The Neville Awards
Home | The Liberals' Corner | Hypocrisy Watch | Recommended Media | The Butcher's Bill |
Obama's Daily March To Socialism & Surrender | The Obama Gallery | Videos


Obama Musings 2009 -- Our Daily March to Socialism and Surrender


Obama's EPA Does End Run Around Congress -- Declares CO2 Gas to be a Pollutant

Obama to Send 30,000 Troops to Afghanistan, Announces Surrender-July 2011

UN's IAEA Censures Iran -- That'll Show 'Em

Obama Bows in Japan -- Gets Butt Kicked in China

One Million Jobs Saved or Created in Non-Existent State Districts

9-11 Terrorists to Stand Trial in NY -- Thank You Sir May I Have Another

Obama Abandoning Afghanistan...Votes 'Present' on New Troop Levels

Muslim jihadist kills 13, injures 30 at Ft. Hood -- Eight year string of no attacks on American soil comes to an end

Obama and the Dems Get Their "War On"...Compile Enemies List

Obama Will Sign Away U.S. Sovereignty in December in Copenhagen

Obama's Appeasement Fast Tracks Iran's Nuclear Program

Obama's Disarmament Disconnect


Obama Apology Tour Stops at the UN

Obama Sells out Eastern Europe -- Scraps Missile Shield

Obama to Propagandize Students

Eric Holder's Affinity for Terrorists and Crooks

Obama's Vacation Blues Part 2 -- Misplacing $2 Trillion

Obama's Vacation Blues Part 1 -- Prosecuting the CIA

Healthcare Debate Down to a Temporary Simmer...That Doesn't Mean the World Has Stopped

The War on Terror is Over -- Somebody Inform the Enemy

Obama, Cronkite & the False Liberal Historical Narrative

Obama Gives Away the Nuclear Store in Moscow, Fails at G8 Climate Change Summit

An Outbreak of Actual Journalism

The Obama Administration -- Like Jimmy Carter, Soft on Tyranny

Obama & Iran -- The President's Anti-Israel Agenda in Smithereens

Uprising in Iran -- Where is the President?

Obama Fires Americorps Inspector General

Obama Wants Miranda Rights for Terrorists

Obama in Cairo -- A Study in Moral Relativism

Sotomayor -- Aggrieved Minority Empathy Trumps Jurisprudence

Cheney Obama Smackdown -- Who Won?

Obama Completing the Nationalization of U.S. Auto Industry -- Impossible CAFE Standards

Obama Leaving Terrorists at Gitmo for the Time Being -- Re-Opening Military Tribunals

Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load 'Unsustainable'....Really?

Obama Says He Will Fight the Release of Torture Pics

Pelosi Knew About CIA Waterboarding in Sept. 2002

Specter to be Junior Senator from Pennsylvania

Obama to Release Prisoner Photographs Under Pressure From ACLU

Obama's Mea Culpa Tour Part 2, The Latin America Chapter

Obama Open to Prosecuting Bush Lawyers Who Designed the Interrogation Procedures

Obama Releases CIA Documents Disclosing Interrogation Techniques

Obama and the Dems Snuggling Up to Castro and Cuba

Dept. of Homeland Security to Target "Right Wing Extremists"

Obama Lawyered Up Before Giving Official Go-Ahead to Rescue Captain

No Response from Administration Regarding Muslim Pirate Attack

Little Barack's Excellent G20 Adventure

Obama:Judicial Transnationalism and Judicial Activism

Obama Considering Welfare for Freed Gitmo Detainees

A bill to shift cybersecurity to White House

Congressional Budget Office: Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade

Congress passing Obama's 'Brownshirt Legislation', 'The Give Act' and the 'Serve America Act'

Obama Administration Disarming Airline Pilots

Obama's Little Love Note to the Iranians

Obama Taps ACORN to handle 2010 Census

Obama Wants Control of the Census
The Sound Obama Economy
Energy Czarette Carol Browner on Climate Change -- Obama Wants Your Thermostat
Obama Administration Is Open to Taxing Health Benefits
Obama Administration Is Open to Forcing Wounded Vets to pay for Health Care


Back to Top

Obama's EPA Does End Run Around Congress -- Declares CO2 Gas to be a Pollutant

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

Dec. 8, 2009


Congress became less relevant on our march to totalitarianism as EPA Admin Lisa Jackson and Climate Czar Carol Browner declared CO2 gas a dangerous pollutant.

This opens the way for the EPA to impose the regulations that Congress can't pass through the stalled Cap and Trade bill. All aboard. This way to Communism!!!

From the Wall St. Journal:

An Inconvenient Democracy-The EPA aims to bully Congress and business with its carbon ruling
DECEMBER 8, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748703558004574582284174773944.html


EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said yesterday that her ruling that greenhouses gases are dangerous pollutants would "cement 2009's place in history" as the moment when the U.S. began "seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform." She's right that this is an historic decision, though not to her or the White House's credit, and "seizing" is the right term. President Obama isn't about to let a trifle like democratic consent impede his climate agenda.

With cap and trade blown apart in the Senate, the White House has chosen to impose taxes and regulation across the entire economy under clean-air laws that were written decades ago and were never meant to apply to carbon. With this doomsday machine activated, Mr. Obama hopes to accomplish what persuasion and debate among his own party manifestly cannot.

This reckless "endangerment finding" is a political ultimatum: The many Democrats wary of levelling huge new costs on their constituents must surrender, or else the EPA's carbon police will inflict even worse consequences.

The gambit is also meant to coerce businesses, on the theory that they'll beg for cap and trade once the command-and-control regulatory pain grows too acute—not to mention the extra bribes in the form of valuable carbon permits that Democrats, since you ask, are happy to dispense. Ms. Jackson appealed to "the science" and waved off any political implications, yet the formal finding was not coincidentally announced at the start of the U.N.'s Copenhagen climate conference (see above).

This ruling has been inevitable since at least April and we warned about it during Mr. Obama's campaign, but its cynicism and willfulness still astonish. The political threat is so potent precisely because invoking a faulty interpretation of the 1970 Clean Air Act will expose hundreds of thousands of "major" sources of emissions that produce more than 250 tons of an air pollutant in a year to the EPA's costly and onerous review process. This threshold might be reasonable for traditional "dirty" pollutants (such as NOX) but it makes no sense for ubiquitous carbon, which is the byproduct of almost all types of economic production.

The White House knows this, which is why earlier this fall Ms. Jackson announced a "tailoring rule" that limits this regulation to sources that emit more than 25,000 or more tons a year like coal-fired power plants and heavy manufacturing. Ms. Jackson claims this unilateral rewrite of a statute is a concession, but its real purpose is to dodge a political backlash while still preserving the EPA's ability to threaten business and recalcitrant Democrats.

For now, this decision moves into the courts, and years if not decades of litigation. Yet the decision really is historic: The White House has opened a Pandora's box that will be difficult to close, that is breathtakingly undemocratic, and that the country, if not liberal politicians, will come to regret.


Back to Top

Obama to Send 30,000 Troops to Afghanistan, Announces Surrender-July 2011

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

Dec. 2, 2009


After pondering, and pondering, and pondering some more, and then playing some golf and traveling to China, our Fraudinator-in-Chief has made his decision.

He will committ 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and engage in some nation-building to boot. He also announced our surrender date to the Taliban and al-Qeada -- July 2011...just in time for the 2012 election.

The troop increase is much less than Gen. McChrystal's four month old request that 40,000-60,000 more troops be deployed.

Obama qualified his surrender timeline by insisting that "we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground." That makes surrender a little more palatable.

Obama made his intentions clear while defiling the Eisenhower Auditorium at West Point. There was the usual Bush bashing, lots of 'I did this' and 'I did that' and a lot of gassing around about human rights, Pakistan, our relationship with the Middle East and the Peace Corp.

And the troops have a new mission. Will our soldiers will finally be permitted to go after our enemies and kill them? Fuggetaboutit. Our boys are going to "secure population centers." We'll be passive and let the enemy choose where and when to strike. Obama is creating targets for a shooting gallery.

What there was no word of was 'victory' or 'winning'. Those words do not exist in the Leftist/Liberal lexicon.

Gen. Curtis Lemay is rolling in his grave with this new policy.

Col. Ralph Peters in the NY Post:

What messages did our president's bait-and-switch speech just send?
  • To our troops: Risk your lives for a mission I've written off.
  • To our allies: Race you to the exit ramp.
  • To the Taliban: Allah is merciful, your prayers will soon be answered.
  • To Afghan leaders: Get your stolen wealth out of the country.
  • To Pakistan: Renew your Taliban friendships now (and be nice to al Qaeda).
As was expected Obama is already receiving flak from the left wing of the Surrendocrats:

MoveOn.org issued a blistering email to members charging that the Obama plan "deepens our involvement in a quagmire." (That's one of the libs favorite words)

Bill Maher accused Obama of sounding like Bush after presidential address on War in Afghanistan.

Any Democrat has a built-in problem with prosecuting a war. In trying to figure a way out without looking like a coward Obama will anger his base by sending troops or anger the rest of the country by surrendering.

So Obama chose to piss everyone off...he's sending more troops and surrendering.

Way to go Barack!!

Back to Top

UN's IAEA Censures Iran -- That'll Show 'Em

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

Dec. 1, 2009


Back in September 2009 our Fraudinator-in-Chief revealed that Iran had a previously undisclosed uranium enrichment facility in the city of Qom. Obama called Iran's activity "a direct challenge" to the international community. "Tough talk" as usual from Obama.

We also found out that Obama knew about the site since before his inauguration, and he still wanted to talk to the Iranians without pre-conditions.

Tehran has upped the ante again. The Iranian government ordered up 10 additional uranium enrichment plants on the scale of its already operational facility in Natanz, which has a planned capacity of 54,000 centrifuges. That could mean an eventual total of more than 500,000 centrifuges, or enough to enrich about 160 bombs worth of uranium each year.

Obviously the Mullahs view Obama as a pantywaist.

Outgoing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief and Iran enabler Mohamed ElBaradei capped his failed 12-year stint as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency by announcing that negotiations with Iran have reached a 'dead end'. Mr. ElBaradei combined his rebuke of Iran with his familiar calls for more negotiation. His admission of failure proves that Dick Cheney and John Bolton have been right about Iran all along.

The toothless IAEA governing board finally got around to voting 25 to 3 to rebuke Iran for building the Qom facility in secret. The resolution was the first by the IAEA against Iran in almost four years.

Obama hailed the vote because the Russians and the Chinese were onboard. But this censure vote is meaningless unless the IAEA can get the Russians and the Chinese to go along with sanctions. As Iran's primary weapons suppliers it's doubtful. as to whether they will go along.

The IAEA's efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons during Mohamed ElBaradei's tenure is judged a failure because, for years, North Korea played a cat-and-mouse game with IAEA inspectors. This year, North Korea conducted an underground test of what many experts believe was a nuclear weapon.

Combine this with Iran's braziness and you have a recipe for disaster. The moment Obama leaves office is the moment the United States should exit the U.N and kick this front for dictators out of New York.....if we are not sitting in a pile of our own rubble by then.

Back to Top

Obama Bows in Japan -- Gets Butt Kicked in China

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

November 23, 2009


So take me to the airport
And put me on a plane
I got no expectations
To pass through here again
-- No Expectations, M. Jagger/K. Richards

Normally, when a competent administration travels overseas for international parley there is the reasonable expectation of success because the deal has already been struck through backchannels prior to the trip. That's so the President can have his "money shot" claiming "mission accomplished" for the historic event. The notable exception was President Reagan walking out on the Russians at Rekjavic. The money shot there was the President protecting America's nuclear advantage.

This administration has a disturbing pattern of going overseas without a done deal and then getting a "beat down"...the Olympics and Hillary's most recent trip to Russia come to mind. Now we have our Fraudinator-in-Chief jetting off to Asia on his latest apology tour where he:
  • Bowed to the Emperor of Japan
  • Was not allowed to address the Chinese people directly on television and met only with "approved" Chinese groups (sort of like his scripted townhalls)
The big accomplishment and money shot was Obama gazing serenely from the Great Wall of China. The White House explained that these perfectly choreographed pictures of this moment would make front pages around the world.

And this helps us how?

For most Americans, the most talked-about moment of the trip was not the Great Wall visit but his low bow to Emperor Akihito of Japan, which the president's right-wing critics assailed as "a spineless blunder" and excessively deferential. Obama seems to show his rump often, spontaneously and inexplicably, as with his bow to the Saudi King some months ago.

On China Leslie Gelb of the Daily Beast had this to say:

...some criticized Obama for not getting China to "throw its weight around." Others lamented that Obama couldn't make "demands" on China anymore. The presumption here is that China is now king, and that Washington can no longer have its way with Beijing. The facts are that Washington never did boss Beijing around, and that China is not now ruling the roost (more accurately, it's sitting on its own eggs). Others contended that Obama continued his pattern of trashing America's friends and coddling its authoritarian enemies like China.

So far we nothing to show for eleven months of soft diplomacy. Here is a cliff notes review:
  • Israel - Obama wanted: A freeze on settlement building as a precondition for the resumption of Palestinian peace talks. He got: An Israeli brush-off. Construction of a new Jewish housing complex began last week.
  • Iran - Obama wanted: A deal to ship low-enriched uranium to Russia to curb Iran's ability to make nuclear weapons. He got: Another brush-off. Tehran reneged last week.
  • China - Obama wanted: Concessions on climate, currency rates, trade and human rights. He got: A bland statement with no firm commitments and no mention of internet censorship or Tibet.


Back to Top

One Million Jobs Saved or Created in Non-Existent State Districts

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

November 19, 2009


On a Friday afternoon news dump, Oct. 30, our Fraudinator-in-Chief delivered the following news: responding to increasing criticism of the stimulus's failure to curb rising unemployment, the White House announced it had "created or saved" at least one million jobs since February. It hoped for one weekend in which the "million jobs created or saved" mantra had a relatively free and uncontested run before economists chewed the number up and spit it out. A week later, the unemployment rate hit 10.2%.

The phrase "saved or created" is meaningless Orwellian newspeak. What is not meaningless is that these imaginary jobs were created in state districts that don't exist.

Following it's outbreak of legitimate journalism on the Maj. Hasan/Ft. Hood story ABC News broke the story that Recovery.gov, the website that is supposed to be tracking "every penny" of the stimulus money, was reporting bogus information.

Read and enjoy:

Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist
Human Error Blamed for Crediting New Stimulus Jobs to Nonexistent Places
By JONATHAN KARL
Nov. 16, 2009


Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the Web site set up by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.

There's one problem, though: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona; the state has only eight districts.

And ABC News has found many more entries for projects like this in places that are incorrectly identified.

Late Monday, officials with the Recovery Board created to track the stimulus spending, said the mistakes in crediting nonexistent congressional districts were caused by human error.

"We report what the recipients submit to us," said Ed Pound, Communications Director for the Board.

Pound told ABC News the board receives declarations from the recipients - state governments, federal agencies and universities - of stimulus money about what program is being funded.

"Some recipients clearly don't know what congressional district they live in, so they appear to be just throwing in any number. We expected all along that recipients would make mistakes on their congressional districts, on jobs numbers, on award amounts, and so on. Human beings make mistakes," Pound said.

The issue has raised hackles on Capitol Hill.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc, who chairs the powerful House appropriations Committee, issued a paper statement demanding that the recovery.gov Web site be updated.

"The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes."

ABC News was able to locate several examples on the government's Web site outlining hundreds of millions of dollars spent and jobs created in Congressional districts that have been misidentified.

For example, recovery.gov says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent in Arizona's 86th congressional district in a project for the Navajo Housing authority, which is actually located in the 1st congressional district.

The reporting problems are not limited to Arizona, ABC News found.
  • In Oklahoma, recovery.gov lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in yet more congressional districts that don't exist.
  • In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent . and 39 jobs created -- in nonexistent districts.
  • In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.
  • The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well.
  • $68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
  • $8.4 million spent and 40.3 jobs created in the 99th congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
  • $1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands.
  • $47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district.


Back to Top

9-11 Terrorists to Stand Trial in NY -- Thank You Sir May I Have Another

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

November 16, 2009


Our Fraudinator-in-Chief and terrorist coddling AG Eric Holder have announced that 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and five other terrorists will be transferred from Gitmo to NY to stand trial in New York federal court. What could go wrong with that?

Holder: "After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York - to New York, to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood. To the extent that there are political consequences, I'll just have to take my lumps."

Well, plenty could go wrong...here's the short list:
  • Bringing these lowlifes to NY gives them a global stage for propaganda being sent to Middle East everyday
  • It's a recruiting tool for terrorists
  • Security risks: Leaked national security information is inevitable
  • Evidence gleened from coerced interrogation may be inadmissable
  • The trials will be turned into a daily indictment of the CIA and the Bush Administration
  • There is a possibility of acquittal through jury nullification (can you say O.J. Simpson?)
  • If acquitted the terrorists could turn around and sue the U.S.
  • The case thrown out by a liberal judge on a technicality - i.e. they were not mirandized
  • Lawyers for the accused will almost certainly try to have charges thrown out based on the rough treatment of the detainees at the hands of U.S. interrogators, including the repeated waterboarding, or simulated drowning, of KSM.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said bringing the terrorism suspects into the U.S. "is a step backwards for the security of our country and puts Americans unnecessarily at risk."

Former President George W, Bush's last attorney general, Michael Mukasey, a former federal judge in New York, also objected that federal courts were not well suited to this task. "The plan seems to be to abandon the view that we are at war," Mukasey told a conference of conservative lawyers. He said trial in open court "creates a cornucopia of intelligence for those still at large and a circus for those being tried," and he advocated military tribunals instead.

But Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the federal courts are capable of trying high-profile terrorism cases.

"By trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system - a system respected around the world." Gosh, we at Neville feel better already because the "other" nutbag from Vermont says so.

This is Team Obama giving America the big middle digit...as they have been doing since January 20, 2009. Let us review....again.
  • Obama's first big decision was to annaounce the closing of Gitmo.
  • Obama has gone overseas on endless apology tours.
  • Obama bows before kings and emperors
  • Obama sold out Eastern Europe (the missile shield) and Israel (settlements).
  • Obama got nothing from the Iranians and Russia and nuclear proliferation talks
  • Obama gave a 'shout-out' to whoever at the press conference just after the Ft. Hood terrorist attack. It was a full three minutes he got around to the attacks.
  • Obama policies on spending has caused the U.S. dollar to free-fall...the world is calling for a new reserve currency.
  • Obama has populated his administration with anti-free-market America haters, communists (Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Carol Browner) Dr. Strangelove types (John Holdren, Cass Sunstien) and a pedophile (Kevin Jennings).
  • Obama has been dithering for three months on Afghanistan, trying to figure a way out without looking like he is surrendering
Did we miss anything? Probably. There is an outrage a day with these guys.

Who's side are these guys on? It's obvious. not ours.

How different Obama is from FDR, who personally took control of the case against eight Nazi saboteurs and appointed his AG Francis Biddle to prosecute the case in a military tribunal. FDR was concerned that if the case went to a U.S. court the saboteurs could walk. Instead the case was resolved in eight weeks and six of the eight were electrocuted. The other two were given lengthy prison sentences. We can expect KSM's case to go on for years.

Eric Holder is a senior partner in the lawfirm Covington & Burling. His firm represents Yemeni terrorists at Gitmo. Holder was directly responsible for freeing FALN terrorists as deputy AG in the Clinton administration against the advice of the CIA, the FBI and the NYPD. Holder is a fraud and a terrorists' best friend.

Obama is the commander of a fifth column and a disgrace and any senior official in the law enforcement and intelligence wing of the Obama administration should resign in protest. Gates, Panetta?

As always the Wall St. Journal nails it:

KSM Hits Manhattan-Again
NOVEMBER 14, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748703683804574533622533459520.html


Eric Holder's decision to move a trial on war crimes to American soil is morally confused, dangerous and political to a fault.

Attorney General Eric Holder, who dropped this legal bomb on New York yesterday, called his decision to move their trial on war crimes from a military courtroom at Guantanamo Bay to American soil "the toughest" he has had to make. Other words come to mind. For starters, intellectually and morally confused, dangerous and political to a fault.

This decision befits President Obama's rushed and misguided announcement on his second day in office that he would close Gitmo within a year. This was before the Administration had thought through what to do with the 215 prisoners there, though it did win him applause in Europe and on the American left. Yesterday's decision rids Gitmo of these meddlesome detainee cases in order to speed up this entirely political shutdown.

Please spare us talk of the "rule of law." If that was the primary consideration, the U.S. already has a judicial process in place. The current special military tribunals were created by the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which was adopted with bipartisan Congressional support after the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision obliged the executive and legislative branches to approve a detailed plan to prosecute the illegal "enemy combatants" captured since 9/11.

Contrary to liberal myth, military tribunals aren't a break with 200-plus years of American jurisprudence. Eight Nazis who snuck into the U.S. in June 1942 were tried by a similar court and most were hanged within two months. Before the Obama Administration stopped all proceedings earlier this year pending yesterday's decision, the tribunals at Gitmo had earned a reputation for fairness and independence.

As it happens, Mr. Holder acknowledged their worth himself by announcing that the Guantanamo detainee who allegedly planned the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole off Yemen and four others would face military commission trials. (The Pentagon must now find a locale other than the multimillion-dollar, state-of-the-art facility at Gitmo for its tribunal.)

Why the difference? Mr. Holder seemed to suggest that the Cole bombers struck a military target overseas and thus are a good fit for a military trial, while KSM and comrades hit the U.S. and murdered civilians and thus deserve a U.S. civilian trial. But this entirely misunderstands that both groups are unlawful enemy combatants who are accused of war crimes, whatever their targets. Mr. Holder's justification betrays not a legal consistency but a fundamentally political judgment that he can make as he sees fit.

The Military Commissions Act, by contrast, devised a careful, consistent legal process for every detainee. Remember when critics blamed President Bush for exercising too much executive discretion?

Mr. Holder expressed confidence that KSM and the rest will be convicted, but it is telling that he also delayed filing formal charges. Will KSM be formally charged with the 9/11 murders, or merely with "material support" for terrorism or some lesser offense? The specific charges may depend on how much evidence is admissable in a civilian courtroom. The MCA allowed for the reality that much of the evidence against enemy combatants may be classified, and it allowed for some hearsay evidence on grounds that they have been picked up on a battlefield, not in Brooklyn. There is no CSI: Kandahar. A civilian court has far tighter rules of evidence.

KSM and his co-conspirators so far have refused legal counsel and at one point tried to plead guilty. They may again. But an army of self-declared defenders of human rights from Yale Law and Sherman & Sterling will clamor to represent them. Those lawyers are certain to challenge all evidence obtained after KSM's March 2003 capture on grounds that it was produced by "torture," if you call waterboarding torture.

As he said at a hearing in 2007, "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z." But even that admission will probably be challenged on grounds that the trauma of his "torture" means he wasn't capable of "informed consent." Oh, and once he got to Gitmo in 2006, he may not have been read his Miranda rights in full. The possibility exists that one or more of these detainees could be acquitted on procedural grounds, which would be a travesty of justice.

One certain outcome is that an open civilian trial will provide valuable information to terrorists across the world about American methods and intelligence. Precisely because so much other evidence may not be admissable, prosecutors may have to reveal genuine secrets to get a conviction. Osama bin Laden learned a lot from the 1995 prosecution in New York of the "blind cleric" Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman for the first World Trade Center attack. His main tip was that the U.S. considered bin Laden a terrorist co-conspirator, leading him to abandon his hideout in Sudan for Afghanistan.

Terrorists also love a big stage, and none come bigger than New York. Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, made his civilian trial a spectacle. Not even the best judge can entirely stop KSM and others from doing the same. And Mr. Holder has invited grave and needless security risks by tempting jihadists the world over to strike Manhattan while the trial is in session.

Most Americans, we suspect, can overlook the legal niceties and see this episode through the lens of common sense. Foreign terrorists who wage war on America and everything it stands for have no place sitting in a court of law born of the values they so detest. Mr. Holder has honored mass murder by treating it like any other crime.


Back to Top

Obama Abandoning Afghanistan…Votes 'Present' on New Troop Levels

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

November 12, 2009


The 'necessary and just' war just isn't that necessary anymore. Liberal hearts were never in it anyway. Obama and the Democrats just used Afghanistan to pose as tought guys, elect Obama and bash Bush over the head for Iraq. But they never had the heart to really prosecute the Afghan war. Now it looks like the Democrat plan was always to figure out an Afghan exit strategy as soon as possible without looking like the appeasers and cowards that they are.

On the heels of the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9-11 our Fraudinator-in-Chief has made a decision on Gen. Stanley McChrystal's three month old request that 40,000 more troops be deployed in Afghanistan…he wants more time to study all the proposals. Obama is voting 'present.'

Obama's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan could make him the first president to lose two wars in one administration.

"Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false. He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources. Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources," said retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones, the White House national security adviser.

Reports are that Rahm was very angry about the leaks.

The statement by Gen. Jones came just hours after White House spokesman Robert Gibbs announced that Obama will convene his war (surrender) council for further consultations before making his decision. It's the eighth such meeting Obama has presided over as he weighs his options for Afghanistan.

Yes, Barack wants new options...the original excuse for stalling was the Karzai election results. Karzai is still our man (Bush's man in reality) in Afghanistan, much to Obama's chagrin. He would probably like to see Taliban Chief Mullah Omar restored to power.

Defense Sec. Robert Gates, speaking to reporters on a flight to Oshkosh, Wisconsin, said Obama wanted his decision on troop levels to "signal resolve and at the same time, signal to the Afghans as well as to the American people that this isn't an open-ended commitment."

Where have we heard that before? Oh yes, this was the same message we received from Democrats in congress regarding Iraq when they were clamoring for their exit strategy, twenty minutes after the Iraq War started.

Meanwhile Obama is off to party in Asia for ten days while our troops soldier on without sufficient resources.

Barack Obama…a true profile in courage.

Back to Top

Muslim jihadist kills 13, injures 30 at Ft. Hood -- Eight year string of no attacks on American soil comes to an end

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

November 6, 2009


Neville Update: November 10, 2009

Obama Administration and mainstream media Muslim connection coverup in full swing

As we predicted in our original post the media will downplay or ignore outright the Muslim connection out of political correctness.

Here are some obvious examples:

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Casey: And frankly, I am worried — not worried, but I’m concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that. It would be a shame — as great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.

Janet Napolitano speaking to female students at Zayed University in Dubai: "We object to, and do not believe, that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this. This was an individual who does not represent the Muslim faith. Describing the killings as "a terrible tragedy", Ms Napolitano said a civil rights and civil liberties directorate in her department aimed to "prevent everybody being painted with a broad brush. That work is ongoing and is part and parcel of how we view security," she said. "One of the things we'll do is make sure that we're reaching out to the state and local authorities within the US, because they often have better outreach to members of the Muslim community than we do."

Newsweek's Evan Thomas regretted the Fort Hood mass murderer, Major Nidal Hasan, is a Muslim because of how that reality will be "abused" by conservatives. On this weekend's Inside Washington, Thomas whined:

I cringe that he's a Muslim. I mean, because it inflames all the fears. I think he's probably just a nut case. But with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going and it just -- I mean these things are tragic, but that makes it much worse.


Neville Update: November 9, 2009

ABC News has learned the following about Malik Nadal Hasan:

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.

A fellow Army doctor who studied with Hasan, Val Finell, told ABC News, “We would frequently say he was a Muslim first and an American second. And that came out in just about everything he did at the University.

Hasan attended a Falls Church Virginia mosque at the same time as two of the 9/11 hijackers. Investigators want to know if Hasan maintained contact with the radical mosque leader Anwar al Awlaki, who escaped to Yemen after 9-11 and runs a web site that promotes jihad around the world against the U.S.

In a blog posting titled "Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing," Awlaki wrote the following:

"Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people…The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges." Al Awlaki continued, "Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal." Further, "The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are choosing the former. The Muslim organizations in America came out in a pitiful chorus condemning Nidal's operation."

In the meantime the usual PC suspects are "worried"about the non-existant backlash against Muslims and are making every excuse in the book for this obvious jihadist and terrorist, most notably post traumatic stress syndrome, even though he was never deployed.

One of the more rediculous PC excuses is, that because he didn't work for a major terrorist group (that we know of) he isn't a terrorist.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Casey: And frankly, I am worried — not worried, but I’m concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that. It would be a shame — as great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.

Unfortunately political correctness trumps national security and common sense.


The eight year string of no attacks on American soil came to an abrupt end when Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan, a Muslim U.S. Army officer, shouted "God is Great" in Arabic and opened fire at Fort Hood in Texas, killing 12 soldiers and wounding 31, before he was shot by a base police officer.

This successful terrorist attack has happened on Obama's watch (what a surprise) but you would never know this as the mainstream media is twisting itself into a pretzel to avoid reporting the obvious. One would be hard pressed to find the words Muslim or terrorist attack in any of the "reporting."

Here's what we know about Malik Nadal Hasan:
  • He was born a Muslim but is an American citizen. A cousin, Nader Hasan, told Fox News Malik Hasan has "always been a Muslim."
  • He is of Palestinian descent
  • He was upset about his coming deployment to either Iraq or Afghanistan
  • He was upset about perceived insults from fellow soldiers about his inceasing militant stance about the wars
  • Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas said she was informed by officials that Hasan was not shooting randomly but was targeting people he knew.
  • Federal law enforcement officials say Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats.
  • Hasan told colleagues the U.S. should not be in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Lee, and he expressed happiness about the shooting of two soldiers by a Muslim convert outside an Arkansas recruiting center in June.
  • As an Army psychiatrist Hasan had recently received poor performance reviews.
The following is Hasan's original Internet posting about suicide bombers:

There was a grenade thrown among a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He intentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that "IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE" and Allah (SWT) knows best.

Hasan: "Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor."

Hasan: "Muslims had a right to attack the U.S.", said Col. Terry Lee, who worked with Hasan at the Texas post, where the devout Sunni Muslim refused deployment. He said "Muslims shouldn't be fighting Muslims," he added. "He was very clear on that."

Isn't that special... The obvious fact here is that Muslim jihadists have infiltrated our armed forces and no one wants to acknowledge it.

Here's what we can speculate on what will happen in the coming days:
  • The mainstream media will ignore the obvious...that this was an act of terrorism
  • The media will downplay or ignore outright the Muslim connection out of political correctness
  • The ACLU will step in and demand that Hasan be tried in a civilian court
  • The Army will force soldiers to undergo "sensitivity indoctrination"
Consider this from Dorothy Rabinowitz at the Wall St. Journal:

What is hard to ignore, now, is the growing derangement on all matters involving terrorism and Muslim sensitivities. Its chief symptoms: a palpitating fear of discomfiting facts and a willingness to discard those facts and embrace the richest possible variety of ludicrous theories as to the motives behind an act of Islamic terrorism. All this we have seen before but never in such naked form. The days following the Fort Hood rampage have told us more than we want to know, perhaps, about the depth and reach of this epidemic.

One of the first outbreaks of these fevers, the night of the shootings, featured television's star psychologist, Dr. Phil, who was outraged when fellow panelist and former JAG officer Tom Kenniff observed that he had been listening to a lot of psychobabble and evasions about Maj. Hasan's motives.

A shocked Dr. Phil, appalled that the guest had publicly mentioned Maj. Hasan's Islamic identity, went on to present what was, in essence, the case for Maj. Hasan as victim. Victim of deployment, of the Army, of the stresses of a new kind of terrible war unlike any other we have known. Unlike, can he have meant, the kind endured by those lucky Americans who fought and died at Iwo Jima, say, or the Ardennes?


During the 2004 Presidential campaign John Kerry was asked what it would take for Americans to feel safe again. He replied 'We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.'

Mr. Kerry...we at Neville await with great anticipation for your speech about how the 12 dead soldiers and the 31 injured soldiers are victims of a nuisance and that we should not make it the focus of our lives.

And what was our Fraudinator-in-Chief's response? Instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner." Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in "no drama Obama" platitudes.

This from NewsBusters.org:

OBAMA: Please, everybody, have a seat. Let me first of all just thank Ken and the entire Department of the Interior staff for organizing just an extraordinary conference.

I want to thank my Cabinet members and senior administration officials who participated today. I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow (ph) was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It's good to see you.

Ah, the dangers of giving shout outs without a teleprompter. Crow is not a Medal of Honor recipient. As noted by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society:

The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force which can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Services of the United States. Generally presented to its recipient by the President of the United States of America in the name of Congress, it is often called the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Crow's name is not included on the Society's Medal of Honor recipient list. He was, however, awarded the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, in August.

Obama, often described as "cerebral" by the mainstream media, should know the difference between the Medal of Honor and the Medal of Freedom, especially since he personally awarded the latter to Crow. Don't expect his blunder to receive wide coverage.


Obama...this one's on you and you alone. For the last eleven months, while your socialist administration made "war" on Fox News, small business, insurance companies, banks, auto companies and non-existant "climate change", you have been in a slow-motion surrender to our enemies here and abroad. Is it any wonder that those chickens have now come home to roost?

We at Neville have said it before but it now bears repeating...Jihadism is not a crime problem, it is a military problem. Islamist ideology is the fuel of Jihadism, not Israel, not the American presence in the Middle East, not poverty, not the nebulous "root causes" excuse, or any other liberal apologist excuse currently in vogue in the name of diversity and tolerance. Hasan should have been relieved of his rank, kicked out of the military and snatched up by the FBI at the first sign of a problem...Muslim eggshell sensitivities be damned

Back to Top

Obama and the Dems Get Their "War On"...Compile Enemies List

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

October 27, 2009


Our Fraudinator-in-Chief and the Democrats are setting their sites on every "enemy" except the one that actually shoots back. As a result they are about to accomplish something extraordinary...lose two wars in one term.

Casualties in Afghanistan are spiking due to the endless dithering by Team Obama as to whether to follow Gen. McChrystal's two month old report that recommends a dramatic increase in troop levels.

Our new "Secretary of State" John Kerry has advised the president that to commit tens of thousands of additional U.S. forces to Afghanistan is too ambitious.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Kerry said McChrystal's plan for adding troops in Afghanistan "goes too far, too fast." Kerry's plan aims for a modest increase in American forces, treading middle ground between Republicans who have said Obama would put soldiers and the country at risk by rejecting McChrystal's larger request and anti-war Democrats who want to bug out.

"Under the right circumstances, if we can be confident that military efforts can be sustained and built upon, then I would support the president should he decide to send some additional troops to regain the initiative," Kerry said.

These are the same idiotic arguments that preceded the Bush's successful Iraq surge.

Meanwhile insurgent attacks in Iraq are increasing because U.S. troops no longer patrol the streets...they are confined to their bases...part of the Obama "cut and run" plan.

Obama's cowardice was on display as he addressed troops following the deaths of 14 U.S. servicemen in Afghanistan: "I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way. I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary."

Despite Obama's lies about Afghanistan being the "good and necessary" war, and Democrats saying how we took "our eye off the ball in Iraq", the Left never had the heart or the will to fight on. Now Obama is waiting long enough to declare victory and leave.

The administration has found plenty of targets it does feel confident in attacking:
  • Fox News - Obama trotted out Mao loving Communications director Anita Dunn, and Rahm (John Haldeman) Emanuel and David (H.R. Haldeman) Axelrod to whine about how Fox is not a real news organization, how they have an agenda and a point of view and that they are just an arm of the Republican Party
  • US Chamber of Commerce and the war on the Free Market - SEIU strongman Andy Stern told SEIU socialists at a rally across from the Chamber of Commerce that the free enterprise group believes in: "Old market-worshipping, privatizing, deregulating trickle down economy that took the greatest economy on the earth and sent it staggering forward… I say shame on them… We don’t approve and we have a friend in the White House who doesn’t improve as well."
  • Tea Party folks who protested the bailouts, healthcare, Climate Change and the endless spending were attacked by the administration and Democrats as "astroturf" and violent extremists
What a bunch of tough guys.

As always the president dips into his "blame Bush" bag when going on the offensive: "I don't mind cleaning up the mess that some other folks made," the president said. "That's what I signed up to do. But while I'm there mopping the floor, I don't want somebody standing there saying, 'You're not mopping fast enough.'"

After 10 months in office Obama has nothing to show except a cheap peace prize from a Leftist cracker jack box. By blaming everyone else for his failures the Fraudinator-in-Chief is really saying he is not up to the job.

But you knew that when you voted for him...didn't you.

Back to Top

Obama Will Sign Away U.S. Sovereignty in December in Copenhagen

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

October 22, 2009


Our Fraudinator-in-Chief is now actively engaged in subverting U.S. sovereignty. In December, in Copenhagen Obama will affix his name to the The Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change. This treaty is the biggest wealth redistribuion scheme ever devised, transferring wealth from the developed world to the Third World. The left believes that the United States has stolen technology and wealth from poor countries and enriched themselves, thus poisoning the earth. We now owe a 'climate debt'.

Once ratified by the Senate we would not be able to withdraw. Our energy policies would then be determined by a U.N. Energy panel which would determine our energy limits.

Since it takes 67 votes in the Senate to ratify a treaty it would probably not pass. However, it could be added as an amendment to the Cap and Trade legislationn now awaiting debate in the Senate.

Former Margaret Thatcher Energy Advisor Lord Monckton recently spoke on this disastrous and treasonous treaty:



Text from the Video:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.


Here's what you must understand...this fits in with the world view of two of Obama's Czars:
Science Czar-John Holdren and Energy and Environment Czar-Carol Browner. This Obama's worldview as well. He is very comfortable with these freaks and it is not an accident that they are in his administration.

Carol Browner

Carol Browner is a communist and a fraud. She is a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (CSWS), which is a formal organ of the Socialist International. Socialist International is the umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.

Because she doesn't want anyone to get the wrong idea (which is really the right idea), and in true Stalinist fashion, Browner's picture and biography were recently whitewashed from the CSWS website. Her name is still listed next to the biographies of her 14 colleagues on the commission.

CSWS says the industrialized world must reduce its energy consumption and commit to punitive and internationally enforcable limits on "greenhouse gas" emissions. CSWS is quite candid about the economic costs it is willing to impose to realize its environmental utpoia. On Sept. 5-6, 2008, CSWS noted that its proposals would cost hundreds of billions (naturally) and it called for a "redesign of the international rules on intellectual property." At the Congress of the Socialist International of June 30-July2, 2008 CSWS also called for the imposition of international environmental taxes admitting that "market solutions alone are insufficient and will not provide the financial support and resources necessary to achieve the required combination of deep emission reduction, adaptation to already changing climate conditions, energy security and equitable and environmentally sound economic development."

These proposals are nothing less than theft, i.e., calls for redistribution of property and wealth.

John Holdren

Ben Johnson at FrontPage Magazine characterized Holdren thusly:

Obama's Biggest Radical
http://frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198

When Barack Obama nominated John P. Holdren as his Science Adviser last December 20, the president-elect stated "promoting science isn't just about providing resources" but "ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology." In nominating John Holdren, his words could scarcely have taken a more Orwellian ring.

Some critics have noted Holdren's penchant for making apocalyptic predictions that never come to pass, and categorizing all criticism of his alarmist views as not only wrong but dangerous. What none has yet noted is that Holdren is a globalist who has endorsed "surrender of sovereignty" to "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that would control all the world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the "de-development" of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits. He has castigated the United States as "the meanest of wealthy countries," written a justification of compulsory abortion for American women, advocated drastically lowering the U.S. standard of living, and left the door open to trying global warming "deniers" for crimes against humanity. Such is Barack Obama's idea of a clear-headed adviser on matters of scientific policy.


Holdren is a true progressive eugenicist. His positions and theories would have been right at home in Berlin circa 1930. So far he has been flying under the radar screen because Van Jones has been hogging the spotlight.

Back to Top

Obama's Appeasement Fast Tracks Iran's Nuclear Program

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

October 5, 2009


Our Fraudinator-in-Chief is now actively engaged in helping Iran get the bomb. Coming on the heels of the sellout of Eastern Europe on the missle shield, the sellout of Israel on settlements, the apology tour of the UN and his statement that he is not interested in victory regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions, Obama has pretty much given the green light to the development of an Iranian atomic bomb.

The Kabuki dance that were the talks with Iran gives them new legitimacy, a situation that would have been unthinkable five years ago.

Just what did we get for direct American talks with the Islamic Republic characterized by Obama as "a constructive beginning" toward "serious and meaningful engagement?"
  • An "agreement in principle" to send approximately one nuclear-weapon's worth of Iran's low enriched uranium (LEU) to Russia for enrichment to 19.75% and fabrication into fuel rods for Tehran's research reactor.
  • Iran may allow U.N. inspectors into the Qom uranium-enrichment plant "within two weeks."
The problems:
  • After Geneva, the Obama administration misleadingly stated that once fashioned into fuel rods, the uranium involved could not be enriched further. This is flatly untrue. The 19.75% enriched uranium could be reconverted into uranium hexafluoride gas and quickly enriched to 90%.
  • Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency won't find anything incriminating at the Qom facility. Having lied about it for years, the Iranians now have plenty of time to clean the place out.
John Bolton writing in the Wall St. Journal:

By endorsing Iran's use of its illegitimately enriched uranium, Mr. Obama weakens his argument that Iran must comply with its "international obligations." Indeed, the Geneva deal undercuts Mr. Obama's proposal to withhold more sanctions if Iran does not enhance its nuclear program by allowing Iran to argue that continued enrichment for all peaceful purposes should be permissible.

Like the North Koreans we can expect Iran to string the Western appeasers along, lying and wheedling, striking deals only to reneg and start over. In the end, North Korea tested a nuclear device.

Once again the Nancy boys that are currently leading the West get totally played.

Back to Top

Obama's Disarmament Disconnect

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

September 27, 2009


While our Fraudinator-in-Chief was prattling on about climate change and nuclear disarmament relations with Iran escalated ominously. It seems the mullahs in Tehran have been operating a secret uranium enrichment facility buried deep in a mountain bunker near the ancient religious city of Qom. And this was after Obama told them they better not do that...he called Iran's activity "a direct challenge" to the international community.

Now that we know that Obama has known about the site since before his inauguration, and he still wanted to talk to the Iranians without pre-conditions, we get this from an interview with Chip Reid:



Reid: Thank you Mr. President, you just mentioned sanctions that have bite, what kinds of sanction, and I know you can't get into details but what kind of sanctions at all would have bite with Iran, do you really think that any kind of sanctions would have any effect on somebody like Ahmadinejad, secondly some of your advisers today said that this announcement was a victory, do you consider it a victory and if so why didn't you announce it earlier since you have known since you were President elect?..

Obama: "I'm not interested in victory, I'm interested in solving the problem"

The accusations were made public in a joint statement by the Three Muskateers of Western power, Obama, British PM Gordon Brown and French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, before the start of the G20 economic summit in Pittsburgh.

Western sources said the plant at Qom, 120 miles south-west of Tehran, is designed to hold about 3,000 centrifuge machines, which would provide the uranium needed to produce one atomic bomb a year. "Iran has enough uranium to go the whole way," one Western diplomat said.

“Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow," Obama said at a news conference before the main sessions of the G-20 economic summit, flanked by British Prime Minster Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

This time the Three Muskateers were really angry. There were indignant harrumphs about "drawing lines in the sand," and threats of December deadlines to for Iran to "come clean" and provide proof that it is not weaponizing nuclear technology. And there was the usual threat of sanctions.

Asked about the possible use of force, Obama said, “We do not rule out any options when it comes to U.S. security threats, but I will re-emphasize that my preferred course of action is to resolve this in a diplomatic fashion.”

"The Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law," Mr Obama said. His French and British peers portrayed even deeper indignation. "The level of deception by the Iranian government and the scale of what we believe is a breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the whole international community and it will harden our resolve," Mr Brown said, adding that it was time to "draw a line in the sand". He went on: "This is the third time they have been caught red-handed, not telling the truth."

That'll show 'em!!

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad didn't sound overly concerned, saying that if the U.S. mentioned the previously secret facility, it "simply adds to the list of issues to which the United States owes the Iranian nation an apology over." In his idiotic speech at the UN Ahmadinejad made the usual explicit threats against Israel and he engaged in more Holocaust denial.

From the Wall St. Journal:

The President brought his soaring sermon about "a world without [nuclear] weapons" before the U.N. General Assembly. He called for a new arms control treaty and won Security Council support for a vague resolution on proliferation. On cue yesterday, Iran showed the world what determined rogues think about such treaties. On the evidence of his Presidency so far, Mr. Obama will not let that reality interfere with his disarmament dreams.

What's changed now? Standing together before the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh yesterday, Mr. Obama and the French and British leaders put on their game faces, calling for Iran to immediately admit IAEA inspectors. New deadlines were mentioned—talks with Tehran starting October 1, tougher sanctions by December, and so on. "Everything," said France's Nicolas Sarkozy, "must be put on the table now."

At least the French President tried to sound tough, which isn't hard when you stand next to Mr. Obama. The American said Iran will "be held accountable" but watered this down with extended remarks on Iran's "right to peaceful nuclear power," as if the mullahs, sitting on the world's second-largest natural gas and third-largest oil reserves, have any need for peaceful atomic energy.

Meantime, the U.S. and its allies dream. Mr. Obama used his global forum this week not to rally the world to stop today's nuclear rogues but to offer lovely visions of disarmament in some distant future. In the bitter decades of the Cold War, we learned the hard way that the only countries that abide by disarmament treaties are those that want to be disarmed. It's becoming increasingly, and dangerously, obvious that Mr. Obama wasn't paying attention.


Even one of Obama's chief apologists, Newsweek's Howard Fineman, noticed that his hero may not be up to the job

He's a man with an endless, worthy to-do list—health care, climate change, bank reform, global capital regulation, AfPak, the Middle East, you name it—but, as yet, no boxes checked "done." This is a problem that style will not fix. Unless Obama learns to rely less on charm, rhetoric, and good intentions and more on picking his spots and winning in political combat, he's not going to be reelected, let alone enshrined in South Dakota.

The president's problem isn't that he is too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words "I" and "my." (He used the former 11 times in the first few paragraphs of his address to the U.N. last week.) Obama is a historic figure, but that is the beginning, not the end, of the story.

There is only so much political mileage that can still be had by his reminding the world that he is not George W. Bush. It was the winning theme of the 2008 campaign, but that race ended nearly a year ago. The ex-president is now more ex than ever, yet the current president, who vowed to look forward, is still reaching back to Bush as bogeyman.

He's a man with an endless, worthy to-do list—health care, climate change, bank reform, global capital regulation, AfPak, the Middle East, you name it—but, as yet, no boxes checked "done." This is a problem that style will not fix. Unless Obama learns to rely less on charm, rhetoric, and good intentions and more on picking his spots and winning in political combat, he's not going to be reelected, let alone enshrined in South Dakota.

But the complex legislation he wants to submit to Congress has little chance of passage this year. Doing Letterman again won't help. It may boost the host's ratings, Mr. President, but probably not your own.


In the meantime the War on Terror seems to be ramping up domestically. Numerous plots against soft targets have been uncovered.

Queens, NY and Denver

Najibullah Zazi, the Denver man believed to be the central figure in a terror plot against the New York City transit system, has officially been indicted on charges of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction against persons or property in the United States.

In court documents released Thursday morning, the Justice Department said Zazi and unnamed others purchased large quantities of hydrogen peroxide and acetone products from beauty supply stores in the Denver metropolitan area. The government said evidence, including surveillance videos, will prove Zazi and the other made repeat purchases of the chemicals over the last three months. The newly revealed evidence coupled with the discovery of backpacks and cell phones in the recent Queens raid add to the suspicion that Zazi and his partner were intending on developing portable bombs for use at multiple targets.

The bearded suspect's trip to New York on the eve of the eighth anniversary of 9/11 was "in furtherance of his criminal plans," said court documents demanding Zazi's incarceration without bail.

If convicted, Zazi faces up to life in prison.

The investigation is part of the now-nationwide alert as police try to locate whoever might have been working with terror suspect Zazi. Police are being told to watch for any large quantities of hydrogen peroxide, drain cleaner, acetone, or nail polish remover – various types of acids – and large quantities of ammonia nitrate or urea fertilizer.

Dallas

Federal authorities arrested a 19-year-old Jordanian citizen, Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, whom they said placed an inactive car bomb today at Fountain Place, a 60-story skyscraper in downtown Dallas.

Smadi has repeatedly voiced his intent to serve Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida and commit “violent Jihad,” authorities said in a prepared statement.

“Today’s arrest of Hosam Maher Husein Smadi underscores the FBI’s unwavering commitment to bring to justice persons who attempt to bring harm to citizens of this country and significant danger to this community,” special FBI agent in charge Robert E. Casey, Jr. said in the statement. “Smadi made a decision to act to commit a significant conspicuous act of violence under his banner of ‘self Jihad.’”

Authorities said that Smadi was under continuous FBI surveillance. Federal agents posed as members of an al-Qa’ida sleeper cell. Smadi, who was in the U.S. illegally, allegedly told them that he came to the country specifically to commit “Jihad for the sake of God.” “In the name of God, the Gracious and the Merciful, this is my vow to you, my brother, that I am ready,” Smadi allegedly told undercover FBI agents. “And if you were a lover of Jihad as I am, then, by God, I am ready for the Jihadi life.”

Illinois

An Illinois man was ordered held on Thursday on charges he tried to blow up a federal building in the state capital, a case unrelated to the New York terrorism plot.

Michael Finton, also known as Talib Islam, was arrested in Springfield, Illinois, and charged with attempted murder of federal officers or employees and trying to use a weapon of mass destruction, charges that carry a life sentence.

Finton was arrested on Wednesday in Springfield as he used a cell phone to try to detonate the bomb he believed was inside a van he had just parked outside the federal building.

The criminal complaint said Finton, 29, converted to Islam while in prison on other charges. It said he idolized an American who allied with the Taliban, John Walker Lindh, drawing the attention of law enforcement authorities.

After returning from a trip to Saudi Arabia in 2008, Finton told an individual, who turned out to be a law enforcement source, that he wanted to fight against Israelis in the Gaza Strip, according to the complaint.

Raleigh, North Carolina

Two men charged in North Carolina last month with plotting terrorist attacks overseas also planned to attack the U.S. Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, authorities said on Thursday.

The two were among seven suspects arrested in August for conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and for conspiracy to murder, kidnap, maim and injure people overseas.

A new indictment unveiled on Thursday charged Daniel Patrick Boyd, the group's alleged ringleader, and Hysen Sherifi "with conspiring to murder U.S. military personnel" in connection with the planned assault on the Marine Corps base, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Raleigh said in a statement.

All seven suspects in the North Carolina case were denied bail after a hearing in Raleigh last month at which prosecutors played FBI recordings as evidence that they had discussed waging "jihad" as part of a conspiracy to conduct attacks in foreign nations.

Prosecutors have said Boyd trained in terrorist camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan from 1989 to 1992, and fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Boyd is a U.S. citizen and Sherifi is a native of Kosovo and a legal permanent resident of the United States.

At least the FBI and the police still seem to know how to investigate terrorism...the President is asleep at the switch.

Back to Top

Obama Apology Tour Stops at the UN

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

September 24, 2009


The Obama Apology Tour pulled into NY for a two-day U.S. bash that featured naive calls for a nuclear free world and screeds about the dangers of climate change.

The global warming narrative - that mankind's addiction to burning fossil fuels is rapidly changing the climate - may be about to go seriously off message. The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.

There may be a fly in the climate change ointment. Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute is one of the leading climate modelers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

At the UN's World Climate Conference in Geneva --an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

Latif: "The strong warming effect that we experienced during the last decades will be interrupted. Temperatures will be more or less steady for some years, and thereafter will pickup again and continue to warm".

But that didn't stop our Fraudinator-in-Chief. He managed to bash the U.S. and work in climate change alarmism in two sentences. Obama at the Climate Change Summit:

Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it -- boldly, swiftly, and together -- we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.

No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees. The security and stability of each nation and all peoples -- our prosperity, our health, our safety -- are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.

We also cannot allow the old divisions that have characterized the climate debate for so many years to block our progress. Yes, the developed nations that caused much of the damage to our climate over the last century still have a responsibility to lead. And we will continue to do so -- by investing in renewable energy, promoting greater efficiency, and slashing our emissions to reach the targets we set for 2020 and our long-term goal for 2050.


It didn't stop there. The next day Obama addressed the freak show that is the UN General Assembly, or, as Rush terms it, the bar scene from Star Wars:
  • Can't we all just get along?

    No longer do we have the luxury of indulging our differences to the exclusion of the work that we must do together.

    On my first day in office, I prohibited — without exception or equivocation — the use of torture by the United States of America. (Applause.) I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.

    In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war. We have removed American combat brigades from Iraqi cities, and set a deadline of next August to remove all our combat brigades from Iraqi territory.

    I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

    We've also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council. (Applause.) We have signed the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals.


  • More Climate Change

    To confront climate change, we have invested $80 billion in clean energy. We have substantially increased our fuel-efficiency standards. We have provided new incentives for conservation, launched an energy partnership across the Americas, and moved from a bystander to a leader in international climate negotiations.

    The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied. Our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred. If we continue down our current course, every member of this Assembly will see irreversible changes within their borders. Our efforts to end conflicts will be eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources. Development will be devastated by drought and famine. Land that human beings have lived on for millennia will disappear. Future generations will look back and wonder why we refused to act; why we failed to pass on -- why we failed to pass on an environment that was worthy of our inheritance.

    And that is why the days when America dragged its feet on this issue are over. We will move forward with investments to transform our energy economy, while providing incentives to make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. We will press ahead with deep cuts in emissions to reach the goals that we set for 2020, and eventually 2050.


  • Everybody's equal except Israel.

    In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.

    The time has come to realize that the old habits, the old arguments, are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people. They lead nations to act in opposition to the very goals that they claim to pursue -- and to vote, often in this body, against the interests of their own people.

    We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements...and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.
Appeasement, naïvete, weakness and a total sellout of Israel (one week after selling out Poland and the Czechs) doesn't begin to describe this speech. Nile Gardiner, Director, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom said this:

“Was this Obama’s most naïve speech ever? It is a very strong candidate, but I think there is intense competition for that accolade. The president’s speeches in Cairo, Strasbourg and Prague would all vie for that title. Still, his address today will go down in history as one of the weakest major addresses by a U.S. president on foreign policy in a generation, by a leader who seems embarrassed, even ashamed, by the power and greatness of his own country.”

But Obama was just the warmup act. Resplendant in a little pillbox cap, a black fright wig and a tan bedsheet Libya's Colonel Qaddafi addressed the assembled freaks in a rambling incoherent ninety minute address. Speaking from notes that looked they came out of a child's coloring book he said the following:

The story continues below:




  • Kennedy assassination was the fault of the Jews
  • The Jews will need the Arabs one day
  • The Security Council “is political feudalism for those who have a permanent seat,”
  • He also suggested that those who caused “mass murder” in Iraq be tried and called for trials for those who perpetrated the Korean War (aren't they all dead now?)
  • He defended the right of the Taliban to establish an Islamic emirate
  • “We Africans are happy, proud, that a son of Africans governs the United States of America. This is a historic event... This is a great thing.” “Obama is a glimpse in the darkness after four or eight years,” said Qadhafi, who referred to Obama as “my son.” “We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as president of the United States.”
  • He also said he suspected the swine flu, or H1N1 virus, might have been created by scientists working for private firms. “They make the virus so that the capitalist companies will have the vaccinations, create the vaccinations, and they want to sell it,”
  • He wants to have the UN moved to a more central location (we agree with that...how about the Sahara)
Next came Iran's Mahmoud Achmedinijad. He said nothing about his nuclear program (so much for Obama's call to end nuclear proliferation), called for an end to capitalism and swore to destroy Israel...this came two days after he denied the Holocaust and swore to destroy Israel (so what else is new?).

The UN has hit (if it's possible) a new low when it allows murderers to address the assembly. Achmedinijad and Qaddafi should have been arrested the moment they arrived in NY. Instead they are legitimized at this joke of an institution. This insanity is a continuation of the low end policy of allowing despots like Castro, Chavez and Arafat to speak at the UN. Unfortunately Obama seems quite at home with this group of international losers.

We should take Qaddafi up on his offer to move the UN out of the United States.

Sez Gerald Warner of the London Telegraph:

The United Nations is the favourite platform for posturing, self-advertising hot-air merchants, so it was a given that Barack Obama would treat it to an especially epic, ozone layer-demolishing emission of Obamaguff today and he did not disappoint. “We have sought in word and deed a new era of engagement with the world.” Aw, puleeze! “I say this not to sow fear, but to state a fact: the magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our action.” No kidding?

Obama’s surrender monkey antics are catching: Gordon Brown is using the same forum tomorrow to announce the reduction of Britain’s nuclear submarine fleet from four to three. The West is disarming at a speed that even our enemies are finding disconcerting. So long as West-hating exhibitionists such as Obama and Brown are in charge of our defences we are in real and present danger. It will all be cheered to the echo at the UN, the water-hole at which the world’s most spectacular genocides and tyrants have traditionally assembled to denounce the Western democracies.

Looked at one way, The United Nations has been the largest crime syndicate on earth. A founding member of its Security Council, the former Soviet Union, had 20 million murders to its credit. This was dwarfed in 1971 when Red China, still benevolently ruled by Chairman Mao, joined, with 65 million deaths on its hands. In that environment, North Korea, with its puny 2 million murders, seemed almost a liberal democracy. Not only are mass-murdering dictatorships freely admitted, but the UN displays a sense of humour in allocating them internal responsibilities.

Thus, Cuba (16,000 summary executions, 100,000 political prisoners) has repeatedly been elected to the UN Human Rights Commission. In 2003, Libya was elected to chair the Commission, whose members included Algeria, China, Cuba, Sudan, Syria and Zimbabwe. It is a pity the Third Reich was no longer available – it could have chaired a commission on race relations.

Peace keeping is a great UN preoccupation; but its implementation of this role is, to say the least, idiosyncratic. UN peacekeepers stood by politely while the massacres at Srebrenica and in Rwanda were carried out. Nor is their role even passive. Soldiers of the UN peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone were accused by Human Rights Watch of systematic rape of women. In Bosnia, UN police were similarly accused of trafficking in young women from Eastern Europe as sex slaves. Staff of UN relief agencies and peacekeepers have also been denounced for sexual abuse of children in Liberia and Guinea. Yet nobody talks the “women’s rights” talk like the UN, even though its notion of rights is mostly trying to persuade them to kill their children in the womb.

The corruption at the UN would make a Sicilian godfather wrinkle his nose in distaste. The Oil-for-Food scandal netted $21bn for UN hoods and their associates, while the infant mortality rate in Iraq soared. That was only the tip of the iceberg: the other scams are multifarious. The UN does not even know what its expenditure is or how many people it employs – a fiscal dyslexia reminiscent of the European Union.

The United Nations is a sewer. Insofar as it has any purpose, it is to act as a template and foundation for eventual World Government – of the most corrupt and illiberal kind. Britain and America should withdraw from this murderous thieves’ kitchen and save both national integrity and taxpayers’ money.


Back to Top

Obama Sells out Eastern Europe -- Scraps Missile Shield

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

September 17, 2009


How many more giveaways to the Iranians, N. Korea, Hugo Chavez and the Russians have to occur before the obvious becomes obvious.

Lets review what's happened in just the last month:
  • Obama is working to acively de-stabilize the new government ant-Communist in Honduras
  • Obama gave a wink and a nod to the release of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the mastermind of the bombing that killed 270 passengers aboard a Pan Am flight two decades ago
  • Obama has demanded that new settlements on the West Bank cease immediately
  • Obama will meet without preconditions, the Iranians in October to get them to end their nuclear program
  • Obama AG Eric Holder has announced the hiring of a special prosecutor to go after CIA agents incolved in terrorist interrogations
Now, on the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland Obama has scrapped the Bush-era plan for an Eastern European missile-defense shield, saying a redesigned defensive system would be cheaper, quicker and more effective against the threat from Iranian missiles. Obama effectively sold out Poland and the Czech Republic. What did we get in return...nada, zip, zero.

The reason? Russian opposition. Russia is now the at the nexus of spreading tyranny throughout the world. They have installed surface-to-air missiles around Iranian nuclear sites. They are helping Hugo Chavez with his "peaceful" nuclear program. With winter coming they will continue their policy of extorting Eastern Europe's energy needs.

The International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEA), out from under the influence of it's apologist Iranian Secretary General, has now announced that Iran has the capability of producing a nuclear weapon.

From Peter Speigel at the Wall St. Journal:

The U.S. is basing its move on a determination that Iran's long-range-missile program hasn't progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the continental U.S. and major European capitals, according to current and former U.S. officials.

The findings are a major reversal from the Bush administration, which pushed aggressively to begin construction of the Eastern European system before leaving office in January.

"This new ballistic-missile-defense program will best-address the threat posed by Iran's ongoing ballistic-missile-defense program," Mr. Obama said Thursday.

Russia on Thursday welcomed the news but said it saw no reason to offer concessions in return. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev threatened last November to station tactical Iskander missiles on Poland's border if the U.S. system was deployed.

"The Bush plans on the missile defense as we knew them until now were nothing more than a provocation of security in the European region," said Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in a phone interview.


U.S. global influence is rapidly on the wane. What country will now take our word at face value when we promise to protect them?

The U.S. abandonment of the "third site" development of 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar array in the Czech Republic signals retreat and surrender to Russia and Iran.

The Heritage Foundation recently noted: "Iran has the capability to strike at Israel and South-Eastern Europe, including NATO members such as Greece, Bulgaria and Romania." With enhanced technology, Iran's Shahab missiles will put virtually all of Europe, Israel and India under direct threat.

Nothing worthwhile comes from showing enemies that America folds when threatened. The best deterrent for potential foes is for them to know that any attack will bring swift and devastating retaliation.

But we have a pantywaist running the country. Worse yet, we have a president who is actively aiding and abetting Communist revolutionary movements in South America and jihad with Russian and N. Korean backing in Europe.

When the obvious becomes obvious one can only say that Obama is an enemy of the state.

Back to Top

Obama to Propagandize Students

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

September 3, 2009


The Communist Manifesto lists as one of its goals: Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

Taking a page from that book our Fraudinator-in-Chief has announced a speech to be directly delivered to the kids on Sept. 8, 2009. Obama's arrogance and narcisissm knows no bounds. Obama is approaching the creepy 'Dear Leader' territory. What's next for the kids...daily mantras and missives from a red book, uniforms?

Speaking of creepy
View the I Pledge to Obama video

From Michelle Malkin:

"ABC" stands for All Barack's Children. On September 8, young students across the country will be watching television. Yes, they'll be parked in front of the boob tube and computer screens watching President Obama's address on education.

Instead of practicing cursive, reviewing multiplication tables, diagramming sentences, or learning something concrete, America's kids will be lectured about the importance of learning. And then the schoolchildren, from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade, will be exhorted to Do Something - other than sit in their seats and receive academic instruction, that is.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan dispatched letters to principals nationwide boasting that "This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation's school children about persisting and succeeding in school." But the goal is not merely morale-boosting. According to White House event-related guides developed by the U.S. Department of Education's Teaching Fellows, grade-school students will be told to "listen to the speech" and "could think about the following:"

*What is the President trying to tell me?

*What is the President asking me to do?

*What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?

Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

After the speech, teachers will ask students:

*What do you think the President wants us to do?

*Does the speech make you want to do anything?

*Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?

The activist tradition of government schools using students as junior lobbyists cannot be ignored. Zealous teacher's unions have enlisted captive schoolchildren as letter-writers in their campaigns for higher education spending. Out-of-control activists have enlisted their secondary-school charges in pro-illegal immigration protests, gay marriage ceremonies, environmental propaganda stunts, and anti-war events.

And last year's presidential campaign saw disgraceful abuses of power by pro-Obama instructors. In New Rochelle, New York, elementary students were given an in-class assignment to color in drawings of Barack Obama - including a picture of a campaign button featuring his face and the slogan "Students for Obama 2008."

In Cumberland County, N.C., a fifth-grade-school teacher turned a "civics" discussion into an unhinged harangue against a girl who said her family supported John McCain.

Nor can the Democrats' strategy of using kiddie human shields to advance their legislative agenda be overlooked in the context and timing of Obama's speech. Children have been front and center of the Left's push for an ever-increasing government role in health care - from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's use of seventh-grader Baltimore school kid Graeme Frost to push for the massive S-CHIP entitlement expansion, to President Obama's none-too-coincidental choice of Massachusetts 11-year-old town hall questioner Julia Hall (the daughter of a prominent Obama activist/organizer who assailed Obamacare critics' "mean" signs), to the Kennedy family's decision to put grandson Max Allen on center stage to pray for health care reform at his uncle's funeral last week.

So when the Department of Education directs schools to gather children 'round the TV monitors for Obama's pep talk and then do this…

1) Create posters of their goals. Posters could be formatted in quadrants or puzzle pieces or trails marked with the labels: personal, academic, community, country. Each area could be labeled with three steps for achieving goals in those areas. It might make sense to focus on personal and academic so community and country goals come more readily.

2) Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.


After the announcement the firestorm of protest from parents forced the White House to re-write its activist talking points for teachers/administrators disseminated by the US Department of Education. They removed the language about "helping the president."

Some school districts are not showing the speech. A new movement called 'Parentally Approved Skip School Day' (PASS) has sprung up where parents will keep their kids at home that day.

While we are on the subject of creepy 'cult-o-personality' stuff check out this I Pledge to Obama video:

Back to Top





Back to Top

Eric Holder's Affinity for Terrorists and Crooks

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

September 1, 2009


Eric Holder has an amazing record. During the Clinton Administration as Assistant AG he:
  • Intercceded on behalf of fugitive Marc Rich to convince Clinton to grant him a pardon
  • Pushed some of his subordinates at the Clinton Justice Department to drop their opposition to a controversial 1999 grant of clemency to 16 members of two violent Puerto Rican nationalist organizations. The 16 members of the FALN (the Spanish acronym for Armed Forces of National Liberation) and Los Macheteros had been convicted in Chicago and Hartford variously of bank robbery, possession of explosives and participating in a seditious conspiracy. Overall, the two groups had been linked by the FBI to more than 130 bombings, several armed robberies, six slayings and hundreds of injuries.
As Obama's AG he dropped the case against the Black Panthers accused of voter intimidation in the 2008 election.

Per John Fund of the Wall St. Journal:

The episode-which Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, calls "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen"-began on Election Day 2008. Mr. Bull and others witnessed two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. (Some of this behavior is on YouTube.)

One of them, they say, brandished a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both made racial threats. Mr. Bull says he heard one yell "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!"

In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In March, Mr. Bull submitted an affidavit at Justice's request to support its lawsuit.

When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years-action that's already illegal under existing law.

There was outrage over the decision among Congressional Republicans, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division-especially after it was learned one of the defendants who walked was Jerry Jackson, a member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and a credentialed poll watcher for the Democratic Party last Election Day.

Then the Washington Times reported on July 30 that six career lawyers at Justice who had recommended continuing to pursue the case were overruled by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli-a top administration political appointee. One of the career attorneys, Appellate Chief Diana Flynn, had urged in an internal memo that a judgment be pressed against the defendants to "prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters" in the future.


Holder just killed an investigation into pay-for-play allegations against Democratic Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. Richardson was being investigated by a federal grand jury in his home state for possibly steering state bond business from the New Mexico Financial Authority toward David Rubin, a significant campaign contributor. The decision not to pursue indictments was made by top Justice Department officials, according to a person familiar with the investigation, who asked not to be identified because federal officials had not disclosed results of the probe. "It's over. There's nothing. It was killed in Washington," the person told The Associated Press.

However Holder has no problem in going after the CIA. After Obama and Holder said last April, 2009 they wanted to move forward, not look backward, Holder has just hired a special prosecutor to look into allegations of torture of terrorists.

We repeat our August 26 entry:

If it isn't obvious by now that the left wing of the left wing of the left wing in American life isn't in control of the White House agenda, it time for a reality check.

Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to go after the CIA has all the earmarks of policy designed to make left-wing wet spots appear. What other purpose could it possibly serve? Obama is acting more like the chief legal defense counsel for the terrorists than a president

Cheney's Statement on the CIA documents and the coming Justice Department investigation:

The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda. This intelligence saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks. These detainees also, according to the documents, played a role in nearly every capture of al Qaeda members and associates since 2002. The activities of the CIA in carrying out the policies of the Bush Administration were directly responsible for defeating all efforts by al Qaeda to launch further mass casualty attacks against the United States. The people involved deserve our gratitude. They do not deserve to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions. President Obama's decision to allow the Justice Department to investigate and possibly prosecute CIA personnel, and his decision to remove authority for interrogation from the CIA to the White House, serves as a reminder, if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this Administration's ability to be responsible for our nation's security.

A furious Rep. Peter King, the hawkish, maverick Long Island Republican, blasted a "disgraceful" Eric Holder for opening an investigation of CIA interrogators and chided his own party for what he described as a weak response to the move in an interview just now with POLITICO.

"It's bullshit. It's disgraceful. You wonder which side they're on," he said of the attorney general's move, which he described as a "declaration of war against the CIA, and against common sense. "It's a total breach of faith, and either the president is intentionally caving to the left wing of his party or he's lost control of his administration," said King, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Homeland Security and a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence.


Consider this from the Washington Post's Peter Finn which proves Cheney was right:


How a Detainee Became An Asset
Sept. 11 Plotter Cooperated After Waterboarding

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/
28/AR2009082803874.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009082804015
By Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate
Saturday, August 29, 2009

After enduring the CIA's harshest interrogation methods and spending more than a year in the agency's secret prisons, Khalid Sheik Mohammed stood before U.S. intelligence officers in a makeshift lecture hall, leading what they called "terrorist tutorials."

In 2005 and 2006, the bearded, pudgy man who calls himself the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks discussed a wide variety of subjects, including Greek philosophy and al-Qaeda dogma. In one instance, he scolded a listener for poor note-taking and his inability to recall details of an earlier lecture.

Speaking in English, Mohammed "seemed to relish the opportunity, sometimes for hours on end, to discuss the inner workings of al-Qaeda and the group's plans, ideology and operatives," said one of two sources who described the sessions, speaking on the condition of anonymity because much information about detainee confinement remains classified. "He'd even use a chalkboard at times."

These scenes provide previously unpublicized details about the transformation of the man known to U.S. officials as KSM from an avowed and truculent enemy of the United States into what the CIA called its "preeminent source" on al-Qaeda. This reversal occurred after Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning and prolonged sleep deprivation, among other harsh interrogation techniques.

"KSM, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete," according to newly unclassified portions of a 2004 report by the CIA's then-inspector general released Monday by the Justice Department.

The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general's report and other documents released this week indicate.

Over a few weeks, he was subjected to an escalating series of coercive methods, culminating in 7 1/2 days of sleep deprivation, while diapered and shackled, and 183 instances of waterboarding. After the month-long torment, he was never waterboarded again.

"What do you think changed KSM's mind?" one former senior intelligence official said this week after being asked about the effect of waterboarding. "Of course it began with that."

Mohammed, in statements to the International Committee of the Red Cross, said some of the information he provided was untrue.

"During the harshest period of my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop. I later told interrogators that their methods were stupid and counterproductive. I'm sure that the false information I was forced to invent in order to make the ill-treatment stop wasted a lot of their time," he said.

Critics say waterboarding and other harsh methods are unacceptable regardless of their results, and those with detailed knowledge of the CIA's program say the existing assessments offer no scientific basis to draw conclusions about effectiveness.

"Democratic societies don't use torture under any circumstances. It is illegal and immoral," said Tom Parker, policy director for counterterrorism and human rights at Amnesty International. "This is a fool's argument in any event. There is no way to prove or disprove the counterfactual."

John L. Helgerson, the former CIA inspector general who investigated the agency's detention and interrogation program, said his work did not put him in "a position to reach definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of particular interrogation methods."

"Certain of the techniques seemed to have little effect, whereas waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information," he said in an interview. "But we didn't have the time or resources to do a careful, systematic analysis of the use of particular techniques with particular individuals and independently confirm the quality of the information that came out."

After his capture, Mohammed first told his captors what he calculated they already knew.

"KSM almost immediately following his capture in March 2003 elaborated on his plan to crash commercial airlines into Heathrow airport," according to a document released by the CIA on Monday that summarizes the intelligence provided by Mohammed. The agency thinks he assumed that Ramzi Binalshibh, a Sept. 11 conspirator captured in September 2002, had already divulged the plan.

One former U.S. official with detailed knowledge of how the interrogations were carried out said Mohammed, like several other detainees, seemed to have decided that it was okay to stop resisting after he had endured a certain amount of pressure.

"Once the harsher techniques were used on [detainees], they could be viewed as having done their duty to Islam or their cause, and their religious principles would ask no more of them," said the former official, who requested anonymity because the events are still classified. "After that point, they became compliant. Obviously, there was also an interest in being able to later say, 'I was tortured into cooperating.' "

Mohammed provided the CIA with an autobiographical statement, describing a rebellious childhood, his decision to join the Muslim Brotherhood as a teenager, and his time in the United States as a student at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, from where he graduated in 1986 with a degree in mechanical engineering.

"KSM's limited and negative experience in the United States -- which included a brief jail stay because of unpaid bills -- almost certainly helped propel him on his path to becoming a terrorist," according to the intelligence summary. "He stated that his contact with Americans, while minimal, confirmed his view that the United States was a debauched and racist country."

Mohammed provided $1,000 to Ramzi Yousef, a nephew, to help him carry out the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In 1994, he worked in the Philippines with Yousef, now serving a life sentence at the federal "supermax" prison in Colorado, on a failed plot to down 12 U.S. commercial aircraft over the Pacific.

Mohammed told interrogators it was in the Philippines that he first considered using planes as missiles to strike the United States. He took the idea to Osama bin Laden, who "at first demurred but changed his mind in late 1999," according to the summary.

Mohammed described plans to strike targets in Saudi Arabia, East Asia and the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, including using a network of Pakistanis "to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and the Brooklyn bridge in New York." Cross-referencing material from different detainees, and leveraging information from one to extract more detail from another, the CIA and FBI went on to round up operatives both in the United States and abroad.

"Detainees in mid-2003 helped us build a list of 70 individuals -- many of who we had never heard of before -- that al-Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations," according to the CIA summary.

Mohammed told interrogators that after the Sept. 11 attacks, his "overriding priority" was to strike the United States, but that he "realized that a follow-on attack would be difficult because of security measures." Most of the plots, as a result, were "opportunistic and limited," according to the summary.

One former agency official recalled that Mohammed was once asked to write a summary of his knowledge about al-Qaeda's efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. The terrorist group had explored buying either an intact nuclear weapon or key components such as enriched uranium, although there is no evidence of significant progress on that front.

"He wrote us an essay" on al-Qaeda's nuclear ambitions, the official said. "Not all of it was accurate, but it was quite extensive."

Mohammed was an unparalleled source in deciphering al-Qaeda's strategic doctrine, key operatives and likely targets, the summary said, including describing in "considerable detail the traits and profiles" that al-Qaeda sought in Western operatives and how the terrorist organization might conduct surveillance in the United States.

Mohammed was moved to the U.S. military facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in September 2006, and his loquaciousness is now largely confined to occasional appearances before a military commission. Back in his 86-square-foot cell at the secret Camp 7 at Guantanamo, he spends most of his waking hours in prayer, according to a source familiar with his confinement who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

But Mohammed has not abandoned his intellectual pursuits. He requested a Bible for study in his cell, according to the source, in order to better understand his enemy.


Back to Top

Obama's Vacation Blues Part 2 -- Misplacing $2 Trillion

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

August 26, 2009


All the spending is coming home to roost. The White house was forced to revise it's original 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion.

The White House took heat for sticking with its $7.108 trillion forecast earlier this year after the Congressional Budget Office forecast that deficits between 2010 and 2019 would total $9.1 trillion.

"The new forecasts are based on new data that reflect how severe the economic downturn was in the late fall of last year and the winter of this year," said an administration official. "Our budget projections are now in line with the spring and summer projections that the Congressional Budget Office put out."

Thanks folks, maybe you should have listened to the CBO along along instead of lying to us.

Republicans have pounced on Obama for planning to spend too much when deficits are so high, and the issue is likely to loom large in next year's Congressional elections.

Obama, who has promised to halve the deficit by the end of his four-year term and likes to remind constituents he inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit from former President George W. Bush, says bringing down healthcare costs is critical to long-term deficit reduction [by spending another $1 trillion?1?]

Obama economic adviser Christina Romer predicted unemployment could reach 10 percent this year and begin a slow decline next year. Still, she said, the average unemployment will be 9.3 in 2009 and 9.8 percent in 2010.

"This recession was simply worse than the information that we and other forecasters had back in last fall and early this winter," Romer said.

Another "mistake"...we pay you clowns to be right, not guess...

The deeper red ink and the gloomy unemployment forecast present President Barack Obama with an enormous challenge. The new numbers come as he prods Congress to enact a major overhaul of the health care system - one that could cost $1 trillion or more over 10 years. Obama has said he doesn't want the measure to add to the deficit, but lawmakers have been unable to agree on revenues that cover the cost.

What's more, the high unemployment could last well into the 2010 congressional election campaign, turning the contests into a referendum on Obama's economic policies.

Republicans were ready to pounce.

"The alarm bells on our nation's fiscal condition have now become a siren," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said. "If anyone had any doubts that this burden on future generations is unsustainable, they're gone - spending, borrowing and debt are out of control."

The national debt now stands at more than $11 trillion.

Back to Top

Obama's Vacation Blues Part 1 -- Prosecuting the CIA

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

August 26, 2009


In the midst of all the blowback on the Healthcare bill our Fraudinator-in-Chief and Eric Holder have decided to do some thing that is sure to rescue Obama's faltering poll numbers...they are going after the CIA and the guys who interrogated the terrorists>

If it isn't obvious by now that the left wing of the left wing of the left wing in American life isn't in control of the White House agenda, it time for a reality check.

Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to go after the CIA has all the earmarks of policy designed to make left-wing wet spots appear. What other purpose could it possibly serve? Obama is acting more like the chief legal defense counsel for the terrorists than a president

Cheney's Statement on the CIA documents and the coming Justice Department investigation:

The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda. This intelligence saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks. These detainees also, according to the documents, played a role in nearly every capture of al Qaeda members and associates since 2002. The activities of the CIA in carrying out the policies of the Bush Administration were directly responsible for defeating all efforts by al Qaeda to launch further mass casualty attacks against the United States. The people involved deserve our gratitude. They do not deserve to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions. President Obama's decision to allow the Justice Department to investigate and possibly prosecute CIA personnel, and his decision to remove authority for interrogation from the CIA to the White House, serves as a reminder, if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this Administration's ability to be responsible for our nation's security.

A furious Rep. Peter King, the hawkish, maverick Long Island Republican, blasted a "disgraceful" Eric Holder for opening an investigation of CIA interrogators and chided his own party for what he described as a weak response to the move in an interview just now with POLITICO.

"It's bullshit. It's disgraceful. You wonder which side they're on," he said of the attorney general's move, which he described as a "declaration of war against the CIA, and against common sense. "It's a total breach of faith, and either the president is intentionally caving to the left wing of his party or he's lost control of his administration," said King, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Homeland Security and a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

This from the Wall St. Journal:

Prosecuting the CIA
AUGUST 25, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052970203706604574371090019115348.html


Eric Holder unleashes a special counsel on U.S. war fighters

'It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department." -Attorney General Eric Holder, April 2009

"Justice Department Names Prosecutor to Reopen CIA Abuse Cases" -Wall Street Journal, yesterday

Mr. Holder had it right the first time. His about-face yesterday, compounded by his release of a 2004 internal CIA report on that agency's handling of terrorists, opens a political war that President Obama, the CIA and above all the country will live to regret.

This is a trap the Administration set for itself. Mr. Obama and his team have attempted to appease their political left by publicly denouncing the Bush Administration's national security policies, even as they claimed to want to forget the past. Their disparagement has only fed the liberal demand for Bush prosecutions and increased the pressure on Mr. Holder to appoint a prosecutor.

Justice threw kerosene on those politics yesterday with its release of findings compiled by the CIA's inspector general in 2004 about the agency's detention and interrogation of terrorists. The ACLU had won a court order for their release. We were still reading its hundreds of pages at deadline, but most of the supposedly damning details had already been leaked. The new bits include the fact that interrogators threatened terrorists with a gun shot in a nearby room, with a power drill and cigarette smoke, and against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's family. We suspect millions of Americans will be shocked to learn that these unshocking details are all that the uproar over "torture" is about.

The CIA itself commissioned the IG review early in the first Bush term, the agency sent an unredacted copy to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees in 2004, and the entire membership of both those committees was given access to the report in 2006. The CIA also sent the report to the Department of Justice in 2004, referring allegations of abuse for potential prosecution. Current CIA Director Leon Panetta, in a note yesterday to agency employees, pointed out that "career" prosecutors (not Bush appointees) evaluated each of those claims "carefully and thoroughly, sometimes taking years to decide if prosecution was warranted or not."

The DOJ brought only one case, convicting a CIA contractor who beat a detainee who subsequently died. In no other case did Justice attorneys decide that a prosecution was warranted. This is no surprise, given that most of the techniques outlined in the CIA report had been approved by superiors and declared to be legal in official legal opinions.

Yet none of this counted for much yesterday, as Mr. Holder used the report's release as an occasion to appoint federal prosecutor John Durham as a special counsel to re-open the cases for potential criminal prosecutions. His decision was supported by a recommendation from Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility, which has been complaining about CIA practices for five years and now finally has a willing ear in the new Attorney General.

All of this will further demoralize a CIA that has already been stigmatized by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats as an agency populated by rogues who lied to Congress. This is the same agency that Mr. Obama and all Americans are counting on wage a war against al Qaeda and deter future terrorist attacks. The message that Mr. Holder's criminal probe will send to thousands of men and women is that they had better not do anything remotely controversial on behalf of American safety, even with a lawyer's permission. This war against our own war fighters comes just as President Obama's counterterror escalation in Afghanistan is getting more difficult.

By threatening to prosecute CIA officials, the Obama Administration is taking ownership of future troubles in a way that will only do itself harm. Like the Church and Pike probes of the 1970s, Americans will once again see that the Democratic Party cares as much or more about settling scores against fellow Americans as it does about fighting the war on terror. Mr. Holder yesterday acknowledged that his decision to reopen the old CIA wounds would be "controversial." He will soon learn how much.


Back to Top

Healthcare Debate Down to a Temporary Simmer...That Doesn't Mean the World Has Stopped

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

August 24, 2009


Now that the Healthcare debate is on a slow simmer the world moves on. We've compiled three thngs that happened last week that the media didn't really cover:
The president's Hail Mary attempt to appeal to the religious among us to pass healthcare
Security in Iraq breaking down now that our troops are sequestered on their own bases
A conflict of interest involving David Axelrod and Healthcare advertising

The president's Hail Mary attempt to appeal to the religious among us to pass healthcare

Back to Top

From Michelle Malkin:

President Barack Obama needed some outside help pushing health care reform, and he's turning to rabbis to get it.

In a morning conference call with about 1000 rabbis from across the nation, Obama asked for aid: "I am going to need your help in accomplishing necessary reform," the President told the group, according to Rabbi Jack Moline, who tweeted his way through the phoner.

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama went on to say, according to Moline's real-time stream.

I don't think I've ever heard a believer be so presumptuous as to say we're "partners" with God on the ultimate question, let alone one who's pushing a government program that's got people worried about "death panels," but oh well. Water off an atheist's back, baby. In fact, partnership's actually a nice conceptual framework for The One's position on abortion: God's the junior partner and we're the senior partners, and sometimes the senior partner has to exercise his/her veto.

Obama also tried to enlist the "Religious Christian Left" to help galvanize public support for his faltering drive for healthcare reform, using the language of faith as he accused some of the critics of his biggest domestic project of "bearing false witness."

Obama made a brief pitch to a "call in" organised by various liberal and progressive faith groups called "40 minutes for Health Reform." It is part of a campaign launched last week to counteract a movement to stop "Obamacare" that has been driven in part by conservative Christian activists.

"These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation - and that is that we look out for one another, that I am my brother's keeper and I am my sister's keeper."

"There has been a lot misinformation in this debate and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness," Obama said.

Obama took issue with some of the most "emotive allegations" that have been raised by social conservative opponents of his vision for overhauling America's healthcare and health insurance system.

"This notion that somehow we are setting up death panels that would decide on whether elderly people get to live or die … that is just an extraordinary lie."

"You've heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortions. Not true," he said.


Security in Iraq breaking down now that our troops are sequestered on their own bases

Back to Top
From the Wall St. Journal:

Deadly Blasts Test Iraq's Grip
Explosions in Baghdad Kill 101, Challenging Security Amid U.S. Pullback From Cities
AUGUST 20, 2009,
By CHIP CUMMINS, BEN LANDO and PETER SPIEGEL

BAGHDAD -- A series of car bombings and explosions rocked the capital on Wednesday morning, killing at least 101 people and directly challenging the effectiveness of Iraqi security services amid a U.S. pullback.

The blasts, the worst episode of coordinated violence since American forces withdrew from Iraqi cities on June 30, injured at least 563 people, according to Iraqi officials. Another person was killed in Kirkuk in what appeared to be the deadliest day in Iraq in more than a year.

The attacks underscored the calculated risk that American officials took with the withdrawal, and they came as the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan also is coming under stress from insurgent violence. U.S. officials say they are closely monitoring the reaction of the Iraqi government, saying there is increasing anxiety that such high death tolls could tip Iraq back into a cycle of sectarian fighting.

President Barack Obama insisted as recently as Monday that there will be no change in his plans to withdraw all U.S. combat forces over the course of the next year and to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011. But U.S. officials noted that the current security agreement with Baghdad allows the Iraqi government to request additional American assistance. "Nobody anticipates they're going to ask us to reposition into the cities," but requests may come for more joint operations in troubled regions, said a senior U.S. Defense Department official.


A conflict of interest involving David Axelrod and Healthcare advertising

Back to Top
From Hugh Hewitt:
David Axelrod's Very Big Problem (Updated)
August 18, 2009
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/


The allegations in this Bloomberg story --if true-- pose a huge problem for a senior advisor to the president, David Axelrod. This is the heart of the problem:

Axelrod was president and sole shareholder of AKPD from 1985 until he sold his interest after Obama's victory, government records show. The firm owes Axelrod $2 million, which it's due to pay in installments beginning Dec. 31. Axelrod's son, Michael, still works there. He didn't return a phone call. The firm's Web site continues to feature David Axelrod's work on the Obama campaign. (Emphasis added.)

The problem is that Axelrod's former firm is currently receiving huge fees "from Healthy Economy Now, a coalition that includes the Washington-based Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA," as well as AARP, the SEIU and other big players in the health care debate.

If Axelrod has been negotiating any part of any deal involving any of these players which are funneling money to the firm that owes him money, or if he is advising the president on the deals with any of these groups, that's a conflict of interest. Laundering the money through a "coalition" doesn't remove the conflict much less the appearance of impropriety. The coalition is in effect partially funding David Axelrod's severance package though its members might have done so unknowingly. These forthcoming payments to Axelrod are much more significant than the sort of "retained ties" that Democrats blasted Dick Cheney for vis-a-vis Halliburton even though there was no high level negotiations between the vice president and his former company.

David Axelrod has some tough questions to answer, and according to Politico's Mike Allen, Politico's Ken Vogel will be publishing more on matters Axelrodian tomorrow. (The transcript of my interview with Allen is here.) Vogel's story on Axelrod's son from a few days back casts doubt on the Bloomberg story's accuracy as Bloomberg has Axelrod's son still at Axelrod's old firm, but Vogel has him at The Huffington Post.

If it was Karl Rove in a similar set of circumstances, the blogs and some in MSM would already be demanding a special prosecutor. There are lots of questions for Mr. Axelrod, the first one being whether the Bloomberg story is accurate. if the answer is "yes," the second will be: "Have you lawyered up?"


Back to Top

The War on Terror is Over -- Somebody Inform the Enemy

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

August 9, 2009


In the midst of all the blowback on the Healthcare bill Obama and his top homeland security and counterterrorism official John Brennan have announced that the War on Terror is officially over. Break out the champagn.

And somebody please memo all of the jihadists around the world that they lost....



So the U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism," or fighting "jihadists" or in a "global war."

"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda." Not even "overseas contingency operation"?

"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."

Brennan said that to say the U.S. is fighting "jihadists" is wrongheaded because it is using "a legitimate term, 'jihad,' meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal" which "risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve." (But al Qaeda are jihadists)

"Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself," Mr. Brennan said. But Islam is at war with us...

Brennan also said that to call the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups - which he said remains "a dynamic and evolving threat" - should not be called "a global war."

Mr. Brennan, reverting back to the old standdby of blaming Bush and Co., also lamented "inflammatory rhetoric, hyperbole, and intellectual narrowness" surrounding the national security debate and said Mr. Obama has views that are "nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological."

We at Neville feel safer already...we just hope that the Jihadists, al Qaeda, and the terrorists or whatever we are calling them now are just as nuanced and practical as our Muslim-loving Fraudinator-in-Chief.

Pathetic...

Back to Top

Obama, Cronkite & the False Liberal Historical Narrative

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

July 19, 2009


"And that's the way it is," thundered Walter Cronkite every evening. So let it be written...so let it be done.

We really didn't have any choice in those days...there were only two other networks in those days reading from the exact same playbook. So that's the way it was.

Except it wasn't. When Cronkite said Viet Nam was a lost cause because of the 1968 Tet Offensive Lyndon Johnson said "If I've lost Cronkite I've lost the country." The only thing Johnson lost was his presidency because he was fighting the war with our military's hands tied.

In reality Tet was a great victory for the United States, but Cronkite forever altered the perception of the war. We could have won had Johnson not stopped the bombing of the North in 1965. It was Nixon who resumed the bombing and forced the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table, but by then the damage was done.

The percpetion of loss had become reality. That's really the way it was.

We always suspected Cronkite of lib leanings but in 2001 the mask came off...he accused Bush of planning the 9/11 attacks.

So along comes our Fraudinator-in-Chief with his idiotic bromide:

"His rich baritone reached millions of living rooms every night, and in an industry of icons, Walter set the standard by which all others have been judged. But Walter was always more than just an anchor. He was family. He invited us to believe in him, and he never let us down."

How the hell would Obama know. Cronkite anchored the news from 1962 to 1981. Having been born around the time Cronkite began his tenure at CBS and then having spent most of his youth out of the country (we are still not sure where he was born, Kenya or Indonsia or Hawaii) he would have as much occasion to watch the CBS Nightly News as the man in the moon.

Obama has about as much of the American experience in him as Osama Bin Laden.

And he throws a baseball like a girl...or at least someone who would never have had the need to hold a baseball as a "yout".

Back to Top

Obama Gives Away the Nuclear Store in Moscow, Fails at G8 Climate Change Summit

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

July 13, 2009


Part Four of our Fraudinator-in-Chief's Apology Tour, aka Little Barack's Excellent Overseas Adventure went pretty much as expected. He trashed his own country saying we did not win the Cold War, gave away our strategic nuclear advantage, and commanded the earth stop warming.

Before we give the details let's review the previous Apology Tours:
  • Apology Tour Part One: In Europe Obama apologized for the United States and bowed to the Saudi King
  • Apology Tour Part Two: In South America Obama apologized for the United States and hung out with Hugo Chavez
  • Apology Tour Part Three: In Cairo Obama apologized for the United States, trashed Israel, and extolled the virtues of Islam.
Now that we are caught up let's jet off to Moscow to see what Obama has wrought.

On the Cold War Obama said the following to a group of students:

"The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."

In Obama-world the Soviets were just as responsible as Ronald Reagan for bringing the Cold War to an end. Note to Obama: The Soviet Union does not exist anymore...we are still here.

Nuclear weapons and our strategic nuclear advantage

In a word gone.

Obama agreed to cut our nuclear-warhead arsenal by one-third to between 1,500 and 1,675 and -- even more dangerously -- to cut the systems that deliver the nuclear payloads. What the Russians really wanted -- and got -- was a US cave-in regarding limits on our nuclear deliverables, bombers, submarines and missiles that could leave us with as few as 500 such systems.

Moving toward very low numbers of launchers is good for Russia, but not for the U.S.

Why? Because the number of deployed Russian strategic ICBMs and bombers will drop dramatically simply as a result of their aging. In other words, a large number of Russian launchers will be removed from service with or without a new arms-control agreement.

Thus Obama has crippled our ability to rapidly respond to international crises. Obama's pathological bias against nuclear weapons dates back to his undergraduate years and he has expressed an interest in further nuclear-weapons cuts. This is Jimmy Carter on steroids.

Obama should recall Winston Churchill's warning: "Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure and more than sure that other means of preserving peace are in your hands."

Read what English journalists have to say:

Is Obama the most naïve president in U.S. history?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100002371/
is-obama-the-most-naive-president-in-us-history/
July 7, 2009
By Nile Gardiner


The whole agreement makes no sense, and is little more than a vanity exercise for Barack Obama who has ludicrously pledged to carve out a nuclear-free world.

At this rate, even Jimmy Carter looks like General Patton compared to the dove-like current U.S. president. Why cut nuclear weapons at a time when rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran are busy building their own programmes? Does the President seriously believe this move will encourage the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il to renounce their nuclear designs? What evidence is there in history that a unilateral policy of disarmament will prompt tyrannical regimes to change their behaviour?

Barack Obama holds a fire sale of America's nuclear defences in Moscow http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100002433/
barack-obama-holds-a-fire-sale-of
-americas-nuclear-defences-in-moscow/
July 7th, 2009
By Gerald Warner


The Looney Tunes President's sell-out of US and Western interests is proceeding at such a speed that it is difficult to keep pace. Well said, Nile Gardiner, for asking if Barack Obama is the most naïve president in American history. The answer is undoubtedly yes - unless he has a secret agenda to cut America down to size.

For America voluntarily to reduce its nuclear superiority is madness. Bien-pensant talk of a nuclear-free world displays total stupidity in a global situation where nuclear weaponry is proliferating, not receding. There is even a nuclear bomb in Pakistan, which is teetering on the brink of failed statehood at the hands of Islamist insurgents. Is this a time for America to disarm, to "sell the store" as one trenchant right-wing commentator has already described Obama's posturing in Moscow?

For Obama, success is not the delivery of watertight nuclear security for America; it is a feel-good news conference and photo opportunity that will create huge approval ratings on liberal campuses where the delusions of 1968 and the anti-Vietnam war movement still linger on in these isolated Jurassic Parks.

It seems certain Obama will sacrifice the anti-missile shield in Europe that would have been our defence against a nuclear Iran after the ayatollahs, with Russian help, emerge as potential vapourising agents of the infidel


G8 Climate Change Summit

At the G8 Climate Change Summit in Italy Obama faired little better.

The assembled geniuses could not agree on how to stop climate change so they declared that the earth's temperature shall hereby stop rising:

"We recognize the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees [Celsius]."

So let it be written, so let it be done (with apologies to Yul Brynner playing Ramses).

Of course they really couldn't say how they would achieve this climate-defying feat so they left it at this: "we will work . . . to identify a global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050."

Nice work if you can get it.

Sez the Wall St. Journal:

Since the heads of the world's leading economies couldn't agree on an actual policy on climate change, they opted instead to command the clouds, the seas and all of the Earth to cool. Or maybe they were finally admitting that this whole climate business is getting too expensive, so let's just throw out a goal that everyone knows is beyond the reach of democratic leaders.

Concerns about high costs and lost jobs have already threatened or killed carbon-emissions control schemes in enviro-conscious Australia and New Zealand. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, another sunshine environmentalist, insisted on exemptions for German industry, including cement and steel, from last year's EU climate deal, which pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020. Italy engineered its own escape clause, requiring the EU to renegotiate its climate policy after a U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen later this year. That probably kills the European deal, since China (the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases), India and other developing countries showed this week that they are unlikely to agree to any draconian emissions cuts.

Meanwhile, the supposed economic benefits of "green technologies" are evaporating. In Germany, government subsidies for installing solar panels -- and, it was presumed, thereby creating domestic manufacturing jobs -- backfired when it turned out that it was cheaper to make solar panels in China.

European leaders still do pray to the climate gods, and they would love to see the U.S. burden its own industries with the kind of cap-and-tax bill just approved by the House. But even Senate Democrats are getting wise to the political risks they run for tying the economy down with regulatory schemes that America's competitors in Europe and Asia will either flout or ignore.


So the Europeans and Obama tut-tutted and talked. Meanwhile the Chinese and the Indians are laughing all the way to the bank as visions of coal-fired electric plants and soaring economies danced in their heads.

Back to Top

An Outbreak of Actual Journalism

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

July 7, 2009


A funny thing happened in the White House Press Room...there was an outbreak of journalism. In the current media slobbering environment this is tantamount to an act of rebellion.

Apparently journalism's ancient artifact Helen Thomas and Chip Reid were angry at the stage managed aspect of the recent Obama press conference and the Obama townhall meeting on healthcare.

See for yourself:



Don't expect this little revolution to last especially for Thomas and most of the press corps...they have too much emotion invested in Obama to become objective and do their jobs.

On June 24 the The Washington Post's Dana Milbank described the press conference as "Showtime" excerpted here:

Stay Tuned for More of 'The Obama Show'
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, June 24, 2009


In his first daytime news conference yesterday, President Obama preempted "All My Children," "Days of Our Lives" and "The Young and the Restless." But the soap viewers shouldn't have been disappointed: The president had arranged some prepackaged entertainment for them.

After the obligatory first question from the Associated Press, Obama treated the overflowing White House briefing room to a surprise. "I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post," he announced.

Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet," Obama went on. "Do you have a question?"

Pitney recognized his prompt. "That's right," he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."

Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.

The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world -- Iran included -- that the American press isn't as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn't so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, "The Obama Show."

This is Barack Obama, and these are the Days of Our Lives.

As if to compensate for the prepackaged Huffington Post question, Obama went quickly to Fox News for a predictably hostile question from Major Garrett. "In your opening remarks, sir, you said about Iran that you were appalled and outraged," Garrett said. "What took you so long?

"I don't think that's accurate," Obama volleyed testily, calling his toughening statements on Iran "entirely consistent."

The host of "The Obama Show" dispatched with similar ease a challenge from CBS's Chip Reid, asking whether his hardening line on Iran was inspired by John McCain. "What do you think?" Obama replied with a big grin. That brought the house down. And the studio audience laughed again when ABC's Jake Tapper tried to get Obama to answer another reporter's question that he had dodged. "Are you the ombudsman for the White House press corps?" the president cracked.

The laughter had barely subsided when the host made another joke about Tapper's reference to Obama's "Spock-like language about the logic of the health-care plan."

"The reference to Spock, is that a crack on my ears?" the president asked.

But yesterday's daytime drama belonged primarily to Pitney, of the Huffington Post Web site. During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner -- from the Huffington Post.


A week later Obama held a staged Townhall meeting on healthcare where the questions were supposed to come from "unbiased voters".

Not so fast...the questioners were Democratic operatives close to the Obama administration and/or the Democratic National Committee.
  • Sergio Salmeron: volunteer canvasser for the Obama campaign and a volunteer "member of the Democratic National Committee"
  • Tom Sawner: made a $250 donation to Obama's campaign on Oct. 27, 2008. He also served as an adviser on Obama's educational platform committee.
  • Carlos Del Toro: endorsed Obama in an Oct. 24, 2008 op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star.
  • Linda Bock: member of Service Employees Intl. Union [SEIU] (closely aligned with ACORN)


Barack Obama
Obama Town Hall Questioners Were Campaign Backers
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/27/
obama_town_hall_questioners_we.html
By Garance Franke-Ruta


President Obama has promised to change the way the government does business, but in at least one respect he is taking a page from the Bush playbook, stocking his town hall Thursday with supporters whose soft -- though far from planted -- questions provided openings to discuss his preferred message of the day.

Obama has said, "I think it's important to engage your critics ... because not only will you occasionally change their mind but, more importantly, sometimes they will change your mind," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs recounted to The Post's Lois Romano in an interview Wednesday.

But while the online question portion of the White House town hall was open to any member of the public with an Internet connection, the five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama's campaign in 2008.

Here are their stories:

1. Sergio Salmeron: Self-description at the White House: "My name is Sergio Salmeron. I want to find out about health care."

Salmeron became engaged with the Obama campaign early in 2008, writing on his blog at my.barackobama.com, "We need to mobilize towards changing the trend of '2 to 1 Latinos favoring Hillary over Barack.' Let's make a resolute commitment... Let's put the facts on the table, ask the questions, until we understand how this all applies to us. Then strategize [sic] to get the word out to Latinos in America, who want change as much as everyone else."

He was a volunteer canvasser for the campaign, he told The Post, and did voter registration work and translated materials for the campaign, as well. A partner at Global Paradigm Strategies, Salmeron is volunteer "member of the Democratic National Committee" and continues to be active with the Obama campaign's successor, Organizing for America, which is how he got the White House invite, he said.

"I got a call from this woman who has been working with me for the pledge drive," he said, referring to the Organizing for America drive on behalf of the president's budget proposal. "You know, we're trying to get support out for the president's agenda."

2. Tom Sawner: Self-description: "Sir, I'm Tom Sawner. I'm a service-disabled veteran, small-business owner in Arlington, Virginia. My company, Educational Options, works with public schools."

According to Federal Election Commission records, Sawner made a $250 donation to Obama's campaign on Oct. 27, 2008. He also, as he noted Thursday, served as an adviser on Obama's educational platform committee. He said he was invited to the White House town hall through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Small Business Executive Council.

Sawner's no stranger to the White House, either; he attended President Bush's Feb. 2008 signing ceremony for that year's economic stimulus package -- another Chamber of Commerce invite. And in April 2008, he even became an anecdote in one of Bush's speeches.

"And I met a guy named Tom Sawner," the 43rd president said at a small business summit. "Now, he's an old fighter pilot, which means there's no wall he can [sic] run through. He's a doer, an achiever, and he's got him a small business called Educational Options."

But the event with Obama, Sawner said, "was a whole different look and feel" than the one with Bush. "This is a president who is into openness." And he didn't know he was going to be able to ask a question until he got to the forum, he said.

3. Carlos Del Toro: Self-description: "My name is Carlos Del Toro. I served in the Navy for 26 years, retired four years ago, and started a small business."

In 2007, Del Toro stood as a Democratic candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates, but did not win. A supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic presidential primaries, he backed Obama against McCain in the general, endorsing him in an Oct. 24, 2008 op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star.

"As a Virginia small-business owner, veteran, and Latino, I'm voting for Sen. Barack Obama for the same reasons as millions of other Americans: because I believe this country desperately needs change. Obama will change our economic policies to help middle-class families, promote the growth of small businesses, and increase funding for veterans' affairs, so no member of our armed services goes without the medical treatment he or she needs and deserves," he wrote.

In 2008, he donated $2,750 to Virginia Democratic candidates for office, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; in 2006, he gave $1000 to the campaign of now Sen. Jim Webb (Va.), FEC records show.

He also has ties to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Small Business Council.

4. Linda Bock: "My name is Linda Bock and I'm a registered nurse just in Prince George's County, Maryland -- been there 34 years at a free senior health center. And I'm here with my fellow nurses from SEIU."

Bock, along with her chapter of the SEIU and her son and daughter, helped campaign and canvass for Obama, she said. After Obama was elected, she wrote in the Landover, Md., 1199 SEIU nurses' newsletter: "Now we have our work cut out for us -to hold our elected officials accountable. And I hope they hold us accountable too. We all have work to do to make the changes needed to restore our reputation, to heal the wounds of war, to repair our earth and regulate its resources; and, to secure our economic future. It will take sacrifice and service. It will take prayer and the grace of God. Now we have hope. We have President-elect Barack Obama. God bless America."

Her invite to the White House came through the Nurse Alliance Leadership Council, she said. And like Sawner, she didn't know until she got to the forum that it was open to the in real life participants. "I did not think we would be able to ask any questions," she said. "I wasn't personally anticipating being chosen to ask anything. We knew that the Web portion was people already lined up."

5. Bonnee L. Breese: "Hi, Mr. President. Thank you so very much for having me, a public school teacher from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, here to be with you.

THE PRESIDENT: What's your name?

Q Bonnee Breese.

THE PRESIDENT: Good to see you, Bonnee.

Q Thank you. I'm from Overbrook High School. I have to say that, because I know all the children are watching. (Laughter.)"

Breese has not donated a reportable amount to Obama, according to the FEC. She is a member of the 11,626-person Pennsylvania for Obama page on Facebook.

A supporter of the president's -- "Of course!" she said -- Breese was invited to the meeting through the American Federation of Teachers union. She sits on the executive board of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, Local 3, she said, and is known in her area for being politically engaged.

The sixth in-person presidential questioner, "Ellie" from Maryland, did not give her surname. The White House did not respond to a request for it, but noted there were roughly 100 people in the audience.

"The audience was composed of approximately 100 people, including teachers, nurses, small business owners, and community leaders -- and the virtual audience of thousands across the country who have submitted questions online," said White House spokesman Nicholas S. Shapiro. "The White House reached out to a number of community groups and the chamber of commerce and those groups invited their folks to come and participate."


Back to Top

The Obama Administration -- Like Jimmy Carter, Soft on Tyranny

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

July 1, 2009


Never missing an opportunity to be on the wrong side of an issue regarding freedom, Obama and the administration promptly lined up with Hugo Chavez, the Castro Brothers, Daniel Ortega, the European Union and the UN in condemning the removal of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya after he attempted to steal a third term for himself by trying to hold a vote to change the Honduran constitution to let him run again, a move deemed illegal by the Supreme Court, Congress and the country's military.

The story continues below...



Recall that Hugo Chavez set himself up as El Presidente for Life in Venezuela with a similar stunt.

And in the finest Orwellian newspeak the mainstream press is playing this as a coup d'etat by the Honduran military. Forget that the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress ordered the military to undertake Zelaya's removal.

Our Fraudinator-in-Chief is on the case: "I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of President Mel Zelaya. I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference," Obama said.

Sec. of State Hillary was equally as forceful in defending freedom: "“The action taken against Honduran President Mel Zelaya violates the precepts of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and thus should be condemned by all. We call on all parties in Honduras to respect the constitutional order and the rule of law, to reaffirm their democratic vocation, and to commit themselves to resolve political disputes peacefully and through dialogue."

We now hear that the Obama administration and members of the Organization of American States had worked for weeks to try to prevent any moves to overthrow President Zelaya. That means they support Zelaya's subversion of the Honduran constitution. We at Neville would now not be surprised by a similar move by Obama should he [God forbid] get re-elected and then want a third term.

There is a pattern here. Obama left the protesters in Iran to twist in the wind while he watched his grand strategy of cozying up without pre-conditions to Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs blow up in his face. It took him two weeks to go from "We respect Iranian sovereignty" to being "appalled and outraged" by the brutality of the Iranian government.

Hillary was equally as forceful with the Iranians: "I'm not going to speculate on, you know, what happens with their internal regime. Obviously, they have a huge credibility gap with their own people as to the election process, and I don't think that's going to disappear by any finding of a limited review of a relatively small number of ballots. We're going to take this a day at a time. We're going to watch, and carefully assess what we see happening. This is a historic moment for Iran and for the Iranian people, and I don't want to, you know, speculate on how it's going to turn out."

Historic moment for Iran? Is she insane?...Not at all. Obama and Hillary are right at home with these leftists and facsists. Obama, who did not want to be seen as meddling in Iran, has no problem sticking his nose into the Honduran matter.

Obama and Hillary have no problem in forcing a two state solution on Israel and ordering them to suspend settlements in the West Bank, telling the Jews not to have any more children and giving $900 million to Hamas in Gaza.

And for the final insult, after bowing to the Saudi king on his first whirlwind apology tour the Obama administration petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to protect Saudi Arabia and four of its princes from being held accountable for their alleged role in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Through its solicitor general, Elena Kagan, the Obama administration asked that the Saudis be held immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, even though there is ample U.S. evidence of complicity by the Saudi government and the named princes in support of al-Qaida's attack.

Amazingly, after several appeals, the Supreme Court refused to allow victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue lawsuits against Saudi Arabia over charitable donations allegedly funneled to al-Qaida.

It's depressing enough that the 9/11 families lost in 2008 a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the 2006 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Casey in dismissing the claim against Saudi Arabia. What galls is that Obama aggressivley lobbied the high court not to take the case at all.

Back to Top

Obama & Iran -- The President's Anti-Israel Agenda in Smithereens

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

June 25, 2009


Cancel those Hebrew National hot dogs!! Our Fraudinator-in-Chief and newly minted
Muslim sympathizing president has disinvited the Iranians from our July 4th celebrations this year.

That'll teach 'em! The lion in his cave trembles at his approach. You can almost see the Mullahs cowering in fear and telling the Revolutionary Guard to 'back off'. NOT...

So let's review. Obama's response to the Iranian uprising has been a study in a "hero's resolve":
  • June 15
    "We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being inside the issue of Iran."
  • June 16
    "You've seen in Iran some initial reaction from the supreme leader -- peace be upon him -- that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."
  • June 19
    "The world is watching. And we stand behind those who are seeking justice in a peacful way."
  • June 23
    "In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice. The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost."
There were also several references to "bearing witness" and not being seen as "meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations" over the last few days as well.

Stirring words Mr. President.

Per Ann Coulter on June 25: On Iran, President Obama is worse than Hamlet. He's Colin Powell, waiting to see who wins before picking a side.

This is appeasement pure and simple and confirms what we always knew...Obama is a wimp when it comes to the practice of realpolitik. His pathetic performance regarding Iran (and North Korea) sends a clear message to all of America's enemies that Obama does not believe in using military power. Naturally, Obama has no problem bullying Americans into national healthcare, raising taxes through phony climate change cap & trade legislation, putting unions ahead of investors by turning contract law on it's head and throwing auto company bondholders under the bus, or ramming big spending programs through Congress without real debate.

Obama's failure to stand up to these aggressors, indeed, all of his foreign policy moves including shutting down Gitmo and defunding military projects, signals our surrender in the War on Terror.

However, Obama has also painted himself into an uncomfortable corner. Obama couldn't wait to get into bed with the Mullahs and [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. His speech in Cairo sent the Iranians the message that he considered them partners in negotiation. Iranian nukes? No problem. Israeli settlements? Outta there.

The Islamic "Republic" of Iran never had any legitimacy in spite of 30 years of existence and we currently have no formal diplomatic relations with them. With the current repression they have even less currency. Obama does not seem to understand this. If democracy and the reformers win, Obama's plan to negotiate with the Mullahs is DOA, for the regime will be gone. If the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad prevail anyone who cozy's up and shakes hands will have a hard time washing off the stench. Obama's plan to negotiate with the Mullahs is DOA.

Curiously the real winner here is Israel. In his Cairo speech Obama spent considerable time bashing his favorite target:

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.


Apparently our Fraudinator-in-Chief has no problem meddling in Israel's affairs.

With the Iranian regime, and with it the nuclear threat, inevitably headed for the ashheap of history (perhaps not immediately) Netanyahu and the Israelis can tell Obama to "bugger off".

Hamas and Hezbollah are both funded by the Iranians. The money will eventually dry up and with it the existential threat to Israel. Netanyahu might want to consider rolling tanks north into Lebanon and south into Gaza...world opinion and Obama be damned. Let Egypt and Jordan take in the Palestinians.

A gift to Israel...a popular Iranian uprising. God does work in mysterious ways.

Back to Top

Uprising in Iran -- Where is the President?

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

June 18, 2009


Revolution is in the air in Iran...the Mullahs may be on the way out after 30 years and the president is right on top of it

He denounced the "extent of the fraud" and the "shocking" and "brutal" response of the Iranian regime to public demonstrations in Tehran these past four days.

"These elections are an atrocity," he said. "If [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad had made such progress since the last elections, if he won two-thirds of the vote, why such violence?"

Too bad the president that spoke these words wasn't Obama... it was France's Nicolas Sarkozy. It takes a lot to out-pantywaist a Frenchman but Obama has managed to do just that.

Obama doesn't want to be seen as meddling in the affairs of another country, except when it's Israel affairs. He spoke these "stirring" words:

[Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] "understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election. How that plays out is ultimately for the Iranian people to decide."

What a profile in courage. Spoken like a true Acorn Lawyer. Prior to this Iranian fraud Obama was delusional enough to think that his Apology Speech in Cairo would be enough to force change in Iran and he was taking credit for any change.

Now his silence is deafening. Why?

Because Obama doesn't really want change in Iran. He is so anxious to get into bed with the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad he will only give lip service to the daily demonstrations in Teheran. Obama sees no problem with a nuclear armed Iran.

Not that Mousavi is any better than Ahmadinejad. This was the guy who planned the Marine barracks bombing in the 1980's. Mousavi is no moderate as the our state controlled media would portray him.

The false choice for the Iranian people is whether you want a guy who wants to nuke Israel three times or the new guy who wants to bomb Israel once.

The only real change is to overthrow the Mullahs, the Revolutionary Guard and the thugs in the Government, arrest them, try them and line them up against a wall and shoot them.

The fall of the regime is the key to the beginning of the end of Islamo-fascism. It would mean the end of Iranian financed Hezbollah and Hamas. That would put pressure on al-Qaeda and the countries that harbor them.

So where is our Fraudinator-in-Chief? As our newly minted
Muslim sympathizing president he is probably getting more in touch with his roots and reading the Koran.

Back to Top

Obama Fires Americorps Inspector General

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

June 16, 2009


Look, up in the sky!! It's President Hopey-Changey. It's President Post-Racial. It's President Transparent Government.

Stop...you're all wrong. It's just our cheap Chicago thug, political grifter Fraudinator-in-Chief.

Remember when President Bush fired a few U.S. Attorneys who served at his pleasure and the press went ballistic charging the firings were politically motivated?

You would have thought Bush had closed down Gitmo and let all the terrorists come to New York and Bermuda. (Wait, Obama just did that...).

Well it turns out that Obama just fired Americorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin for the crime of trying to protect taxpayer dollars...a move that smacks of political favoritism and Chicago rules.

Per the Wall Street Journal:

A George W. Bush appointee, Mr. Walpin has since 2007 been the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that oversees such subsidized volunteer programs as AmeriCorps. In April 2008 the Corporation asked Mr. Walpin to investigate reports of irregularities at St. HOPE, a California nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson. St. HOPE had received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant, which was supposed to go for three purposes: tutoring for Sacramento-area students; the redevelopment of several buildings; and theater and art programs.

Mr. Walpin's investigators discovered that the money had been used instead to pad staff salaries, meddle politically in a school-board election, and have AmeriCorps members perform personal services for Mr. Johnson, including washing his car.

So far, so normal. But that all changed last fall, when Mr. Johnson was elected mayor of Sacramento. News of the suspension had become public, and President Obama began to discuss his federal stimulus spending. A city-hired attorney pronounced in March that Sacramento might be barred from receiving stimulus funds because of Mr. Johnson's suspension.

The news caused a public uproar. The U.S. Attorney's office, which since January has been headed by Lawrence Brown -- a career prosecutor who took over when the Bush-appointed Attorney left -- had already decided not to pursue criminal charges. Media and political pressure then mounted for the office to settle the issue and lift Mr. Johnson's suspension.

There's also the question of how Mr. Walpin was terminated. He says the phone call came from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, who said the President felt it was time for Mr. Walpin to "move on," and that it was "pure coincidence" he was asked to leave during the St. HOPE controversy. Yet the Administration has already had to walk back that claim.


On the Glenn Beck show Walpin said that when the Norman Eisen call came he was given the choice to quit or be fired...he chose to be fired and he is now considering his options. Having failed to pressure Walpin into resigning (which in itself might violate the law), the Administration backpeddled saying he'd be terminated in 30 days, and that they would tell Congress the reasons. We at Neville wonder what fairy tale the Administration will manufacture.

Obama also violated the Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the President to give Congress 30 days notice, plus a reason, before firing an inspector general. The administration did neither. It turns out that a certain Sen. Obama co-sponsored this bill.

Naturally the state-controlled press has buried the story...wouldn't reflect well on their golden boy.

Back to Top

Obama Wants Miranda Rights for Terrorists

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

June 11, 2009


Our Fraudinator-in-Chief and the terrorist-loving attorney general Eric Holder have just taken the next step towards surrender in the War on Terror by quietly ordering captured terrorists to be read their miranda rights in the field. The administration is not consulting Congress on this.

This means that battlefields must become crime scenes where evidence is gathered to support a case against the captured fighter.

The terrorists will immediately lawyer up and the lawyers from the ACLU will be standing in line to take their cases and advising them not to talk to the FBI.

The security nightmare both on the battlefield and the city where terrorist trials are held will be a jihadist wet dream.

Our newly minted
Muslim sympathizing president is deliberately and systematically dismantling our security infrastructure and making it ever harder for us to defend ourselves. Obama is acting like a lawyer for the enemy. We have said it before and we will say it again...Obama's actions are a violation of the presidential oath of office and are approaching treason.

This new policy is worse than a pre-9/11 mentality of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue. This sets up the possibility of releasing terrorists on legal technicalities or getting outright acquittals from sympathetic juries.

By the way, the first of the Gitmo detainees, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, is now in New York to stand trial for his role in the Aug. 7, 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya. Charges include conspiring with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to kill Americans, and separate charges of murder for each of the 224 people killed embassy bombings.

This will be a circus in the manner of the 20th 9/11 hijacker Zacarias Moussawai trial, costing the U.S. Taxpayer millions taking years to adjuducate.

From Stephen F. Hayes on June 10, 2009 for The Weekly Standard:

Miranda Rights for Terrorists

When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. "I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer," he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.

Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. "I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal - read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up," Tenet wrote in his memoirs.

If Tenet is right, it's a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here's the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today - foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they're reading them their rights - Mirandizing these foreign fighters," says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.

Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. "I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn't been briefed on it, I didn't know about it. We're still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative."

That effort, which elevates the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and diminishes the role of intelligence and military officials, was described in a May 28 Los Angeles Times article.

The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.

Under the "global justice" initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.

Thanks in part to the popularity of law and order television shows and movies, many Americans are familiar with the Miranda warning - so named because of the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda vs. Arizona that required police officers and other law enforcement officials to advise suspected criminals of their rights.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.

A lawyer who has worked on detainee issues for the U.S. government offers this rationale for the Obama administration's approach. "If the US is mirandizing certain suspects in Afghanistan, they're likely doing it to ensure that the treatment of the suspect and the collection of information is done in a manner that will ensure the suspect can be prosecuted in a US court at some point in the future."

But Republicans on Capitol Hill are not happy. "When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the 'right to remain silent,'" says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up."

According to Mike Rogers, that is precisely what some human rights organizations are advising detainees to do. "The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, has now started telling people - 'Take the option. You want a lawyer.'"

Rogers adds: "The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he's building bomb materials to kill US soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer - you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone."

One thing is clear, though. A detainee who is not talking cannot provide information about future attacks. Had Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had a lawyer, Tenet wrote, "I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats against the American people."


Back to Top

Obama in Cairo -- A Study in Moral Relativism

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

June 10, 2009


Our Fraudinator-in-Chief has just returned from the Middle East where he gave a clinic on moral relativism consigning the United States to the level of every other despotic toilet around the world...you know...the countries that Obama relates to best like Syria, Iran, N. Korea, Zimbabwe. We are no better and no worse.

The week before the big speech Obama met with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and pressed him about closing the settlements on the West Bank. He must have forgotten that because he said the following in Cairo:

"I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."

Can you blame him for forgetting...he's just so busy taking over everything like the banks, the auto industry, health care and the environment. So we will not impose our will anywhere in the world except when it comes to our only ally in the Middle East...Israel.

He also professed, once again, his love for Islam proclaiming the United States an Islamic country:

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith. As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar University - that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations - to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.


Well yeah...Islam is part of America now that we are bending over backwards to accomodate every idiotic aggrieved demand from organizations like CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and every other nutbag Islamic special interest group.

From the Ralph Peters for the NY Post:

What Obama Taught Me...Wonderful Arabs, American Slavers, Wicked Jews
June 6, 2009
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06062009/postopinion/
opedcolumnists/what_obama_taught_me_172894.htm?page=0


Salaam aleikum, dudes!

I thought I knew a little bit about the Middle East. Boy, was I wrong. Last week, President Obama set me straight. Here's what our president taught me during his Middle-Eastern pilgrimage:

There is no more terrorism.

Wow, cool! No more security checks at airports, right? It's unclear which side won, but it's all over. Obama didn't mention terrorism a single time in his star-turn speech in Cairo. Only a few "violent extremists" (our own troops?) remain at large.

America tortured.

I thought there was still a debate about that, but I guess not. And no regime in the Middle East tortures anybody, ever. Our bad.

Churches and synagogues are about to open in Saudi Arabia.

Since "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance" and there are "over 1,200 mosques within our borders," I can't wait for the first Baptist hymn-sing in Riyadh. Sign me up!

Behind closed doors with Saudi King Abdullah, our president must've mentioned the many hundreds of churches and synagogues that thrived on the Arabian Peninsula during the Prophet's lifetime. Muslims zealots destroyed them. Time to get the bin Laden family's construction firm on the job re-building!

And stoning converts who leave Islam to death is a no-no, right?

Women can dress any way they want in Saudi Arabia.

Just my analysis, based on Obama's insistence that Islam recognizes "the dignity of all human beings" and that Muslim women must be free to make their own decisions about what to wear. Surely, fashion choices extend to Mecca and Medina, not just Detroit and Paris?

"Islam has always been a part of America's story."

Guess the Founding Fathers missed that one. But I'm assured that George Washington turned to his mullah in the dark days at Valley Forge, that Daniel Boone read the Koran around the campfire, and that al Qaeda stood by us at the Alamo.

Yeah, there was that misunderstanding with the Muslim Barbary Pirates, when they killed, kidnapped and enslaved American citizens for years - but who's perfect?

There are "nearly seven million American Muslims."

Who knew? We all thought there were three or four million, max. Is this a preview of the predetermined results of our upcoming census? [Note to editor: Confirm numbers with ACORN.]

"It was not violence that won full and equal rights" for black Americans.

So much for the Civil War and my ancestor, who volunteered to wear Union blue and paid for it with his life. I thought a half-million Americans died fighting to end slavery. Silly me. Still, it was brave of our president to highlight slavery's "lash of the whip" in his speech, since his own ancestors, as Muslims along Africa's Swahili Coast, would have been complicit - if not actively engaged - in enslaving their fellow black Africans for Arab masters. As a self-proclaimed "student of history," Obama surely knows that.

Holocaust, schmolocaust.

Aren't those pesky Jews ever going to go away? Yes, denying the Holocaust is "hateful." But let's get a grip. Palestinians "endure . . . daily humiliations." Their lot's "intolerable." Israel "devastates Palestinian families." No wonder our president shunned wicked Israel during his trip - sending a clear, if unspoken, message that Jews are now fair game.

"America's strong bonds with Israel are . . . unbreakable."

Yup. And they're issued by Chrysler.

Hamas is a legitimate, recognized voice of the Palestinians.

Rocket attacks against civilians, suicide bombings and kidnappings really work.

Iran can have nukes.

Our president's acceptance of "peaceful nuclear power" for Tehran was coded language for "no pre-emptive military action."

Jordan doesn't matter.

So much for one Arab country's attempts at human decency. If you want attention from our president, you've got to be a desert gangbanger.

My wife wondered why Obama didn't make his speech in Indonesia, the world's most-populous Muslim state, where he would've been welcomed proudly as a home-boy. Obama just reinforced the stereotype that Muslim equals Arab.

Democracy isn't for everybody.

We're done peddling that particular drug.

Of course, our president didn't mention al Qaeda's catastrophic defeat in Iraq, where millions of Sunni Arabs rejected the terror organization. Iraq was Bush's war, so it's all bad.

And forget junk like modern medicine, telecommunications or even the internal combustion engine. Islam's been the source of real progress. Like "calligraphy." Medieval Islam's ballyhooed contributions actually were due to Greek-speaking Christians (including slaves) employed as court officials, to Armenian architects and Jewish physicians. But, yeah, Arabs had really good penmanship.

Our president's breakthrough message to the Muslim world was that America overthrew democratic regimes, slavery was our history's central feature, and we invaded people on a whim - but we're sorry now.

His crowd-pleasing speech sanitized and romanticized Islam, letting the disgruntled populations of the Middle East off the hook for their own self-wrought failures, their monstrous oppression of women (our president's women's-right-to-wear-hijab remarks were aimed at Europe), and the violent aggression toward others they often celebrated and generally tolerated.

To Arab ears, especially, the Cairo speech made America the guilty party in our confrontations, as if, on 9/11, crazed Presbyterians had attacked Mecca. Yet, the historical facts are that Islam's remorseless assault on the West lasted for more than one thousand years, its cruel occupation of Christian lands lasted into the 20th century, and the dream of an all-conquering caliphate remains very much with us.

The last mass slaughter of Christians in Iraq wasn't a millennium ago, but in 1933. Al Qaeda isn't an aberration. It's a manifestation.

Our president may or may not be a student of history, but he can't just make it up.

Aleikum salaam!

Ralph Peters is Fox News' Strategic Analyst.


Back to Top

Sotomayor -- Aggrieved Minority Empathy Trumps Jurisprudence

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

May 29, 2009


She's a racist. Never mind that...she's got such a compelling rags to riches story.

She's a judicial activist. Never mind that...she's got such a compelling rags to riches story.

Sixty percent of her decisions are overturned on appeal. Never mind that...she's got such a compelling rags to riches story.

Wait a minute...didn't Clarence Thomas have a compelling rags to riches story? Never mind that...he's a conservative and worthy of our contempt. We must destroy him.

And so it goes with liberals and the lamestream media. So let's tick off the cosmetic diversity talking points. She's a woman, hispanic and has empathy. If Obama could have found a transgendered handicapped multi-racial candidate he would have nominated it as well.

He had to settle for Sotomayor.

This nominee is wrong on several levels.

She's empathetic to the downtrodden. That's all well and good. But she will base her decisions on "aggrieved minority empathy" which is a violation of her oath of office.

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

In looking for a nominee with "empathy" Obama has demonstrated that he clearly does not understand the role of the courts....any courts.

She is a racist. In her own words at the University of California at Berkeley:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The libs don't seem to care. Racist comments are just fine when it's one of their own. If Justice Roberts had made a similar remark he would have been voted off the island faster than you can say Supreme Court Nominee.

She is a judicial activist. In her own words at a Duke University forum:

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience" because "the court of appeals is where policy is made."



This makes perfect sense from the socialist point of view...what they could never win at the ballot box they force through in the courts.

But what the hell...she did save baseball.

The liberal media push to get Sotomayor confirmed is already underway. Any criticism of her is racist and sexist. (Remember, any Hillary and Obama criticism from the right during the campaign was attacked as racist and sexist.) They will use her "compelling story" to deflect and distract from her racist statements and decisions (Ricci v. DeStefano) and her judicial activism.

It's the usual liberal playbook pioneered by Ted Kennedy during the Bork hearings. Any white Supreme court nominee by a Republican president is always woefully out of touch, a racist, outside the mainstream, etc. Any minority Supreme Court nominee by a Republican president is always woefully out of touch, outside the mainstream and therefore, unqualified.

The real question is how much longer do the conservative Republicans allow the media and Democrats to get away with these thuggish hypocritical tactics. Indications are not anytime soon.

Afraid of losing the Hispanic votes conservatives will treat Sotomayor with kid gloves.

Note to the conservatives: you have already lost the Hispanic vote. She's going to be confirmed anyway...we might as well go down swinging and not worry about being labled racist by a bunch of liberal racists.

From the Wall St. Journal:

The 'Empathy' Nominee
Is Sonia Sotomayor judically superior to 'a white male'?
MAY 27, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124338457658756731.html


In making Sonia Sotomayor his first nominee for the Supreme Court yesterday, President Obama appears to have found the ideal match for his view that personal experience and cultural identity are the better part of judicial wisdom.

This isn't a jurisprudence that the Founders would recognize, but it is the creative view that has dominated the law schools since the 1970s and from which both the President and Judge Sotomayor emerged. In the President's now-famous word, judging should be shaped by "empathy" as much or more than by reason. In this sense, Judge Sotomayor would be a thoroughly modern Justice, one for whom the law is a voyage of personal identity.

"Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers," Mr. Obama said yesterday in introducing Ms. Sotomayor. "It is experience that can give a person a common touch of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of Justice we need on the Supreme Court."

In a speech published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002, Judge Sotomayor offered her own interpretation of this jurisprudence. "Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases," she declared. "I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

We quote at such length because, even more than her opinions, these words are a guide to Ms. Sotomayor's likely behavior on the High Court. She is a judge steeped in the legal school of identity politics. This is not the same as taking justifiable pride in being the first Puerto Rican-American nominated to the Court, as both she and the President did yesterday. Her personal and family stories are admirable. Italian-Americans also swelled at the achievement of Justice Antonin Scalia, as Jewish-Americans did at the nomination of Benjamin Cardozo.

But these men saw themselves as judges first and ethnic representatives second. Judge Sotomayor's belief is that a "Latina woman" is by definition a superior judge to a "white male" because she has had more "richness" in her struggle. The danger inherent in this judicial view is that the law isn't what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the "richness" of her experience comes to believe it should be.

There are signs of what this means in practice in her lower court decisions. One of them is Ricci v. DeStefano, involving the promotion of white firefighters in New Haven and now pending before the Supreme Court. In the case, heard by a three-judge panel including Judge Sotomayor, the city refused to certify promotion exams when the results of the exam would have elevated 18 white firefighters and one Hispanic -- an outcome that would have underrepresented minorities. The firefighters sued, charging discrimination.

After the three judge panel issued a brief opinion repeating the district court's decision, the appeals court declined to rehear the case en banc, an outcome which infuriated Ms. Sotomayor's colleague and fellow Clinton appointee Jose Cabranes. In a dissent joined by five of his colleagues, Judge Cabranes criticized the slip-shod handling of the case by a majority that lacked the courage of its racial preference convictions. The "perfunctory disposition" of the opinion, he noted, "lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal."

Judge Cabranes added that the discrimination issues raised by the case were "worthy of review" by the Supreme Court, which took the case and may well overturn the Sotomayor panel's ruling. The case raises the question of whether a judge with an avowed commitment to applying her own "experience" to cases was disinclined to an argument made by those not sharing that personal experience.

Or consider the result last year in Knight v. Commissioner, in which the Supreme Court unanimously upheld her ruling in a tax case involving individual tax deductions, even as her reasoning drew a rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts. The Second Circuit opinion "flies in the face of the statutory language," he wrote for the Court.

In April, the Supreme Court overturned 6-3 her 2007 ruling in Riverkeeper v. EPA in which she found that the EPA could not consider cost-benefit analysis in judging whether companies need to upgrade to the best technology available, even when the costs were wholly disproportionate to the benefits. And in the 2006 case of Merrill Lynch v. Dabit, the Court ruled 8-0 to overturn her position that a state class-action lawsuit against Merrill Lynch was not pre-empted by federal law.

Even the best judges get overturned, of course, but the issue here is less the result than Judge Sotomayor's legal reasoning. As a lower court judge, she was restrained by a higher authority. On the Supreme Court, she is limited only by the other Justices she can win over to her arguments.

As the first nominee of a popular President and with 59 Democrats in the Senate, Judge Sotomayor is likely to be confirmed barring some major blunder. But Republicans can use the process as a teaching moment, not to tear down Ms. Sotomayor on personal issues the way the left tried with Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, but to educate Americans about the proper role of the judiciary and to explore whether Judge Sotomayor's Constitutional principles are as free-form as they seem from her record.


Back to Top

Cheney Obama Smackdown -- Who Won?

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

May 23, 2009


Well, as this is an unabashed Obama-bashing site so Cheney won in the dueling speeches smackdown.

Several days after being rebuked by his own Senate, which voted 90-6 not to fund the closing of Gitmo, our Fraudinator-in-Chief went over to the Archives Museum, and in front of a fake Constituion threw an old fashioned temper-tantrum. He serenaded us about his father (once again), spoke of his unique "journey" which led him to the presidency, bashed the previous administration, called Gitmo "a mess" and reiterated his intention to close Gitmo by January 22, 2010.

Obama at his America-hating self-flagellating best:

[O]ur government made a series of hasty decisions....all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight.... All too often, our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions....Instead of strategically applying our power and power principles, too often, we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford.... we went off course....the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable; a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions and that failed to use our values as a compass.... our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law....over 525 detainees were released from Guantanamo under -- not my administration -- under the previous administration. Let me repeat that. Two-thirds of the detainees were released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo....[Guantanamo] is quite simply a mess, a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my administration is forced to deal with on a constantly, almost daily, basis and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.... the court ordered the release of 17 Uighurs -- 17 Uighur detainees took place last fall when George Bush was president....the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility. The problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.... we are acutely aware that, under the last administration, detainees were released and, in some cases, returned to the battle field. That's why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that led those detainees go in the past.... Instead of using the flawed commissions of the last seven years, my administration is bringing our commissions in line with the rule of law.... whether it was the run-up to the Iraq war or the revelation of secret programs, Americans often felt like part of the story had been unnecessarily withheld from them.... Now, in all the areas that I've discussed today, the policies that I propose represent a new direction for the last eight years.... on the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words -- anything goes. Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means and that the president should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants provided it is a president with whom they agree....we will vigorously protect our people while forge a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake. If we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as president.

Ironically the speech occurred on the same day that four homegrown Muslim terrorists were arrested by the FBI, their plot to blow up synagogues and military aircraft exposed. These terrorists were recruited by prison imams in U.S. prisons...the very place Obama wants to put the Gitmo prisoners.

By contrast Cheney, who spoke at the American Enterprise Institute, was measured, solid, and eloquently and forcefully defended the Bush Administration's efforts to combat terrorism. A true patriot.

Compare excerpts and decide for yourself:

On the Constitution

Obama: I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as commander in chief, and as a citizen I know that we must never -- ever -- turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience's sake.

I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe.

Cheney: Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, with our statutes and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

On values

Obama: Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people.

But I also believe that too often our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us -- Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens -- fell silent.

Cheney: For all that we've lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers, they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

On waterboarding

Obama: I know some have argued that brutal methods like waterboarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As commander in chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation.

What's more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America.

Cheney: It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You've heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, who had also boasted about his beheading of Daniel Pearl.

We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. . . . We didn't know about Al Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and a few others did know.

On Guantanamo

Obama: So the record is clear: Rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed, throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one year.

Cheney: The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo, but it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security. . . .

Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago.

And among these, it turns out that many were treated too leniently, because they cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East.

An estimated 14% of those released previously are believed to be back in the business of jihad.


Since Cheney went on the offensive and started speaking out against Obama several weeks ago his popularity in the polls is rising. We hope he continues to speak out. And we urge Republicans in Congress, in the wake of the Pelosi meltdown to start finding their voices as well.

Back to Top

Obama Completing the Nationalization of U.S. Auto Industry -- Impossible CAFE Standards

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

May 20, 2009


Our Fraudinator-in-Chief famously said he doesn't want to run a car company or a bank. And there is a bridge to nowhere to sell you...

After that remark here's where we are:
  • Obama fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner
  • After promising that the Chrysler and GM bailouts would avoid bankruptcy Chrysler is now in bankrubtcy and is owned by Fiat. GM faces bankruptcy.
  • Turning contract law on it's head Obama and Car Czar Steve Rattner bullied the Chrysler bondholders to accept 29 cents on the dollar while giving the UAW 55% of Chrysler.
  • Chrysler and GM are closing at least 1800 dealerships...many of them profitable.
  • Obama personally cut Chrysler's advertising budget by half.
  • Obama personally guaranteed the federal government will pay for any warranty repairs on a GM or Chrysler vehicle if either company can’t because of financial problems or a bankruptcy filing. Chrysler warranties are now in doubt due to dealership closings.
Obama has now put the final stake into Detroit. The administration announced on May 19, 2009 a sweeping revision to auto-emission and fuel-economy standards, putting them in the same package for the first time.

The plan would require cars and trucks to average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, Obama said at a ceremony with legislators, regulators, executives of 10 car companies and the United Auto Workers union. The plan would increase the standard and accelerate the requirement from 35 mpg in 2020 set by the 2007 Energy Act.

This means that Detroit will be required to produce lightweight, unsafe clown cars that history has shown nobody wants. However if the environ-mentalcases have their way by reinforcing the no drill mind-set in government energy prices will rise....a lot.

When that happens people will be forced to trade comfort, safety and choice for the Obamamobile. That's the only kind of car that will be available.

Estimates vary but the expected increase in cost to meet the new standards for these hybrid putt-putts range from $1300 to $7000 per auto. But wait...Obama promises that the cost savings in fuel purchases will MORE than off set the increased cost of the vehicle. But if gas prices go up as expected...oh never mind!! Quit your whining. Just get with the GloObama and get in line you right wing extremist.

We at Neville urge you to buy your SUV or truck now while prices are low. Take care of it....do preventive maintenance....be prepared to hold onto it for 10 years.

You can hold on to your dignity and ride out this insanity until a change in government occurs. It will happen just as it did when Reagan blew out the Carter administration in 1981.

Back to Top

Obama Leaving Terrorists at Gitmo for the Time Being -- Re-Opening Military Tribunals

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

May 16, 2009


All Democrats in favor of standing with your president to trash Bush's Guantanamo terrorist detension program, shout aye! "Aye!" All Democrats in favor of doing what it takes to close Guantanamo, shout aye! ............(crickets chirping)

The reality of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) has hit the Gitmo controversy and the Democrats with full force.

Apparently these Democratic "terror warriors" don't want them.

"We're not going to bring al Qaeda to Big Sky Country. No way, not on my watch," declared Montana Sen. Max Baucus. "I wouldn't want them and I wouldn't take them," insisted Nebraska's Ben Nelson. Not Quantico, piped up Virginia's Mark Warner. After all, it "is in a very populated area in the greater capital region." Look, "Alcatraz is a national park and a tourist attraction, not a functioning prison" for terrorists, said the office of California's Dianne Feinstein.

On day two of his presidency, Ol' Blood 'n Guts Barack Obama issued an executive order to shut down, within one year, the Gitmo prison that still houses 241 detainees. Four months later, he may be about to be handed his first defeat of a major campaign promise, and by his own party. Faced with the actual politics of bringing terrorists to U.S. soil, congressional Democrats are running for the exits.

Public outrage has already inspired officials in Louisiana, California, Mississippi, Missouri and Virginia to introduce or pass resolutions prohibiting the Administration from sending the terrorists to their communities. Playing off this, the House GOP introduced legislation that would prohibit the administration from transferring Gitmo detainees to a state without permission from that state's governor and legislature. They then dared Democrats to vote against this "Keep Terrorists Out of America Act."

The Dems caved. Just like when they were challenged by the GOP to eliminate the war budget The House instead yanked the $81 million Mr. Obama wants as a down payment to begin the process of shuttering the prison. Worried that even this didn't provide enough cover, they also inserted language barring detainee transfers to the U.S. until at least October. Tough guys all.

As with Obama's epiphany that releasing the "torture pics" would not be good for the national security Obama has decided that the civilian courts are largely unsuited for the realities of the war on terror. He has now decided to preserve the military tribunal process that will be identical in every material way to the one favored by Dick Cheney -- and which, contrary to the narrative that Democrats disseminated for years, will be the fairest and most open war-crimes trials in U.S. history.

Of course Obama still showed his affinity for his homeboys in the Gitmo lockup. As a sop to the outraged left wing of his party he changed some of the rules:
  • Restrictions on hearsay evidence that can be used in court against the detainees.
  • A ban on all evidence obtained through cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This would include statements given from detainees who were subjected to waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning.
  • Giving detainees greater leeway in choosing their own military counsel.
  • Protecting detainees who refuse to testify from legal sanctions or other court prejudices.
In other words, the effective interrogation techniques for obtaining evidence against a terrorist will be inadmissable, a terrorist cannot be compelled to testify and can waste the court's time hiring and firing lawyers. This sounds like a civilian court to us.

Guantanamo now joins the growing list of items in the security toolbox that Ol' Blood 'n Guts Obama once criticized as contrary to American values but has since discovered are now consistent with the national security. Wiretapping, renditions, military tribunals, Gitmo -- it turns out the Bush Administration weren't a bunch of knuckledragging cavemen but rather tough defenders against terrorism.

Please keep all sharp objects away from the editors of the NY Times and the Washington Post, Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, Brian Williams, Chris Matthews, Kieth Olbermann, the ACLU, Code Pink and George Soros. Your savior has let you down again.

Back to Top

Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load 'Unsustainable'....Really?

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

May 15, 2009


Give that guy an Honorary economics degree form Notre Dame. Our Fraudinator-in-Chief is fond of saying he inherited a $450 billion deficit from the evil George Bush.

His response to the Bush deficit was this:
  • $800B Pork-a-Palooza Stimulus Bill--a 1073 pork-laden monstrosity rammed through Congress that nobody had time to read and was not posted online as promised for 48 hrs before the vote was taken.
  • $275B Mortgage Rescue Bill -- rewards people who can't pay their mortgages with a bailout. These folks shouldn't have gotten mortgages in the first place..what makes us think they will pay their mortgages now?
  • $450B Omnibus Spending Bill -- After campaigning as an anti-earmark guy our Fraudinator-in-Chief signs the Omnibus Spending Bill with over 8000 earmarks.
  • $3.6 trillion budget for the 2010 fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 -- Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency according to the Congressional Budget Office
The Obama administration revised its own budget estimates and raised the projected deficit for this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate. The revision for the 2010 fiscal year estimated the deficit at $1.26 trillion, up 7.4 percent from the February figure. The White House Office of Management and Budget also projected next year's budget will end up at $3.59 trillion, compared with the $3.55 trillion it estimated previously.

In response to the runaway spending Our Fraudinator-in-Chief then proposed $17 billion in budget cuts, with plans to eliminate or reduce 121 federal programs. Republicans ridiculed the amount, saying that it represented one-half of 1 percent of the entire budget. They noted that Obama is seeking an $81 billion increase in other spending.

$17 billion to offset a $1.84 trillion deficit. That's like buying a $3000 flatscreen TV but returning the cables to offset the cost.

The Clueless One said the following as if he just realized that enormous deficit spending is actually a bad thing:

"We can't keep on just borrowing from China," Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. "We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt. Americans will eventually grow tired of buying it. It will cause interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. "It will have a dampening effect on our economy."

What a genius. Economists have been warning of this since January. The Congressional Budget Office called the deficit and debt-load unsustainable in March of 2009. It's too late now. All of the initial spending bills have been passed. Obama and the Democrats have already tripled the deficit.

And we haven't even had Health Care and Cap & Trade shoved down our throats yet.

Back to Top

Obama Says He Will Fight the Release of Torture Pics

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

May 13, 2009


So our Fraudinator-in-Chief has now reversed himself and said he will now fight the release of detainee “torture” photos after signaling last month that it would distribute them. Citing a newfound "great concern" over the danger to our soldiers and the use of these pictures as a recruitment tool for Muslim terrorists the Obama administration has decided to ignore the ACLU lawsuit demand to embarrass the United States.

Yeah right. Spare us your "great concern" for the troops. The fact that we actually had to have this conversation...the fact that Obama would even consider such a move is the real problem. As with the Obama trial balloon that wounded vets should pay for their own rehabilitative care, or Obama backtracking on the “torture truth commission” after a public backlash showed that going after a previous administration for legally prosecuting a war was a political loser, he has showed his ideological hand over and over again.

This is a consistent pattern of disregard for our armed forces and our national security which fits very comfortably into Obama's socialist world view and his ambivalence towards this country.

Lorie Byrd from the Wizbang Blog: “I don’t understand how Obama argues that these pictures would endanger the troops, but that the “torture memos” he released did not. I have to wonder if he now believes he should not have released those memos. If he does regret it, is it because of national security concerns or politics?”

Andrew McCarthy, former U.S. attorney: “If President Obama wanted to refrain from releasing these photos in order to protect the military forces he commands or promote the security of Americans — his two highest obligations as president — he could do so by simply issuing an executive order. The applicable statute expressly allows for it, just as it provides for Congress — now in the firm control of the president and his party — to withhold the photos from disclosure.”

Back to Top

Pelosi Knew About CIA Waterboarding in Sept. 2002

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

May 9, 2009


After a slew of huffy and indignant denials (lies) that she didn't know about CIA use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) the CIA has released a
10 page memo detailing who was there and who knew what regarding the use of waterboarding.

Pelosi continues to insist that she only knew of the Bush Administration's intent to use waterboarding. And the meaning of is is...

"In that or any other briefing . . . we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used," Pelosi said at a news conference in April. "What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel . . . opinions that they could be used, but not that they would."

Per Jed Babbin who broke the story at Human Events:

Pelosi Knew about Waterboarding from the Start
by Jed Babbin
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31784
Posted 05/07/2009 ET

She knew from the beginning. According to a CIA document compiled by the Director of National Intelligence summarizing briefings to Congress on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorist detainees, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) knew from the very beginning that those techniques -- including waterboarding -- were being used on September 4, 2002.

According to the memo the very first briefing listed is 9/4/02 with then Rep. Porter Goss & Pelosi. The summary of the briefing says:

"Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed."

This directly contradicts Pelosi's story, that "we were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."

As HUMAN EVENTS reported earlier, Pelosi - by objecting to the use of the enhanced interrogation techniques - could have stopped them but didn't.

Pelosi's misstatements were apparently intended to divert attention from her and other Democrats in Congress who knew of all the enhanced interrogation methods -- in detail -- apparently as soon as they were being used.


The story continues below


Per Paul Kane doing some fair and balanced reporting at the Washington Post:

CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations'
By Paul Kane
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/
2009/05/cia_says_pelosi_was_briefed_on.html
May 7, 2009

Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.

In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him.

In December 2007 the Washington Post reported that leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees had been briefed in the fall of 2002 about waterboarding -- which simulates drowning -- and other techniques, and that no congressional leaders protested its use. At the time Pelosi said she was not told that waterboarding was being used, a position she stood by repeatedly last month when the Bush-era Justice Department legal documents justifying the interrogation tactics were released by Attorney General Eric Holder.

The new memo shows that intelligence officials were willing to share the information about waterboarding with only a sharply closed group of people. Three years after the initial Pelosi-Goss briefing, Bush officials still limited interrogation technique briefings to just the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the so-called Gang of Four in the intelligence world.


And from Rick Kline at ABC also going off the Obama reservation:

Pelosi Briefed on Use of Interrogation Tactics in Sept. '02
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/intelligence-re.html
by Rick Kline
May 07, 2009

ABC News' Rick Klein reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence's office and obtained by ABC News.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi's statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics. Instead, she has said, she was told only that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques.

The report details a Sept. 4, 2002 meeting between intelligence officials and Pelosi, then-House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, and two aides. At the time, Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

The meeting is described as a "Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed."

The report also details dozens of other meetings with members of Congress -- though not with Pelosi present -- where the use of waterboarding and other interrogation techniques was described.

The Senate intelligence committee's chairman and ranking member, Bob Graham and Richard Shelby, were given a briefing similar to the one with Pelosi and Goss on Sept. 27, 2002, according to the report.

On Feb. 4, 2003, a briefing on "enhanced interrogation techniques" for Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., revealed that interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri were taped.


Back to Top

Specter to be Junior Senator from Pennsylvania

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

May 7, 2009


As everyone knows by now the creature known as Senator Arlen Specter bolted the Republican Party claiming the party has moved to far to the right.

He was expecting, as promised by Senate Majority leader Harry "The War Is Lost" Reid, to retain his seniority on all of his committee positions.

Surprise...Reid screwed him like the good democrat that he is. Reid lied. Arlen will now be known as the Junior Senator from Pennsylvania.

Specter will not keep his committee seniority on any of the five committees that he serves on and will be the junior Democrat on all but one - the chamber's Special Committee on Aging. On that committee, he will be next to last in seniority.

As a result, Specter - who as a Republican was ranking member on the Judiciary Committee and a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, as well as ranking member of the panel's Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education - will now rank behind all the other Democrats.

This was prompted by Specter's own remarks that he would not be a rubber stamp for the Democrats. Specter's comments to the New York Times Magazine indicating he would support former Sen. Norm Coleman's (R-Minn.) disputed re-election bid against Al Franken seems to have angered many Democrats.

His defection from the Republican Party was prompted by the fact that he was trailing his Republican primary opponent by 20% in the upcoming 2010 primary and he said he did not want to be judged by that jury...the very constituency that put him in office.

He may get primaried anyway by a more liberal democrat and then we can put this political fossil and Republican traitor to bed finally.

Specter made a career of sticking it to conservatives, most recently by voting for the $787 Billion Obama Stimulus package along with Rino sisters Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine. It gave Obama the majority he needed to get this boondoggle passed.

So Adios Specter. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Please take Mccain, Snowe, Collins and Lindsay Graham as well. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Screw the big tent. Let's win on principle as conservatives.

Back to Top

Obama to Release Prisoner Photographs Under Pressure From ACLU

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

April 27, 2009


In his ongoing effort to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the War on Terrror our Fraudinator-in-Chief is releasing hundreds of photographs alleging prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghnistan.

We at Neville are out of witty, snarky criticisms for Obama's symbolic self-flagellating...perhaps he should get one of those whips the Muslims use to tear at their backs and hair three or four times a year during their many holy days.

From the Wall Street Journal April 27, 2009

As if disclosing interrogation memos hasn't caused enough trouble, now the Obama Administration plans to release photographs collected as part of military probes into prisoner abuse. "I think it will be in the hundreds," a Pentagon official said Friday, referring to plans to release the photographs by May 28 in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

It's hard to imagine a more self-destructive act. Spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Pentagon doesn't have much choice given a pair of lower-court rulings, and that in any case the probes show the U.S. doesn't tolerate prisoner abuse. "We felt this case had pretty much run its course," Mr. Whitman said. "Legal options at this point had become pretty limited."

Whatever their context, you can be sure the photographs will be used by Islamic radicals to inflame anti-American sentiment. Mr. Obama has promised to improve America's image in the world, and we doubt the Taliban and al Qaeda will distribute the photographs with the caveat that Mr. Obama is a breath of fresh air. They'll use them as a way to indict all American purposes.

This may do particular harm in Pakistan, which is under siege from terrorist violence and growing Taliban control in the north. U.S. officials have been trying to get Pakistan's military and its civilian government to resist the radicals more forcefully, but they say it is unpopular to be seen assisting U.S. policy. Another Abu Ghraib-type photo spread would make that cooperation even harder to obtain.

The ACLU may think that humiliating the U.S. and indicting the Bush Administration are more important than protecting American interests. American soldiers and diplomats may have a different view.


Back to Top

Obama's Mea Culpa Tour Part 2, The Latin America Chapter

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

April 23, 2009


Let's review...In Europe and Asia our Fraudinator-in-Chief spent all of his time apologizing for our existence:
  • Mr. Obama told the French that America "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe.
  • In Prague Obama said America has "a moral responsibility to act" on arms control because only the U.S. had "used a nuclear weapon."
  • In London, Obama said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy".
  • He bowed to the Saudi King...submission accomplished!!
  • Obama was asked in Europe if he believes in American exceptionalism. He said he did -- in the same way that "the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks in Greek exceptionalism." That's another way of saying, "No."
  • He hung a 'Please kick me' sign on his ass (just kidding!)
Then came Part 2 of the 'We're so sorry' whirlwind tour...The Tin Pot Dictators Summit of the Americas.
  • Obama handed Hugo Chavez not one but two propaganda photo opportunities by 1) glad-handing the the dictator...an 'all smiles on deck' moment, and 2) accepting an anti-American screed from Chavez. Obama's response: "I'm a reader".
  • Obama sat still for an hour while Nicaragua dictator Daniel Ortega excoriated the United States for everything it's ever done, including the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Obama's response: "I'm grateful that President [Daniel] Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old." (And Obama was only 7 when William Ayers bombed the Pentagon)
  • Obama said the U.S. had not "pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors" because we "failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas."
  • He hung a 'Please kick me' sign on his ass (just kidding!)
Our Fraudinator-in-Chief is more concerned with his personal popularity than with the security and image of the United States. He seems to be more comfortable embracing Communist despots than our European allies.

This is not surprising. Sitting through a one hour rambling lecture by Daniel Ortega about how horrible the U.S. is not unlike sitting through twenty years of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-American Black Liberation Theology sermons.

Hanging around left wing dictators is not unlike hanging around William Ayres, Franklin Marshall Davis, Rashid Khalidi.

Obama is not repulsed or insulted...he is sympatico. These are his people. Obama has no connection to or love of this country like a normal president or citizen. He is steeped in Marxist orthodoxy and Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
In other words, in his heart Obama is fundamentally anti-American and is actively undermining the economic and military security of this country.

Back to Top

Obama Open to Prosecuting Bush Lawyers Who Designed the Interrogation Procedures

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

April 21, 2009


So it has finally and inevitably come to this: Soviet and Nazi style politically motivated kangaroo courts, witch hunts and show trials for the activities of a previous administration. This is the stuff of banana republics. Well, leftists, communists and fascists are familiar with the ways of banana republics and they are now running the government of the United States.

After White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said in a television interview the administration did not support prosecutions for "those who devised policy" our Fraudinator-in-Chief said he is now open to a probe, but only if it's "bi-partisan".

From the AP on Apr. 21, 2009:

Obama: "I think there are a host of very complicated issues involved here," the president said. "As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out national security operations."

Still, he suggested that Congress might set up a bipartisan review, outside its typical hearings, if it wants a "further accounting" of what happened during the period when the interrogation methods were authorized. His press secretary later said the independent Sept. 11 commission, which investigated and then reported on the terror attacks of 2001, might be a model.

The three men facing the most scrutiny are former Justice Department officials Jay Bybee, John Yoo and Steven Bradbury. Bybee is currently a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Yoo is a professor at the University of California-Berkeley.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who has referred to his proposed panel as a "Truth Commission," said, "I agree with President Obama: An examination into these Bush-Cheney era national security policies must be nonpartisan. ... Unfortunately, Republicans have shown no interest in a nonpartisan review."

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has proposed separate hearings by his committee in addition to an independent commission.


It also turns out that in September of 2002 a number of high ranking Democrats and Republicans including Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstien, Bob Graham and Jane Harmon were all briefed on the 81 page document which included the 4 infamous released "torture memos". All of them signed off. And all of these folks should be investigated as well. No doubt they will invoke "congressional immunity" should they be deposed.

This sets the most dangerous of precedents because when Obama is finally thrown out of or leaves office it is possible that a Republican president could very easily order the same type of investigation based on Obama's national security actions in just his first 100 days.

But we say release all of the documents as VP Cheney has called for and bring on the circus. Nothing would create a bigger distraction for the Democrats, nothing would undermine the Democrats and erode their support among independents faster than this kind of Kabuki theater.

The Republicans made their big mistake in the 90's by impeaching Bill Clinton for purjury in a sex beef rather than his failure to uphold his oath of office and undermining the national security, the end result of which was the 9-11 attack.

From the Wall Street Journal on Apr. 22, 2009:

Obama and the CIA-A President can't placate the left and keep America safe.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124035706108641065.html


President Obama on Monday paid his first formal visit to CIA headquarters, in order, as he put it, to "underscore the importance" of the agency and let its staff "know that you've got my full support." Assuming he means it, the President should immediately declassify all memos concerning what intelligence was gleaned, and what plots foiled, by the interrogations of high-level al Qaeda detainees in the wake of September 11.

CIA interrogators wanted to use these techniques in 2002 to break a terrorist they believed had information that could potentially save American lives. Rest assured that if the CIA hadn't taken these steps and the U.S. had been hit again, the same people denouncing these memos now would have been demanding another 9/11 Commission to deplore their inaction.

In a saner world (or at least one that accurately reported on original documents), all of this would be a point of pride for the CIA. It would serve as evidence of the Bush Administration's scrupulousness regarding the life and health of the detainees, and demonstrate how wrong are the claims that harsh interrogations yielded no useful intelligence.

Instead, the release of the memos has unleashed the liberal mob, with renewed calls in Congress for a "truth commission" and even, perhaps, Judge Bybee's impeachment and prosecutions of the other authors. Mr. Obama has hinted that while his Administration won't prosecute CIA officials, it may try to sate the mob by going after Bush officials who wrote the memos.

All of this might appease the President's MoveOn.org base, but he can't expect to satisfy them without also weakening American intelligence capabilities. The risk-averse CIA that so grievously failed in the run-up to 9/11 was a product of a spy culture that still remembered the Church Committee of the 1970s and the Iran-Contra recriminations of the 1980s. Mr. Obama needs to stop this score-settling now, and he can start by promptly releasing the documents that reveal what the CIA learned from its interrogations.


Back to Top

Obama Releases CIA Documents Disclosing Interrogation Techniques

By Gary Starr for the Neville Awards

April 19, 2009


Our Fraudinator-in-Chief doesn't need the NY Times to sell out our country by revealing classified secrets...he's willing to do it himself.

Obama has now revealed to the terrorists how far the U.S. was willing to go to extract information from captured terrorists during the Bush Administration. With all coercive techniques off the table terrorists know they will not be made uncomfortable if captured, therefor there is no incentive to give up any information.

The NY Times was absolutely giddy with faux outrage in it's report:

Interrogation Memos Detail Harsh Tactics by the C.I.A.
April 17, 2009
By MARK MAZZETTI and SCOTT SHANE


WASHINGTON - The Justice Department on Thursday made public detailed memos describing brutal interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency, as President Obama sought to reassure the agency that the C.I.A. operatives involved would not be prosecuted.

In dozens of pages of dispassionate legal prose, the methods approved by the Bush administration for extracting information from senior operatives of Al Qaeda are spelled out in careful detail - like keeping detainees awake for up to 11 straight days, placing them in a dark, cramped box or putting insects into the box to exploit their fears.

The interrogation methods were authorized beginning in 2002, and some were used as late as 2005 in the C.I.A.'s secret overseas prisons. The techniques were among the Bush administration's most closely guarded secrets, and the documents released Thursday afternoon were the most comprehensive public accounting to date of the program.

Some senior Obama administration officials, including Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., have labeled one of the 14 approved techniques, waterboarding, illegal torture. The United States prosecuted some Japanese interrogators at war crimes trials after World War II for waterboarding and other methods detailed in the memos.

The release of the documents came after a bitter debate that divided the Obama administration, with the C.I.A. opposing the Justice Department's proposal to air the details of the agency's long-secret program. Fueling the urgency of the discussion was Thursday's court deadline in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had sued the government for the release of the Justice Department memos.

Together, the four memos give an extraordinarily detailed account of the C.I.A.'s methods and the Justice Department's long struggle, in the face of graphic descriptions of brutal tactics, to square them with international and domestic law. Passages describing forced nudity, the slamming of detainees into walls, prolonged sleep deprivation and the dousing of detainees with water as cold as 41 degrees alternate with elaborate legal arguments concerning the international Convention Against Torture.


We are truly losing the War on Terror now. Other than the occasional symbolic unmanned drone attack the enemy has nothing to fear from us.

This from the Wall Street Journal:

The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture
The Red Cross was completely wrong about 'walling.
APRIL 20, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124018665408933455.html
By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. and LEE A. CASEY



The four memos on CIA interrogation released by the White House last week reveal a cautious and conservative Justice Department advising a CIA that cared deeply about staying within the law. Far from "green lighting" torture -- or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees -- the memos detail the actual techniques used and the many measures taken to ensure that interrogations did not cause severe pain or degradation.

Interrogations were to be "continuously monitored" and "the interrogation team will stop the use of particular techniques or the interrogation altogether if the detainee's medical or psychological conditions indicates that the detainee might suffer significant physical or mental harm."

An Aug. 1, 2002, memo describes the practice of "walling" -- recently revealed in a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which suggested that detainees wore a "collar" used to "forcefully bang the head and body against the wall" before and during interrogation. In fact, detainees were placed with their backs to a "flexible false wall," designed to avoid inflicting painful injury. Their shoulder blades -- not head -- were the point of contact, and the "collar" was used not to give additional force to a blow, but further to protect the neck.

The memo says the point was to inflict psychological uncertainty, not physical pain: "the idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is and that will be far worse than any injury that might result from the action."

Shackling and confinement in a small space (generally used to create discomfort and muscle fatigue) were also part of the CIA program, but they were subject to stringent time and manner limitations. Abu Zubaydah (a top bin Laden lieutenant) had a fear of insects. He was, therefore, to be put in a "cramped confinement box" and told a stinging insect would be put in the box with him. In fact, the CIA proposed to use a harmless caterpillar. Confinement was limited to two hours.

The memos are also revealing about the practice of "waterboarding," about which there has been so much speculative rage from the program's opponents. The practice, used on only three individuals, involved covering the nose and mouth with a cloth and pouring water over the cloth to create a drowning sensation.

This technique could be used for up to 40 seconds -- although the CIA orally informed Justice Department lawyers that it would likely not be used for more than 20 seconds at a time. Unlike the exaggerated claims of so many Bush critics, the memos make clear that water was not actually expected to enter the detainee's lungs, and that measures were put in place to prevent complications if this did happen and to ensure that the individual did not develop respiratory distress.

All of these interrogation methods have been adapted from the U.S. military's own Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (or SERE) training program, and have been used for years on thousands of American service members with the full knowledge of Congress. This has created a large body of information about the effect of these techniques, on which the CIA was able to draw in assessing the likely impact on the detainees and ensuring that no severe pain or long term psychological impact would result.

The actual intelligence benefits of the CIA program are also detailed in these memos. The CIA believed, evidently with good reason, that the enhanced interrogation program had indeed produced actionable intelligence about al Qaeda's plans. First among the resulting successes was the prevention of a "second wave" of al Qaeda attacks, to be carried out by an "east Asian" affiliate, which would have involved the crashing of another airplane into a building in Los Angeles.

The interrogation techniques described in these memos are indisputably harsh, but they fall well short of "torture." They were developed and deployed at a time of supreme peril, as a means of preventing future attacks on innocent civilians both in the U.S. and abroad.

The dedicated public servants at the CIA and Justice Department -- who even the Obama administration has concluded should not be prosecuted -- clearly cared intensely about staying within the law as well as protecting the American homeland. These memos suggest that they achieved both goals in a manner fully consistent with American values.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, who served in the Justice Department under George H.W. Bush, were U.S. delegates to the U.N. Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.


Back to Top

Obama and the Dems Snuggling Up to Castro and Cuba

By Gary Starr for the Neville Awards

April 18, 2009


What is it about dictators, despots and the Democrats who love them?

Our Fraudinator-in-Chief recently announced a series of steps aimed at easing the U.S. relationship with Cuba, breaking from policies first imposed by the Kennedy administration and stepping into an emotional debate over the best way to bring democratic change to one of the last remaining communist regimes.

Obama called for reversing restrictions that barred U.S. citizens from visiting their Cuban relatives more than once every three years and lifted limits on the amount of money and goods Cuban Americans can send back to their families.

In the wake of that annoucement key members of the Congressional Black Caucus made a little pilgrimage to visit El Presidente.

"The fifty-year embargo just hasn't worked," CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Ca.) told reporters after returning from Cuba. "The bottom line is that we believe its time to open dialogue with Cuba."

Lee and others heaped praise on Castro, calling him warm and receptive during their discussion.

"It was quite a moment to behold," Lee said, recalling her moments with Castro.

"It was almost like listening to an old friend," said ex-Black Panther Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Il.), adding that he found Castro's home to be modest and Castro's wife to be particularly hospitable. (Doesn't Panther Bobby realize that's the home his old friend wants him to see?)

"In my household I told Castro he is known as the ultimate survivor," Rush said.

Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Ca.) said Castro was receptive to President Obama's message of turning the page in American foreign policy.

"He listened. He said the exact same thing" about turning the page "as President Obama said," said Richardson.

Richardson said Castro knew her name and district. "He looked right into my eyes and he said, 'How can we help? How can we help President Obama?'"

The following day, Castro said that the delegation had expressed to him that a segment of American society "continues to be racist," and is at least partly to blame for the travel restrictions. The delegates spent the day falling all over themselves denying their hero had ever said such a thing.

Back to Top

Dept. of Homeland Security to Target "Right Wing Extremists"

By Gary Starr for the Neville Awards

April 16, 2009


So how does it feel to be targeted by DHS as a "right wing extremist" simply for opposing the insane spending policies of the Obama administration.

A report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. "It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the report says.

So groups to be targeted would include returning military vets from Iraq and Afghanistan, pro-lifers, Tea-Party attendees, and folks like Texas Governor Rick Perry who support the 10th amendment and the growing state sovereignty movement.

After all everyone of these people is a potential Timothy McVeigh. They must be watched, photographed, controlled.

And just to be thorough the nine-page report was sent to police and sheriff's departments across the United States on April 7 under the headline, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."
Get the PDF

The report says extremist groups have used President Obama and immigration as a recruiting tool:

"Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action. In two instances in the run-up to the election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement interceded. Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool."

The report is deliberately vague and no specific "right wing extremist" groups are actually identified. In fact we at Neville didn't realize there was an outbreak of right wing extremism sweeping the nation.

Of course we have no problem identifying all of the left wing extremist groups that are a part of our daily lives. A short list includes:
  • ACORN
  • International ANSWER
  • Code Pink
  • MoveOn.org
  • Daily Kos
  • Michael Moore (just kidding, although he is so fat he constitutes a group all by himself)
Where's the DHS report on these losers? The left fantasized for seven years that the Patriot Act was infringing on their rights and silencing them. Yet we heard from them every day during the Bush administration. Silly us...we forgot, the Obama administration are a collection of left wing extremists...no report on these groups will be forthcoming.

Excerpted from a Michelle Malkin article:

I spent the day chasing down DHS spokespeople, who have been tied up preparing for a very important homeland security event later today: The First Lady is coming to visit their Washington office. Priorities, you know.

Well, the press office got back to me and verified that the document is indeed for real.

They were very defensive - preemptively so - in asserting that it was not a politicized document and that DHS had done reports on "leftwing extremism" in the past. I have covered DHS for many years and am quite familiar with past assessments they and the FBI have done on animal rights terrorists and environmental terrorists. But those past reports have always been very specific in identifying the exact groups, causes, and targets of domestic terrorism, i.e., the ALF, ELF, and Stop Huntingdon wackos who have engaged in physical harassment, arson, vandalism, and worse against pharmaceutical companies, farms, labs, and university researchers.

By contrast, the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives. And the intent is clear. As the two spokespeople I talked with on the phone today made clear: They both pinpointed the recent "economic downturn" and the "general state of the economy" for stoking "rightwing extremism." One of the spokespeople said he was told that the report has been in the works for a year. My b.s. detector went off the chart, and yours will, too, if you read through the entire report - which asserts with no evidence that an unquantified "resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalizations activity" is due to home foreclosures, job losses, and…the historical presidential election.

In Obama land, there are no coincidences. It is no coincidence that this report echoes Tea Party-bashing left-wing blogs (check this one out comparing the Tea Party movement to the Weather Underground!) and demonizes the very Americans who will be protesting in the thousands on Wednesday for the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party.

From the report, p.2:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

From the report. p. 3:

(U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

(U) Exploiting Economic Downturn

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish "financial elites." These "accusatory" tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

From the report, p. 5:

(U//FOUO) Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

And echoing the anti-military bigotry last seen in that disgusting Penn State University training video, there's this on p. 7:

(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists-including lone wolves or small terrorist cells-to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

In the meantime, be aware of this from the report, p. 8:

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.

There's no hackneyed left-wing stereotype of conservatives left behind in this DHS intelligence and analysis assessment. I asked both DHS spokespeople to tell me who, specifically, the report was accusing of "rightwing extremist chatter" and which "antigovernment" groups are being monitored as "extremists."


Back to Top

Obama Lawyered Up Before Giving Official Go-Ahead to Rescue Captain

By Gary Starr for the Neville Awards

April 14, 2009


Our Fraudinator-in-Chief finally authorized the military to kill the pirates who had held an American citizen hostage for five days. But he couldn’t give the authorization until he had cleared it with a few government lawyers, which is why it took five days.

Per Obama officials:
  • Obama’s involvement in the decision to authorize lethal force was legally required, officials said, because it was a hostage situation, not combat, and unrelated to the already authorized U.S. effort against Al Qaeda and other terror groups, officials said.
  • “It’s not a combat operation, so the lawyers wanted to ensure this was done right,” said a second defense official.
Apparently our Fraudinator-in-Chief wanted to be legally covered in case the operation went south, but wanted to crow like a tough guy if it went well. So he lawyered up first.

A White House chronology shows that Obama did not authorize the use of force to save the freighter captain until 8:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time on Friday. That's 3:00 AM Mogadishu time on Saturday, a full 48 hours after the Bainbridge reached the vessel.

Despite efforts to spin the pirate tale as evidence of decisive leadership by an inexperienced president, the reality was clearly nothing of the sort.

Instead of taking initially direct action against the pirate terrorists, the administration dithered, had a pizza party, and eschewed any decisiveness whatsoever, even in the face of enemy fire, in hopes that the situation would somehow resolve itself without violence.

In other words they behaved like weak liberals.

The guidance from National Command Authority - the president of the United States - had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage's life was in clear, extreme danger.

Thus the administration sent a clear message to all who would threaten U.S. interests abroad that our Fraudinator-in-Chief has no idea how to respond to such situations - and no real willingness to use military force to resolve them.

Welcome to the metrosexual girly-man world of Obama.

Per the Washington Post:

Navy SEAL snipers, monitoring the lifeboat through rifle scopes, watched as two pirates raised their heads out of a lifeboat hatch. Inside the lifeboat, the third pirate moved toward the captain, pointing his AK-47 at his back.

Believing Phillips was about to be killed, the on-scene commander gave the snipers the order to fire. When a Navy SEAL arrived at the lifeboat, Phillips was bound, according to the senior military official, who said the captain "was anchored to the interior of the boat."


Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters spun the outcome as a great victory and attempted to settle the issue, once and for all, of Obama as our "man of steel resolve". Like traines seals the mainstream media took up the task enthusiastically.

Reality, however, bites back as it always does. Thomas Jefferson killed pirates so effectively that, until last week, no American ship had been attacked by pirates in 200 years. We at Neville suggest Obama pick up a history book instead of that slice of gourmet pizza.

By the way, since the rescue four more ships have been siezed by the terrorists, 60 hostages taken, and the pirates have vowed revenge for the killing of their "co-workers". I guess they are not afraid of us yet.

Back to Top

No Response from Administration Regarding Muslim Pirate Attack

By Gary Starr for the Neville Awards

April 9, 2009


Remember that 3:00 AM phone call that all of the Democratic candidates were tripping over themselves to answer during the primaries?

The phone rang yesterday and nobody answered. Somali Muslim pirates have seized a U.S. flagged Danish owned ship, the Maersk Alabama, off Mogadishu. Among the ship's cargo were 400 containers of food aid, including 232 containers belonging to the U.N.'s World Food Program that were destined for Somalia and Uganda.

The ship had a crew of 20, all Americans. In a scene recalling the bravery of the 9-11 Flight 93 passengers, the unarmed crew re-took control of their ship and sent the pirates fleeing to a lifeboat with the captain as hostage. The U.S.S. Bainbridge is now on the scene monitoring the situation and conducting negotiations.

And where was our intrepid Fraudinator-in-Chief? When asked to comment he blew the reporter off saying he was talking about housing mortgages.

The VP, Plugs Biden referred all piracy questions to the staff at the National Security office. And Hillary laughed her way through her answer.

The best we could get out of anyone in the administration were bromides like "we are very concerned", "we are monitoring the situation".

In the meantime U.S. citizens are being held in Iran and N. Korea on "espionage" charges.

So let's see...muslims, U.S. hostages, no response, cowardice and indifference in the face of provocation...Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, Barack....oh never mind.

Hey Barack, what band is playing at the next Wednesday night party at the White House? What kinda pizza is on the menu tonight? Is Michelle gonna wear that cute little sleeveless number?

Back to Top

Little Barack's Excellent G20 Adventure

By Gary Starr for the Neville Awards

Related Article:
Obama's Appeasement Tour In Europe and Asia

By now it should be obvious to anyone with cognizant tissue between the ears, that our Fraudinator-in-Chief has absolutely no love and no use for our country, other than to use it as an ATM machine for funding a leftist agenda and spiriting cash overseas (can anyone say bank heist?).

Instead, like all leftists, he trashes the United States. Like most leftist cowards he waited until he was overseas to do it ala Jimmy Carter and Sean Penn.

After dissing the Queen with an IPOD and fumbling his way through the Socialist G20 Summit Obama went over to Strasbourg France and said the following to 2000 starry-eyed and utopia-loving "students":

"In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."

Well, what do you expect from the rock star world citizen? To be fair Obama gently chided the Euro's for their kneejerk anti-Americanism, an activity that more resembles sport than ideology in Socialist Europe. After all, we pay for their defense so they can be a bunch of sloths and intellectual pacifists.

The story continues below...





Prior to that little display he bowed to the Saudi king (Queen Elizabeth didn't even rate that) and said to the racist President of Brazil Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva "This is my man, right here. I love this guy." Obama followed the comment by saying Silva is "the most popular politician on Earth" and that it is because of "his good looks." !!?Huh?!!

For those of you who missed it, several weeks earlier Da Silva blamed the world wide financial "crisis" on white people with blue eyes. We at Neville are absolved...we have brown eyes.

Mr. Da Silva's full comment:

"This is a crisis that was caused by people, white with blue eyes. And before the crisis they looked as if they knew everything about economics. Once again the great part of the poor in the world that were still not yet [getting] their share of development that was caused by globalisation, they were the first ones to suffer.

"Since I am not acquainted with any black bankers, I can only say that this part of humanity that is the major victim of the world crisis, these people should pay for the crisis? I cannot accept that. If the G20 becomes a meeting just to set another meeting, we'll be discredited and the crisis can deepen."


Obama genuflects to the Saudis:



Next Obama gave a speech about (our unilateral) nuclear disarmament and nuclear proliferation in Prague...we won't bore you with the details...just the usual recycled "no nukes" liberal bromides. In response to Obama's tough-guy act North Korea fired off it's promised test of a long range ballistic missile (claiming it was part of the N. Korea space program). This was really an Iranian/N. Korean missile test because both countries are sharing missile and nuclear technology.

Our response? We went running off to an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council. The meeting ended without any resolution (what a surprise!!). We suspect that the next time the N. Koreans or the Iranians test a missile the U.N. members will get really angry and have another meeting. Next time they'll REALLY mean it.

From the Wall St. Journal Op Ed page:

In 2006, Mr. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice squandered the moment after the North's nuclear test when China was ready to apply serious pressure. Instead, they bought Kim's promise to give up his weapons, then let him delay and renegotiate the terms as he went, including agreeing to Kim's demand to take North Korea off the U.S. list of terror-sponsoring nations. Now he's playing the same brinksmanship with the Obama Administration.

This is Mr. Obama's chance to do better. But based on his comments during the campaign, as well as his statement yesterday urging renewed efforts through the Six Party Talks, the President seems unlikely to change course. Kim has every reason to expect that he will eventually get what he wants -- more recognition, more money and energy supplies from the U.S., China and South Korea, and a high likelihood that he'll get to keep his nukes and missiles too.


And this from John Bolton wrting in the Wall St. Journal:

So far, therefore, the missile launch is an unambiguous win for North Korea. (Although not orbiting a satellite, all three rocket stages apparently fired, achieving Pyongyang's longest missile flight yet.) But the negative repercussions will extend far beyond Northeast Asia.

Iran has carefully scrutinized the Obama administration's every action, and Tehran's only conclusion can be: It is past time to torque up the pressure on this new crowd in Washington. Not only is Iran's back now covered by its friends Russia, China and others on the U.N. Security Council, but it sees an American president so ready to bend his knee for public favor in Europe that the mullahs' wish list for U.S. concessions will grow by the minute.

Israel must also be carefully considering how the U.S. watched North Korea rip through "the international community." The most important lesson the new government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should draw is: Look out for No. 1. If Israel isn't prepared to protect itself, including using military force, against Iran's nuclear weapons program, it certainly shouldn't be holding its breath for Mr. Obama to do anything.

Russia and China must also be relishing this outcome. They will have faced down Mr. Obama in his first real crisis, having provided Security Council cover for a criminal regime, and emerged unscathed. They will conclude that achieving their large agendas with the new administration can't be too hard. That conclusion may be unfair to the new American president; but it will surely color how Moscow and Beijing structure their policies and their diplomacy until proven otherwise. That alone is bad news for Washington and its allies.


One can't help but wonder about Obama's loyalties what with his eagerness to:
  • surrender to the Iranians
  • send $900 million to Hamas
  • talk to the "moderate" Taliban
  • open up relations with Cuba
  • sell out our eastern European allies re: the missle shield
  • give the cold shoulder to Israel
  • insult our British friends at least 4 times since January
  • close Gitmo
  • appoint lawyers and judges who would subordinate the constitution to other country's legal norms (judicial transnationalism)
  • finally, to have the unmitigated gall to even suggest that our wounded soldiers pay for their own health care and rehab.
Finally there was Obama's call for Islamic Turkey to be allowed into the EU. From Ralph Peters writing in the NY Sun:

The Europeans don't want Turkey in their club. Because Turkey isn't a European state, nor is its culture European. And it isn't our business to press Europe to embrace a huge, truculent Muslim country suffering a creeping Islamist coup.

The Europeans were appalled by Turkey's neo-Taliban tantrum on-stage at last week's NATO summit. The Turks fought to derail the appointment of a great Dane, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as the new NATO secretary general. Why? Because he didn't stone to death the Danish cartoonist who caricatured Mohammed.

Which brings us to the even bigger problem: Obama has no idea what's going on in Turkey. By going to Ankara on his knees, he gave his seal of approval to a pungently anti-American Islamist government bent on overturning Mustapha Kemal's legacy of the separation of mosque and state.

Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party, the AKP, means headscarves, Korans, censorship and stacked elections. The country's alarmed middle class opposes the effort to turn the country into an Islamic state. Obama's gushing praise for the AKP's bosses left them aghast.

Obama's embrace of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (now orchestrating show trials of his opponents) was one step short of going to Tehran and smooching President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


Obama is a disgrace bordering on traitor. He has violated his oath of office. We at Neville are the first to call for his impeachment.

Obama is so in love with the EU and his leftist despot buddies he seems to have ignored the fact that Europe is the birthplace of socialism, communism, fascism and nazism...all leftist and progressive movements.

Obama is one of them, not one of us.

And after trashing the U.S. Obama moved on to a NATO Summit where he asked for a little help in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

For all of Obama's razzle-dazzle and charm our stalwart NATO allies gave him the big NYET finger in the eye.

Per the Times UK online edition:

Barack Obama made an impassioned plea to America's allies to send more troops to Afghanistan, warning that failure to do so would leave Europe vulnerable to more terrorist atrocities.

But though he continued to dazzle Europeans on his debut international tour, the Continent's leaders turned their backs on the US President.

Gordon Brown was the only one to offer substantial help. He offered to send several hundred extra British soldiers to provide security during the August election, but even that fell short of the thousands of combat troops that the US was hoping to prise from the Prime Minister.

Just two other allies made firm offers of troops. Belgium offered to send 35 military trainers and Spain offered 12. Mr Obama's host, Nicolas Sarkozy, refused his request.

Germany, Italy, Poland, Canada and Denmark said that they were considering their positions. After a meeting with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, Mr Obama tried to apply further moral pressure. "I am sure that Germany, as one of the most important leaders in Europe, will be stepping up to the plate and helping us to get the job done."

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Nato Secretary-General, warned that new laws proposed by President Karzai in Afghanistan sanctioning child marriage and marital rape had made it harder to raise more soldiers.

"We are there to defend universal values and when I see, at the moment, a law threatening to come into effect which fundamentally violates women's rights and human rights, that worries me," he said.

Gee thanks guys. We can certainly count on you. We'll try to be there for you (again) when your continent is finally overrun by the Muslim hordes in 15-20 years...after you realize that appeasing the Muslims didn't work, just like appeasing Hitler didn't work.


And this from the DC Examiner:

Little to hail from President's first economic summit
By Irwin M. Stelzer
4/3/09
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/
IrwinStelzer/Little-to-hail-from-Presidents-
first-economic-summit-42379287.html


It is 60 years to the day since President Harry S. Truman signed the Marshall Plan into law to give much needed aid to a prostrate Europe.

It is one day since the Europeans told President Barack H. Obama that they have no intention of helping him to stimulate the world economy.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, presiding over an economy that was saved by America 60 years ago, and that has been supported by American consumers ever since, wouldn’t play.

Neither would French President Nikolas Sarkozy, whose nation’s memory of the liberation of the Paris they so easily surrendered has, er, dimmed with time.

Fortunately, none of this mattered very much, as no knowledgeable observer expected much of the G-20 meeting. The action was off-stage, where Obama tried to accomplish three things.

The first was to make up for his rude treatment of Gordon Brown when Britain’s Prime Minister visited the United States last month.

By denying Brown the full-blown press conference to which Tony Blair was always treated -- twin podia, flags of both nations, cameras whirring -- and then presenting the PM with a thoughtless gift of some DVDs that don’t work on the UK system, Obama handed the anti-Brown British media a gift. Obama then sought to press the “reset” button in U.S.-Russian relations in a private meeting with Russian President Dimitriy Medvedev.

So intent is our President on heaping blame on George W. Bush that he apologized for America’s part in allowing our relations with Russia to “drift.”

Never mind that Russia had cut off natural gas supplies to our European allies, invaded Georgia, threatened Poland by placing missiles on its border, and bribed Kyrgzstan to deprive us of our last military airbase in central Asia. Seems more like revanchism than “drift” to this observer.

Not to worry. All will be sorted out when the President visits Moscow this summer, and exposes Vladimir Putin and the Russian people to his star power.

Obama then had his first meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Although this was billed as merely a get-acquainted meeting, Obama immediately agreed to two Chinese requests: That he visit Beijing, and that China be given a larger voice at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other institutions.

The small matters of human rights, North Korea’s missile launch, and China’ recent proposal to have the dollar replaced as the world’s reserve currency did not come up.

And today the President is at a NATO meeting, where he will be told by our allies that they are unwilling to send more fighting men and women to help us in Afghanistan.

That refusal will be papered over with talk of “trainers” for the Afghan army, logistics support, and perhaps even a bit of money, but a refusal it will be nevertheless.

No surprise to this writer: Immediately after Obama’s inauguration, I attended a meeting at which top foreign diplomats said that their main goal was to persuade the Obama team not to make any request they would have to refuse. You don’t ask, and we won’t say “no.”

All in all, a rather strange first trip for our new President:
  • A visit to the Queen of England, at which Obama presented her with an iPod, further proof that he has no ability to select a gift that reflects the rich history of Anglo-American relations.
  • Attendance at a G-20 meeting in which his allies reject his call to supplement his efforts to stimulate the world economy.
  • On to a meeting with the Russians, in which the President of the United States accepts responsibility for the “drift” in relations with that country, and with the Chinese, in which he concedes them the added international clout they crave, with no discernable quid pro quo.
Top that off with a refusal of our allies to offer meaningful help in combating the terrorists that thrive in Afghanistan and threaten them as well as us, and only someone with the supreme self-regard of Barack Obama can regard the trip as a success.

If he had any sense of history, he might have called the Europeans’ attention to the anniversary of the Marshall Plan. But he doesn’t, and so he didn’t.

Examiner columnist Irwin M. Stelzer is a senior fellow and director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Economic Studies.


Back to Top

Obama: Judicial Transnationalism and Judicial Activism

March 26, 2009


Our Fraudinator-in-Chief has appointed former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as legal advisor to Sec. of State Hillary Clinton.

In this job, Koh would be intimately involved in a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms control, and help represent the U.S. in such places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

It's a job where you want a strong defender of America's sovereignty. But that's not Koh. He's a fan of the "transnational legal process," arguing that the distinctions between US and international law should vanish.

According to Koh feels:
  • U.S. judges should interperet the constitution according to other nations legal norms (judicial transnationalism)
  • That Sharia law should be applied to govern cases in this country
  • The U.S. involvement in the War on Terror (can we still say that?) is "obsessive"
  • That the U.S. and Korea constitute an "axis of disobedience"
So what is judicial transnationalism? In Koh's own words:

[T]he Supreme Court has now divided into transnationalist and nationalist factions, which hold sharply divergent attitudes toward transnational law. The transnationalist faction-which includes Justices Breyer, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and at times, Justice Kennedy-tends to follow an approach suggested by Justice Blackmun in the late 1980s: that U.S. courts must look beyond national interest to the "mutual interests of all nations in a smoothly functioning international legal regime" and must "consider if there is a course that furthers, rather than impedes, the development of an ordered international system." In contrast, another group of Justices, which includes the new Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, seems committed to a more nationalist course.

Generally speaking, the transnationalists tend to emphasize the interdependence between the United States and the rest of the world, while the nationalists tend instead to focus more on preserving American autonomy. The transnationalists believe in and promote the blending of international and domestic law; while nationalists continue to maintain a rigid separation of domestic from foreign law. The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law, while nationalists argue instead that only the political branches can internalize international law. The transnationalists believe that U.S. courts can and should use their interpretive powers to promote the development of a global legal system, while the nationalists tend to claim that U.S. courts should limit their attention to the development of a national system. Finally, the transnationalists urge that the power of the executive branch should be constrained by judicial review and the concept of international comity, while the nationalists tend to believe that federal courts should give extraordinarily broad deference to executive power in foreign affairs.…

With Justices Roberts and Alito now seemingly poised to join the nationalist camp, the transnationalist-nationalist split increasingly hinges on Justice Kennedy's pivotal vote, with the next Supreme Court appointment after Justice Alito most likely to determine the Court's future course on these issues.

(Koh, Why Transnational Law Matters, 24 Penn St. Int'l L. Rev. 745, 749-750 (2006) (emphasis added; footnote calls deleted).)


The reality of Koh's transnationalism is even worse than this passage reveals. Koh believes that it is "appropriate for the Supreme Court to construe our Constitution in light of foreign and international law" in "at least three situations": (1) "when American legal rules seem to parallel those of other nations"; (2) when (quoting Breyer) "'foreign courts have applied standards roughly comparable to our own constitutional standards in roughly comparable circumstances'" and we can draw "empirical light" from their experience; and (3) "when a U.S. constitutional concept, by its own terms, implicitly refers to a community standard". (Koh, International Law as Part of Our Law, 98 Am. J. Int'l. L. 43, 45-46 (2004). In the hands of a living constitutionalist like Koh, foreign and international legal materials will virtually always be available to a transnational judge to help him reach the result he wants to reach.

Koh is on many liberals' short lists for the high court. Since the job at State requires Senate confirmation Republicans must NOT roll over for this guy. If he sails through to State, he's a far better bet to make it onto the Supreme Court. Senate Republicans have a duty to expose and confront Koh's radical views.

And if this is Obama's idea of moderate, we're in for a long four years, and a generation of damage in the courts.

Judicial activism alert from GateWay Pundit:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/03/
obama-judicial-nominee-says-prayers-to.html

True to his campaign promises, President Barack Hussein Obama has picked a rabid judicial activist as his first federal court pick. Judge David Hamilton has been chosen by Obama to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

Hamilton is precisely what Obama wants in a judge: Someone who ignores the Constitution and imposes his own liberal ideas on each case. Hamilton will have what Obama calls “empathy” for the poor, child molesters, abortionists, murderers, etc.

Hamilton has ideal liberal credentials. He is a former ACLU lawyer and was a fundraiser for the corrupt group known as ACORN. This organization engages in fraudulent voter registration campaigns and is deeply involved in housing and poverty issues. Obama was an attorney for ACORN when he worked as a “community organizer” in Chicago. ACORN will be gathering data for the 2010 Census.

...Hamilton is also an enemy of the First Amendment and religious freedom. Interestingly enough, Hamilton has ruled that prayers in Jesus Name at the Indiana House of Representatives was unconstitutional, but prayers to Allah were not.


Back to Top

Obama Considering Welfare for Freed Gitmo Detainees

March 26, 2009


From the Associated Press, a partial account of National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair’s first press conference today:

During his news conference, Blair also said the Obama administration is still wrestling with what to do with the remaining 240 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which the president has ordered closed.

That would happen when they can't be returned to their home countries, because the governments either won't take them or the U.S. fears they will be abused or tortured. That is the case with 17 Uighurs (WEE'-gurz), Chinese Muslim separatists who were cleared for release from the jail long ago. The U.S. can't find a country willing to take them, and it will not turn them over to China.

“We can't put them out on the street,” he said.

"If we are to release them in the United States, we need some sort of assistance for them to start a new life," said Blair.


Some of the detainees, deemed non-threatening, may be released into the United States as free men, Blair confirmed.

Blair said the former prisoners would have [to] get some sort of assistance to start their new lives in the United States.

Four points:
  1. Does this mean that the Obama administration is planning on giving some freed Guantanamo detainees a welfare check? In other words paying terrorists to live here.
  2. The Uighur detainees are cited, over and over again, as the types of detainees who can be safely released into the U.S. This is insane.

    They have received terrorist training in the al Qaeda/Taliban stronghold of Tora Bora, and have admitted that they were trained by two known terrorists. The group that trained them threatened to attack the Olympic Games in China last year.
  3. The AP says the United States can’t find a country to take the Uighurs, other than China, which may treat them "harshly".
  4. Is the Obama administration considering paying other Guantanamo detainees to live in the U.S. as well?


The Obama Administration's principle concern seems to be the comfort of Gitmo terrorists Gitmo on American soil rather than the national security of the United States. As usual.

Back to Top

A bill to shift cybersecurity to White House

March 20, 2009 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10200710-38.html
by Stephanie Condon


Forthcoming legislation would wrest cybersecurity responsibilities from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and transfer them to the White House, a proposed move that likely will draw objections from industry groups and some conservatives.

CNET News has obtained a summary of a proposal from Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) that would create an Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, part of the Executive Office of the President. That office would receive the power to disconnect, if it believes they're at risk of a cyberattack, "critical" computer networks from the Internet.

While the bill is still in draft form and thereby subject to change, it would put the White House National Cybersecurity Advisor in charge of coordinating cyber efforts within the intelligence community and within civilian agencies, as well as coordinating the public sector's cooperation with the private sector. The adviser would have the authority to disconnect from the Internet any federal infrastructure networks--or other networks deemed to be "critical"--if found to be at risk of a cyberattack.

Some industry groups are warning, however, that adding customized requirements to the government's procurement process may inhibit the government's ability to take advantage of the innovations and cost benefits available from commercial technology.

"Simply put, the government cannot reach its security goals by compromising its access to commercial solutions and processes, nor can it technologically or financially afford it," the Business Software Alliance wrote in a memo to Melissa Hathaway, the acting senior director for cyberspace at the White House National and Homeland Security Councils, who is conducting a 60-day review of cybersecurity programs for President Obama. "Rather than imposing overbroad security requirements, government needs to be selective and limit them to high-criticality systems."

The bill may also subject both government and private sector networks to cybersecurity standards established by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. It may also provide for a professional licensing and certification program for cybersecurity professionals.

Back to Top

Congressional Budget Office: Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade

Per Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer:

Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency, congressional auditors said Friday.

The new Congressional Budget Office figures offered a far more dire outlook for Obama's budget than the new administration predicted just last month -- a deficit $2.3 trillion worse. It's a prospect even the president's own budget director Peter Orszag called unsustainable.

"Deficits in the, let's say, 5 percent of GDP range would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios that would ultimately not be sustainable."

The story continues below...




Most disturbing to Obama allies like Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., are the longer term projections, which climb above $1 trillion again by the end of the next decade and approach 6 percent of GDP by 2019.

Obama's $3.6 trillion budget for the 2010 fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 contains ambitious programs to overhaul the U.S. health care system and initiate new "cap-and-trade" rules to combat global warming.

Both initiatives involve raising federal revenues sharply higher, but those dollars wouldn't be used to defray the burgeoning deficit and would instead help pay for Obama's health plan and implement Obama's $400 tax credit for most workers and $800 for couples.

Back to Top

Congress passing Obama's 'Brownshirt Legislation', 'The Give Act' and the 'Serve America Act'
by Gary Starr for the Neville Awards


During the campaign Obama spoke of needing "a civilian force just as powerful as our armed forces". While everyone is looking in the wrong direction and getting their collective undies in a wad over AIG bonuses, the House of Representatives has quietly passed it's version of the "Brownshirt Act' that supporters are calling the most sweeping reform of nationally-backed "volunteer" programs since AmeriCorps.

But some opponents are strongly criticizing the legislation, calling it expensive indoctrination and forced advocacy.

Known as the GIVE Act or Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, -- sponsored by Reps. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y, and George Miller, D-Calif. -- it was approved by a 321-105 vote and now goes to the Senate.

Opponents say they are concerned that the increased funding will be used to promote one ideology over another.

"It's allowing taxpayer funding of the left-wing organizations," said Larry Hart, director of government relations for the American Conservative Union.

"I think this is a problem that is rife throughout the federal government. When you dramatically expand the program, then you dramatically expand the ability for these left-wing advocacy organizations to get more funding. I don't see a lot of attention being paid to that, even from those who are critical. That's where the focus should be. Republicans tend to say its not that they oppose the program, they just want to spend less money. It's the program that's bad."

The Senate is working on a similar piece of legislation, the "Serve America (To Serve Man) Act," sponsored by Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. It was given a special endorsement by the president in his address before Congress on Feb. 24, 2008.

This legislation is Clinton's Americorps on steroids because of all the idiological indoctrination. Most of the people who sign up for this "program" will be poor, uneducated and easily swayed. Remember those videos of The Obama Youth Brigade, uniformed black kids marching in lockstep chanting Obama's name? Just in case you forgot:



We haven't seen this kind of power grab since the formation of the Hitler Youth and Ernst Röhm's SA brownshirts in 1930's Nazi Germany. Of course it didn't end well for Herr Röhm. Throughout the period of Hitler's rise to power, Ernst Röhm represented the militant wing of the Nazi Party as the chief organizer of the party militia. When Hitler grabbed supreme power he personally murdered Röhm and had the SA members arrested and/or shot, or folded the more Aryan of them into Himmler's SS.

Back to Top

Obama Administration Disarming Airline Pilots

Per Ed Morrisey at HotAir.com

After 9/11, the US began a new program allowing airline pilots to arm themselves in order to defend the cockpit against terrorist incursion. Along with air marshals, the armed pilots formed a last line of defense against hijackings and worse, such as the al-Qaeda actions that killed 3,000 Americans by using commercial jets as guided missiles.

The Washington Times reports that the Obama administration has decided to end the program without letting anyone know about it:

After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.

Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.

The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.


It’s not just a diversion of funds from training, either. The Times editorial accuses the new administration of hostility towards the program and using bureaucratic red tape to kneecap it. The pilots who want to defend themselves and their passengers cannot speak out publicly for fear of retribution:

Since Mr. Obama’s election, pilots have told us that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes slowed significantly. Last week the problem went from bad to worse. Federal Flight Deck Officers - the pilots who have been approved to carry guns - indicate that the approval process has stalled out.

Pilots cannot openly speak about the changing policies for fear of retaliation from the Transportation Security Administration. Pilots who act in any way that causes a “loss of confidence” in the armed pilot program risk criminal prosecution as well as their removal from the program. Despite these threats, pilots in the Federal Flight Deck Officers program have raised real concerns in multiple interviews.


The only people wanting to disarm pilots, as the Times notes in its editorial, are anti-gun extremists … and terrorists. It costs next to nothing to have a pilot arm him/herself. The $2 million in training directly contributes to airline safety. Compare that spending to Porkulus, where $5 million of the $700 billion in government money will go to buy snowmakers. In Duluth.

Only about 3% of all flights have air marshals. That makes for a good deterrent for a single hijacker, but AQ and other organized terrorists can overcome that by using multiple attacks, just as they did on 9/11. Cockpit doors have been reinforced, but they are not impenetrable. An armed pilot, properly trained and equipped, can make the difference between life and death, and not just for the people in the air.

If the Obama administration is pandering to the anti-gun lobby with this initiative — and it’s hard to see why else Obama would shut down this program — then gun owners should dread what comes next out of the White House.

Back to Top

Obama's Little Love Note to the Iranians

By Gary Starr for the Neville Awards


Our Fraudinator-in-Chief gets such a woody when it comes to surrendering to the Iranians that he is sending little love notes to the Mullahs and Iranian President and Holocaust Denier Mahmoud Ahmedinijad:

Today I want to extend my very best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz around the world.

This holiday is both an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal, and I hope that you enjoy this special time of year with friends and family.

In particular, I would like to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nowruz is just one part of your great and celebrated culture. Over many centuries your art, your music, literature and innovation have made the world a better and more beautiful place.

Here in the United States our own communities have been enhanced by the contributions of Iranian Americans. We know that you are a great civilization, and your accomplishments have earned the respect of the United States and the world.

For nearly three decades relations between our nations have been strained. But at this holiday we are reminded of the common humanity that binds us together. Indeed, you will be celebrating your New Year in much the same way that we Americans mark our holidays -- by gathering with friends and family, exchanging gifts and stories, and looking to the future with a renewed sense of hope.

Within these celebrations lies the promise of a new day, the promise of opportunity for our children, security for our families, progress for our communities, and peace between nations. Those are shared hopes, those are common dreams.

So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.

You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.

So on the occasion of your New Year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It's a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.

I know that this won't be reached easily. There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi, so many years ago: "The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence."

With the coming of a new season, we're reminded of this precious humanity that we all share. And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning.

Thank you, and Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak.


But the Iranians are playing hard to get. An Ahmedinijad adviser played down Obama's video, saying "minor changes will not end the differences" between Tehran and Washington: "Obama has talked of change but has taken no practical measures to address America's past mistakes in Iran. If Mr. Obama takes concrete actions and makes fundamental changes in U.S. foreign policy toward other nations including Iran, the Iranian government and people will not turn their back on him."

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's (the "moderate" mullah) response was more than just a dismissive slap in Obama's face. He demanded an overhaul of U.S. foreign policy, including giving up "unconditional support" for Israel and halting claims that Iran is seeking nuclear arms. Iran insists its nuclear program is only for peaceful energy purposes. (And there is a bridge in Brooklyn...)

Obama's naive silly posturing smacks of desperation and a bizarre need to be loved by our enemies. Or does it? Can you say "collusion"?

Back to Top

Obama Taps ACORN to handle 2010 Census
by Gary Starr for the Neville Awards


The U.S. Census is supposed to be free of politics, but one group with a history of voter fraud, ACORN, is participating in next year's count, raising concerns about the politicization of the decennial survey.

It is written in the Constitution that the Commerce Department shall have the sole authority to conduct a census every 10 years. The Obama administration has put oversight of this process in the office of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. This means the process will be politicized because they can now goose (over-estimate) the numbers in favor of the uncounted poor and the illegal immigrants. This naked power grab means favorable redistricting for the Democratic Party for years to come and possibly resulting in a permanent majority for the next 25 years. This should be challenged as unconstitutional ASAP.

Per Fox News:

"It's a concern, especially when you look at all the different charges of voter fraud. And it's not just the lawmakers' concern. It should be the concern of every citizen in the country," Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland, R-Ga., vice ranking member of the subcommittee for the U.S. Census, told FOXNews.com. "We want an enumeration. We don't want to have any false numbers."

ACORN, which claims to be a non-partisan grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people, came under fire in 2007 when Washington State filed felony charges against several paid ACORN employees and supervisors for more than 1,700 fraudulent voter registrations. In March 2008, an ACORN worker in Pennsylvania was sentenced for making 29 phony voter registration forms. The group's activities were frequently questioned in the 2008 presidential election.


Back to Top

Obama Wants Control of the Census-Counting citizens is a powerful political tool.
FEBRUARY 10, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html
By JOHN FUND


President Obama said in his inaugural address that he planned to "restore science to its rightful place" in government. That's a worthy goal. But statisticians at the Commerce Department didn't think it would mean having the director of next year's Census report directly to the White House rather than to the Commerce secretary, as is customary. "There's only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement," a career professional at the Census Bureau tells me. "And it's called politics, not science."

Anything that threatens the integrity of the Census has profound implications. Not only is it the basis for congressional redistricting, it provides the raw data by which government spending is allocated on everything from roads to schools. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also uses the Census to prepare the economic data that so much of business relies upon. "If the original numbers aren't as hard as possible, the uses they're put to get fuzzier and fuzzier," says Bruce Chapman, who was director of the Census in the 1980s.

Mr. Chapman worries about a revival of the effort led by minority groups after the 2000 Census to adjust the totals for states and cities using statistical sampling and computer models. In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Department of Commerce v. U.S. House that sampling could not be used to reapportion congressional seats. But it left open the possibility that sampling could be used to redraw political boundaries within the states.

Such a move would prove controversial. "Sampling potentially has the kind of margin of error an opinion poll has and the same subjectivity a voter-intent standard in a recount has," says Mr. Chapman.

Back to Top

The Sound Obama Economy
by Gary Starr for the Neville Awards


On September 15, 2008, with the Dow at around 11,000 unemployment over 6% and the economy hinting at the problems to come, John McCain said the fundamentals of the economy were strong. You would think he had called Obama a Muslim. He was called out of touch, an old man, how can we let him and the Republicans have the reigns of power, etc.

We at Neville predicted that about 6-10 weeks after the inauguration, after relentlessly talking down the economy as the excuse for massive spending and taxation, the economy would magically start looking better.

Lo and behold...

On March, 13, 2009 with the Dow (or tracking poll as Obama now calls it) at around 7200, unemployment over 8%, after months of 'economic crisis and catastrophe', unprecedented deficit spending and, most importantly, poll numbers going down, our Fraudinator-in-Chief has announced the fundamentals of the economy as sound.

This was echoed on March 15, 2009 by Obama's Chief Economist Christina Romer on Meet the Press:

MR. GREGORY: Are the fundamentals of this economy sound?

DR. ROMER: Well, of course the fundamentals are sound in the sense that the American workers are sound, we have a good capital stock, we have good technology. We know that, that temporarily we're in a mess, right? We've seen huge job loss, we've seen very large falls in GDP. So certainly in the short run we're in a, in a bad situation.

MR. GREGORY: All right, but then what's different between now and then, when the economy was in even better shape than it, it is now, when McCain was saying the fundamentals were strong and then-candidate Obama criticized him?

DR. ROMER: I think--again, I think what, what we're saying is that the, you know, where we are today is obviously not good. We have a plan in place to get to a good place. I think that's the crucial--a fundamentally crucial difference, is to make sure that you have put in place all of the comprehensive programs that'll get us back to those fundamentals. The other thing I think is so important, the president has actually said in terms of fundamentals, we need to make changes. That's why he's focusing on energy, education, getting the budget deficit under control.

When White House reporters pressed Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to draw a distinction between 'strong' and 'sound' Gibbs gassed around about a "definitional" difference.

Huh? We guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.


Back to Top

Energy Czarette Carol Browner on Climate Change -- Obama Wants Your Thermostat

March 9, 2009: Browner: "So, as I said, it's bigger, better, smarter. Bigger means we need the new high-voltage lines for renewables. Better means we need to take our existing lines and upgrade them. And then, smarter: We need to make sure that we're really moving electricity in the smartest way and using the most cost-effective electricity at the right time of day. Eventually, we can get to a system where an electric company will be able to hold back some of the power so that maybe your air conditioner won't operate at its peak, you'll still be able to cool your house, but that'll be a savings to the consumer. And so [we will be] giving people and companies a role in the management of how we use electricity."

Big Brother anyone?


Back to Top

Obama Administration Is Open to Taxing Health Benefits

Per the New York Times, March 15, 2009: The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for overhauling the health care system.

The proposal is politically problematic for President Obama, however, since it is similar to one he denounced in the presidential campaign as "the largest middle-class tax increase in history." Most Americans with insurance get it from their employers, and taxing workers for the benefit is opposed by union leaders and some businesses.

In television advertisements last fall, Mr. Obama criticized his Republican rival for the presidency, Senator John McCain of Arizona, for proposing to tax all employer-provided health benefits. The benefits have long been tax-free, regardless of how generous they are or how much an employee earns. The advertisements did not point out that Mr. McCain, in exchange, wanted to give all families a tax credit to subsidize the purchase of coverage.


Back to Top

Obama Administration Is Open to Forcing Wounded Vets to pay for Health Care
Gary Starr for the Neville Awards


March 12, 2009: Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

Lawmakers say they’d reject a proposal to make veterans pay for treatment of war wounds with private insurance.

But the proposal would be "dead on arrival" if it’s sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget…

Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under "consideration."

"A final decision hasn’t been made yet," he said…

So taxpayers dollars will be available for healthcare for illegal aliens and deadbeats, but not for wounded soldiers?

Obama is an absolute disgrace!

Reading List