Showing posts with label State Of Nation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State Of Nation. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

A Rudderless Ship Of State

By Chuck Baldwin

In Patrick Henry's immortal "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" speech, he said, "[I]t is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth." Never have Henry's words been truer than they are today. For too long, good men have turned a blind eye to the obvious reality that America's Ship of State has swerved significantly off course. In fact, it is no hyperbole to say that America's Ship of State is completely rudderless and, absent a speedy course correction, seems destined to crash against the rocks of oppression and economic ruin in the very near future. For anyone willing to open their eyes, the manifestations of America's almost-certain collision with history are everywhere.

America's Liberty Ship is dependent upon the twin mainsails of Morality and Constitutional Government to stay on course. It is an irrefutable and irreversible law that these twin sails are indissolubly linked. We cannot have one without the other. America's founders clearly understood this.

For example, our second President, John Adams, said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Samuel Adams (called the "Father of the American Revolution") said, "He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of this country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man . . . The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people."

Thomas Jefferson (the author of the Declaration of Independence and our third President) said, "Self-love . . . is the sole antagonist of virtue, leading us constantly by our propensities to self-gratification in violation of our moral duties to others."

Jefferson also said, "[If a] people [are] so demoralized and depraved as to be incapable of exercising a wholesome control, their reformation [must] be taken up ab incunabulis [from the beginning]. Their minds [must] be informed by education what is right and what wrong, [must] be encouraged in habits of virtue and deterred from those of vice by the dread of punishments, proportioned indeed, but irremissible; in all cases, to follow truth as the only safe guide, and to eschew error, which bewilders us in one false consequence after another in endless succession. These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure of order and good government."

Our first President, George Washington (called the "Father of his Country"), said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens."

And to quote Patrick Henry again, "Bad men cannot make good citizens . . . A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom."

Yet, what do we see taking place all over America--including in the halls of government, the boardrooms of business, and the sanctuaries of churches? An almost complete and total breakdown of morality. And by a breakdown of morality, I am referring to much more than sexual immorality.

Morality demands honesty and equity in judgment. Morality is selfless.

Morality is humble. Morality is jealous over truth and justice. Morality would never jeopardize the future on the altar of the present. Morality does not place personal advancement above principle. Morality respects its heritage and honors its ancestors. And Morality gladly submits to lawful authority, especially divine authority.

But compare basic morality to the modus operandi of today's governments, businesses, and churches. Instead of truth and moral principles, we find people who are almost totally absorbed by a culture of deceit, selfishness, ambition, and greed. Rightly does the Scripture say, "The love of money is the root of all evil." (I Timothy 6:10) Of more than one church or nonprofit ministry leader could it be said, "He doesn't let his Christianity get in the way of his business." Ditto for many so-called Christian businessmen and politicians. In fact, a good many religious leaders and churchmen today would not take a backseat to the most greedy, corrupt politician, or shady businessman that could be found.

Sunday-by-Sunday, pastors prostitute themselves to wealthy contributors, community leaders, or politicians. Day-by-day, unscrupulous bankers and businessmen give the shaft to honest, hardworking Americans. And almost hour-by-hour, politicians sell their souls to the highest bidder--even if that bidder represents values and principles that would destroy freedom and liberty in our land.

How is it that pastors are unwilling to educate themselves (and their congregants) about the dangers and pitfalls to which America's leaders are subjecting us? How is it that businessmen will smugly look the other way as their practices advance the causes of our enemies and weaken our own country? How is it that politicians will allow themselves to be corrupted, not only by evil forces from within America, but also by devilish forces from alien powers?

As a result of this total breakdown of basic morality in virtually every distinguished element within the American framework, constitutional governance is also virtually nonexistent. Adams was right: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral . . . people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

America's political officeholders routinely ignore their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution. Routinely! Many have never read the Constitution, or if they have, they desire neither to understand nor to obey it. And even worse is the fact that most Americans (including America's spiritual leaders) seem totally unbothered by it all. As long as their favorite politician, political party, or personal cause benefits, they could not care less whether the Constitution is followed or not. More than 50 years of moral relativism has now reached almost total and complete social saturation.

If I'm a Republican, it doesn't matter if the Constitution is followed as long as Republicans win elections. And Democrats behave the same way. "As long as my party wins, who cares about the Constitution, honesty, or truth?"

is the attitude of many politically involved Americans--including many Christian Americans.

Democrats don't care if Bill Clinton or Barack Obama lies, and Republicans don't care if George H. W. Bush or George W. Bush lies. The only time we care about someone lying is when it's the person from the "other" party. If the "other" party promotes evil, we are enraged, but when "our" party promotes evil, we sit on our anatomical posteriors in complete silence and with full approbation.

And this is the bottom line: because We the People have lost our morality and fidelity to constitutional government, we have countless conscienceless criminals located at virtually every level in and out of the federal government (political party notwithstanding) that are up to their necks in total and absolute EVIL! I mean down-in-the-gutter, Genghis Khan-type evil.

I'm talking about drug running, kidnappings, sexual exploitations, assassinations, family ruinations, illegal imprisonments, torture, and mass murder. If they desire it, they do it (or hire/order it done). Because there is no moral compass guiding our churches and businesses, there is no moral compass guiding those Machiavellians in Washington, D.C. After all, where do all these politicians, bureaucrats, blood-merchants, and mercenaries come from, if not from within our own social and religious establishments?

Until we wake up to the fact that our country, our Constitution, our liberties, and our future are up against evil--PURE, UNADULTERATED EVIL--we are never going to be able to muster the dedication and resolve required to turn this Ship of State around. Until we get our heads out of the sand and start seeing things as they are (and not as the national news media wants us to see them), until we are willing to stop indulging in the illusions of hope, and until we stop shutting our eyes against a painful truth, it will not matter to a tinker's dam who we elect or which party is in power. Folks, wake up to it: WE ARE FIGHTING AN EVIL SYSTEM!! And there is nothing that the people who are caught up in this evil system will not do. Nothing! They will steal; they will lie; they will cheat; they will kill; they will rape; they will pillage; they will plunder; they will do ANYTHING they think is necessary to fulfill their evil machinations.

Setting our Ship of State aright starts with We the People returning to the basic, moral laws of right and wrong. Whether it is business, religion, or politics, right is right and wrong is wrong! (And one does not have to be a born-again Christian to know right from wrong: anyone who understands and respects the principles of Natural Law can and will be an ally in the fight for right. In fact, sometimes our enemies come from within our family--even the family of faith. See Matthew 10:36.) It means to stop covering for evildoers, whether that person belongs to our own political party or even our own family. It means to stop living for personal gain and advancement.

It means being honest and demanding honesty in others. It means elevating truth to a position above expediency. It means acknowledging that there is a Supreme Authority to which all men must submit--and I'm not referring to the US Supreme Court.

America's Ship of State is currently rudderless. And as long as we are expecting someone in Washington, D.C., to fix the problem, we will continue to be lost--adrift in a sea of evil and criminality. To get America's Ship of State back on course, you and I must get back on course. And it starts by being willing to OPEN OUR EYES TO PAINFUL TRUTH.

Read more >>

Friday, January 29, 2010

There Was the President's Speech, and There Is Reality

by David Limbaugh

Watching President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech makes me wonder whether the reason he tells so many fibs is that he believes them himself. Either that or he is an even better actor than he is a teleprompter reader.

Obama not only wasn't contrite about his broken promises and disastrous record; he was on the attack, daring anyone to oppose his agenda -- even in the face of the Massachusetts rebuke. But let's see how some of his statements match up with reality.

On health care, he taunted congressmen to "let me know" if any of them have "a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses," as if his own plan would do those things.

Even the Congressional Budget Office has said most of the Democratic plans would increase the budget. Besides, you can't reduce overall costs when government forces an increase in demand, even if it caps insurance premiums and shifts costs elsewhere and/or imposes rationing. The CBO has also reported that with Obamacare, millions would remain uninsured. So under his plan, costs would rise, quality and choice would decrease, care would be rationed, millions would remain uninsured and, worst of all, the government would acquire an unprecedented level of control over all aspects of our lives.

Do conservatives have better ideas? Of course. Restore market forces through tort reform, strengthening health savings accounts, abolishing government coverage mandates, allowing consumers to purchase policies across state lines and eliminating the tax laws incentivizing employer-provided health care, which unnecessarily increase demand by making prices invisible to consumers.

A candid Obama would have said, "If any of you have a plan that does not involve restoring market forces and reducing government's role in the health care industry, I'll at least pretend to look at it." "Make no mistake," neither Obama nor his Democratic colleagues will support genuine health care reform, because to reduce costs, we must reduce government control, and they can't abide that. Period.

As for spending, Obama didn't once apologize for his reckless expenditures. Instead, he blamed his soaring deficits on his predecessor, completely misrepresenting the projected deficits under President Bush and ignoring his own deliberate doubling of the national debt over the next 10 years. That's the issue Americans are losing sleep over, and he offers only Band-Aids and smoke and mirrors.

He says he will freeze a portion of the discretionary budget, but as Cato Institute reports, 83 percent of the budget will be off-limits. Other than his "stimulus" insanity, the real explosion in spending is occurring in the entitlements that he refuses to touch. Even his mini-freeze wouldn't begin until 2011 (why wait?), and it would be dwarfed by his planned spending increases for other socialistic projects, including a new "stimulus plan." And how about that assault on personal and fiscal responsibility with his promise to forgive student loans after 20 years?

How Obama can stand before the nation and insist on spending more borrowed money to accomplish something his first "stimulus plan" didn't achieve (job creation), but exacerbated, is beyond me. How he can blame President Bush for his own broken promise that unemployment wouldn't exceed 8 percent if his "stimulus" bill were implemented is jaw-dropping. He even said he saved 2 million jobs. Scary delusional! Or scary sinister!

Speaking of chutzpah, did he actually dare to utter the words "transparent" and "accountable"? How about those phantom legislative districts receiving stimulus monies, Mr. President? How about that promise to televise the health care debates on C-SPAN?

He said he hadn't raised income taxes "a single dime" on 95 percent of the people. Yet in almost the same breath, he promised to redouble his efforts on cap and tax, which would increase the average family's energy costs by almost $3,000 per year. I don't believe his campaign promise was limited to income taxes, by the way.

How about his righteous ranting on earmark reform? Sorry, we've been down that twisted road with you before, Mr. President.

Then there was his audacious riff on lobbyists. Been there, done that, too, Mr. President, with your phony promise to keep lobbyists out of the White House.

Obama also railed against "partisanship, shouting and pettiness" as he filled most of his speech with just those things, even castigating the Supreme Court, erroneously, for opening the door to foreign corporations' campaign contributions.

How about his statement that "America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity"? Hmm. Tell that to the Iranian and Honduran peoples. He must have meant once he's out of office.

Then there was his bizarre out-of-body pivot, when he blamed Washington for our problems.

All of this, especially Obama's obvious incapacity for self-doubt, is disturbingly surreal.

Read more >>

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Cartoons depicting the REAL STATE of the UNION... More later...

Some cartoons from around the web that show the State of the Union. Please share these, and also ask your friends to follow worth-reading. In these trying times, we need to stay informed!

Read more >>

State of the Union Demands Real Change!

Andrea Lafferty, Executive Director, released the following statement regarding President Obama’s State of the Union speech tonight:
America elected Barack Obama because voters wanted “change.” Tonight’s State of the Union speech makes it clear that it is Barack Obama who now needs to “change.” It is his failed political philosophy and tone deafness to the desires of the American people regarding jobs and the economy that needs to “change.”
 
In all of those staged campaign “town meetings,” the President dismissed foreign affairs as just a matter of being friendly and talking with the most violent dictators in Iran, Venezuela and China. He tried the smiling and backslapping, and it got us nowhere with international criminals like Ahmadinejad, Castro and Chavez.
 
The President wore out a dozen teleprompters with speeches about his stimulus program. His theory was to give money to banks and get them to give it to their customers, but he didn’t bother to tell the banks that. “Raises and bonuses for everybody!” cheered the bankers, as they opened their “stimulus” checks written with taxpayer funds.
 
In short, President Obama needs to “change” immediately and start leading and acting to aid an economic recovery and to protect America from terrorists who have been emboldened by his groveling and “apology tours.”
 
Forget blaming Bush and limply invoking Reagan. Obama needs to demonstrate that he has a vision for the future of America, and it doesn’t require the government to take over industry – it requires the government to get out of the way of private enterprise.
 
The State of the Union is not so good, Mr. President, and it is time that you “change” your big-spending solutions to something real that will allow job-creation and economic expansion to occur, and take steps to convince thugs who seek to bully America that they are mistaken. In spite of our confused political leadership, Americans are strong and determined to carry on the legacy of generations of patriots.
Read more >>

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Have Liberals Lost Faith in The Anointed One?

Aaron Goldstein

It was only a year ago that Barack Obama held liberals spellbound. His every word was taken as the gospel truth to power. But when Obama couldn’t convince Massachusetts voters to support Martha Coakley in last week’s election he managed to leave liberals in a dizzy spell. Obama wasn’t the Anointed One after all and out came the slings and arrows.

Consider what New York Times columnist and fellow Nobel laureate Paul Krugman wrote about Obama in a column titled, “He Wasn’t The One We’ve Been Waiting For”:

But I have to say, I'm pretty closed to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in. (1)

This is far cry from the Krugman who wrote of Obama days after the 2008 election, “Can Barack Obama really usher in a new era of progressive policies? Yes, he can.” (2)

Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic expressed similar feelings of dismay in a piece titled, “Where’s the Obama I Voted For?”:

But the frustration with the administration was palpable among Democrats today. Members of Congress and their staffs were asking the same questions I was: What does the president want? How badly does he want it? A lot of the legislators ended up running for the exits. And while lack of a clear party line from the White House surely wasn't the reason for Democratic panic on Wednesday--the political anger behind the Massachusetts election is real enough--it doesn't appear to have made that panic less likely, either. (3)

Then there was the spectacle of Obama apologist Chris Matthews and Obamacare critic Howard Dean calling each other crazy on Hardball the night following Scott Brown’s election. (4) But the confrontation between Matthews and Dean is tame compared to what reportedly transpired between Matthews’ MSNBC colleague Ed Schultz and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs following Gibbs’ appearance on Schultz’s radio program last Thursday. Schultz told an audience in Minneapolis over the weekend that he and Gibbs got into a heated exchange after the program went off the air over health care. Schultz disclosed that he told Gibbs he was “full of sh*t” while Gibbs replied with an f-bomb. He went to say that he told Gibbs that President Obama was “losing his base.”(5)

One must wonder if Obama campaign manager David Plouffe being brought back into the fold was a consequence of the “conversation” between Schultz and Gibbs. Yet bringing in Plouffe has hardly assured liberals. Howard Fineman of Newsweek believes Plouffe could come into conflict with key White House personnel such as Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. He writes:

But one reason why Obama ran such a stunningly effective presidential campaign is that that the internal supply lines were short and the lines of authority were clear. This new setup is anything but. (6)

The fact Beau Biden won’t run for his father’s old seat is also an indication that Plouffe’s presence doesn’t inspire confidence in Democrats. If the son of the Vice-President of the United States can’t be reassured then who can be? It would seem that Delaware’s Senate seat belongs to the people as well.

Of course, it is entirely possible that this loss of faith in President Obama might be temporary. If a crisis were to come along and Obama were to handle the matter deftly it could help him to win back some of his base. Then again Obama has handled the response to the earthquake in Haiti quite well. Yet you would never know it with the way liberals have erupted over the past week. The tremors will certainly begin anew in November if Democrats lose both Houses of Congress.

Should that happen how long will it be before President Obama faces a challenge in the 2012 Democratic primaries? If someone were to challenge him it would almost certainly spell the beginning of the end of his Presidency. Howard Dean has led the charge from the Left against the loss of the public option and would surely love an opportunity to redeem his scream from the 2004 Democratic primaries. Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold (of McCain-Feingold fame) is another potential challenger who has been critical of President Obama’s decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan.

Then there’s Hillary Rodham Clinton. In 2008, liberal activists looked upon her as if she were a Republican. While she probably wouldn’t get a great deal of support from that wing of the Democratic Party she would attract plenty of moderates. However, it could be argued that her health care proposals went further than Obama’s and she could run to his left on that issue. (7) But regardless of whether she is to Obama’s left or the right, can you really see Hillary staying in the White House if it begins to resemble The Titanic? Have Hillary’s presidential ambitions been completely excised?

Now President Obama would in all likelihood be able to stave off a primary challenge. But so were Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Fat lot of good it did them in the general election. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were re-elected in no small measure because they did not have to face a primary challenger.

But as angry as liberals have been at President Obama this week it is well worth remembering the old adage that a week in politics is a lifetime. President Obama does have the luxury of having time on his side. On the other hand a lot of these angry liberals have long memories and might not easily forgive President Obama his transgressions. Or as liberal comedian Dick Gregory put it, “Hell hath no fury like a liberal scorned.”

- 30 -

  1. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/he-wasnt-the-one-weve-been-waiting-for/
  2. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2
  3. http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/the-day-after
  4. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/01/20/post-coakley-lib-crack-matthews-dean-call-each-other-crazy
  5. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/24/schultz-gibbs-exchange/
  6. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/01/25/why-plouffe-s-return-might-be-a-problem.aspx
  7. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296997,00.html
Read more >>

Saturday, January 23, 2010

How Obama Can Deliver His State of Union in Under Two Minutes

Satire by John W. Lillpop

Pity poor Barack Obama. Delivering the State of the Union after his wrecking-ball performance over the past twelve month is almost too much to ask, even for a clean and articulate man of color without a Negro dialect.

Democrats are urging the president to focus on the economy and the lingering carnage attributable to George W. Bush. That would make the speech 40-60 minutes long, far too much time for a failed president.

Above all else, Obama needs to make his speech short, concise and to the point.

America is in deep trouble and the last thing we need is a long lecture about how George W. Bush is to blame for all bad news, including the earthquake in Haiti according to some deranged leftist actor out in Hollywood.

America does not give a damn about savaging W. anymore. We want our leaders to focus on fixing the problems, rather than fixing blame!

Another bit of free counsel: Completely avoid the word CHANGE, as that word is now synonymous with communism in the hearts and minds of Americans who have been paying attention.

One more helpful tip: Avoid the following subjects entirely:

  1. Unemployment/Jobs Creation
  2. Homeland Security/Defense
  3. War in Afghanistan
  4. Energy Independence
  5. Massachusetts
  6. Overall Economy/Fiscal Prudence
  7. Deficit Management
  8. Iran, North Korea
  9. Russia, China
  10. Status of the Dollar
  11. Middle East Peace
  12. USA Image Abroad
  13. 2016 Olympics and Chicago
  14. GITMO
  15. Transparency in Government
  16. Race Relations, and
  17. Health Care Reform  

Focus instead on your Nobel Peace Prize and other outstanding achievements, Mr President.

By speaking only about your achievements, sir, you should be able to deliver your State of the Union in less than two minutes, provided your teleprompter does not misbehave.

Good luck, and Allah bless America!

Read more >>

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Perhaps You Should Listen, Not Lecture, Mr. President?

By John W. Lillpop

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, President Obama expressed regret that, "we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people."

As reported at abcnews.go.com (1), in part:

"President Obama said today that he believes he lost a direct connection to the American people in his first year in office because he focused too heavily on policymaking.

‘If there's one thing that I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people ...’ Obama told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview at the White House."

However, as reported at cbs.news.com (2), in part, the president was hardly a shrinking violet when it came to communicating directly to the American people.

According to that report, Obama’s first year in office included the following activities:

Speeches, Comments & Remarks: 411
News Conferences: 42
Interviews: 158
Town Hall Meetings: 23

Clearly, Obama’s problem is not a shortfall on the sending end of the communications loop. Rather, it is obvious that Obama and his congressional cohorts need to listen to what the American people are saying.

Listening, rather than denigrating those who hold opposing views by calling such people Nazis, Astroturfers, Tea Baggers, and right-wing extremists, should be a priority in the liberal play book for 2010.

Obama’s personal goal should be to listen, not lecture!

(1) http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/president-obama-lost-touch-american-people-year/story?id=9613462

(2) http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/20/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6119525.shtml

Read more >>

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY MR. PRESIDENT & THANKS FOR THE "HOPE & CHANGE"

A LOOK BACK AT PRESIDENT OBAMA'S "ACCOMPLISHMENTS" OVER THE LAST YEAR

What a difference a year makes. After his election, President Obama said "change has come to America" and he definitely wasn't kidding. In honor of his one-year anniversary in office, the Tennessee Republican Party wants to take a look back over the last 365 days at some news reports that highlight just of a few of President Obama's most historic accomplishments:

  • RECORD DEBT - "With the national debt projected to soar by nearly $1.4 trillion this year, congressional Democrats are planning a year-end push to dramatically increase the legal debt limit so they don't have to revisit the politically uncomfortable issue before facing voters in November." ("Democrats to seek higher limit on the federal debt," Washington Post, 12/9/09)
  • RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT - "In another sign that workers are being left out of the budding economic recovery, the U.S. unemployment rate climbed to 10.2 percent in October, topping the 10 percent mark for the first time in 26 years." ("Unemployment rate hits 10.2%, a 26-year high," MarketWatch, 11/6/09)
  • "STIMULUS" FAILURE - "The government's economic stimulus spending has already had its biggest impact and probably won't contribute to significant growth next year, a top White House adviser said Thursday... Unemployment will remain high, at or above 9.6 percent, through the end of 2010, Romer predicted." ("Romer: Impact of stimulus will level off next year," Associated Press, 10/22/09)
  • CUTTING SWEETHEART DEALS TO RAM THROUGH A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE - "While the Nebraska Democrat got a particularly juicy concession in exchange for a 'yes' vote on the 10-year, $871 billion package - permanent and full federal aid for his state's expanded Medicaid population - support from a slew of other senators likewise came with a price." ("The Price Is Right? Payoffs for Senators Typical in Health Care Bill," Fox News, 12/21/09)
  • BROKEN TRANSPARENCY PROMISES - "'We'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies,' Obama said. That hasn't happened. Instead, Democrats in Congress and the White House have made multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals and pharmaceutical companies in private. C-SPAN asked to televise the negotiations between the House and Senate versions; the White House insists it hasn't seen the request." ("Promises, Promises: Many Obama Pledges Unkept," Associated Press, 1/14/10)
  • IMPORTING TERRORISTS INTO THE UNITED STATES - "President Obama's decision to transfer as many as 100 terror suspects from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to a maximum security prison in rural Illinois potentially sets the stage for a new round of high-stakes legal battles over what additional rights, if any, Al Qaeda suspects are entitled to... from the moment the detainees set foot on US soil, their lawyers will have the ability to tap into the full array of constitutional and other legal protections enjoyed by every American citizen and resident." ("Guantanamo detainees on US soil: a legal minefield," Christian Science Monitor, 12/15/09)
  • NATIONAL ENERGY TAX THAT WILL RAISE COSTS ON FAMILIES - "The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent. A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year." ("Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year," CBS News, 9/15/09)

Last night, voters in Massachusetts had the honor of being the first this year to show President Obama what they think about his "accomplishments." Tennesseans will have to wait until November, but the President can rest assured that voters in the Volunteer State will be taking these historic "achievements" into account when heading to the polls this fall.

Read more >>

Obama's First Year: By the Numbers

"Nothing special," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs when asked what President Obama is doing today to mark the end of his 1st year in office and the start of his 2nd.

(at right, President Obama takes the oath of office, Jan. 20, 2009.)

To hear Gibbs tell it, no one at the White House is much interested in noting the one year milestone.

"It's an anniversary of types, but I don't see that a lot of people are ultimately focused on marking the first year," said Gibbs at yesterday's daily press briefing.

He said the White House already had its fill of calendar anniversaries: the first 100 days; 200 days, six months; a year after the election.

It's just a date on the calendar "that denotes you've been here a year," Gibbs said of the occasion.

But it is a milestone, the most important so far on Mr. Obama's watch and a natural moment for taking stock – or in the case of this report: number crunching.

So quickly – before year-in-review fatigue sets in, see if any of these numbers and annotations offer insight into how the president spent his first year.

SPEECHES, COMMENTS & REMARKS: 411
• Includes 52 addresses or statements specifically on his health care proposals.
• He used a TelePrompTer at least 178 times. (Technically, it was 177 ½ . On July 13, 2009, one of the teleprompter screens on the left side of his lectern fell to the ground and broke shortly after he began speaking. So he was left with half a TelePrompTer.)

NEWS CONFERENCES: 42
• Of which 5 were formal, solo White House Q&A sessions. Four were in prime time. His last one was July 22, 2009. (seen at right)
• Nearly all of the other press availabilities were joint appearances with foreign leaders at which as few as 1 question was taken by Mr. Obama.
• Predecessor George W. Bush did 21 news conferences his first year of which 4 were formal, solo White House sessions. Only 1 was in prime time.

INTERVIEWS: 158.
• This is a striking number of interviews and far more than any of his recent predecessors in their first year. Ninety of the sessions were TV interviews. Eleven were radio. The rest were newspaper and magazine. The number reflects the White House media strategy that Mr. Obama can best respond to questions in an interview setting.

TOWN HALL MEETINGS: 23
• Includes 1 in Strasbourg, France and another in Shanghai, China

DOMESTIC TRAVEL: 46 out-of-town trips to 58 cities and towns in 30 states
• Most frequently visited state by Mr. Obama: New York* (excluding Maryland & Virginia, which border DC and to which visits are more local than out-of-town).
• President George W. Bush made appearances in 39 states during his 1st year.
• President Clinton visited 22 states in 1993, his first year.

FOREIGN TRAVEL: 10 foreign trips to 21 nations (4 of them twice).
• Mr. Obama made more trips abroad in his first year than has any other U.S. President.
• Next most frequent foreign traveler during first year in office was President George H.W. Bush: 7 trips to 14 countries.

FLIGHTS ON AIR FORCE ONE: 160
 
FLIGHTS ON MARINE ONE: 193

POLITICAL FUNDRAISERS: 28
• The events raised at least $27.25 million. (3 of the events Mr. Obama attended declined to disclose how much was raised.
• George W. Bush did 6 fundraisers his 1st year raising over $48 million.

CAMPAIGN RALLIES: 7
• The rallies were for Gov. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds, D-Va, and U.S. Senate Candidate Martha Coakley, D-Mass. All of them lost.

MEETINGS WITH FOREIGN LEADERS: 74 (several multiple times)
• This counts meetings with chiefs of state or heads of government
• George W. Bush met with 115 his first year (many more than once)

NATIONAL DEBT: On day Mr. Obama took office: $10.626 trillion
• One year later: $12.319 trillion
• Increase on Mr. Obama's watch: $1.693 trillion

BILL SIGNINGS: 124 of which Mr. Obama did 13 bill-signing ceremonies.

VISITS TO CAMP DAVID: 11 visits totaling all or part of 27 days.
• George W. Bush made 26 visits his first year spanning all or part of 81 days

VETOES: 1
• Mr. Obama's only veto to date killed a bill to keep Defense Dept operating in case Appropriations measure wasn't passed, which eventually it was.
• George W. Bush – 0 vetoes in first year. In fact, he didn't cast his first veto until his 5th year in office.

PARDONS or COMMUTATIONS: 0*
* Not counting 2 turkeys he pardoned at Thanksgiving.
(A White House aide says first year presidents are inundated with pardon petitions and usually don't grant any until after "an extensive review process is conducted at the Justice Department.")
• George W. Bush granted no executive clemency his first year either, except for turkeys.

VACATIONS: All or part of 26 days over 4 trips
• George W. Bush spent 69 days at his Texas ranch over 9 trips to his ranch his 1st year.
 
GOLF: 29 rounds of golf
• Most frequent courses: Fort Belvoir 11 times; Andrews AFB: 8 times.
• George W. Bush played golf 7 times his first year.

OUT OF THE PUBLIC EYE: 21 days on which Mr. Obama did not have a public or press appearance.

WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA LEARNED IN HIS 1ST YEAR? Spokesman Robert Gibbs said yesterday that "change is never easy; that change takes time; that change has to go through Congress."



Read more >>

Forget Massachusetts. Obama's problem is nationwide. Does He Feel Your Pain?

John B. Judis (HAT TIP to The New Republic)

Bill Clinton didn’t know he was in big trouble until the very eve of the November 1994 election. Barack Obama knows now, barely a year into his presidency. While the party loyalists can blame Martha Coakley’s defeat on her ignorance of Red Sox baseball, it was clearly a message to the president and his party. Yes, a less inept candidate might have beaten Scott Brown, but if Obama and his program had been more popular in Massachusetts, even Coakley could have won--and by ten points or more.

There were no network exits polls, only a limited sample by Rasmussen, but some of the polls taken beforehand bear out Obama’s role in Coakley’s defeat. In the final January 17 poll by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-leaning North Carolina outfit that picked up Brown’s surge early in the month, 20 percent of the respondents who voted for Obama in 2008 said they’d vote for Brown. Among those voters, only 22 percent approved of Obama’s presidency, and only 13 percent backed his health care plan. (Click here to read Thomas B. Edsall: "Why Health Care is the Graveyard of Democratic Dreams.")

In fact, the percent of 2008 Obama voters who were backing Brown almost perfectly matched the percentage who were dissatisfied with Obama’s health care plan, which Brown himself singled out for criticism in his campaign. According to the Rasmussen exit sample, 52 percent of Brown voters rated health care as their top issue--a clear indication that they were viewing the election in national and not merely state terms.

The most important question raised by Coakley’s loss is not what she could have done better--the answer to that can fill pages of unhappy anecdotes about campaign mishaps--but why Obama’s popularity is so low that a Democrat could lose Massachusetts. A conservative Republican Senate candidate winning Massachusetts, which Obama carried by 62 percent to 36 percent in 2008, is comparable to a liberal Democrat carrying Utah.

If you believe some of the blogs, the Democrats lost Massachusetts, and Obama’s approval is plummeting nationwide, because he alienated his left-wing base. Perhaps that does account for an absence of turnout among young voters in the Virginia gubernatorial or Massachusetts Senate races, but the polls have not shown growing dissatisfaction among young, minority, or liberal voters--the three voting blocs that accounted for Obama’s strongest support in 2008. Where he has lost ground--and where the Democrats have lost ground--is primarily among white working and middle-class voters and senior citizens.

The Suffolk University poll in Massachusetts, which like the PPP poll, was pretty much on target in the final result, singled out two white working-class towns, Gardner and Fitchburg, as bellwethers. Obama won Gardner, where Democrats hold a three-to-one registrations edge, by 59 percent to 31 percent in 2008. Brown won it by 56 percent to 42 percent. Obama won Fitchburg, with a similar Democratic edge, by 60 percent to 38 percent in 2008. Brown won it by 59 percent to 40 percent. That suggests a fairly dramatic shift among white working class voters.

There is no similar city or county gauge for how seniors voted in the final result, but there were prior polls. The Suffolk poll taken January 14 has some clues. The age group that most strongly favored Brown was sixty-five to seventy-four-year-olds by 58 to 38 percent. The same group opposed national health insurance by 48 percent to 28 percent and thought the federal government couldn’t afford such a plan by 66 percent to 33 percent. This age group also included the highest percentage of voters--41 percent--who said they “strongly opposed” Obama’s plan. And they were the one group (albeit narrowly) who disapproved of the job Obama was doing as president--by 45 percent to 44 percent. (Click here to read Jonathan Cohn's open letter to nervous and frustrated House Democrats.)

If you look at national polls, Obama has suffered the greatest loss of approval among exactly the same groups. In the Pew polls, Obama suffered a drastic drop in support in the $30,000-$75,000 income group, from 63 percent to 17 percent approval in February 2009, to 53 percent to 35 percent disapproval in the January 14 poll. Among respondents over sixty-five years old, he went from 60 percent to 17 percent approval to 54 percent to 31 percent disapproval. In its January 2010 poll, Pew has a breakdown by race that is even more disturbing. Whites with some or no college--a rough designation for working-class whites--disapprove of Obama’s presidency by 54 percent to 36 percent. 

Why do these groups matter? Since the 1960s, when the Democratic Party split over race, and later over cultural issues as well, the white working class has been a key vote in elections. Their departure from the Democrats in the South helped account for the transformation of the Deep South from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican. And in the Northern states, and particularly in Midwestern states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, they have been the swing vote in state and presidential elections. It’s a fair measure to say that if a Democrat can get about 45 percent of the white working-class vote, he or she can carry Ohio--Obama got about 44 percent in 2008. But if he gets only 40 percent or less in these states, he will lose those states and lose national elections. The white working-class vote may not be as important in five or ten years, as the demography of America shifts, but it remains so now—an enduring legacy of the politics of the late '60s.

The senior citizen vote overlaps to some extent with the white working-class vote, but it has a special importance because these voters come out disproportionately in midterm elections. If the Democrats continue to lose the senior vote, as Coakley appears to have done in Massachusetts yesterday, they will get clobbered in November 2010. We’re not talking two or three senate seats, but as many as eight, and not 20 or 25 House seats, but maybe between 30 and 40. To avoid a calamity on that level, Democrats will have to answer a difficult question: Why have these two groups distanced themselves in the last year, and particularly in the last few months, from Obama and the party?

These two groups of voters have not viewed Obama’s presidency in a fundamentally different way from many other voters, but they, and particularly working-class whites, have been the prime source of a populist anger against the Obama administration. They have perceived Obama as robbing Peter to pay Paul--or more concretely, taking benefits from and imposing higher taxes on them in order to provide greater income and benefits to others. And we are talking here about perceptions. I don’t intend to get into an argument about what is actually in the various health plans, some of which do benefit senior citizens and the white working and middle class.

Working-class populism in America has always taken two forms: The first--let’s call it left-wing populism--has typically been directed at speculators who make money from people who work in factories and offices and who don’t seem to contribute to the actual wealth of society. The second form--let’s call it right-wing populism--has targeted immigrants, black sharecroppers, the unemployed, and other out groups who are seen as trying to deprive those who work of their rightful earnings. These two strains often appear together, as they did in the original American populist movement. And these sentiments are most concentrated among the embattled classes--those that see themselves threatened from above and below.

Obama has provoked both left-wing and right-wing populism. He provoked left-wing populism by using tax dollars to sustain the banks and auto companies and to reward their managers who had already shown themselves to be incompetent--and then by acquiescing when the bankers paid themselves additional bonuses. In a poll taken in early January by Allstate/National Journal, 1,200 respondents revealed whom they thought had “benefited most” from the government’s response to the financial crisis. Banks, investment companies, major corporations, and the wealthy were way out in front.

Obama’s health care plan has provoked a combination of right-wing and left-wing populism. The middle class and senior citizens see it as a program that taxes and takes benefits away from them in order to help those without insurance--the out groups--and to enrich the insurance companies themselves. They didn’t invent this perception out of thin air: It derived in part from the plan to tax “Cadillac” health care plans (which are sometimes held by unionized middle class workers), penalize workers who don’t buy insurance,  and cut future Medicare spending, while providing new subscribers and profits for the insurance companies. Undoubtedly, the prior perception of Obama’s financial policies reinforced these suspicions about his health care plan, which is now as unpopular as the bank bailout. In Obama’s speech in Massachusetts last Sunday for Coakley, he relegated his health care policies to two passing references to insurance companies.

Is this political failure Obama’s fault? I have made the argument that Obama’s declining approval can be attributed to the rising rate of unemployment and that the only way he could have prevented, or eased, the fall in his popularity would have been to get Congress to adopt a much larger stimulus program last winter. I still think there is truth to that argument--and also to the riposte that with the current congress of Republican nihilists and Democratic deficit hawks it would have been impossible to get a much larger stimulus. But I think that there is more to Obama’s problems that than original sin of the insufficiently large stimulus program.

I updated the graph that I did last fall to illustrate the close correlation between unemployment rate and presidential approval or disapproval. What I found in Obama’s case is that at the beginning of last fall, when Washington began debating his health care plan in earnest, his level of disapproval began to exceed the rise in the unemployment rate. (See chart below)

Of course, there is nothing particularly scientific about this finding, but it at least suggests that Obama’s political problems can’t be entirely laid at the foot of the Great Recession. Beyond that, one has to look at how the administration has conducted itself politically.

Obama’s political problem boils down to the difficulty he has speaking to and for middle America. This problem became evident during the middle of the primary battle with Hillary Clinton. And it could have seriously damaged his candidacy against John McCain. But the onset of the financial crisis that fall, and McCain’s feeble response to it, along with his choice of Sarah Palin as vice president, highlighted Obama’s strongest asset in the eyes of voters--his intelligence--and reduced the importance of his lack of a common touch.

As president, however, Obama’s lack of engagement with middle America has come to the surface and has contributed to his decline in popularity. This shortcoming has been evident in his style and choice of venues--he gave his endorsement of Coakley on Sunday at Northeastern University, in Boston, rather than at a union hall or public auditorium in Worcester or Springfield. It is also evident in his choice of advisors and spokespeople and in the way he has framed his programs.

He chose the former head of the New York Fed, Timothy Geithner, to be his chief economic spokesman during a financial crisis that was widely seen as the product of Wall Street. And in developing and presenting his policies on the banks, he didn’t put the kind of conditions on taxpayer assistance that would have assured middle America that they weren’t giving handouts to the wealthy. 

In the case of his health care plan, he did not really have a spokesman, but ceded the public face of the policy to the congressional leadership. Perhaps, he should have settled this year--when the recession heightened populist fears and resentments--for partial reforms that were more closely geared to the recession. Large reforms have usually occurred when the economy is on an upswing (1935, 1964-5) and voters feel a fundamental security. But leave that aside.

Where Obama invited a voter backlash was by letting the burden of reducing health care costs appear to fall on senior citizens and those middle-class workers who had acquired good health insurance through decades of union battles with management, and not on the insurance and drug companies. Obama ceded too much to the policy wonks who were devising intricate schemes to show they could cut the deficit. He took his eye of off the political imperative of keeping middle America in his corner.

Obama now clearly faces not just a recession and two wars, but a political crisis. He needs to adopt policies that will boost employment, but he may not have the political clout to do so. He needs to restore the public’s faith in his own leadership, but it’s not clear to me how he can accomplish that.

The last two Democratic presidents faced similar crises. After the Democrats got drubbed in the 1978 midterms, Jimmy Carter took exactly the wrong course. He replaced mediocre people with even more mediocre people. He allowed intramural squabbles to surface. He lost his focus and ended up blaming the American people for his political problems. Clinton, who had governed his first year as a Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law graduate, rediscovered after November 1994 that he had been a successful governor of Arkansas. He governed for the remainder of his six years as the president of middle America, even resisting a furious attempt by Republicans to impeach him.

I am not sure how Obama can surmount this crisis. Obama does not seem, like Ronald Reagan or Clinton, to be a man of many faces. Even back in Chicago in the 1990s, it was clear that the man who had given up community organizing to become a lawyer and politician was more comfortable in Hyde Park than in Southeast or Northwest Chicago. Obama can try to make himself into a friend of Joe Sixpack and the enemy of Wall Street--he’s certainly trying to do so with his proposal to tax the big banks to pay for their bailout--but it’s not going to come naturally. Still, Obama has surprised his critics before, and perhaps (one hopes!) he will do so again.

John B. Judis is a senior editor of The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Read more >>

Still Think You Earned a B+, Mr. President?

By John W. Lillpop

Getting out of bed on the first anniversary of his inauguration as America’s 44th president will be particularly galling for President Obama this morning.

There was a political blood bath overnight in Massachusetts which, like it or night, was a referendum on Obama and his far-left policies. This was no vast right-wing conspiracy or the work of Nazis, Astroturf clowns, or right wing extremists.

This was the ultra-blue state of Massachusetts sending Obama an unmistakable message, loud and clear: The American people do not want nor need your brand of far-left radicalism.

Let us be clear: This is still America, a capitalist, free-market representative democracy. We intend to keep it that way!

You were hired, Mr. President, to steer the good ship America clear of hazards and some very hard times. No one expected you to replace the vessel of American life and culture with your own Marxist agenda.

Change with a small C, rather than CHANGE! was what most Americans envisioned. A course adjustment, rather than a radical turn left, was the only mandate approved by the people in November, 2008.

The big question on the morning after: Will this president and his liberal conspirators pay heed to the people’s message or will they defiantly buck prevailing currents in a futile attempt to rekindle the fires of Obamamania, long since extinguished in town hall meets and Tea Parties from coast-to-coast?

Of course, health care will be impacted, as will cap and trade and other foolish excesses on the Obama agenda.

But what about amnesty for 12-20 million invading criminals that Obama would like to add to the rolls of Democrat Party voters?

With America’s economy still in the doldrums and 15 million Americans out of work, just how eager will liberals be to advance an amnesty that would reward illegal aliens for breaking and entering into America?

Will the "Browning of Massachusetts" on Tuesday force liberals to see common sense on this issue?

If not, let me be the first to issue the following challenge: When it comes to granting amnesty to illegal aliens at the expense of American jobs, BRING IT ON, Mr. President!

Read more >>

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Will Massachusetts Ever Be The Same Again?

Aaron Goldstein

When 2010 rang in residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts could be certain of three things. The sun would rise in the east, there would be snow on the ground and a Democrat would be elected to succeed Ted Kennedy in the Senate.

In retrospect one cannot blame the Democrats for believing the Special Senate election in Massachusetts was for "Ted Kennedy’s seat." After all, when Edward Moore Kennedy was sworn into office Scott Brown was but a 3-year-old. One could make the case that Democrats looked upon Massachusetts voters as children to be seen but not heard. Well, tonight Massachusetts voters were heard by an entire nation. Say hello to Senator-elect Scott Brown, R MA and say goodbye to Obamacare (unless Harry Reid sees fit to ram it through before swearing Brown into office.)

So how did this all happen over the course of less than a month? How was it that Scott Brown lawn signs were showing up in The People’s Republic of Cambridge? When a colleague told me of this sight it was at that point I thought Brown could win. If Democrats can’t hold onto Cantabrigians then who can they count on?

Well, it’s quite simple really. The more people saw of Scott Brown the more they liked him. The more the people saw of Martha Coakley the more they didn’t like her. Throw in a lackluster performance by President Obama during a campaign stop for her over the weekend and you have a perfect storm where the winds of change have blown back in his face.

Brown began on a clever note when he reminded Massachusetts voters that President Kennedy was a tax cutter at heart. Of course, Brown is hardly the first Republican in favor of a tax cut. This tax cutter resonated with people because he wears regular clothes, drives an old pick up truck and also genuinely enjoys talking with people as well as listening to them. People might not agree with Brown’s position on the War in Afghanistan but as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve there are Massachusetts liberals who respect his stance. Brown also had a magic number 41. He turned this election into a referendum on Obamacare.

And then there was Martha. What didn’t she do wrong? If Paul McCartney was advising Coakley he might say, "Martha my dear. Hold your hand out, you silly girl. See what you’ve done." Martha Coakley could write a book titled, "How Not to Win an Election Campaign." The table of contents might look something like this:

Introduction The Campaign Has Been Won, Time For a Well-Deserved Vacation

Chapter One Getting Those Taxes Up

Chapter Two How to Handle Pesky Reporters

Chapter Three How to Make Terrorists Disappear From Afghanistan

Chapter Four Employment Opportunities for Catholics Outside The Health Care Field

Chapter Five How to Convince People Your Opponent Likes Rape

Chapter Six Remedial Spelling

Chapter Seven How to Avoid Contact with Voters in Cold Weather

Chapter Eight Boston Sports Legends & Landmarks 101

Chapter Nine How to Apply for a Presidential Bailout

Chapter Ten I Have a Scheme: Politicizing Martin Luther King Day

Chapter Eleven How to Accuse Your Opponent of Voter Fraud Before the Polling Booths Have Opened

Epilogue It Wasn’t My Fault: How to Blame Washington Before the Polls Have Closed

Coakley and her supporters seemed to go out of their way not to win friends and influence people. A couple of days ago about half a block from my apartment I was stopped by a Coakley volunteer who asked me if I was going to vote. When I informed her that I would be supporting Brown she demanded to know why. I retorted, "Where would you like me to begin?" This woman had nothing positive to say about Coakley and instead spent most of her time equating Brown with George W. Bush. She even went as far as to say that Brown was supported by the birther movement. I told her that she would catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Yet this young woman’s approach can hardly come as a surprise when John Kerry baselessly accuses Brown supporters of "bullying and threats" or when Keith Olbermann accuses Brown of being an "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees." The whole Coakley campaign and their apologists in the left-wing media reeked of desperation.

Such desperation serves to embolden conservatives and independent thinkers while demoralizing honorable liberals. My roommate is a Democrat who did not support Coakley during the primary but nonetheless voted for her today. But there was no joy in his heart. Brown voters, on the other hand, (me included) couldn’t wait to get up in the morning and sprint to the polling booth.

It is significant that Brown was elected nearly a year to the day that President Obama took the oath of office to much celebration and fanfare. Over the past 365 days, that celebration and fanfare has waned. It isn’t as easy as Obama thought it would be. Much of his agenda in infeasible and impractical but if he has his way we will still pay for it. The election of Brown is a message for Obama to stop and hit the reset button. He would be wise to do so.

Will Massachusetts ever be the same? It is certainly a different day and a different year. Yet one can make the case that it is Ted Kennedy’s seat in which Brown will now sit. After all, he is serving out the rest of what would have been the remainder of his term. Brown must go before the voters again in November 2012. Democrats won’t be caught off guard then. But Scott Brown made the Bay State sit up and take notice once. Who can say that the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts aren’t prepared for an encore?

Read more >>

Isn't It Rich? 364 Days On, America Comes Roaring Back!

By John W. Lillpop

Isn't it rich?

Just 364 short days ago, the greatest nation in human history was turned over to an inexperienced Marxist whose political agenda was to dissect and destroy institutions long held near and dear to the American people.

Barack Obama was sufficiently naïve and narcissistic to actually believe that he could, and should, restructure American politics and culture to conform to his own peculiar far left radicalism.

His "vision" was to tear down America and her leaders at every opportunity, especially on foreign soil. He wanted the entire world to know that America was no better than any other nation, and that being a good "citizen of the world" was far more important than American preeminence.

He made a special point of rejecting the notion that America is a Christian nation, and did so on Muslim soil where anti-American terrorism is a chief export.

He decided that he knew best when it came to national security, and arrogantly set about to dismantle the safeguards installed by his Republican predecessor and which, incidentally, had kept America safe for nearly eight years.

He decided that funding liberal pet projects was more important than carrying out his fiduciary responsibility to the American people, all the while piling trillions upon trillions of dollars of debt onto the backs of unborn generations of American taxpayers.

He foolishly decided that he and the Democrat party had the moral right to ram a very flawed health care plan down the throats of the American people, even though 56 percent of the populace opposes the plan.

Now, just 364 days after Barack Obama was declared an omnipotent, all knowing, and infallible messiah by the leftist media, the great people of Massachusetts have declared other wise.

Isn't it rich?

Read more >>

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Why Not CHANGE in Massachusetts, Mr. President?

By John W. Lillpop

Just how is it that Barack Obama, whose entire campaign for the presidency was based on CHANGE, has suddenly gone wobbly in the knees about that very concept, at least when it comes to the open seat for the US Senate in Massachusetts?

After all, the late Senator Ted Kennedy served in the Senate for 46 years. He was first sworn in to the Senate in 1963, when baby Barack was still dithering about in diapers, somewhere in Kenya or Hawaii.

46 long years, Mr. President!

All the while, Kennedy carried the banner of liberal extremism and was the "hit man" for leftist causes that are now crippling our great nation, its economy, its moral standards, its defense, and its social order.

Regrettably, the woman Democrats would like to install in Kennedy’s seat is another far-left lefty who, until recently, has presumed Kennedy’s seat to be the sole and exclusive property of the Democrat Party and the Kennedy family.

That is, until the recent surge by conservative Republican Scott Brown who skillfully reminded Coakley and Democrats that, in fact, Kennedy’s seat belongs to the people.

You know government by and for We the People, a concept that has apparently fallen into harsh disfavor with Democrats!

Scott Brown’s reminder has helped build momentum for his candidacy, which may actually succeed in bringing badly needed CHANGE to Massachusetts and the Marxist-dominated US Senate.

Looking for real CHANGE that will actually benefit America?

If so, the choice is very clear: End 46 years of the same old politics as usual nonsense and elect Scott Brown!

After all, CHANGE is what it is all about, right Mr. President?

Read more >>

Friday, January 15, 2010

Dem Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn't work in the emergency room'

Democrat Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn't work in the emergency room'

By Kerry Picket

How can a Massachusetts Senate candidate possibly offend  39 percent of voters in her state? If it's Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley, she would tell devout Catholics not to bother working in an emergency room (H/T Jim Hoft - Big Government). In the audio clip below, Ms. Coakley chokes on a question from radio host Ken Pittman referring to the conscience clause. Under the  conscience clause, workers in health-care environments ranging from doctors to maintenance men can refuse to offer services, information, or advice to patients on issues like contraception, blood transfusions, etc..if the workers are morally against it. Here is how Ms. Coakley handled the matter. (audio and transcript below):

Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.

Martha Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: (……uh, eh…um..) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.


Editor: I do not know about you, but that statement sure OFFENDS ME!

Read more >>

Saturday, January 9, 2010

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S EPIPHANY - AN IMPOSSIBILITY BECOMES POSSIBLE

By Jim Moore

Epiphany: (1) “A sudden manifestation of the essence or meaning of something, (2) A comprehension or perception of reality by means of a sudden intuitive realization.”

Many people have epiphanies; that is, they suddenly experience an almost mystical acknowledgement of a truth that changes the person forever. It reveals his erroneous thinking and supplants it with what the person actually believes in his heart, and damn the consequences. Epiphany plays no favorites; it can happen to any human being.

An epiphany of sorts was experienced by President Woodrow Wilson. In 1913 Wilson approved the Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he said, “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of concentrated credit. The growth of the nation is, therefore, in the hands of a few men. No longer a government by free opinion, by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

As far as we know, no other President has had an “episode” which has caused him to “see the light”, resulting in a change of mind, a major adjustment in policies, a concession of errors, an effort to reverse present direction, and instead, take the high road of principles, values, and integrity.

Now to the heart of this article: What if President Barrack Obama experienced an epiphany: suddenly realizing that America is on a destructive path, and as president of this nation, had it in his power (as well as his duty and responsibility) to reverse direction and return our nation to its former greatness as the peaceful and non-aggressive Constitutional Republic envisioned by our Founders?

It is in this implausible scenario that we hereby offer the words of a speech to the nation that President Obama might make, should this impossibility ever became possible.

Good evening, my fellow Americas. The message that I bring you this evening is one that, I believe, you would never expect any president to deliver. No American president has ever, to my knowledge, said anything that remotely resembles what I am about to say. Moreover, if what I tell you sparks your reason, commonsense and love of country, no future president will ever have to.

Before I continue, let me warn you that what I say may cause chaos and turmoil in some quarters, and cheers and applause in others, but will surely be an unexpected surprise, to all patriotic, loyal American citizens.

I confess this evening that I am not the same man you elected as your president in 2008. Let me explain. You will recall that I campaigned on a promise to bring “change” to America. Voters believed me enough to make me their president. For which I am grateful. But make no mistake, I believed it myself. And believing it, I began on day-one in office to right some of the wrongs I saw in our government. But you and I both know that government is a strange and often vicious animal; hard to tame, difficult to change, and unrelenting in its drive for growth, control, secrecy and power.

Because of its blatant disregard for its legitimate role in America, our government has become a massive, out-of-control abomination and an unbearable load on the back of our citizens. And just what is government’s only legitimate role in government? George Washington, our first president, was quiet clear about that. He said that “government’s only constitutional duty was to guarantee our freedoms; maintain control of our borders; concentrate primarily on America’s interests, and avoid involvement in foreign affairs and long-term “entangling alliances.” All of which we, regretfully, have turned our backs on.

Worse still, this, and prior administrations, influenced (or coerced) by certain wealthy elite, have begun a systematic dismantling of our great nation, and are presently taking steps to nullify our sovereignty and “remake” America into an “equal” member of a New World Order; which, I presume, comes as no great surprise to you.

I admit now that I fell into this mindset when I reached the Oval Office. I believed what the Bush administration, and several administrations before him, had been envisioning was America’s role in the world as the supreme power player, the premier nuclear nation, and the answer to the centuries old tribal wars in the Middle East. They saw America as the world’s policeman, the doer of good, the solver of universal problems, the destroyer of evil, and God’s gift to a troubled world. At that time, seeing and believing that all this was true and was now being played out, it was my job as your new president, to continue, and enhance, the “progress” that was being made. Which I did in all sincerity and with whatever intelligence and talents I possess.

Having said that, night before last, I woke up confused and trembling. I thought at first I might have gotten a chill, but I suddenly became aware of something quite mind-shattering. I felt a kind of transition taking place in me. I definitely sensed that what I had been doing, the orders I had been giving, and the actions I was taking as president were not only wrong, but basically dishonest, unethical, and damaging to our nation. I saw people in my administration who were intentionally (or in obedient lockstep with the evildoers) operating and making decisions that were not only counter-productive, but literally capable of eventually tearing our nation apart. And I broke into a cold sweat thinking about it.

By morning, this epiphany, conscience, wake-up-call, or whatever you wish to call it, became clearer. It was changing my mind, and intuitively I knew it was changing my life. I suddenly realized that the change people were hoping for was quite different than what is happening today. I sensed that your hoped-for change really meant moving forward by looking back---put another way, advancing to a better America by returning to the principles and values that made this nation great in the first place.

But now, I confess, I had in mind no such change at all. Frankly, my friends, instead of a change that would bring us all to our senses and remake the America into the land we knew and loved so well, it would be a negative change that could eventually result in the end of our country as we know it. And I knew, then and there, that something had to be done to stop America’s enemies from driving her into oblivion.

Therefore, with a positive change in mind, tomorrow morning I am announcing some major shifts in our policies and strategies designed to turn our government around and restore America back to the constitutional greatness envisioned by our Founders. Details of these changes will then be made public. Meantime, here, with your indulgence, is a brief summary of what those changes entail:

First, I will refute the notion of America as an empire, by gradually reducing our military presence in the 140 nations in which they are stationed around the world. Our World War II occupation of countries will be discontinued. I will also order a gradual and orderly withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and use our military only to protect our embassies and our domestic borders.

Second, heeding the admonitions of our Founders, I am issuing an order that we immediately cease interfering in foreign affairs, especially disputes among aggressive nations. Our eagerness to right the wrongs in the world have led America into more foreign wars and conflicts that we can, or should be, expected to handle. American interests must, and will, come first.

Third, I will order the dissolution of lobbies and political influences, except for the very necessary ones. Changes in our laws will, as the Constitution states, be the prerogative of Congress, no one else. I will insist that the needs of America as a nation come first, superceding all partisan bickering and quid pro quos.

Fourth, we are a nation of laws. Therefore, I will close our borders to all illegal aliens. I will open our borders to immigrants who enter legally and sincerely desire to become Americans, and are willing to work for it. This will solve another problem: It will cut off a major source of drugs coming into this country.

Fifth, businesses and industries are entitled to a fair profit and I intend to see that they get it on what Americans need and can be produced right here. In conjunction with this, I am ordering a prohibition, with few exceptions, on the outsourcing of our technologies, materials and labor. America grew strong by having the resources, together with ambitious, creative people to develop them. Having our citizens out of work is an abomination which I intend to rectify.

Sixth, I have erroneously made appointments in my administration which I now believe are at odds with America’s values. I therefore plan a cabinet adjustment in those positions which more closely reflect this nation’s principles, traditions and character. In short, there will no be room in my administration for people who put their personal agenda above the welfare of the country.

Seven, I will press for certain actions to reduce our national debt, and to solidify the strength of our dollar. First, I will order the stoppage of printing fiat money by the surreptitious Federal Reserve which is used mainly to finance our military adventurism around the world, and to keep our country deceptively solvent. I will then order the total dissolution of the private Federal Reserve system which has put our nation in a financial bind and has been a noose around our neck since it was signed into law in 1913.

Eighth, to wean us off foreign oil, I will encourage the exploration for oil in our own land and offshore, with proper safeguards, of course. With much of America’s proven resources lying dormant and unearthed, it is unthinkable that we inhibit ourselves by foreign energy dependency. Therefore, I will order our energy companies to speed up their research for alternative energy sources and will reward their efforts with tax breaks and other incentives.

Nine, there is only one Education, and it has only one goal: the freedom of the mind. I am therefore ordering a re-evaluation of the curricula in our schools and universities. We have been drifting from education to indoctrination, and this is unconscionable since young people represent the future well-being of America. Students must learn more about our country, what has made us the envy of the world, and how they may contribute to our progress. And I am determined to see that they get this knowledge.

Ten, there are nefarious forces at work attempting to nullify America’s unique status. Since freedom and independence are this nation’s sovereign identity I will order an immediate halt to the construction of the North American Highway designed to link America, Mexico and Canada into a single territorial identity, thereby making America’s sovereignty and independence non-existent. We are three separate countries with unique differences in politics, social values, ideologies; and for our own good we should remain that way.

Eleven, I will order a cessation of America’s association with the United Nations. The UN, as most citizens are unaware, is a major key in the formation of a New World Order, and I can no longer sit by and watch America subtly and systematically lose what the past 250 years has given us. International concern, cooperation, trade and humane assistance is what this nation can, and must contribute for the world’s good, but not at the expense of our own unique character, freedoms, independence and self-reliance.

And finally, we may not be able to stop other nations from developing nuclear weapons but we can, and must, stop them from any idea of delivering them. We must promote peace by making a nuclear attack on America impossible, or even unthinkable. I therefore, will order intensification of our nuclear defense options to solve this most critical problem. Sanity in the world demands it.

Now I realize there will be individuals and organizations adamantly opposed to what I say this evening. I accept that, because this message is meant for all Americans, whatever their opinions or ideologies. So I am not troubled by dissent. I fact, I welcome it.

In closing, let me leave you with this thought: When Ben Franklin was asked by a lady, “Sir, what have you given us?” Franklin answered, “A republic, ma’am, if you can keep it.” As your president, I intend for us to keep it. Thank you for your time and patience. Good evening.

Read more >>

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Obama's 666 International Police Order

Obama’s 666 International Police Order Without any fanfare, President Obama has signed an Executive Order that undermines our national sovereignty to benefit a foreign police organization

By TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty

On December 16, 2009, President Obama secretly signed an Executive Order 12425 (EO) that gives Interpol unprecedented access in America to pursue and prosecute “criminals.” We may as well have given Interpol a badge with 666 on it.

The EO exempts Interpol (International Criminal Police Organization) from being accountable to our own law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI.

Interpol is an international police organization that investigates crime and refers defendants for trial in foreign lands. The Interpol website describes its purpose as follows:

… it facilitates cross-border police co-operation, and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime.

INTERPOL aims to facilitate international police co-operation even where diplomatic relations do not exist between particular countries. Action is taken within the limits of existing laws in different countries and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Nearly 200 countries work with Interpol, including some of the most ruthless Communist and Islamic tyrannies on earth.

The Obama EO removes the protections put into place by President Ronald Reagan in 1983 to protect Americans from being pursued by a foreign law enforcement agency within our borders. With this Obama EO, Interpol will operate outside of the constraints of the U.S. Constitution.

The current Secretary General of Interpol is Ronald Noble. He is an American who oversaw the Treasury Department’s review of the 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. That massacre left nearly 80 people dead. Interpol has a history of being staffed by numerous Nazis from 1930 even into the 1970s.

Interpol’s new powers within the U.S. could be used to enforce arrest warrants for Americans who are charged with “war crimes” – including former Bush officials who prosecuted the war on Islamic terrorism. This could include American soldiers as well. Last year, TVC warned that Democrats were going to attempt to try President Bush for “war crimes.”

Interpol could refer individuals for arrest and facilitate their extradition to foreign courts for trial. One internationalist goal within the Obama Administration is to have America come under the authority of the International Criminal Court (ICC) headquartered in Brussels, Belgium.  (In February, 2009, the Obama Administration began signaling that it was open to having America come under the authority of the ICC.)  Former President George W. Bush made certain America did not come under ICC authority.

This is not just a theoretical possibility. Interpol went after 25 Israeli government officials at the request of the terrorist state of Iran. Interpol actually issued arrest warrants for 15 Israeli over their Gaza offensive several years ago.

While the Obama Administration is seeking to give terrorists constitutional rights in American prisons, he is working to strip Americans of those constitutional rights by giving Interpol police powers within our borders – powers that can be used to violate the protections of American soldiers and Bush officials who prosecuted a war against Islamic terrorism.

What Does Snopes Say?

Snopes is a web site devoted to debunking urban legends that are circulated on the Internet. One of the more recent postings is about the Interpol issue. Snopes has reacted to a memo about Obama’s Executive Order (EO) circulating on the net that is clearly a fake. The memo quotes the EO and then adds additional comments not in EO 12425. It then ends the memo with “Barack Obama” as though he had signed the entire statement. While the memo is not true, the threat from Obama’s Interpol EO order does create a real and present danger.

DOWNLOAD PDF

What Are Conservatives Saying?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was on “The O’Reilly Factor” on January 4 and discussed the Interpol issue. He noted: “Freedom of information acts don't apply. All the constraints that you as a citizen could use against an American police force, based on a recent Obama signed executive order, give Interpol – which has relationships with Syria, Libya, with Iran – it gives them all sorts of extra legality in the United States in a way that has never, ever before been offered to Interpol.”

Mark Tapscott, editorial page editor for the conservative Washington Examineris deeply concerned about the Interpol Executive Order:

If there is nothing newsworthy involved [about the Interpol story], then why won't the White House answer these basic questions regarding the EO?

* Every other international organization granted such exemptions deals with mundane issues like fish - the International Pacific Halibut Commission - or disaster aid - the Red Cross. But Interpol is a law enforcement operation. Why does President Obama think it appropriate to give such exemptions to an international law enforcement operation, and what does he want Interpol to do here in the U.S. in the future with the exemptions that it cannot do now without the exemptions?

* Does the search and seizure exemption extend to the activities and documents created by U.S. Department of Justice employees working with and for Interpol in New York and Washington, D.C.? If these employees and activities were already exempt from coverage of the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), why have FOIA requests concerning them been previously answered?

These are serious questions that the White House ought have no hesitation about answering, if indeed "there is nothing newsworthy here."   

 Andy McCarthy (formerly a federal prosecutor in the New York City blind sheik case) with National Review is also alarmed about the Interpol Executive Order. He has written:

Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America's defense).

Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize.

What Can Be Done?

The President has authority to issue Executive Orders, but these EOs can be nullified by Congress through legislation. An EO that violates a congressional law is illegal and must be rescinded. In addition, courts have determined that EOs are unconstitutional and have struck them down.

A lawsuit could result in the Obama Interpol EO being declared unconstitutional. The House and Senate could pass legislation ordering the repeal of the EO, but this would have to be signed into law by President Obama who wants international control over America.

The elections in November 2010, could change the balance of power in the House and Senate and give constitutionalists power once again to block liberal legislation – and to send a strong message to Obama that national sovereignty is not something to be given away to Interpol or the International Criminal Court – nor through climate change treaties or cap and tax schemes being pushed by liberals in Congress.


Additional Resources:
Obama Executive Order Cedes US Sovereignty, Citizen Rights to Interpol
Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law? - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online
Obama gives Interpol free hand in U.S. | Washington Examiner
Obama May Place U.S. Under International Criminal Court - HUMAN EVENTS
Executive Orders and Presidential Directives
The Use And Abuse Of Presidential Executive Orders
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1070021.html

Read more >>