| | | |
Blue Christmas for the Fraudinator-in-Chief
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Dec. 20, 2010
After two years of Democrat jam downs in Congress, Republicans, newly empowered by their mid-term victory, finally found their collective cojones. It was a good week for the newly empowered Tea Party and they haven't even taken the reigns of office yet. No doubt our Fraudinator-in-Chief will be having a blue Christmas this year.
Here's the score card
The only thing left is Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the FCC's end run around Congress on Net Neutrality. Expect a Republican Congress to neuter the Net Neuts next year.
A Virginia federal court declared the Obamacare mandate to be unconstitiutional
On a 55-41 vote the Senate killed The Dream Act - amnesty in disguise for illegal immigrants was stopped dead in its tracks
The earmark laden Omnibus spending bill was killed in the Senate, now reduced to a continuing resolution to keep the Federal Government functioning
A Democratic controlled Congress extended the Bush-era tax rates. The compromise was the extension of unemployment for 13 months. Obama tried to take credit for this by saying by signing the bill he was, once again, averting economic Armageddon. Why didn't he do this six months ago?
So what happened to all of the class-war noise from the Democratic left? It evaporated as liberals realized they lacked the votes and public support to stop the President Obama-GOP tax deal. This underscores that the single most important result of the November 2 election is the marginalizing of the House Democratic left.
From the Wall St. Journal:
The real pro-growth victory is the extension of the tax rates on income, capital gains and dividends. These are the rates that most affect the decisions to work and invest, as well as the profits of small-business job creators who pay individual tax rates under subchapter S of the tax code. After years of opposing an extension of these rates, Democrats conceded that raising them would hurt the economy and thus their own prospects in 2012. Republicans should pocket this concession and make it part of their case for larger tax reform.
As for the demise of the $1.1 trillion "omnibus" spending bill, do you believe in miracles? We can't recall such a bill failing in our lifetimes, not even with Ronald Reagan in the White House. Credit goes to Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell for making the political stakes clear to his colleagues, as well as to those GOP Senators who changed their minds despite peer and interest-group pressure.
Perhaps we are watching the rediscovery of Republican fiscal principle, which would mark another milestone on the road back to growth economics.
The Tax Deal and Mr. Obama's Latest Rage
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Dec. 8, 2010
When our Fraudinator-in-Chief loses a political battle, watch out. He becomes a petulant name-calling little boy. Republicans are the enemy (he called them that just before the mid-term debacle), and now the country is being "held hostage", in the prez's words, because Obama just had to abandon his rapacious plan to end the Bush-era tax cuts. He also scolded us about the Republican's "Holy Grail" of tax cuts for the wealthy:
"On the Republican side, this is their holy grail, these tax cuts for the wealthy. This seems to be their central economic doctrine. And so unless we had sixty votes in the senate at any given time, it would have been very hard for us to move this forward," he whined.
Isn't odd that, in a rare time of Democrat super majorities, legislative jam-downs, lockouts of Republicans while bills are being written, the first time Democrats lose a legislative battle and actually have to compromise, they describe themselves as being held hostage. The new Congress can't come fast enough so these liberal, whining children can be put to bed. But I digress.
Is the tax deal a good deal for the country? Maybe. Does it put Obama back on the road to re-election for now? Probably….because to allow tax rates rates to rise would have been the final straw in this lackluster and failed presidency.
Here's the essence of the deal - the Bush tax cuts remain in place for two years and unemployment is extended for thirteen months. The Death tax is upped to $5M from $1M. And the Social Security payroll tax is reduced by 2 percent meaning more after-tax dollars in your pocket.
Obama's MSNBC uber-left base is not happy. Bob Beckel, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, et al, are all prattling on about millionaires and billionaires (the latest left wing class warfare talking point) getting more money and tax cuts.
Earth to Leftists: no one is getting more money….everyone is getting to keep the money they already have at the current tax rates. A real tax cut would have given Americans more of their money.
Some in Congress are not happy either. Self-avowed democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) promised he will "do whatever it takes" to prevent passage of the measure, objecting to its temporary two-year extension of tax cuts for the "highest income earners"….the ever evil millionaires and billionaires.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) said he'll also filibuster the bill, but for different reasons than Sanders. DeMint said the deal is inadequate because it doesn't permanently extend the high-end tax cuts, it alters the estate tax for estates valued at over $5 million, and doesn't offset unemployment insurance.
DeMint has a point. A two-year horizon for business doesn't go out far enough and may not be enough to spur hiring or make investments. What business will commit funds for the long term if the uncertainty of a tax increase is always looming?
Should the Republicans have held out for a better deal after the new Congress begins? Perhaps. Tax rates stay the same for everyone including those dastardly rich folk making over $250,000. The compromise was to extend unemployment benefits for 13 months. The Reps aren't pleased about that. The Dems hate the fact that they can't steal more of your money. Such is the essence of compromise.
If the Republicans had waited for January the arguments would have continued, tax rates would have exploded, the Senate would water down any bill coming out of the House and we would, most likely, have ended up with the same deal.
From the Wall St. Journal:
Does President Obama like or loathe the two-year tax deal he has struck with Republicans? It was hard to tell from his grudging, testy remarks Monday and yesterday, but perhaps that's because he realizes he is repudiating the heart and soul of Obamanomics as the price of giving himself a chance at a second term.
In accepting the deal to cut payroll and business taxes and extend all of the Bush-era tax rates through 2012, Mr. Obama has implicitly admitted that his economic strategy has flopped. He is acknowledging that tax rates matter to growth, that treating business like robber barons has hurt investment and hiring, and that tax cuts are superior to spending as stimulus. It took 9.8% unemployment and a loss of 63 House seats for this education to sink in, but the country will benefit.
This is not to say the deal is optimal for economic growth, and Republicans should not pretend it is. A two-year reprieve is far better than an immediate tax increase amid a still fragile recovery, but it also means that the policy uncertainty is carried forward. In the Keynesian universe, "temporary" tax cuts are virtuous because they stimulate immediately while ostensibly allowing government to reclaim the revenue later when the economy is stronger.
In the real world, businesses make investments based on the estimated return on capital over time, including the expected tax rate. What matters is the overall cost of, and return on, capital. The temporary nature of the tax cuts will provide less incentive to invest than would permanent reductions in the cost of capital.
Net Neutrality -- Killing the Goose That Laid the Golden Egg
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Dec. 4, 2010
In the name of protecting us from overregulation of the Internet, FCC Chairman Little Julius Genachowski has outlined his plans to overregulate the Internet using a concept known as "Net Neutrality." Even though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in April 2010 the FCC doesn't have the power to do it Little Julius is moving forward anyway. In a draft document Little Julius outlined his big idea for net neutrality, the notion that the Internet should be "open and free."
Little Julius claims his Internet regulation efforts are based on "shared appreciation for the Internet's wondrous contributions to our economy and our way of life" and will "preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet."
"No central authority, public or private, should have the power to pick which ideas or companies win or lose," Julius says, "that's the role of the market and the marketplace of ideas."
Julius added that government red tape will increase the "freedom" of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web.
How wonderfully Orwellian...the power of an overregulating government claiming to protect the "marketplace of ideas." Notice the word competition, a necessary condition of a marketplace, is not mentioned here. Net neutrality will straitjacket the U.S. economy's single most important driver of productivity and transformation, in effect, killing the goose that laid the golden egg. But that's what Liberals are programmed to do.
Little Julius's big announcement came two weeks after he told state utility regulators in a speech that "the economy and jobs" would be "the primary focus" of the FCC. "We're focused on seizing the opportunities of communications technologies to catalyze private investment, foster job creation, compete globally, and create broad opportunity in the United States," he said. "Our sector-the information technologies and communications sector-can play a big role in driving economic success for the U.S. in the near-term and the long-term."
With the unemployment rate just ticking up to 9.8 % we are having a difficult time understanding what the job-killing net neutrality regs have to do with job creation, but never mind. Nothing this administration does has anything to do with job creation.
We suspect a more sinister motive. Since the rise of conservative talk radio and the internet Progressives have wanted to regain control of the political dialogue. They long for the return of the FCC-inspired Fairness Doctrine. Having failed to do that they see Net Neutrality as an interim policy to stifle conservative expression.
In the wake of the mid-term election defeat, Democrats have been calling for an FCC intervention of conservative outlets such as Fox News and Talk Radio. In the name of a return to "civil discourse" Sen. Jay Rockefeller and nut-case radical Howard Dean have called for Fox News and MSNBC (as a bone to even-handedness) be shut down.
What Rockefeller and Dean really want is a return to the days of yesteryear when three liberal networks and three liberal newspapers controlled the news and Congress could get their work done without all those annoying tea party peasants ruining everything.
The days of state-run and approved liberal media are over…..the conservative news genie is out of the bottle. Fortunately the FCC does not have control over cable services. But they do have control of the airwaves and are attempting to get control of the Internet.
Net Neutrality is another liberal stealth attack on free speech. It is an attempt to dilute conservative information on popular sites such as Big Government, American Thinker, and American Spectator while boosting the influence of progressive sites like The Daily Beast, Huffington Post and Politico. Does anyone truly believe that the latter would provide balanced commentary?
Julius, Julius, Julius, we know what you are up to. We know what you are. You remind of us Obama's Chavez-loving Communications Czar Mark Lloyd. This is the stuff of Soviet-style totalitarianism and low-rent banana republics.
From the Wall St.Journal:
Net Neutrality End Run--The FCC tells Congress to get lost.
DECEMBER 4, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487 04369304575632522873994634.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term for holding two conflicting ideas simultaneously. And it's one way to describe the recent behavior of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski.
Late Tuesday night, the FCC announced plans to adopt net neutrality regulations over the objections of lawmakers and despite a federal court ruling in April that said the FCC lacked authority from Congress to restrict how Internet service providers manage traffic on their networks.
The announcement comes two weeks after Mr. Genachowski told state utility regulators in a speech that "the economy and jobs" would be "the primary focus" of the FCC. "We're focused on seizing the opportunities of communications technologies to catalyze private investment, foster job creation, compete globally, and create broad opportunity in the United States," he said. "Our sector—the information technologies and communications sector—can play a big role in driving economic success for the U.S. in the near-term and the long-term."
Nowhere in the speech did the chairman mention the net neutrality mandates that the FCC had been pushing prior to the election. And some free-market telecom advocates took the omission as a sign that perhaps the Obama Administration was abandoning its plans to further regulate an industry in which competition and innovation thrive.
No such luck. Under Mr. Genachowski's afflatus, the five-member commission, which is controlled by Democrats, will soon vote to "upend three decades of bipartisan and international consensus that the Internet is best able to thrive in the absence of regulation," said FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell in a statement criticizing the chairman's plans. "By choosing this highly interventionist course, the Commission is ignoring the will" of Congress.
A savvy Beltway operator, Mr. Genachowski probably figures this minority griping won't matter. His latest scheme is less radical than the one he floated earlier this year to reclassify broadband as a more heavily regulated phone service. That would subject broadband providers to price-controls, open-access mandates and the whims of 50 state utility commissions. That proposal scared the willies out of telecom companies, which saw a future as public utilities valued accordingly in much lower stock prices.
This latent threat helps explain why the likes of AT&T and Comcast, two of the nation's largest Internet service providers, have expressed conditional support for the FCC's new regulations. Comcast is also seeking FCC approval to merge with NBC Universal and may have decided this isn't the best time to upset the agency.
But the FCC's power grab still exceeds its legal authority, which is certain to be tested in court. And the new Republican House is even less likely than the old Congress to give the FCC the net neutrality power it seeks. Joe Barton, ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, sent a letter to Mr. Genachowski last month that urged the agency to halt activity on net neutrality and noted that some 300 House Members and Senators from both parties have said the issue should be left to Congress. All 95 House and Senate candidates—every one—who had signed a pledge stating that "I believe in protecting net neutrality" lost in the midterm elections.
Last year alone, Internet service providers spent nearly $60 billion to deploy next-generation networks to customers across the country. If job creation and economic growth are priorities for the Obama Administration, it makes no sense to target the telecom industry with new rules that will hamper capital investment and lead to years of litigation and regulatory uncertainty.
More troubling than even Mr. Genachowski's bad judgment is the signal he is sending that the Obama Administration intends to use administrative agencies to circumvent Congress now that Democrats no longer have full control of the legislature. We hope the GOP doesn't let the White House get away with it.
Gitmo Diary Update -- Terrorist Acquitted on All But 1 Count In First Civilian Detainee Trial
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Nov. 18, 2010
After refusing to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation, the Eric Holder Justice Department has proven that it cannot successfully prosecute, in federal court, terrorists being held at Gitmo.
Ahmed Ghailani, the first Guantanamo detainee to face a civilian trial was acquitted of all but one of the hundreds of charges he helped unleash death and destruction on two U.S. embassies in 1998. A federal jury convicted Ghailani of one count of conspiracy to destroy U.S. property and acquitted him on more than 224 murder counts for each of the people killed in the embassy bombings as well as other 60 other charges.
Way to go Eric…..we feel safer already.
In a statement, Department of Justice spokesman Matthew Miller said U.S. officials "respect the jury's verdict" and are "pleased" that Ghailani faces a minimum of 20 years and a maximum of life in prison at sentencing on Jan. 25. U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a statement that Ghailani "will face, and we will seek, the maximum sentence of life without parole." Defense attorney Peter Quijano welcomed the acquittals. He said the one conviction would be appealed. So Ghailani's trial will go on for at least another year.
The trial, at a lower Manhattan courthouse, had been viewed as a test for our Fraudinator-in-Chief's aim of putting other terrorists - including self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other terrorism suspects held at Gitmo - on trial on U.S. soil. That test as clearly failed.
A sympathetic judge, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, disallowed vital evidence which might have brought the murder convictions, and a lone nut-bag juror just couldn't bring him/herself to convict Ghailani.
John Yoo, former official in the Justice Department from 2001-03 writing in the Wall St. Journal:
The near-total acquittal of an al Qaeda agent by a New York jury this week should, at a minimum, be the last gasp for President Obama's misguided effort to wage the war on terrorism in the courtroom. But it should also spell the end for a broader law-enforcement approach that interferes with our effective prosecution of the conflict. The best course now is simply to detain al Qaeda members, exploit them for intelligence, and delay trials until the end of hostilities.
A federal jury on Wednesday convicted Ahmed Ghailani on only a single count of conspiracy for the massive 1998 car bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But it acquitted him of the murders of the 224 people, including 12 Americans, who died in the attacks. After the trial judge excluded a key witness whose identity was learned through tough CIA interrogation, prosecutors were lucky even to win on the single charge of conspiring to destroy government property.
For nearly two years, the Obama administration has persisted in treating al Qaeda operatives as garden- variety suspects entitled to all the constitutional rights of Americans, rather than as enemy combatants intent on committing the war crime of killing innocent civilians. Ghailani's was supposed to be the easy case, a clean win, a demonstration that civilian courts could try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda leaders still held at Guantanamo Bay.
But civilian trials risk our nation's most vital intelligence secrets. That's because the Constitution allows criminal defendants to demand that the government turn over all of its information on them and explain how it was acquired. In a common domestic trial, this does little damage since the harm has already been done. A trial only reconstructs the history of the events that led to the crime.
Yet administration officials suggested this week that the Ghailani verdict justifies the use of civilian courts. Yes, trials bear costs, they say, but the political benefits of treating terrorists as criminal suspects outweigh intelligence needs. The administration apparently has an irresistible impulse to sacrifice effective security policies in order to appease international and domestic elite opinion.
That's why, in January 2009, it announced the closing of Guantanamo Bay without any serious alternative. (The facility is still open, thanks to Congress.) The Obama administration also rushed to release al Qaeda operatives from Gitmo, until it discovered that a significant fraction returned to the fight. It also ended aggressive interrogation of terrorists, depriving our military and intelligence agencies of the most effective tool for learning al Qaeda's future plans of attack.
So after promising that a civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be a slam-dunk, the test case has blown up in Obama's and Holder's terrorist appeasing faces.
One cannot help but think that prosecutor Preet Bharara's heart might not have been in it either.
As always the Wall St.Journal is more eloquent than l'il ole us:
The Verdict on Holder
How to botch a terrorist trial and harm the U.S. reputation for justice.
NOVEMBER 19, 2010 Terrorist Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was acquitted Wednesday on 284 of 285 counts associated with murdering 212 innocents, but the verdict on Attorney General Eric Holder was guilty as charged. His strategy of force-feeding terrorists into the civilian court system has turned into a legal and security fiasco.
Ghailani was indicted in 2001 for his role in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The Pakistani military captured him after a July 2004 battle and the CIA held him at a secret location until he was transferred in 2006 to Guantanamo with 13 other high-value detainees. Ghailani admitted his role during interrogation, and in 2008 military prosecutors charged him with war crimes. But last year the Obama Administration transferred him to downtown Manhattan to await a civilian trial.
The follies began early when Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that prosecutors could not call a key witness, Hussein Abebe. Mr. Abebe was to testify that he sold Ghailani the TNT that blew up the embassy in Dar es Salaam, killing 11. Authorities learned of Mr. Abebe from Ghailani, who named him during his CIA interrogation, and defense lawyers claimed the interrogation was abusive.
"The government has elected not to litigate the details of Ghailani's treatment while in CIA custody," Judge Kaplan noted in his ruling. "It has sought to make this unnecessary by asking the Court to assume in deciding this motion that everything Ghailani said while in CIA custody was coerced." Since the government had not demonstrated that Mr. Abebe's testimony was "sufficiently remote or attenuated" from the alleged coercion of Ghailani, Judge Kaplan held the testimony inadmissible. Prosecutors elected not to appeal and also chose not to use Ghailani's confession, which he later repudiated.
Mr. Holder's response was dismissive. "We are talking about one ruling, in one case by one judge," he told reporters. "I think it's too early to say that at this point the Ghailani matter is not going to be successful."
It's not too early now. The dozen civilian jurors issued one of the more puzzling verdicts in recent history, convicting him on one charge of conspiracy to destroy government property but acquitting him of conspiring to kill Americans. One news report suggests the verdict was a compromise to appease one juror who was holding out for an acquittal on all charges. We may learn more in the days ahead, but the blunder wasn't the jury's or Judge Kaplan's. They were working with the bad hand they were dealt under the rules of criminal due process that are designed to protect the innocent, not admitted enemy combatants.
The blunder was Mr. Holder's decision to dump Ghailani into the civilian system when a perfectly adequate military tribunal was available. Despite interminable legal challenges from white-shoe law firms and the political left, the Supreme Court has ruled that military commissions are lawful and part of a long U.S. tradition from revolutionary days through FDR. Their advantage is that military tribunals have somewhat more liberal rules of evidence and are designed to handle classified material in a way that protects national security without disqualifying pertinent facts.
Mr. Holder's choice was wholly political, intended to appease the anti-antiterror left that helped to elect President Obama. In a bad decision for the ages, last November he even proposed to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed near Ground Zero.
That plan was run out of town by Democrats, with New York Senator Chuck Schumer saying in April that the Administration was never going to get its New York trial and that "they should just say it already." Mr. Holder's department nonetheless waited until after the recent election to disclose to the Washington Post last week that he won't hold any trials for KSM and other Gitmo terrorists until after the 2012 election. Where's the candor and competence of Alberto Gonzales when you really need them?
The jurors did do Mr. Holder the favor of convicting Ghailani on the one charge. Had they acquitted him on all counts, Mr. Holder would have been left with the choice of letting a terrorist go free to kill Americans again, or ignoring the verdict and holding him indefinitely in Guantanamo as an enemy combatant. As Judge Kaplan noted during the trial, Ghailani's "status as an 'enemy combatant' probably would permit his detention as something akin to a prisoner of war until hostilities between the United States and Al Qaeda and the Taliban end, even if he were found not guilty in this case."
Savor that irony. Trying terrorists in civilian courts is supposed to showcase American justice, but even if they're acquitted they'll be held indefinitely. Meanwhile, terrorists already know that if they're captured they'll get less vigorous interrogation than your average U.S. street criminal, and that they can play their civilian trial for propaganda purposes. Mr. Holder and his boss, the President, have in their ideological willfulness managed to hurt both the reputation of U.S. civilian justice and national security.
The right policy is to separate the laws of war from the laws of civilian society. Burglars and muggers should be tried in civilian courts. Unlawful enemy combatants captured on the battlefield deserve to be held in Guantanamo and tried in military commissions. And if Mr. Holder can't tell the difference, he should find a new job.
Obama's Excellent Disastrous Asian Adventure
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Nov. 15, 2010
In the wake of the ass-kicking the Democrats received on election day our Fraudinator-in-Chief high-tailed it to Asia to create jobs and spread the wealth. It did not turn out as planned.
A student in Mumbai asked Obama about the meaning of jihad….Obama mumbled something about "the different meanings" of jihad and then said "all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence toward innocent people that is never justified."
A true profile in courage. Muslims liked his non-answer however: "Jihad can in no way assume the form of violence against the innocent and those who are perpetrating such violent acts have done great disservice to Islam," said Kamal Farooqi, a prominent member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. "To that extent President Obama is correct," he said.
So the Muslims approve….what else is new.
Then he took the occasion to wax poetically about American economic weakness:
Implicitly acknowledging the decline of American dominance, Barack Obama on Sunday said the US was no longer in a position to "meet the rest of the world economically on our terms".
Speaking at a town hall meeting in Mumbai, he said, "I do think that one of the challenges that we are going face in the US, at a time when we are still recovering from the financial crisis is, how do we respond to some of the challenges of globalization? The fact of the matter is that for most of my lifetime and I'll turn 50 next year - the US was such an enormously dominant economic power, we were such a large market, our industry, our technology, our manufacturing was so significant that we always met the rest of the world economically on our terms. And now because of the incredible rise of India and China and Brazil and other countries, the US remains the largest economy and the largest market, but there is real competition. This will keep America on its toes. America is going to have to compete. There is going to be a tug-of-war within the US between those who see globalization as a threat and those who accept we live in a open integrated world, which has challenges and opportunities."
Way to go Barack.
Traveling to his boyhood home (the largest Muslim country in the world) Obama used the occasion to bash Israel on settlements:
"This kind of activity [settlement building] is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations, and I'm concerned that we're not seeing each side make the extra effort involved to get a breakthrough," Mr. Obama said during a joint news conference with the Indonesian president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. He added, "Each of these incremental steps end up breaking trust."
Seoul, South Korea
Obama hit the trifecta as he blew the negotiated free trade agreement at the G20 Summit by demanding last minute changes that would favor the unions that bought and paid for the Obama administration.
From the Wall St. Journal:
Embarrassment in Seoul
The world won't follow slow-growth, weak-dollar America
NOVEMBER 13, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052748704462704575609770024501384.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop Has there ever been a major economic summit where a U.S. President and his Treasury Secretary were as thoroughly rebuffed as they were at this week's G-20 meeting in Seoul? We can't think of one. President Obama failed to achieve any of his main goals while getting pounded by other world leaders for failing U.S. policies and lagging growth.
The root of this embarrassment is political and intellectual: Rather than leading the world from a position of strength, Mr. Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner came to Seoul blaming the rest of the world for U.S. economic weakness. America's problem, in their view, is the export and exchange rate policies of the Germans, Chinese or Brazilians. And the U.S. solution is to have the Fed print enough money to devalue the dollar so America can grow by stealing demand from the rest of the world.
But why should anyone heed this U.S. refrain? The Germans are growing rapidly after having rejected Mr. Geithner's advice in 2009 to join the U.S. stimulus spending blowout. China is also growing smartly having rejected counsel from three U.S. Administrations to abandon its currency discipline. The U.K. and even France are pursuing more fiscal restraint. Only the Obama Administration is determined to keep both the fiscal and monetary spigots wide open, while blaming everyone else for the poor domestic results.
So Obama returns from Asia, and the headlines greeting him home weren't kind. "Obama's economic view is rejected on world stage," read The New York Times; "Obama, weakened after midterms, reveals limited leverage in failed S. Korea deal," says The Washington Post; and ABC News declared, "President Obama Falls Short on G-20 Goals: Failure to Deliver on Key Trade Goals Reveals Limits of American Influence."
The South Korea-U.S. free trade agreement (KORUS) was completed and signed three years ago. All the agreement needed was a signature from President Obama to get it approved in the Senate. But free trade is not a priority of President Obama.
Protectionism, which inevitably leads to trade wars, is the watchword for the union-backed leftists in our government. This, of course, is a losing strategy because the ever-increasing union demands ultimately bankrupts the company, or the company moves operations overseas, and the union workers lose their jobs anyway.
Obama to Continue His End-Run Around Congress After the Mid-Terms
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Oct. 12, 2010
When you are a Leftist like Obama your real agenda will not stand public scrutiny or Senate confirmations. So how do you achieve "transformational change"? You lie, you obfuscate and avoid Congress at all costs.
With the Democrats looking at massive losses in the mid-term election our Fraudinator in-Chief has decided to double down on the end-run he has been doing around Congress for the last 18 months. White House staff changes will be made with an eye toward achieving goals through executive actions rather than by trying to push plans through the next Congress, which is expected to be even more hostile to the president.
"Whether or not the Republicans take over majorities in one or both houses, the margins will be so much narrower that the strategy of putting together a Democratic bill and picking off a handful of Republicans to push it over the top won't be viable anymore," said William Galston, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
For Obama to get anything done he will have to rely on executive orders, more regulation implemented through his czars and the wide-ranging rulemaking authority of his Cabinet members.
Which is all the more reason to cheer on Texas as it pushes back against the EPA's illegal attempt to rewrite the nation's clean air laws.
Texas is resisting the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to regulate carbon under the clean air laws of the 1970s, which will be damaging enough on their own. But EPA chief Lisa Jackson is also threatening to punish Texas and other green dissenters with a de facto moratorium on any major energy or construction projects. Coming on the heels of the Justice Dept lawsuit against Arizona, this is more of the same Chicago style thug tactics we've come to expect from these gangsters
Because Cap and Trade has not passed the Senate Ms. Jackson and that the current Clear Air Act permitting regs are too restrictive, her office will override the states and run the carbon permitting process itself.
Per the Wall St. Journal:
Put bluntly, this coercion is illegal. As badly as Ms. Jackson has abused clean air laws to go after CO2, she can't by regulatory fiat usurp the law's statutory language about the federalist balance of power between Washington and the states. Texas filed an unusual lawsuit last week with the D.C. appeals circuit calling it an "ultra vires" act-literally, "beyond the powers"-and requesting an emergency stay of the EPA's regulations because of the imminence of irreparable harm.
Ms. Jackson's real goal here is to threaten states like Texas that haven't fallen into line: Either accede to her unlawful and politically driven rules, or else watch EPA drive businesses out of the state. In the case of Texas, that means Mexico, where-ahem-companies will take their carbon emissions with them.
After Obama poked a stick in the eye of the Senate and appointed Leftist nutbag Donald Burwick to administer Medicare without confirmation hearings our Fraudinator-in-Chief has decided to put Harvard Law School (where else?) buddy Elizabeth Warren in charge of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, also while avoiding Senate confirmation and, for that matter, any political supervision.
Ms. Warren is a hero to the political left for proposing a new bureaucracy to micromanage the services that banks can offer consumers. Like Burwick, Warren is also so politically controversial that no less a liberal lion than outgoing Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd warned the White House that she probably couldn't be confirmed.
No problema for Obama. After all, he said, during the healthcare debate, that process doesn't interest him...just "git er done!!"
Again from the Wall St. Journal:
Ms. Warren's bureau will dictate how credit is allocated throughout the American economy-by banks and financial firms, and also by many small businesses that extend credit to consumers. The bureau's mandate under the new Dodd-Frank law is to ensure that "consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination." If those terms sound vague and overbroad now, wait until Ms. Warren's hand-picked staff begins interpreting existing laws on fair lending and writes new rules.
By appointing another White House czar to avoid Senate confirmation, the administration politicized the powerful new bureaucracy from its birth. And by appointing an individual with a track record of using questionable research to advance policy ends, it has jeopardized the second goal as well.
We have here another end-run around Constitutional niceties so Team Obama can invest huge authority in an unelected official who is unable to withstand a public vetting. So a bureau inside an agency (the Fed) that it doesn't report to, with a budget not subject to Congressional control, now gets a leader not subject to Senate confirmation. If Dick Cheney had tried this, he'd have been accused of staging a coup.
Obama and the Declaration -- Holdren and Climate Change -- And the Abuse of the Language
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Sept 19, 2010
Don't like a political word or phrase? A certain way of expressing a position or policy not polling well? No problema. Just change it. Or eliminate it.
Words have meaning and Leftists have been torturing language for 160 years to fit their warped view of the world.
The Obama Administration has been having a field day changing the meaning of the English language. An act of terror is now a man-caused disaster. The War on Terror is now a struggle against extremism and an overseas contingency operation. And so-forth.
Now Obama Science Czar John Holdren has stepped into the wordsmith rabbit hole on the subject of global warming. As you may remember, the phrase global warming stopped selling as a fear mongering tool of the left. The term du jour became climate change.
Now the leftists could have it both ways. If it was too warm or too cold climate change was the cause.
But that phrase fizzled as well, after the disastrous Copenhagen Summit in late 2009.
So it's nut-bag Harvard educated John Holdren to the rescue.
A little background on Holdren first. Back in the 1970's he was an advocate of global cooling. That didn't work out so he switched to global warming. You could say he was against global warming before he was for it. Of course, the excuse for the global warming/climate change hoax is global wealth redistribution in the form of Cap & Trade legislation, enforced by the U.N.
For any leftist, John Holdren and Obama among them, wealth redistribution is the 11th Commandment: Thou shalt steal 100% from the producers and redistribute only 2% to the non-producers.
So in order to keep climate change hope alive, i.e. wealth redistribution via cap and trade, and fearing that the Cap & Trade legislation was going down the drain, Holdren has come up with a new phrase to scare us.
Holdren and Obama want the public to start using the term global climate disruption in place of global warming. According to Holdren the phrase global warming oversimplifies the problem and makes it sound less dangerous than it really is. Holdren urged people to start using the phrase during a speech last week in Oslo, echoing a plea he made three years earlier. Holdren said global warming is a "dangerous misnomer" for a problem far more complicated than a rise in temperature.
Climate change sceptics say that this latest rebranding will have little effect on the public apathy towards this manufactured Cloward & Piven style crisis.
In another, more egregious language error, Obama has re-written the Declaration of Independence.
You may remember, several years ago the phrase "Truth, Justice and the American Way" was changed by the leftist writers of the latest Superman movie to "Truth, Justice and all that other stuff". The excuse was they didn't want to offend overseas audiences. We suspect that the writers were just idiot Hollywood leftists and anti-American.
Our Fraudinator-in-Chief recently addressed the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. At around 22:30 of the video, he incorporates part of the preamble of The Declaration of Independence, removing "Creator".
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..... endowed with certain unalienable rights, life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
But the the actual quotation is:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." After Obama says "created equal...", he pauses during which he scowls and blinks several times. He appears disgusted and may have decided it would be better not to read what the preamble actually says.
Like any true leftist Obama believes the Creator is not the purveyor of our human rights. Then who is? The government?...or more importantly, Obama?
Obama, November Elections & His Failed Presidency
Compiled by The Neville Awards
Sept 10, 2010
From the Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell -- Four Perspectives
The Obama Doctrine
Aside from the wooden performance, there was nothing particularly noteworthy about President Barack Obama's Oval Office address on Iraq last night. The President again evinced the impression that he viewed Iraq as a distraction, and he twice said he wanted to "turn the page" to other issues. As forgettable as the address was however, once placed into the broader context of foreign policy speeches and actions, a clear Obama Doctrine can now be defined, as James Carafano and Kim Holmes do in a new paper released today.
Downplaying American Sovereignty: The Administration is pursuing an ambitious agenda on international treaties. An incomplete list includes: the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia; the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT); the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOST); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); and the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS). The ideals behind many of these treaties are admirable. But in every case the onus is on the Administration to ensure that the treaty does not compromise America's security or the rights and freedoms established in the U.S. Constitution. International institutions work best when they manage affairs between nations; they falter and become harmful when they reach into the domestic affairs of nations.
But that is exactly what the Obama administration has been doing. Just last week the White House submitted its "Report of the United States of America" to the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC), a body that includes such human rights exemplars as Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia. In the report, the Obama administration attacks Arizona's recent immigration enforcement law and portrays its law suit against it as a defense of human rights. Is there a better example of what little interest this Administration has in upholding American sovereignty? There is no universal right to violate a country's immigration laws with impunity. It is no violation of human rights to enforce border security and basic immigration requirements. When the Obama administration engages international institutions, it appears that E Pluribus Unum gets thrown under the bus.
Soft-Pedaling American Power: The belief that the United States over-utilized hard power in Iraq and Afghanistan has shaken President Obama's confidence in the application of hard power at all. Instead, the President intends to use soft power so as to appear more equal at the negotiating table. Shortly after taking office in January 2009, President Barack Obama said "[if] countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us." And how has this soft-power approach fared? French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently said: "We live in the real world, not a virtual one... President Obama himself has said that he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. Before our very eyes, two countries are doing exactly the opposite at this very moment... I support America's 'extended hand.' But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges."
The reality is that soft power only works as an adjunct to hard power. Saddam Hussein's removal from power eliminated any possibility of a major threat from Iraq for the foreseeable future. And while Afghanistan remains an open question, only the anti-war left believes the Taliban can be persuaded to lay down their arms with promises of aid and diplomacy. Any time an American leader believes soft power is a substitute for hard power, he is bound to fail.
A More Restrained America: President Obama has made no secret of his ambivalence toward American military power. At his nuclear summit in Washington, he said: "Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower." The President's take-it-or-leave-it attitude toward America's defenses has been reflected in his spending priorities. He cut funding for the F-22 fighter jet and key missile defense programs. His defense procurement budget is anemic, he has refused to modernize our nuclear deterrent, and his Administration even proposed terminating the development of the next generation Navy Cruiser with missile defense capabilities. The force structure Obama is projecting simply cannot sustain existing U.S. security commitments. Military power is not only about fighting wars; it is also about others' perception of whether you have the means and will to defeat aggression. The perception of American weakness is a destabilizing force throughout the world.
A More Humble America: Since his first month in office, President Obama has embarked on a whirlwind Apology Tour casting himself as the redemptive vessel for the entirety of America's past sins. Apologizing for things that happened in the past may gain popularity abroad, but so far, it has done little to change minds about our policies. If anything, it has portrayed a weaker United States not only to our allies, but to adversaries striving to gain any advantage over us. The repercussions could be grave-and here, history also provides an example. Not long after President Jimmy Carter apologized for America's supposedly excessive fear of Communism, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and the hard-liners revolted in Iran, taking Americans hostage.
Carter is not the only past president whom Obama is emulating on foreign policy. President Obama's true foreign policy predecessor is President Woodrow Wilson, who also sought a more "ethical" foreign policy and sought to rely on a "concert of nations" to keep the peace. Wilson's idealistic approach failed to stem the tide of World War I and helped to foster the isolationism of the 1920s and 1930s that inadvertently eased the road into World War II.
There is a better foreign policy vision. It is a vision that is grounded in George Washington's first State of the Union address reminder that: "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." It's a vision that is consistent with the Monroe Doctrine ideal that America is committed to the principles on which republican self-government is based. It's a vision that embodies the Truman Doctrine's support for peoples threatened with Communist aggression. And it's a vision that continues the Reagan Doctrine's "peace through strength" strategy of revitalizing the U.S. military while promoting economic growth at home and increasing support for oppressed people around the world. What all these lines of thought have in common is that America is an indispensable nation in the defense of liberty around the world.
The Obama Doctrine points us in the opposite direction. It will force friendly nations to look elsewhere, not to Washington, for arrangements that bring them greater security. And that will make this a far more dangerous world indeed.
The Audacity of Failure
In April, while campaigning in Pennsylvania, Vice President Joe Biden promised the American people: "I'm here to tell you, some time in the next couple of months, we're going to be creating between 250,000 jobs a month and 500,000 jobs a month. ... We caught a lot of bad breaks on the way down. We're going to catch a few good breaks because of good planning on the way up." And for a while it looked like Biden was a genius. In May, the Labor Department reported that nonfarm payroll employment rose by 290,000 the previous month and in June they reported that the U.S. economy added another 431,000 jobs. President Barack Obama's "good planning" was working! But then the next report showed the U.S. economy lost 125,000 jobs in June and then the August report found another 131,000 jobs were lost in July. Today the Labor Department released the September jobs report, showing nonfarm payrolls decreased again by 54,000 and that the nation's unemployment rate rose to 9.6%.
By every objective measure, President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package has been a complete failure. When President Obama was selling his stimulus plan to the American people, he promised it would save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010. At the time, employment stood at about 135.1 million, according to the Labor Department's most commonly used measure. That established an Obama jobs target for December 2010 at 138.6 million. According to the latest jobs report, total U.S. employment stood at 130.3 million in August, which means the cumulative Obama jobs deficit stands at 7.5 million.
Despite the mounting evidence of failure, the Obama administration is still completely unapologetic. Defending her tenure as chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer told journalists at the National Press Club Wednesday: "The current recession has been fundamentally different from other postwar recessions. ... Precisely because such severe financial shocks have been rare, there were no reliable estimates of the likely impact. To this day, economists don't fully understand why firms cut production as much as they did, and why they cut labor so much more than they normally would, given the decline in output." But after first admitting that the experts don't understand the current crisis, she then confidently asserts:
It is clear that the Recovery Act has played a large role in the turnaround in GDP and employment. In a report that Jared Bernstein and I issued during the transition, we estimated that by the end of 2010, a stimulus package like the Recovery Act would raise real GDP by about 3½ percent and employment by about 3½ million jobs, relative to what otherwise would have occurred.... The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CEA's own estimates, and estimates from a range of respected private sector analysts suggest that the Act has already raised employment by approximately two to three million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.
Got that? Romer first admits that her magic Keynesian formulas were completely useless in predicting how bad the recession would be, and then she turns right around and uses those exact same formulas to justify the success of the stimulus. If that bootstrapping weren't audacious enough, Romer then went on to claim that "the United States still faces a substantial shortfall of aggregate demand" and that "structural changes in the composition of our output or a mismatch between worker skills and jobs" having nothing to do with continued high unemployment. So instead of changing course, Romer wants us to double down with a second round of economic stimulus.
How much more stimulus does the Obama administration want to spend? Romer wouldn't say, and the White House is desperate to avoid calling any new action "stimulus," but The Atlantic's Megan McArdle has crunched the numbers and come up with a ballpark size of how big the original economic stimulus package would have to have been if we take the left's Keynesian economics as gospel: "Full employment is perhaps 4.5-5%. If we assume that stimulus benefits increase linearly, that means we would have needed a stimulus of, on the low end, $2.5 trillion. On the high end, it would have been in the $4-5 trillion range."
Even the Obama administration doesn't want to add another $5 trillion to our $13.5 trillion national debt. That is why the Obama administration is pushing a $921 billion tax hike set to take effect on January 1, 2011. There is only one word for proposing $981 billion in taxes to pay for trillions in failed stimulus spending in the midst of 9.6% unemployment: audacity.
Neglecting Allies and Appeasing Foes
In yesterday's New York Times, International Herald Tribune columnist Roger Cohen reported: "Since taking office, President Obama has reached out to the Muslim world as a whole, to China, to Turkey and to Iran, but has devoted scant serious diplomatic energy to Europe." Cohen then went on to quote prominent Paris-based defense analyst Camille Grand: "Europe is the object of benign U.S. neglect. Obama has not established or re-established a strategic relationship with any single European country or with Europe as a whole."
This analysis is dead on. In their report released last week, Defining the Obama Doctrine, Its Pitfalls, and How to Avoid Them, Drs. Kim Holmes and James Carafano detail just some of President Obama's practice of extending an open hand to enemies while rebuffing friends and close allies, including: not welcoming the Dalai Lama to the White House when that dignitary made his first visit to Washington after Obama took office; reversing years of U.S. policy by supporting Argentina over the U.K. on the Falklands; caving to Russia by abandoning our missile defense plans with the Czech Republic and Poland; and backing a Hugo Chavez ally in Honduras.
The problem with this approach is that the U.S. government has a responsibility to the people of America to act in its own and its allies' best interests. Since World War II the United States has promoted security and liberty throughout the world by creating strong international institutions and alliances that promote self-governance, the rule of law, civil and political rights, property rights and economic opportunities. But partnerships will fall short of our expectations if the countries with which we align share neither our values nor our goals. Rewarding troublemakers while ignoring our allies only emboldens those who do not share our values and demoralizes those that do.
Take the President's campaign to "reset" relations with Russia. As mentioned above, one of President Obama's first acts as President was to betray our Czech and Polish allies by surrendering our plans to build Ground-Based Midcourse Defense interceptors to appease Russia. The culmination of this campaign is the President's New START agreement, which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote on this month. In today's Wall Street Journal, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton explains why New Start Is Unilateral Disarmament:
In pursuing New Start, the Obama administration has essentially jettisoned the 2002 Treaty of Moscow, which only dealt with the limitation of nuclear warheads that were operationally deployed. That freed large numbers of U.S. launchers (land-based and submarine-based ballistic missiles, along with heavy bombers such as the B-2) to carry conventional payloads world-wide-a concept known as "conventional prompt global strike."
Such delivery flexibility is far more important to America than to Russia, given our global interests and alliances. Its wisdom was evident after 9/11, as we fought in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond. New Start encumbers us with unnecessary constraints that will distort strategic priorities and weapons-development for decades.
Now is no time to be limiting our conventional or nuclear capabilities in the vain hope that Russia will suddenly become a force for liberty and security abroad. As Cohen notes: "The Atlantic relationship remains the cornerstone of world stability even as new powers emerge. With its huge debt, America needs affordable influence; Western allies are the way to find it. The struggle of our age pits the state against the anti-state, with weapons of mass destruction potentially mixed in: The West embodies the values and has the institutions central to winning that fight."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to address the Council on Foreign Relations today, where she will say of the Obama Doctrine: "Today we can say with confidence that this model of American leadership works." But this claim ignores the realities in Iran, North Korea and Russia. Rewarding these countries will force friendly nations to look elsewhere, not to Washington, for arrangements that bring them greater security. And that will make this a far more dangerous world indeed.
Obama's Desperate Times and Desperate Measures
Faced with predictions of staggering losses for his party in November's midterm elections, President Barack Obama today appeared on ABC's "Good Morning America" and said, "If the election is a referendum on 'are people satisfied about the economy as it currently is,' then we're not going to do well, because I think everybody feels like this economy needs to do better than it's been doing." The prospect of that referendum is casting a long shadow over Washington as the President and candidates alike wrestle with America's frustration over a still-stagnant economy, despite $814 billion in stimulus spending.
So what's President Obama's solution? Kick into campaign mode and turn to even more destined-to-fail stimulus gimmicks, loaded with increased government spending and higher taxes.
Yesterday, President Obama chose Cleveland, Ohio, (a state with 10.4% unemployment) to deliver a blistering, campaign-style speech lambasting Republicans and laying out the details of his latest effort to jumpstart the economy. His plan includes $50 billion in spending on infrastructure that, he said, "would start putting Americans to work right away." Despite Obama's confidence, The Washington Post reports that the President's plan got a cool reception from lawmakers, economists and business groups alike. One high-profile dissenter was politically vulnerable Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who said yesterday, "I will not support additional spending in a second stimulus package."
There's good reason to steer clear of the Son of Stimulus. This week, a White House aide threw cold water on the President's confident job-creating promise, telling The Washington Post's Dana Milbank that the administration doesn't have an estimate for how many jobs the new stimulus would create and that the best-case scenario for the timing of those new jobs would be "over the course of 2011."
And then there's recent history.
The Heritage Foundation's Ronald Utt, Ph.D., notes that the first Obama stimulus, which included $48.1 billion for infrastructure, "did little to spur the recovery and nothing to create new jobs," leaving us only with massive deficits. Those transportation dollars, in particular, were disbursed in a plodding, bureaucratic way, and much of it hasn't even been spent. Given the historical failure of transportation spending to create jobs, why shell out even more dollars? Follow the money, Utt says:
The President's new spending plan should be seen as an effort to shore up support within a key constituency: organized labor. First revealed at a Wisconsin labor union picnic on Labor Day, the $50 billion in infrastructure spending represents tens of billions of dollars in high, federally mandated, Davis-Bacon wages for unionized construction workers.
More government spending to placate Big Labor is not the solution to America's economic woes, but something else can be done. Heritage's J.D. Foster, Ph.D., says that before the November elections, Congress should act to rein in spending and prevent tax hikes, starting with extending the 2001 and 2003 tax relief for all taxpayers (a move that President Obama has resisted). Doing so, Foster advises, will "give the economy a needed boost in 2011."
Families and businesses are anticipating a huge tax hike come January 1, 2011, when the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. The tax hike is bad enough, but given the state of the economy, what this tax hike says about Washington's priorities is draining America's confidence in its government. There is no argument for raising taxes on a weak economy, and Americans know it.
Those tax hikes are part of President Obama's election year class-warfare strategy, designed to strike a populist tone at the expense of helping the economy. The President has said he can hit those making more than $250,000 with a tax hike because they represent only a small percentage of the population and "are already millionaires." The truth is, the Obama tax hikes will directly harm the most successful sector in America: small businesses, which employ 25% of the American work force. And that will hurt job growth.
On top of President Obama's impending 2011 tax increases, there's word that the White House may raise tax rates on America's manufacturers to pay for the new infrastructure spending. That's another bad move for a country coming out of a recession. Another of his proposals is to make the Research and Experimentation tax credit permanent. While that's great for the long-run, keeping current policy doesn't do much for stimulus. And then there's the President's proposal to allow businesses to deduct their investment costs immediately, which will likely only have a modest impact, unless it's extended for many years and coupled with a lower corporate income tax rate.
Better solutions? Foster suggests holding back the unspent stimulus dollars and freezing total spending at 2010 levels. (Even the President's first director at the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, has seen the light and called for extending the tax cuts for two years.)
On "Good Morning America," the President noted, "My challenge, and the challenge of every Democratic candidate who's out there is just making sure the people understand there's a choice here." The President and Congress indeed have a choice between now and the election: more spending and higher taxes, or reining in government and giving taxpayers a break. It shouldn't be such a challenge to make the right choice, cut spending and extend the tax cuts for the good of the country.
Obama Unmasked: Announces His Support of Ground Zero Victory Mosque
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
August 14, 2010
Politico.com has announced that our not-so-newly-minted Muslim President and Fraudinator-in-Chief's support for the Ground Zero Victory Mosque. What took you so long Barack? I guess you were waiting for the controversy to really heat up so that you could, once again, be on the wrong side of a clear majority of Americans.
Of course, this was perfectly predictable. After nineteen months of bowing to "kings" and dictators, blaming America for all of the evils in the is world, four Islamist attacks on U.S. soil, trying to have the KSM trial in N.Y., wrecking the economy by turning a mild recession into a prolonged one, why not slap the 9/11 families and the American people around a little more and poke a sharp stick in our eye.
Obama's not alone in this insanity. Mayor Bloomberg, NY Attorney General Cuomo and any number Democratic congressmen, many of them suicidal Jews, and Liberal commentators are falling all over themselves in their desire to "out-tolerance" the next one.
...polls indicate the issue could be a high-voltage third rail for politicians who support the project: a recent CNN poll found that 68 percent of those surveyed did not approve of building a mosque so close to where the World Trade Center towers fell, killing more than 2,000 people.
As perhaps the White House had anticipated, the reaction from conservatives and at least one 9/11 rescue worker was swift and angry. Most echoed Rick Lazio, the Republican gubernatorial hopeful who helped draw national attention back to the Ground Zero-area mosque by using it against his Democratic rival, Andrew Cuomo,
"President Obama and Attorney General Cuomo still are not listening to New Yorkers," Lazio said in a statement, suggesting that the backers of the project have obscured their true motives and funding.
There has been "a deliberate attempt to avoid transparency and a deliberate attempt to build the mosque at this location," Lazio said. "Why?" Obama made the announcement at the 2nd White House dinner celebrating the Muslim holiday of Ramadan: "Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. But let me be clear: as a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances."
Thanks Barack. It's amazing that Liberals and their Islamist apologists are so willing to defile "hallowed ground" so enthusiastically.
In the meantime, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the religious leader for the mosque and head of the Cordoba 'Victory' Mosque project, has been sent by the Obama administration to parts of the Muslim world to speak about religious tolerance in the United States and outreach. The only outreach that will actually be occurring is Rauf's out-stretched hand as he looks for the $100 million to fund this outrageous project. Rauf is the guy who won't answer questions on his money trail, refuses to denounce Hamas as a terrorist group and said 9/11 was a result of the U.S. Middle East policies.
As a sidenote the United States is the last place that needs a lecture on religious tolerance, given the fact that churched and synagogues
are banned in Saudi Arabia and Christians and Jews are generally murdered all over the Middle East.
So is Obama unmasked finally as a Muslim, as we have been saying for the last year, or at best a Muslim sympathizer? You be the judge and let the facts speak for themselves. This from China Confidential:
IS OBAMA AN AGENT OF SHARIA?
Is Barack Hussein Obama--America's first Muslim-born President according to Islamic law (sharia)--an agent of sharia?
Effectively, yes. To paraphrase George Orwell, at the very least, Obama is objectively pro-Islamist and an agent of sharia. He "stands with sharia."
Has he been practicing taqiyya in order to advance sharia?
Watch the videos in light of Obama's (a) odious outreach to the so-called Muslim world, itself an Islamist concept, while ignoring the plight of secular, modern Muslims; (b) intervention--on the Islamist side--in the French burqa controversy; (c) downgrading of the war against Islamist terrorism, including his administration's frighteningly weak and downright un-American response to the Fort Hood massacre and the Christmas Day airliner bombing attempt, and irrational ban on the use of relevant terms, such as radical Islam, when referring to the enemy; (d) obsession with pressuring Israel to withdraw to indefensible borders in order to make possible the creation of an irredentist, Islamist-dominated Palestinian Arab state; (e) determination to engage--code for appease and attempt to actually align with--nuclear-arming, Islamist Iran; (f) support for Turkey's crypto-Islamist government, including encouraging its tilt toward Iran, threatening its military against taking action to save Turkey's secular system, and backing Turkey's bid to join the European Union; (g) shockingly unprecedented, deep and submissive bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, a petro-tyranny with no human or civil rights; (h)) stunning silence on the persecution and oppression of women and minorities in Muslim lands; (i) habit of selectively quoting from "the Holy Koran" and inflating and fabricating the importance and history of Islam in the United States; and (j) strong support for the construction of a monstrous, 9/11 victory mosque at Ground Zero--and deliberate misrepresentation and twisting of the issue to make it appear as if it is a matter of religious freedom (which happens to be denied to non-Muslims in Obama's beloved Saudi Arabia).
Prediction: Increasingly unpopular Obama--an utter failure with a mysterious past kept hidden by an adoring media--will resign in disgrace or be impeached before the 2012 election. Either way, he is a on-termer, worse than another Jimmy Carter. In fact, Obama is the worst-ever U.S. President.
Three Facts About Islam and Sharia You Didn't Know
All About Taqiyya:
America vs Obama and the Ruling Elite
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
August 7, 2010
You can feel it more and more…the elites don't care what you think or how you vote. And no matter how far our Fraudinator-in-Chief's poll numbers sink he keeps getting what he wants either by judicial or regulatory fiat, or Congressional chicanery due to the large Democrat majorities in Congress.
The country is coming to slow boil as the east and west coast elites remain locked in their ivory towers. Let them eat cake.
We are coming to a boil because of the $862 billion "stimulus" that turned into a welfare program for bankrupt states and public unions. We are coming to a boil because of the $700 billion TARP program that became a giant porkulus program for Democrats and their supporters. We are coming to a boil because of the job-killing duo of ObamaCare, jammed through Congress despite overwhelming opposition by the public at large,
and financial reform (FinReg). Obama, Pelosi, Reid and company seem oblivious to the deep and lasting damage they're doing to America's economy.
Twenty states are suing for the constitutional overthrow of ObamaCare. It's why Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal threw in with a lawsuit to kill the federal drilling moratorium. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is challenging federal immigration policies. Eighteen governors in March signed a letter demanding the Senate protect their states against EPA climate rules.
Meanwhile Michele Obama is off to Spain with forty of her closest friends at taxpayer expense. They are staying at the ritziest of ritzy digs taking up about sixty rooms. This must be her idea of sacrifice.
Immigration and Judicial Activism
Arizona SB 1070 is hugely popular in the state and the country at large. No so with Obama and the Hispanic pressure groups like MALDEV and La Raza. So the Obama Administration sued to preemptively stop enforcement of Arizona's new immigration law. In a textbook case of judicial activism, Judge Susan Bolton rewrote the Arizona law to her own needs, invented her own facts and ignored clear federal law.
This case will now move through the 9th Circuit where Bolton's decision will be upheld. It will finish up in the Supreme Court where Justice Anthony Kennedy is the one person in the United States that stands between the rule of law and tyranny.
Gay Marriage and Judicial Activism
In 2008 seven million Californians voted to for Proposition 8, which constitutionally upheld that marriage was between a man and a woman, thus voiding California's law permitting gay marriage. Not so fast.
The article contiues below
Judge Vaughn Walker, an openly homosexual federal judge in California issued an order that the state could not enforce its own constitutional requirement that marriage is between members of the opposite sex only.
The ruling from Walker said "race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage."
"Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses' obligations to each other," Walker said. "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage."
Here some other Walker gems:
Clearly Walker wanted to make a political point, not a legal one. As an open homosexual he should have recused himself from the case due to his obvious conflict of interest.
Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships.
The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian.
The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child's adjustment outcomes.
Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted.
Under Judge Walker, it's no longer 'We the People,' it's 'I the Judge." So one man has concluded the voices of seven million voters don't matter and a 5000 year tradition is just out of step with our politically correct times.
This case will now move through the 9th Circuit where Walker's decision will be upheld. It will finish up in the Supreme Court where Justice Anthony Kennedy is the one person in the United States that stands between the rule of law and tyranny.
FinReg and Congressional Chicanery
The recently passed Financial Regulatory Bill known variously as 'Dodd-Frank' and 'Fin Reg'is an assault on the anemic American economy and it puts the writing of the new regulations in the hands of the clowns who got us here in the first place - Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank.
Per the Heritage Foundation Morning Bell here's what we can expect from FinReg:
Permanent Bailout Authority: The Dodd-Frank bill creates an "orderly liquidation" process by which regulators are empowered to seize financial institutions that they believe are in danger of failing and liquidate them. While the lack of a broadly accepted process for closing down large financial institutions helped lead to the massive bailouts of 2008 and 2009, this liquidation process is problematic. Federal regulators are granted broad powers to seize private firms they feel are in danger of default, and these powers are subject to insufficient judicial review. Such governmental discretion to seize private property is constitutionally troubling.
Trusting the Same Regulators that Failed Last Time: The legislation establishes a new 10-member Financial Stability Oversight Council composed of regulators that would be responsible for monitoring and addressing system-wide risks to the financial system. This council would also have nearly unlimited powers to draft financial firms into the regulatory system and even force them to sell off or close pieces of themselves. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to detect systemic risk before a crisis has occurred, and the council would serve mainly as a group to blame for failing at an almost impossible task. On the other hand, its huge powers are much more likely to destabilize the financial system by stifling innovative products while failing to detect dangers posed by existing ones.
Brand New Innovation Killing Regulators: The bill also creates a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection with broad powers to regulate the financial products and services that can be offered to consumers. The new agency would nominally be part of the Federal Reserve System, but it would have extraordinary autonomy. This autonomy would impede the efforts of existing regulators to ensure the safety and soundness of financial firms, as rules imposed by the new agency would conflict with that goal. For many consumers, this would make credit more expensive and harder to get.
Micromanaging the Market: The conference committee also added a form of the "Volcker rule" which would largely prohibit any bank or other institution with FDIC-insured deposits from undertaking proprietary trading or from owning or sponsoring hedge funds or private equity funds. While the legislation does reject the near-total ban on such investments, the difference between legitimate and traditional activities and those the Volcker rule seeks to ban would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine. Attempting to do so would require an intrusive, expensive regulatory compliance system that by its nature would micromanage day-to-day activities.
Fannie and Freddie Forever: Despite much rhetoric about ending bailouts, the bill does nothing to address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two of the largest recipients of federal bailout money. These two government-sponsored enterprises, now in federal receivership, helped fuel the housing bubble. When it popped, taxpayers found themselves on the hook for some $150 billion in bailout money. The failure to address their future is a serious error and shows just how hollow are claims that this agreement will prevent future crises.
There are some pockets of light starting to break through.
The mid-terms in November promise to bring a halt to the insane spending going on in Washington with Republicans set to take one or both houses of Congress. More and more Republicans in Congress and congressional candidates are signing the pledge to defund, defang and gut ObamaCare. As long as President Obama is in the White House, full repeal of Obamacare is not possible. But its web of undemocratic, unaccountable bureaucracies can be starved of Obama cash.
In the first substantive legal ruling on President Barack Obama's health regulation law, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson held that the Commonwealth of Virginia raised a valid substantive theory to challenge Obamacare and that its democratically passed Virginia Health Care Freedom Act provided it standing to challenge the federal individual mandate.
Judge Hudson: "Unquestionably, this regulation radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America. ... No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or the Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce."
Echoing the court's ruling, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said: "This lawsuit is not about health care, it's about our freedom and about standing up and calling on the federal government to follow the ultimate law of the land - the Constitution." And it is becoming clear that ObamaCare is the ultimate overreach of federal power.
In other ObamaCare pushback news voters in Missouri, by a 40-point margin, approved a ballot measure rejecting the individual mandate at the core of President Barack Obama's health care law.
Finally, in a wonderful display of schadenfreude, we note the passing of the old guard in the form of the ethics scandals surrounding Rep. Charlie Rangel (NY) and Rep. Maxine Waters (CA).
Charlie apparently didn't feel he had to report income from rent-controlled apartments to the tune of $600,000. He has chosen to go to trial in the House in the middle of the mid-term elections instead of resignation. In real life he would go to jail, but he's not one of the little people.
Crazy Maxine is caught up in a conflict-of-interest scandal in which a bank that her husband has significant financial interest in, received favorable treatment from the congresswoman. She has also chosen to go to trial in the House in the middle of the mid-term elections. Predictably she is also crying racism. Who knew that money isn't colorblind?
Obama and NASA - Failure Is
Not Now an Option-Part Two By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
July 9, 2010
If we can send a manned mission to the moon surely we can send a manned mission to Mecca. After all, with the newly lowered expectations of Obama's NASA, and Obama's view of American exceptionalism, that's about all we are capable of.
NASA administrator Charles Bolden:
"When I became the NASA administrator - or before I became the NASA administrator - he (Obama) charged me with three things. One is he wanted me to help re-inspire children to get into science and math. He wanted me to expand our international relationships and third and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations, to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and engineering.
NASA's mission used to be to direct America's exploration of and maintain dominance in space. Bolden's one small step for Islam comes after presiding over the demise of the space shuttle program and the Obama-directed cancellation of the Constellation program, which was to put America back on the moon and restore America's space dominance.
NASA is now in the Muslim self-esteem business. At a time when the only missile programs in the Arab world, namely in Syria and Iran, are aimed at hitting Israel with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Bolden went on Al Jazeera to tell the Muslim world his "foremost" goal was to make them feel good about their achievements in math, science and engineering….from 1500 years ago.
But imagine how condescending that is to say that NASA's going to go over and say, look who's been smart in the past, look what you've done. Who can take an abacus and turn it upside down? You can. I mean, that is the most condescending thing I've ever heard. Make them feel good about their history. And isn't that so very progressive. Make them feel good. That's the charge of NASA? That's what we're doing with NASA money?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER in Investor's Business Daily:
Apart from the psychobabble - farcically turning a space-faring enterprise into a self-esteem enhancer - what's the sentiment behind this charge? Sure America has put a man on the moon, led the information revolution, won far more Nobel Prizes than any other nation. But then, a thousand years ago al-Khwar-izmi gave us algebra.
Bolden seems quite intent on driving home this message of achievement equivalence - lauding, for example, Russia's contribution to the space station. Russia? In the 1990s, the Russian space program fell apart, leaving the United States to pick up the slack and the tab for the missing Russian contributions to get the space station built.
For good measure, Bolden added that the U.S. cannot get to Mars without international assistance. Beside the fact that this is not true, contrast this with the elan and self-confidence of President Kennedy's pledge that America would land on the moon within the decade.
There was no finer expression of belief in American exceptionalism than Kennedy's. Obama has a different take. As he said last year in Strasbourg, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Which of course means: If we're all exceptional, no one is. In this dreadful, but wholly predictable appointment, we have an example of our Fraudinator-in-Chief once again engaged in playing-field leveling, whether it's through wealth redistribution (Obamacare, Financial Regulations and Cap & Trade), or telling us that the U.S. can no longer be relied upon to be the economic engine of the world (Tim Geithner), under Obama's vision of fundamental transformation the U.S. is on the path to amazing mediocrity.
July 4th 2010: Obama Disses the Founders...What a Surprise!
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
July 8, 2010
Our Fraudinator-in-Chief took a swipe at the Founding Fathers at the July 4 White House picnic calling them (horrors!!!!)
men of wealth and property. Personal wealth is the biggest sin if you are a free-market conservative; not so big a sin if you are a liberal engaged in crony capitalism and looting the treasury and the taxpayers.
Doing their best Juan and Eva Peron imitation from the Blue Room balcony, Barack and Michele looked out over the troops and the guests as if they were the "little people."
The Usurper began his address thusly:
"We celebrate the principles that are timeless,
tenets first declared by men of property and wealth but which gave rise to what Lincoln called a new birth of freedom in America - civil rights and voting rights, workers' rights and women's rights, and the rights of every American." For this truly bone-headed remark Barack Obama demonstrates that he has no connection or affinity whatsoever with this nation...he wins his 19th Neville Award.
One must wonder if the current occupant of the White House would hold to the last line of our Declaration of Independence:
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Those who know history are fully aware that few of the Founders were men of great property and wealth....John Adams gave up a law practice to attend the Constitutional convention...Jefferson was perpetually in debt...still more of the 56 signers lost everything in the struggle
For those who need a refresher course.....Barack.....the following is from the National Review in 2001:
"Our Sacred Honor -- The signers of the Declaration of Independence live on."
By Matthew Spalding
June 30, 2001
http://article.nationalreview.com/306874/our-sacred-honor/matthew-spalding It's almost July 4, and you know what that means: It won't be long before you're reading an e-mail telling you all about the men who signed the Declaration of Independence.
Trouble is, much of the information flying around the Internet isn't reliable. Just ask Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby, suspended last year by his bosses for a column on the signers, the gist of which had been zipping around on the Internet.
So, for the record, here's a portrait of the men who pledged "our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor" for liberty 225 years ago:
Fifty-six men from each of the original 13 colonies signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Nine of the signers were immigrants, two were brothers and two were cousins. One was an orphan. The average age of a signer was 45. Benjamin Franklin was the oldest delegate at 70. The youngest was Thomas Lynch Jr. of South Carolina at 27.
Eighteen of the signers were merchants or businessmen, 14 were farmers, and four were doctors. Twenty-two were lawyers — although William Hooper of North Carolina was "disbarred" when he spoke out against the king — and nine were judges. Stephen Hopkins had been governor of Rhode Island. Forty-two signers had served in their colonial legislatures.
John Witherspoon of New Jersey was the only active clergyman to attend. (Indeed, he wore his pontificals to the sessions.) Almost all were Protestants. Charles Carroll of Maryland was the lone Roman Catholic.
Seven of the signers were educated at Harvard, four at Yale, four at William & Mary, and three at Princeton. Witherspoon was the president of Princeton, and George Wythe was a professor at William & Mary. His students included Declaration scribe Thomas Jefferson.
Seventeen signers fought in the American Revolution. Thomas Nelson was a colonel in the Second Virginia Regiment and then commanded Virginia military forces at the Battle of Yorktown. William Whipple served with the New Hampshire militia and was a commanding officer in the decisive Saratoga campaign. Oliver Wolcott led the Connecticut regiments sent for the defense of New York and commanded a brigade of militia that took part in the defeat of General Burgoyne. Caesar Rodney was a major general in the Delaware militia; John Hancock held the same rank in the Massachusetts militia.
The British captured five signers during the war. Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, and Arthur Middleton were captured at the Battle of Charleston in 1780. George Walton was wounded and captured at the Battle of Savannah. Richard Stockton of New Jersey never recovered from his incarceration at the hands of British Loyalists. He died in 1781.
Thomas McKean of Delaware wrote John Adams that he was "hunted like a fox by the enemy — compelled to remove my family five times in a few months …". Abraham Clark of New Jersey had two of his sons captured by the British during the war.
Eleven signers had their homes and property destroyed. Francis Lewis's New York home was razed and his wife taken prisoner. John Hart's farm and mills were destroyed when the British invaded New Jersey, and he died while fleeing capture. Carter Braxton and Nelson, both of Virginia, lent large sums of their personal fortunes to support the war effort but were never repaid.
Fifteen of the signers participated in their states' constitutional conventions, and six — Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Franklin, George Clymer, James Wilson, and George Reed — signed the U.S. Constitution.
After the Revolution, 13 signers went on to become governors. Eighteen served in their state legislatures. Sixteen became state and federal judges. Seven became members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Six became U.S. senators. James Wilson and Samuel Chase became Supreme Court justices. Jefferson, Adams, and Elbridge Gerry each became vice president. Adams and Jefferson later became president.
Five signers played major roles in the establishment of colleges and universities: Franklin and the University of Pennsylvania; Jefferson and the University of Virginia; Benjamin Rush and Dickinson College; Lewis Morris and New York University; and George Walton and the University of Georgia.
Adams, Jefferson, and Carroll were the longest surviving signers. Adams and Jefferson both died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Carroll was the last signer to die — in 1832 at the age of 95.
Thankfully, their ideas live on.
Sen. Robert Byrd, Racism and the Liberal Whitewash
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
July 7, 2010
"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." - So wrote Robert Byrd in a 1944 letter to then-Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo
Even though the Democrats are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to rehabilitate Byrd the facts remain, as they say, stubborn things:
Yes, Byrd was a racist through and through. Unlike Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms he was granted MSM and Democrat absolution.
Byrd was a Kleagle (a Klan recruiter) and a Grand Cyclops in the Klan. Even after he resigned from the Klan, Byrd still had a soft spot for his hooded bretheren, writing to the Klan's Imperial Wizard in 1946: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia."
Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as to have voted against it after cloture along with 18 other Democrats
Byrd cited the late Georgia Senator Richard Russell as his mentor. Russell was a signer of the infamous 1956 Southern Manifesto opposing Brown v. Board of Education -- in the name of the Constitution, of course.
Also signing the Southern Manifesto was the late Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina. Like Byrd, Ervin was resurrected as a heroic "southern lawyer"in the eyes of the MSM. Ervin was born again during his chairmanship of the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973. As with Senator Byrd, all was forgiven and forgotten when he became useful to the message of the day propounded by the MSM.
The Liberal Whitewash begins:
The Associated Press:
The AP reported that as a young man, he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan for a "brief period", and he joined Southern Democrats in an unsuccessful filibuster against the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.
"There are a lot of people who wrote these eulogies for Senator Byrd, and the newspapers, and I read a bunch of them. And they mentioned that he once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan. And what does that mean?
I'll tell what you it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollers of West Virginia. He was trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn't have done, and he spent the rest of his life making it up. And that's what a good person does.
There are no perfect people. There are certainly no perfect politicians." One must wonder of Clinton was actually talking about himself...where's that blue-stained dress Bill?
Our Fraudinator-in-Chief said Byrd's life was one that was "bent toward justice." He says even though Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan as a youth, the senator showed "a capacity to change, a capacity to learn."
Any excuse to protect one of their own and whitewash history. But that is what progressives do. In liberal-land, as long as you apologize, you are forever cleansed of guilt.
Not so when it comes to Republicans.
When Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond died, the MSM was quick to stress his segregationist past. The New York Times ran the headline "Strom Thurmond, Foe of Integration, Dies at 100," leaving readers to imagine the South Carolinian had remained an advocate of segregation. The very first line of USA Today's story described Thurmond as "the nation's most prominent segregationist."
Strange how the MSM can suddenly become reticent about mentioning someone's segregationist past when the late politician in question is a Democrat. On Morning Joe today, Mark Halperin and Mike Barnicle used elliptical language worthy of a State Department dispatch to avoid mentioning that Byrd had been a member and leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
When Trent Lott made some remarks offensive to the race-obsessed MSM at Thurmond's 100th birthday party he had to give up his Majority Leader position in the Senate.
Jesse Helms, five-time Republican senator from North Carolina, throughout his tenure as United States Senator was known for his conservative principles, including his support for a strong defense, individual rights, the oppressed, and support for freedom. Like most conservative politicians who eschew political correctness, Helms was a staunch advocate for equality under law, but due to his Southern background and incorrect party affiliation, his positions were misrepresented through typically biased reporting.
Helms, like Byrd, opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Helms also opposed extending the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Helms, like Byrd, came to see the error of his ways but was not forgiven by the hypocritical MSM because he was a conservative and Republican.
Gen. Petraeus: "Watch your back Jack!!"
By Gary Starr for American First Principles
June 24, 2010
All we can say to U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the newly appointed commander of the Afghanistan theater, is: "Watch your back jack!!"
Now that Rolling Stone Magazine is dictating war policy to the Obama administration it is ironic that Obama has demanded no dissenting voices when it comes to war policy, but left in place the three people who were undermining the war effort in Afghanistan: VP Joe Biden, Amb. Karl Eikenberry and Amb. Richard Holbrooke. These three buffoons have been gunning for Gen. McChrystal ever since he asked for a surge in Afghanistan last summer. The Three Stooges were the ones that pushed our Fraudinator-in-Chief for a surrender date of July 2011, which is rapidly approaching.
It remains to be seen whether Gen. Petraeus can pull off the McChrystal surge given the time constraints and the idiotic rules of engagement (no firing at the enemy unless fired upon first). Keep in mind that Petraeus had an open-ended timeframe in Iraq when Bush put him in charge of the Iraq surge.
Petraeus needs to be confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate. These are the same clowns that raked Petraeus over the coals three years ago when he came to Washington to report on the progress of the Iraq surge. It was then Sen. Hillary Clinton, now Obama's Sec. Of State, that said Petraeus' report required a "suspension of disbelief." It was then Sens. Joe Biden and Barack Obama who opposed the surge. It was Sen. Harry Reid who said the war in Iraq was lost.
It was then Sens. Joe Biden and Barack Obama who did not condemn, in a Senate vote, the MoveOn.org ad calling Petraeus "Gen. Betrayus" prior to the hearing.
These miscreants are not fit to ask Gen. Petraeus anything, let alone preside over a confirmation hearing.
In the end Obama had no one to turn to but Gen. Petraeus to save his sorry ass and his failing Afghanistan policy of surrender. The liberal hypocrisy and shamelessness is staggering.
Gen. McChrystal: Should He Stay or Should He Go?
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
June 23, 2010
Gen. Stanley McChrystal is a hero and a military genius. He is one of the fathers of victory in Iraq, because, under his leadership he dismantled Qaeda in Iraq. Obama named him the supreme commander in Afghanistan and then proceeded to ignore him.
Obama set up a dysfunctional team composed of Gen. McChrystal, Amb. Karl Eikenberry and Amb. Richard Holbrooke to run things in Afghanistan-three able men who, as anyone who knew them would predict, could not work effectively together. The latter two had the ear of the president...Gen. McChrystal did not.
As the Afghanistan war started to go south Gen. McChrystal requested 40,000 troops to bolster operations. Obama dithered for three months before grudgingly agreeing to 25,000 troops, but not before announcing our surrender during a West Point speech in December 2009. Obama put his own ideology and ambivalence about the Afghan war on public display by announcing an exit strategy that begins in July 2011. This blunder demoralized the troops while elating the enemy and encouraging Afghan friends and neutrals to scramble to make their deals while they could.
So why would McChrystal allow a left wing rag like Rolling Stone to follow him around for a few weeks, interview him and his staff and then stitch together a hit piece. Who knows. Bad judgement? Maybe. Or perhaps the General knows a sinking ship when he sees one. Tendering his resignation without the drama would have been the better way to go but there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Our forces are currently in a tough fight to control Marja and a bigger battle for Kandahar looms in the fall. No individual is irreplaceable, but firing McChrystal will necessitate the postponment of operations as it will take at least six months for any new commander to get up to speed. Firing General McChrystal will also demoralize the men and women fighting those campaigns.
While there is no justification for military disrespect, Obama should think twice about advice that he sack General McChrystal so he doesn't look like a wimp.
McChrystal didn't question policy as General MacArthur did during the Korean War (for which President Truman fired him) He didn't slap any solders as General Patton did (for which he was reprimanded, not fired). Indeed General Eisenhower took the opportunity to recall Patton to London and make it look like he was in the doghouse as part of the Allied deception in the run-up to D-Day. Patton was ultimately given command of 3rd Army and was indispensable in winning the war in Europe.
If Obama fires General McChrystal he will look a lot weaker in a year if his Afghan policy fails.
Obama Finally Figures Out Whose Ass to Kick
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
June 16, 2010
Fifty-nine days into the Gulf oil spill our Farudinator-in-Chief threw down in the oval office and finally figured out whose ass to kick...BP, the American people, and the oil.
It's amazing how warlike Democrats can sound when fighting an inert substance and extorting money from corporations and the American people.
Let's thrill to the tough-guy rhetoric emanating from the oval office:
...the battle we’re waging...fight this spill with everything we’ve got...we’ve directed BP to mobilize...what our battle plan is...
I’ve returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we’re waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens.
We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused.
As a result of these efforts, we’ve directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology.
Tonight I’d like to lay out for you what our battle plan is going forward:
Visions of Churchill are dancing through our heads. If only Obama would get as enthusiastic about fighting the jihadists.
And then there is the shakedown of BP to the tune of a $20 billion escrow "slush" fund for the cleanup, the threat of lawsuits for the last two months, and the sucessful demand that BP suspend its dividend. All
of this has conspired to slash the stock value of BP around fifty percent. BP, one of the largest contributors to Obama, is now in talks with another Obama contributor, Goldman Sachs, to prepare the way for a possible bankruptcy. If the company goes broke to due to this shakedown
there won't be any money for claims or the cleanup. In addition, the federal government, under the direction of former Obama pay czar Ken Feinberg, will be administering the slush funds, no doubt to
their union buddies.
The Wall St. Journal:
...a government-administered fund more or less guarantees a more politicized payment process. The escrow administrator will be chosen by the White House, and as such would be influenced by the Administration's political goals. The history of such government funds is that they are always raided for politically favored purposes.
Speaking of union favoritism, the Obama Administration, in the immediate days after the rig blew, turned down offers of help from no less than 13 nations who have extensive experience in deep water oil cleanup. England, Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands among others,
all offered ships and personnel but were turned down flat. It seems that Obama decided to enforce the Woodrow Wilson inspired Jones Act of 1920, which mandates that ships operating in American waters must be U.S. flagged and crewed....a sop to the unions. The Jones Act is preventing the most advanced oil cleanup ships owned by Belgian, Dutch and Norwegian firms from participating in the oil spill cleanup.
Bush suspended the Jones Act after Hurricane Katrina in order to enable the post Katrina recovery. In fact, Presidents have routinely waived the Jones Act in times of crisis.
Then there was Obama's announcement that all deep-water drilling be suspended -- a move that will put 60,000 workers out of a job across the country.
And of course there is the stalled Cap & Trade legislation in Congress. Obama has always envisioned an energy-poor United States of America where the price of electricity and gas is through the roof and pie-in-the-sky windmills and solar panels litter the landscape.
And he has created another blue ribbon panel of Ivy-League experts to study the situation and figure how the leak happened: "Just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge — a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's secretary of energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice."
Writes Mark Steyn:
The president directed his Nobel Prize-winning Head of Meetings to assemble a meeting to tackle the challenge of mobilizing the assembling of the tackling of the challenge mobilization, at the end of which they directed BP to order up some new tackle and connect it to the thingummy next to the whatchamacallit.
And this from Peggy Noonan:
No reason to join the pile on, but some small points. Two growing weaknesses showed up in small phrases. The president said he had consulted among others "experts in academia" on what to do about the calamity. This while noting, again, that his energy secretary has a Nobel Prize. There is a growing meme that Mr. Obama is too impressed by credentialism, by the meritocracy, by those who hold forth in the faculty lounge, and too strongly identifies with them. He should be more impressed by those with real-world experience. It was the "small people" in the shrimp boats who laid the boom.
Mr. President, we can tell you how it happened and save the Feds a whole pile of money.
The Feds denied BP the right to drill in 500 ft. water, forced them out 5 miles into 5000 ft. water and waived the saftey regulations repeatedly for oil rig inspections. There...done....disband your Nobel Prize-winning blue-ribbon panel.
None of this get's the leak plugged. Obama would rather have an ongoing oil disaster in the Gulf that advances his radical environmental green agenda than actually have to do the hard work of solving the problem.
Thomas Sowell writes:
This government is not about governing. It is about creating an impression. That worked on the campaign trail in 2008, but it is a disaster in the White House, where rhetoric is no substitute for reality.
If the Obama administration was for real, and trying to help get the oil spill contained as soon as possible, the last thing its Attorney General would be doing is threatening a lawsuit. A lawsuit is not going to stop the oil, and creating a distraction can only make people at BP start directing their attention toward covering themselves, instead of covering the oil well.
This is not about oil. This is about snake oil.
Nothing will keep a man or an institution determined to continue on a failing policy course like past success with that policy. Obama's political success in the 2008 election campaign was a spectacular triumph of creating images and impressions.
But creating political impressions and images is not the same thing as governing. Yet Obama in the White House keeps on saying and doing things to impress people, instead of governing.
It seems the only policy in the Obama Administration is to 'never let a crisis go to waste.' Indeed it is the prime directive.
The president might consider one other ass to kick....his own.
Is The Gulf Oil Spill Obama's Katrina? - One Can Only Hope
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
May 28, 2010
Our Fraudinator-in-Chief finally got what he really wanted from the Gulf of Me-he-co oil crisis…a ban on oil exploration and drilling. After grudgingly announcing in late March that new offshore areas would be opened to oil and gas Obama, at his first press conference in almost a year, extended the moratorium on deep water drilling permits for another six months, suspended upcoming lease sales in the Gulf, suspended indefinitely 33 deep water exploratory wells, and delayed a drilling program in Alaska's Chukchi and Beaufort seas that was scheduled for next month.
Since the Deepwater Horizon rig blew on April 20, Team Obama has delayed or blown off key decisions requested by state and local governments and left British Petroleum in charge of developing a plan to cap the massive leak.
It took Obama 12 days to show up in the region. Democrats criticized Bush II for waiting four days after Katrina to go to New Orleans.
Obama wants us to believe he has been engaged since day one but his stance is undermined his lack of action:
As oil started to foul the Gulf, Obama reverted to Alinsky tactics and seized the opportunity for a partisan attack. He blamed Republicans who had chanted, "Drill, baby, drill" during the 2008 campaign. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar railed against BP saying he would keep a boot on the neck of the oil giant. But Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they've taken from BP over the years.
On the containment strategy of building barrier berms Louisiana Governor Jindal asked permission on May 11 to begin the construction that would keep oil from reaching shore. They have yet to hear back. Meanwhile the feds are conducting an "environmental impact study" as oil washes ashore.
The feds were even slower on the question of dispersants, chemicals used to break up the oil and hasten its evaporation from the surface of the water. On May 8, Louisiana sent a letter to BP and the EPA begging BP not to use dispersants below the surface of the water. Subsurface use of dispersants keeps oil slicks from forming. But when it doesn't come to the surface to evaporate, the oil lingers below, gets into underwater currents, and puts at risk fisheries that supply a third of America's seafood.
On May 13, the EPA overruled the state and permitted BP to use dispersants 4,000 feet below the surface. Then, a week after BP released 55,000 gallons of dispersants below the surface, EPA did an about-face, ordering BP to stop using the dispersant and to "find a less-toxic" one. Louisiana officials found out about this imprecise guidance in the Washington Post. BP refused, EPA backed off, and Louisiana's concerns about their marine fisheries remain.
It was also announced that BP received favorable safety waivers from the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) regarding it's deep water rigs several weeks before the Deepwater Horizon rig blew. For that offense Obama fired the head of MMS, Elizabeth Birnbaum. But he obfuscated at the press conference saying he wasn't sure whether Birnbaum was fired or resigned. "I found out about her resignation today. Ken Salazar has been in testimony throughout the day. So I don't know the circumstances in which this occurred." The MMS has come under criticism for being too cozy with the oil companies it was supposed to regulate, including BP.
BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.
The bottom line is this: Obama wants this disaster because a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. It is the big chance to push Cap and Trade legislation. However, no matter how much Obama and the no-growth environmental-case Marxists surrounding him pine away and wish for windmills and plug-in clown cars, the world is dependent on oil. China, India and the developing world are moving ahead with or without permission from UN and if America doesn't produce its own energy it will merely import it from somewhere else.
Ironically, Sen. Mary Landrieu. D-Louisiana, appears to be the only politician making sense.
"I know that this committee has its eyes on the environment. We in Louisiana . . . not only have our eyes on it, we have our heart invested in it and we are making a living on that delta. But we need the oil that comes from offshore to keep this economy moving. We must examine what went wrong, weigh the risk and rewards, fix what is broken and move on . . . If we could do without this oil, we would. But we simply cannot-not today, not in the near future."
A voice of sanity from a Democrat is a rare thing indeed but full disclosure is necessary. As the top congressional recipient in the last cycle and one of the top BP cash recipients of the past two decades, Landrieu banked almost $17,000 from the oil giant in 2008 alone and has lined her war chest with more than $28,000 in BP cash overall. She may not want to lose the BP cash cow.
Is SestakGate Obama's Watergate? - One Can Only Hope
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
May 27, 2010
At some point in February 2010 someone in the Obama Whitehouse approached candidate Joe Sestak, running against turncoat Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Senate primary, and offered him a job in the administration if he would drop out of the race. Sestak, too his credit, declined, but he repeated the allegation several times. Now Rep. Darrell Issa R-Calif. and the entire group of Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee want answers. Specificically, who made the offer and who had knowledge of the bribe. This constitutes a high crime in the Oval Office if Obama knew.
Issa: "The bottom line is all fingers are being pointed back to the White House," he said in a statement released as ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
"This Chicago-style politicking is an assault on our democracy and is downright criminal. President Obama faces a critical choice - he can either live up to his rhetoric of transparency and accountability by disclosing who inside his White House tried to manipulate an election by bribing a U.S. Congressman or he can allow his administration to continue this stonewalling and relinquish the mantle of change and transparency he is so fond of speaking on."
"Could the reason why Congressman Joe Sestak refuses to name names is because the very people who tried to bribe him are now his benefactors? For months, Sestak has repeatedly said without equivocation that the White House illegally offered him a federal job in exchange for dropping out of the race. Was Joe Sestak embellishing what really happened, or does he have first-hand knowledge of the White House breaking the law? If what he said is the truth, Joe Sestak has a moral imperative to come forward and expose who within the Obama Administration tried to bribe him." "This scandal could be enormous," said Dick Morris, a former White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, on the Fox News Sean Hannity show last night. "It's Valerie Plame only 10 times bigger, because it's illegal and Joe Sestak is either lying or the White House committed a crime.
"Obviously, the offer of a significant job in the White House could not be made unless it was by Rahm Emanuel or cleared with Rahm Emanuel," he said. If the job offer was high enough that it also had Obama's apppoval, "that is a high crime and misdemeanor."
Karl Rove: "This is a pretty extraordinary charge: 'They tried to bribe me out of the race by offering me a job,'" he said on Greta Van Susteran's "On the Record" program on the Fox News Channel. "Look, that's a violation of the federal code: 18 USC 600 says that a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government, in return for a political act."
"Somebody violated the law. If Sestak is telling the truth, somebody violated the law. Section 18 USC 211 says you cannot accept anything of value in return for hiring somebody. Well, arguably, providing a clear path to the nomination for a fellow Democrat is something of value." The Obama White House has tried to minimize the issue.
"Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak, and nothing inappropriate happened," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has stated. "Whatever conversations have been had are not problematic."
Sounds like Richard Nixon's "third-rate burglary" explanation.
Meanwhile Joe Sestak is trying to walk the story back but the genie is out of the bottle.
First a little history.
On June 17, 1972 President Richard Nixon's Plumbers were caught breaking into Democratic National Committee offices to repair wiretap bug. White House dismissed the event as "third-rate burglary."
What ensued was an agonizing two and one half year drip, drip, drip of hush money, denials, Senate Hearings, firings, indictments and, ultimately, the resignation of Richard Nixon.
Along the way Attorney General John Mitchell resigned and was indicted. Legal counsel John "cancer on the presidency" Dean resigned and did jail time. Nixon aids John Ehrlichman and H.R Haldemann were fired by Nixon, who appointed new Attorney General Elliot Richardson who was empowered to appoint a special prosecutor for the Watergate matter.
With the House of Representatives hours away from bringing articles of impeachment Sen. Barry Goldwater advised Nixon to resign. On August 8, 1974 he did just that.
SestakGate may unwind in a similar manner. Attorney General Eric Holder has refused to appoint a special investigator. Obama aids Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod are stonewalling any inquiries.
Republicans have an opportunity here but they must be very careful. The Clinton impeachment was spun as "only about sex" by the press even though Clinton perjured himself. Clinton was made to look sympathetic, Newt Gingrich lost his House Speakership in the 1998 midterms and Clinton's poll numbers never dipped below 60%. The House brought articles of impeachment but the Senate didn't convict.
Fortunately SestakGate is not about sex or some arcane money crime. It's about a bribe and influence peddling pure and simple. If the House flips in 2010 the House Judiciary committee should hold hearings, drag Sestak in and grill him.
Would Sestak clam up and commit perjury to prop up the Obama sinking ship, especially after Team Obama pressured him not to run?
Obama Administration Apologies in Full Swing for Arizona Illegal Immigrant Bill
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
May 20, 2010
In a recent meeting with ChiCom officials Obama apparatchik Assistant Sec. of State Michael Posner volunteered that he brought up
the new Arizona Illegal Immigrant Bill "early and often" before any other issues were brought up. Those paragons of human rights, the Chinese, were probably wondering
"Where the hell is Arizona?"
Posner in a press interview: We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session and as a troubling trend in our society, and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination. And these are issues very much being debated in our own society.
O'Reilly skewers Posner:
Posner is as left as left gets...he is an open-borders radical who ran Human Rights First which translates into Blame America First.
Not to be outdone by a mere Assistant Secretary our Fraudinator-in-Chief and Me-He-Co President Filipe Calderón were tripping over themselves in their zeal to trash Arizona and the new immigration law.
Calderón said the law discriminates against Me-he-cans and called for the two countries to work together to develop an immigration policy that did not force people to live in the shadows “with such laws as the Arizona law, which is forcing our people to face discrimination.”
Obama said the U.S., in the 21st Century, is "no longer defined by its borders" and described the law as a "misdirected expression of frustration."
Obama: “We’re examining any implications especially for civil rights because in the United States of America, no law abiding person — be they an American citizen, illegal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Me-He-Co — should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.”
The apology tour has now come home. Obama doesn't have to grovel in third world toilets and Europe any longer. Now, foreign heads of state can come to the White House and trash America and her citizens with impunity.
Calderón also knows that if this bill gives birth to similar bills the yearly $1 billion cash cow
that Me-He-Can economy receives from illegals working in the U.S. will dry up and he would actually have to clean up his own house. Nor will Calderón ever address the fact that illegals in Me-He-Co are routinely arrested and deported.
After appearing before Congress and attacking Arizona’s new illegal immigration law, Mexican president Felipe Calderón appeared on CNN to talk shop with Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer, rather surprisingly, turned the tables on the president, opting to ask him instead about his country’s immigration laws, and whether they were just as strict (if not stricter) than Arizona’s. Calderón's hypocrisy is off the charts:
BLITZER: All right. Let’s talk a little bit about Mexico’s laws. I read an article in “The Washington Times” the other day. I’m going to read a paragraph to you and you tell me if this is true or not true. This is from “The Washington Times”: “Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to reenter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.”
Is that true?
CALDERON: It was true, but it is not anymore. We derogate or we erased that part of the law. Actually, the legal immigration is not a — is not a crime in Mexico. Not anymore, since one year ago. And that is the reason why we are trying to establish our own comprehensive public policy talking about, for instance, immigrants coming from Central America…
BLITZER: So if…
CALDERON: — (INAUDIBLE).
BLITZER: So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, they can just walk in?
CALDERON: No. They need to fulfill a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedent. And they coming into Mexico. Actually…
BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?
CALDERON: Of course. Of course, in the border, we are asking the people, who are you?
And if they explain…
BLITZER: At the border, I understand, when they come in.
BLITZER: But once they’re in…
CALDERON: But not — but not in — if — once they are inside the — inside the country, what the Mexican police do is, of course, enforce the law. But by any means, immigration is a crime anymore in Mexico.
BLITZER: Immigration is not a crime, you’re saying?
CALDERON: It’s not a crime.
BLITZER: So in other words, if somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America, through the southern border of Mexico, they wind up in Mexico, they can go get a job…
CALDERON: No, no.
BLITZER: They can work.
CALDERON: If — if somebody do that without permission, we send back — we send back them.
BLITZER: You find them and you send them back?
CALDERON: Yes. However, especially with the people of Guatemala, we are providing a new system in which any single citizen from Guatemala could be able to visit any single border (INAUDIBLE) in the south. And even with all the requirements, he can or she can visit any parts of Mexico.
Clearly Obama, Calderón and Posner have not read the 16 page bill. AG Eric Holder, threatened to sue Arizona after claiming he "glanced" at the bill.
Don't worry guys...we are here to help. Section 6 Part B of the Arizona Bill reads as follows:
The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person
to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall
not be required to list the complainant's social security number on the
complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a
complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly knowingly
employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall
investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section.
If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint
form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the
employer has violated subsection A of this section. This subsection shall
not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not
submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The attorney general or county
attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race,
color or national origin. So much for all of the rediculous claims about the potential for racial profiling. But the facts never matter when you are actively engaged in destroying a country.
Watch the whole excruciating 28 minute bash the USA fest by the Presidential Mutt and Jeff show on the White House lawn:
Epancipation Proclamation By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
May 9, 2010
Imagine if Bush had mispronounced emancipation. There would be no end to the ridicule. But Obama's a genius so no one says a word in the lamestream media.
Anyway our Fraudinator-in-Chief delivered the commencement address at Hampton University in Virginia yesterday, and in a amazingly revealing moment for a President who fought to keep his Blackberry, told the crowd of graduates that “with iPods and iPads and XBoxes and PlayStations…information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment.”
In reality Obama is subtly attempting to stifle the free flow of information by suggesting that students "tune out" and just accept the state's propaganda line.
From the promise of the Information Age to tyranny and statism in the Age of Obama.
Thrill to the Epancipation Proclamation at around 7:26 into this "stirring speech" (use the slider to navigate to the spot):
"And meanwhile, you're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of epancipation (emancipation). So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy."
Islamic Terrorists 4 - Obama 0 -- Four Attacks on U.S. Soil in Eleven Months
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
May 6, 2010
It's getting very predictable and a little bit boring writing about the official reactions to Islamic attacks on U.S. soil
since our Fraudinator-in-Chief usurped the presidency, but it still needs to be said. The mainstream media and the Obama administration downplayed the Ft. Hood Massacre and the Christmas Day attack and they are at it again.
We can't say it enough. Since President Obama took office, there have been four Muslim terror incidents on American soil.
There has been exactly one high-profile violent incident perpetrated by a right-winger since Obama took office: the May 31, 2009 shooting of abortionist George Tiller. There have been a plethora of violent incidents by registered Democrats or liberals:
On June 1, 2009, Muslim convert Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad drove up to a military recruiting station and opened fire, killing one private and wounding another. It took President Obama two days to comment on the shooting.
On Nov. 5, 2009, Muslim militant Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 13 people and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood in Texas. Obama's immediate response: "I would caution against jumping to conclusions."
On Dec. 25, 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to bomb Northwest Airlines Flight 253 with 289 people aboard. Obama responded by giving Abdulmutallab a lawyer and reading him his Miranda rights.
Most recently there was the attempted Times Square bombing, during which the Obama administration reacted with the usual confusion and caution.
Now the facts: Faisal Shahzad (Ali Baba al Shazamm al Kaboomi for our purposes), a naturalized U.S. citizen was seized from a plane about to fly to the Middle East after he rigged an SUV with a homemade device to explode in Times Square. The Pakistan-born man admitted training to make bombs at a terrorism camp in his native land. The Taliban has taken credit for the operation (what a surprise).
the suicide airplane attack by Joseph Stack of Austin, Texas, against the IRS;
the liberal who bit off the finger of an ObamaCare opponent in Thousand Oaks, Calif.;
the murderous rampage by Obama-lover Amy Bishop at the University of Alabama;
the beating of black man Kenneth Gladney by Service Employee International Union thugs in St. Louis;
the Earth Liberation Front's destruction of KRKO-AM's radio towers in Seattle.
Shazamm, who recently spent five months in Pakistan, was arrested on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction charges that allege he tried to blow up the crude gasoline-and-propane bomb amid tourists and theatergoers Saturday evening.
Desparate to have the attack originate from a disgruntled white Tea Partier the PC excuse making kicked in almost immediately:
MSNBC host Contessa Brewer appeared on liberal loon Stephanie Miller's radio show on Tuesday and lamented the fact that the person arrested for the attempted Times Square bombing is a Pakistani American.
BREWER: "I get frustrated...There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country. There are a lot of people who want to use terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry."
NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg admonished us not to blame Muslims for this attack (even though it was actually a Muslim) and said the following to Katie Couric on May 3rd:
KATIE COURIC: Law enforcement officials don't know who left the Nissan Pathfinder behind, but, at this point, the mayor believes the suspect acted alone.
MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: If I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that, somebody-
COURIC TO BLOOMBERG: A home-grown?
BLOOMBERG: Home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.
Bloomberg was right about the homegrown stuff...Shazamm is a naturalized citizen. But the wishful thinking ends there. He went to Pakistan for training.
Then there was the excuse that his house had been forclosed on and he couldn't achieve the American dream, as if he actually knew what the American dream was. Forclosures have been happening in the hundreds of thousands to whites and blacks and everyone else who bought
houses they could never afford and none of these people reacted by filling an SUV full of explosives and driving into a populated area with the intent of killing any one.
Kudos go to the NY cops and the FBI for nabbing this guy...no thanks to Homeland Security Sec. Janet Incompetano who trotted out the 'amateur' canard...a favorite of excuse of leftists and Islamic apologists whenever one of these attacks fails.
Barely four months after she assured the nation that "The system is working" in regards to the Christmas Day pantywaist bomber Napolitano was in "all hands on deck" mode again.
Making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows she described attempt as "amateurish," not "sophisticated."
"You know, at this point I have no information that it's anything other than a one-off."
And Islam is a religion of peace, the War on Terror is over and unicorns do exist.
This from ABC News:
Shahzad Had Contact With Awlaki, Taliban Chief, and Mumbai Massacre Mastermind
Faisal Shahzad Said To Have Linked Up With Taliban Through Internet
By RICHARD ESPOSITO, CHRIS VLASTO and CHRIS CUOMO
May 6, 2010 - Accused Times Square Bomber Faisal Shahzad linked up with the Pakistani Taliban through the internet, ABC News has been told by law enforcement and intelligence sources close to the investigation. Once the Taliban identified him as more valuable in the U.S. than in Pakistan, they trained him to return to execute his bomb attack.
But according to these sources, Shahzad also had a web of jihadist contacts that included big names tied to terror attacks in the U.S. and abroad, including the figure who has emerged as a central figure in many recent domestic terror attempts - radical American-born Muslim cleric Anwar Awlaki.
Besides Awlaki, sources say Shahzad was also linked to a key figure in the Pakistani Taliban, its Emir Beitullah Mehsud, who was killed in a drone missile strike in 2009. The Mehsuds had been family friends of Shahzad, who is the son of a former high-ranking Pakistani military officer.
Sources told ABC News that Shahzad was childhood friends with one of the alleged masterminds of the Mumbai massacre of 2008, in which more than 170 people died.
Shahzad is also said to be linked to a man named Muhammed Rehan, whom Pakistani authorities reportedly have in custody. Sources said Rehan helped Shahzad travel to Peshawar and then to Waziristan and made introductions to the Taliban.
According to a person briefed on the FBI interrogation, Shahzad has told federal agents that he was angry at the CIA missile strikes carried out in Pakistan and suffered a personal crisis in his life. He has reportedly said he carried out the attempted bombing because he was under duress and that he feared for his family's safety if he didn't fulfill the mission.
Shahzad has admitted to receiving bomb-making training and to loading a car with explosives and driving it into Times Square, say U.S. authorities, and is providing valuable information that is helping officials round up possible accomplices.
Failed Times Square Car Bomb Attempt
Seven men have been arrested in Pakistan in connection with the failed car bombing, including two in Karachi and five in Punjab Province. Shahzad's faither-in-law has also been detained, and Shahzad's father, wife and children may be in protective custody.
Shahzad, whose father was a high-ranking officer in the Pakistani Air Force, moved to the United States in 1998. Married with two daughters, he worked as a financial analyst and lived in Connecticut.
In 2009, Shahzad's life began unraveling. He had been working as a junior financial analyst in the Stamford, Connecticut office of the Affinion Group, an international marketing firm, But in May he left his job, abandoned his $200,000 home to foreclosure and returned to Pakistan.
Federal officials alleged that while in Pakistan he learned bomb-making with the Taliban and received money for his plot.
Shahzad returned to the U.S. in February 2010.
After the attempted Times Square bombing, Shahzad, who had been the subject of a huge manhunt, almost made it out of the country on a Emirates flight to Dubai, with a planned connection onward to Pakistan, according to officials.
Authorities said that despite the manhunt, his passport had not been flagged and he was able to buy a ticket with cash and clear airport security.
FBI agents discovered Shahzad's car parked in a short-term lot at JFK airport Monday evening and searched for his name on airline passenger manifests.
The flight was about to depart with Shahzad aboard when federal agents boarded and took Shahzad off.
Obama: The Stranger in our Midst
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
May 2, 2010
In this country but not of this country...nothing about Obama adds up. American principles and traditions held dear and sacred and which are upheld by the Constitution and Bill of Rights seem to be completely foreign to Obama.
We are through the looking glass. Black is white and white is black...two plus two equals five.
Obama was born of Communist parents and raised overseas in a Muslim environment as a child...
Obama appears to have only Marxist, radical and Islamic influence in all of his past and present associations...Frank Marshall Davis, Reverend Wright, William Ayres, Rashid Khalidi, Van Jones, Carol Browner, John Holdren, Cass Sunstein...the list goes on and on
Obama's birth certificate and college records are sealed
Obama rountinely attacks wealth creation but has no problem earning millions from his autobiographies.
Obama has said that the Constitution is a flawed document that never addressed social justice
Everything in the news seem off. Muslim attacks are occurring on American soil again and the press writes it off as a disgruntled individual or group. The economy continues to falter and the press announces a recovery. Obama's press is relentlessly fawning as if the media were in a trance at best or under coercion at worst. Obama feels we are inferior and we must cower (bow) to those we have offended or with whom he wishes to gain approval through apology. But the press would have us believe there is no kow-towing going on. Most disturbing is the destruction to the existing infrastructure of our private enterprise and financial systems.
That which is right is now wrong, and that which is clearly wrong and deceitful, is declared right and good. The mainstream media are his willing accomplices.
Obama and his leftist cohorts, enabled by this willing media, have managed to stage a bloodless coup.
A Stranger in Our Midst
April 29, 2010
By Robert Weissberg As the Obama administration enters its second year, I -- and undoubtedly millions of others -- have struggled to develop a shorthand term that captures our emotional unease. Defining this discomfort is tricky. I reject nearly the entire Obama agenda, but the term "being opposed" lacks an emotional punch. Nor do terms like "worried" or "anxious" apply. I was more worried about America's future during the Johnson or Carter years, so it's not that dictionary, either. Nor, for that matter, is this about backroom odious deal-making and pork, which are endemic in American politics.
After auditioning countless political terms, I finally realized that the Obama administration and its congressional collaborators almost resemble a foreign occupying force, a coterie of politically and culturally non-indigenous leaders whose rule contravenes local values rooted in our national tradition. It is as if the United States has been occupied by a foreign power, and this transcends policy objections. It is not about Obama's birthplace. It is not about race, either; millions of white Americans have had black mayors and black governors, and this unease about out-of-synch values never surfaced.
The term I settled on is "alien rule" -- based on outsider values, regardless of policy benefits -- that generates agitation. This is what bloody anti-colonial strife was all about. No doubt, millions of Indians and Africans probably grasped that expelling the British guaranteed economic ruin and even worse governance, but at least the mess would be their mess. Just travel to Afghanistan and witness American military commanders' efforts to enlist tribal elders with promises of roads, clean water, dental clinics, and all else that America can freely provide. Many of these elders probably privately prefer abject poverty to foreign occupation since it would be their poverty, run by their people, according to their sensibilities.
This disquiet was a slow realization. Awareness began with Obama's odd pre-presidency associations, decades of being oblivious to Rev. Wright's anti-American ranting, his enduring friendship with the terrorist guy-in-the-neighborhood Bill Ayers, and the Saul Alinsky-flavored anti-capitalist community activism. Further add a hazy personal background -- an Indonesian childhood, shifting official names, and a paperless-trail climb through elite educational institutions.
None of this disqualified Obama from the presidency; rather, this background just doesn't fit with the conventional political résumé. It is just the "outsider?" quality that alarms. For all the yammering about George W. Bush's privileged background, his made-in-the-USA persona was absolutely indisputable. John McCain might be embarrassed about his Naval Academy class rank and iffy combat performance, but there was never any doubt of his authenticity. Countless conservatives despised Bill Clinton, but nobody ever, ever doubted his good-old-boy American bonafides.
The suspicion that Obama is an outsider, a figure who really doesn't "get" America, grew clearer from his initial appointments. What "native" would appoint Kevin Jennings, a militant gay activist, to oversee school safety? Or permit a Marxist rabble-rouser to be a "green jobs czar"? How about an Attorney General who began by accusing Americans of cowardice when it comes to discussing race? And who can forget Obama's weird defense of his pal Louis Henry Gates from "racist" Cambridge, Massachusetts cops? If the American Revolution had never occurred and the Queen had appointed Obama Royal Governor (after his distinguished service in Kenya), a trusted locally attuned aide would have first whispered in his ear, "Mr. Governor General, here in America, we do not automatically assume that the police were at fault," and the day would have been saved.
And then there's the "we are sorry, we'll never be arrogant again" rhetoric seemingly designed for a future President of the World election campaign. What made Obama's Cairo utterances so distressing was how they grated on American cultural sensibilities. And he just doesn't notice, perhaps akin to never hearing Rev. Wright anti-American diatribes. An American president does not pander to third-world audiences by lying about the Muslim contribution to America. Imagine Ronald Reagan, or any past American president, trying to win friends by apologizing. This appeal contravenes our national character and far exceeds a momentary embarrassment about garbled syntax or poor delivery. Then there's Obama's bizarre, totally unnecessary deep bowing to foreign potentates. Americans look foreign leaders squarely in the eye and firmly shake hands; we don't bow.
But far worse is Obama's tone-deafness about American government. How can any ordinary American, even a traditional liberal, believe that jamming through unpopular, debt-expanding legislation that consumes one-sixth of our GDP, sometimes with sly side-payments and with a thin majority, will eventually be judged legitimate? This is third-world, maximum-leader-style politics. That the legislation was barely understood even by its defenders and vehemently championed by a representative of that typical American city, San Francisco, only exacerbates the strangeness. And now President Obama sides with illegal aliens over the State of Arizona, which seeks to enforce the federal immigration law to protect American citizens from marauding drug gangs and other miscreants streaming in across the Mexican border.
Reciprocal public disengagement from President Obama is strongly suggested by recent poll data on public trust in government. According to a recent Pew report, only 22% of those asked trust the government always or most of the time, among the lowest figures in half a century. And while pro-government support has been slipping for decades, the Obama presidency has sharply exacerbated this drop. To be sure, many factors (in particular the economic downturn) contribute to this decline, but remember that Obama was recently elected by an often wildly enthusiastic popular majority. The collapse of trust undoubtedly transcends policy quibbles or a sluggish economy -- it is far more consistent with a deeper alienation.
Perhaps the clearest evidence for this "foreigner in our midst" mentality is the name given our resistance -- tea parties, an image that instantly invokes the American struggle against George III, a clueless foreign ruler from central casting. This history-laden label was hardly predetermined, but it instantly stuck (as did the election of Sen. Scott Brown as "the shot heard around the world" and tea partiers dressing up in colonial-era costumes). Perhaps subconsciously, Obama does remind Americans of when the U.S. was really occupied by a foreign power. A Declaration of Independence passage may still resonate: "HE [George III] has erected a Multitude of new Offices [Czars], and sent hither Swarms of Officers [recently hired IRS agents] to harass our People, and eat out the Substance." What's next?
Robert Weissberg is Professor of Political Science-Emeritus, University of Illinois-Urbana.
Comments to the article:
Never before have we witnessed an overthrow of the government such as this and it is also extraordinary that the body of people in the house and senate are taking it all in stride.
..."alien" is an apt description. Obama probably was born in Hawaii, but he's still very much unlike your typical American be he rich or poor, uneducated or highly educated. Most worrisome is that Obama remains to this day an enigma. We really know very little about this man. It's quite evident that he is "manufactured". Under normal circumstances virtually NO ONE could ascend to the presidency with such a thin resume. He has had covert backers unlike any other President. His credentials: he's black (or at least half black), he's articulate (OK...he reads off a telepromter with great skill), he apparently has a law degree from Harvard (affirmative action), he was an Illinois community organizer (whatever that means) and he served about 150 days in the US Senate. In 2006 the name Barack Obama was virtually unknown to most Americans. Two years later he's a superstar. How did this unknown do-nothing get tagged to address the DNC in 2004? Why?
Tea Party Vilification -- Saul Alinsky Tactics Running Out Of Gas?
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
April 22, 2010
At First the Tea Party movement was ignored...then it was astroturf and angry nazi-like mobs...then it was accused of being racist with scant black membership (why would pro-Obama blacks join a tea party anyway?)...then it was accused of violence yet to be committed...then it was characterized as
well-to-do, mostly white and well educated. None of it worked and the Tea Parties are stronger than ever.
The tactics of vilification were classic Alinsky:
Rule 5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
Rule 9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
Rule 13. Pick the target. Freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Hey Lefties...Alinsky is soooo 20th Century...the rules don't work anymore...we are on to you.
But that didn't stop a very tired looking Bill Clinton, stupid glasses on the end of his ever-red and bulbous nose, from trotting out the Timothy McVeigh card at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress:
The Violence Card-Bill Clinton plays politics with Timothy McVeigh.
APRIL 21, 2010.
http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052748704448304575196310816341450.html Liberal Democrats and their friends in the media have tried just about everything to dismiss and discredit the tea-party movement. They've accused Americans who are anxious and angry about a rapidly encroaching government of being racists, extremists, birthers, pawns of a corporate "AstroTurf" effort—and, now, potential Timothy McVeighs.
No less a figure than Bill Clinton seized on the occasion of the Oklahoma City bombing's 15th anniversary to lecture tea-party activists, first in a speech last week to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, then in a Monday New York Times op-ed. "Have at it, go fight, go do whatever you want," he said in the speech. "You don't have to be nice; you can be harsh. But you've got to be very careful not to advocate violence or cross the line." In the op-ed, he wrote: "There is a big difference between criticizing a policy or a politician and demonizing the government."
Taken strictly at face value, these statements are unobjectionable. Yet given that the tea-party movement has been peaceful and law-abiding, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Mr. Clinton is engaging in a not-so-subtle smear campaign.
In doing so, Mr. Clinton is taking a page out of his own Presidential playbook. Five days after the 1995 bombing, he delivered a speech in which he denounced "purveyors of hatred and division." He said, "They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable. . . . When they say things that are irresponsible, that may have egregious consequences, we must call them on it." A news report at the time noted that Mr. Clinton made these incendiary accusations while "never putting a noun to the pronoun."
Mr. Clinton's opposition to "demonizing the government" would be more credible had he been heard from on the subject during the first eight years after he left office—when, for example, Hollywood demonized George W. Bush by releasing "Fahrenheit 9/11," or when Mr. Clinton's own former Vice President railed against the man who beat him in 2000: "He betrayed this country!"
Instead, Mr. Clinton's effort to exploit the memory of Oklahoma City looks like a partisan cheap shot. In his speech last week, the former President observed that, unlike the Boston Tea Party, "this fight is about taxation by duly, honestly elected representatives that you don't happen to agree with, that you can vote out at the next election." Our guess is that the next election is what he's really afraid of.
Obama and Nasa - Failure Is
Not Now an Option By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
April 16, 2010
Obama's whacked out Science Czar John Holdren recently said the United States can no longer expect to be number one in everything. Obama said this at the phony nuclear summit: Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military.
The America-hating leftist ilk that hangs on every Obama utterance hates the fact that the United States is the dominant military superpower in the world…and our Fraudinator-in-Chief would love to change that. Unfortunately, for the time being, we have to reconcile ourselves to remaining a dominant military superpower, at least for the next few years. But don't worry, the Obama regine is working overtime, what with all the bowing and scraping to China and Saudi Arabia.
The latest kick in the teeth to U.S. exceptionalism is our space program. Obama is no longer shooting for the moon, Instead Obama's plan spends $6 billion over five years to turn over space transportation to commercial companies. Amazing considering he nationalized the auato industry, the banks, healthcare and the student loan programs. Now he wants to divest from the one of the few agencies that actually inspires. What a chump.
We are voluntarily relinquishing our number one status in space exploration. The Shuttle is being scrapped along with Constellation, the project designed to send astronauts back to the moon by 2020 and to Mars by 2030. Obama's anti-Nasa bias (really anti-military) fits in nicely with everything else that the United States is now taking a back seat to under the Obama regime, including nuclear weapons technology and our first strike capability.
We are still number one when it comes to deficit spending on crackpot things like healthcare, global warming and phony stimulus plans for public sector unions.
Neil Armstrong, the first man on the Moon, has launched an unprecedented attack on President Obama's plans to dismantle Nasa's manned space exploration program:
"America's only path to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz - at a price of over $50 million [£32 million] per seat with significant increases expected in the near future - until we have the capacity to provide transportation for ourselves," he said in the letter, which was also signed by Gene Cernan, the last man on the Moon, and Jim Lovell, commander of the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission in 1970.
"The availability of a commercial transport to orbit as envisioned in the President's proposal cannot be predicted with any certainty, but is likely to take substantially longer and be more expensive than we would hope.
"It appears that we will have wasted our current $10-plus billion investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded."
"For The United States, the leading space-faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third-rate stature.
"While the President's plan envisages humans traveling away from Earth and perhaps toward Mars at some time in the future, the lack of developed rockets and spacecraft will assure that ability will not be available for many years.
"Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity.
"America must decide if it wishes to remain a leader in space. If it does, we should institute a program which will give us the very best chance of achieving that goal."
In a separate appeal to the White House, 27 other retired astronauts, flight directors and former Nasa officials - including three more of the 12 men to have walked on the moon and some of the most distinguished figures in space history - complain that Mr. Obama is setting Nasa on a course that is "wrong for our country" and "misguided".
"For those of us who have accepted the risk and dedicated a portion of our lives to the exploration of outer space, this is a terrible decision," they state.
"Too many men and women have worked too hard and sacrificed too much to achieve America's pre-eminence in space, only to see that effort needlessly thrown away…This is not the time to abandon the promise of the space frontier for a lack of will or an unwillingness to pay the price."
Their letter, issued on the 40th anniversary of the explosion that crippled the Apollo 13 mission 200,000 miles from Earth, was compiled by luminaries including Gene Kranz, the respected flight director who led the effort by mission control to rescue the stricken spaceship's crew and coined the mantra: "Failure is not an option.", Alan Bean, Charlie Duke, Harrison Schmitt and Gene Cernan, who landed on the moon between 1969 and 1972 as part of the Apollo program, and four others who flew around the moon.
Veterans of the Gemini, Skylab and space shuttle eras, and Scott Carpenter, one of the original Mercury Seven astronauts selected by Nasa in 1959, also signed the document.
Some members of Congress immediately promised a fight.
"The president's proposed NASA budget begins the death march for the future of U.S. human space flight," said Senator Richard Shelby, the senior Republican on the appropriations subcommittee handling NASA funding.
"Congress cannot and will not sit back and watch the reckless abandonment of sound principles, a proven track record, a steady path to success, and the destruction of our human space flight program," said Shelby of Alabama, whose state is home to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.
In the small-minded vision-challenged world of the left failure is most definitely now an option. America-bashing and mediocrity seem to be the watchwords of this administration.
Obama's Science Czar: "We can't expect to be number one in everything indefinitely."
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
April 13, 2010
Our Fraudinator-in-Chief isn't the only one in full surrender mode. John Holdren, the Dr. Strangelove-type Science Czar and Neville Award winner just said this:
"Other countries getting better increases their capabilities to improve their economies, as a result to make the world a better and safer place.
We can’t expect to be number one in everything indefinitely. One of the most appropriate responses to this degree of levelization of the playing field is to cooperate...to change more. That's the assuming the rest of the world wants play nice with us...which they rarely do.
What an academic fecal-head and ivory tower fool.
John Holdren is one of the stranger Harvard academics in the Obama administration. He is more akin to Dr. Joseph Mengele in his views:
The aforementioned is the truncated version of a truly depressing world according to John Holdren. Pessimism is the handmaiden of Socialism and Progressivism. For the Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
full monty Holdren authored these statements in the book Ecoscience, written in 1977 along with his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.
Holdren is a true progressive eugenicist. His positions and theories would have been right at home in Berlin circa 1930.
Oil? Nukes? Islamic Extremism?...We Don't Need No Stinkin' National Security
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
April 11, 2010
In the last three weeks our Fraudinator-in-Chief hit the National Security trifecta by selling us out on oil independence, our nuclear first-strike capability
and ending all references to Islamic Extremism in national security documents.
Obama on drilling:
One would be encouraged were it not an obvious sop to Senate Republicans inclined to vote for Cap and Trade. Can you say John McCain and Lindsay Graham?
Excerpted from the Wall St. Journal:
The President said his plan would expand oil and natural gas exploration in the Atlantic, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. He added that, "In order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel," and he's right. It is unfortunate, then, that the details reverse or scale back nearly every drilling opportunity that has opened since 2008.
That was the year public anger over gas prices prodded the White House and Congress to lift long-standing federal bans on offshore drilling. The Bush Administration wrote a new five-year plan, due to begin this year, that opened a significant portion of the Outer Continental Shelf to oil exploration. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar squashed that plan last year, and yesterday's replacement is a long way from "drill, baby, drill."
The biggest news is the assent to drilling off Virginia, though that lease was already in the works and due to be bid out next year. Interior has now postponed the lease until 2012, for reasons it didn't explain but which gives even more time to environmental groups to sue over its implementation.
As for the rest of the East and West coasts-nada. The Bush plan had allowed leasing along the North Atlantic and Pacific coasts, but Mr. Obama is effectively reimposing the moratorium on those areas. The President will allow a study of drilling along the South Atlantic coast.
Add all of this up and yesterday's proposal had the net effect of putting some 13 billion barrels of oil and 41 trillion cubic feet of gas under lock and key, in return for blessing a few leases already underway. It is a measure of today's environmental extremism that even these minor steps were denounced as betrayals. "Is this President Obama's clean energy plan or [Sarah] Palin's . . . campaign?" said Greenpeace. Give Mr. Obama credit at least for resisting these antidrilling absolutists.
Obama on "Islamic extremism":
After condemning the United States to at least several more decades of dependence on Saudi oil Obama's White House announced on April 6, 2010 that it will remove terms such as "Islamic extremism" from the documents outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will now emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror.
The change is a significant shift from the Bush National Security Strategy which described the War on Terror thusly: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century."
Bin Laden, Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah are no doubt raising a couple of glasses of whatever it is Islamists drink to toast a victory. To quote from the film The Ten Commandments: "Do you hear laughter Ramses?"
Ed Morrissey writing at HotAir.com:
...all this does is make the case for hypocrisy and semantic game-playing. It's on par with changing the nomenclature of "terrorist attack" to "man-caused disaster." It just minces around the truth, as though the US is somehow afraid of confronting it. Muslim nations watching bombs fall in Waziristan and military strikes in Yemen will react to reality, not the attempted prettification of the White House of it, and react accordingly to it. They know we're at war with those radical Islamists who declared war on us, even if we're not saying it.
It does have one effect, although certainly not the one Barack Obama intends. It makes us look weak and afraid of radical Islamists in general. It also makes us look dishonest, and it insults the intelligence of everyone Obama aims to impress. This kind of exercise asks Muslims to engage in intellectual dishonesty, rather than challenge them to oppose the radical Islamists in their midst and defeat that ideology.
Obama gives away our nuclear store:
Finally to put the icing on the surrender cake, and to realize Obama's dream of a "nuclear free world" our Fraudinator-in-Chief announced any nation who attacks the United States with chemical, biological, or electromagnetic pulse weapons need not fear nuclear retaliation as long as it has no nuclear weapons and abides by the Non Proliferation Treaty. He also was in Prague to sign an arms-control treaty with Russia, called New Start, which will reduce the U.S. arsenal by 30%.
Next he hosts a 47-nation summit on nuclear security in Washington (which Israel, the UK and Australia have rightly refused to get suckered into). And then it's on to the U.N. conference on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT.
Meanwhile Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters in Moscow that the Kremlin maintained the right to withdraw from the new START agreement if the United States pursued its missile defense program. The Russians, who have rarely complied with treaties, have made it exceedingly clear that compliance will evaporate at any point when Moscow decides our missile defense program threatens them. How convenient. Fortunately this nuclear giveaway requires 67 Senators for ratification.
Excerpted from the Wall St. Journal:
Mr. Obama has little doubt that all of this nuclear busyness strengthens the security of the U.S. and our allies. In an interview Monday with the New York Times, the President stressed the importance of the NPT in curbing proliferation, including "making sure that the United States was abiding by its obligations" under the treaty to reduce its own arsenal. He added that "when you're looking at outliers like Iran or North Korea, they should see that over the course of the last year and a half we have been executing a policy that will increasingly isolate them so long as they are operating outside of accepted international norms."
This would be lovely if it were true, but the history of the nuclear era offers different lessons. One is that the NPT has done relatively little to discourage nuclear proliferation:
A second lesson is that the NPT invites multiple opportunities to cheat by insisting that all states, including those suspected of violations, have a "right" to civilian nuclear technology.
India and Pakistan joined the nuclear club by staying outside of the treaty, as did Israel, though its nuclear program reportedly predates the NPT.
North Korea has been an on-again, off-again signatory to the treaty, without that having the slightest effect on its nuclear program.
Syria was a member in good standing of the NPT when an Israeli air strike destroyed its illicit nuclear reactor in 2007.
Iran remains a member of the treaty, having secretly violated its terms for 18 years and openly violated them for another seven.
Obama is violating his oath of office and his actions are treasonous. We have said this for over two years. Everything Obama has done, from the reckless deficit spending,
the military cuts and finally his actions of the last three weeks can lead us to no other conclusions.
It is imperative that Republicans win back one or both houses to put a stop to this runaway Leftist train before we are sitting in a pile of our own rubble.
ObamaCare: What's the Turk paying you to set up my father, Captain?
By Gary Starr for American First Principles
March 22, 2010
In Godfather I Michael Corleone asks the corrupt Police Captain "What's the Turk paying you to set up my father, Captain?" after he finds out all of the protection for Vito Corleone has been pulled.
We would ask the same of Bart Stupak...what did Obama pay you to abandon your principles?. Like Dennis Kucinich it didn't take much....a toothless executive order promising not to
use fed funds for abortions. It's not worth the paper it's printed on and can be rescinded at any time by Obama or any other president. Stupak also got a measly $726,000 for airport maintenance for his state.
And, like the previous post detailing the corruption that went into passing this bill, we will remember in November.
Kimberely Strassel writing in the Wall St. Journal:
Inside the Pelosi Sausage Factory-Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak sold his anti-abortion soul for a toothless executive order.
MARCH 21, 2010
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL Last week Republican Rep. Mike Pence posted on his Facebook site that famous Schoolhouse Rock video titled "How a Bill Becomes a Law." It's clearly time for a remake.
Never before has the average American been treated to such a live-action view of the sordid politics necessary to push a deeply flawed bill to completion. It was dirty deals, open threats, broken promises and disregard for democracy that pulled ObamaCare to this point, and yesterday the same machinations pushed it across the finish line.
You could see it all coming a week ago, when New York Rep. Louise Slaughter let leak a breathtaking strategy whereby the House would not actually vote on the unpopular Senate bill. The House would instead vote on a "reconciliation" fix to that bill, and in the process "deem" the underlying legislation—with its Cornhusker kickbacks and Louisiana purchases—passed.
The Slaughter Solution was both blunt admission and warning. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not have 216 votes to pass the Senate bill, there never was going to be majority "support" for it, but they'd pass it anyway. The final days were a simple death watch, to see how the votes would be bought, bribed or bullied, and how many congressional rules gamed, to get the win.
President Obama flew to Pennsylvania (home to five wavering House Democrats), Missouri (three wavering), Ohio (eight), and Virginia (four) to hold rallies with small, supportive crowds. In four days, Mr. Obama held 64 meetings or calls with congressmen. The goal was to let undecideds know that the president had them in his crosshairs, that he still had pull with the base, and he'd use it against them. By Saturday the tactic had yielded yes votes from at least half the previously undecided members of those states.
As for those who needed more persuasion: California Rep. Jim Costa bragged publicly that during his meeting in the Oval Office, he'd demanded the administration increase water to his Central Valley district. On Tuesday, Interior pushed up its announcement, giving the Central Valley farmers 25% of water supplies, rather than the expected 5% allocation. Mr. Costa, who denies there was a quid pro quo, on Saturday said he'd flip to a yes.
Florida Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (whose district is home to the Kennedy Space Center) admitted that in her own Thursday meeting with the president, she'd brought up the need for more NASA funding. On Friday she flipped to a yes. So watch the NASA budget.
Democrats inserted a new provision providing $100 million in extra Medicaid money for Tennessee. Retiring Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon flipped to a yes vote on Thursday.
Outside heavies were enlisted to warn potential no votes that unions and other Democrats would run them out of Congress. Al Lawson, a Tallahassee liberal challenging Blue Dog Florida Rep. Allen Boyd in a primary, made Mr. Boyd's previous no vote the centerpiece of his criticism. The SEIU threatened to yank financial support for New York's Michael McMahon. The liberal Working Families Party said it would deny him a ballot line. Obama deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand vowed to challenge South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin if she voted no. New York's Scott Murphy was targeted as a part of a $1.3 million union-financed ad campaign to pressure him to flip. Moveon.Org spent another $36,000 on ads in his district and promised a primary. Messrs. Boyd and Murphy caved on Friday.
All the while Mrs. Pelosi was desperately working to provide cover with a Congressional Budget Office score that would claim the bill "saved" money. To do it, Democrats threw in a further $66 billion in Medicare cuts and another $50 billion in taxes. Huzzah! In the day following the CBO score, about a half-dozen Democrats who had spent the past months complaining the bill already had too many taxes and Medicare cuts now said they were voting to reduce the deficit.
Even with all this, by Friday Mrs. Pelosi was dealing with a new problem: The rule changes and deals winning her votes were losing her votes, too. The public backlash against "deem and pass" gave several wary Democrats—such as Massachusetts's Stephen Lynch and California's Dennis Cardoza—a new excuse to vote no.
Mrs. Pelosi jettisoned deem and pass. Once-solid Democrat yes votes wanted their own concessions. Oregon's Pete DeFazio threatened to lead a revolt unless changes were made to Medicare payments to benefit his state. On Saturday Mrs. Pelosi cut a deal to give 17 states additional Medicare money.
By the weekend, all the pressure and threats and bribes had left the speaker three to five votes short. Her remaining roadblock was those pro-life members who'd boxed themselves in on abortion, saying they would vote against the Senate bill unless it barred public funding of abortion. Mrs. Pelosi's first instinct was to go around this bloc, getting the votes elsewhere. She couldn't.
Into Saturday night, Michigan's Bart Stupak and Mrs. Pelosi wrangled over options. The stalemate? Any change that gave Mr. Stupak what he wanted in law would lose votes from pro-choice members. The solution? Remove it from Congress altogether, having the president instead sign a meaningless executive order affirming that no public money should go to pay for abortions.
The order won't change the Senate legal language—as pro-choice Democrats publicly crowed within minutes of the Stupak deal. Executive orders can be changed or eliminated on a whim. Pro-life groups condemned the order as the vote-getting ruse it was. Nevertheless, Mr. Stupak and several of his colleagues voted yes, paving the way to Mrs. Pelosi's final vote tally of 219.
Even in these waning minutes, Senate Democrats were playing their own games. Republicans announced they had found language in the House reconciliation bill that could doom this entire "fix" in the Senate. Since many House Democrats only agreed to vote for the Senate bill on promises that the sidecar reconciliation would pass, this was potentially a last-minute killer.
Senate Democrats handled it by deliberately refusing to meet with Republicans and the Senate parliamentarian to get a ruling, lest it be unfavorable and lose House votes. The dodge was a clear dereliction of duty, but Democrats figure the Senate parliamentarian won't dare derail this process after ObamaCare passes. They are probably right.
So there you have it, folks: "How a Bill Becomes a Law," at least in Obama-Pelosi land. Perhaps the most remarkable Democratic accomplishment this week was to make the process of passing ObamaCare as politically toxic as the bill itself.
President Obama was elected by millions of Americans attracted to his promise to change Washington politics. These were voters furious with earmarks, insider deals and a lack of transparency. They were the many Americans who, even before this week, held Congress in historic low esteem. They'll remember this spectacle come November.
ObamaCare: No Deal or Bribe too Sleazy for the Democrats
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
March 19, 2010
In the Senate during the Christmas season of 2010 it was Harry Reid's time of "giving". There was the
Cornhusker Kickback, the Lousiana Purchase and union carveouts for tax exemptions. ObamaCare passed the Senate on Christmas Eve.
Then came the Massachussettes Miracle and Obamacare looked like it was on life support.
Not so. Obama had ten House Democrats who voted against ObamaCare in November to the White House for a little armtwisting. Obama was also trading judgeships for votes: One of the ten was Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House sent out a press release announcing that Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
In this season of Lent Nancy Pelosi and our Fraudinator-in-Chief are also in a giving mood.
Because ObamaCare also includes the Student loan takeover banks are effectively out of the student loan business....except for one "loanly" bank in North Dakota.
Sen. Kent Conrad and his House North Dakota colleague Earl Pomeroy are getting a special provision that exempts a state-owned Bank of North Dakota from the unrelated private student loan takeover that Democrats have included as part of ObamaCare.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a no vote in November because the bill wasn't liberal enough, went down on "prez schvantz" for a much cheaper price. He got a ride on Air Force One and now he's voting yes.
And to make the dubious deficit numbers "work" Democrats decided at the 11th hour to increase their new tax on investment income to 3.8% from 2.9%. Hello bear market.
Our Fraudinator-in-Chief's contempt for America, Americans and the Constitution was on full display during an interview with Fox's Bret Baier:
BAIER: You have said at least four times in the past two weeks: "the United States Congress owes the American people a final up or down vote on health care." So do you support the use of this Slaughter rule? The deem and pass rule, so that Democrats avoid a straight up or down vote on the Senate bill?
OBAMA: Here's what I think is going to happen and what should happen. You now have a proposal from me that will be in legislation, that has the toughest insurance reforms in history, makes sure that people are able to get insurance even if they've got preexisting conditions, makes sure that we are reducing costs for families and small businesses, by allowing them to buy into a pool, the same kind of pool that members of Congress have.
We know that this is going to reduce the deficit by over a trillion dollars. So you've got a good package, in terms of substance. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.
OBAMA: What I can tell you is that the vote that's taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform. And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform. And I don't think we should pretend otherwise.
OBAMA: Bret, let me finish. If they don't, if they vote against, then they're going to be voting against health care reform and they're going to be voting in favor of the status quo. So Washington gets very concerned about these procedural issues in Congress. This is always an issue that's - whether Republicans are in charge or Democrats in charge - when Republicans are in charge, Democrats constantly complain that the majority was not giving them an opportunity, et cetera.
What the American people care about is the fact that their premiums are going up 25, 40, 60 percent, and I'm going to do something about it. Every serious poll shows that Americans, including many Democrats, do not want this bill. Yet Pelosi and Obama keep plowing ahead. The machinations and legislative sleight-of-hand, including the so-called unconstitutional "Slaughter rule" are approaching banana republic dimensions. That they are still running into such resistance after a year of pleading reveals what a historic boondoggle ObamaCare really is.
And this is what happens when a willful, inexperienced and ideological President and his hijacked party try to govern America from the left, imposing an endless and reckless expansion of the entitlement state.
And we will remember in November.
On Mar. 18, 2010, former U.S. Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and William P. Barr released the following statement:
The convoluted and questionable method under discussion by both Houses of Congress for final passage of the long-debated health care legislation raises serious constitutional concerns, which, at best, will lead to protracted and wholly avoidable litigation and continued doubt about the bill's validity. Members of Congress from both parties have criticized the use of such sleights of hand, and The Washington Post has rightly editorialized against such "unseemly" and "dodgy" maneuvers for the health care bill. Beyond the obvious practical concerns shared by all citizens, the use of such obscure "rules" for final passage is even harder to justify in light of the real constitutional doubt and the erosion of public confidence in government that it will cause.
Contrary to what President Obama and some congressional leaders have been repeating of late, the American people do care passionately that the process for consideration of health care reform be both constitutional and fair. At a bare minimum, article I, sec. 7, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires that before it becomes law "(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President." Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448 (1998).
The "deem and pass" and similar options under consideration in the House of Representatives plainly violate at least the spirit of the Constitution's bicameralism and presentment requirements. Those constitutional requirements were intended to ensure democratic transparency with a straightforward up-or-down vote in each House on all bills that become law. More importantly, these requirements were designed to ensure that the new national government actually followed "the consent of the governed," which the Declaration of Independence had declared to the world was the only basis of legitimate government.
The "deem and pass" options under consideration in the House and the subsequent use of a "reconciliation" process that is reserved for budget issues in acts already signed into law further erode confidence in the rule of law. Some past uses of the "deem and pass" or "self-executing" rules raise similar concerns, but none was as convoluted as the proposed use, and significantly, there may have been no one with legal standing to challenge prior uses in court. Many individuals will have standing to challenge any health reform legislation that restructures one-sixth of the American economy, and the contemplated use of the "deem and pass" maneuver in this instance may be combined with questionable procedural steps in the Senate that render it much more subject to challenge.
There is no need to engage in such procedural machinations, and no asserted reason for doing so exists other than to avoid the traditional legislative safeguards in the Senate and to obscure the appearance that Members of the House actually voted for the Senate bill, which is a prerequisite for genuine reconciliation. The constitutional requirement of bicameralism should not be jettisoned under any circumstances-and certainly not for such trivial and partisan reasons.
Members of Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Members should violate neither the letter nor spirit of the Constitution, especially when there is so much at stake, not only as a policy matter, but when the very legitimacy of the legislative process is in question. Given that many parts of the underlying legislation itself raise substantial constitutional concerns, these "unseemly" and "dodgy" procedures underscore the justified concern the American people have that their elected representatives are blatantly disregarding the Constitution, and as a result, undermining the rule of law.
Lawyers Who Represented Terrorists Working at the Holder/Obama Justice Department
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
March 3, 2010
In November of 2009, on behalf of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for "the names of political appointees in your department who represent detainees or who work for organizations advocating on their behalf…the cases or projects that these appointees work with respect to detainee prior to joining the Justice Department…and the cases or projects relating to detainees that have worked on since joining the Justice Department."
On February 19, 2010, Mr. Holder responded via letter, conceding nine such new hires at the Department of Justice worked for terrorist detainees or on behalf of the rights of terrorist detainees. He did not name 7 of those, only naming the two already known: Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, former lawyer to Osama bin Laden's driver, and Jennifer Daskal, a detainee advocate at Human Rights Watch.
Holder went on to say that the lawyers in question are only minimally and narrowly recused from dealing with detainee matters, despite their prior interest in advocating on their behalf. Of course!!!
This is typical Holder/Obama obfuscation. Our Fraudinator-in-Chief and his AG messenger boy Eric Holder are terrorist enablers as we have stated often on these pages. From wanting terrorist trials in NY to giving Miranda rights to the Christmas Pantywaist bomber the current administration has displayed over and over again that it simply
does not take national security seriously and, indeed, they have more concern for the rights of terrorist scum than in keeping this nation safe. So it goes with the LPSC (Liberal Progressive Socialist Communist) Community in this country. Terrorists....good....Americans....bad.
As always, Charles Krauthammer says it with precision:
Charles Krauthammer, Fox News Analyst on the O'REILLY Factor:
You don't have to be a psychiatrist to figure this one out. This one is 100 percent ideological affinity.
Look, what you're dealing with here is a bunch of lawyers, very successful, corporate lawyers, private lawyers. They make a lot of money, and now they want to give to the community and do work for free. Now, do they choose to defend a black kid in the inner city caught up in a drug deal but he's going to get 30 years? Or do they choose to defend working-class people in Brooklyn who are going to lose their home so a developer can build an arena? No.
These people chose to do for free, defense work for people in Guantanamo, for people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who not only was the architect of 9/11, but he boasts of slitting the throat of Daniel Pearl. So he's choosing, at least nine people who chose that this is the work they are going to do on the side. That tells you there is some ideological affinity here, and that's very troubling because it tells you why the Justice Department has ended up with some of the absurd decisions it's made in the War on Terror.
It's not that either he nor they sympathize with the terrorists themselves, but he or they have - and they have this idea about our justice system, that if you catch a terrorist, you've got two choices. You either give them a trial in New York, civilian trial with all the pomp and ceremony, all the defenses you and I have that they, in my view, do not deserve, or you let them go. Now, that, I think, is an absurd idea, but that's what they believe. Holder is a man who was in a law firm that itself probably devoted over probably $1 million worth of free work on defense of Guantanamo detainees.
These people - he's not hiring them for their expertise. They are not going to be the ones in the courtroom. These are people who share his view of how the justice system ought to deal with terror. These are people who give him the advice that Abdulmutallab, the guy who tried to blow up the airplane on Christmas, ought to have Miranda rights. They believe in them.
I think these are people who have a peculiar understanding of the American Constitution and who have a view contrary to Adams, who believed that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. These are people who believe for some reason that when you capture a terrorist overseas or even at home, he gets his Miranda rights. In all of our history, that's never been true. A German prisoner of war never got a civilian trial. He never got a judge. He waited until the end of the war. But these people have a contrary view, and that's why Holder has chosen them. He wants people with an ideological affinity to him, and that's what he got.
Obama's Healthcare Summit Lays an Egg
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Feb 27, 2010
Normally we would put a story about the Healthcare Summit on our healthcare page. But this wasn't about healthcare. It was an attempt to embarrass Republicans. It backfired.
Instead we got Healthcare Kabuki Theater. We got Obama, hogging the floor saying "I'm the President" while sitting there looking like he was presiding over a city council meeting debating some water and land use bond. We got NY Rep. Louise Slaughter and Harry Reid going for the emotion. Slaughter was gassing around about a women using her dead sister's dentures. Harry Reid opined about cleft palates. Is there an epidemic of denture shortages and a lack of cleft palate surgeries in the United States? We got Obama upbraiding John McCain saying "We're not campaigning."
We got Joe Biden's open mic moment - Biden to Sen. Eric Cantor:
Biden: How you doing Eric?
Cantor: Not bad Mr. Vice President
Biden: Good, doing alright. It's easy being Vice President believe me.
Cantor: It's like being a grandparent and not the parent.
Biden: Yeah that's it.
We did get substantive suggestions from the assembled Republicans on Healthcare reform which were dismissed by Obama and the Democrats. Over the seven hour marathon Republicans spoke for just 58 minutes.
Ironically pollster Frank Luntz, appearing on the O'Reilly Factor, wired up 13 Republican and 11 Democrat citizens to gauge their responses to the proceedings. The Democrats said they were surprised to hear that Republicans actually had real suggestions on how Healthcare Reform might be achieved.
Note to Democrats: The Republicans have been proposing 4 to 5 key alternatives to ObamaCare for the last year. The mainstream liberal press has imposed a blackout on this information and Obama, Harry Reid and Nanacy Pelosi have been lying to you. They have consistently said "Where are the Republican points" all the while calling the
Republicans the party of 'no'. This is proof positive of the complete collapse of objective journalism. If it doesn't fit the liberal/progressive narrative it doesn't get published.
Excerpted from the Wall St. Journal:
Defining ObamaCare Down-We're all free-market moderates now.
FEBRUARY 26, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052748704479404575087311436130980.html A bipartisan health-care consensus will remain elusive after yesterday's marathon summit, as expected, though viewers who stuck out the full seven-plus hours could be forgiven for wondering what happened to all the liberals. General anesthesia? To listen to President Obama and his closest Democratic allies, you'd think John McCain had won the election and their bill had been drafted by Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn and the scholars at the American Enterprise Institute.
In his opening statement, Mr. Obama said the key issue is "figuring out how can we control the huge expansion of entitlements," especially "the exploding costs of Medicare." He said Congress must fix "some fundamental structural problems" in U.S. health care, with reforms that lower spending by increasing "choice and competition."
If only politics hadn't intruded-"politics I think ended up trumping practical common sense," he claimed-peace would reign upon the Earth and the two parties could "focus on where we agree because there actually is some significant agreement on a host of issues."
It's as if the last year didn't happen. Only minutes into the discussion, it became clear the Democratic strategy was to portray this debate as somehow taking place between the 49 yard lines. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus chimed in that "The main point is, we basically agree."
The morning was dominated by an argument over whether ObamaCare would lower insurance costs, and the exchange was telling. Republicans, led by Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, rightly said that premiums would increase, while the President disagreed. "This is an example of where we've got to get our facts straight," he said, in keeping with his strategy of depicting any disagreement as factually challenged or politically motivated.
One fact is that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that premiums in the individual market would jump by 10% to 13% in 2016 because the government will mandate that consumers buy richer benefits than they otherwise would. Mr. Obama eventually conceded that point but said these mandates are simple consumer protections. "Yes, I am paying 10% to 13% more because instead of buying an apple, I'm getting an orange," Mr. Obama said. "We want competition, we just want some minimum standards."
Mr. Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican, posed the fundamental question: "Should people in Washington decide exactly how this works and what you can and cannot buy?" We thought the GOP acquitted itself fairly well, noting the irresponsibility of using Medicare cuts to float a new entitlement when the status quo has $37 trillion in unfunded liabilities. They also focused on smaller, incremental reforms that might do some modest good.
Mr. Obama claimed that "Every proposal that health-care economists say will reduce health-care costs, we've tried to adopt," yet this is demonstrably untrue. The White House has delayed its own excise tax on ultra-expensive health plans (previously sold as the key cost-control measure) until 2018, well after Mr. Obama is out of office, assuming he wins a second term.
The point of yesterday's session was to give a soothing, moderate political gloss to a government health-care takeover that will raise costs, greatly expand the entitlement state, and reduce choice and competition-the opposite of everything Mr. Obama claims.
Obama, the Dalai Lama and the White House Trash Bags
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Feb 20, 2010
So much for the Libs favorite cause: Free Tibet! It has about as much resonance as that other favorite cause: Darfur, where Christians are still being murdered by Muslims.
Yes, where China and our debt are involved Tibet takes a big back seat.
In the Fall of 2009 China warned our Fraudinator-in-Chief not to meet with the Dalai Lama or there would be conseqeunces. Obama folded like a cheap suit and the Dalai Lama
was dissed bigtime by the Obama Administration.
Things would be different this time around however. This time Obama was going to really stand up to the Chinese.
This meeting was different to say the least. Typically, when a high-profile foreign dignitary is to meet with the president, photographers and reporters have an opportunity to take pictures and toss a few softballs at the president and his guest while sitting in comfy chairs at the beginning of their Oval Office meeting.
Instead Obama met privately with the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader in the Map Room on the ground floor of the White House, far removed from reporters and photographers. The White House shut out the adoring presscorp (corpse?). No Oval Office or Rose Garden presser for the Dali Lama. Press secretary Robert Gibbs issued only a brief statement after the event, and the White House distributed a single in-house photo of the two leaders.
Asked why the White House had restricted press access, White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest earnestly replied: "Rather than restrict the president's meeting with the Dalai Lama to a limited group of photographers, the White House has made available a photo of the meeting at flickr.com/whitehouse to allow any individual or news outlet around the world to view and download that photo free of charge."
Profiles in courage all. The picture we have is that of the Dalai Lama exiting out the back door with the White House garbage bags in plain view.
Obama must have thought the ChiComs wouldn't notice. Well they did notice and somewhere down the line the Chinese will retaliate. Taiwan and the U.S. debt that China owns are the first things that come to mind.
Obama tried to have it both ways. As usual he failed to defend freedom by meeting openly and proudly with the Dalai Lama, just as he has failed to support the freedom movement in Iran, or the legitimate President of Honduras, or the young democracies of Eastern Europe or our traditional allies in Western Europe.
2012 can't come fast enough.
John Brennan: 20% of Terrorists Return to Battlefield -- "Twenty percent isn't that bad"
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Feb 15, 2010
John Brennan-February 13, 2010-top White House advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism: "People sometimes use that figure, 20 percent, say Oh my goodness, one out of five detainees returned to some type of extremist activity. You know, the American penal system, the recidivism rate is up to something about 50 percent or so, as far as return to crime. Twenty percent isn't that bad."
Except that burglars and stickup artists aren't out to wage jihad on innocent Americans if they do not adhere to the same religious practices…or strap on explosive devices to their own body to blow up innocent civilians.
This is the same John Brennan who announced in August 2009 that the War on Terror is over and that to keep saying 'War on Terror' would give the impression we are at war with Islam. 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."
This is the Obama law enforcement mentality that has overtaken our approach to the War on Terror.
Regarding the Christmas day bomber being mirandized after a 50 minute interrogation Brennan said this:
I explained to them that [Abdulmutallab] was in FBI custody, that Mr. Abdulmutallab was, in fact, talking, that he was cooperating at that point. They knew that "in FBI custody" means that there's a process then you follow as far as Mirandizing and presenting him in front of a magistrate. None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point. They didn't say, "Is he going into military custody?" "Is he going to be Mirandized?" They were very appreciative of the information, we told them we'd keep them informed, and that's what we did. So there's been a--quite a bit of an outcry after the fact where, again, I'm just very concerned on the behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government that politicians continue to make this a political football and are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes, whether they be Democrats or Republicans.
Sen. Lindsay Graham has called for Brennan to resign. There were also calls for HSS Janet Napolitano to resign in the aftermath of the Christmas Day bombing attempt. AG Eric Holder appears to be the next sacrifical lamb because of his affinity for terrorists and the decision to try KSM in NY. We hope none of them go because it wouldn't make any difference in Obama's approach to terrorism. These three buffoons are merely Obama mouthpieces…we like them just where they are…posterboys for cowardice, treason and surrender.
Unfortunately this insane approach to fighting a war will get Americans needlessly killed.
2012 can't come fast enough.
State of the Union…State of Confusion
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Jan 29, 2010
First there was FDR's 'New Deal'...then came JFK's 'New Frontier' followed by LBJ's 'Great Society'. Now, building on Barack Obama's vow to "fundamentally transform" the United States of America comes the 'New Foundation'.
Reacting to the Massachusetts election our Fraudinator-in Chief went down the populist road in his State of the Union address. As usual he took aim at all of the convenient targets and scapegoated all that "bedevils" our society. The result…Americans are angry, but not necessarily at the favorite targets of the Progressives:
Obama also handed out some State of the Union goodies:
He blamed Bush and/or the "policies of the last eight years" or the "last decade" at least six times.
Americans are angry at "bad behavior on Wall Street."
It is time to "slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas."
Lobbyists are trying to "kill" financial regulation.
American "cynicism" is the result of "selfish" bankers,
CEOs who "reward" themselves "for failure" and lobbyists who "game the system." (No mention of Cornhusker Kickbacks or backroom union deals for Obamacare)
On the deficit he blamed Bush saying that in 2000 there was a $200 Million surplus…in 2008 the deficit was $1 trillion (it was actually $500 Billion). Obama didn't mention that he has exploded that deficit to $1.7 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office shows that over the first three years of the Obama Presidency, 2009-2011, the federal government will borrow an estimated $3.7 trillion. That is more than the entire accumulated national debt for the first 225 years of U.S. history. By 2019, the interest payments on this debt will be larger than the budget for education, roads and all other nondefense discretionary spending.
A new jobs bill: Obama wants $30 Billion in TARP funds and tax credits for hiring,
elimination of the capital gains tax on investment...curiously not on profits,
and innovation and investment in green tech (forget all the climate fraud at the U.N.), offshore drilling, nuclear and coal (he will get an argument from the envirnment lobby on those points).
Education investment: Obama offered a $10,000-a-year tax credit for college tuition, student-loan payments to be capped at 10 percent of a graduate's income and that the debt be extinguished after 20 years (10 if he or she works in public service, a perverse form of indentured servitude.)
Immigration reform: The strangest line of the night occurred when Obama said, referring to immigration, that there is "unity in our incredible diversity". This, of course, is the exact opposite of E pluribus unum...from many one.
Spending Freeze/ Spending Fraud: As part of the new "austerity program" Obama proposed a 3 year spending freeze to take effect in 2011 trimming the deficit by just 3 percent. Critics immediately jumped on that nugget of lunacy. Labeling Obama's plan for a spending freeze a "fraud," Dr. Charles Krauthammer said that the plan is really a ruse to try to fool the American people into thinking that he is cutting spending when in actuality it is "a racket that locks" in the department budgets of many federal agencies at the "artificially high levels" that he raised them to during his first year in office.
Krauthammer: "The reason it's a fraud is that what Obama is doing here is not just excluding all the other spending we know about, discretionary spending, social security and the military, and it doesn't include the stimulus. What he's saying is, 'I'm going to do a freeze on the regular departments.' But what he doesn't tell you is that last year, in their first year in office when they had a free ride in spending, they ratcheted up the spending for all of these departments astronomically, an average over the last half of fiscal '09 and all of fiscal '10 an average of about 20%. Now that's huge because normally year over year you'd increase a department's spending by 3%, 4%, especially with low inflation.
So for example, last year alone they increased the EPA budget by 35%. So if you're instituting a freeze, what you're doing is you're ratcheting in, you're locking in the higher spending that Obama slid in last year."
Insulting the Supreme Court: The most astonishing part of the speech was when Obama took aim at the Supreme Court for their decision that declared the Mccain-Feingold bill unconstitutional.
Obama: "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
One would think that a a graduate of Harvard Law School at least get his facts right. But these are different times and ideology trumps all.
In an attempt to use the high court for political purposes Obama has smeared them, and intimidated them to influence decisions.
Let's look at the facts. Excerpted from the Wall St. Journal:
The Court didn't reverse "a century of law," but merely two more recent precedents, one from 1990 and part of another from 2003. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce in 1990 had set the Court in a markedly new direction in limiting independent corporate campaign expenditures. This is the outlier case that needed to be overturned.
Mr. Obama is also a sudden convert to stare decisis. Does he now believe that all Court precedents of a certain duration are sacrosanct, such as Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal, 1896), which was overturned by Brown v. Board (1954)? Or Bowers v. Hardwick (a ban on sodomy, 1986), which was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas (2003)?
The President's claim about "foreign entities" bankrolling U.S. political campaigns is also false, since the Court did not overrule laws limiting such contributions. His use of "foreign" was a conscious attempt to inflame public and Congressional opinion against the Court. Coming from a President who fancies himself a citizen of the world, and who has gone so far as foreswear American exceptionalism, this leap into talk-show nativism is certainly illuminating. What will they think of that one in the cafes of Berlin? Nearly every president finds something to criticize about the Supreme Court, but not every one gets to do it to the justices' faces, on national television, in the State of the Union speech. It is an extraordinary thing for a president to trash a decision of the Supreme Court in such a venue. Six of the nine justices in attendance, guests of the Congress, sat there in stony silence. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. shook his head vigorously, and mouthed what seemed to be the words, "Not true." It wasn't exactly a Joe Wilson "YOU LIE!" moment. It was, however, a rivealing moment, a sign of how low progressives will stoop to score a political point.
Obama's scorn and disdain for the high court was on full display...he violated the separation of powers and he owes the Supreme Court and the nation an apology.
Mark Steyn writes: For me the president is pretty much a total bust as an orator. When Jay says below that he's "a very, very good speaker," he is in the sense that he's a mellifluous baritone who'd sound very appealing if you needed a voiceover guy to read some vapid boilerplate for the bland travelogue before the movie on a long-haul flight. But as a persuasive salesman for policy he's bad, and getting worse.
Why is that? Well, look at the SOTU opening. It's eloquent, but in a cheesily generic way, as if one of his speechwriters was sent over to Barnes & Noble to pick up a copy of State of the Unions for Dummies:
They have done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they have done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.
It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable - that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil-rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, and one people.
It sounds like an all-purpose speech for President Anyone: We've met here in good times and bad, war and peace, prosperity and depression, Shrove Tuesday and Super Bowl Sunday, riding high in April, shot down in May. We've been up and down and over and out and I know one thing. Each time we find ourselves flat on our face, we pick ourselves up and get back in the race. That's life, pause for applause . . .
Obama Declares War on Banks & Profit -- Stock Market Tanks...Again
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Jan 22, 2010
In our previous post we noted the following:
Obama's poll numbers are sinking like a stone but, in the wake of defeat, he intends to double down on the agenda to nowhere. He just completed the process of nationalizing the student college loan program. He has proposed taxing banks, even those that took no TARP funds because, as Obama says: "We want our money back" and "The American people need to be made whole."
We at Neville sincerely hope that the Democrat/Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Fascist/Communist cabal running things in Washington don't get the message and continue on their merry way. It will insure victory in November 2010 and 2012. True to his word, in the wake of the Massachusetts Massacre, Obama announced a war on banks and profit. Coming on the heels of his 'Tax the banks" scheme our Fraudinator-in-Chief proposed new limits on the size and activities of the nation's largest banks, pushing a more muscular approach toward regulation that yanked down bank stocks and raised the stakes in his campaign to show he's tough on Wall Street.
Mr. Obama said he wants to toughen existing limits on the size of financial firms and force them to choose between the protection of the government's safety net and the often-lucrative business of trading for their own accounts or owning hedge funds or private-equity funds.
In December 2009 President Obama intoned on "60 Minutes" that he "did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street." In announcing the bank tax on January 16, 2010 Obama thundered: "We want our money back...the American people need to made whole" Continuing in that vein Obama lectured on Jan. 21, 2010, "Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is too big to fail." blah blah blah. On January 22nd, in Ohio, Obama demagogued the Massachusetts defeat by going populist blaming Wall Street and....George Bush.
The immediate results on January 21st and 22nd: The new profit-crimping regulation proposals battered bank stocks and the market in general, dragging down the Dow Jones Industrial Average by 429 points, or 4%, to 10172.88. Some financial stocks sank by more than 5%. Way to go Barack...you are a financial genius.
Using faux populism President Obama and the Democrats have chosen demonizing Wall Street as a campaign strategy for November's elections. Forget jobs and prosperity...creating enemies is waaayyy more important.
Naturally, Obama's favorite quasi-government financial institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the folks who brought you the great recession under the guidance of Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd) are exempt from the proposed regs. Fannie and Freddie are also immune from Obama's proposed bank taxes proposed on January 16, 2010.
Uber-Investor Warren Buffett, U.S. News and World Report Chairman Mort Zuckerman and NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Obama supporters all, expressed their "disappointment" in the new proposals. They can't understand why Obama is tacking so hard to the left. Note to you smart guys...IT'S BECAUSE HE IS A LEFTIST!!!
From the Wall St. Journal on Jan. 16:
Mr. Obama's new "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee"-please don't call it a tax-is being sold as a way to cover expected losses in the Troubled Asset Relief Program. That sounds reasonable, except that the banks designated to pay the fee aren't those responsible for the losses. With the exception of Citigroup, those banks have repaid their TARP money with interest.
The real TARP losers-General Motors, Chrysler and delinquent mortgage borrowers-are exempt from the new tax. Why the auto companies? An Administration official told the Journal that the banks caused the crisis that doomed the auto companies, which apparently were innocent bystanders to their own bankruptcy. The fact that the auto companies remain wards of Washington no doubt has nothing to do with their free tax pass.
Also exempt are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which operate outside of TARP but also surely did more than any other company to cause the housing boom and bust. The key to understanding their free tax pass is that on Christmas Eve Treasury lifted the $400 billion cap on their potential taxpayer losses expressly so they can rewrite more underwater mortgages at a loss.
In other words, the White House wants to tax more capital away from profit-making banks to offset the intentional losses that the politicians have ordered up at Fan and Fred. The bank tax revenue will flow directly into the Treasury to be spent on whatever immediate cause Congress favors. Come the next "systemic risk" bailout, taxpayers will still be on the hook. "Responsibility" is not the word that comes to mind here.
Scott Brown Wins in Mass. -- Obamacare Barely on Life Support...Long Live the Republic
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Jan 20, 2010
It is a wonderful irony that the beginning of the end of the noxious progressive agenda began on the one year anniversary of our Fraudinator-in-Chief's inauguration.
A year ago they had it all. Republicans were out, dispirited and in disarray. We were told that the Reagan era was over and that conservatives should become more accommodating and get with the program.
Now, after the political earthquake that put a Massachusetts senate seat in the hands of a Republican, the blame game begins. Nancy Pelosi is blaming the Senate….the Senate is blaming Martha Coakley…and no one on the left is blaming Obama…yet. Obama made the defeat all about him of course saying that "the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office." Can you say narcissist? Can you say tone deaf?
Make no mistake…Brown's victory was all about Obama and the pushy progressive agenda. Let us review Obama's amazingly bad one year report card, Cliff-notes style.
Need we say more? Would any sane person approve of this?
Obama's past associations with radicals, communists and Islamic Jihadist sympathizers (William Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, Rev. Right, Rashid Khalidi).
TARP and the bank bailout.
Tax cheats in the White House cabinet.
The $787B stimulus package to nowhere and 10% unemployment.
The arrogance of the Democrat-controlled Congress not reading the plethora of 2000 page trillion dollar spending bills...and bragging about it
Obama's race-baiting in the Harvard Professor Louis Gates affair.
ClimateGate and Obama's trip to the disastrous the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.
The rejection of Obama and Chicago by the Olympic Committee.
The Restriction of executive pay by Obama's Pay Czar.
35 Czars...the Obama attempt to concentrate power in the White House.
A $1.5 Trillion dollar deficit and $7 Trillion debt in just one year.
The government takeover of GM and Chrysler.
Endless overseas apology tours and bowing to foreign heads of state.
Compromising the defense of our allies in Eastern Europe and deferring to Iran on it's nuclear program
The Cap & Trade jam down in the House.
The ObamaCare jam down in the House.
The ObamaCare Christmas Eve jam down in the Senate along with the $300M 'Louisiana Purchase' and the 'Cornhusker Kickback', the $60M union deal, and the behind closed door reconciliation process of the House and Senate bills
Denigration of the Tea Party movement and the TownHallers.
Maoists and Communists advising Obama (Van Jones, Anita Dunn to name a few).
Lack of reaction to the first two successful terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9-11, Ft Hood and the Christmas Day Bomber.
Obama's neurotic obsession with closing Gitmo, giving civil rights to terrorists on the battlefield, and enabling terrorist-loving AG Eric Holder's decision to bring 9-11 terrorists Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his pals to NY for a civilian trial.
Obama's poll numbers are sinking like a stone but, in the wake of defeat, he intends to double down on the agenda to nowhere. He just completed the process of nationalizing the student college loan program. He has proposed taxing banks, even those that took no TARP funds because, as Obama says: "We want our money back" and "The American people need to be made whole."
We at Neville sincerely hope that the Democrat/Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Fascist/Communist cabal running things in Washington don't get the message and continue on their merry way. It will insure victory in November 2010 and 2012.
The people running Washington are not your father's Democrats...these are not normal people. These are hardcore socialist progressives steeped in an alien and decidedly un-American ideology forged in the 19th and early 20th Century European political and social cesspool. We must never allow these low-lifes near the reigns of power again.
From the Wall St. Journal:
The Fall of the House of Kennedy The battle over who defines the work and institutions that make a nation thrive and grow.
JANUARY 21, 2010
By DANIEL HENNINGER Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts will not endure unless Republicans clearly understand the meaning of "the machine" that he ran against and defeated.
Yes, it is about a general revulsion at government spending, what is sometimes called "the blob." But blobs are shapeless things, and in the days ahead we will see the Obama White House work hard to reshape the blob into a deficit hawk. Unless the facade is ripped away, the machine will survive.
The revolt against the machine began with voters' 2006 ouster of the Republican majority in Congress for making a mockery of fiscal rectitude. An angry electorate then swept Barack Obama into office. Now Mr. Obama is saying voters elected him on the same wave of anger that elected Scott Brown. Sorry, but Messrs. Obama and Brown are not surfing in the same political ocean.
Daniel Henninger discusses the political machine that Scott Brown ran against.
The central battle in our time is over political primacy. It is a competition between the public sector and the private sector over who defines the work and the institutions that make a nation thrive and grow.
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy planted the seeds that grew the modern Democratic Party. That year, JFK signed executive order 10988 allowing the unionization of the federal work force. This changed everything in the American political system. Kennedy's order swung open the door for the inexorable rise of a unionized public work force in many states and cities.
This in turn led to the fantastic growth in membership of the public employee unions—The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the teachers' National Education Association.
They broke the public's bank. More than that, they entrenched a system of taking money from members' dues and spending it on political campaigns. Over time, this transformed the Democratic Party into a public-sector dependency.
They became different than the party of FDR, Truman, Meany and Reuther. That party was allied with the fading industrial unions, which in turn were tethered to a real world of profit and loss.
The states in the North and on the coasts turned blue because blue is the color of the public-sector unions. This tax-and-spend milieu became the training ground for their politicians.
Until the Obama exception, the only recent Democrats electable into the presidency had to be centrist Southerners little known to the country. Every post-Kennedy liberal who tried, failed, including Teddy.
What an irony it is that in the same week the Kennedy labor legacy hit the wall in Massachusetts, the NEA approved a $1 million donation from the union's contingency fund to the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate. It is this Kennedy legacy, the public union tax and spend machine, that drove blue Massachusetts into revolt Tuesday.
Yes, health care was ground zero, but Massachusetts—like New Jersey, like California, like New York—has been building toward this explosion for years.
According to a study done for the Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth, spending in specific public categories there skyrocketed the past 20 years (1987 to 2007).
Public safety: up 139%; social services, 130%; education, 44%. And of course Medicaid Madness, up 163%, before MassCare kicked in more Medicaid obligations.
But here's the party's self-destroying kicker: Feeding the public unions' wage demands starved other government responsibilities. It ruined our ability to have a useful debate about any other public functions.
Massachusetts' spending fell for mental health, the environment, housing and higher education. The physical infrastructure in blue states is literally falling apart. But look at those public wage and pension-related outlays. Ever upward.
Enter the Obama administration, the first one born and raised inside this public bubble, with zero private-sector Cabinet members. Act one: a $787 billion stimulus bill, which they brag mainly saved state and local jobs. Then came the six-month odyssey for Obama's $1 trillion health-care bill, dripping with taxes. Independent voters felt like everything was being sucked into a public-sector vortex.
This is why New Jersey's Chris Christie won running on nothing. It's why in California Carly Fiorina is within three points of Sen. Barbara Boxer. It's why the party JFK enabled, "the machine," is hitting the wall.
There's no way out for these Democrats. They made a Faustian bargain 40 years ago with the public unions. For the outlays alone, they'll get some version of the Obama health-care bill. They'll also go to the same old "populist anger" well.
Scott Brown's victory has given the GOP a rare, narrow chance to align itself with an electorate that understands its anger. Now the GOP has to find a way to disconnect from a political legacy that smothered governments at all levels and is now smothering the Democratic Party.
Obama Rearranges the Deck Chairs -- The Buck Stops With Him
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Jan 8, 2010
Obama finally uttered the unspeakable for a Leftist desperate to be the anti-Bush: . He couldn't bring himself to say Muslim terrorists.
Nothing has changed really.
"We are at war against al Qaeda"
Consider these tough-guy gems from Obama on Jan. 7:
Three successful attacks have occurred on the Obama watch...one soldier killed in Arkansas, thirteen soldiers killed at Ft. Hood and the aborted Pantywaist Bomber.
Attempted attacks are spiking. Since 9-11 there have been 139 homegrown attempted jihadist attacks...41 in 2009 alone (Obama's watch), according to a study from Duke and the University of N.C.
Obama is still conferring rights on terrorists...the Pantywaist Bomber has copped a plea deal and plead not guilty. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his cohorts are going to be tried in civilian court at a cost of $200M per year to the city of New York.
The enemy is still plotting attacks. It doesn't fear the Fraudinator-in-Chief.
Fric 'n Frac Janet Napolitano and John Brennan still have their jobs...not that it would make any difference if they were replaced by different frics 'n fracs.
The enemy is not worried about waterboarding...Obama and AG Eric Holder have taken that off the table.
Obama is still committed to closing Gitmo.
Three Navy Seals are being court martialed for roughing up a jihadist.
Seven CIA officers, including the head of the Afghanistan station were killed by an al Qaeda double agent, vouched for by the Jordanians. This is not unexpected given the administration's antipathy towards the Agency, it's zeal to prosecute Bush era officials for war crimes and Nancy Pelosi's accusations that the agency lied to her about waterboarding. CIA morale is in the tank and everyone is looking over their shoulder these days.
Obama said he had issued several directives to the intelligence community specifically assigning people to investigate all threats. Were they only taking half the threats seriously until now?
Obama has widened the no-fly list and has ordered homeland security officials to strengthen the criteria used to assemble watch-lists.
Obama said he will hold his agencies and staff "accountable" for any lapses, but at this stage of the White House's review it appears that the failure to stop a Nigerian man from boarding the Northwest Airlines flight in Amsterdam "was not the fault of a single individual or agency." What about the buck stopping...? Oh, never mind.
Obama said he had issued several directives to the intelligence community. This includes specifically assigning people to investigate all threats. "We must follow the leads that we get and we must pursue them until plots are disrupted." Wow, we are safer now.
"Ultimately the buck stops with me... and when the system fails it is my responsibility."
Then Obama equivocated, voted present and gave himself cover: "But, even the best intelligence can't identify in advance every individual who would do us harm. There is no silver bullet to securing the thousands of flights. "There is of course no foolproof solution. In the never-ending race to protect our country, we have to stay one step ahead of a nimble adversary."
For seven years after 9-11, and after 30 years of relentless Muslim attacks and advancement, the United States of America was on the offensive against Islam and the jihad. We at Neville have consistently said that as of Jan. 20, 2009 we would be losing this war. With the exception of the drone attacks, a hold-over from the Bush years, the prediction has come
true...we are on the defensive on all fronts.
The only way to win is to go out there and kill them...as many as we can...and break their will to fight. Even the Bush team was saddled by the political correctness that saps our will to win. For Obama and his team political correctness is the war plan.
The current crop of Democrats currently holding seats in Congress appear to have no real interest in the operational details of national security, other than thwarting it or complaining about it. Their energies and interests appear to be wholly directed to gathering political power to implement the domestic socialist agenda, such as the health-care, immigration reform and cap and trade. It's a weird narcissistic form of isolationism.
If you think Obama is doing a bang up job on National Security you must necessarily accept this form of isolationism and John Kerry's 2004 remark that ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." Thanks John...how many of us have to die at the hands of Muslims before you are bothered by it?
Obviously the Pantywaist Bomber was a nuisance...he interrupted Obama's golf game.
Christmas Day Pantywaist Bomber Lawyered Up and Expecting a Plea Deal
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Jan 6, 2010
Obama has issued his third pronouncement regarding the Christmas Day Pantywaist Bomber saying U.S. intelligence agencies knew that al Qaeda in Yemen was targeting the U.S., but "failed to connect those dots". This was his preemptive "failed to connect those dots" mea culpa, an effort to thwart anyone else from saying the same thing as happened after 9/11.
Then the cerebral, "too cool for school" no-drama Obama went all John Wayne: "It is increasingly clear that intelligence was not fully analyzed or fully leveraged. That's not acceptable, and I will not tolerate it." Wow...we are way beyond Bush's "wanted dead or alive" post 9/11 remarks.
Obama also acknowledged that the plot, hatched in Yemen, was the result of "crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies."
Leftists have been pushing the "root causes" and poverty lie as the source of crime for sixty years. The Christmas Day Pantywaist Bomber
is the son of privilege...his father is an elite banker in Nigeria. As far as "deadly insurgencies" are concerned the Yemeni government has supported al Qaeda and continues to harbor at least two people—Jamal Ahmed Mohammed Ali al-Badawi and Fahad Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso—involved in the bombing of the USS Cole.
One can only remember what the fictional Clemenza (from The Godfather I) said after the hit on Vito Corleone: "After he found out Sonny [Corleone] got mad…he's thinking of going to the mattresses".
Obama will never go to the mattresses…it's just not in his Leftist DNA.
And we would never hear this from Obama:
Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.
Excerpted from the Franklin D. Roosevelt speech to Congress - December 8, 1941 This would be Obama's version of going to the mattresses:
Yesterday, December 7, 1941, the United States of America was attacked by naval and air forces allegedly from the Empire of Japan.
Yesterday the Japanese government allegedly attacked on Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces allegedly attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces allegedly attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces allegedly attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese allegedly attacked Wake Island.
And this morning the Japanese allegedly attacked Midway Island.
I will not rest until the alleged perpetrators of these alleged crimes are brought to justice. I am directing Attorney General Eric Holder to issue subpeanas and arrest warrants so the alleged perpetrators can be brought to justice. We will mirandize the alleged perpetrators and provide lawyers so they can be tried in open court.
We have no evidence that these attacks are acts of terrorism and we should not jump to conclusions until all the facts have been gathered.
However, the evidence does suggest that U.S. intelligence agencies knew that the Empire of Japan was targeting the U.S., but "failed to connect those dots".
It is also clear that the oil and trade embargo instituted against Japan by the previous administration was a primary motivation…the attack was a result of our flawed foreign policy. I ask that Congress hold hearings so we can get to the bottom of this. In the meantime our Fraudinator-in-Chief has announced that no more Gitmo terrorists will be returned to Yemen. That's a good thing as 20% of repatriated terrorists have returned to the jihad, including two that trained the Pantywaist Bomber.
Obama still reflexively wants to close Gitmo because he believes it's such a potent recruiting tool for terrorists. Moving them to Illinois will dissuade any Muslim from wanting to kill Americans...NOT!!
Newly indicted Abdulmutallab is all lawyered up and expecting a plea deal. According to John Brennan, the top White House counterterrorism official, this is the only way to get any useful information.
Excerpted from the Wall St. Journal:
SB10001424052748703436504574640560502410466.html The failed terrorist attack aboard Northwest Flight 253 is proving to be highly educational, not least about the Obama Administration and its pre-September 11 antiterror worldview. Yesterday, the White House reversed itself on repatriating Guantanamo detainees to chaotic Yemen, a step in the right direction.
Ramzi Yousef, you may recall, was the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who is now serving a life sentence in a supermax prison in Colorado. The Obama Administration likes to cite his arrest, conviction and imprisonment as a model for its faith that the criminal justice system is the best way to handle terrorist detainees.
The World Trade Center trials were successful in winning convictions, and they were understandable because at the time we didn't understand the war we were in.
Yet as far as we know, Yousef told U.S. interrogators little or nothing about KSM's plots and strategy once he was in U.S. custody. This isn't surprising, since once he was in the criminal justice system Yousef was granted a lawyer and all the legal protections against cooperating with U.S. interrogators. To this day, we don't recall any official claim that Yousef has provided useful intelligence of the kind that KSM, Abu Zubaydah and other al Qaeda leaders later did when they were interrogated by the CIA.
John Brennan, the top White House counterterrorism official, tried to defend the criminal indictment on the Sunday talk shows but mainly revealed the Administration's confusion about the law and the uses of interrogation. Asked by David Gregory on NBC's "Meet the Press" why Abdulmutallab wasn't named an enemy combatant, Mr. Brennan said, "Well, because, first of all, we're a country of laws, and what we're going to do is to make sure that we treat each individual case appropriately."
But there is nothing illegal about holding an enemy combatant indefinitely, as the Supreme Court has upheld and as the Obama Administration has argued in court.
When Mr. Gregory pressed about "additional intelligence that could be gleaned" by interrogation, Mr. Brennan replied:
"Well, first of all, we have different ways of obtaining information from individuals according to that criminal process. A lot of people, as they understand what they're facing and their lawyers recognize that there is advantage to talking to us in terms of plea agreements, we're going to pursue that. So-and we are continuing to look at ways that we can extract that information from him."
A plea agreement? Mr. Brennan seems to be saying that now that he has a public defender, Abdulmutallab has clammed up. But the Administration might be able to coax him to talk if it offers him a lower sentence or some kind of other legal concession, even though he tried to kill nearly 300 people aboard an American airliner.
Meanwhile Janet Napolitano is nowhere in sight. We at Neville sincerely hope she is not fired for stating the system worked. She is the gift that keeps on giving.
Per Dorothy Rabinowitz at the Wall St. Journal:
Ms. Napolitano would go on in other ways to prove the potency of man-made disasters-of which she was clearly proving one. In April, she issued a report seeming to target military veterans as potentially dangerous right-wing extremists. She soon apologized. In the same month she managed to suggest that the 9/11 terrorists had entered the U.S. through Canada, which appalled Canadian leaders. Apologies and clarifications followed.
Mr. Obama can't be happy with his Homeland Security chief. It's fair to say no president deserves an appointee so extravagantly unequipped for her job. America -- don't say we didn't warn you about these Leftist, appeasing clowns.
Islamic Terrorists 2 - Obama 0 -- Two Attacks on U.S. Soil in Three Months
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Jan 1, 2010
The Obama Administration dodged a huge War On Terror bullet on Christmas Day with the botched attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 by
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Becuse of this failure we were treated to DHS Secretary Janet 'Incompetano' gassing around on the Sunday chat shows about how the system worked, playing the "lone nut" card dismissing the Christmas Day jihadist as a single operator, and then having to reverse herself
the next day when her lunacy was exposed by even the lamestream media. Given her sorry record as DHS Secretary in just eleven months it's time for her to go....not that anything will really change as Obama will just appoint another surrender monkey pantywaist to the position.
We also thrilled to Obama's pronouncement (between rounds of golf) that the US would "not rest" until it has called to account those behind the attempted attack and directives to his national security officials to "keep up the pressure on those who would attack our country". There was also something about U.S. intelligence agencies suffering an unacceptable "systemic failure" and the bomber being an "isolated extremist"...just like the Ft Hood shooter. Way to go Barack. He'll be "studying" lots of intelligence reports just as soon as he gets back from his holiday golf vacation.
Can anyone see the pattern here? We just don't have time for a war on terror right now...it interferes with wealth redistribution, climate change, healthcare and transforming America. The consistent effort to downplay Islamic terror by this administration and the media is unparalleled. Obama simply cannot be seen as having failed in his soft approach to and appeasement of Islam, even when it is now obvious that the approach is a total failure. We have returned to a pre-9/11 mentality as evidenced by the increase in attacks on U.S. soil and Iran thumbing it's nose at Obama. It's
just a matter of time before a plane is brought down by jihadists.
If, God forbid, this had been a successful attack and 300 innocents had been murdered, the Obama and Napolitano would have breathed a sigh of relief stating "After an exhaustive (30 minutes or so) review we have determined that this was not an act of terrorism." The Obama Administration would then launch endless Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) "What Brought Down Flight 253?" investigations. No doubt the cause would have been a faulty fuel line or a defective stabilizer...TWA Flight 800 all over again. Terrorism and Obama's incompetence would have been swept under the rug and quickly hushed up...too inconvenient.
Rep. Peter King of New York, ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee and a member of the Intelligence Committee, said on NBC’s “Today” show: “I think that the administration has made a mistake by treating this terrorist as a common criminal, by putting him into the criminal-justice system. I wish they had put him into a military tribunal so we could get as much intelligence and information out of him as we could.”
Former Vice President Dick Cheney accused Obama of “trying to pretend we are not at war” with terrorists, pointing to the White House response to the attempted bombing as reflecting a pattern that includes banishing the term “war on terror” and attempting to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
Cheney’s full statement:
"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.
“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war." From James Lewis at AmericanThinker.com:
Obama's Second Major Terror Failure in Two Months
December 29, 2009
By James Lewis
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/ obamas_second_major_terror_fai.html Luck was with us on Northwest flight 253. Dumb luck.
This terror attack could easily have been averted but for the Aloha, baby! attitude of the Obumblers regarding domestic terrorism. At Fort Hood last month, a couple of cops finally brought down an Islamofascist killer after he murdered twelve soldiers and left thirty wounded on the tarmac. On Flight 253 to Detroit it happened to be an alert Dutch filmmaker who jumped the would-be bomber when his pants started to burn. But the bomb was an ingredient of Semtex, and he was trying to inject a liquid detonator that could have blown up the Airbus A 330 with 278 people on board.
After a known Islamic radical psychiatrist shot more than forty unarmed American military personnel at Forth Hood last month, this is the second easily preventable failure of the Obama administration to protect the country against domestic terrorism. Obama has let down our guard, and al-Qaida's got his number.
Under the reign of political correctness, anti-terror policy comes down to this: You can't profile terrorists -- certainly not by their African origins, by their known history of Islamist radicalism, or by their Muslim names. So you have to have "everybody's a suspect" rules, in which midwestern grandmas are treated the same as Umar Farouk Abdul Abdulmutallab, who just barely failed to bring down Northwest 253.
Abdulmutallab spent two years as an engineering student at University College London, a known center for Islamist recruitment. Engineering students know enough to make a bomb. The Brits suffer from the dreaded mental illness of political correctness like a pustulating skin outbreak. But even the PC-whipped Brits managed to keep Abdulmutallab out of their country after he lied on a visa application.
OK, suppose we handicap ourselves with political correctness. Even then, a couple of net-surfers sitting at home in their pajamas could do a heck of a lot better than Homeland Security (not to mention Amsterdam Airport Security) did in this case.
Within twenty-four hours of the failed bombing, we know that Amsterdam's boarding security failed to detect the known ingredient of Semtex, the most popular bomb-making material for the last three decades. Abdulmutallab carried a shampoo-bottle-sized plastic container of gelled explosive -- just the reason why nobody is allowed to carry plastic bottles on board anymore. He had it taped to his inner thigh, and apparently we don't have procedures to detect an elementary deception like that. Kids in middle school know about that one.
Furthermore, Homeland Security failed to place Abdulmutallab on the United States No Fly List in spite of the fact that
"... the suspect, Abdulfarouk Umar Muttalab who is an engineering student at the University College, London had been noted for his extreme views on religion since his secondary school days at the British International School, Lome, Togo."
"Abdulmutallab was quoted in a US federal security bulletin to have admitted having extremist ties and said the explosive device 'was acquired in Yemen along with instructions as to when it should be used'."
Abdulmutallab was reported by his father, a wealthy Nigerian businessman and former Minister of Economics who lives in London named Dr. Alhaji Umaru Abdulmutallab. "Four weeks ago Abdulmutallab's father told the U.S. embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, that he was concerned about his son's religious beliefs. This information was passed on to U.S. intelligence officials."
"Police know that the KLM ticket that Abdulmutallab travelled on was purchased on 16 December, with cash, in Nigeria. The departure airport was changed from Accra to Lagos shortly afterwards. When he took his window seat, number 19A, he had only one piece of hand luggage and none in the hold -- unusual for someone who was allegedly planning a two-week stay in Detroit." He wasn't planning to live that long, it seems.
Abdulmutallab was on a half-million-person U.S. terror database "but was not considered an immediate threat. His name was absent from 'no-fly' lists." The "no-fly list" has only four thousand people, so less than 1% of the people in the U.S. terror database are actually stopped from flying to the United States. The other half million are welcome. Makes you feel a lot better, right?
"After graduating, Abdulmutallab tried to return to Britain but his visa request was refused. He applied to return for a six-month course, but was barred by the U.K. Border Agency which judged that the college he applied to was 'not genuine'."
OK, that's enough.
Pretend we're Googling to predict the next plane bomber. We have five facts (all politically correct ones): (a) An engineering student at a known center of terrorist recruitment (b) who is red-flagged on a U.S. security bulletin because of his connection to the terrorist hotspot of Yemen, (c) reported by his Nigerian father for extremist Islamist beliefs, (d) bought a plane ticket with cash in Nigeria and brought only a carry-on for a two-week stay in Detroit -- also a known hub of Islamist agitation. Oh, and (e) he was barred from Britain because he lied on his visa application
We know all that just twenty-four hours after Flight 253 almost went down thanks to the fast action of an alert passenger.
Do you suppose that somebody at Google could set up a database search that could red-flag this guy before he boarded that plane?
If Google can't do it, then I'll bet that American Thinker readers can. It's a no-brainer.
Had the bomber-to-be been flagged in Amsterdam, a body search would have revealed the bomb. Had Homeland Security been on the job, the Airbus crew would have known there was a suspect on board. This guy acted suspicious on board. "[I]nterviews with the passengers and crew of Flight 253 revealed that before the incident Abdulmutallab went to the aircraft's bathroom for approximately 20 minutes."
He could have blown himself up in that bathroom in two minutes. He had twenty. My guess is that he was too freaked to do it then. But that's a guess after the fact, which doesn't count.
We lucked out this time. Pure, dumb luck.
That makes two serious terrorist incidents in Obama's first year in office. Both were easily preventable with commonsense security. We know the Fort Hood terrorist was protected by politically correct insanity in the U.S. military under Obama. We know that Abdulmutallab wasn't stopped from flying, even after his father warned the U.S. that he was dangerous. This guy perfectly fits the terrorist profile in terms of age, religion, radicalism, country of origin, engineering skills, lying on his visa application, use of cash, and even reported links to Yemen.
Notice that Obama is now staying out of sight. He knows he's blown it bad twice in a row. One more, and the American people might start figuring it out, in spite of all the media efforts to cover it up. But the third time, we might be out of luck.
This is completely nuts. The big question is whether we as a nation are now too wimped out to defend ourselves. So far, the answer is yes.
Somebody has to act, and now.