Recently in OBAMA UNDERMINING AMERICA Category

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists murdered four Americans in Benghazi a few weeks before Obama's re-election day. Obama had been constantly bragging that the death of bin Laden (which of course he carried out singlehandedly,

But, wait a minute! The White House can't let anything spoil the narrative! This was no terrorist attack. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, it was some average Libyans upset with a nasty video about Mohammad posted on YouTube (and seen by less than 3,000 people over two months) who must have just let things get out of hand. Too bad about the ambassador, so we'll throw that filmmaker in jail and bring him to justice.

The Truth? The truth is what we can get the public to believe, so the White House spin machine rumbles on and on right through the election up to today.

But the time for truth telling may have come at last with the appointment by House Speaker Boehner of a Select Committee to get all the facts out.

Trey Gowdy will provide electifyingly capable leadership of that committee. Rep. Trey Gowdy's Select Committee on Benghazi will get the facts.

What do the folks back home in Greenville, SC think of their former federal prosecutor and now second term Congressman? Read this.

And take a look at this Gowdy meeting with the press corps not too long ago.

He is the right man to head the Select Committee on Benghazi. Watch the mainstream left wing media, the White House and Democrats in Congress try to destroy him.

OBAMA INCITES HATRED OF WHITE AMERICA

Black power.png

Jamie Foxx and Samuel L. Jackson attend a screening of "Django Unchained" hosted by The Weinstein Company with The Hollywood Reporter, Samsung Galaxy and The Cinema Society at Ziegfeld Theater on December 11, 2012 in New York City.

"Wasn't Obama's election supposed to mark a new post-racial era? What happened?"

So historian and classicist Victor Davis Hanson asks. We all know the answer. Obama was lying. Obama has promoted racial and class division since the day he became president. The white people are the enemy and they must be put in their place as blacks and other coloreds get their revenge. He has four years ahead of him to exact retribution. The plea of Martin Luther King Jr. that content of character rather than skin color be the measure of a man is being flipped the other way round by Obama and his racial avengers.

The New Racial-Derangement Syndrome

By Victor Davis Hanson

December 20, 2012 12:00 A.M.
National Review Online

There is a different sort of racialist derangement spreading in the country -- and it is getting ugly.

Here is actor Jamie Foxx joking recently about his new movie role: "I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that?" Reverse white and black in the relevant ways and even a comedian would hear national outrage. Instead, his hip Saturday Night Live audience even gave Foxx applause.

Race-obsessed comedian Chris Rock tweeted on the Fourth of July, "Happy white peoples [sic] independence day . . . "

Actor Samuel L. Jackson, in a recent interview, sounded about as unapologetically reactionary as you can get: "I voted for Barack because he was black. . . . I hope Obama gets scary in the next four years."

No one in Hollywood used to be more admired than Morgan Freeman, who once lectured interviewers on the need to transcend race. Not now, in the new age of racial regression. Freeman has accused Obama critics and the Tea Party of being racists. He went on to editorialize on Obama's racial bloodlines: "Barack had a mama, and she was white . . . very white, American, Kansas, middle of America . . . America's first black president hasn't arisen yet."

Freeman's racial-purity obsessions were echoed on the CNN website, where an ad for the network's recent special report on race included a crude quote from three teen poets: "Black enough to be a n. White enough to be a good one."

In the 21st century, are we returning to the racial labyrinth of the 19th-century Old Confederacy, when we measured our supposed racial DNA to the nth degree? Apparently, yes. ESPN sports commentator Rob Parker blasted Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III last week for admirably stating that he did not wish to be defined by his race rather than by his character: "He's black, he does his thing, but he's not really down with the cause." Parker added: "He's not one of us. He's kind of black, but he's not really like the kind of guy you really want to hang out with." (ESPN suspended Parker for his remarks.)

Unfortunately, the new racialist derangement is not confined to sports and entertainment. The Reverend Joseph Lowery -- who gave the benediction at President Obama's first inauguration -- sounded as venomous as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright in a speech that Lowery delivered to a black congregation shortly before this year's election: "I don't know what kind of a n***** wouldn't vote with a black man running." Lowery reportedly preceded that rant by stating that when he was younger, he believed that all whites were going to hell, but now he merely believes that most of them are. And in his 2009 inauguration prayer, Lowery ended with his hopes for a future day when "white will embrace what is right."

Wasn't Obama's election supposed to mark a new post-racial era? What happened?

For nearly a half-century, cultural relativism in the universities taught that racist speech was bigotry only if it came from those -- mostly whites -- with power. Supposedly oppressed minorities could not themselves be real racists. But even if that bankrupt theory was once considered gospel, it is no longer convincing -- given that offenders such as Foxx, Rock, and Lowery (who was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Obama) are among the more affluent and acclaimed Americans.



Read it all.

While focus is on the disastrous course Obama is pushing this nation along domestically, we cannot ignore his pro-Islamic policies that are a threat to the entire West. His speech in Cairo of appeasement and false praise was followed by his support of the anti-western and anti-American Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt from the pro-America Mubarak.

Now Obama is doing the same thing in support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.

Melanie Phillips is a distinguished British writer whose book "Londonistan" was the earliest of modern alarms about how Islam is infiltrating the West seeking to destroy Western culture and capture Europe from within through immigration and non-assimilation. The Britain she wrote about several years ago is worse today as the Islamic advance has continued unabated aided by those who refuse to see reality. Britain is not alone. The same war of conquest is underway throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, non-violent in some places, aided by violence where Islam is strong enough so it can be.

Phillips sees Obama clearly for what he is:

But when you look at Barack Obama, you see another factor at work which is not simply the strategic stupidity that results from an appeasement mentality, nor a myopic view of the national interest, nor the unsurpassed arrogance and ignorance of cultural hubris, all of which drive western foreign policy.


What therefore is the factor that Obama brings to the west's dismal foreign policy table ...?

Malice.

Against the west, and also against the ancient civilisation that lies at the heart of its moral codes.


To sum up, what Phillips in effect is saying in this important piece and other warnings she has issued is this:

Obama's hatred of the West, the white West, nurtured from his earliest days by his mother, his years in Muslim schools in Indonesia, his communist high school mentor's hatred of white America, his Marxist and black power associates at Occidental and Columbia and the anti-Israel academics he sought out at Columbia and in Chicago, along with white America-hating Jeremiah Wright and Obama's communist community organizer hero Saul Alinsky, dedicated to the destruction of the America's free enterprise systems, now has free rein. America the oppressor of all colored peoples deserves to be brought down and he is the one to do it. He has the power to do it. And he is doing it.

While speaking of British and European leaders Phillips speaks of catastrophic "mistakes."

But, in her assessment of Obama, she sees America and the West being betrayed. "Malice" is what she sees.

Into the abyss
Melanie Phillips
12.21.12
www.melaniephillips.com


To an astonishing silence by the media on both sides of the pond, the US along with the UK and a number of European governments is leading the west into an abyss. I have repeatedly noted here that the US, UK and France helped bring to power in Egypt Islamic extremists hostile to the free world, and were threatening to do something very similar in Syria. Now they have indeed done so by recognising the Syrian National Council as the legitimate leader of the Syrian opposition.

The thinking behind this is to designate the al-Qaeda linked Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist group, while supporting the Muslim Brotherhood - which dominates the Syrian National Council -- as a reasonable alternative. But this is the same catastrophic mistake the US et al have made in Egypt. For the Brotherhood are not a reasonable alternative to Islamic extremists hostile to the west. They are themselves Islamic extremists hostile to the west.

The disastrous implications of this fundamental strategic mistake were spelled out in a forensic piece by Jonathan Spyer in the Jerusalem Post. As Spyer observed:


'The difference between the Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups is one of degree, not of kind.

'... The focus on Jabhat al Nusra should not obscure the fact that the better-organized, non-Salafi, home grown, Muslim Brotherhood elements that the US is backing are no less anti-western and no less anti-Jewish.

'Could things have been different? As with Egypt, perhaps, if the west had perceived the risks and opportunities clearly at the start. This might have triggered a vigorous policy of support for non-Islamist opposition and fighting elements, which were there.

'The result is that the force now facing the retreating Assad regime is split between differing brands of Sunni Arab Islamism, some aligned with the west, some directly opposing it, but all holding fast to fundamentally anti-western ideologies.'

Barry Rubin spells out even more starkly the looming disaster for the west from its idiocy over Syria:

'American intelligence agents in southern Turkey supervise the handover of weapons to the rebels. They make no attempt to stop arms from going to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists while they make no attempt to funnel the guns to moderates. The only restriction is that they not go to al-Qaeda-affiliated Salafists.


'One day, those guns will be used to commit unspeakable atrocities against Christians and other minority groups just as they will be used to install an Islamist regime and to kill or intimidate its opponents.'

The mistake being made by the US and the rest is as deep-seated as it is egregious. The campaign in the west to promote the Muslim Brotherhood (to its motto: 'Islam is the solution' one obviously has to ask, 'But what is the problem?') as helpful allies against those who want to bring the west down has been making relentless and dismaying progress into the establishment for years - an establishment that refuses to see the Brothers for what they are, in essence because it refuses to acknowledge that what the west is now up against is a religious war. From that most profound and seminal error, all follows.

But when you look at Barack Obama, you see another factor at work which is not simply the strategic stupidity that results from an appeasement mentality, nor a myopic view of the national interest, nor the unsurpassed arrogance and ignorance of cultural hubris, all of which drive western foreign policy.

Just look at Obama's favoured candidates for the two US administration positions central to the defence of the west. They are both people whose attitudes would in fact deeply endanger it still further. John Kerry, tipped to become Secretary of State, is an anti-war activist and left-wing fantasist who, despite serving as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, is such a man-made global warming fanatic that he believes climate change is

'as dangerous as any of the sort of real crises that we talk about'

ie, as dangerous as say, Syrian chemical weapons or a nuclear Iran.

The record of Chuck Hagel, Obama's favoured candidate for Defence Secretary, is more troubling still, as outlined here. He has consistently downplayed Iran's terrorist record and the danger it poses to the free world. He consistently voted against sanctions on Iran to stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons capability; he voted against naming Iran's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization; and he refused to sign a letter calling on the European Union similarly to name Hezbollah - which has the blood of countless Americans on its hands -- as a terrorist organisation. Instead, he advocates 'engaging' with Iran - ie, appeasement, which he prefers to parse as

' "... a bridge-building process, an opportunity to better understand" others on the basis of "mutual self respect."'

This is all of a piece with his attitudes towards Israel and the Jews. Not only is he associated with gross anti-Israel canards which reverse truth and lies, but he also said that

'the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here...'

'up here' meaning Washington.

Whether or not these men are actually appointed is not the issue. The key point is that Obama wants to appoint them, from which we may infer that he believes they will enact his own vision of foreign and defence policy.

What therefore is the factor that Obama brings to the west's dismal foreign policy table as illustrated by these truly appalling choices? Malice. Against the west, and also against the ancient civilisation that lies at the heart of its moral codes. Factor that into the truly stupendous myopia and worse of Britain and Europe, and you are looking at the emergence of a new world order: the eclipse of the west, brought about by the unholy alliance between the Obama administration and death-wish Britain and Europe - and leaving Israel, once the forward salient of the west in the Middle East, emerging instead as the lonely and isolated defender of liberty in the face of the gathering Islamic storm.

This former Department of Justice lawyer tells how Attorney General Holder and his appointees deliberately violated their oaths of office in ordering the dismissal of the voting rights case against the New Black Panther Party. While Obama assaults the U.S. Constitution, his Department of Justice refuses to enforce the laws of the land.

Inside the Black Panther case Anger, ignorance and lies
By ByJ. Christian Adams
Friday, June 25, 2010
On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.
The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.
The federal voter-intimidation statutes we used against the New Black Panthers were enacted because America never realized genuine racial equality in elections. Threats of violence characterized elections from the end of the Civil War until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Before the Voting Rights Act, blacks seeking the right to vote, and those aiding them, were victims of violence and intimidation. But unlike the Southern legal system, Southern violence did not discriminate. Black voters were slain, as were the white champions of their cause. Some of the bodies were tossed into bogs and in one case in Philadelphia, Miss., they were buried together in an earthen dam.
Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department's enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation into the dismissal and the DOJ's skewed enforcement priorities. Attorneys who brought the case are under subpoena to testify, but the department ordered us to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptable legal limbo.
The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the "facts and law" did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let's all hope this administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt dismissal.
Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal - Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum - did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation. Just as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. admitted that he did not read the Arizona immigration law before he condemned it, Mr. Rosenbaum admitted that he had not bothered to read the most important department documents detailing the investigative facts and applicable law in the New Black Panther case. Christopher Coates, the former Voting Section chief, was so outraged at this dereliction of responsibility that he actually threw the memos at Mr. Rosenbaum in the meeting where they were discussing the dismissal of the case. The department subsequently removed all of Mr. Coates' responsibilities and sent him to South Carolina.
Mr. Perez also inaccurately testified to the House Judiciary Committee that federal "Rule 11" required the dismissal of the lawsuit. Lawyers know that Rule 11 is an ethical obligation to bring only meritorious claims, and such a charge by Mr. Perez effectively challenges the ethics and professionalism of the five attorneys who commenced the case. Yet the attorneys who brought the case were voting rights experts and would never pursue a frivolous matter. Their experience in election law far surpassed the experience of the officials who ordered the dismissal.
Some have called the actions in Philadelphia an isolated incident, not worthy of federal attention. To the contrary, the Black Panthers in October 2008 announced a nationwide deployment for the election. We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere, not only in November 2008, but also during the Democratic primaries, where they targeted white Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters. In any event, the law clearly prohibits even isolated incidents of voter intimidation.
Others have falsely claimed that no voters were affected. Not only did the evidence rebut this claim, but the law does not require a successful effort to intimidate; it punishes even the attempt.
Most disturbing, the dismissal is part of a creeping lawlessness infusing our government institutions. Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.
Some of my co-workers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. Less charitable individuals called it "payback time." Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the Voting Section.
Refusing to enforce the law equally means some citizens are protected by the law while others are left to be victimized, depending on their race. Core American principles of equality before the law and freedom from racial discrimination are at risk. Hopefully, equal enforcement of the law is still a point of bipartisan, if not universal, agreement. However, after my experience with the New Black Panther dismissal and the attitudes held by officials in the Civil Rights Division, I am beginning to fear the era of agreement over these core American principles has passed.

J. Christian Adams is a lawyer based in Virginia who served as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department until this month. He blogs at electionlawcenter.com.

OBAMA DEFIES THE CONSTITUTION

Dr. Sowell correctly analyzes a gross violation of the U.S. Constitution that seems to have entirely escaped criticism by Republicans, the media and constitutional scholars.

This arbitrary imposition of governmental power by Obama on a business owned by millions of shareholders is breathtaking.

It is the act of a despot commandeering assets of a subject for his own personal use and disposition. It has no place in a constitutional democracy.

"Due Process" is ignored. Billions are acquired by the president to be used as he sees fit without benefit of law. The Congressional power of the purse is inoperative.

is everyone afraid to criticize? Will no one sue to set aside this unconstitutional action?


Degeneration of Democracy

By Thomas Sowell

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics. Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive. In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated. But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men." If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion-- or $50 billion or $100 billion-- then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law." Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in Constitutional government. And, without Constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis"-- which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people." That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people-- indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power-- versus the rule of law and the preservation of freedom-- are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?

If you were a doc, what would you do?

The number of doctors refusing new Medicare patients because of low government payment rates is setting a new high, just six months before millions of Baby Boomers begin enrolling in the government health care program. Recent surveys by national and state medical societies have found more doctors limiting Medicare patients, partly because Congress has failed to stop an automatic 21% cut in payments that doctors already regard as too low.

The fraudulent arguments and lies that were told to "justify" Democrats ramming through Obamacare are becoming exposed day by day.

Obama's drive to create a permanent Democratic majority by providing unaffordable health goodies will fail if those who are supposed to provide them say "no."

And that's what is happening.


It's beginning to happen.

A mainstream writer (Robert Samuelson in a mainstream publication (The Washington Post) says Obama is nuts. His June 15th speech on the oil spill and cap and trade was fantasy. Who does he think he's kidding? What nonsense.


Energy Pipedreams
By Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post

"For decades, we've talked and talked about the need to end America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels. ... Time and time again, the path forward has been blocked -- not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor."

-- Barack Obama, June 15 address on the BP oil spill

WASHINGTON -- Just once, it would be nice if a president would level with Americans on energy. Barack Obama isn't that president. His speech the other night was about political damage control -- his own. It was full of misinformation and mythology. Obama held out a gleaming vision of an America that would convert to the "clean" energy of, presumably, wind, solar and biomass. It isn't going to happen for many, many decades, if ever.

For starters, we won't soon end our "addiction to fossil fuels." Oil, coal and natural gas now supply about 85 percent of America's energy needs. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects energy consumption to grow only an average of 0.5 percent annually from 2008 to 2035, but that's still a 14 percent cumulative increase. Fossil fuel usage would increase slightly in 2035 and its share would still account for 78 percent of the total.

Unless we shut down the economy, we need fossil fuels. More efficient light bulbs, energy-saving appliances, cars with higher gas mileage may all dampen energy use. But offsetting these savings are more people (391 million vs. 305 million), more households (147 million vs. 113 million), more vehicles (297 million vs. 231 million) and a bigger economy (almost double in size). Although wind, solar and biomass are assumed to grow up to 10 times faster than overall energy use, they provide only 11 percent of supply in 2035, up from 5 percent in 2008.

There are physical limits on new energy sources, as Robert Bryce shows in his book "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future." Suppose an inventor "found a way to convert soybeans into jet fuel," Bryce writes. "Even with that invention, the conversion of all of America's yearly soybean production into jet fuel would only provide about 20 percent of U.S. jet fuel demand." Jet fuel, in turn, is about 8 percent of U.S. oil use. Similarly, wind turbines have limited potential; they must be supported by backup generating capacity when there's no breeze.

The consequences of the BP oil spill come in two parts. The first is familiar: the fire; the deaths; coated birds; polluted wetlands; closed beaches; anxious fishermen. The second is less appreciated: a more muddled energy debate.

Obama has made vilification of oil and the oil industry a rhetorical mainstay. This is intellectually shallow, if politically understandable. "Clean energy" won't displace oil or achieve huge reductions in greenhouse gas emissions -- for example, the 83 percent cut by 2050 from 2005 levels included in last year's House climate change legislation. Barring major technological advances (say, low-cost "carbon capture" to pump CO 2 into the ground) or an implausibly massive shift to nuclear power, this simply won't happen. It's a pipedream. In the EIA's "reference case" projection, CO 2 emissions in 2035 are 8.7 percent higher than in 2008.

Rather than admit the obvious, Obama implies that other countries are disproving it. "Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America," he said in his address. If China can do it, so can we! Well, whatever China's accomplishing on wind and solar, it's a sideshow. In 2008, fossil fuels met 87 percent of its energy needs, reports the International Energy Agency. Coal alone accounted for 66 percent. China represents about half the world's hard coal consumption. Usage grew 10.7 percent annually from 2000 to 2008.

The outlines of a pragmatic energy policy are clear. A gradually increasing tax on oil or carbon would nudge people toward more energy-efficient products, including cars. Any tax should be part of a budget program that includes major spending cuts. This is a better approach than the confusing cap-and-trade proposals -- embraced by the House and the administration -- that would inevitably be riddled with exceptions and preferences. Finally, research and development should search for cheaper, cleaner energy sources.

Meanwhile, it's imperative to tap domestic oil and natural gas. This creates jobs and limits our dependence on insecure imports. Drilling advances have opened vast reserves of natural gas trapped in shale ("shale gas"). Human error and corner-cutting by BP seem the main causes of the spill. Given the industry's previously strong safety record, Obama's six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling isn't justified and should be shortened. It's not industry lobbyists that sustain fossil fuels but the reality that they're economically and socially necessary. A candid president would have said so.

SIZING UP OBAMA

Ramirez Carter Obama.jpg

Click on picture to enlarge.

The perfidy of the Turks succeeded. Israel was condemned for defending itself against terrorists by the UN, the EU and all Muslim countries. Obama even supported a UN investigation, which will yield the usual anti-Israeli result. They could write the report before the "investigation."

How can you make the people of the world understand how the anit-Israeli forces in the world led by the media are feeding information upside down, inside out? Parody is one way and some Israelis, led by the brilliant Caroline Glick, quickly prepared the video below, which had been seen by more than three million people before YouTube took it down because of a bogus copyright violation protest, probably from a Muslim sympathizer. Have a few laughs as you appreciate the truth that's being conveyed.


Mark Steyn so often can capture reality in a way we all can understand.

All those big numbers in the Obama budget. What do they mean?

It's not the "debt" or the "deficit," it's the spending. And the only way to reduce that is with fewer government agencies, fewer government programs, fewer government employees, lower government salaries.

The horrifying fact is that the example of federal spending is being followed in too many states and cities and towns. Raise taxes to spend more and still the spending increases.


UNSUSTAINABLE

We are incentivizing financial unsustainability.

Mark Steyn

At the National Prayer Breakfast, Barack Obama singled out for praise Navy Corpsman Christian Bouchard. Or as the president called him, "Corpseman Bouchard." Twice.

Hey, not a big deal. Throughout his life, the commander-in-chief has had little contact with the military, and less interest. And, when you give as many speeches as this guy does, there's no time to rehearse or read through: You just gotta fire up the prompter and wing it. But it's revealing that nobody around him in the so-called smartest administration of all time thought to spell it out phonetically for him when the speech got typed up and loaded into the machine. Which suggests that either his minders don't know that he doesn't know that kinda stuff, or they don't know it either. To put it in Rumsfeldian terms, they don't know what they don't know.

Which is embarrassingly true. Hence, the awful flop speeches, from the Copenhagen Olympics to the Berlin Wall anniversary video to the Martha Coakley rally. The palpable whiff given off by the White House inner circle is that they're the last people on the planet still besotted by Barack Obama, and that they're having such a cool time starring in their own reality-show remake of The West Wing they can only conceive of the public -- and, indeed, the world -- as crowd-scene extras in The Barack Obama Show: They expect you to cheer and wave flags when the floor-manager tells you to, but the notion that in return he should be able to persuade you of the merits of his policies seems entirely to have eluded them.

But, since Obama's mispronunciation is a pithier summation of the State of the Union than any of the dreary 90-minute sludge he paid his speechwriters for, let us consider it: Is America a Corpseman walking?

Well, we're getting there. National Review's Jim Geraghty sums up Obama's America thus: "Unsustainable is the new normal." Indeed. The other day, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, described current deficits as "unsustainable." So let's make them even more so. The president tells us, with a straight face, that his grossly irresponsible profligate wastrel of a predecessor took the federal budget on an eight-year joyride, so the only way his sober, fiscally prudent successor can get things under control is to grab the throttle and crank it up to what Mel Brooks in Spaceballs (which seems the appropriate comparison) called "Ludicrous Speed."

Obama's spending proposes to take the average Bush deficit for the years 2001-2008, and double it, all the way to 2020. To get out of the Bush hole, we need to dig a hole twice as deep for one-and-a-half times as long. And that's according to the official projections of his Economics Czar, Ms. Rose Colored-Glasses. By 2015, the actual hole may be so deep that even if you toss every Obama speech down it on double-spaced paper you still won't be able to fill it up. In the spendthrift Bush days, federal spending as a proportion of GDP average 19.6 percent. Obama proposes to crank it up to 25 percent as a permanent feature of life.

But, if they're "unsustainable," what happens when they can no longer be sustained? A failure of bond auctions? A downgraded government debt rating? Reduced GDP growth? Total societal collapse? Mad Max on the New Jersey Turnpike?

Testifying to the House Budget Committee, Director Elmendorf attempted to pull back from the wilder shores of "unsustainable": "I think most observers expect that the government will act, that the unsustainability will be resolved through action, not through witnessing some collapse down the road," he said. "If literally nothing is done, then eventually something very, very bad happens. But I think the widespread view is that you and your colleagues will take action."

Dream on, you kinky fantasist. The one thing that can be guaranteed is that a political class led by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, a handful of reach-across-the-aisle Republican accomodationists and an economically illiterate narcissist in the Oval Office is never going to rein in unsustainable spending in any meaningful sense. That leaves Director Elmendorf's alternative scenario. What was it again? Oh, yeah: "Some collapse down the road."

Speaking of roads, I see that, according to USA Today, when the economic downturn began, the U.S. Department of Transportation had just one employee making over $170,000. A year and a half later, it has 1,690.

Happy days are here again!

Did you get your pay raise this year? What's that, you don't work for the government? Yes, you do, one way or another. Good luck relying on Obama, Pelosi, Frank, and the other Emirs of Kleptocristan "taking action" to "resolve" that. In the last month, the cost of insuring Greece's sovereign debt against default has doubled. Spain and Portugal are headed the same way. When you binge-spend at the Greek level in a democratic state, there aren't many easy roads back. The government has introduced an austerity package to rein in spending. In response, Greek tax collectors have walked off the job.

Read that again slowly: To protest government cuts, striking tax collectors are refusing to collect taxes. In a sane world, this would be a hilarious TV comedy sketch. But most of the Western world is no longer sane. It's tough enough to persuade the town drunk to sober up, but when everyone's face down in the moonshine, maybe it's best just to head for the hills. But where to flee? America is choosing to embrace Greece's future when even the Greeks have figured out you can't make it add up. Consider the opening paragraph of Martin Crutsinger, "AP Economics Writer": "WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama sent Congress a $3.83 trillion budget on Monday that would pour more money into the fight against high unemployment, boost taxes on the wealthy and freeze spending for a wide swath of government programs."

What language is that written in? How can a $3.83 trillion budget "freeze spending"? And where's the president getting all this money to "pour" into his "fight" against high unemployment? Would it perchance be from the same small businesses that might be hiring new workers if the president didn't need so much money to "pour" away? Heigh-ho. Maybe we can all be striking tax collectors. It seems a comfortable life . . .

If unsustainable is the new normal, it should also be the new national anthem. Take it away, Natalie Cole:

"Unsustainable
That's what you are
Unsustainable
Though near or far
Like a ton of debt you've dropped on us
How the thought of you has flopped on us
Never before
Has someone spent more . . . "

It's not the "debt" or the "deficit," it's the spending. And the only way to reduce that is with fewer government agencies, fewer government programs, fewer government employees, lower government salaries.

Instead, all four are rocketing up: We are incentivizing unsustainability, and, when it comes to "some collapse down the road," you'll be surprised how short that road is.

IS REALITY OVERTAKING OBAMA?

The idiocy of putting the Christmas bomber into the criminal law system is rightly condemned by Charles Krauthammer. But he sees a ray of iight in the President's densely blind world. Would we be this optimistic.


Obama's Guantanamo obsession

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 8, 2010; A21

On Wednesday, Nigerian would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was indicted by a Michigan grand jury for attempted murder and sundry other criminal charges. The previous day, the State Department announced that his visa had been revoked. The system worked.

Well, it did for Abdulmutallab. What he lost in flying privileges he gained in Miranda rights. He was singing quite freely when seized after trying to bring down Northwest Flight 253 over Detroit. But the Obama administration decided to give him a lawyer and the right to remain silent. We are now forced to purchase information from this attempted terrorist in the coin of leniency. Absurdly, Abdulmutallab is now in control.

And this is no ordinary information. He was trained by al-Qaeda in Yemen, and just days after he was lawyered up and shut up, the United States was forced to close its embassy in Yemen because of active threats from the same people who had trained and sent Abdulmutallab.

This is nuts. Even if you wanted ultimately to try him as an ordinary criminal, he could have been detained in military custody -- and thus subject to military interrogation -- without prejudicing his ultimate disposition. After all, every Guantanamo detainee was first treated as an enemy combatant and presumably interrogated. But some (most notoriously Khalid Sheik Mohammed) are going to civilian trial. That determination can be made later.

John Brennan, President Obama's counterterrorism adviser, professes an inability to see any "downsides" to treating Abdulmutallab as an ordinary criminal -- with a right to remain silent -- a view with which 71 percent of likely voters sensibly disagree.

The administration likes to defend itself by invoking a Bush precedent: Wasn't the shoe bomber treated the same way?

Yes. And it was a mistake, but in the context of the time understandable. That context does not remotely exist today.

Richard Reid struck three months after 9/11. The current anti-terror apparatus was not in place. Remember: This was barely a month after President Bush authorized the creation of military commissions and before that system had been even set up. Moreover, the Pentagon at the time was preoccupied with the Afghan campaign that brought down the Taliban in two months. The last major Taliban city, Kandahar, fell just two weeks before Reid tried to ignite his shoe on an airplane.

To be sure, after a few initial misguided statements, Obama did get somewhat serious about the Christmas Day attack. First, he instituted high-level special screening for passengers from 14 countries, the vast majority of which are Muslim with significant Islamist elements. This is the first rational step away from today's idiotic random screening and toward, yes, a measure of profiling -- i.e., focusing on the population most overwhelmingly likely to be harboring a suicide bomber.

Obama also sensibly suspended all transfers of Yemenis from Guantanamo. Nonetheless, Obama insisted on repeating his determination to close the prison, invoking his usual rationale of eliminating a rallying cry and recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.

Imagine that Guantanamo were to disappear tomorrow, swallowed in a giant tsunami. Do you think there'd be any less recruiting for al-Qaeda in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, London?

Jihadism's list of grievances against the West is not only self-replenishing but endlessly creative. Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa commanding universal jihad against America cited as its two top grievances our stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraqi suffering under anti-Saddam sanctions.

Today, there are virtually no U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. And the sanctions regime against Iraq was abolished years ago. Has al-Qaeda stopped recruiting? Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's No. 2, often invokes Andalusia in his speeches. For those not steeped in the multivolume lexicon of Islamist grievances, Andalusia refers to Iberia, lost by Islam to Christendom -- in 1492.

This is a fanatical religious sect dedicated to establishing the most oppressive medieval theocracy and therefore committed to unending war with America not just because it is infidel but because it represents modernity with its individual liberty, social equality (especially for women) and profound tolerance (religious, sexual, philosophical). You going to change that by evacuating Guantanamo?

Nevertheless, Obama will not change his determination to close Guantanamo. He is too politically committed. The only hope is that perhaps now he is offering his "recruiting" rationale out of political expediency rather than real belief. With suicide bombers in the air, cynicism is far less dangerous to the country than naivete.

WHAT WAR?

Why is Obama so reluctant to acknowledge what he must know? Islam is at war with America and will continue to be so until it has conquered America.

Was Obama, like many, if not most or all, Muslim-born babies, inculcated with the poison of Islam at birth? Does the poison still run through his veins?

Not the Manchurian candidate, but the Meccan candidate?

Hollow Words on Terrorism

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Janet Napolitano -- former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security -- will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: "The system worked." The attacker's concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son's jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.

Heck of a job, Brownie.

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters." Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York -- a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over -- that is, if it ever existed.

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare."

And produces linguistic -- and logical -- oddities that littered Obama's public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist." This is the same president who, after the Ford Hood shooting, warned us "against jumping to conclusions" -- code for daring to associate Nidal Hasan's mass murder with his Islamist ideology. Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the bomber acted alone.

More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."

Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians -- and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point -- surprise! -- he stops talking.

This absurdity renders hollow Obama's declaration that "we will not rest until we find all who were involved." Once we've given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.

This is all quite mad even in Obama's terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator -- no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.

The president said that this incident highlights "the nature of those who threaten our homeland." But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as "extremist(s)."

A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.

Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy -- jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon -- turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

There is no greater expert on the inadequacy and perils of bringing criminal charges against enemy combatants in civilian courts than Andrew McCarthy. McCarthy is the chief government attorney who successfully prosecuted the blind shiekh behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. As McCarthy recounts in his book Willful Blindness, many collaborators of the blind shiekh were not prosecuted because certain evidence could not be used against them without disclosing national security investigative secrets to the public, including our enemies at large.

McCarthy now details how maliciously wrong and contemptible and dangerous for American security the Obama/Holder decision is to try Khalid Mohammed in a civilian court in New York.

It is dangerous because of the heightened terrorist risk New York City will be exposed to.

It is dangerous because of the risk of exposing national security secrets to the defendants and their terrorist collaborators still on the loose and free to kill Americans.

It is malicious because the only reason for staging this trial in civilian court where it is impossible to limit discovery of national security information is to provide the "transnational left" with material to seek war crime trials in Europe against officials of the Bush Administration who developed and carried out the counterterrorism strategy that kept America safe since 9/11.

The dismantling of the nation's defenses against Islamic terrorism under Obama is already evident in the re-opening of the investigation of the actions of CIA employees who had already been investigated and cleared. It is evident in the Obama Administration instructions forbidding reference to "Islamic terrorism" and "war on terror." It is evident in the President's message at Fort Hood, calling the terrorist murder a "tragedy" and "incomprehensible" when to any unbiased observer it was was the first successful Islamic massacre on American soil since 9/11.

Now the Obama/Holder plan is to go even further and provide our Islamic enemies with information that will, in the words of Andrew McCarthy, "make our enemies more efficient at killing us."


November 16, 2009, 0:00 a.m.

Trial and Terror
The Left gets its reckoning.

By Andrew C. McCarthy in National Review Online

The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other top al-Qaeda terrorists to New York City for a civilian trial is one of the most irresponsible ever made by a presidential administration. That it is motivated by politics could not be more obvious. That it spells unprecedented danger for our security will soon become obvious.

The five 9/11 plotters were originally charged in a military commission. Military commissions have been approved by Congress and the courts. Eleven months ago, the jihadists were prepared to end the military case by pleading guilty and proceeding to execution. Plus, the Obama administration is continuing the commission system for other enemy combatants accused of war crimes. If we are going to have military commissions for any war criminals, it is senseless not to have them for the worst war criminals. In sum, there is no good legal or policy rationale for transferring these barbarians to the civilian justice system. Doing so will prompt a hugely costly three-ring circus of a trial, provide a soapbox for al-Qaeda's anti-American bile, and create a public-safety nightmare for New York City.

There is, however, a patent political rationale behind Obama's decision.

Continue reading . . .

Dr. Thomas Sowell of Stanford's Hoover Institution expresses his disgust and exasperation with Obama's betrayal.

Why is he endangering Americans?

The president is worse than a "jackass."

He is a danger to every American.


Deepest Bow Is Reserved For World Opinion

By THOMAS SOWELL
Posted 07:32 PM ET

In the string of amazing decisions made during the first year of the Obama administration, nothing seems more like sheer insanity than the decision to try foreign terrorists, who have committed acts of war against the United States, in federal court, as if they were American citizens accused of crimes.

Terrorists are not even entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions, much less the Constitution of the United States. Terrorists have never observed, nor even claimed to have observed, the Geneva Conventions, nor are they among those covered by it.

But over and above the utter inconsistency of what is being done is the utter recklessness it represents.

The last time an attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a matter of domestic criminal justice was after a bomb was exploded there in 1993. Under the rules of American criminal law, the prosecution had to turn over all sorts of information to the defense -- information that told the al-Qaida international terrorist network what we knew about them and how we knew it.

This was nothing more and nothing less than giving away military secrets to an enemy in wartime -- something for which people have been executed, as they should have been.

Secrecy in warfare is a matter of life and death. Lives were risked and lost during World War II to prevent Nazi Germany from discovering that Britain had broken its supposedly unbreakable Enigma code and could read their military plans that were being radioed in that code.

"Loose lips sink ships" was the World War II motto in the United States. But loose lips are mandated under the rules of criminal prosecutions.

Tragically, this administration seems hell-bent to avoid seeing acts of terrorism against the United States as acts of war. The very phrase "war on terrorism" is avoided, as if that will stop the terrorists' war on us.

The mind-set of the left behind such thinking was spelled out in a San Francisco Chronicle editorial, which said that "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the professed mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, will be tried the right way -- the American way, in a federal courtroom where the world will see both his guilt and the nation's adherence to the rule of law."

This is not the rule of law, but the application of laws to situations for which they were not designed.

How many Americans may pay with their lives for the intelligence secrets and methods that can be forced to be disclosed to al-Qaida was not mentioned. Nor was there mention of how many foreign nations and individuals whose cooperation with us in the war on terror has been involved in countering al-Qaida -- nor how many foreign nations and individuals will have to think twice now, before cooperating with us again, when their role can be revealed in court to our enemies, who can exact revenge on them.

Behind this decision and others is the notion that we have to demonstrate our good faith to other nations, sometimes called "world opinion." Just who are these saintly nations whose favor we must curry, at the risk of American lives and the national security of the United States?

Internationally, the law of the jungle ultimately prevails, despite pious talk about "the international community" and "world opinion," or the pompous and corrupt farce of the United Nations. Yet this is the gallery to which Barack Obama has been playing, both before and after becoming president of the United States.

In the wake of the obscenity of a trial of terrorists in federal court for an act of war -- and the worldwide propaganda platform it will give them -- it may seem to be a small thing that President Obama has been photographed yet again bowing deeply to a foreign ruler. But how large or small an act is depends on its actual consequences, not on whether the politically correct intelligentsia think it is no big deal.

As a private citizen, Barack Obama has a right to make as big a jackass of himself as he wants to. But as president of the United States, his actions not only denigrate a nation that other nations rely on for survival, but raise questions about how reliable our judgment and resolve are -- which in turn raises questions about whether those nations will consider themselves better off to make the best deal they can with our enemies.

We used to wonder what Obama was up to. Now we must wonder why.

Once again he is taking action that endangers all American citiziens.

He is putting on trial in an American courtroom the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11, who, with his collaborators in prison at Guantanamo, asked to be executed. Andrew McCarthy, who successfully prosecuted those behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, outlines the damage that Obama is doing:

This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder -- and his boss [Barack Obama] -- had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution.

The continuing of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign.

It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments. Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.

Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses -- intelligence sources -- must expose themselves and their secrets.

Let's take stock of where we are at this point. KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.

Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.

So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence.

That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and -- depending on what judge catches the case -- they are likely to be given a lot of it.

The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see -- in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts.

And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.

Rush Limbaugh on Fox News Sunday, November 1, 2009

Obama is "immature," "childish" and a danger to America.

Asked if he had but one question to ask of Obama, what would it be, LImbaugh said, Why are you doing this to America? What is it you don't like about America that you want to inflct this kind of damage on America?


PART 1

PART 2


PART 3

SOWELL ON OBAMA "DISMANTLING AMERICA"

Thomas Sowell and Charles Krauthammer are the two greatest thinkers writing on contemporary affairs in America today. If only Sowell had become the first black president, what a different world it would be!

Krauthammer recently wrote on Obama's deliberate plan to lead America into decline so it would be just another country to be neither envied or feared. That Americans would suffer economically and perhaps physically (as a result of emboldened attackers) doesn't seem to concern him at all.

Now Dr. Sowell adds his analysis of the harm Obama is doing to America.



October 27, 2009
Dismantling America
By Thomas Sowell

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

Continue . . .

As usual, Mark Steyn says it better than anybody:

For two years, the U.S. media have been polishing Obama's boots, mostly with their drool, to a degree unprecedented in American public life.

While he's oh so tough with Fox News, he's a laughingstock in Russia, Iran and North Korea, imperiling all Americans with his weakness.

October 24, 2009, 7:00 a.m. Mister Tough Guy Who are the real "Untouchables" here?

By Mark Steyn in National Review Online

Benjamin Disraeli's most famous advice to aspiring politicians was: "Never complain and never explain." For the greatest orator of our time, a man who makes Churchill, Lincoln, and Henry V at Agincourt look like first-round rejects on Orating with the Stars, Barack Obama seems to have pretty much given up on the explaining side. He tried it with health care with speech after speech after exclusive interview for months on end and the more he explained the more unpopular the whole racket got. So he declared that the time for explaining is over, and it's time to sign on or else.

Meanwhile, to take the other half of the Disraeli equation, Obama and his officials and their beleaguered band of surrogates never stop complaining. If you express concerns about government health care, they complain about all these "racists" and "domestic terrorists" obstructing his agenda. If you wonder why the president can't seem to find time in his hectic schedule of international-awards acceptance speeches to make a decision about Afghanistan, they complain that it's not his fault he "inherited" all these problems. And, if you wonder why his "green jobs" czar is a Communist 9/11 truther and his National Endowment for the Arts guy is leaning on grant recipients to produce Soviet-style propaganda extolling Obama policies, they complain about Fox News.

Continue. . .

CHICAGO THUGGERY MARKS WHITE HOUSE

Michael Barone shows his distaste for Obama's Chicago-style thuggery.


Obama hits opponents with Chicago brass knuckles

By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
October 21, 2009

"His father was a great friend of my father." The reference to William Ayers' father was how Mayor Richard J. Daley began his defense of Barack Obama for his association with the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist. Daley's father of course was Richard M. Daley, mayor of Chicago from 1955 until his death in 1976. Ayers' father was head of Commonwealth Edison, the Chicago-based utility, from 1964 to 1980.

You bet they were great friends. That's governance, Chicago style. The head of government is friends with the heads of every big business, lobby and union, and together they make decisions on how everyone else will live. Those on the inside get what they want. Those on the outside -- well, they get what the big guys want them to have. That's life in the big city.

It's not the worst way to run a city. I know; I'm from Detroit, which might be better off if it had mayors named Daley for 41 of the last 54 years. But it's not the optimal way to run a national administration, at least if you've promised to bring in a new era of bipartisanship and mutual respect. Even so, it appears to be the way that Obama, who once aspired to be mayor of Chicago, has decided to run his administration.

We can see that nowhere better than on the health care issue. Over the spring and summer, the White House door has been wide open to lobbyists from health care businesses. The doctors' lobby has gotten promises that physician payments won't be knocked down too much. In return they are expected to lobby for whatever bill the congressional Democrats come up with.

The pharmaceutical firms' lobbyist, former House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, has gotten assurances that his clients' business model won't be wrecked any more than it already has been by stringent regulation. In return the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America is running TV ads for health care reform.

The health insurance companies were on board too. Until, that is, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus presented his bill requiring them to cover anyone who applies but exacting only small fines from healthy individuals who decide not to buy insurance until they get sick. Since this looked like a quick road to bankruptcy, the health insurers' lobby commissioned a study that pointed out, correctly I think, that the Baucus bill would increase the cost of insurance to those who already have it.

The response of the Chicago-style Obama White House was reminiscent of the response of the late Mayor Daley when asked an inconvenient question by a reporter whose father and brother were Democratic precinct committeemen. "Sometimes in the best of families, there's a bad apple," replied Daley, to the bewilderment of reporters from out of town. A bad apple is, in Chicago, a former great friend who is not playing team ball.

So the health insurers have been denounced by White House spokesmen and Democratic congressional leaders as foul fiends and gougers of working families. Prominent Democrats have been talking about revoking insurance companies' exemption from the antitrust laws (granted so that small firms would have access to data needed to compete with the giants). Translated into Chicagoese: Nice little insurance company you got there. Too bad if something happened to it.

The same treatment is being given to Fox News, which, according to White House spokesmen "is not a news organization." "Other news organizations, like yours," Obama consigliere David Axelrod told ABC News, "ought not to treat them that way." In other words, when Fox breaks the news that the White House green czar is a self-proclaimed "communist" or that operatives of pro-Obama Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now have been aiding and abetting child prostitution, other news outlets should spike the story. Or risk being demoted from great friend to bad apple.

Last February Obama told Fox News (to which I am a contributor), "I don't always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that's part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we're not supposed to all be in lockstep here."

Now we are. Maybe Obama thought everyone in Washington would be his great friend. Having encountered un-Chicago-like dissent and disagreement, he has responded with classic Chicago brass knuckles. We'll see how far this kind of thuggery gets him.


Michael Barone, The Examiner's senior political analyst

Here is a companion piece to Charles Krauthammer's analysis of Obama's deliberate plan to drive America into economic and military power decline.

The centerpiece of Obama's strategy to seize control of American lives to make economic decline a reality not just a hope is "health care reform." With the government in charge of health care, costs will do nothing but skyrocket. Government-run Medicaid and Medicare are two excellent examples to use for forecasting.

Now the economist writer Robert Samuelson analyzes some new statistics about American population growth and spending and finds that, indeed, Obama can deliver the decline in the American standard of living he seeks. After all, why should Americans live better than others in the world?

Some excerpts:

Every generation of Americans should live better than its predecessor. That's Americans' core definition of economic "progress." But for today's young, it may be a mirage. Higher health spending, increasing energy prices and stretched governments at all levels may squeeze future disposable incomes -- what people have to spend -- and public services. Are we condemning our children to downward mobility?
The young's future has been heavily mortgaged. Taken together, all these demands might neutralize gains in per capita incomes, especially if the economy's performance, burdened by higher taxes or budget deficits, deteriorated. One study by Steven Nyce and Sylvester Schieber of Watson Wyatt Worldwide, a consulting firm, examined just health spending. The continuation of present trends would result in "falling wages at the bottom of the earnings spectrum and very slow wage growth on up the earnings distribution. These dismal wage outcomes would persist over at least the next couple of decades."
The health debate has focused on insuring the uninsured and de-emphasized controlling runaway spending, much of which is ineffective. The priorities should have been reversed. The chance to reorder the medical-industrial complex to restrain costs and improve care has been mostly squandered. Some call this "reform"; no one should call it progress.


A Path to Downward Mobility. Read it all.

Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the OBAMA UNDERMINING AMERICA category.

Obama is the previous category.

Obama's death cult is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.