Wouldn’t It Be Nice…?

Posted in Impeach Incompetence Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments

More:

Obama Can Learn A Few Lessons From Indonesia Regarding Fighting Terrorism

Indonesia was once a hot bed for Islamic terrorism; in fact, one of the top locales in the world. But no more. What happened? The people elected a President with a military background who promised to resolutely and relentlessly fight the terrorism problem.

And he did, and the country’s citizens didn’t have to sacrifice their rights. Now they are much freer from terrorist attacks.

Obama has a lot to learn. Maybe he should start by bowing to the Indonesian leader in deference to his persistence, success and accomplishing what he promised to do in order to protect and “free” the country’s citizens.

Indonesia Cuts Terror
Investors Business Daily    02/18/2010

Terrorism: Indonesia has fallen off the map of the most-terror-prone places on Earth, corporate intelligence forecasters say. How did that happen in a nation once plagued by Bali's bombers? By annihilating the enemy.

This week, Britain's Maplecroft group, an assessor of corporate risk, dropped Indonesia from its top 10 nations most likely to experience a mass-casualty terrorist attack. The group bases its Terrorism Risk Index entries on frequency and intensity of terror attacks and a nation's history.

Likewise, the Swedish National Defense College has concluded that there's a diminishing threat in Indonesia.

If that sounds academic, consider that Indonesian and U.S. officials said no significant security risks threaten President Obama ahead of his weeklong trip to Indonesia next month.

Now, to be sure, terrorism isn't completely gone from Indonesia. But there's been a lot of silence recently from that island country on the terror front. For a nation that experienced some fearsome terror attacks in past years, each quiet month is a sign of victory.

The reason isn't hard to recognize:Last September, Indonesian commandos blew away a Malaysian terrorist named Noordin Mohammed Top, who had a hand in every major Indonesian terror attack since the first Bali bombing of 2002.

It says something that getting rid of a single terrorist kingpin could have such an impact on Indonesia's outlook. But it did.

That offers a reminder of what it takes to win a war on terror. Miranda warnings, civilian trials and shaking down blue-haired ladies at airports don't do it. Hunting and killing terrorists do.

That's important because some analysts, such as Jakarta-based senior adviser Sidney Jones of Crisis Group International, have claimed Indonesia's progress is a result of turning the war on terror into a police action. She explained in a January interview with Voice of America that civilian trials helped win public trust.

She's not completely wrong, but to look at what Indonesia did suggests more of a militarization of its police forces than trust in the routine civilian mechanisms of police action. Indonesia treated terrorism with the urgency of warfare, even if its police took the lead.

That was possible only because of strong leadership and big public backing. Both reflect Indonesia's democracy and growing political freedom, which studies show repel terror. And no, the country didn't turn into a military state by treating terror as war.

Indonesians set the actions into motion by electing a military man, Bambang Susilo Yudhoyono, as their president in 2004 and by reelecting him in 2009. The Indonesian general ran on a tough anti-terrorist platform and kept his word on that.

The tone set, Indonesians threw out Islamic extremist parties in National Assembly elections last May, in what was seen as a surprise blow to the terrorists' most sympathetic fellow travelers.

After that, the country got help from abroad. The U.S. provided military training to Indonesian cops, who became commandos capable of zeroing in on Top and his violent network.

From there, the commandos employed counterinsurgency tactics, winning the hearts and minds of ordinary Indonesians to draw in a stream of tips from villagers informing on terrorists wherever they went. The tips came so fast and thick, Top and his small band of terrorists ran out of places to hide.

The takedown raid on Top was military in character, too. Quietly, the police evacuated 20 families in the neighborhood where Top hid to ensure no civilian casualties. They circled Top's hideout, giving him a chance to emerge with his hands up. When he didn't, they flattened the house in a barrage of firepower.

The operation made enough difference in the terror landscape in Indonesia to define it as a victory, not just a routine police action.

That says a lot about the importance of calling a war a war and treating it as one.

The result is Indonesians can savor peace and give the rest of the world an example of how a terror war is won.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521570

Posted in Ideology Incompetence Obama Terrorism with No Comments

More:

Cause and Cure?: Spending Beyond Ability To Pay

Posted in Arrogance Government spending Ideology Incompetence Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments

More:

Obama, Jay-Z and Black On White Racism

No matter from which angle you look at it, racism is reprehensible and should never be condoned. Period!

Yes, racism was endemic decades ago, most notably against blacks and Jews. Though it will never entirely disappear because of human nature, only a very small percentage of Americans adhere to such hatred. However, you would never know it if you listened to the newscasts of the “mainstream” media where it still sounds like an epidemic.

What they also absolutely refuse to acknowledge yet seemingly condone as being understandable is the far more prevalent, increasing and vitriolic black on white or Hispanic racism. Do you hear many newscasts excoriating famous and influential black athletes, actors and actresses, music stars or even politicians spewing racial hatred against Whites? Of course not! But if there was one mentally deranged white person walking around in Podunk, Idaho wearing the KKK garb it would saturate the news.

We vehemently and resolutely feel that a major impetus for the rise is due to Obama and his election to the Presidency, his racially charged attitudes and the atmosphere of black entitlement at the expense of other races. How could have he attended sat in his Black nationalist church for 20 years and accept the racist, hateful rantings of Reverend Wright and others unless he agreed? Or exalt and revere the contemptuous, despicable Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam?

Many blacks ignorantly and contemptuously parrot their mantra “It’s our time now!”

Really? We don’t think so. No one should have priority over anyone else based on race, religion, etc. (We will save our polemic against affirmative action for another time which distilled to its essence is government facilitated and condoned racism of black over white.)

The following articles illustrate this continued pattern but even more insidiously, it yet again reveals our American President, Obama, not denouncing such behavior of this black on white racism.  Reverend Wright made sure that he stayed the course and remained a faithful black nationalist.

What is this all about? Though we know little of Jay-Z, he recently and unequivocally revealed himself to be a racist, refusing any white people entrance to his reception though blacks were freely admitted. Apparently, he and Obama are friends and he has been to the White House on several occasions.

Have you heard any denunciations of this behavior by Obama? Of course not! Zero. Yet, he had no problem last year insinuating himself in a Cambridge, Mass police matter, claiming racism, when his belligerent, disorderly black professor friend was appropriately arrested by a white police officer.

Obama’s silence on this matter once again speaks volumes on his racist underpinnings, continues to reveal his ineptness and lack of impartiality and prudence and why he really isn’t the President for all Americans.

The following two articles will further elucidate this situation.

Jay-Z bash ignites race controversy
By WENN.COM

Rapper Jay-Z has been caught up in a race scandal following allegations security at his BRIT Awards afterparty on Tuesday banned white people from entering the VIP area.

The 99 Problems superstar threw a lavish bash at Merah nightclub in London following his Best International Male Solo win at the ceremony.

But the night descended into chaos after fights broke out amid people scrambling to get close to the star.

And the atmosphere turned even nastier after security personnel working on the doors of the VIP room allegedly refused to allow any white people into the area, while letting black partygoers straight through, according to Britain's Daily Star newspaper.

The publication's music reporter Kim Dawson writes, "I've been to countless showbiz bashes but never have I met meatheads like those at the Jay-Z do (party). Jay-Z is a megastar and yet it was clear white people were not welcome in his VIP area. While the red rope was lifted for black guests to breeze through, let's just say it stayed down if your face didn't fit. I have never felt so intimidated. It left me feeling like a mauled dog."

Meanwhile, black pop star Alesha Dixon, who attended the party, was also left disgusted at the way the bash was organized.

She reportedly told the newspaper at the party, "My friends have been getting knocked about and no-one seems to care. I need to get out of here. What a horrible end to the night. I was having a blast at my record label party and now the mood is soured. I wish I'd never come."

The publication claims the rapper's representative insisted the security was hired by the club, but the venue's bosses state they had no idea of any problems.

URL   http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/2010/02/18/12925501-wenn-story.html

Jay-Z: President Obama Was Playing The Blueprint When I Called Him
'I've been invited to the White House a couple of times,' Hov tells the BBC.
By Jayson Rodriguez

Jay-Z has dropped Barack Obama's name in his rhymes, and Obama referenced Jay's lyrics when he dusted his shoulder off during a campaign appearance before he ascended to the White House. But it turns out the pair have more than just a passing appreciation for rhetorical flourishes.

In an interview with Jonathan Ross airing on the BBC Friday (February 19), Jay-Z revealed that the president has invited the rapper to the White House a number of times since Obama's inauguration.

"I've been invited to the White House a couple of times," Hov told Ross, although he said he hasn't taken up the president on the offer just yet. "Hopefully we'll keep him in for eight years, so I'll have time to get there."

The Brooklyn MC was an avid supporter of Obama during the presidential campaign and referenced him in a series of lyrics, most notably for Young Jeezy's hit "My President."

"Rosa Parks sat so Martin Luther could walk/ Martin Luther walked so Barack Obama could run/ Barack Obama ran so all the children could fly," he raps on the track. "So I'mma spread my wings/ You could meet me in the sky."

"It's just the progression. ... You sat, you walked, you ran, you ran to fly," Jay told MTV News about his Obama rhyme last year on the eve of the inauguration. "You know, just the progression and how far we've come as a nation. It feels good to say that, 'cause I never had that type of feeling to say 'as a nation,' like I was part of the American dream. And I believe a lot of people didn't feel like a part of the American process for so long."

Although Obama has professed a love for an eclectic playlist of music that includes Stevie Wonder and Bob Dylan, he also said he is a fan of Jay-Z.

Jay-Z confirmed Obama's admiration when he told Ross the president was playing one of the rapper's albums when answered a phone call from Hov.

"Barack loves hip-hop," Jay said. "When I called him he was playing [The] Blueprint in the gym."

URL   http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1632296/20100219/jay_z.jhtml

Posted in Affirmative action Ideology Incompetence Islam Media - Far Left Obama Racism Reverse Racism with 2 Comments

More:

Obama’s Egregious Silence, Ineptness and Lack Of Leadership Regarding The Iranian Nuclear Weapons Reality May Lead To An Armageddon

Iran has been openly and resolutely defiant to the rest of the world with its acceleration of the enrichment of uranium that is clearly intended for military purposes and it possesses the will and theology to use it. On the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Iran has markedly ratcheted up the decibel level of its bellicose and threatening rhetoric aimed at the outside world while concurrently threatening its own citizens who oppose the regime. We have witnessed countless times the wanton brutality that it inflicts on its own people.

This is a country that may stop its violence and threats of regional and world destruction only with a regime change or a successful military attack on it. So far, the best and last hope of that strike appears to be from Israel. Short of that, Iran will complete its intended development of nuclear weapons followed then by their deployment.

A destabilization of the government facilitated by massive uprisings by the citizens along with some fire power is a very long shot possibility to ultimately thwart their usage of nuclear weapons by "peaceful" means. Unfortunately, the opposition presently has little weaponry to fight the government with. Making matters worse, the Obama Administration has been egregiously and negligently silent in support of the Iran’s citizenry even amidst the uprisings. He has shown no solidarity with the protesters which is the absolute least he could do. When he has to be berated by the vacuous, bumbling Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton to make some sort of statement, you know there are severe problems. Meanwhile in welcomed and positive contrast, the leaders of other Western countries have been notably and persistently vociferous in their support of the oppressed Iranian protesters.

Obama has been the antithesis of what an American President should be - a feckless, incompetent, clueless individual who is devoid of any significant leadership skills except when it comes to finding ways to exalting his own self-importance, thus feeding his insatiable narcissism. The American people know this. The world knows this. And Iran clearly knows this.

Unfortunately, this abysmal void of leadership and insight may lead to a nuclear Armageddon.

Read:

Iran's Supreme Leader Vows Surprise 'Punch' This Week

Iran Launches Brutal Crackdown to Stop Mass Demonstrations

Iran Shuts Down Gmail, Announces National E-Mail Service

Posted in Incompetence Iran Islam Military Narcissism Nuclear weapons Obama with No Comments

More:

Obama’s Lead Tight Plan To Deal With Iran

Posted in Incompetence Iran Obama Political Cartoon Security with No Comments

More:

Politicians Too Often Legislation While In A Fantasy Land

It doesn’t take a genius to soon realize that America would be far better off if Congress and the President would just keep out of the “peoples’” business. Far more often than not, when the Federal government gets involved, it spells trouble so the less they deal with, in general, the better. A vast majority of the laws or legislation that they pass are either not the right solutions, or the most prudent, efficient or cost effective ones.There are many reasons for this too numerous to list but common ones include their own ignorance of the issues and their consequences, rigid ideologies, acquiring political capital, not either having to personally pay the bill to any significant extent, or being exempt from having to adhere to the legislation (Obamacare).

With trenchant insight and skillful description, Thomas Sowell reveals many important and practical examples of this “Alice in Wonderland” attitude of our politicians and the inimical consequences that result. As he states: “…there is no free lunch…”.

Politicians Live In Wonderland: Do Not Disturb
By Thomas Sowell      02/01/2010

There was a recent flap because three different members of the Obama administration, on three different Sunday TV talk shows, gave three widely differing estimates of how many jobs the president has created.

That should not have been surprising, except as a sign of political sloppiness in not getting their stories together beforehand. They were simply doing what Barack Obama himself does — namely, just pulling numbers out of thin air.
However, being more skilled at creating illusions, the president does it with more of an air of certainty, as if he has gone around and counted the new jobs himself.

The big question that seldom — if ever — gets asked in the mainstream media is whether these are a net increase in jobs. Since the only resources that the government has are the resources it takes from the private sector, using those resources to create jobs means reducing the resources available to create jobs in the private sector.

So long as most people do not look beyond superficial appearances, politicians can get away with playing Santa Claus on all sorts of issues while leaving havoc in their wake — such as increasing unemployment, despite all the jobs being "created."

Whatever position people take on a health care overhaul, there seems to be a bipartisan consensus — usually a sign of mushy thinking — that it is a good idea for the government to force insurance companies to insure people whom politicians want them to insure, and to insure them for things that politicians think should be insured.

Contrary to what politicians expect us to do, let's stop and think.

It's Free For Politicians

Why aren't insurance companies already insuring the people and the conditions that they are now going to be forced to cover? Because that means additional costs — and because the insurance companies don't think their customers are willing to pay those particular costs for those particular coverages.

It costs politicians nothing to mandate more insurance coverage for more people. But that doesn't mean the costs vanish into thin air. It simply means that buyers and sellers of insurance are forced to pay costs that neither of them wants to pay.

Because soaring political rhetoric leaves out such grubby things as costs, it sounds like a great deal.
Not just costs are left out. So are consequences in general.

With all the laments in the media about skyrocketing unemployment among young people, and especially minority young people, few media pundits even try to connect the dots to explain why unemployment hits some groups much harder than others.

Yet unusually high unemployment rates among young people is not something new or even something peculiar to the U.S.
Even before the current worldwide recession, unemployment rates were 20% or more among workers under 25 years of age in a number of Western European countries.

Less Demand, Less Money

The young have less experience to offer and are therefore less in demand. Before politicians stepped in, that just meant that younger workers were paid less.

This is not a permanent situation because youth itself is not permanent, and pay rises with experience.

Enter politicians. By mandating a minimum wage that sounds reasonable for most workers, they put a price on inexperienced and unskilled labor that often exceeds what it is worth. Mandated pay rates, like mandated insurance coverage, impose on buyers and sellers alike things that they would not choose to do otherwise.

Workers of course prefer higher wage rates. But the very fact that the government has to impose those wage rates means that workers were unwilling to risk not having a job by refusing to work for less than the wage rate that has been mandated. Now that choice has been taken out of their hands, with the hidden cost in this case being higher unemployment rates.

It is of course no secret that there is no free lunch. It is just an inconvenient distraction that gets left out of political rhetoric.

URL    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519737

Posted in Congress Ideology Incompetence with No Comments

More:

Obama Has His Priorities and Policies Reversed When It Comes To Terrorists and Our Intelligence Agencies

Obama recently declared in a meeting with the GOP that “he is not an ideologue. Really!”

Really?

With regard to terrorism, Obama’s ideology and that of his radical left adhere to a policy that places our intelligence agencies on the defensive and their agents at legal risk while jeopardizing the security of our country. Meanwhile, they steadfastly remind us of the “inherent” rights of terrorists including Mirandizing them and even providing them with taxpayer funded attorneys.

Unbelievably, the Obama Administration has made it a priority to question a few of our CIA agents about some issues arising a few years ago yet could not find the time to address the far more important matter of implementing  the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) which would allow us to interrogate terrorists and extract vital information.

Obama administration takes several wrong paths in dealing with terrorism
By Michael V. Hayden January 31, 2010

In the war on terrorism, this country faces an enemy whose theory of warfare ends the hard-won distinction in modern thought between combatant and noncombatant. In doing that for which we have created government -- ensuring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- how can we be adequately aggressive to ensure the first value, without unduly threatening the other two? This is hard. And people don't have to be lazy or stupid to get it wrong.

We got it wrong in Detroit on Christmas Day. We allowed an enemy combatant the protections of our Constitution before we had adequately interrogated him. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is not "an isolated extremist." He is the tip of the spear of a complex al-Qaeda plot to kill Americans in our homeland.

In the 50 minutes the FBI had to question him, agents reportedly got actionable intelligence. Good. But were there any experts on al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in the room (other than Abdulmutallab)? Was there anyone intimately familiar with any National Security Agency raw traffic to, from or about the captured terrorist? Did they have a list or photos of suspected recruits?

When questioning its detainees, the CIA routinely turns the information provided over to its experts for verification and recommendations for follow-up. The responses of these experts -- "Press him more on this, he knows the details" or "First time we've heard that" -- helps set up more detailed questioning.

None of that happened in Detroit. In fact, we ensured that it wouldn't. After the first session, the FBI Mirandized Abdulmutallab and -- to preserve a potential prosecution -- sent in a "clean team" of agents who could have no knowledge of what Abdulmutallab had provided before he was given his constitutional warnings. As has been widely reported, Abdulmutallab then exercised his right to remain silent.

In retrospect, the inadvisability of this approach seems self-evident. Perhaps it didn't appear that way on Dec. 25 because we have, over the past year, become acclimated to certain patterns of thought.

Two days after his inauguration, President Obama issued an executive order that limited all interrogations by the U.S. government to the techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual. The CIA had not seen the final draft of the order, let alone been allowed to comment, before it was issued. I thought that odd since the order was less a legal document -- there was no claim that the manual exhausted the universe of lawful techniques -- than a policy one: These particular lawful techniques would be all that the country would need, at least for now.

A similar drama unfolded in April over the release of Justice Department memos that had authorized the CIA interrogation program. CIA Director Leon Panetta and several of his predecessors opposed public release of the memos in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit on the only legitimate grounds for such a stand: that the documents were legitimately still classified and their release would gravely harm national security. On this policy -- not legal -- question, the president sided with his attorney general rather than his CIA chief.

In August, seemingly again in contradiction to the president's policy of not looking backward and over the objections of the CIA, Justice pushed to release the CIA inspector general's report on the interrogation program. Then Justice decided to reopen investigations of CIA officers that had been concluded by career prosecutors years ago, even though Panetta and seven of his predecessors said that doing so would be unfair, unwarranted and harmful to the agency's current mission.

In November, Justice announced that it intended to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several others in civilian courts for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The White House made clear that this was a Justice Department decision, which is odd because the decision was not legally compelled (other detainees are to be tried by military commissions) and the reasons given for making it (military trials could serve as a recruitment tool for al-Qaeda, harm relations with allies, etc.) were not legal but political.

Even tough government organizations, such as those in the intelligence community, figure out pretty quickly what their political masters think is not acceptable behavior. The executive order that confined interrogations to the Army Field Manual also launched a task force to investigate whether those techniques were sufficient for national needs. Few observers believed that the group would recommend changes, and to date, no techniques have been added to the manual.

Intelligence officers need to know that someone has their back. After the Justice memos were released in April, CIA officers began to ask whether the people doing things that were currently authorized would be dragged through this kind of public knothole in five years. No one could guarantee that they would not.

Some may celebrate that the current Justice Department's perspective on the war on terrorism has become markedly more dominant in the past year. We should probably understand the implications of that before we break out the champagne. That apparently no one recommended on Christmas Day that Abdulmutallab be handled, at least for a time, as an enemy combatant should be concerning. That our director of national intelligence, Denny Blair, bravely said as much during congressional testimony this month is cause for hope.

Actually, Blair suggested that the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), announced by the administration in August, should have been called in. A government spokesman later pointed out that the group does not yet exist.

There's a final oddity. In August, the government unveiled the HIG for questioning al-Qaeda and announced that the FBI would begin questioning CIA officers about the alleged abuses in the 2004 inspector general's report. They are apparently still getting organized for the al-Qaeda interrogations. But the interrogations of CIA personnel are well underway.

(The writer was director of the CIA from 2006 to 2009.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012903954.html

Posted in Ideology Incompetence Obama Security Terrorism with No Comments

More:

Clueless In Washington

Posted in Congress Financial Harry Reid Incompetence Nancy Pelosi Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments

More:

Obama, Blinded By Ideology, Ineptness and Inexperience, Will Force America To Pay A Great Price

As a consequence of Obama’s unwavering adherence to his radical and inimical ideologies, his glaring lack of previous executive experiences, and his prodigious and destructive arrogance and narcissism which preclude him from dispassionately assessing all angles of situations, he has set America to pay dearly this and in coming years. Exacerbating this situation further is his innate corruptness, scheming dishonesty and expressed profound disdain for America and most of its citizens (excluding the chosen minorities in specific and his constituency in general).

If you have any doubt about this, just consider all the mandated minority preferences in Obamacare and other legislation (which are racist and should be unconstitutional), wealth transfer beneficiaries, the dropping of charges against the New Black Panther Party regarding voter intimidation during the Presidential election, and even his racist tact in response to the Henry Gates – Cambridge police office incident, etc.

The following editorial enumerates some of the issues or incidents that Obama’s inept or ideologically blinded responses, attitude or inactions will ultimately lead to bad outcomes for America. Aside from a few exceptions, you won't see incisive assessments like this in the sycophantic liberal news media

Chickens Of '09 Coming Home To Roost In '10
By Victor Davis Hanson

Plenty of our chickens will be coming home to roost this year.

Take foreign relations. In 2009, the new administration assumed that George W. Bush was largely responsible for global tensions. As a remedy, we loudly reached out to our foes and those with whom we had uneasy relationships.

But so far these leaders — like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Russia's Vladimir Putin — have only interpreted Barack Obama's serial goodwill gestures as weaknesses to be exploited. They play the part of the pushy class bully, we the whiny nerd.

In the waning days of 2009, Iran has announced it has no intention of dismantling its nuclear facilities and ignored the latest Obama deadline to cease. There's no reason not to expect the theocracy to make significant strides in its nuclear program in 2010, while continuing without rebuke to beat and murder democratic dissidents in its streets.

Russia has announced plans to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons — and scoffed at our polite suggestions that it should pressure Iran to stop its nuclear development.

Venezuela brags of its own similar program to come — an act that could threaten all the neighboring democracies in the region.

The administration courted China on a much-heralded Asian tour. President Obama has even said he would be our first "Pacific president."

Unfortunately, China was not impressed. It declined our advice about reducing its carbon footprint and instead reminded Americans that we owe the Chinese people nearly $1 trillion. Expect much more of that hectoring in 2010 as our debt to China grows.

Consider also the threat of Islamic terrorism. In 2009, some in the Obama administration decided "war on terror" was too provocative a label for what might be better dubbed "overseas contingency operations." Apparently, they were thinking a kinder, gentler image would discourage terrorists.

Accordingly, the self-confessed architect of Sept. 11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was promised a civil trial in New York rather than a military tribunal normally accorded to out-of-uniform murderous terrorists. Expect a lot of soapbox speechmaking about America's sins during his testimony in 2010.

As part of our efforts to break with the Bush anti-terrorism past, President Obama also vowed he would close the facility at Guantanamo Bay by Jan. 22, 2010 — another deadline that won't be met.

But as 2009 ended, we were reminded that radical Islamic terrorists still want to kill us for who we are, and what we represent, rather than any particular thing we do.

Maj. Nidal Hasan, nursed on radical Islamic doctrine, murdered 12 fellow soldiers and one civilian at Ford Hood, Texas.

Five would-be terrorists with U.S. citizenship were arrested in Pakistan on their way to link up with Islamist militant groups. And Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was stopped in flight from Amsterdam before he could blow up an American passenger jet.

Note that all these recent terrorists were not poor, lived in the hospitable West — and cared little that the Obama administration has been critical of prior U.S. war-on-terror policies.

So, while we assured the world in 2009 that we wouldn't be overzealous in our various efforts to stop terrorists, the terrorists proved that they most certainly would be in theirs to kill us.

Meanwhile, at home we operated on the same naive assumptions. The Obama administration inherited a $500 billion deficit and expanded it threefold. Its planned mega-deficits may well grow the aggregate national debt over the next decade to over $20 trillion.

But the administration's 2009 calculations on how to service the growing red ink are based on continued cheap interest. Yet in 2010, it is likely we will see rising inflation, rising interest rates — and rising costs to the continual self-destructive borrowing.

We were given a financial break on energy prices in 2009. The worldwide recession sent oil down to about $50 a barrel.

But America did little during the year's reprieve to rush into production newly discovered domestic gas and oil fields, to tap existing finds in Alaska, or to license new nuclear plants.

By year's end, oil was creeping back up to $80. If the economic upswing continues, in 2010 it may near its old high of nearly $150 a barrel. Soon we will wish we had done something concrete in 2009 rather than offering more stale rhetoric about wind and solar power.

In other words, 2009 may seem to have ended relatively quietly. But in our foreign relations, in the war against terror, in our massive borrowing and in our energy policies, we created chickens that soon will come home to roost in 2010.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=517009

Posted in Arrogance Corruption Incompetence Intolerance Narcissism Obama Reverse Racism with No Comments

More:

Charles Krauthammer Excoriates Obama Regarding His Disconnect On The Gravity of the Terrorism Situation

Charles Krauthammer trenchantly assesses Obama’s feckless responses regarding the recent terrorist attack and terrorism in general. His underwhelming, inaccurate and delayed statements reflect his disconnect and abominable comprehension of the gravity of the situation that we are facing. This and the incompetence that his Administration regularly displays does not instill an iota of confidence in the American people that the Federal government is doing all that it can do to protect us.

Posted in Charles Krauthammer Incompetence Obama Security Terrorism Videos with No Comments

More:

 Print This Post