the veracity of other statements by federal officials on that subject, which is a problem we can ill afford should there be a more serious flu outbreak.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Perks At Club Gitmo
Here's a question: Who do you American voters want to see on the evening news getting the vaccine first: Gitmo detainees or pregnant women?
Steve Hayes writes:
"Frustration and anger have been building but there had not been an obvious target for those feelings. That may have changed late Friday afternoon with the news that the Pentagon has offered to give swine flu shots to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."
Major Diana Haynie, a spokesman for the Joint Task Force at Gitmo, explained the decision this way:
"Detainees at JTF Guantanamo are considered to be at higher risk and therefore they will be offered the H1N1 vaccination."
Really?
Higher risk than whom?
Pregnant women are six times more likely than others to have a fatal bout of swine flu — and yet some of them have been unable to get a shot.
The shortage is so severe that state and local health officials have been forced to cancel and reschedule vaccination clinics, and to adjust their strategies about who gets a shot and when.
Once again, our government at work protecting its citizens.
Steve Hayes writes:
"Frustration and anger have been building but there had not been an obvious target for those feelings. That may have changed late Friday afternoon with the news that the Pentagon has offered to give swine flu shots to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."
Major Diana Haynie, a spokesman for the Joint Task Force at Gitmo, explained the decision this way:
"Detainees at JTF Guantanamo are considered to be at higher risk and therefore they will be offered the H1N1 vaccination."
Really?
Higher risk than whom?
Pregnant women are six times more likely than others to have a fatal bout of swine flu — and yet some of them have been unable to get a shot.
The shortage is so severe that state and local health officials have been forced to cancel and reschedule vaccination clinics, and to adjust their strategies about who gets a shot and when.
Once again, our government at work protecting its citizens.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Another Example Of Job Creation
Shouldn't the White House just go all out and put a giant scoreboard/clock thingy above the Rose Garden like those national debt clocks?
You know, a running odometer of "jobs saved or created"?
It's all such b.s. anyway, why not commit whole hog?
You know, a running odometer of "jobs saved or created"?
It's all such b.s. anyway, why not commit whole hog?
Dancing With The Czars
A big thank you to South Florida 912 for putting this together.
OBAMA'S "CZARS"
Richard Holbrooke: Afghanistan Czar. Ultra-liberal anti-gun former Gov. of New Mexico. Pro Abortion and legal drug use.
Ed Montgomery: Auto recovery Czar. Black radical anti-business activist. Affirmative Action and Job Preference for blacks. Univ of Maryland Business School Dean who teaches US business has caused world poverty. ACORN board member. Communist DuBois Club member.
Jeffrey Crowley: AIDS Czar. Homosexual. A Gay-Rights activist. Believes in Gay Marriage and Special Status, including free health care for gays.
Alan Bersin: Border Czar. former failed superintendent of San Diego. Ultra-liberal friend of Hilary Clinton. Served as Border Czar under Janet Reno – to keep borders open to illegals.
David J. Hayes: California Water Czar. Sr. Fellow of radical environmentalist group, “Progress Policy”. No training or experience in water management.
Ron Bloom: Car Czar. Auto Union worker. Anti business & anti nuclear. Has worked hard to force US auto makers out of business. Sits on the Board of Chrysler which is now Auto Union owned.
Dennis Ross: Central Region Czar. Believes US policy has caused Mid East wars. Obama apologist to the world. Anti gun and pro abortion.
Lynn Rosenthal: Domestic Violence Czar. Director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. Vicious anti-male feminist. Supported male castration.
Gil Kerlikowske: Drug Czar. Devoted lobbyist for every restrictive gun law proposal, Former Chief of Police in Liberal Seattle. Believes no American should own a firearm. Supports legalization of drugs.
Carol Brower: Energy and Environment Czar. Political Radical Former head of EPA - known for anti-business activism. Strong anti-gun ownership. SOCIALIST on Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
Joshua DuBois: Faith Based Czar. Political Black activist Degree in Black Nationalism. Seeks a separate black nation. Anti gun-ownership lobbyist.
Cameron Davis: Great Lakes Czar. Chicago radical anti-business environmentalist. Blames George Bush for “Poisoning the water that minorities have to drink.” No experience or training in water management. Former ACORN Board member.
Van Jones: Green Jobs Czar (since resigned). Black activist Member of American communist Party and San Francisco Communist Party who said George W. Bush caused the 911 attack and wanted Bush investigated by the World Court for war crimes. MARXIST, said whites are poisoning blacks. Said transformation from “suicidal gray capitalism to econ-capitalism to the complete redistribution of wealth.” Black activist with strong anti-white views.
Daniel Fried: Guantanamo Closure Czar. Rights activist for foreign terrorists. Believes America has caused the war on terrorism.
Nancy-Ann DeParle: Health Czar. Former head of Medicare/Medicaid. Strong health care rationing proponent. She is married to a reporter for The New York Times.
Vivek Kundra: Information Czar. Born in New Delhi, India. Controls all public information including labels and news releases. Monitors all private Internet emails.
Todd Stern: International Climate Czar. Anti-business former White House chief of Staff. Strong supporter of the Kyoto Accord. Pushing hard for Cap and Trade. Blames US business for "global warming."
Dennis Blair: Intelligence Czar. Stopped US guided missile program. Opined it was too “provocative”. Chair of ultra-liberal “Council on Foreign Relations” which blames American organizations for regional wars.
George Mitchell: Mideast Peace Czar. Former Sen. from Maine left-wing radical. Has said Israel should be split up into “2 or 3" smaller more manageable plots”. Anti-nuclear anti-gun & pro homosexual.
Kenneth Feinberg: Pay Czar. Chief of Staff to TED KENNEDY. Lawyer who got rich off the 911 victims payoffs.
Cass Sunstein: Regulatory Czar. Liberal activist judge believes free speech needs to be limited for the “common good”. Rules against personal freedoms many times –like private gun ownership. Says animals should be able to sue people. Anti-hunting.
John Holdren: Science Czar. Fierce ideological environmentalist, Sierra Club, anti- business activist. Claims US business has caused world poverty. No Science training. Thinks TREES should be able to sue humans.
Earl Devaney: Stimulus Accountability Czar. Spent career trying to take guns away from American citizens. Believes in Open Borders with Mexico. Author of a statement blaming US gun stores for drug war in Mexico.
J. Scott Gration: Sudan Czar. Native of Democratic Republic of Congo. Believes US does little to help Third World countries. Council on foreign relations, asking for higher US taxes to support the United Nations.
Herb Allison: TARP Czar. Fannie May CEO responsible for the US recession by using real estate mortgages to back up the US stock market. Caused millions of people to lose their life savings.
John Brennan: Terrorism Czar. Anti CIA activist. No training in diplomatic or govenrmental affairs. Believes open borders with Mexico and a dialog with terrorists and has suggested Obama disband US military.
Aneesh Chopra: Technology Czar. No Technology training. Worked for the Advisory Board Company, a health care think tank for hospitals. Anti-doctor activist. Supports Obama health care rationing and salaried doctors working exclusively for the governmental health-care plan.
Adolfo Carrion Jr.: Urban Affairs Czar. Puerto Rican. Anti-American activist and leftist group member in Latin America. Millionaire “slum lord” of the Bronx, NY. Owns many lavish homes and condos which he got from “sweetheart” deals with labor unions. Wants higher taxes to pay for minority housing and health care.
Ashton Carter: Weapons Czar. Leftist. Wants all private weapons in US destroyed. Supports UN ban on firearms ownership in America.
Gary Samore: WMD Policy Czar. Former US Communist. Wants US to destroy all WMD unilaterally as a show of good faith. Has no other “policy”.
Kevin Jennings: Safe School Czar. As a teacher when a 15-year old said he was having sex with an older man, instead of turning in the man (required by law) he asked how it was going and suggested they use condoms. Held a conference with the MAXIMUM age of 18 to teach homosexual issues like “fisting.” Wrote the intro to the book, “Queering Elementary Education.” Has repeatedly praised and claims to be inspired by Harry Hay, early supporter of NAMBLA, (North American Man Boy Love Association.)
[h/t Ruthie]
OBAMA'S "CZARS"
Richard Holbrooke: Afghanistan Czar. Ultra-liberal anti-gun former Gov. of New Mexico. Pro Abortion and legal drug use.
Ed Montgomery: Auto recovery Czar. Black radical anti-business activist. Affirmative Action and Job Preference for blacks. Univ of Maryland Business School Dean who teaches US business has caused world poverty. ACORN board member. Communist DuBois Club member.
Jeffrey Crowley: AIDS Czar. Homosexual. A Gay-Rights activist. Believes in Gay Marriage and Special Status, including free health care for gays.
Alan Bersin: Border Czar. former failed superintendent of San Diego. Ultra-liberal friend of Hilary Clinton. Served as Border Czar under Janet Reno – to keep borders open to illegals.
David J. Hayes: California Water Czar. Sr. Fellow of radical environmentalist group, “Progress Policy”. No training or experience in water management.
Ron Bloom: Car Czar. Auto Union worker. Anti business & anti nuclear. Has worked hard to force US auto makers out of business. Sits on the Board of Chrysler which is now Auto Union owned.
Dennis Ross: Central Region Czar. Believes US policy has caused Mid East wars. Obama apologist to the world. Anti gun and pro abortion.
Lynn Rosenthal: Domestic Violence Czar. Director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. Vicious anti-male feminist. Supported male castration.
Gil Kerlikowske: Drug Czar. Devoted lobbyist for every restrictive gun law proposal, Former Chief of Police in Liberal Seattle. Believes no American should own a firearm. Supports legalization of drugs.
Carol Brower: Energy and Environment Czar. Political Radical Former head of EPA - known for anti-business activism. Strong anti-gun ownership. SOCIALIST on Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
Joshua DuBois: Faith Based Czar. Political Black activist Degree in Black Nationalism. Seeks a separate black nation. Anti gun-ownership lobbyist.
Cameron Davis: Great Lakes Czar. Chicago radical anti-business environmentalist. Blames George Bush for “Poisoning the water that minorities have to drink.” No experience or training in water management. Former ACORN Board member.
Van Jones: Green Jobs Czar (since resigned). Black activist Member of American communist Party and San Francisco Communist Party who said George W. Bush caused the 911 attack and wanted Bush investigated by the World Court for war crimes. MARXIST, said whites are poisoning blacks. Said transformation from “suicidal gray capitalism to econ-capitalism to the complete redistribution of wealth.” Black activist with strong anti-white views.
Daniel Fried: Guantanamo Closure Czar. Rights activist for foreign terrorists. Believes America has caused the war on terrorism.
Nancy-Ann DeParle: Health Czar. Former head of Medicare/Medicaid. Strong health care rationing proponent. She is married to a reporter for The New York Times.
Vivek Kundra: Information Czar. Born in New Delhi, India. Controls all public information including labels and news releases. Monitors all private Internet emails.
Todd Stern: International Climate Czar. Anti-business former White House chief of Staff. Strong supporter of the Kyoto Accord. Pushing hard for Cap and Trade. Blames US business for "global warming."
Dennis Blair: Intelligence Czar. Stopped US guided missile program. Opined it was too “provocative”. Chair of ultra-liberal “Council on Foreign Relations” which blames American organizations for regional wars.
George Mitchell: Mideast Peace Czar. Former Sen. from Maine left-wing radical. Has said Israel should be split up into “2 or 3" smaller more manageable plots”. Anti-nuclear anti-gun & pro homosexual.
Kenneth Feinberg: Pay Czar. Chief of Staff to TED KENNEDY. Lawyer who got rich off the 911 victims payoffs.
Cass Sunstein: Regulatory Czar. Liberal activist judge believes free speech needs to be limited for the “common good”. Rules against personal freedoms many times –like private gun ownership. Says animals should be able to sue people. Anti-hunting.
John Holdren: Science Czar. Fierce ideological environmentalist, Sierra Club, anti- business activist. Claims US business has caused world poverty. No Science training. Thinks TREES should be able to sue humans.
Earl Devaney: Stimulus Accountability Czar. Spent career trying to take guns away from American citizens. Believes in Open Borders with Mexico. Author of a statement blaming US gun stores for drug war in Mexico.
J. Scott Gration: Sudan Czar. Native of Democratic Republic of Congo. Believes US does little to help Third World countries. Council on foreign relations, asking for higher US taxes to support the United Nations.
Herb Allison: TARP Czar. Fannie May CEO responsible for the US recession by using real estate mortgages to back up the US stock market. Caused millions of people to lose their life savings.
John Brennan: Terrorism Czar. Anti CIA activist. No training in diplomatic or govenrmental affairs. Believes open borders with Mexico and a dialog with terrorists and has suggested Obama disband US military.
Aneesh Chopra: Technology Czar. No Technology training. Worked for the Advisory Board Company, a health care think tank for hospitals. Anti-doctor activist. Supports Obama health care rationing and salaried doctors working exclusively for the governmental health-care plan.
Adolfo Carrion Jr.: Urban Affairs Czar. Puerto Rican. Anti-American activist and leftist group member in Latin America. Millionaire “slum lord” of the Bronx, NY. Owns many lavish homes and condos which he got from “sweetheart” deals with labor unions. Wants higher taxes to pay for minority housing and health care.
Ashton Carter: Weapons Czar. Leftist. Wants all private weapons in US destroyed. Supports UN ban on firearms ownership in America.
Gary Samore: WMD Policy Czar. Former US Communist. Wants US to destroy all WMD unilaterally as a show of good faith. Has no other “policy”.
Kevin Jennings: Safe School Czar. As a teacher when a 15-year old said he was having sex with an older man, instead of turning in the man (required by law) he asked how it was going and suggested they use condoms. Held a conference with the MAXIMUM age of 18 to teach homosexual issues like “fisting.” Wrote the intro to the book, “Queering Elementary Education.” Has repeatedly praised and claims to be inspired by Harry Hay, early supporter of NAMBLA, (North American Man Boy Love Association.)
[h/t Ruthie]
Let me see if I understand all this...
IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.
IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.
IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.
IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.
IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.
IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.
IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.
IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET A JOB, A DRIVERS LICENSE, SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS, CREDIT CARDS, SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE, FREE EDUCATION, FREE HEALTH CARE, A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON AND IN MANY INSTANCES YOU CAN VOTE.
[h/t Ben Anthony]
IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.
IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.
IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.
IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.
IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.
IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.
IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.
IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET A JOB, A DRIVERS LICENSE, SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS, CREDIT CARDS, SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE, FREE EDUCATION, FREE HEALTH CARE, A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON AND IN MANY INSTANCES YOU CAN VOTE.
[h/t Ben Anthony]
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Presidential Poll Numbers
I think the president could improve his poll ratings markedly if he simply took all the things he has said about Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News, the town-hallers, and his domestic critics and instead applied that invective to Iran, radical Islam, Russia, and Venezuela, and, in turn, took all the outreach things he's said to the latter and applied them to the former.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Tax You Very Much
Tyler Cowen has a good piece on insurance mandates in today's NYT.
Cowen notes an argument against mandates that's been largely overlooked: A subtler problem is what economists call “implicit marginal tax rates.”
The fiscal reality is that not all income groups can receive equal subsidies; as a family earns more, its subsidy would probably decrease, eventually falling to zero.
But then we are taking money away from the poor as they climb into higher income categories.
This is a disincentive to earn more, and the strength of the disincentive increases with our initial generosity.
For many people, the health insurance aid would phase out when food stamps, housing vouchers and the earned income tax credit also end and the personal income tax kicks in.
Discuss.
Cowen notes an argument against mandates that's been largely overlooked: A subtler problem is what economists call “implicit marginal tax rates.”
The fiscal reality is that not all income groups can receive equal subsidies; as a family earns more, its subsidy would probably decrease, eventually falling to zero.
But then we are taking money away from the poor as they climb into higher income categories.
This is a disincentive to earn more, and the strength of the disincentive increases with our initial generosity.
For many people, the health insurance aid would phase out when food stamps, housing vouchers and the earned income tax credit also end and the personal income tax kicks in.
Discuss.
Friday, October 23, 2009
"Ideological-Americans" v. Americans?
At one time or another, Obama and his supporters have, rather scurrilously, insulted doctors, insurers, the police, tea-partiers and town-hallers, opponents of his health-care plan, non-compliant members of the media, and a host of other groups as either greedy, dishonest, treasonous, unpatriotic, mob-like, racist, or, in general, worthy of disrespect.
Fewer and fewer Americans now believe that Obama — after just nine months of governance — is a uniter.
In Obama’s world, doctors carve out children’s tonsils for profit, racist morons rant at legislators about losing their private health care, and trillions in borrowed money must be paid back by the greedy rich whose capital was unearned in the first place.
When his base supporters lambaste him for softness, they are lamenting his inability to become an effective partisan — not a lack of partisanship in general.
In surreal fashion, liberals demand that the ideologue Obama become more ideological precisely at the time his ideologically driven agenda is souring millions of non-ideological Americans.
Fewer and fewer Americans now believe that Obama — after just nine months of governance — is a uniter.
In Obama’s world, doctors carve out children’s tonsils for profit, racist morons rant at legislators about losing their private health care, and trillions in borrowed money must be paid back by the greedy rich whose capital was unearned in the first place.
When his base supporters lambaste him for softness, they are lamenting his inability to become an effective partisan — not a lack of partisanship in general.
In surreal fashion, liberals demand that the ideologue Obama become more ideological precisely at the time his ideologically driven agenda is souring millions of non-ideological Americans.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
We're Doomed!
Courtesy of P.M. Gordon Brown, who says we only have 50 days left to save the planet:
The UK faces a "catastrophe" of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree on a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned.
Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse."
He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world's biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was "no plan B."
World delegations meet in Copenhagen in December for talks on a new treaty.
The UK faces a "catastrophe" of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree on a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned.
Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse."
He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world's biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was "no plan B."
World delegations meet in Copenhagen in December for talks on a new treaty.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Anyone?. . . Anyone?. . . Bueller?. . .
As you know now, the deficit for FY2009 has reached $1.4 trillion, or 9.9 percent of the GDP. It's the biggest deficit since the end of World War II.
In Washington, a common explanation is that the recession produced the deficit. As if that makes it okay.
To be sure, the recession caused substantially lower tax revenue — $419 billion lower.
But the bulk of the deficit is made of spending. A lot of spending since it amounts to $1 trillion: $459 billion of the deficit came from spending decisions made in the years preceding 2009; $245 billion is due to the financial bailout and $347 billion is mainly stimulus spending.
Why does this matter?
Because we have no idea what such big deficits, sustained over so many years, will do to our economy.
Remember that for each of Obama’s years in office, the deficit is projected to be larger than any year during Bush’s terms. That's unprecedented.
For years, the main academic debate over deficit spending was whether it raised long-term interest rates and therefore reduced economic growth. Economists couldn't really find any correlation.
But will that be true now?
It is possible that the reason we haven’t seen a correlation between budget deficits, which were usually around 3 or 4 percent, and interest rates so far is that foreign investment in American assets has increased over the years, dulling the impact of fiscal policy.
The real question — and the real threat — is what will happen if that investment stops, or even if it merely slows down.
And what about when foreign investors stop trusting us? What about when the deficit reaches 10 percent of GDP? 20 percent?
Economic debates aside, deficits certainly do matter if you care about shrinking the size of the state. Budget gaps are a Ponzi scheme. There is always a moment where the government can't get a hold of enough of our cash to maintain appearances.
In Washington, a common explanation is that the recession produced the deficit. As if that makes it okay.
To be sure, the recession caused substantially lower tax revenue — $419 billion lower.
But the bulk of the deficit is made of spending. A lot of spending since it amounts to $1 trillion: $459 billion of the deficit came from spending decisions made in the years preceding 2009; $245 billion is due to the financial bailout and $347 billion is mainly stimulus spending.
Why does this matter?
Because we have no idea what such big deficits, sustained over so many years, will do to our economy.
Remember that for each of Obama’s years in office, the deficit is projected to be larger than any year during Bush’s terms. That's unprecedented.
For years, the main academic debate over deficit spending was whether it raised long-term interest rates and therefore reduced economic growth. Economists couldn't really find any correlation.
But will that be true now?
It is possible that the reason we haven’t seen a correlation between budget deficits, which were usually around 3 or 4 percent, and interest rates so far is that foreign investment in American assets has increased over the years, dulling the impact of fiscal policy.
The real question — and the real threat — is what will happen if that investment stops, or even if it merely slows down.
And what about when foreign investors stop trusting us? What about when the deficit reaches 10 percent of GDP? 20 percent?
Economic debates aside, deficits certainly do matter if you care about shrinking the size of the state. Budget gaps are a Ponzi scheme. There is always a moment where the government can't get a hold of enough of our cash to maintain appearances.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Fox Guarding The Hen House
Jacob Weisberg is vexed and righteous in his hatred of Fox News. It's a "propaganda" machine pretending to be a news outlet.
Blah blah blah. You know the argument. What's new is that he thinks liberal journalists shouldn't appear on the network either. That'll show 'em!
What is hilarious is that Weisberg wrote this for Newsweek, which has relaunched itself, in the words of Andrew Ferguson, as a "liberal opinion magazine written by liberals who don't want to admit they're liberals."
The new Newsweek is everything Weisberg accuses Fox of being, just far more smug and dishonest about it (the old Newsweek was no great shakes, either).
But I don't think there's any need to call for a boycott of it; consumers are doing exactly that already.
Blah blah blah. You know the argument. What's new is that he thinks liberal journalists shouldn't appear on the network either. That'll show 'em!
What is hilarious is that Weisberg wrote this for Newsweek, which has relaunched itself, in the words of Andrew Ferguson, as a "liberal opinion magazine written by liberals who don't want to admit they're liberals."
The new Newsweek is everything Weisberg accuses Fox of being, just far more smug and dishonest about it (the old Newsweek was no great shakes, either).
But I don't think there's any need to call for a boycott of it; consumers are doing exactly that already.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
