During his two year tenure as “president”, Obama has unmasked his true intentions and character: an unrelenting arrogant, contemptuous, narcissistic, racist, elitist Progressive who intends to transform the American political, economic and social system in direct opposition to the wishes of an overwhelming majority of citizens in order to realize his ideological goals. His agenda is authoritarian control or, in essence, tyranny and has been accomplishing much of this through his czars and fellow Progressives with regulations and rules that often bypass Congress.
In isolation, Obama would have little success. Unfortunately, he and a cadre of Progressives in high places have worked to advance the far left causes which have been immensely aided by the fifth column press which is complicit in this revolution. We all know the names of some of these noxious Progressive politicians who are bent on undermining and destroying our country: Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Pete Stark. (See yesterday’s post : Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Outrageous Statements Made In An Arab Country Regarding the Tucson Shooter for just one example of the outrageous, destructive and irresponsible actions of Hillary Clinton)
We must vanquish this revolution being perpetrated by liberal Democrats and Progressives from within the government, doing whatever it takes to neutralize these individuals and their destructive actions. The November massacre of Democratic politicians at the voting booth is a start but we must continue on relentlessly. It is imperative that we fervently support the conservatives and Republicans in Congress in order to help regain our stolen rights and freedoms as well as reestablish sane fiscal policies.
Arrogant and Authoritarian: Barack Obama and the New Progressives
Chuck Rogér January 12, 2011
Blindness to physical reality, denial of human nature, and a consuming desire to use government force to impose fantasies on fellow human beings. Welcome to the mind of today's American "progressive."
Progressives veil sophomoric schemes in eloquent verbiage. Barack Obama's mastery of the technique got him elected president. Sixty-nine and a half million Americans would not have voted for Obama had he failed to conceal the differences between his campaign spiel and the contents of his heart.
Convinced of the goodness of their intentions, ideologues like Obama mistake tyranny for noble action. And to achieve their noble objectives, today's progressives bend the truth far more than did predecessors like John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR. Yet Obama has increasingly adopted a more direct modus operandi since becoming president. The "centrist" disguise has disintegrated.
Progressivism initially appeared on the American scene in response to problems that cried for solutions. Peter Berkowitz describes the movement's birth.
The original progressivism arose in the 1880s and 1890s and flourished during the first two decades of the 20th century. It is associated with, among others, Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, scholars Fredrick Jackson Turner and Charles Beard, reformer Jane Addams, theologian Walter Rauschenbusch, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, philosopher and educator John Dewey, and journalist and New Republic founder Herbert Croly.
At their best, the original progressives responded to dramatic social and economic upheavals generated by the industrial revolution, opposed real Gilded Age abuses, and promoted salutary social and political reforms. They took the side of the exploited, the weak, and the wronged. They fought political corruption and sought to make political institutions more responsive to the will of the people. And they advanced programs and policies that, in a changing world, brought liberal democracy in America more in line with the Declaration of Independence's and the Constitution's original promise of freedom and equality for all.
So some original progressives had a positive influence on the country. But history shows that the ideas of zealots like Wilson, Croly, Dewey, and FDR had devastating effects. Government size and intrusion into business and private life have mushroomed. America's education system has decayed into a vehicle for infecting young people with pie-in-the-sky misconceptions of human nature and twisted versions of the American story.
Decades since the progressive movement began, a clear picture has developed of rabid ideologues like Margaret Sanger, whose racism incited her to conceive the eugenic "Negro Project" to reduce the "inferior" black population. Progressive minds like Sanger's, capable of spawning the depravity of Planned Parenthood, are dark places.
Today, the truth stares Americans in the face. While progressivism was born of an earnest desire to advance personal freedom, the ideology devolved into a collection of approaches that would lock people in the chains of a centrally planned society, with progressive elites withholding the keys to the locks. The elitists truly believe that legislative and regulatory shackles can remold human nature to conform to an impossibly perfect vision.
We need look no farther than our progressive-in-chief for the embodiment of the stubborn pseudo-intellectual who views himself as society's infallible guiding hand. Barack Obama wants government to "spread the wealth" by taking wealth from high earners who spread it more broadly and deeply than government ever could. Our president thinks that Americans who are concerned about decaying values and explosive federal spending are too "scared" to trust cherry-picked "facts and science." Obama believes that people are wasting valuable time "pushing away challenges, looking backwards" -- presumably focusing on really dreadful stuff like wholesome values, common sense, and facts evidenced by history. Barack the magic driver says that Republicans critical of his magic bus "can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."
A hundred years ago, Herbert Croly foretold the Obama mindset, declaring that "the average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to a serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat1." Peter Berkowitz suggests that today's progressives probably find Croly's declaration "mortifying." I think Berkowitz misses the mark. Hillary Clinton, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Time's Joe Klein, U.C. Berkley linguist George Lakoff, Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, and countless other progressives routinely make an exhibition of their insufferably arrogant elitism. Obama's superior manner and California Representative Pete Stark's outrageous impudence typify the demeanor of today's enlightened ones.
With a smugness celebrated by soul mates in the media, Barack Obama inspires American progressives to flaunt their haughtiness. Describing the posturing that accompanies the haughtiness, Berkowitz observes that Obama's techniques constitute an "effort to push dramatic transformation under the cover of moderation, pragmatism, and post-partisanship."
My characterization is more straightforward. The media actively sell Obama's phony "moderation, pragmatism, and post-partisanship" to "cover" actions that are immoderate, impractical, and entirely partisan. Obama purveys doublespeak to convince people of one thing while the illusionist-in-chief does another. Millions of Americans voted for a package of illusions in 2008.
Obamaesque deceit and conceit are easily summarized: progressives sanctify pretty theory as obviously true and condemn ugly reality as necessarily false. Progressives see themselves as incapable of error and believe that rejection of their high-mindedness could be undertaken only by commoners too dim to comprehend what's best.
During the two years after Barack Obama moved to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and Democrats increased their stranglehold on Congress, something became crystal-clear. A hideous infestation called progressivism has uglified the White House and the Democrat Party. The tyrannous legislative and regulatory rampages that Obama and the Democrats undertook made something else clear. Until progressivism is flushed from the party, Democrats must never again be entrusted with substantial influence in government.
A writer, physicist, and former high tech executive, Chuck Rogér invites you to visit his website, www.chuckroger.com. E-mail Chuck at swampcactus@chuckroger.com.
Though it is a week since the shooting rampage in Tucson and there are other pressing issues in this country, it is still very important to be cognizant of how our government officials represent us and speak of America. This egregious case of despicable and irresponsible expression belongs to none other than Sec. of State Hillary Clinton while she was in Abu Dhabi. During a televised town hall meeting at the university there, she had the temerity to characterize the Tucson shooter as an extremist and drew a moral equivalency between him and the Islamic terrorists that their country is dealing with.
She opined:
Look, we have extremists in my country… A wonderful, incredibly brave young woman congressmember, Congresswoman Giffords was just shot in our country. We have the same kinds of problems. So rather than standing off from each other, we should work to try to prevent the extremists anywhere from being able to commit violence.
Her comments were inappropriate and irresponsible and even more so because she made them abroad. Furthermore, they were premature, inaccurate, based on conjecture and revealed a knee jerk political response so characteristic of the noxious Left and roundly condemned by rational individuals.
Finally, by creating a specious moral equivalency, in essence, she weakened and denigrated our country by trying to bring us down to their level.
It appears that she has learned her lessons well from her boss, the Great Apologist and Hater of America, Obama.
The following creative factitious letter to “president” Obama from Mephistopheles (the devil or other evil person’s name associated with this letter) sardonically lauds him for his brilliance in implementing his policies in whatever illegal, shady or unconstitutional way possible and doing so by circumventing the electorate and Congress.
For us to successfully reclaim our country we must neutralize, exorcise and remove the “devil” (Obama) from power ... as well as his cronies.
New Year's Advice From Your Sponsor
From the desk of D. Mephistopheles, Attorney-at-Law:
Dear President Obama,
I must say, I am quite impressed. Following the unfortunate turn of events in your country's mid-term elections, many of the lower downs to whom I answer in this Great Firm were fully convinced that we had "bet on the weak horse", so to speak. There was a growing sense that you were out of time and out of ideas. But lo and behold, you had aces up both sleeves! Your mastery at mustering your forces through the "lame duck" session of Congress was simply brilliant to behold. Truly, our side was amazed, having not seen such tactical brilliance since our man from Austria launched his lightning campaign seven decades ago. In just a few short weeks you gained enormous swaths of territory from our common enemy, simultaneously weakening the resolve of your country's fighting forces and legitimizing the previously stigmatized wretches who dare not speak their love's name. Likewise, your ability to convince your own domestic opposition to lie down before the threat of a renewed menace from Comrade Putin was simply brilliant.
What has struck me as even more brilliant, however, is your determination to accomplish our mutual goals without regard to the outcomes of these ever-so-annoying elections. We saw the Republicans manage to block net neutrality, cap and trade, and death panels being enacted into law. Yet you brilliantly retorted "so what" and simply instituted all of these policies through executive direct action, proving once again that you are just the man we've been looking for. Even Bill Clinton didn't have the chutzpah to pull that kind of thing off! Truly, to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat as quickly and deftly as you have these last few weeks is breathtaking.
That being said, I think there are some lessons to be learned here. First of all, don't put too much stock in the outcomes of elections. Let's face it, our people lost the vote big time in November. Yet you simply stood your ground and took it to the enemy! And what did you learn? That you don't need to pay any attention to election outcomes or Congressional votes. You don't have to worry about the petty legalists who want to see policies enacted into law before you put them in place. All you need to do is take direct regulatory action and leave Congress out of it altogether. You did it, and what price have you paid? None at all, that's what. So why not keep it up?
Just think of it. You know the old saying "the devil is in the details"? Well I can tell you for a fact that is absolutely true. And who knows more about details than your vast army of Washington bureaucrats? What you need to do is simply enact every piece of our agenda that you can think of immediately through executive directives and agency regulation. After all, even if the Republicans try to block you, how many hearings can they hold at one time? You have thousands upon thousands of bureaucrats at your command for every Republican Congressman. They may try to take out a few of our initiatives, but there is no way they can even begin to address all of them. Truly our name is Legion!
Now about this "election" business. Here's a thought: You lost the election, but you still enacted your agenda. So why bother with this ridiculous election business to begin with? You know Chavez, Castro, the Royal House of Saud and so many other heroes of yours don't worry about this sort of thing. Are you less of a man than any of them? Certainly not! So why worry about the outcome in 2012? Just take command and cancel the whole thing. I know our mutual friend Bill Ayers has already spoken with you about this. The New York Times is ready to support you on this, along with the rest of your traditional media giants. The people need a Leader, someone who isn't afraid to do what has to be done, regardless of who stands in his way! You can be this Leader! All you have to do is take the full reigns of power. They are yours for the taking, just do it!
Okay, that's enough for now. Tell Michelle I said hi, and give my best to the kids. By the way, I'd really like to talk to you later about a book deal. Something about your goals and how you'll get there, maybe "My Struggle" or something like that. I'll have my people get with your people.
The city of Berkeley, California once again doesn’t disappoint - that is, if you are a radical, anti-American, illegal alien, terrorist, or foreign spy, etc. It continues to stay true to its outrageous America hating political views and legislation. The most recent example of this is their quite public position on the soldier who admitted and is now accused of providing much of the information that is now being released by WickiLeaks.
They feel that he is a hero who should be released from jail and honored for his contributions.
We suspect that Castro, Hugo Chavez and Putin also harbor similar sentiments.
Berkeley is not alone as a city in the state of California in its vocal distaste for the military or the government in general. Many other areas, particularly San Francisco, have expressed similar antipathy for America.
Why not return the favor to California in general and these areas in specific. Once the Republicans control the House, they can “just say no” when it comes to awarding these areas government contracts or even bailing out the state itself which is on the precipice of insolvency.
It is a lesson that Berkeley and California needs to learn.
Alleged leaker Bradley Manning: hero to Berkeley?
Carolyn Jones December 8, 2010
An Army private jailed for allegedly leaking sensitive military data is a hero and should be freed, according to a resolution under consideration by the Berkeley City Council.
The council is expected to vote Tuesday on whether to declare its support for Pfc. Bradley Manning, who's suspected of providing WikiLeaks with classified military documents and a video depicting an Army helicopter attack in Baghdad in which 11 civilians were killed.
Manning, 22, currently in the brig in Quantico, Va., faces 52 years in prison if convicted. Manning has not commented on his guilt or innocence.
"If he did what he's accused of doing, he's a patriot and should get a medal," said Bob Meola, the Berkeley peace and justice commissioner who authored the resolution. "I think the war criminals should be the ones prosecuted, not the whistle-blowers."
The proposed resolution originated from the same commission that declared the Marine Corps "unwanted intruders" in Berkeley in 2008.
The council's ensuing approval - and reversal - ignited some of the city's most raucous protest in years and prompted more than 25,000 e-mails to City Hall.
This time, however, the commission's vote was not unanimous. The resolution passed on a 7-3 vote, and it's likely to be just as contentious when it meets the City Council.
Commissioner Thyme Siegel was one of the three "no" votes.
"We're just sitting here in Berkeley - we don't know that Afghani informants aren't being murdered because of these leaks," she said. "Bradley Manning sounds like a very sincere person, but I'm sorry, we really do have enemies, and it's not clear at all what the effects of these WikiLeaks are."
WikiLeaks is a website that has published thousands of classified documents about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Manning allegedly provided WikiLeaks with secret data, including the 2007 "collateral murder" video of the Baghdad helicopter attack.
Berkeley's proposed resolution thanks Manning "for his courage in bringing the truth to the American people and the people of the world."
Army officials had no comment on Berkeley's resolution, but said that leaking classified data can endanger the lives of informants, provide useful information to the enemy and undermine the trust of those working with the military, according to Department of Defense spokesman Bob Mehal.
Manning might be a hero, but Berkeley should back off until the issues are sorted through on a national level, said peace and justice commissioner Jane Litman, who abstained from the Manning vote.
"I don't think we should call him a hero for something he hasn't even said he's done," she said. "Manning and the Obama administration both need to clarify their positions on this before we can take a stand."
In the following eloquent editorial, Pamela Geller decries our Nation’s ostensible unilateral surrender to Islam without a fight. It is not due to the complaisance of the general public – at least those that are not Progressives.
No, most Americans are very angry – livid - at what is going on, what they are seeing and the consequences of “political correctness” as judged by the Left.
It is not our military either. Most of them believe in the defense of freedom and liberty and not the subjugation of fellow citizens.
The reasons that we are experiencing an insidious invasion and transformation in this country with Islam taking center stage is because of our liberal and progressive politicians who can’t seem to believe that some people can harbor such deep seated hatred of us and our way of life and that a religion is based on, preaches and rewards hate, intolerance, violence and domination. This is despite countless wanton attacks committed on innocent people throughout the world involving myriad disparate societies, governments and socioeconomic levels.
Strongly supporting this perverted tack is the news media in general. In fact, they provide further motivation for these jihadists.
“No profiling” they assert.
“Let the Muslims practice their religion (which is an all encompassing way of life).”
“To hell with Jews and Christians” they are in effect saying.
So, for example, we now have the outrageous body searches of old ladies, cancer patients and children so as not to offend the “kind” Muslims and single them out.
These jihadists don’t mean us any harm” these Progressives claim. “They are just a little misguided.”
“Brainwashed.”
The American public vehemently disagrees with this ideology, attitude and approach. They are tired of acquiescing to the unrelenting complaints and endless list of demands of Muslims which all come at the high price of our freedom and rights. They want special rights and preferential treatment which is not granted to any other groups.
We MUST to put our foot down NOW, draw a line in the sand and not yield another inch to these terrorist and this religion of hatred, intolerance and subjugation.
We must fight this incursion relentlessly as well as oppose, thwart and oust the politicians who support this appeasement.
Starting with Obama!
Surrendered Nation
Pamela Geller November 28, 2010
The turkey being served up last Thursday by the ruling elite was the American people. Because she was wearing a panty liner that obscured the screener's view of her genitals, a TSA official subjected a menstruating woman to a fondling "so invasive that I was left crying and dealing with memories that I thought had been dealt with years ago of prior sexual assaults."
When did we agree to surrender to Islam? Seriously. Whom did we appoint or elect to negotiate this surrender? Our surrender has been parceled out in loss of freedom, accommodation, and submission to Islamic supremacist demands, and in foreign policy that is supine before Iran and cozying up to the Taliban.
Explain to me how -- after 9/11 and the tens of thousands of Islamic attacks across the world that have been committed in the name of jihad since then, as well as the myriad Muslim insurgencies in numerous countries, the accelerating destruction of Western civilization in Europe, and the hundreds of jihad plots that have been thwarted in the West -- the American people were sacrificed without being consulted.
We cannot address jihad or the teachings that mandate Islamic imperialism and violence for the glory of Allah. Nothing is being done to defeat that which inspires the enemy. Barack Obama has banned words relating to Islam and jihad from the anti-terror lexicon. When in India, he was asked for his opinion, his "take" on jihad, and he surrendered in his response, saying, "Islam is one of the world's great religions."
Every day we are forced to submit to some form of Islamic law, the Sharia, in businesses like Disney, Wal-Mart, Target, Rising Star Industries, and J.B. Swift. Individuals are losing their jobs for insulting Islam -- we see the mosqueing of the workplace, Islamic finance, academic jihad, virulent Islamic anti-Semitism, historical revisionism, and other advances of Islamic supremacism in every aspect of our daily lives.
Meanwhile, those who speak out against all this are marginalized, vilified, and silenced. My website, Atlas Shrugs.com, has just been banned from Veterans Administration computers, along with my colleague Robert Spencer's JihadWatch.org. Both were banned for giving voice to "controversial opinions."
I wonder how veterans feel about that. Fighting jihad is controversial? So what are our soldiers doing in Afghanistan and Iraq? It's a real head-scratcher.
And it all represents a massive societal surrender by the Obama administration and our political elites. And who softens us up for this civilizational suicide? The media.
Who chose the media to negotiate the surrender?
NBC is naming a waiter-turned-thug-turned-impostor developer, Sharif El-Gamal, as "person of the year" because he is behind building a triumphal mosque at Ground Zero, the site of the largest, most heinous attack on U.S. soil in American history.
Then there is this outrage: one of TIME magazine's "Person of the Year" candidates is the radical Ground Zero mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who has said that "the U.S. has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has the blood of innocent non-Muslims on its hands" and that Osama bin Laden was made in the USA. His mosque initiative, remember, is named the Cordoba Movement; Cordoba is a city that in the Islamic world is iconic of Islamic conquest over the West.
Meanwhile, once again we have to look north for leadership with a moral compass. Canada will boycott a planned antisemitic U.N. conference on racism in New York in September 2011, Durban III, because it promises to be nothing more than a "hatefest," directed largely at Israel.
G¬_d bless Canada. Obama, you shame us yet again.
The U.S. should have been the first to take a stand against genocide and apartheid. But Obama won't; he'll be at Durban III, dragging the U.S. down even farther than he already has. And we will be there, too: my group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, is already planning to protest Durban III. We will be there with thousands of defenders of freedom and Western values and those who refuse to allow a second holocaust. Evil will not win this time. Six million Jews will not be sacrificed to Islam.
Plan your vacation, time off, sick leave for September -- stand with us against Islamic supremacism.
And at some point, all lovers of America and of freedom will have to go on a massive apology tour to the free world for the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.
Despite the historic drubbing that the Democrats suffered in the midterm elections, the Left either doesn’t “get it” or refuses to submit to the will of the voters whose attitudes are the antithetical to its own. Clearly, Obama mentally won’t acknowledge this fact and may even be mentally incapable of doing so. He and his radical far left cronies are bent on changing America to fit their ideologies and not the desires of the American public.
We must continue to remain vigilant, proactive and united to fight this insidious push to transform America away from the democracy, freedoms, rights and economic system that have made this nation so great.
Obama and his radical ilk must be thwarted, defeated and removed from positions of power and influence every chance possible.
Our future depends on this.
Elected Office Doesn't Come With A Crown
Investor’s Business Daily 11/17/2010
Change: How out of touch with America is the political left? It's convinced it has the authority to reign. But this country was founded on the idea that the governing was to be done by representatives, not rulers.
Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes tells the Daily Beast that President Obama "has a different belief system than most Americans." Nothing new there, but true nonetheless. Traditions of limited government, individual liberty and free markets are foreign to this president. This is a man who said he wanted to transform America and went about doing so as soon as he took office.
The stinging rebuke he suffered two weeks ago at the midterm elections doesn't mean Obama will slow down. He's being encouraged to stay on his big-government agenda by allies including John Podesta, the Clinton chief of staff who ran Obama's transition team.
Podesta, who now heads a "progressive" think tank that carries heavy weight with the White House, told the media this week that the former community organizer still has an opportunity to "push the country to a better place."
Podesta tried to qualify his remarks, saying Obama must work under the "constraint" of law and the "restraint" of wisdom.
But neither law nor wisdom holds back those who believe they're above the former and in sole possession of the latter.
Socialist democrats indeed want to push the U.S. to a place they believe is better, even if most Americans don't want to go along because they know it's not in their best interests.
Examples of the elitists' push abound. There's the health care overhaul, the takeover of General Motors and a failed stimulus, all of which are now law, and proposals to change Americans' lifestyle through the forced reduction of carbon emissions.
Richard Wolffe, author of "Revival: Struggle for Survival Inside the Obama White House," saw up close how the left thinks when he had access to the president and his senior staff. Obama, says Wolffe, "goes around telling people that he would rather do big stuff and be a one-term president than small stuff and be a second-term."
Wolffe likened Obama to George W. Bush in that both would say they are in office "to do big stuff" and aren't concerned with the price. But it's a mistake to think that tax cuts, which promote economic liberty, are in any way related to taking over the health care system or an automaker. Yes, Bush had some big-government ideas. But his goal was not to shove America off its moorings.
Obama, of course, isn't the only one who thinks America leaves something to be desired. George Soros, the billionaire progressive, believes China "has a better functioning government than the U.S." New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman also has a China fetish, contending "a reasonably enlightened group of people" are running that country better than U.S. lawmakers are managing our federal system.
Both seem fed up with the American style of government, with its meddlesome checks, balances, constitutional limits and gridlock, and would prefer to live under a kind and wise monarchy that can simply force its agenda on an unwilling citizenry too backward to look after itself. In Friedman's world, it's even OK for an enlightened autocracy to take "things away from people" if it needs to.
Liberals' shaky connection with the rest of the country was strained even further Wednesday when Nancy Pelosi was elected House minority leader. As speaker, she pursued far-left policies that led to the Democrats' midterm rout and loss of House control.
In keeping her on, Democrats have demonstrated how much they are wedded to a radical agenda that voters have repudiated.
Americans don't need a push from those who imagine themselves to be their superiors. What they want is more room to live their lives without state interference.
It's inspiring to see them begin to take back what the left has been snatching away for years.
In this scathing but well supported commentary on the despicable arrogance and contempt that the Obama Administration has for the American people most recently as evidenced by their attitudes regarding the inexcusably invasive TSA airport screenings and intimate and degrading searches, Thomas Sowell states:
"Security" may be the excuse being offered for the outrageous things being done to American air travelers, but the heavy-handed arrogance and contempt for ordinary people that is the hallmark of this administration in other areas is all too painfully apparent in these new and invasive airport procedures.
He also notes a potential silver lining related to these unconscionable actions:
If anything good comes out of the airport "security" outrages, it may be in opening the eyes of more people to the utter contempt that this administration has for the American people.
Without one iota of doubt, Obama has shown an interminable contempt for the American people while at the same time demonstrating his ideological goal to subjugate us as comprehensively as possible (Obamacare; Cap and Trade; government takeover of GM in a heavy-handed and illegal fashion and rewarding the unions and abrogating legalities for bond holders, etc; and much more) and seeking to aggrandize his power and the federal government's control of the economy at the expense of our rights and freedoms.
OBAMA NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE!
OBAMA IS A DANGER TO AMERICA AND AMERICAN CITIZENS.
Searches Show A Contempt For Americans
Thomas Sowell 11/22/2010
No country has better airport security than Israel — and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport security people don't have to strip passengers naked electronically or have strangers feeling their private parts.
Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs?
"Security" may be the excuse being offered for the outrageous things being done to American air travelers, but the heavy-handed arrogance and contempt for ordinary people that is the hallmark of this administration in other areas is all too painfully apparent in these new and invasive airport procedures.
Can you remember a time when a cabinet member in a free America boasted of having his "foot on the neck" of some business or when the president of the United States threatened on television to put his foot on another part of some citizens' anatomy?
Yet this and more has happened in the current administration, which is not yet two years old. One cabinet member warned that there would be "zero tolerance" for "misinformation" when an insurance company said the obvious, that the mandates of ObamaCare would raise costs and therefore premiums. Zero tolerance for exercising the First Amendment right of free speech?
More than two centuries ago, Edmund Burke warned about the dangers of new people with new power. This administration, only halfway through its term, has demonstrated that in many ways.
What other administration has had an attorney general call the Americans "cowards"? And refuse to call terrorists Islamic? What other administration has had a secretary of homeland security warn law enforcement officials of security threats from people who are anti-abortion, for federalism or are returning military veterans?
If anything good comes out of the airport "security" outrages, it may be in opening the eyes of more people to the utter contempt that this administration has for the American people. Those who made excuses for all of candidate Barack Obama's long years of alliances with people who expressed their contempt for this country, and when as president he appointed people with a record of antipathy to American interests and values, may finally get it when they feel some stranger's hand in their crotch.
As for the excuse of "security," this is one of the least security-minded administrations we have had. When hundreds of illegal immigrants from terrorist-sponsoring countries were captured crossing the border from Mexico — and then released on their own recognizance within the U.S., that tells you all you need to know about this administration's concern for security.
When captured terrorists who are not covered by either the Geneva Convention or the U.S. Constitution are nevertheless put on trial in American civilian courts by the Obama Justice Department, that too tells you all you need to know about how concerned they are about national security.
The rules of criminal justice in American courts were not designed for trying terrorists. For one thing, revealing the evidence against them can reveal how our intelligence services got wind of them in the first place, and thereby endanger the lives of people who helped us nab them.
Not many people in other countries, or perhaps even in this country, are going to help us stop terrorists if their role is revealed and their families exposed to revenge by the terrorists' bloodthirsty comrades.
What do the Israeli airport security people do that American airport security do not do? They profile. They question some individuals for more than half an hour, open up all their luggage and spread the contents on the counter — and they let others go through with scarcely a word. And it works.
Meanwhile, this administration is so hung up on political correctness that they have turned "profiling" into a bugaboo. They would rather have electronic scanners look under the clothes of nuns than to detain a Jihadist imam for some questioning.
Will America be undermined from within by an administration obsessed with political correctness and intoxicated with the adolescent thrill of exercising its new-found powers? Stay tuned.
The dismissive attitude with which the Obama Administration has “handled” the Wikileaks has been nothing short of stupefying. They had the best legal and technological resources available to them that might have prevented further embarrassing, damaging and top secret leaks after the initial releases back in July yet apparently did little.
The consequences of their inaction and insouciance are incalculably catastrophic and far-reaching and will have lasting effects and influences on both our allies and enemies. This newest set of leaks has been called the 9/11 of diplomacy and foreign policy.
Myriad questions need to be asked and answered on both sides of this equation including how one 22 year old Private was able to obtain access to all this information including some that were labeled top secret ones.
Is Obama so incompetent that he didn’t have the common sense or intelligence to aggressively pursue an expeditious solution?
Or is this part of his strategy to countenance the destruction of this country in every way possible and this was a perfect strategy? The ideological statements which he has made in this past support the validity of this.
Was he just too bored, detached or distracted to give this disaster its due attention?
We suspect all of these figured into the equation.
Which leads to our now almost daily call to have Obama removed from office ASAP!
There is another immensely important issue obliquely related to this saga of the inability of the government to protect and defend its deepest diplomatic and foreign policy secrets. This involves Obamacare and the mandated government’s handling of our medical records and information.
Virtually more important than anything else relating to government controlled healthcare is the protection of the confidentially of our health information. We knew before the wikileaks that maintaining our medical privacy would be next to impossible particularly given that potentially 100,000 individuals might be able to access our records due to the bureaucratic arrangement.
Well, now make that absolutely impossible!
We cannot trust the government with our medical information. Period!
The magnitude of the risk of the inadvertent release and posting, theft and even blackmail of our health care records is incomprehensibly higher compared to the stolen “top secret” government files.
This should be the number one “deal breaker” that vaporizes Obamacare.
Serious Questions about the Obama Administration's Incompetence in the Wikileaks Fiasco
Sarah Palin November 29, 2010
We all applaud the successful thwarting of the Christmas-Tree Bomber and hope our government continues to do all it can to keep us safe. However, the latest round of publications of leaked classified U.S. documents through the shady organization called Wikileaks raises serious questions about the Obama administration’s incompetent handling of this whole fiasco.
First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop Wikileaks director Julian Assange from distributing this highly sensitive classified material especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a “journalist,” any more than the “editor” of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a “journalist.” He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?
What if any diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt Wikileaks’ technical infrastructure? Did we use all the cyber tools at our disposal to permanently dismantle Wikileaks? Were individuals working for Wikileaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?
Most importantly, serious questions must also be asked of the U.S. intelligence system. How was it possible that a 22-year-old Private First Class could get unrestricted access to so much highly sensitive information? And how was it possible that he could copy and distribute these files without anyone noticing that security was compromised?
The White House has now issued orders to federal departments and agencies asking them to take immediate steps to ensure that no more leaks like this happen again. It’s of course important that we do all we can to prevent similar massive document leaks in the future. But why did the White House not publish these orders after the first leak back in July? What explains this strange lack of urgency on their part?
We are at war. American soldiers are in Afghanistan fighting to protect our freedoms. They are serious about keeping America safe. It would be great if they could count on their government being equally serious about that vital task.
Liberals too often take any opportunity to denigrate America either directly or indirectly such as by (guilt by) association. This is exactly what the uber liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer did when commenting on the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
She stated that:
“We now stand with this rule with countries like Iran, North Korea and Pakistan in banning gays and lesbians from military service.”
No matter what your position is on gays and lesbians in the military, likening our country and its military with dictatorial regimes like Iran and North Korea is gratuitous and disgraceful particularly by a U.S. Senator. Of course, she is from Liberal Land, America bashing California so it is not entirely a surprise though such comments should not be condoned.
When near insolvent California comes begging the House of Representatives for bailout money, Republicans should just remember comments such as these and from Pelosi and refuse any financial assistance.
Sen. Barbara Boxer Likens U.S. to Iran, North Korea and Pakistan Because U.S. Bans Homosexuals From Military
Chris Johnson November 18, 2010
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif., at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base in San Diego on June 13, 2010. (AP Photo/Denis Poroy)
(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) today likened the United States of America to Iran, North Korea and Pakistan because those nations also do not allow homosexuals in their militaries.
Boxer likened the U.S.A. to the Communist regime in North Korea, the Islamic regime in Iran and the Pakistani government at a press conference in which she called for repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military during the lameduck session of Congress, which is taking place now before the new members elected on Nov. 2 can arrive in Washington, D.C. and replace the members who are retiring or who were defeated.
“We now stand with this rule with countries like Iran, North Korea and Pakistan in banning gays and lesbians from military service,” said Boxer. “Our brave young men and women fight alongside allies like Australia, the United Kingdom and others who allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. Let’s not stand with Pakistan and with North Korea and Iran.”
The law in question, as CNSNews.com reported previously, is Title 10, U.S. Code Subsection 654. This law states: “The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.”
It also says that a “member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations.”These include: “That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts ...
“That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect …
“That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.”
Boxer appeared alongside Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats and who is a prime sponsor of the measure to repeal Title 10, USC 654, which is attached to a Defense authorization bill that passed in the House of Representatives but has yet to pass in the Senate.
President Barack Obama is pressuring Congress to repeal the law in the final weeks of the 111th Congress and before the Republican-dominated House of Representatives comes into power next year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has stated that he will bring the measure to the floor after Thanksgiving.
With the economy still mired in the deepest and longest recession since the Great Depression “even” despite Obama’s previous massive near one trillion dollar stimulus bill, he now has another idea:
Another stimulus.
Or is it really? Is it much the same deception that he foisted on the American public with the passage of the previous bill?
We believe so.
We also remain convinced that Obama may actually have another agenda that has been increasingly mentioned in more and more important circles. Is he intentionally trying to destroy the economy and America?
What he has perpetrated over the last nearly 20 months is nothing short of fiscal treason, wanton irresponsibility and unfettered deceptions. He is clearly aware of what he is doing and it is evil, anti-American and authoritarian.
And what he is doing must be stopped and reversed.
Not So Stimulating
Investor’s Business Daily 09/07/2010
Leadership: The Obama administration's latest idea for "stimulating" the economy is — you guessed it — more spending. Is this just a campaign ploy, or is the White House ruining the economy on purpose?
The president's latest plan calls for another $50 billion in stimulus for infrastructure. As the White House puts it, this represents a "bold vision for renewing and expanding our transportation infrastructure — in a plan that combines a long-term vision for the future with new investments."
But why in the world do we need another stimulus when we're not even close to exhausting the funds allocated for the last one?
According to Darrell Issa, ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, $275 billion of the initial $787 billion cost of that stimulus remains unspent. And of the $512 billion that has been spent, just $18.5 billion — or less than 7% — has been paid out by the Transportation Department, the main government infrastructure provider.
This is strange, since the stimulus was originally sold to us as a way to create "shovel-ready" jobs on infrastructure.
Instead, much of the money was drained away for financially strapped states to keep their public unions and Medicaid programs afloat.
Here's what President Obama said about the stimulus bill he signed into law Feb. 17, 2009:
"Because of this investment, nearly 400,000 men and women will go to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, repairing our faulty dams and levees, bringing critical broadband connections to businesses and homes in nearly every community in America, upgrading mass transit, building high-speed rail lines that will improve travel and commerce throughout our nation."
Sounded great at the time, but few, if any, of those things got done. Moreover, since the recession began, federal employment has jumped by 10%, or nearly 200,000 positions, while private-sector employment has plunged 7%, or 7.8 million jobs. So who really benefited from the stimulus? Big Government and its unions.
The stimulus did do one thing, however: It set the stage for massive spending and an unprecedented expansion of the role of the U.S. government in the American economy. This, in retrospect, appears to be the real aim of the Democratic stimulus — not jobs or infrastructure or any other real-world accomplishment.
Even as the president released his latest stimulus ideas, the Congressional Budget Office quietly issued its own estimate for spending over the next 10 years. We were struck by the sheer size of it: $44.5 trillion from 2010 to 2020 — an 82% jump from $24.5 trillion spent in the last decade.
That, in a nutshell, is the real problem — not too little stimulus, but too much spending. Over 10 years, the CBO sees deficits of $6.25 trillion. And to keep the projection that low, the agency had to pretend the Bush tax cuts all expire, that Congress does nothing about fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax, that Social Security and Medicare are allowed to fester, and that after all this stimulus is done, "future annual appropriations will be kept constant in real (inflation-adjusted) terms."
Not one of those things is likely to happen.
A more realistic appraisal of the deficit comes from the Concord Coalition, which expects deficits more than twice as large — $15 trillion over 10 years, or $1.5 trillion a year on average. That could push U.S. publicly held debt from last year's level of $7.5 trillion, or 53% of GDP, to as much as $25.1 trillion, or 108% of GDP, in 2020.
These numbers may not mean much now, but they will soon: Such abrupt changes mark an economy careening towards bankruptcy. Piling on more spending now isn't just unwise policy, it's a form of fiscal insanity.
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments