More:Print This Post
Obama’s policies regarding our economy have been an unmitigated abject failure but you will never read this in the far left “main stream” media. They will make little or no mention of his failed, irrational actions.
Because Obama’s their man!
To them, this is still Bush’s fault as well as of the Republican Party. They will never admit to the fecklessness and ideological rigidity of Obama’s policies and the profound damage that is has and is causing.
Who's Turning U.S. Into The Third World?
Investor’s Business Daily 04/15/2011
Economy: President Obama says Republicans, if they get their way, will turn the U.S. into a "Third World" nation. Has he looked recently at the course he's set us on? As psychologists say, it sounds like projection to us.
One of the cheapest tricks in political rhetoric is to accuse your opponents of doing something bad that you yourself are doing. That's exactly what President Obama did when he charged that GOP efforts to restore fiscal responsibility would turn us into "a nation of potholes, and our airports would be worse than places ... that we used to call the Third World."
Never mind that most of what he's talking about — like "potholes" and airports — have always been local priorities. And Obama is U.S. president, not U.S. mayor.
But what stuck in our craw was that "Third World" crack. Excuse us, isn't that the way we've been heading under Obama? Consider for a moment these trends:
• Real earnings have fallen for five straight months, and are down 1% since the end of last year.
• Consumer price inflation is growing at a 6.1% annual rate over the last three months, while producer prices are rising an even-faster 13%. According to John Williams of the Shadow Government Statistics website, if we measure consumer prices the way we did before 1992, inflation is now running at 10% a year.
• The U.S. has added $6 trillion to its debt under Obama, a sure sign of being on the road to Third World status. Three years ago, the U.S. had $7.9 trillion in debt. Today, we have $14 trillion. Bankrupt, hyperinflated Zimbabwe couldn't do any better.
• The U.S. dollar has fallen so much and foreign nations have so little confidence in our ability to run our fiscal affairs that the "BRIC" nations — the mostly fast-growing former Third World nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China — are talking about replacing the U.S. dollar in foreign trade with the Chinese yuan.
• Just 45.4% of Americans had jobs last year, the lowest since 1983, according to census data crunched by USA Today. Among men, just 66.8% had work last year, the lowest ever.
• Obama touts the "recovery" that supposedly began in June of 2009, but a look at the data show that last year's real private sector GDP was in fact still down 1.1% from its peak in 2007 — so all of the "expansion" has been in government, not the private sector.
• While we're at it, under Obama, spending has risen farther and faster than under any president in history. At current rates, government at all levels will take up more than half of all economic activity by 2050.
Can't happen here, you say? In 1920, Argentina was one of the five richest countries on Earth. Then it followed policies similar to Obama's — kowtowing to unions, government control of industry, price controls. It crashed, burned and never really recovered.
We're headed down that road. Today, government spending is at a record 25% of GDP, while government regulation costs the U.S. economy $1.7 trillion a year.
As Vice President Biden might say, "That's real Third World, man."
More:Print This Post
Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.), of Obamacare cave-in notoriety, was asked on NBC by Andrea Mitchell why he opposes Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform proposal. What followed was the most unenlightened, intellectually devoid, and reflexive response parroting liberal canards that he still seemed challenged to articulate.
It is painful enough to watch. Even worse is the fact that this is a Senator… in our government… and one who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, no less!
We think that local officials in a banana republic or a village idiot somewhere would have provided a more substantial and engaged answer that showed intellectual input.
And some people actually wonder why the federal government can’t pass a fiscally responsible budget! The Democratic Party is infested with this type of zombie politician.
More:Print This Post
The U.S. situation vis-à-vis Libya epitomizes the abject ineptitude, weakness and lack of any evidence of leadership abilities of “president” Obama. Unfortunately, this same triad of deficiencies permeates nearly all areas that he becomes involved in.
Except, of course, golf, basketball and partying.
Obama avoided any significant comments on the Libyan situation for weeks despite the crucial need for leadership and verbalizing policy. He ultimately assented to military involvement in Libya if other countries made the decisions rather than him. France and Sarkozy took the lead.
The Obama Administration has had innumerable and concurrently conflicting positions on Libya and its longtime terrorist leader, Ghadafi, reflecting utter and inexcusable disarray, lack of communications and absence of Presidential leadership. This latest situation combined with a multitude of previous public policy and statement disasters has made the Obama Administration the laughing stock of the world.
But the situation is even worse as disclosed in the following report. The U.S. is now fighting alongside Libyan rebels many of whom actually fought AGAINST the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many are directly affiliated with al Qaeda.
So, in a devilish twist of irony, we are assisting al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in potentially taking over the country of Libya.
Write that on your front pages, N.Y. Times and Washington Post!
And, of course, continue to praise Obama.
Jihadis who fought U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan now enjoy American support in Libya
Evidence is emerging that United States forces are waging war in Libya on behalf of rebels whose ranks include jihadis who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Britain's Daily Telegraph reports that Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, a leader of U.S.-supported rebel forces in the fighting around Adjabiya, went to Afghanistan in 2002 to fight against the "foreign invasion" -- that is, U.S. troops who invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for the September 11 attacks. The Telegraph says al-Hasidi told an Italian newspaper, Il Sole 24 Ore, that he was captured in 2002 in Peshawar, Pakistan. "He was later handed over to the U.S., and then held in Libya before being released in 2008," the Telegraph reports. Al-Hasidi also told the Italian paper he recruited about 25 Libyan men to fight against U.S. forces in Iraq.
Al-Hasidi's story is consistent with evidence presented in a 2007 report published by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point. That report, by professors Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, examined records of an al Qaeda-affiliated organization found after an October 2007 raid near Sinjar, Iraq. The records contained biographical information about nearly 700 foreign terrorists who came to Iraq to fight against the United States between August 2006 and August 2007.
Felter and Fishman found that the largest portion of foreign fighters, about 41 percent, came to Iraq from Saudi Arabia. The second-largest source of foreign fighters, at nearly 19 percent, was Libya. "Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the Sinjar records, including Saudi Arabia," the authors conclude. Since previous studies had indicated far fewer Libyan fighters in Iraq, the authors suggest there may have been a "surge" of Libyans into Iraq in the spring and summer of 2007.
"The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to Iraq may be linked to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group's [LIFG] increasingly cooperative relationship with al Qaeda, which culminated in the LIFG official joining al Qaeda on November 3, 2007," the report say.
The Telegraph, citing U.S. and British government sources, reports that Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi was a member of the LIFG.
The Combating Terrorism Center reports says that Darnah, Libya -- al-Hasidi's hometown-- supplied more foreign fighters to Iraq than any other city, including Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a city far larger than Darnah. Benghazi, Libya, now a rebel stronghold, was also a major source of Libyan fighters traveling to Iraq. "Both Darnah and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in Libya, in particular for an uprising by Islamist organizations in the mid-1990s," the authors report. "The Libyan government blamed the uprising on 'infiltrators from the Sudan and Egypt' and one group -- the Libyan Fighting Group -- claimed to have Afghan veterans in its ranks. The Libyan uprisings became extraordinarily violent. [Libyan strongman Moammar] Gadhafi used helicopter gunships in Benghazi, cut telephone, electricity, and water supplies to Darnah and famously claimed that the militants "deserve to die without trial, like dogs." In the current fighting, Gadhafi has said that the rebels fighting against him are affiliated with al Qaeda, but his claims have found little acceptance.
There is no doubt that the rebels associated with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group are violent extremists. The Combating Terrorism Center Report found that the Libyans, along with Moroccans, were more likely than others to become suicide bombers once they were in Iraq. The Sinjar records, plus political developments in the 2007 time period, "suggest that Libyan factions (primarily the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) are increasingly important in al Qaeda," the report says.
Now, it is not clear what portion of the Libyan rebels, who enjoy the backing and assistance of the United States military, have been associated with al Qaeda and attacks on the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. That's one reason critics of the Libya war say the U.S.-led coalition doesn't really know who it's fighting for. But we may learn more in the future, especially if the rebels prevail and some former jihadis find themselves running Libya, courtesy of the United States.
More:Print This Post
Another "wind" metaphor: "Gone with the wind..." Obama, that is, literally
More:Print This Post
In the following essay, Victor Davis Hanson sees Obama as a modern day Prince Hamlet. He is faced with a lot of information, ambiguities and often no simple solution much like Shakespeare’s Hamlet and therefore can’t seem to make a decision. Or is it, he just doesn’t want to be involved in making a decision?
Davis notes that now with Obama being President and needing to make choices, his “thinking out every possible side of a question can mean never acting on any of them — a sort of Shakespearean "prison" where "there is nothing either good or bad.""
This imputes too much intelligence and good in Obama - so we disagree with this part of the premise. However, we strongly believe that a compounding factor in Obama’s indecisiveness, lack of leadership and his abhorrent performance as “president” is related to the complete absence of any significant decision making in his past. He was not even a manager at McDonald’s!
Obama is completely inexperienced and unprepared to be President!
Add to this his radical, anti-American, racist upbringing along with pathological narcissism and hedonistic proclivities … and that is precisely why we have BIG PROBLEMS NOW.
Obama: To Be Or Not To Be A Real Leader
Victor Davis Hanson 03/17/2011
More than 400 years ago, William Shakespeare wrote a riveting tragedy about a young, charismatic Danish prince who vowed to do the right thing in avenging his murdered father.
That soon proved easier said than done. As a result, Hamlet couldn't quite ever act in time — given all the ambiguities that such a sensitive prince first had to sort out. In the meantime, a lot of bodies piled up through his indecision and hesitancy.
President Obama wanted to give us all universal health care. But then he discovered that the country was broke and that most people did not like his massive federal takeover. So we got both his health care and so far more than 1,000 exemptions from his landmark plan for unions, corporations and entire states.
The president wished to please his liberal supporters with more government redistributive programs and higher taxes on the wealthy.
But such entitlements cost lots of money — more than $4 trillion in new borrowing in just three years — and scare to death the job-creating private sector.
So the president not only borrows at record levels, but also sets up a commission to warn us that his borrowing will soon bankrupt the country. He damns the "fat cat bankers" and the rich who "at some point" have made enough money, even as he courts them for campaign donations and begs their companies to start hiring new employees.
Obama warned us that we could not drill our way out of the ongoing gas crisis and needed instead to develop new green energy. As proof, he borrowed billions to promote wind and solar power, and stopped most new leases for fossil fuel exploration in Alaska, the West and offshore.
But it turned out that we still need lots of oil as gas nears $4 a gallon. So the president brags that America is now pumping more oil under his green administration than ever before — but neglects to mention that it's true only because Presidents Clinton and Bush long ago approved the sort of oil leases that Obama had rejected.
President Obama wanted so much to discontinue George W. Bush's war on terror that he banned the phrase "war on terror" altogether. He apologized to the Muslim world, promised to "reset" our foreign policy and vowed to close Guantanamo Bay and stop the other nasty Bush anti-terrorism protocols.
But our "to be or not to be" Hamlet also wanted to continue to keep the country safe from another 9/11-style terrorist attack, so he kept Guantanamo open, quadrupled the number of Predator drone attacks and either preserved or expanded all the Bush protocols that he had once derided.
Abroad, a new multilateral Obama wished to act only in concert with the United Nations and our allies. He vowed to respect the sovereignty of other countries and not "meddle" in their affairs by imposing American values.
Shortage Of Details
And yet the president also embraced eternal and universal human rights and wanted the United States to be on the right side of history. So he criticized our intervention to foster democracy in Iraq even as his vice president praised it. We surged in Afghanistan even as we posted deadlines to leave. We promised not to meddle to support Iranian protesters, and to meddle to support Egyptian protesters.
Hosni Mubarak was a dictator and was not a dictator, who had to leave yesterday, today or maybe tomorrow. The situation in Libya is deemed "unacceptable," but how exactly it could be made acceptable is never spelled out. Intervening there to support rebels is said to be good; but apparently so is supporting Saudi troops intervening in Bahrain to put down rebels and protect the status quo.
Middle East strongmen, the president tells us, are cruel and must leave, but the why and how of it all are also never stated. Are they supposed to flee only when protests reach a critical mass? In Egypt and Tunisia, but not in Saudi Arabia, Syria or Iran?
President Obama has spent most of his life either in, or teaching, school — or making laws that he was not responsible for enforcing.
His hope-and-change speeches were as moving in spirit as they were lacking in details.
But now Obama is chief executive, and learning, as did Prince Hamlet, that thinking out every possible side of a question can mean never acting on any of them — a sort of Shakespearean "prison" where "there is nothing either good or bad." Worrying about pleasing everyone ensures pleasing no one. Once again such "conscious does make cowards of us all."
Hamlets, past and present, are as admirable in theory as they are fickle — and often dangerous — in fact.
More:Print This Post
How is it that seemingly millions of Americans are not outraged by Obama's egregious lack of action in Libya and the Mideast as thousands are slaughtered?
If we don't get involved now and pay a small price, we will be paying a far greater price later on.
His disengagement at home as well is reckless, inexcusable and despicable.
More:Print This Post