The Anti-Zionist Team of Obama and Clinton

President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, are both haters of Israel.

Remember this photo from the Clinton years:


Hillary and Suha Arafat

The Palestinian thug and father of terrorism, Yasser Arafat, was the most frequent visitor to the Clinton White House.

But, next to Obama, Clinton was a Zionist. Obama clears wins the medal for the "biggest Israel hater" to ever occupy the White House. And that's saying a lot because he had to compete with the avid Israel-hater Jimmy Carter.

Obama has had a habit of associating with individuals who have a fierce hatred for the Jewish nation. Any of these faces ring a bell?


Obama and just a few of his anti-Semite pals.
From Gateway Pundit:
"(Top left clockwise) Barack and Michelle Obama and radical Leftist anti-Israel Professor Edward Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Edward Said gave the keynote speech. (Bill Baar’s West Side), Former PLO operative and close friend of the Obama’s Rashid Khalidi, Barack Obama and his racist minister Jeremiah Wright, and close terrorist friend William Ayers."


Read from Dick Morris:

OBAMA VS. ISRAELI REGIME

"Why is President Barack Obama so obviously humiliating Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu? Why is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton negating everything she said when she represented New York state and piling on the Jewish state?

They want Netanyahu out. Specifically, they want him to feel such pressure that he dumps his right-wing coalition partners and forms a new government with the center-left party Kadima, headed by former Prime Minister Tzipi Livni. Livni, who thinks nothing of trading land for peace, no matter how flawed the peace might be, will then hold Netanyahu’s government hostage and force it to bend to the will of Washington and sign a deal with the Palestinians that cedes them land in return for a handful of vague vapors and promises, none of which will be kept.

On March 3, Livni said, in a Knesset debate, that since Netanyahu took control 'Israel has become a pariah country in the world.' She is trying to use Obama’s and Clinton’s rejection of Netanyahu’s course to force her way into the government. And Obama and Clinton are intent on helping her do so by publicly humiliating Netanyahu.

Netanyahu insists that he’d be happy to negotiate a peace accord. But, as he told me last year, 'I just don’t have a peace partner with whom to negotiate.'

The Palestinians are expert at playing 'good cop/bad cop' with Israel. The good cop — the Palestinian Authority — wants to negotiate a peace deal and insists on signs of Israeli good faith in order to do so. Meanwhile, the bad cop — Hamas — fires missiles at Israel from Gaza, land Israel ceded to the Palestinians in order to promote the peace process earlier in the decade.

Any peace deal with the Palestinian Authority will not be binding on Hamas, and the pattern of Gaza will likely play out again: First, Israel cedes land to the Palestinian Authority. Second, Hamas seizes the newly ceded land through elections or military action. Third, Hamas refuses to recognize the peace deal and uses the newly acquired territory as a base from which to launch further attacks against Israel.

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome each time.

When Hillary Clinton and President Obama explode in indignation against Israel for building apartments in East Jerusalem, they deliberately miss the point: There is no reason for Israel to catalyze peace negotiations when there is no single entity that is both committed to peace and speaks for the entire Palestinian people. Without a peace partner, negotiations are either a trip to nowhere or a slippery slope to more Gaza-like concessions that do nothing but strengthen the enemies of Israel without providing any advancement to the cause of peace.

The merits of building in East Jerusalem or the need for a moratorium on all settlement construction are quite irrelevant as long as a substantial body of Palestinian opinion wants a war with Israel and the prevailing political authority in Gaza insists on the Jewish state’s eradication.

So why are Obama and Clinton so intent on raising the profile of the construction issue and publicizing it? One suspects an effort is afoot to link Israeli resistance to the peace process with the ongoing loss of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not to the global terrorism of al Qaeda.

Gen. David Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that 'Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples [in the region] … Enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility.' In other words — blame Israel.

And ultimately, the administration’s agenda may be to explain its withdrawal of support for Israel by blaming its stubborn insistence on housing construction. One can well see the Obama administration learning to live with an Iranian nuclear weapon, all the while blaming Israel for fomenting Iranian hostility by building housing.

Meanwhile, through American aid to Gaza, the Obama administration is helping Hamas to solidify its position in Gaza and lengthen its lease on political power — the very power it is using to torpedo the peace process."

Lies, Lies, and Many More Lies

It's time we call a spade a spade. Obama is a pathological liar who will say whatever is necessary to achieve his goals. The truth be damned, not to mention the real victims, the American people.

Read from Human Events:

President Obama is a Liar
by A.W.R. Hawkins

"Time and again during the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton gave a televised speech, old timers here in West Texas would say they could tell he was lying because his lips were moving. And looking back, it’s patently obvious that Clinton, the second President in American history to be impeached, had a problem with the truth.

And while we despised Clinton for things like the deaths his incompetence led to in Mogadishu ('Black Hawk Down'), we also learned to laugh at him, as if to admit we couldn’t expect any thing better from the man whom Ann Coulter labeled Arkansas’ 'horny hick.'

But with President Barack Obama, the lies are not so easily shrugged off. And that’s not because we expect more from him than we did from Clinton—he is, after all, a Democrat—but because the lies Obama perpetuates place our nation at peril.

This was particularly evident via the falsehoods and the bait and switch tactics Obama employed to hide the ugly truth about healthcare reform when it was still in the proposal stages.

It was while Obama was still vying for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2008, that he railed against Hillary Clinton’s support of healthcare mandates on the grounds that they would force U.S. citizens to buy health insurance. Yet last week, he signed a bill into law that literally orders every American to get health insurance, whether they want it or not.

Then there were the endless speeches during his first year in office, where he promised the healthcare overall was going to be 'deficit neutral.' While numbers from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) show that the recently passed legislation will not increase the deficit, much of that conclusion was based on accounting gimmicks. And given the CBO’s poor track record of estimating future entitlement costs, don’t be surprised when Obamacare’s costs exceed projections.

And remember Obama’s pledge that he would not increase taxes on any household making less than $250,000 a year? In the healthcare bill he just signed, there are seven new taxes which apply to everyone regardless of income.

Although these falsehoods and underhanded tactics are bad, they are nothing compared to the lies and rhetoric Obama has used since the healthcare legislation passed.

For example, while speaking at the University of Iowa on March 25, 2010, Obama mocked Republican criticism of the newly passed legislation. He laughed at Republican congressional leaders who’ve referred to the passage of the legislation as 'Armageddon' and literally dared them to repeal it. Said Obama: 'If these congressmen in Washington want to come here to Iowa and tell small business owners that they plan to take away their tax credits and essentially raise their taxes, be my guest.'

But the truth is that just days after the passage of healthcare reform, businesses across the country realized that the cost of abiding by Obama’s new regulations will be quite high. AT & T reported the legislation will cost them $1 billion in 'corporate losses' this year. It will cost the makers of John Deere tractors $150 million. It will cost 'Caterpillar, $100 million; AK Steel, $31 million; 3M, $90 million; and Valero Energy, up to $20 million.'

Sounds something like 'Armageddon' to me.

But there’s more. In an attempt to shame critics like House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) into silence, Obama told Iowans that if the legislation is repealed it will drive up healthcare costs. Yet in reality, less than a week after healthcare reform was passed, wireless giant Verizon realized the legislation is going to force their operating expenses up to such an extent that they’ve 'warned [their] employees about…new higher healthcare costs.'

In other words, implementing Obama’s healthcare reform is what’s going to drive costs up, while repealing it would keep costs where they are (or would allow the market to eventually drive them down).

And as if these lies weren’t enough, Obama upped the ante by intimating that senior citizens will be left without insurance if Republicans repeal the healthcare legislation. But the truth is that benefits for seniors, like plans covering prescription drugs, are greatly diminished under the new legislation. This explains why 'the consulting firm Towers Watson estimates that the total [cost to businesses] for this year will reach nearly $14 billion, unless corporations cut retiree drug benefits when their labor contracts let them.'

It’s all smoke and mirrors. And the lies leading up to the passage of healthcare reform, as well as those now being used to shield it from criticism, have been shameless. They are intended to make us look one way while Obama goes another or to get us to sit down and shut up when we should be standing and shouting 'Armageddon' from the rooftops.

I’m starting to get an old, familiar feeling every time Obama’s lips are moving."

Obama's Real Agenda Concerning Off-Shore Oil Drilling

Forgive me if I am a little on the skeptical side, but President Obama and offshore oil drilling don't quite go together. Obama is and has been an enemy of fossil fuels since day one. Why should we believe that he is all-of-a-sudden a fan of oil drilling and energy independence?

With Obama, there's always a catch. He cannot be believed; the man does not have an honest bone in his body. This is a complete sham.

Read from Michelle Malkin:

Of pipelines and pipedreams: Obama’s drilling deception
By Michelle Malkin

"He was against it:



Before he was for it:


'The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.

The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.'


If this were a sincere change of heart and an honest, stand-alone effort to wean America off foreign oil, it would be worth heralding.

But as always with this administration, there’s a catch, via the American Energy Alliance:


'“One major flashpoint in the negotiations has been whether to share drilling revenue with states and to allow states to opt in or out of drilling along their coastlines. It was unclear late Tuesday whether Obama endorses revenue-sharing for states. “It appears the Northern Atlantic and entire Pacific Coast will now be under a de facto ban” for drilling, said Patrick Creighton, a spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research. Even if drilling is ultimately allowed in part of the Atlantic, Creighton said, revenue sharing is an essential incentive for states. The administration’s plans could meet resistance from at least 10 Senate Democrats representing coastal and Great Lakes states who last week raised concerns about “unfettered access to oil and gas drilling” that could jeopardize fishing, tourism and military exercises. The Interior Department retooled the current schedule of offshore leases governing 2007 through 2012 after a federal appeals court last April ruled that the second Bush administration had not done a sufficient environmental review of expanded drilling off the Alaskan coast.'


GOP Rep. Mike Pence adds:


'“As usual the devil is in the details. Only in Washington, D.C., can you ban more areas to oil and gas exploration than you open up, delay the date of your new leases and claim you’re going to increase production.

“The President’s announcement today is a smokescreen. It will almost certainly delay any new offshore exploration until at least 2012 and include only a fraction of the offshore resources that the previous Administration included in its plan.

“Unfortunately, this is yet another feeble attempt to gain votes for the President’s national energy tax bill that is languishing in the Senate. At the end of the day this Administration’s energy plan is simple: increase the cost of energy on every family in America and trade American jobs oversees at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.”'"


Some thoughts from the American Thinker:

[...]

"Might the real reason for Obama's change of heart be related to the uproar the White House is anticipating when in a few days the EPA announces a controversial ruling that will declare CO2 as a toxic and which will finalize the emission standards of light trucks, etc. What a devious way to divert the public's attention from what is to come by announcing a policy that the general public is generally in favor of!

The Obama administration is fully aware and is confident that environmentalists will stop in their tracks for years to come through court action any investigative studies into oil exploration.

Obama's strange flip in now calling for drilling expansion is just another ploy by the Obama administration to convince the American people that it is on the side of the American people and businesses.

This is happening all at a time when Americans are being encouraged to buy electric cars which must be plugged into a power source mostly provided by coal-fired power plants and when wind and solar power are being pushed to lessen dependence on oil despite not being cost effective. Wind and solar are not viable sources of energy and would not be the 'flavors of the day' if it were not for huge government subsidies.

President Obama's announcement of today is a round about way for Obama to enact some of what is in a climate bill which passed the House last year, but which is still sitting in the Senate."

Obama's Policies Will Cripple Investment

President Obama is out to punish the achievers in our nation, and in doing so, will cause great havoc to an already depressed economy. Hope and change? More like hopelessness and radical change. When the wealthy are required to pay more in taxes, we all suffer.

Read from the American Thinker:

A primer on how high taxes will stifle investment
Henry Oliner

"This is an oversimplified example, but if you can understand this you will understand how taxes affect investment.

Assume you have an investment opportunity. You can invest a dollar and you stand a 50% chance of losing the dollar and a 50% chance of making $2. If you only stood a 50% chance of making $1 you would not make the investment because if you prorated the chance of making a dollar with losing a dollar the investment opportunity has no value.

If we tax the profits on the investment at 50% you reduce the payoff to $1 and you drive the value of the investment risk to zero. No rational investor would take the risk.

The closer you take the tax rate on the profit to 50%, the less likely one is to take the risk in this simplified scenario. ( One can argue that this is offset by the tax deduction of losses. At the risk of complicating this example, taxes on gains are due in the year they are earned. Losses can be applied against gains, but after that the tax payer is strictly limited to how much he can apply the losses against income in any year. Because of this the investor does not consider the value of a one dollar prospective tax loss equal or even close to the value of a one dollar prospective dollar profit.)

Currently the tax rate on capital gains is 15%. We are expecting Congress to raise it to 20%. The new health care legislation will now add the Medicare tax to investment income, up to 3.8%. Added to the expected rate of 20% we are now looking at a rate of 23.8%, and increase of 58% over the old rate. This is a big jump in taxes on investment return and it will substantially reduce the incentive of the investor to take risk.

This new high investment tax rate will alter investment actions. One will be less likely to take capital gains and thus money will be allocated much less efficiently. Many investors expecting this new tax have likely pushed capital gains into prior periods to avoid the tax. They will also be less likely to make long term investment. Perhaps they will more likely invest in unproductive assets such as art that they can enjoy without producing income, or antique cars, jewelry, or other consumable or collectable assets that will not generate a visible income to tax.

The result will be less investment in the assets that produce jobs and innovation. And with the reduction in investment assets, the government will see a reduction in capital gains revenue in spite of the rise in the rates. Economist Arthur Laffer has demonstrated this effect repeatedly in our history of tax increases and decreases.

One can rationally argue that it is unfair for wage earners to be required to pay the Medicare tax on earned income, and to allow the wealthy to avoid paying it on investment income. This may be true but it is irrelevant. Money will go where it is welcomed, not where it is needed. Is the urge to redistribute worth the action to reduce investment, innovation, jobs and ultimately the amount of dollars to redistribute?

Risk is more than the mathematical calculation; it is hazard plus outrage. Like it or not the wealthy have options that Congress cannot control. While the Congress may have been able to bribe and intimidate to barely get the votes they needed for health care reform, they neglected to consider how the investor votes.

Investors can vote with their dollars, with their hearts, and with their feet."

Bush Was Right About Gitmo

Take this, President Obama. You and your comrades in both the Democratic Party and the American Pravda have railed against Gitmo for years in your efforts to demean President Bush. But, Americans aren't buying it. We do not want the Islamic savages brought on our shores, and it's rather arrogant to wish such an atrocity on other nations.

Read about the following CNN poll, which was probably overloaded with Democrats as is so often the case with polls taken by members of the American Pravda in an effort to achieve their desired results. From Hot Air:

CNN: 60% of Americans say keep Gitmo open

"Barack Obama made the closing of Guantanamo Bay’s terrorist detention facility a centerpiece of his campaign. On his first day in office, he issued an executive order authorizing a process that Obama promised would see Gitmo closed in a year. Fourteen months later, Gitmo’s still open, the Obama plan to close it is in tatters — and as it turns out, most Americans are happy to see it, according to a new CNN poll:


'Support for closing the facility has dropped 12 points over the past 14 months, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey indicates.

Shortly before Obama’s inauguration, 51 percent of Americans said they thought the facility in Cuba should be closed. Now that number is down to 39 percent, and six in ten believe the United States should continue to operate Guantanamo.

The poll, released Sunday, suggests independent voters are contributing to the 12 point overall drop.

“Just Democrats still think that Guantanamo should be closed, but Independents have completely changed – from an even split in January 2009 to three-quarters who want to keep the facility open today,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.'


CNN doesn’t include the sample data, although they include the sample data in another post that discusses the bump to his approval rating the pollster found after the passage of ObamaCare. They have it at 51/48 at the same time that Gallup and Rasmussen already show his momentary bump disappearing. That’s interesting, too, because the number of registered voters who claimed they’d vote for Obama against a generic Republican remained the same in both polls — but the generic Republican gained a point.

The reversal shouldn’t surprise anyone reading Hot Air. Rasmussen tests regularly on the same question and found only 32% support for closing Gitmo among likely voters — last August. Last December, Gallup reported that 64% opposed Gitmo’s closure. CNN is at least eight months late to the party.

So that leaves us with two questions. First, why did CNN finally decide to check on Gitmo’s polling now? And now that even CNN is acknowledging that Obama’s Gitmo policy is unpopular, will the rest of the national media start to ask why the White House is so determined to pursue it?"

CNN and MSNBC Plunging Deeper and Deeper

It is with great pleasure that I report the continual decline of ratings for two key players in the American Pravda, CNN and MSNBC. Americans want to hear objective reporting of news, and they don't take kindly to nonstop cheerleading for the Obama Administration. We want truth for a change and no more cover-ups for their Dear Leader.

What's that gem of wisdom from God's Word? "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." The American Pravda has sown biased agenda-driven reporting, and now they are reaping their abominable actions by losing viewers in record numbers. Hallelujah!

Read from Newsmax:

CNN, MSNBC Plunge as Fox News' Ratings Surge

"CNN continued its huge plunge in ratings for its prime-time programs in the first quarter of 2010 even as Fox News had its best period ever, The New York Times reports.

CNN's main hosts lost almost half their viewers in a year, according to ratings data assembled by the Times. In fact, the trend in news ratings for the first three months of this year was only up for Fox, while MSNBC continued its huge plunge, too.

In all, Larry King's audience dropped 43 percent for the quarter and 52 percent in March. Meanwhile, Anderson Cooper, who follow's King dropped 42 percent in viewers and 46 percent among the key 25-to-54-year-old audience.

By comparison, Fox News, which had its biggest year in 2009, continues to add viewers. Greta Van Susteren’s show was up 25 percent from a year earlier. Bill O’Reilly, whose show commands the biggest audience in prime time with 3.65 million viewers, was up 28 percent, and Glenn Beck was up 50 percent from a year earlier.

The plunge for CNN was consistent throughout the day. CNN's 'American Morning' show dropped behind 'Morning Joe' on MSNBC in total viewers for the first time; it still beat the MSNBC show among 25- to 54-year-olds, though it was down 29 percent from a year earlier, the Times reported.

The data backs up the comments of O’Reilly, who told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview that CNN is stuck to an old model while MSNBC has hired unpopular 'guttersnipes' as hosts who drive viewers away in drives.

Editor's Note: See the exclusive Newsmax interview with Bill O'Reilly in its entirety here.

'CNN basically stayed where they were 10 years ago, they didn’t change with the times,' said O’Reilly, host of 'The O’Reilly Factor.'

'We live in a very intense country right now, a very difficult time. CNN doesn’t reflect that urgency.'

CNN merely reports the news, O’Reilly points out. They do it well, as evidenced by their Haiti coverage.

But Americans already know the news from the Internet and other sources.

'They want analysis and perspective from a cable network,' O’Reilly explained. 'CNN doesn’t give you that.'

As for MSNBC, 'They made the key mistake of hiring bad people. It’s as simple as that,' O’Reilly said.

How are they bad? 'They have a bunch of guttersnipes on their network, that even if you’re a liberal, which is what they sell, you don’t like these people,' he said.

CNN's decline is all the more compelling because the last three months have included compelling news events, like the earthquake in Haiti and the battle over healthcare. CNN, which emphasizes its hard news coverage, was apparently unable to benefit, the Times reported.

CNN still easily beats MSNBC in the daytime hours, but those are less lucrative in advertising money, and both networks are far behind Fox News at all hours.)

Read the full New York Times story here."

Challenges to ObamaCare

Physicians are not rolling over and playing dead when it comes to the monstrosity known as ObamaCare. For some odd reason, they don't want Kathleen Sebelius calling the shots. Can't imagine why.

Read from the Washington Times, via the Patriot Room:

First doctors group sue to overturn health care act

"It looks as if it is not just state attorneys general that are filing a lawsuit against the new health care law recently passed by the Democrats and signed into law by President Obama. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) put out the following statement:


'The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) became the first medical society to sue to overturn the newly enacted health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). AAPS sued Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (AAPS v. Sebelius et al.).

"If the PPACA goes unchallenged, then it spells the end of freedom in medicine as we know it," observed Jane Orient, M.D., the Executive Director of AAPS. "Courts should not allow this massive intrusion into the practice of medicine and the rights of patients."

"There will be a dire shortage of physicians if the PPACA becomes effective and is not overturned by the courts."'"


More bad news for Obama. If, by chance, the Democrats lose control of the House in the November Congressional elections, funding for ObamaCare could come to a halt.

Read from Dick Morris:

ZERO FUND OBAMACARE
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann

"We don’t have to wait until we have a Republican in the White House to rid this nation of the shackles of Obamacare. We can do it next year if we win simple majorities in one or both houses of Congress.

The Obama health care bill was an authorization measure which established a program and set down its parameters. But authorization bills are not appropriations. Each year the Congress must act on appropriations for each department and agency in the government. If no funds are appropriated, nothing can be spent.

So if Republicans take the House (where appropriations have to originate) – and especially if they also take the Senate – they will have the capacity to zero fund Obamacare, appropriating not a dime for it in their spending bills. Indeed, they can and should include a specific amendment to their appropriations bills banning the expenditure of any of the funds on Obama’s health care program.

In the wake of the passage of the health care bill, states are filing lawsuits and talk of repeal is in the air. Both are useful efforts. But litigation takes time and the key challenge – to the constitutionality of the requirement that everybody buy insurance – cannot even begin until it takes effect in 2014. And repeal will obviously be impossible as long as Obama wields the veto from his Oval Office. It would be impossible mathematically for the Republicans to get a two-thirds majority in the Senate and unlikely in the House, so an override is out of the question. Repeal will have to wait until 2013, after Obama’s defeat in 2012.

But zero funding can happen immediately after the Republicans take Congress. All this makes the elections of 2010 critical. If we can stop this bill from getting off the ground, it will be possible to repeal it when we take over the White House. But if the Democrats keep their majorities, the program will be so entrenched by the time we defeat Obama that its repeal would be unlikely."

America in Decline?

America is indeed in a period of decline, as Nile Gardiner at the UK Telegraph states in the following article.

The real question is: Can we recover from the enormous damage done by the hopey-changey Barack Obama? Where, oh where is the next Ronald Reagan needed to clean up this mess which Jimmy Carter's clone has only just begun to afflict upon our great nation?

Read what Gardiner has to say:

Barack Obama’s imperial hubris will usher in American decline

"After reading the US and international press over the past week, one could be forgiven for thinking that the president had just won a world war. We’ve been bombarded with headlines on both sides of the Atlantic lauding a reinvigorated, all-powerful president, with a spring in his step who could no doubt walk on water if he deigned to do so. Indeed, in the last few days, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have strutted across the country with a vain swagger that would make a peacock blush, from the vice president’s classless, foul-mouthed victory boast at the White House, to the president’s contemptuous mocking of his political opponents at a rally in Iowa.

Both leaders have been beaming like the Cheshire Cat from Alice in Wonderland, living in their own Tim Burton-like fantasy. And what have they actually achieved? The passage of a massively controversial, divisive and hugely expensive health care reform bill via a Democrat-dominated Congress in the face of overwhelming public opposition, and without a shred of bi-partisan support. And a nuclear arms agreement with the Russians that works to the advantage of Moscow. The first of the two 'victories' will add nearly a trillion dollars to the national debt, and dramatically increases the power of the federal government over the lives of ordinary Americans. The second is a feel-good PR exercise that does nothing at all to make the world safer in an era of rogue states and Islamist terrorism.

Looking past the smoke and mirrors spin wafting out of the White House, the future looks far more grim. Under Barack Obama the United States is drowning under $13 trillion of debt, with the health care bill likely to significantly add to that burden. The $787 billion stimulus package has failed to create jobs, and unemployment levels are at their highest in a generation, with one out of every ten Americans out of work. The housing market remains extremely weak, with little sign of a significant recovery.

On the world stage, Barack Obama has looked like a deer in the headlights in the face of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the biggest state-based threat to world security since the end of the Cold War. The president has no real plan in place to stop the Mullahs in their tracks, and seems content to live with a genocidal, Islamist, nuclear-armed Tehran. He has also shown little interest in developing an effective global missile defense system to protect the United States, or increasing levels of US defence spending. He has invested a great deal of his energy on the dream of a nuclear-free world, while all around him hostile states are developing their nuclear weapons programmes. As Nicolas Sarkozy aptly put it, referring to Obama’s stunning naiveté – 'we live in the real world, not in a virtual one'.

At the same time, President Obama has weakened America’s alliances while kowtowing to America’s enemies. Great Britain and Israel, Washington’s closest allies in Europe and the Middle East, have been treated with sneering contempt, while hostile regimes have been greeted with the extended hand of friendship. When a great nation turns on its own friends and embraces its adversaries you know there is something fundamentally wrong with its leadership.

There is more than just the whiff of arrogance surrounding the Obama administration. It is shrouded in an imperial triumphalism that is blind to criticism and failures of leadership while Rome begins to burn in the background. In reality, Barack Obama is ushering in a period of American decline, both economically and in terms of world leadership, a decline that is wholly self-inflicted.

President Obama’s dangerous emphasis upon big government solutions in a nation whose historic success rests upon economic freedom and limited government, is destined to fail. And his refusal to invest in America’s long-term security and her alliances, as well as confront her enemies on the world stage, will make the United States weaker and more vulnerable to attack. The damage inflicted now to American global power will take years, even decades to repair. It must eventually be reversed by future presidents, not only for the sake of the American people, but for the sake of the free world."

Why Is Obama So Complacent About a Nuclear Iran?

Iran is about to go nuclear, and President Barack Hussein Obama is upset because Israel refuses to stop building in its capital city, Jerusalem. How ludicrous is that? Or maybe it's not. Perhaps, he wants Israel to be annihilated.

Regardless of the president's concern or lack of concern for the Jewish nation, does he not realize that America is number two on Iran's hit list?

Read from Israel Matzav:

Obama 'resigned' to nuclear Iran?

"Former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton says that the Obama administration is 'resigned' to a nuclear Iran according to an interview with Israel's Army Radio.


'“I very much worry the Obama administration is willing to accept a nuclear Iran, that's why there's this extraordinary pressure on Israel not to attack in Iran,” Bolton told Army Radio.

The former envoy claimed that this pressure was the focus of last week's meetings in Washington between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyhau and US officials, including President Barack Obama.

Bolton said that the Obama administration had embraced the view, prevalent in Europe, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the key to the resolution of all other conflicts throughout the Middle East, including the Iranian conflict.

He added that the rift in US-Israel relations stemmed from a fundamental difference in the understanding of the Middle East and Israel's role in the Middle East, and is not really about east Jerusalem at all.

Bolton said that the treatment Netanyahu received during his visit "should tell the people of Israel how difficult it's going to be dealing with Washington for the next couple of years."'


I put 'resigned' in scare quotes, because I'm not sure that it's the correct word here. It seems more and more like Obama is looking forward to a nuclear Iran. It would be a great way for him to get Israel to do what he wants regarding Jerusalem and a 'Palestinian state.'

What could go wrong?"

An Extremist Islamic TV Channel in the UK

Misogyny is on steroids in Islamic societies. And it's not restricted to Islamic nations, but has spread to Islamic communities in western nations.

Why the disregard for women? It's what the prophet Mohammed taught, pure and simple.

In fact, did you know that hell will be inhabited predominantly by women? So says an Islamic television station in the UK.

Read from Jihad Watch:

U.K.'s most popular Islamic channel under investigation for promoting 'extremism'

"'Viewers were told that "the majority of people in hell will be women".' What kind of rabid extremist would say that? Well, Muhammad. In fact, it comes up more than once. Several times, actually.

More on this story. 'UK's Islam Channel under investigation,' by David Sapsted for The National, March 28:

London // 'Britain's most popular Muslim TV channel is to be investigated by the government's broadcasting watchdog after being accused of promoting extremists.

The Office of Communications (Ofcom) took action after an in-depth survey of the programmes on the Islam Channel by the Quilliam Foundation, a moderate Islamic think tank based in London.

After monitoring the output of the satellite channel for three months, the foundation reported: "The gravest concern regarding the Islam Channel is its failure in combating extremism.

"A number of presenters with extremist tendencies were regularly given the opportunity to air their opinions on the network without a challenge from more moderate Islamic voices."

The report also condemned the channel, which is headquartered in London, for being demeaning to women, saying that programmes instructed women that they could not refuse to have sexual relations with their husbands.

Under British law, a husband who forces his wife to have sex with him can be charged with rape.

The report added that on one programme, women were told that they should not leave their homes without their husband's consent and should always have a male escort. Another suggested that women who wore perfume were prostitutes.

Concerns were also raised in the report over a religious advice programme in which viewers were told that "the majority of people in hell will be women" because they are the cause of "calamities, hardship and suffering" in western society."...'"

White Men Fleeing from Dems

Are women more gullible than men? For the most part, I would say that they are. Women often rely on their emotions, while men are more likely to depend on reasoning and facts. Time after time, we hear cases of smooth-talking men taking advantage of naive women.

This same argument can be made about politics. In general, men are less likely to be deceived by a weasel-like politician. That being said, the more common sense men are fleeing from the Democrat Party, while women are sticking around to be taken advantage of by the so-called compassionate liberals who really could care less about their constituents. It's power they desire; they are hooked on it like a heroin addict craving his drug.

Read from the Times Union, via the Patriot Room:

White men shun Democrats
By DAVID PAUL KUHN

"Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they'll take the midterms elections in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994.

For more than three decades before the 2008 election, no Democratic president had won a majority of the electorate. In part, that was because of low support -- never more than 38 percent -- among white male voters. Things changed with Obama, who not only won a majority of all people voting, but also pulled in 41 percent of white male voters.

Polling suggests that the shift was not because of Obama but because of the financial meltdown that preceded the election. It was only after the economic collapse that Obama's white male support climbed above the 38 percent ceiling. It was also at that point that Obama first sustained a clear majority among all registered voters, according to the Gallup tracking poll.

It looked for a moment as though Democrats had finally reached the men of Bruce Springsteen's music, bringing them around to the progressive values Springsteen himself has long endorsed. But liberal analysts failed to understand that these new Democrats were still firmly rooted in American moderation.

Pollsters regularly ask voters whether they would rather see a Democrat or Republican win their district. By February, support for Democrats among white people (male and female) was three percentage points lower than in February 1994, the year of the last Republican landslide.

Today, among whites, only 35 percent of men and 43 percent of women say they will back Democrats in the fall election. Women's preferences have remained steady since July 2009. But white men's support for a Democratic Congress has fallen eight percentage points, according to Gallup.

White men have moved away from Obama as well. The same proportion of white women approve of him -- 46 percent, according to Gallup -- as voted for him in 2008. But only 38 percent of white men approve of the President, which means that millions of white men who voted for Obama have now lost faith in him."


Read it all.

327 House Members Dismayed Over Obama's Hostility Towards Israel

President Obama may despise Israel with every fiber within his being, but thankfully the majority of the members of the House of Representatives do not share his disdain. Of course, they do not have Muslim blood running through their veins, nor have most surrounded themselves with avid Israel haters for decades of their lives, something Barack Obama cannot say about himself.

Read from Hot Air:

327 House members tell Obama to make U-turn on US-Israeli relations

"Barack Obama talks a lot about the 'spirit of bipartisanship.' Now he’s had a chance to see it for himself, thanks to a series of diplomatic fumbles between the White House and Israel, usually one of America’s closest allies. More than three-quarters of the US House of Representatives signed a letter expressing dismay over the direction of the alliance, warning that the 'highly publicized tensions' aren’t helping America’s interests:


'Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will continue discussions with his senior ministers in the coming days, looking for a way out of the crisis with the US. He received some badly needed support on Friday from 327 congressmen, who signed a letter expressing concern that “the highly publicized tensions” in US-Israeli ties will “not advance the interests” of either state. …

Meanwhile, in Washington, [327] congressmen – three-quarters of the House of Representatives – signed a bipartisan letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing solid support for Israel and the expectation that differences between Jerusalem and Washington will be smoothed over quickly and in private.

“We are writing to reaffirm our commitment to the unbreakable bond that exists between our country and the State of Israel and to express to you our deep concern over recent tension,” the letter read. “A strong Israel is an asset to the national security of the United States and brings stability to the Middle East.

“We are concerned that the highly publicized tensions in the relationship will not advance the interests the US and Israel share. Above all, we must remain focused on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program to Middle East peace and stability.”

The letter stated that the US’s unswerving commitment to Israel’s security has been essential in forging previous Israeli-Arab peace agreements, “both because it convinced those who sought Israel’s destruction to abandon any such hope and because it gave successive Israeli governments the confidence to take calculated risks for peace.”'


The letter’s lead signatories were Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD). The letter had only circulated for three days last week before garnering 327 signatures, probably the most bipartisan effort seen on Capitol Hill in this session of Congress. It provides a measure of just how far out of the mainstream the Obama administration has gotten on relations with Israel.

Moreover, they’re entirely correct. Thanks to what amounts to a reversal of 20 years of American policy on settlements in Jerusalem, Obama has given the Palestinians a reason to refuse to come to the table that Israel simply can’t address. Obama has made peace a lot less likely than it was fifteen months ago by throwing his tantrum in such a public manner. Weakening Israel won’t bring peace — it will bring more attacks on Israel as Palestinians begin to believe that the US won’t back its ally any longer.

Jennifer Rubin believes Obama’s fumble was by design, or at least by instinctual hostility towards Israel. With advisers like Samantha Power at the White House, that hostility was known long before Obama got elected. Accidental, latent, or overt, Obama’s hostility towards a key democracy in the most strategic part of the world has raised eyebrows of both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill — perhaps belatedly, but not too late to put some serious pressure for this administration to grow the h*** up."

The Audacity of Naiveté

Americans have known for a long time that Democrats CANNOT BE TRUSTED with our national security, but they got all caught up in the Obamania and forgot this key nugget of truth. Now, we must all suffer the consequences.

The libs have lived for years in this dream world in which all nuclear weapons are destroyed and peace reigns throughout the earth. That's all fine and dandy in a dream, but at some point reality must set in, and the reality is that there are evil regimes on this planet who cannot be trusted to keep their end of any nuclear reduction agreements.

One such player is Russia, especially with the conniving Putin pulling the strings. I don't care what Bush says, McCain was right when he said, "I looked into Mr. Putin’s eyes and I saw three things — a K and a G and a B."

Read about how our naive president is endangering our nation by making agreements with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons, by ONE-THIRD.

From Joshua Pundit:

Obama To Cut US Long Range Nuclear Weapons By One Third

"Barack Obama took another step towards a long cherished goal of his by announcing a new nuclear arms control treaty with Russia that will cut US long range nuclear weapons by one third.


'“I’m pleased to announce that after a year of intense negotiations, the United States and Russia have agreed to the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two decades,” the president said from the press podium.

“It cuts – by about a third – the nuclear weapons that the United States and Russia will deploy,” Obama said describing the agreement. “It significantly reduces missiles and launchers. It puts in place a strong and effective verification regime. And it maintains the flexibility that we need to protect and advance our national security, and to guarantee our unwavering commitment to the security of our Allies.”

“With this agreement, the United States and Russia – the two largest nuclear powers in the world – also send a clear signal that we intend to lead. By upholding our own commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, we strengthen our global efforts to stop the spread of these weapons, and to ensure that other nations meet their own responsibilities.”

The president asked for there to be “strong, bipartisan” support to ratify the new START treaty in Congress, and said that will be one more step forward in “leaving behind the legacy of the 20th century.”'


The Russians, of course are ecstatic, although Russia warned in its statement that it reserved the right to withdraw from the new treaty if it felt that American missile defense plans were developing in a way that threatened their security.

Why wouldn't they be happy with this? They already know that Obama is not going to put up missile defense shields in Europe, and this gives them a free hand there. And we demanded nothing in terms of a quid pro quo...say, on Iran.

The ostensible reason for doing this, to quote Obama is '...to stop the spread of these weapons, and to ensure that other nations meet their own responsibilities.'

As I write this, the Russians are actively working to get Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant and a number of other facilities up to speed and blocking any major efforts by the West to stop the Mullahs from getting their hands on deliverable nuclear weapons.

It would seem that cutting back on America's nuclear deterrent in an effort to stop proliferation is an pretty futile way ineffective way of accomplishing that.

This is eerily reminiscent of the Kellog-Briand treaty in 1929, which featured arms limitations with the idea of 'outlawing' future wars. It helped accomplish just the opposite.

Words, just words..."


Don't hold your breath waiting for Iran and North Korea to voluntarily give up their nukes. This performance by Obama would be comical if it were not so dangerous.

Is the VAT Around the Corner?

The brilliant Krauthammer gives us a good indication of what we can look forward to as the Obama Administration attempts to reduce our ginormous deficit.

Why do I feel like I'm in the middle of a nightmare?

Read from Real Clear Politics:

The VAT Cometh
By Charles Krauthammer

"As the night follows the day, the VAT cometh.

With the passage of Obamacare, creating a vast new middle-class entitlement, a national sales tax of the kind near-universal in Europe is inevitable.

We are now $8 trillion in debt. The Congressional Budget Office projects that another $12 trillion will be added over the next decade. Obamacare, when stripped of its budgetary gimmicks -- the unfunded $200 billion-plus doctor fix, the double counting of Medicare cuts, the 10-6 sleight-of-hand (counting 10 years of revenue and only 6 years of outflows) -- is at minimum a $2 trillion new entitlement.

It will vastly increase the debt. But even if it were revenue-neutral, Obamacare pre-empts and appropriates for itself the best and easiest means of reducing the existing deficit. Obamacare's $500 billion of cuts in Medicare and $600 billion in tax hikes are no longer available for deficit reduction. They are siphoned off for the new entitlement of insuring the uninsured.

This is fiscally disastrous because, as President Obama himself explained last year in unveiling his grand transformational policies, our unsustainable fiscal path requires control of entitlement spending, the most ruinous of which is out-of-control health care costs.

Obamacare was sold on the premise that, as Nancy Pelosi put it, 'health care reform is entitlement reform. Our budget cannot take this upward spiral of cost.' But the bill enacted on Tuesday accelerates the spiral: It radically expands Medicaid (adding 15 million new recipients/dependents) and shamelessly raids Medicare by spending on a new entitlement the $500 billion in cuts and the yield from the Medicare tax hikes.

Obama knows that the debt bomb is looming, that Moody's is warning that the Treasury's AAA rating is in jeopardy, that we are headed for a run on the dollar and/or hyperinflation if nothing is done.

Hence his deficit reduction commission. It will report (surprise!) after the November elections.

What will it recommend? What can it recommend? Sure, Social Security can be trimmed by raising the retirement age, introducing means testing and changing the indexing formula from wage growth to price inflation.

But this won't be nearly enough. As Obama has repeatedly insisted, the real money is in health care costs -- which are now locked in place by the new Obamacare mandates.

That's where the value-added tax comes in. For the politician, it has the virtue of expediency: People are used to sales taxes, and this one produces a river of revenue. Every 1 percent of VAT would yield up to $1 trillion a decade (depending on what you exclude -- if you exempt food, for example, the yield would be more like $900 billion).

It's the ultimate cash cow. Obama will need it. By introducing universal health care, he has pulled off the largest expansion of the welfare state in four decades. And the most expensive. Which is why all of the European Union has the VAT. Huge VATs. Germany: 19 percent. France and Italy: 20 percent. Most of Scandinavia: 25 percent.

American liberals have long complained that ours is the only advanced industrial country without universal health care. Well, now we shall have it. And as we approach European levels of entitlements, we will need European levels of taxation.

Obama set out to be a consequential president, on the order of Ronald Reagan. With the VAT, Obama's triumph will be complete. He will have succeeded in reversing Reaganism. Liberals have long complained that Reagan's strategy was to starve the (governmental) beast in order to shrink it: First, cut taxes -- then ultimately you have to reduce government spending.

Obama's strategy is exactly the opposite: Expand the beast, and then feed it. Spend first -- which then forces taxation. Now that, with the institution of universal health care, we are becoming the full entitlement state, the beast will have to be fed.

And the VAT is the only trough in creation large enough.

As a substitute for the income tax, the VAT would be a splendid idea. Taxing consumption makes infinitely more sense than taxing work. But to feed the liberal social-democratic project, the VAT must be added on top of the income tax.

Ultimately, even that won't be enough. As the population ages and health care becomes increasingly expensive, the only way to avoid fiscal ruin (as Britain, for example, has discovered) is health care rationing.

It will take a while to break the American populace to that idea. In the meantime, get ready for the VAT. Or start fighting it."


I have a marvelous idea. Since our politicians got us into this mess, how about we line them up and have each and everyone of them, on both sides of the aisle, who voted for ANY of this excessive spending do their part in reducing our debt by donating 95% of their net worth to the cause of deficit reduction? I think that's only fair.

How's That "Hope and Change" Treating You?

How does a debt of 90% of GDP sound? Oh, the joys of the "hope and change" administration, as the American Pravda yawns.

Read from Gateway Pundit:

TOTAL DEVASTATION… Obama Will Force US Debt to Soar to 90% of GDP

"Barack Obama and Democrats tripled the national deficit in one year. They will likely top that this year.



But, it’s even worse then we thought.
Barack Obama’s budget will force the US debt to soar to 90% of the GDP.
The Washington Times reported:


'President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation’s economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president’s budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

“An additional $1.2 trillion in debt dumped on [GDP] to our children makes a huge difference,” said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “That represents an additional debt of $10,000 per household above and beyond the federal debt they are already carrying.”'"

Cloward Piven Enacted

What the Democrats are doing to businesses through their outrageous healthcare bill is almost criminal in nature. In their efforts to spread the wealth, they are further destroying an economy which is currently on life support. There is no possible way the libs are unaware of the ramifications of their policies. This is an intentional destruction of the American economy, better known as Cloward Piven.

Read from Atlas Shrugs:

ATT, Verizon, Deere, Caterpillar Suffer Bloody Billion Dollar Bill -- Deadly Obamacare Kills Business, Jobs

"You think Obama has been a nightmare? You ain't seen nothing yet. That was just the previews.

Have you seen the commercials yet for people who have maxed out their credit cards, have loans over ten thousand that they can't pay back, urging them to apply for stimulus dollars? It's enough to make you puke. For those who played by the rules, worked hard, did the right thing -- you're screwed, the man has you and your wallet and your kids' wallet by the throat. Welcome to the era of the degenerate -- they will be sucking your blood and your children's blood and your children's children's blood for decades to come, or however long America lasts.

American business, the motor of the global economy, was dealt a deathblow by the marxist putsch delivered by the Demo-rat party. The numbers are staggering. AT&T, the largest telephone company in the country, will take a one billion dollar hit in the current quarter as a result of this economic attack on America.


'Verizon Communications, the second biggest U.S. phone company, told employees that tax burdens under the new law would likely filter down to employees.

Other companies that announced health care reform related charges include Deere, a maker of farm equipment, which sees a US$150-million charge for its current quarter, and Caterpillar, which warned of a US $100-million charge.'


Who do you think will pay for this? We will pay. Business is not something in the abstract, or the evil force the leftists and the communists deceptively smear it to be -- business is work, business is people, it is jobs, it is production. When business pays, we pay. Jobs pay. Consumers pay.

Notice how Obama bad news always drops on Friday nights. You won't be able to keep the reality and the consequences of Obama rule.

Why wasn't this made public before the vote?

AT&T will take $1B non-cash charge for health care Forbes


'AT&T Inc. will take a $1 billion non-cash accounting charge in the first quarter because of the health care overhaul and may cut benefits it offers to current and retired workers.

The charge is the largest disclosed so far. Earlier this week, AK Steel Corp., Caterpillar Inc., Deere & Co. and Valero Energy announced similar accounting charges, saying the health care law that President Barack Obama signed Tuesday will raise their expenses. On Friday, 3M Co. said it will also take a charge of $85 million to $90 million.

All five are smaller than AT&T, and their combined charges are less than half of the $1 billion that AT&T is planning. The $1 billion is a third of AT&T's most recent quarterly earnings. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the company earned $3 billion on revenue of $30.9 billion.

AT&T said Friday that the charge reflects changes to how Medicare subsidies are taxed. Companies say the health care overhaul will require them to start paying taxes next year on a subsidy they receive for retiree drug coverage.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday that the tax law closed a loophole.

Under the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been able to receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs. But they could deduct the entire amount they spent on these drug benefits - including the subsidies - from their taxable income.

The new law allows companies to only deduct the 72 percent they spent.

AT&T also said Friday that it is looking into changing the health care benefits it offers because of the new law. Analysts say retirees could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers as a result of the overhaul.'

What Goes Around, Comes Around

The libs can dish it out, but they sure can't take it. I seem to recollect an abundance of vitriol during the eight years of George W. Bush. In fact, the treatment of Bush was far more over-the-top than anything that has been said about their dear savior, Barack Obama.

Is it my imagination, or was there a movie produced about the assassination of Bush, not to mention, a book? Didn't someone on Air America pretend to shoot Bush, including gun shot noises? These are just two of the examples of liberal rage.

But, now that they have their candidate in office, we are supposed to roll over and play dead. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. America is still a nation of free speech. Obama is working to change that, but he's not implemented his "silence the opposition" treatment yet.

Read from the American Thinker:

Liberals are not much on short term memory
Ethel C. Fenig

"Oh sure, death threats, bullets and even vile language and other stunts against opposition politicians are to be condemned as Democratic politicians, foaming at the mouth and brain, are demanding. The poor dears just can't take it when the garbage is hurled at them. But just a few short years ago, the Dems and other assorted liberals were silent as the dirt, the lies, the gleeful thoughts of the death of President George W. Bush (R) grew louder and louder from their core, not just the fringe.

Heck, all this happened more recently than a few short years ago, it is happening now. Sarah Palin anyone? And who uttered these threats? Why, the Democrats. The liberals. And they justified it by babbling freedom of speech, street theater not to mention their own moral superiority. And of course they cited President Barack Obama's (D) community organizing mentor, Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals.


Alinsky begins this way:


'What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. (snip)

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do. (snip)

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. "You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

Rule 5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

(snip)

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage."

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.'


And the famous


Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don't try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. "The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength."


Ps-s-st! Obama is still following these rules.

Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, apparently some opponents of Obamacare, deliberately or not, remembering the tactics used against Bush--and even themselves--decided to employ them. And boo! hoo!, proving they can dish it out but can't take it, the liberals are crying foul! As Victor Davis Hanson puts it

More Bottled Piety


'This week's talking point is the sudden danger of new right-wing violence, and the inflammatory push-back against health care. I'm sorry, but all this concern is a day late and a dollar short. The subtext is really one of class - right-wing radio talk-show hosts, Glenn Beck idiots, and crass tea-party yokels are foaming at the mouth and dangerous to progressives. In contrast, write a book in which you muse about killing George Bush, and its Knopf imprint proves it is merely sophisticated literary speculation; do a docudrama about killing George Bush, and it will win a Toronto film prize for its artistic value rather than shock from the liberal community about over-the-top discourse.

Socialism and totalitarianism are tough charges from the hard right, but they seem to me about as (or as not) over-the-top as Al Gore screaming 'digital brown-shirts' (snip)

When 3,000 were murdered in Manhattan, and Michael Moore suggested Bin Laden had wrongly targeted a blue state, I don't think that repulsive remark prevented liberal politicians from attending his anti-Bush film premiere.'


Indeed, Moore won an Academy Award from his fawning believers for another movie.

So libs, stop playing helpless victim. Acknowledge your nasty contribution to the low level of political discourse and then...grin and bear it while you behave yourself.

Sure you will."


Isn't it interesting that the libs follow Alinsky and his tactics? Isn't he the one who dedicated his book "Rules for Radicals" to Lucifer, otherwise known as Satan? Figures.

The Department of Energy

How our government screw us! The Department of Energy--a total waste of taxpayers' dollars. A great email:

"Does anybody out there have any memory
Of the reason given for the establishment
Of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

During the Carter Administration?

Anything?

No?

We've spent several hundred billion dollars
In support of an agency ....the reason
For which not one person who reads
This can remember.

Ready???????

It was very simple ..
And at the time everybody thought
It very appropriate...

The 'Department of Energy'
Was instituted on
8-04-1977
TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE
ON FOREIGN OIL.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh?????

AND NOW IT'S 2010,
32 YEARS LATER
AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS
NECESSARY DEPARTMENT
IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR
IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
AND APPROXIMATELY
100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES
AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE!"

Libtalker Calls for Deaths of Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reilly

Real classy! Now, who are the hate mongers? Listen to this, and you will soon see:

From Breitbart, via Big Government:

Obama's Temper Tantrum

Jewish Americans, what on earth were you thinking when you voted for the most anti-Semitic president in the history of our nation? And the sick part is that you will do so again in 2012.

Read about the childish temper tantrum on the part of the American president when he didn't get his way when dealing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, via Gateway Pundit:

Obama Refuses to Dine With Jewish Leader

"Do you remember when Jesse Jackson said that under Obama Jews would lose all of their clout?
He was right.


(Top left clockwise) Barack and Michelle Obama and radical Leftist anti-Israel Professor Edward Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Edward Said gave the keynote speech. (Bill Baar’s West Side), Former PLO operative and close friend of the Obama’s Rashid Khalidi, Barack Obama and his racist minister Jeremiah Wright, and close terrorist friend William Ayers.

In an unprecedented move, Barack Obama refused to dine with the Jewish leader on Wednesday.
Nile Gardiner said it best:

Barack Obama’s humiliation of Israel is a disgrace


'I wrote recently about Barack Obama’s sneering contempt for both Israel and Great Britain. Further confirmation of this was provided today with new details emerging regarding the President’s appalling reception for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House earlier this week. As Adrian Blomfield reports for The Telegraph:


"Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family, it emerged on Thursday. The snub marked a fresh low in US-Israeli relations and appeared designed to show Mr Netanyahu how low his stock had fallen in Washington after he refused to back down in a row over Jewish construction in east Jerusalem.

… (Mr. Obama) immediately presented Mr Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands designed both to the end the feud with his administration and to build Palestinian confidence ahead of the resumption of peace talks. Key among those demands was a previously-made call to halt all new settlement construction in east Jerusalem.

When the Israeli prime minister stalled, Mr Obama rose from his seat declaring: 'I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.' As he left, Mr Netanyahu was told to consider the error of his ways. 'I’m still around,' Mr Obama is quoted by Israel’s Yediot Ahronot newspaper as having said. 'Let me know if there is anything new.'"


This is no way to treat America’s closest ally in the Middle East, and a true friend of the United States. I very much doubt that even third world tyrants would be received in such a rude fashion by the president. In fact, they would probably be warmly welcomed by the Obama White House as part of its “engagement” strategy, while the leaders of Britain and Israel are frequently met with arrogant disdain.

The ritual humiliation of the Israelis is an absolute disgrace, and yet another example of how the Obama administration views its allies with indifference, contempt, and at times outright hostility. It is extraordinary how far the Obama team has gone out of its way to grovel to state sponsors of terrorism, such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Muammar Gaddafi, while kicking America’s friends in the teeth.'


Read the whole thing.

Reader Michael G. added:


'It is funny how all the things conservatives worried about pre-election, which were poopoo-ed by the media, seem to be coming to fruit in the Obama administration.'


Actually, it’s much worse than we thought."


Rick Moran, over at the American Thinker also covered this story and said the following:

"It isn't just the snub that is frightening, it's the pettiness of it. There is an element of childishness in the gesture that can't be ignored. Big, grown-up superpowers don't act this way toward even their worst enemy. It's as if dangerously stupid children had taken over our foreign policy and there's no adult supervision to give them any limits.

Our president treats our allies with a breathtaking contempt that beggars belief. Consider how he has virtually destroyed the 'special relationship' the US has had with Great Britain for more than 100 years. Presenting the Queen of England with an I-pod filled with his speeches? Returning a bust of Winston Churchill - WINSTON CHURCHILL? Refusing photo ops with the Prime Minister of Great Britain? Treating our allies in Copenhagen with an imperiousness that borders on megalomania? Stiffing the Poles and Czechs over missile defense?

I'm not making any of this up. And to ignore the pattern of behavior of this administration as they treat our allies in this way while speaking kindly, and gently to Iran, Venezuela, Syria and other leftist thugs in the world, abandoning the promotion of democracy and human rights - the question asks itself; will we have any allies left by the time Obama leaves office?"

More Devastating News About ObamaCare

As the days tick by, we find out that ObamaCare is much worse than anticipated. It's a job killer in an already depressed economy. Just what we need. Will this become another one of Obama's crises for which he can take advantage as his Rahm Emanuel so honestly admitted?

Read of yet another devastating consequence to ObamaCare, via the Patriot Room:

AP: Obamacare will cost up to 2 million retirees their prescription benefits

"But, but, but, I thought if you liked your current plan, you could keep it? See, when the government takes over, all you can do is call your congressman, because Congress, not your company, is now in charge of your health care. How do you like Obamacare so far?


'The health care overhaul will cost U.S. companies billions and make them more likely to drop prescription drug coverage for retirees because of a change in how the government subsidizes those benefits.

In the first two days after the law was signed, three major companies ? Deere & Co., Caterpillar Inc. and Valero Energy ? said they expect to take a total hit of $265 million to account for smaller tax deductions in the future. . . .

Figuring out what it will mean for retirees will take longer, but analysts said as many as 2 million could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers, leaving them to enroll in Medicare's program.'"


How's that "hope and change" treating you? As we move closer and closer to becoming a third world nation, we can still take pride in the fact that the leader of our banana republic is still one fine orator.

Doesn't that make you feel better? You may have lost your job, your home, and your life savings, but chin up, you've got one mighty good speaker for president.

"The Worst Moment in U.S.-Israeli Relations"

President Obama wants Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition pushed out of office in hopes that Tzipi Livni and the Kadima party will be brought back to power because he knows that she is more likely to cave to his demands. Therefore, Obama is out to make Bibi appear weak before the Israeli people.

This may very well backfire on the anti-Semitic American president. Israelis must be enraged by the appalling treatment their prime minister received while in Washington. My guess is that they will rally around their leader when it's all said and done. Besides, with a nuclear Iran, the Jewish nation cannot afford to have a weak leader.

Neither can America, but apparently the Israelis were a little wiser than the majority of Americans who chose the foreign policy weakling for president.

Read from JPundit, via Israel Matzav:

The Peace Process in Our Time

"Gideon Rose, the managing editor of Foreign Affairs, held an on-the-record conference call today with Ehud Yaari, an International Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Middle East Commentator for Channel 2 in Israel, who was speaking from Jerusalem while awaiting the return of Benjamin Netanyahu from the United States.

Rose asked Yaari to provide his 'first-hand take on what’s going on right now' and received this response (the quotes are from my transcription):


… 'I think that the sense among the Israeli delegation coming back from D.C. right now is that they fell into a trap. The general sense in Israel right now is that the Prime Minister was [unintelligible] humiliated by President Obama. There is quite a degree of amazement at the way he was treated. I think it’s fair to say that neither the Prime Minister nor his Defense Minister Ehud Barak were aware [beforehand] of the kind of reception that they were greeted with at the White House. They did not expect the Obama administration to insist on a freeze of all activities in east Jerusalem, including those Jewish neighborhoods built decades ago, which was understood with both Presidents Clinton and Bush would remain part of Israel in any future peace settlement.'


Rose asked whether the essence of the problem was Netanyahu’s statement at AIPAC that 'Jerusalem is not a settlement':


'Yes. I think every Israeli prime minister — let’s assume the leader of the opposition Kadima Party Tzipi Livni was prime minister now, she would say exactly the same [thing], and she would not refute what I am saying now – it’s impossible for any Israeli prime minister to say that he is going to forego Jerusalem before final status negotiations with the Palestinians for an end-of-conflict, end-of-claims [agreement]. … And it was always understood between Israel and the United States, and I venture to say also between Israel and Mr. Abbas, that [the Jewish neighborhoods] were going to stay part of Israel in any future peace deal. …'


Rose asked how important Yaari thought the current moment is:


'I think it is the worst moment in U.S.-Israeli relations … going back to Eisenhower-Ben Gurion in ’56. But I hope it’s only a moment, and not an extended period. But I think that what should be of concern to anybody interested in advancing the peace process is the fact that at this moment, despite the rhetoric to the contrary, we have a lot of daylight, a lot of space, between Israel and the United States, and a very strong sense in Israel, including amongst many people who are not fans of the present government and Mr. Netanyahu – people who were extremely enthusiastic about the election of President Obama – people feel that this administration is seeking to maintain distance from Israel, to maintain some sort of ongoing strain and tension, if not a continuing crisis, in order to serve probably broader objectives in the Middle East.'


Rose asked whether Yaari viewed this as an attempt to disrupt Netanyahu’s coalition and make the government fall:


'Absolutely so. I think that the sense in Israel right now — as I said the Prime Minister is just about to land, is that Mr. Netanyahu and Barak — and it’s very important that he took with him the Defense Minister, because he wanted to reassure President Obama that he is indeed talking about a two-state solution, that he is bringing his closest ally, the defense minister, who was the man who made the proposal at Camp David in 2000 — but instead he was presented by what is perceived at the moment at least as demands that are very difficult to accept.

If the American moves are generated by the wish to see a different government in Israel, then I have to say that, number one, I don’t think that the Netanyahu coalition is about to disintegrate; and number two, I do not think that the Kadima party – Livni – who seems to be viewed more favorably in Washington – that she is going to join the coalition any time soon. And if indeed the coalition breaks down and we go to early elections, I can assure you – I will take the responsibility for that – that the right wing will win.'


The extraordinary aspect of this manufactured crisis is that as Iran proceeds steadily toward nuclear weapons, while the Obama administration lowers its sights from 'crippling' sanctions to ones that will 'bite' Iran’s ankles, the administration has decided to provoke a fight over long-standing Jewish neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem, which were not the critical issue even in the 'peace process,' much less the broader Middle East.

At least, they weren’t until Obama elevated them into a precondition not previously raised as a barrier to any prior negotiation -- but which now have elevated Palestinian and Arab expectations beyond the level that any Israeli prime minister can fully satisfy."

DC Madam

Warning from Osama

Our poor weak president has a dilemma on his hands. Osama bin Laden is threatening to kill any captured Americans if the Obama Administration kills KSM and his fellow savages down at Gitmo. What to do? My guess is Obama will cave. He wouldn't want to inflame his fellow Muslims.

Read the details from Atlas Shrugs:



Osama Warns Obama -- Hands off 911 Mastermind KSM
Will Obama Go Easy on KSM or Risk Upsetting Jihadis Worldwide?

"Based on O-logic (I know, Obama logic is an oxymoron), Khalid Sheik Mohammed will serve as a 'recruiting tool' for the global jihad, much the way 'GITMO' too is responsible for jihadist acts of war (not the ideology, islamic texts or koranic verses that really inspire them).

Obama and his thugocracy has insisted upon shuttering GITMO because it is a recruiting tool for the jihad. As if. Before GITMO, before Iraq, before Afghanistan ........there was 911, there was the Cole, Khobar, WTC 1993, Marine barrack bombings, etc. etc. etc --

So based on O's flawed logic, he should release Khalid Sheik Mohammed, much the same way as Mohamedou Slahi -- a known al Qaeda recruiter who worked for Osama bin Laden -- was freed from Guantanamo. Do not insult Islam. Respect it!


Bin Laden: Americans Will Die if Alleged 9/11 Mastermind Is Executed


'Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden threatened in a new audio recording released Thursday to kill any captured Americans if the U.S. executes the accused mastermind of the Sept.11 attacks or any other Al Qaeda suspects.

The U.S. is still considering whether to put Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four of his fellow plotters on military tribunal for their role in the Sept. 11 attacks. The Obama administration is also looking into recommendations for civilian trials, and is expected to announce a decision soon.

In a brief 74-second audio tape aired on Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden said if the U.S. decides to execute any Al Qaeda suspects in its custody -- and explicitly mentioned Mohammed -- his terror network would kill American captives.

The terror leader said such a decision "would mean the U.S. has issued a death sentence against whoever of you becomes a prisoner in our hands."

"Your friend at the White House is still walking in the footsteps of those before (him) in many important matters," including escalating the war in Afghanistan and "oppressing our prisoners that you are holding, beginning with the mujahid hero Khalid al Sheikh Mohammed," he added.

U.S. politicians have "oppressed us and still do, especially by backing Israel, which occupies the land of Palestine," the Al Qaeda chief said.

It was not immediately clear whether Al Qaeda currently has any U.S. captives, but the Haqqani group -- the Pakistan-based Taliban faction closest to Al Qaeda -- is holding an American soldier it captured in eastern Afghanistan in June 2009. It released a video of him in December.

In a veiled threat, bin Laden said Americans had previously thought their homeland was beyond the reach of his group until the 9/11 attack.

Mohammed, who was captured in Pakistan in 2003, is the most senior Al Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, and is currently in detention at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In 2008, the U.S. charged him with murder and war crimes in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks. Pentagon officials have said they'll seek the death penalty.

"It's the height of absurdity for anyone associated with Al Qaeda to even suggest that now, at long last, they're going to start treating captives badly. They may have forgotten Danny Pearl and all the others they've slaughtered, but we haven't," a U.S. counterterrorism official said in response to the newest message.

"If this is bin Laden and he wants to weigh in on legal proceedings involving 9/11 conspirators, I challenge him to show up in court to make his case. Frankly, that's about all the comment this deserves.'"


Since when does he not kill captured Americans? Who does bin Laden think he is fooling? Oh that's right, the naive president of the United States, Barack Obama.