About Me

Name: Patrick Henry
Location: Vancouver, WA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

THE TEA LEAVES OF TORONTO

 
   Usually regarded as a clever politician, Barack Obama let slip in his comments at
the G-20 summit in Toronto a broad hint of his political strategy going forward by
first committing to cut the U.S. deficit in half by 2013, and then saying that he was
going to "call the bluff" of those decrying debt and deficits and face the country with
"some hard choices."
   With his tax and spend binge Obama has lost the hearts and minds of the American
public. His poll numbers are in freefall and his legislative agenda is stalled because
legislators fear voter wrath if they spend more money. So he has opted to seize on
the opportunity to become the great deficit slayer. As a fiscal conservative I applaud
the sentiment, but his track record hardly inspires confidence either in the means to
his end or the sincerity of his promise.
   His "call the bluff" and "hard choices" rhetoric almost certainly presages enormous
across-the-board tax increases. That's true because (a) his track record shows him to
be an inveterate tax-raiser, (b) he's a Democrat and that's what Democrats do, and (c)
both he and his party will be loth to slash their coveted entitlements to create savings
substantial enough to impact the deficit going forward. The so-called Deficit Reduction
Commission was created to give him cover so that he could raise taxes citing their
recommendation. Capital gains taxes will skyrocket, and here comes the VAT!
   To balance the tax increases, he will almost certainly propose spending cuts. But
they will not be those favored by the majority of Americans. They will begin with
defense spending, which is always popular with Democrats. Bill Clinton virtually
emasculated the American military in order to provide budget surpluses. Jimmy
Carter was unspeakably worse. Obama will propose the deepest cuts in military
and intelligence spending on record. Take it to the bank. Also on the block will
be border security, farm subsidies, Medicare and the intelligence apparatus (CIA,
NSA, DNI, FBI, etc.). Untouched will be healthcare reform and any programs
perceived by Obama to specifically benefit minorities.
   Republicans will, of course, resist. And by then, they'll likely have the numbers
in congress to do so effectively. They will resist not because they are irresponsible,
but because they fundamentally disagree with Obama's priorities, both in taxing
and in spending. The result will most likely be more gridlock, and Obama will
use that to accuse Republicans of hypocrisy, painting himself as the deficit-cutting
Messiah and Republicans as partisan dogs in the manger.
   Lost in the Potomac two-step will be the fact that Obama has, by his wasteful
and extravagant spending and his "redistribution of wealth" programs not only
grown the deficit, but provided the fuel for its exponential acceleration. Also lost
will be the voices of ordinary Americans who will likely have nothing whatsoever
to say about what tax rates are established and which progams are cut. Obama and
his people will do everything in their power to spin the polls and keep their plan
out of a popular referendum.
   But Obama has let slip his strategy. Now it is up to Republicans to read the tea
leaves of Toronoto and craft their own clear and forceful strategy for putting
America back on a firm financial footing. People like Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan,
Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (OMB
Director under Reagan), Senator Judd Gregg of Vermont and Governors Tim
Pawlenty of Minnesota and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana comprise their party's
best financial minds, and bring rich experience in public administration in which
budgets have actually been slashed and balanced. What a great think tank they
would comprise. It would be best if they could upstage Obama by designing and
putting forth their proposal within a few months, so that sign-on could be a litmus
test for those seeking conservative votes in November.
   Despite Obama's enormously powerful bully pulpit, seemingly unlimited
executive authority (and ambition to match) and basic control of the mainstream
media, the fact remains that those calling themselves "conservative" in this
country still outnumber those calling themselves "liberal" by a 2-1 margin. In
the long haul, Americans are their own leaders. They just need someone to really
represent them. And they need it before Obama destroys what's left of America.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DO YOU GET THE JOKE?

 
   General Stanley McChrystal apparently joined his staff in ridiculing the
civilian politicians to whom he is accountable. Though most of the jibes
were attributed to his staff, McChrystal is still accountable for the tasteless
joking and the lack of respect for civilian authority it suggests. Undoubtedly
he will pay the price. But there's more to this story.
   The Obama administration is floundering on nearly every front. Overmatched
by the BP oil spill, Afghanistan, a stubborn, deep recession with concomitant
unemployment, deep national disagreement over a swath of big government
initiatives and his party facing an electoral bloodbath in November, Obama has
dithered, delayed, politicized and pandered. So, perhaps the real question is
one of whether McChrystal and his merry band of jokesters is simply giving
vent to what many Americans now believe: that as president, Barack Obama IS
the joke.
   While the U.S. was suffering serious reversals in Afghanistan and McChrystal
was begging for reinforcements, Obama spent months of hand-wringing before
giving him PART of what he requested. Sixty-one days after the BP spill the
federal government is still more a part of the problem than the answer to it, 
leaving states to fend for themselves in many cases. Obama has now halted the
building of desperately needed sand berms off Louisiana as hurricane season
rapidly approaches. Why? Because he's not sure exactly where they should be
placed. But he has managd to make two political decisions, using the spill
for justification to kill the oil industry by shutting it down for six months and
promote his cap-and-tax energy boondoggle for passage by the senate. His
policies are taking a merciless beating in all the polls, and his party's
candidates cannot run on his miserable record. He has given the powerful
and corrupt labor unions the keys to the White House and the U.S. Treasury,
and frustrated every judicial attempt to keep them in check. Dither, delay,
politicize and pander.
   Obama could use a stiff dose of Winston Churchills motto, "action this day."
America doesn't need a philosopher, an ideologue or a brainiac in the White
House. It needs a decisive, confident leader, something Obama is not and
likely will never be. Nobody wants thoughtless, shoot-from-the-hip policies,
but everybody wants visionary leadership that thinks ahead, engages in
comprehensive risk management and can quickly formulate and execute
a plan of action in crisis. Obama's not that either. And at the very moment
when differences should be set aside and the nation pulled together to fight
a common enemy, Obama has chosen to pit liberals against conservatives and
environmentalists against business interests  in a crass and cynical attempt
to advance his own big government political agenda.
   Add in the national discomfort that Obama considers himself wholly owned
by big labor, and what you get is a total loss of credibility and its corollary,
the inability to govern brought on by the fact that when the chips are down
Obama disdappears into a closet with his "experts," who are, in reality, just
partisan political hacks. Barack Obama and his heralded presidency have
become a national laughingstock, as has his clown prince, Vice-President
Joe Biden. McChrystal and his staff aren't saying anything that an awful
lot of Americans aren't thinking. The big difference is that unlike McChrystal,
Obama can't fire us. But we CAN fire him!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE 45TH PRESIDENT

 
   Recently I had a conversation with a friend who was complaining that Barack
Obama, currently the President of the United States was everything the nation
doesn't need in a leader, and very little of what it does need. Now before those
of the liberal persuasion go into their knee-jerk racism song and dance, they
need to understand that my friend and I agreed that being black is actually
the very BEST thing Obama has going for him. It's high time we had a black
president, and in elections to come fair consideration must be given to women,
Americans of Hispanic and Asian descent. What works against Obama is his
duplicitous character, his blind ideological commitment and his lack of plain
common sense.
   So, I said to my friend, "All right, if Obama is not what we need, build me a
presidential profile that reflects what we do need." That kicked off a rambling
back and forth discussion that I will but summarize here. This is what we came
up with.
   We need a president who is smart, wise and practical. Liberals are fond of
bragging that Obama is the smartest president we've ever had. I seriously doubt
that because however appreciable his IQ may be, he regularly commits blunders,
makes contradictory statements and trips himself up. Really smart people don't
do that. America could do very nicely with someone having an IQ of 130,
accompanied by a whole lot of wisdom, common sense and people skills.
   America needs a leader who is quick on his/her feet, decisive, pro-active and
one who heads the pack instead of following blindly where some ideology or
political party lead. A real leader sees clearly the possible range of problems
facing the country and is planning remedies for tomorrow's problems, not
appointing political commissions to whine about yesterday's mistakes.
   We need a president who makes our lives easier, not harder. Raising taxes,
spending the country off a cliff and regulating businesses until they collapse
does not make life easier. Neither does failing to secure borders or enforce
existing laws, forcing states to subsidize millions of lawbreakers and then
threatening to sue states that move to do what he should do but won't.
   And how about a president from Stanford, Duke, Texas or Purdue instead
of the same old crowd from Harvard and Yale. A president who has been
taught how to think would be infinitely preferable to one who has been
indoctrinated in what to think.
   A president needs to be one who has SUCCESSFULLY managed or governed.
A businessman or a former governor would be a good start. Managing a political
campaign is not in any way the same thing as managing a business or a state,
being responsible for a whole range of demanding issues simultaneously and for
making payroll without printing money. The last thing America needs is another
political nimrod who wants to learn on the job while "playing president."
   A successful president will be able to confess his mistakes and laugh at himself.
He will not say one thing while meaning another, make promises he has no way
or intention of keeping or lie to those who voted for him. One George Washington
was worth twenty Barack Obamas.
   Finally, a president must be a listener, not one who ignores the opinions of people
who don't agree with him/her. He/she must have the courage when it's time to
stand on principle and the humility when it's time to compromise. Most of all, he/she
must be wise enough to know the difference.
   If you buy into all these things the leader of the free world should be, then you've
already admitted, in your heart, that the current occupant of the White House is
sadly deficient in every category. Is there such a person out there for 2012? Maybe.
But it will be up to Americans to dig through the subterfuge and haze of politics
to identify him or her. Perhaps when we do, this will all seem like a bad dream.
Our country is well worth the search.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA CONFIRMS JOE WILSON WAS CORRECT

 
   When Representative Joe Wilson (D-SC) shouted, "You lie," at Barack Obama
from the floor of the House chamber, Democrats brought him before the member-
ship and admonished him for his seeming lack of decorum. Around the edges they
accused him of racism and right-wing fanaticism. Turns out, however, that Wilson's
accusation was right on the money. Can you guess who just confirmed it? That's
right! None other than Obama himself.
   During a televised interview with George Stephanopoulos regarding the healthcare
reform bill he was jamming through congress Obama said that the individual health
insurance mandate was "not a tax," and that he would never have it argued before
a court that it was a tax in order to justify congress in passing it. Guess what happened
yesterday. The Justice Department filed a motion to quash the state of Florida's
lawsuit against Obamacare on the grounds that IT IS A TAX and that no authority
may prevent congress from imposing a tax. So, it is no longer arguable that Obama
did not lie to Stephanopoulos about (a) the individual mandate actually being a tax,
and (b) his intent to later defend it by telling a court that it was a tax.
   What does this mean? Well, obviously it is proof positive that Barack Obama is a
big liar, something many have argued since his smoke-and-mirrors campaign. He has
now admitted at least two of his lies. Beyond that, however, now that this poisonous
legislation is fully out of the closet it is clear that by passing it Obama has imposed the 
largest middle class tax increase in history. That's something else he solemnly
promised he wouldn't do. His doublespeak has caught up with him.
   The ability to govern depends, in large measure upon integrity, and on keeping
faith with the voters. Nixon lost it through the Watergate cover-up. Clinton lost it
through the Lewinsky cover-up and grand jury perjury brouhaha. When a president
is caught red-handed publicly lying through his teeth, he has forfeited the ability to
lead. Each of these fallen presidents has nibbled away at the edges of the respect
that the office deserves. Some are saying that Barack Obama is the worst president
ever, and that he will be a one-termer like weakling Jimmy Carter. That may all be
true. But what is no longer speculation is that Joe Wilson was absolutely right. Obama
lies, intentionally, connivingly and repeatedly, and now he's been caught. He's a
nobody who duped Americans into electing him. History will remember him badly,
if at all. But the saddest requiem concerns the additional damage he has done to his
office, the cynicism his lies and broken promises have engendered among the
citizenry and the legacy of mistrust he has sown.
   The nation's founding documents hold that government exists by "the consent of
the governed." The time when America can consent to be governed by a dishonest
charlatan like Obama may be coming to an end. The bright side of it all is that he
apparently only lies when his lips are moving. America is better than this, and it can
do a whole lot better for leadership.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ESCAPE FROM LOS ANGELES

 
   Forget the movie in which patch-eyed swashbuckler Snake Plissken made his way
through the post-apoclayptic city to retrieve classified information. Think instead about
how the entire United States of America manages to avoid the awful plight of the
southern California metropolis and the degraded state of which it is a part.
   Los Angeles, the nation's second biggest city is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.
It is not at all hard to see why. In a place where the median income is $26,000 annually,
city workers aveage $76,000 and more than 100 top $200,000. Exhorbitant taxation and
licensing fees have earned L.A. the odious distinction of being among the worst places
in the nation to do business. And while the city crumbles around them, Angeleno
authorities can't find anything better to do than rant against Arizona's new immigation
law and contemplate how best to boycott a valued business partner.
   But it's not just the city, it's the whole state. Legislators faunch daily at Republican
Governor Arold Schwarzenegger's moves to cut state jobs and entitlement spending.
The unions, whose egregious demands share responsibility for putting California in
the fiscal mess it's in, show no intention of renegotiating their Cadillac contracts, while
people and jobs are streaming out of California for friendlier climates in droves. The
state has hit upon the ingenius formula of exporting talent while importing poverty in
the form of illegal immigrants. It boasts two of the nation's largest "sanctuary cities"
in L.A. and San Francisco and is generally uncooperative with Immigration and
Customs Enforcement officials. 
   Make no mistake, the Democrats have made California what it is today. At the time
when they gained control of the governorship and the entire legislature, they were
rubbing their hands together with glee and spouting about how they would show
everyone how Democrats govern and turn the state into a utopia. They embarked
on a bloodbath or taxing, spending and regulation, gave the powerful public
employees' unions carte blanche, reined in law enforcement and welcomed illegals.
Now we see how that worked out. The state is broke, its citizens (those that are
left) are angry, and the only apparent solutions are painful.
   Zoom out to the national picture. Democrats control the Senate, the House and
the presidency. They are spending like drunken sailors, piling entitlement on
entitlement, seeking to increase taxes at every turn and regulating businesses to
the point that they can lo longer operate at a profit. Their failure to enforce even
the immigration laws on the books results in thousands of illegal northbound crossings
daily which drain resources of the states and jeopardize American national security.
Now we see how Democrats govern -- in spades! So how does Everytown America
escape from becoming another Los Angeles, and your state from emulating the
utterly failed California model? Common sense lights the way.
   First, the Democrats have to go -- from congressional ascendancy and from the
White House. Their slavish devotion to socialism and cruel prosecution of legislation
Americans don't want will only continue to make things worse. And their delusion
of creating a Super Party by encouraging illegal immigration and then granting them
blanket amnesty will, in combination with reckless deficit spending, bankrupt the
nation well before their goal is realized. History is replete with the rubble of failed
socialist states, and the only way America can avoid becoming another is to force
those who are in love with Marxism from power.
   Second, America must balance its national budget and establish a clear plan for
paying down its thirteen-trillion-dollar deficit. Pay as you go should only be set aside
in the case of a true national emergency, not simply for bailouts of businesses that
messed up and can't make it without bailouts. This means basically wars in which
America has been attacked and national disasters like Katrina and BP -- PERIOD.
No one has ever spent their way out of debt, and the country can't either. When an
entire poltical party refuses to accept such an obvious truism, one has to believe that
they are either all drunk or insane.
   Third, government must return to its constitutional roots, do away with so-called
"czars" who operate a shadow government absent congressional approval, and
return powers not specifically delegated to the federal governments to the states
where they belong. This will have the effect of withdrawing government from the
lives of individual citizens, no longer telling them what they can earn, what they
must drive, when they can turn on the lights and what they should eat. When people
realize that they are responsible for themselves for better or for worse, and that
government will not care for them from cradle to grave, they will begin to make
equally responsible decisions, corrected by the consequences if they err.
   Fourth, only strong, competent, visionary leadership can bring America safely
through the recessionary wilderness into which undisciplined and profligate spending
has led it. This means setting aside whimsy, looks, personality, racial, ethnic or
religious identity, and disciplining ourselves to vote against those who posture and
promise against a track record of non-accomplishment, and for those with proven
real world problem solving skills who actually talk practical common sense. It means
that America's government is not Hollywood where actors are awarded on the basis
of who is well-liked and puts on a good show, but a hard, cruel reality in which
terrorists double down daily on their resolve to kill Americans and the world is
growing weary of financing what is increasingly seen as a lavish governmental
lifestyle. In other words, Americans have to grow up and insist on being governed
by grownups.
   Without these common sense adjustments, we may all find ourselves some day
in the very near future desperate to "escape from Los Angeles." While it is doubtful
that Snake Plissken will run for president, or even for congress, how much worse
could he do?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

IS THE PRESIDENT DOING ENOUGH?

 
   Controversy is raging around Barack Obama's handling of the BP Gulf oil spill
disaster. His supporters say he's doing all that can possibly be done. Detractors
argue that he's not doing enough. The question is begged: just what is he doing?
   Talking an increasingly tough line, Obama has promised to keep his "boot on
the neck" of the British oil giant and to find out whose behind to kick. His justice
department has opened a ciminal investigation to determine whether material
wrongdoing caused the spill, and he has ratcheted up pressure on BP to set aside
billions to clean the mess up and repay those who were damaged by it. He has
also made four trips to the affected region, expressing his outrage and frustration
at the continued outflow and the inexorable invasion of sensistive marshlands by
the greasy, killing slime. Tomorrow night he plans a national address. In fairness
to Obama and his predecessor G.W. Bush who had to deal with similar devastation
from hurricane Katrina, there are some disasters that simply overwhelm any
president's (or nation's) capacities, and whether a president is doing "enough" is
enitirely a matter of whether one is a spectator or a victim.
   What is of concern, however, is that the major action focus remains on plugging
the leak rather than remediating and limiting the damage. While there is some logic
in that, maximum damage can only be averted by greater balance between the two.
Dozens, if not hundreds of ingenius Americans have come forward with clean-up
proposals ranging from purification machinery like that suggested to congress by
Kevin Costner, to mats of highly absorbent human hair, to berms made of hay, to
Governor Bobby Jindal's sand berms, to organic moss enzymes that absorb the oil,
to eco-friendly compounds that perform similarly. The distressing thing is that BP
has entertained only a very few of these ideas, and the inventors or proponents
admit that they have never been contacted by government officials. So what gives?
   Obviously, the concern is principally financial. BP wants to do as little clean-up
as America will accept and do it as cheaply as possible. While adopting one or
more of the proposed technologies might get the job done, buying and deploying
them would also cost BP millions, if not billions of dollars.Obama is already in a
money bind, now forced to consider repugnant and oppressive new taxes to support
his equally unpopular domestic agenda and two wars. He doesn't (a) want to pay
for anything he can get BP to pay for, and (b) wish to divert any funding from his precious
entitlement programs. He is also materializing as an arch-enemy of small businesses,
many of whom would prosper were their particular technologies selected for use
in cleaning up the massive spill. So he is stuck with the conundrum that he is all
in on the notion that government should do and control everything ("BP is responsible
but we are in charge") and the fact that government doesn't have a ready answer and
couldn't really afford to pay for it if it did.
   Most disconcerting of all, and the thing that will ultimately provoke the most
condemnation, is Obama's now obvious intent to politicize the entire matter, as he
has done with nearly every issue his government has faced. Using the spill as proof
of the inherent evil of big oil, he has promised to double down on his drive for
clean energy, by which he means cap-and-tax, business-stifling, job-killing
legislation designed to force Americans to use less energy in general, and less oil
in particular. This is opportunistic political cynicism of the crassest kind, and is
made the more reprehensible in light of the loss of income of Gulf Coast residents
and lack of movement in protecting and reclaiming their at-risk shorelines. One
example of this politicization is the creation of a panel of experts to study the
drilling question, followed by the willful, politically motivated distortion of their
report to suggest that they were recommending the very opposite of what they
in fact recommended, and the tardy announcement that the result of the report
had been decreed in advance by the administration. (For more on this see
yesterday's post, "The Subornation of Science").
   So has Obama done enough? Yes, and no. He has done enough to absolve
himself of responsibility, use the disaster to stoke his political agenda, deceit-
fully compare it to 9/11, send his political organizers out to raise money off of
it and posture as the tough guy. In blaming, finger-pointing, trash-talking,
politicizing and manipulating he gets an "A." But as in so many other areas the
BP spill illustrates starkly the difference between a politician and a problem-
solver. The former talks about problems, the latter fixes them. During the election
critics pointed to Obama's lack of real world experience. Now those who wouldn't
listen will pay for the misjudgement in spades. So, in terms of real solutions, the
president gets an "F."
   So we have a congress that can jam through a healthcare reform bill Amercans
hate, yet can't pass a budget (or won't because they know the real numbers that
reflect their spending intent would get them promptly unelected). And we have a
president who can appoint bogus commissions whose results he pre-dictates, go
on television and brag about kicking butts, compare an oil spill (apples) to 9/11
(oranges) and do not much else. When will we ever learn to elect someone who
has actually solved a problem during his professional career, who will act instead
of just talk, who will engage in real-world risk management and who will cease
making everything about him and his agenda?
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE SUBORNATION OF SCIENCE

 
   Science has long been exalted as the last bastion of objectivity, the one field
of inquiry in which facts are discovered and documented by the ruthless application
of empirical methods of gathering, measuring observable data and assimilating it
with existing proveable information to reach a schiolarly consensus about what is
and is not true. Philosophies, religions and governments have always been fair
game for challenge. But science has nearly achieved the status of the sacrosanct.
Until now.
   Those who wish to buttress an argument often turn to "the science" of whatever
it is they're discussing. Invocation of "the science" is always intended to put the
matter once and for all to rest. Enter Carol Browner, Barack Obama and the
grand plan for subornation. A panel of seven petroleum engineering experts
approved by the American Institute of Engineering was asked to study current
oil drilling procedures and produce a report of their findings to be used in setting
governmental drilling and energy policy. They did so, utlizing the very best science
at their disposal. When the report was surfaced by Ken Salazar. Secretary of the
Interior, it called for an across-the-board six-month moratorium on drilling, plainly
representing it to be based on the findings of the seven scientists. Government
policy based on hard science. Sounds good, right? Not so fast!
   Almost immediately some facts began to emerge that called the report and the
so-called science into question. First, the scientists protested to Salazar that the
report that appeared was not the one they signed off on. They further stated that
their studied recommendation based on the facts was in many ways the opposite
of what the report in its final form proposed. They further represented that Salazar,
or someone else, had tampered with and altered the report AFTER they signed off
on it. Faced with their protestations, Salazar quickly backpedaled and admitted that
the conclusions and the recommendations were his and the president's, not those of
the scientists as originally represented. Even more incriminating, when asked by
the scientists why the report had been so doctored, Salazar said that the moratorium
declaration had been "required" by the administration as a pre-condition of the report's
release to congress.
   So, to be sure we're clear: the Obama administration commissioned a "scientific"
study, the results of which they dictated in advance. And we thought that science was
supposed to follow the truth wherever it led. Silly us! Not on the watch of Barack
Obama!
   Faced by a storm of protest and accusations of data manipulation, Obama dispatched
his climate czar Carol Browner, a former official in the Intenational Socialist Party,
to say that, "No one was deceived or misrepresented." Now, a fourth grader reading
the report can see that it represents itself as a scientific statement of facts. So, when
it turns out that the so-called "facts" in the report are NOT at all what the scientists
determined, the claim that there was no misrepresentation or intent to deceive is
exposed as an outright lie -- par for the course for Browner, who left a previous
administration in disgrace and was smuggled in as a "czar" because even Obama
knew she could never pass muster as a cabinet member.
   Ms. Browner has also worked with the Environmental Protection Agency to
draft Draconian carbon emissions standards that will limit production, cost jobs and
do little to clean up the environment. This radical move was also supposed to be
based on the "science." Only the climate change hoax is crumbling on every side
as the truth about manipulated data, selective inclusion of facts and formulas that
are being mysteriously sequestered by those who claim to have proved that global
warming is man made is in such disarray that many are laughing out loud at it
and the president's vaunted cap-and-trade legislation is in deep trouble. Not a
single scientist is able to explain exactly how man made carbon emissions damage
the environment (the "science" of it) and climatemongers like Al Gore will no
longer debate the matter in public. That's how weak their "scientific" case is. Their
bogus theory fell into further disrepute when a recent arctic expedition, sent to
prove that the glaciers were thawing found, instead, that the ice was 100% thicker
than expected.
   When scientists and their conclusions are suborned or manipulated to score
political points, both the scientists and the politicians eventually lose credibility. Ken
Cuccinelli. attorney general for the state of Virginia had launched a criminal
investigation to determine whether one of the main climate change studies was the
result of manipulated data. If so, the unversity under whose auspices the alleged
research was conducted may owe the govenment hundreds of thousands in misspent
grant funding, and the researcher may be found criminally liable. One of his
colleagues there has protested that science should be left to judge science, and that
it should not fall under the purview of the law. In a perfect world the independence
of science would seem a good principle to follow. But when science panders to
politics or worse, as in the petroleum engineers' case, is misused for political gain,
then an arbiter must intervene. The truth is that in the name of free inquiry science
does not police itself, and scientific work, some of which is shoddy and second rate
is regularly used to justify outlandish political decisions.
   Caught redhanded, the Obama administration has been forced to admit that they
doctored the report and predisposed its outcome. That's not science, it's corruption.
And Barack Obama, Carol Browner and Ken Salazar are knee-deep in it. So while the
Gulf Coast suffers an unspeakable catastrophe, its residents must now watch as tens
of thousands are laid off from their oil-related jobs. Part of Obama's economic recovery
plan, no doubt. When is enough lying really enough?
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SEX, VIDEOTAPE AND LIES

 
   Actually this post has nothing to do with sex or videotape. But it sucked you in,
didn't it? What it does concern is an alarming patchwork of lies from the Obama
administration that clearly begin with the Liar-In-Chief himself.
   That the "report" from the petroleum engineers was doctored to imply that they
approved a six-month moratorium on all offshore drilling is yesterday's news. But
that it was done with malice aforethought, intentionally by a presidential cabinet
member is intolerable. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar sheepishly admitted
to congress, after submitting the doctored report, that the moratorium was his and
Obama's idea, not that of the engineers. Yet another instance of an Obama official
caught red-handed lying to congress and the public.
   This is disqueting at two levels. At the factual level Salazar and the president tried
to claim that the experts recommended something that is actually the diametrical
opposite of what they actually think. After writing a letter calling Salazar out and
divorcing themselves from his conclusions, they explained that a six-month drilling
moratorium is actually a very BAD idea. First, they say, shutting down a producing
well is far more dangerous to the environment than continuing to operate it. Second,
deepwater drilling rigs like the Horizon are in very high international demand. Their
owners will never allow them to sit idle in the Gulf for six months, and so they will
likely end up in the North Sea or off the coast of Africa. Once that happens, it is
highly unlikely we will be able to get them back. So third, it could be years before
real drilling can resume and in the meanwhile we will have to make do with the
older and far less safe rigs that remain. So the experts are saying that not only is the
Salazar/Obama idea a bad idea, it is a STUPID idea.
   The second and even more profound level of discomfort concerns an administration
that (a) continues to manipulate data, misrepresent facts and outright lie to justify its
one-sided partisan policies, and (b) willfully spits in the faces of Americans, a clear
majority of whom oppose them. Though egregious, what Salazar did with the experts'
report was no different than what Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Obama did in
fabricating the financial data upon which they based the healthcare reform debacle.
A child could have seen that they were phonying up numbers because they didn't
want Americans to know the truth that they were driving up the deficit, not reducing
it, that their bill would NOT contain costs and that Medicare recipients would suffer.
It was a pack of lies then, just as Ken Salazar and Obama are lying now. It's wrong,
it's corrupt, and America shouldn't put up with it.
   Also, it further illustrates how Obama continues to double down in pushing the
very opposite of what Americans say they want. They didn't want the healthcare
bill, so he pushed it to the top of his agenda, bought, bribed and badgered the votes
in congress to pass it and rammed it through anyway. They don't want a cap-and-
trade energy policy, so he's trying to push it through as fast as he can. They reject
amnesty for illegal aliens and so now Obama is pushing for comprehensive reform
(amnesty) as hard as he can. Americans overhwelmingly support continued, safe,
regulated drilling, so what does Obama do? He declares a six-month moratorium
that will diminish America's energy supply and put thousands of people out of
work in an already tanking economy and in an already devastated region. See the
pattern?
   But let's not play games here. We all know what this is about. Obama has cynically
seized upon the BP spill catastrophe to take actions that will advance his energy
agenda, drive up energy prices and force Americans into reduced consumption. That's
what the lying is really about. Well, Mr. President, I think South Carolina's Joe
Wilson said it best: "YOU LIE! YOU LIE! YOU LIE!" So, along with going down
in history as the White House's weakest president, you'll also probably be remembered
as its most disingenuous. In a group that includes Nixon and Clinton that is truly a
badge of dishonor. You've earned it, and you can wear it!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SC DEMS GOING GREENE?

 
   Assuming from his name that he was some kind of environmentalist on steroids,
South Carolina Democrats cast their ballots for unemployed veteran Alvin Greene
instead of state lawmaker Vic Rawl to run against incumbent Republican Jim DeMint
for that state's senate seat. I mean, I can't think of any other possible reason to vote
for a man arrested for showing porn to a college co-ed and who doesn't even know
what TARP is.
   But that's what they did. And the vote wasn't even close. Embarrassed by the
outcome, the state's Democratic party chair immediately asked Greene to step
aside, a request he curtly declined. Shortly thereafter, House Majority Whip
James Clyburn, also a South Carolinian and, like Greene, an African American,
said that "something fishy" was going on and that either the Republicans or some
other "outside group" had put Greene up to running.
   Let's examine the phenomenon and the pathetic Democratic bleatings about foul
play for what they really are: the outcries of a disorganized, disheveled, desperate
party that, once again, was asleep at the wheel. State Democratic Chair Carol
Fowler argued that if voters had known about the porn incident they wouldn't
have voted for Greene. To that one might respond, "shame on them." Floridians
had no problem voting for Alcee Hastings, a judge defrocked for corruption. If
Dems supporting Rawl knew about Greene's background why didn't they make
their knowledge public? The answer? They didn't, or didn't care, or considered
the man so minor a threat that details of his background were irrelevant. How
disenchanted must SC Dem voters have been to pick an unknown nobody over
an elected legislator? Don't tell me it's not an anti-incumbent year.
   And what of Clyburn's anguished cry of foul, and demand that a U.S. attorney
investigate who put Greene up to running and how an unemployed veteran paid
cash to get his name on the ballot? This is where the hypocrisy gets really ripe.
Greene may be unemployed, but he still presumably gets veteran's benefits, so
he's not penniless. Maybe he doesn't have any other debts or habits (except
buying porn to titillate co-eds) and saved up. And what if he was a plant? There
is no law against that. Democrats gave money to the campaign of Utah Tea Party
Favorite Sharron Angle because they thought she would be easiest for Harry Reid
to beat. Officials in Obama's White House tried to buy off Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania
and Andrew Romanoff in Colorado with promises of federal jobs. And that IS
against the law. But if some mischievous outside party did prod Greene into a run
and paid his entry fee, how would they be different from the SEIU and MoveOn.org
who supported and bankrolled Bill Halter in his failed bid to unseat Senator Blanche
Lincoln in Arkansas? If the U.S. attorney is going to investigate Greene, then there
are a slew of other Dems whose necks belong on the same block.
   Most intriguing of all is that Greene has no staff and did very little campaigning.
That's how disorganized and disgraceful the Democratic party in South Carolina
is. One would think that if some mischief maker put Greene up to running, they
would at least have coached him in mounting some semblance of a campaign.
   Now the Democratic Senatorial Campaign and the National Democratic party
will not return calls about the Greene incident nor, for that matter will they speak
to Greene himself. Undaunted, however, Greene says he looks forward to debating
Senator DeMint. Here's how such a scenario might play out.
   Moderator: "Welcome to this debate, Mr. Greene. Tell us what you think about
TARP."
   Greene: "Well, uh, I caught one of those in the bayou one time and it ate real good."
   Moderator: "Hmmm. Well, what do you think of the President's handling of the BP
oil spill?"
   Greene: "Duh, I think he should bomb England if they don't pay up."
   Moderator: "I see. Majority Whip James Clyburn of the U.S. House of 
Representatives says he suspects that you are a Republican plant. How do you
respond?"
   Greene: "I ain't nobody's house plant. And if this Clyburn wants to get in my face
I'll show his butt some whip."
   Moderator: "You have said that you want to put South Carolina back to work. Just
how do you plan to do that?
   Greene: "Well, I'm gonna start by whuppin' DeMint in November, and that'll give
at least one South Carolina man a job: ME."
   The most notable thing about this debate is that it will be entirely one-sided. DeMint
won't dignify it by even showing up, figuring that although Greene could non-campaign
himself into the Democratic nomination, he'll have no problem at all campaigning
himself out of the senate seat and into the annals of political obscurity.
   A little humor at the Dumbocrats' expense never hurt anyone. And the sad fact is that
some of them will probably actually vote for Greene in November. If they ever
deserved to be the butt of a national joke, the time is now. Greene doesn't have much
of a vocabulary. But to be a Democratic legislator you only need to know two words:
TAX and SPEND. Here's to Alvin Greene and other senatorial candidates destined to
share his fate. Live long and go away!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CROSSING THE LINE

 
   "Imagine there's no countries. It's not so hard to do. Nothing to live or die for, and
no religion too. Imagine all the people, living life in peace. Oh, you may say that I'm
a dreamer. But I'm not the only one. I hope some day you'll join us, and the world
can live as one." Those are the words penned by John Lennon of the Beatles to an
iconic rock song. Some say they lift up an ideal. I say they elevate a fantasy. Barack
Obama seems to have canonized them as a foreign policy.
   Envisioning a de-nuclearized world, Obama has signed onto a United Nations state-
ment aimed at stripping Israel of its nukes, negotiated a yet-to-be ratified nuclear
reduction traty with the Russians and published heretofore secret information about
the U.S. nuclear stockpile for all the world to see. His notion seems to be that if we
deactivate our nukes, the rest of the world will follow suit. That is not a silly song,
an ideal, or even a foreign policy. It is madness, and Obama has crossed the line
between fantasy and delusional lunacy.
   Think about it. Nukes symbolize the greatest power known to man. After only two
historic detonations, the very threat of them has maintained an uneasy peace between
the superpowers since the end of World War II. Israel's nukes are all that stand
between them and annhilation by the Arab world. Iran wants them so that they can
threaten others and destroy Israel. Israel will never yield theirs as long as Iran and
Syria maintain clandestine weapons development programs, nor will congress ever
allow Obama to deactivate ours as long as Russia and China have theirs. That's
reality. That's actual history. That's the rubric of a nuclear world.
   It would, perhaps, come as a rude reminder to Lennon, were he still around, that
there ARE, in fact, countries, and that their citizens ARE willing to die to protect
them. As much as the U.N., the one world left and Obama would like to change that,
Americans will NEVER let them do so. And as we are daily reminded by Islamic
jihadists, there ARE religions, and there will always be some religious extremists who
are willing to kill or die to preserve or expand them. It's been true throughout the
history of religions for thousands upon thousands of years. It's still true today, and
what is truly ironic is that The Chosen One who would denuclearize the world has
no qualms about killing religious fanatics and political extremists with missile strikes
from unmanned drones. WMD or Hellfire missiles make only a theoretical difference
to those killed by them. When you're dead, you're dead.
   Lennon's song and Obama's policy are fantasies that will never come true. So let's
buy a one way ticket back from Disneyland and think the thinkable. Let's ditch the
fairy tales and think about how the ideals can be promoted. Limiting nukes is a good
start. But to do so means real time inspections and enforcement with teeth. Non-
proliferation is dandy, but wrist-slapping sanctions on rogue states that defy the
international consensus, if there is one, are bound to fail. The reality is that the
Russians and the Chinese don't give a rip if Iran gets nukes or North Korea already
has them. These rogue regimes are valued business partners and client states. Should
they turn on the Russians or the Chinese, the latter both know full well that they have
bigger weapons and a lot more of them. So who's afraid of the big bad wolf? They
don't see it as their job to police or protect the rest of the world, so it's no skin off
their nose if North Korea attacks the south or Iran nukes Israel. Of course, the
minute somebody gets crazy enough to actually use a nuke, then it becomes
everyone's problem, and Russia and China would rather deal with what they consider
that unlikely eventuality than jeopardize their current business dealings or historic
alliances.
   So it looks like the closest approach to an ideal is to limit the spread of nukes as
much as possible, cement our alliances with other nuclear powers such as France
and the U.K., and resolve ourselves to the fact that should an Iran or North Korea
actually use a nuclear weapon, they must be punished immediately and in kind by
those with the capacity to inflict such punishment.
   But let's understand that songs like "Imagine" are the ramblings of acid-popping
hippies, policies like Obama's are inherently dangerous to America and we are
a long, long way from thinking through a path to the ideal of nuclear disarmament.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DID YOU GET THE MEMO?

 
   There were some none-too-subtle messages in the results from yesterday's
primaries. Do you suppose the cretans in Washington, D.C., got the memo?
It had three pretty clear points, and set up some very interesting political
scenarios for the November mid-terms.
   Point one: conservatives rejoice, liberals beware. While some Tea Party
candidates won, almost all made very strong showings, indicating a backlash
against the liberal Obama administration, status quo incumbents and business-
as-usual in Washington. In spite of millions poured into Arkansas by the SEIU,
AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org to support Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter's bid to
unseat Senator Blanche Lincoln, Lincoln won anyway. What a huge slap in the
face to these "progressive" thugs. But even Lincoln is 20 points down to Republican
John Boozman against whom she must run in November. For the first time in awhile,
Americans will have some real clear-cut choices when they go to the polls next fall.
   Point two: women (conservative ones) have arrived as a force in national
politics. Two powerful female former mega-business CEOs, Meg Whitman
(E-Bay) and Carly Fiorina (Hewlett-Packard) swept to victory in the Republican
gubernatorial and senatorial primaries in California. Though forced into a run-off,
State Representative Nikki Haley more than doubled her nearest challenger's vote
total and appears the prohibitive favorite for the Republican gubernatorial
nomination in South Carolina. Lincoln won against a white liberal male in Arkansas,
and Tea Party darling Sharron Angle bested all comers for the right to face Harry
Reid in the Nevada senatorial election. Each of these women faces serious challenges
in the mid-term elections, but who would ever have thought they'd be on the ballot
there? The most important signal this sends is that much of the new emerging leader-
ship in the Republican party is female. How's that for a new twist?
   Pont three: Barack Obama not only has no coattails, he has no coat. The only
winning candidate he endorsed was Lincoln, but those on the ground in Arkansas
have made it very clear that it was Bill Clinton, not Obama, whose endorsement
carried her over the top. Polls are very clear that people in Arkansas detest Obama's
policies, and Lincoln wisely distanced herself from them, emphasizing her independence
in last night's big win. It seems clear that far from being a boon to Democratic
candidates in the fall, Obama with his spendthrift policies and budget-busting
entitlements will be a huge albatross around their necks. A majority of them will
not survive.
   So, did YOU get the memo? The table is set to make some sweeping changes in
the way Washington works (or doesn't). But it's going to take lots of grassroots
organizing, door-knocking and fund-raising to get it done. The SEIU, AFL-CIO and
MoveOn will be out there spending hundreds of millions, registering dead people
and twisting arms for votes. They failed miserably in Arkansas. Let's make sure
that story is repeated so that if, by November, Obama is still trying to figure out
whose a*s to kick, maybe he'll want to take a good shot at his own.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO LIVE IN CHICAGO?

 
   Here's a nod to the many fine people who live in Chicago, Illinois. I love you,
and I feel sorry for you. Many have written about the Windy City and its fabled
political corruption. I was born in a Chicago suburb, lived there for eighteen
years, went back for another three of graduate school on the North Shore and
visited family often until they moved west. So I know precisely whereof I speak.
   My first experience with "the Chicago way," came at the tender age of sixteen.
I had a shiny new drivers license, the keys to a family car and the world was
my oyster. Gas was cheap and cruising was fun. I found myself on Chicago's
south side with my two best friends going the wrong way on a one-way street.
I hadn't driven in that particular area before, had been forbidden to do so by my
dad and made a stupid wrong turn. Realizing the error of my ways immediately,
I turned quickly off on a side street. But alas, an officer had spotted me and
immediately pulled me over. He approached my window and asked for my
driver's license. I was sweating bullets. He lectured me about how much trouble
I was in and what could happen to me, most of which wasn't even true, although
I didn't know it at the time. I begged him to let me off with a warning, and he
asked how much money I had. It was $11. He turned up his nose and told me
that if I could get my two friends to chip in $5 each to go with it, he'd let me
drive away. Reluctantly, they did do. I handed him the cash, he handed back
my license and he turned to go.
   As he walked away, I sat there realizing that I had just bribed an officer of the
law. I also knew that if I hadn't, my dad would have found out (a) that I got
stopped, and (b) that I was driving in an area he had told me to stay out of. That,
of course, doesn't justify it, but it seemed like the thing to do at the time. As the
officer, whose name was on his badge and is burned in my memory to this day,
walked away, he turned and looked at me in what was either pity or sneering
contempt. "You don't think much of me do you, son?" he asked. I was too shaken
to reply. "You'll learn," he smiled, "that's just how it is in Chicago." Yeah, that's
just how it was in Chicago.
   When famed treasury agent Elliott Ness took on mob boss Al Capone, his biggest
obstacle was the Chicago police department, so riddled with corruption that Ness'
plans were often whispered to Capone before the orders were given to those
charged with carrying them out. When Capone finally went down, records were
seized revealing police officers and commanders, judges and politicians who were
on Capone's payroll. That was the Chicago way.
   When the senior Richard J. Daley became mayor, he organized the Democratic
party there into a tighly knit series of "wards," each one with its own "boss" whose
responsibility was to deliver Daley and his favored candidates votes in every election,
and in return for which each received his share of what they called "boodle," the
spoils of victory in the form of under-the-table payoffs or city jobs. In 1960 most 
Chicagoans believed that Daley and his machine stole the presidential election by
simply "losing" huge numbers of ballot. That was the Chicago way, too.
   During Barack Obama's brief senate tenure he funneled hundreds of millions
of dollars to Chicago's extreme community organizing organizations like ACORN,
to corrupt union bosses, to housing projects conducted by crooks like Tony Rezko
and to other equally nefarious but politically favored groups or individuals. Today
the unemployment rate in Chicago stands at 11.2% and the street violence is so
bad members of the city council are demanding deployment of the national guard.
That's the way it is in Chicago, and the city's economic and civic decline stands as
stark evidence of the political corruption and the folly of simply throwing money
at social problems.
   When Barack Obama ran for the presidency, he promised an open and transparent
government that would change the way business was done in Washington and do
away with politics as usual. Now, less than two years into his first term, Americans
see with disillusion his attempts to interefere in at least two primary elections by
trying to bribe would-be candidates into taking government jobs and thereby depriving
an electorate who wants and deseves to find the best possible candidate of the chance
to vote for anyone other than his own favored pick. It is proof positive that you can
take the crook out of Chicago, but you cannot take the crookedness out of the man.  
Barack Obama is still doing things the Chicago way.
   Whether one looks at Rahm Emanuel, who tried to use Bill Clinton to bribe
Pennsylvania's Joe Sestak out of that senate race, Rod Blagojevich, impeached
governor who tried to sell Obama's seat to the highest bidder, Roland Burris
who won the bid and by some strange coincidence failed to disclose his conversations
about money with Blagojevich in testimony before the Illinois legislature, or Jim
Messina, Emanuel's deputy who blatantly violated the Hatch Act by offering
Colorado's Andew Romanoff not one but three jobs to stay out of that senate
race, you only see the same thing. Chicago, Chicago, Chicago! And can you
guess what Emanuel's fantasy job is? You got it, mayor of Chicago.
   The point is this: Barack Obama has imported the political manipulation, the
lawlessness, the suppression of dissent and the leftist social engineering directly
from Chicago to Washington D.C. It is his full intention to catapult that city's
shame into national policy, and he has already gone a long way toward doing so.
So Chicago may soon be coming to Your Town, USA. I'm ashamed that I paid
off that crook in the blue uniform when I was a kid. I've never done anything
like it again, and never would. But what kind of human being acting under the
color of authority extorts three scared sixteen-year-olds out of $21? That's
the way it is in Chicago, and if you don't want it to be that way in your city,
then you'd best plan to get yourself and all your friends to the polls in November
and derail this corrupt train before it finally runs over you.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ANATOMY OF A SET-UP

 
   The international pro-Palestinian left, aided and abetted by the United Nations and
the Muslim-loving president of the United States of America pulled off a world class
set-up on Israel, and the beleaguered Israelis walked right into it. The question is,
now what?
   Gaza supporters on Turkish vessels attempted to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza's
Hamas government. The blockade has been effective in reducing rocket attacks on
Israel since, in combination with the closure of the border between Egypt and Gaza
it has put a stranglehold on smuggled weaponry used by the Hamas terrorists. When
the Israelis could see that the ships were attempting to run the blockade, they sent
airborne commando teams to board and search the vessels for contraband. From
there, the stories about what happened diverge sharply.
   The activists claim that the Israelis fired while rappeling down to the deck, something
that sounds a bit fishy unless they were being fired on. What the available video shows
is a mob armed with iron pipes beating the tar out of Israeli soldiers, and the explosion
of at least one stun grenade thrown AT the soldiers as they boarded. Pardon me if I have
credibility problems with a supposedly "peaceful" group of activists armed with stun
grenades and prepared to attack before the Israelis ever hit the deck. The Israelis, on
the contrary, claim that they were attacked, that two of their soldiers were thrown over
the side and that demonstrators fired at them with sidearms taken from the beaten
commandos BEFORE they opened fire.
   To make things even more fishy, within a few short hours after the conflagration,
well-organized demonstrations calling for Israeli heads materialized outside Israeli
embassies in several countries, while relatives of activists who were supposedly on
the ships were standing in line at media outlets to give interviews berating Israel's
barbarism. One of these, appearing on FOX News, claimed that his wife, not on the
ship where the violent conflict broke out, actually saw Israelis firing upon descent
and knew that the Israelis had "given no warning" that the flotilla could not proceed.
Now, the lady admits she was not on the ship where the trouble broke out, but claims
to know who fired first. Hmmm. Also, the only way she could have known for sure
whether Israelis warned the ships to alter course would be for her to have been in
the radio room, or to be able to read the Morse flashes from the Israeli navy. Common
sense suggests that like most of these activists, this woman is a liar who manufactured
a version of events of which she had no firsthand knowledge to suit the perceived
justice of her cause.
   Next, it emerges that some "activists" in the flotilla were members of the IHH, a
terrorist group associated with Hamas and, in some cases trained by al Qaeda. Some
peace mission. These were, in fact, practiced provocateurs intent on armed resistance
in the hope of inciting Israeli overreaction.
   The activist appearing on FOX gave as a justification that fact that had the ships
diverted to Ashdod, the port where Israelis inspect Gaza-bound cargo for contraband,
they only allow seventy-five items "out of all the items in the world." Clearly, the
cargo of the "humanitarian aid" flotilla contained cargo outside the pale of the
allowable checklist. Among such items was concrete that Hamas could have used
to rebuild bunkers smashed by the Israelis when they boxed the terrorists ears during
the last Gaza dust-up.
   Then followed the absolutely shameful rabid attack by the United Nations, that
rushed up an "urgent" Security Council debate just minutes before Lebanon, a
nation with grievances against Israel who doesn't like the fact that it harbors
Hezbollah terrorists, turned over the rotating presidency to Mexico. Even more
shameful was the idling of the U.S., whose actual ambassador didn't even show
up, in acquiescing to a "presidential statement" blasting Israel. assigning full
blame to the Israelis and demanding an international investigation. The U.N.'s
Human Rights Commission in Geneva went into emergency session, tabled
its ususally strict agenda of items in favor of two days of serial Israel-bashing,
declared the blockade illegal and demanded punishment of Tel Aviv. All this
on top of the recently issued U.N. mandate against a nuclear Middle East that
specifcally singled out Israel but did not mention Iran. While the U.S. "deplored"
the latter resolution, it still signed off on it.
   While U.N. anti-semitism is nothing new, Obama's anti-Israel foreign policy is
now quite clear. Never mind that 65% of Americans support Israel. As in his
crazed quest to pass a healthcare reform Americans didn't want, Obama doesn't
care. His sentimental attraction to the religion of his childhood is something of
which he cannot let go, and he is making good on his promise in The Audacity
of Hope that if things got politically ugly "I will stand with the Muslims."
   What about a president who will stand with Americans instead of denigrating
them at every opportunity? What about a leader who will keep America's
commitments to its allies? What about a statesman of character who doesn't talk
out of both sides of his mouth? As long as Obama is in office America is out of
luck!
   Israel is the porcupine to Obama's chameleon. If you tread on them, you're
going to pay the price. Unlike the invertebrate Obama, they haven't forgotten the
lesson learned by Britain's Neville Chamberlain who thought appeasement the
best way to handle Hitler. But then again, none of Obama's people were marched
into gas chambers and cremated in crude ovens. Israel has every right to do whatever
is necessary to stop the flow of weapons into Gaza, and Obama and his U.N. cronies
won't keep them from doing so. But Obama may destroy the one solid alliance
America has in the Middle East. What an idiot!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE STATE OF HOPE AND CHANGE: PART III

 
   What a difference a year makes. One wonders how a hip, attractive young leader
who won election with a 57% majority and enjoyed early approval ratings in the
mid to high 60's could, in such a short time, see those ratings plummet to the mid-
40's, his vaunted agenda categorically rejected by a clear majority of Americans,
his party facing mammoth losses in the upcoming election and media pundits
already referring to him as a "one-term president?"
   Such questions are best answered on two levels. One is that his "solutions" to
the nation's problems have plunged it so deeply into debt, and engendered so
much resentment and dissidence as to make the man who was to be the "great
uniter" into a virtual autocrat, divorced from the will of the people, alienated
from the media whose darling he once was, and presiding over the greatest
polarization of Americans in history. Politics is pragmatics, and when a leader's
policies either don't solve problems or actually make them worse, he won't be
leader for very long. Government is, as the Declaration of Independence correctly
 states, "by the consent of the governed."
   A second and more fundamental cause of the current malaise is that Obama
purposely misled American voters about his true intentions. When he said "hope
and change" a war-weary, mistrustful electorate who scorned the Republican
incumbent hoped for peace, prosperity and honor. When he spoke of "fundamentally
transforming America" they heard new opportunity, better international relations,
energy independence and a dedicated focus on persistent internal problems like
illegal immigration, fiancial regulation and a crumbling housing market. That's
what he said, and that's what we heard. But it's not what he meant! What he
meant was the unprecedented intrusion of government into the private sector,
renunciation of America's honor in favor of a contrite posture before the world,
a confused, politically correct national security apparatus in which the right
hand doesn't even know there is a left hand, a broken justice system that enforces
the law selectively, a wink at borders so porous that even terrorists come and go
at will and the alienation of our strongest interational allies. Obama's radical
plunge in popularity and the pending demise of his party from power signifies
the disconnect between his verbiage and his intent that is now reflected in his
policy. It is the top-down imposition of socialism on a nation that rejects it.
   Realizing that his days of unlimited power are rapidly waning, Obama is futher
compounding an ugly situation by trying to ram through a ruinous cap-and-trade
bill, union card check and so-called "immigration reform" before elections can
sweep his supporters from office. He does this because he knows that laws like
Obamacare are much harder to repeal than to pass, and he is determined to leave
a permanent socialist mark on American society.
   But let's be clear: because of this systematic dishonesty by the president, and
the ruthless means he has employed to assert and consolidate his power, America
has never been closer to civil war since the mid-1800's when it actually fought
one. Americans will simply not permit government to run every aspect of their
lives, plunder the fruits of their labor without limit and bow in subservience before
their enemies. They will not permit it, and they will do whatever is necessary to
seize back the reins of power and reverse this course to oblivion. The Tea Party
movement is just a shot across the liberal bow. They can mock it all they want to,
but it is simply the steam escaping from the simmering rage of millions who want
nothing more than for America to be America again, and are motivated to levels
of involvement unheard of in recent history.
   Obama's hope was never America's, nor his change the change America wanted.
Voters desperately wanted to believe, the way children only reluctantly surrender
notions of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. But like the latter
myths, Obama's promises sounded like something they never were.
   So America's hope today is the hope it can survive Obama's presidency, and the
change it seeks is a change in leadership, philosophy and direction. It must be noted
that the drift toward a socialist fantasy is not entirely the fault of Barack Obama,
but also that of his predecessor G.W. Bush. And Republicans in congress poll no
better, on the whole, than do the Democrats. So when the change comes, the house-
cleaning is liable to be complete. America will start over, start reading the
constitution again before making laws and that's how it will renew itself. When
Obama reflects on his legacy, he will realize that he, more than anyone, was the
catalyst for that transformation. But it will be the opposite of what he intended.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE STATE OF HOPE AND CHANGE: PART II

 
   Many Issues vital to Americans also touch the lives of those in other countries. So
sweeping was the Obama promise of hope and change that immigration reform and
a new foreign policy direction were supposedly high on his agenda. Developments
to date bear careful scrutiny.
   Even before Obama was elected he began an "apology tour" of the world with
speeches in Europe that denigrated America, calling it "dismissive, derisive and
arrogant." Once elected, he continued the drumbeat with speeches in the Middle
East and at the United Nations dismissing the notion that America was a "Christian
nation," and reversing the perceived unilateralism of his predecessor in fighting
a conflict he refused to call the "war on terror." At the same time he withdrew
from missile defense agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic, insulted
the United Kingdom by summarily returning a bust of Churchill that had sat in
the White House for decades and initiated an escalating series of criticisms and
insults toward Isreal, America's only real ally in the Middle East.
   He replaced confrontation with diplomacy, declaring to both Iran and North
Korea that if they would "unclench their fists" they would find America with an
open hand. He proclaimed the lofty ambition to de-nuclearize the world, signing
a loose and permissive accord with the Russians, laying bare for the world to see
the details regarding America's own nuclear arsenal and passing the treaty on to
the Senate for ratification. During his travels he made it a practice to bow before
foreign dictators, a practice rejected by Americans since the Revolutionary War,
declined, prior to his election, to place his hand over his heart during the pledge
of allegiance or to wear the American flag lapel pin sported by most candidates
for office.
   Obama has scorned those who would see American immigration laws enforced,
filed legal actions against states taking such matters into their own hands, and
refused to enforce existing immigration controls or secure the nation's borders.
He went so far as to invite a foreign head of state to berate, from the floor of the
U.S. House of Representatives, an American state for seeking to keep illegals out,
while his party gave the man a standing ovation. So how has this facet of hope
and change worked out?
   Iran and North Korea have rejected Obama's overtures out-of-hand,  the
former thumbing its nose at America and the international community while hell-
bent on acquiring a nuclear weapon, and the latter has re-starting its nuclear
program, resuming shipping weapons technology to rogue regimes (if it ever
stopped), sinking a South Korean ship and threatening to ignite all-out war on the
Korean peninsula. Radical Islam has stepped up its maniacal bid to strike at the
American homeland, with six attempted attacks since Obama took office and
one spectacularly successful one that took 13 lives and wounded 32 others at
Fort Hood military base in Texas. Attempts at mass murder by bombing have
been thwarted mainly by the incompetence of the bombers.
   To the south, drug and human trafficking have reached crisis proportions,
with thousand of illegals crossing into Arizona, Texas and California daily. The
Obama response has been to pacify the puerile Mexican president, attack the
Arizona governor and the state's laws, threaten, through Immigration and Customs
Enforcement to cease cooperating with the state and do nothing, save the sending
of a mere 1,200 troops to the border with instructions not to stop illegal crossings
unless they clearly involved drugs or weapons.
   The guarantee to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has fallen apart,
with American cities refusing to host show trials, states uninterested in having
dangerous terrorists confined in their midst and a beleaguered, impoverished
congress controlled by Obama's own party unwilling to appropriate the funds
necessary for him to keep his largely symbolic promise. Withdrawal from Iraq
faces an endangered timetable and will in no case be complete. An emergency
troop surge in Afghanistan became necessary to blunt a Taliban resurgence and
even military leaders are not yet willing to consider America to be "winning"
there.
   National security policy is in disarray, with the recently dismissed National
Intelligence Director locked in a turf battle with the career politician chosen to
head the Central Intelligence Agency, an early warning system that, by Obama's
own admission has failed and remains in part dysfunctional and protective
organizations that are still not talking to one another. And no one seems to
want the DNI job that carries little authority and takes most of the blame when
things go wrong. Anti-terror policy is made at the White House by a cranky
and obdurate presidential advisor and no one in the administration from the
president, to the attorney general, to the secretary of homeland security will
admit that the principal threat is from radical Islamists.
   Whatever one might say about the previous administration, there was never
any question in their minds or on their lips about who the enemy was, and no
doubt that they had a plan to deal with the enemy swiftly and harshly, or that
the plan was working to keep America safe. Now, who knows? Not only does
the country face a growing consensus of those who would attack from without,
but an unending poison of those who would sap its strength and resources from
within. This is hardly change of a kind that breeds either confidence or hope.
   But the biggest betrayal of the hope and change illusion lies in Obama's
attempt to "fundamentally transform America," by which he meant something
very specific, but that voters perceived to be only cumulative and general. In
tomorrow's post we will examine that phenomenon and see just why hope has
given way to disappointment and rage.
   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive