Fighting to Preserve Liberty in America
The order in the Middle East has been crumbling, but it seems that the only place President Barack Obama knows where to lead is on the dance floor or when ramming through his socialist programs. When it comes to real solutions to fix the economy or on foreign policy he is utterly lost.
When the unions and their progressive supporters hit the streets in Madison, Wisconsin the news cameras didn’t have to look high and low to find the Hitler posters, they could probably spot them from a hundred yards off, but honestly, who didn’t think there would be Hitler posters at a left wing rally? But in a effort to modernize, somebody found a newspaper and saw there was some unrest in the Middle East and voila, we had comparisons to Hosni Mubarak and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So Governor Scott Walker, we are to believe, is acting like a dictator not a democratically elected governor working through a democratically elected legislature? Hmmm, I wonder how the public sector unions got the “rights” they ferociously cling to?
You have probably seen a lot of comparisons in the main stream media trying to compare President Barack Obama to President Ronald Reagan. Try to make this comparison to a conservative and they will look at you rather oddly. Tell it to a progressive and they lap it up, because they know that President Reagan was a leader and by comparing the two men, perhaps some of that leadership will rub off on the incumbent.
Over the past few days we have learned of a new tack by Al Qaeda on how to strike at America. It is not by commandeering planes and crashing them into buildings, it is not by putting homicide bombers into passenger seats, it is now by sending packages with bombs inside from overseas to targets in the U.S. It is very disturbing to know that Al Qaeda is not giving up, despite the piles of olive branches Barack Obama has laid at the feet of these despots.
Equally disturbing, for those of us in the First Congressional District in New York, is the scorecard just issued by national security organization Keep America Safe, which just gave Congressman Tim Bishop its lowest possible score, an “F”. It explained:
If you have been following the Obama administration closely it’s hard to be surprised by some of the things that they do but… never say never. Yesterday, Michael Posner whose title is, are you ready for this, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor brought up in discussions with China, the recent law passed in Arizona to control the number of illegals flooding into that state. This is a law that was passed to address this and the previous administration’s miserable failure to control the border.
The Chinese had counterpunched in response to a report on Human Rights issued by the State Department, as required by U.S. law, that was particularly critical of China, North Korea, and Iran and their restrictions on the Internet, other communications means and their treatment of minorities in their respective countries. This is what the Chinese said:
“The United States not only has a terrible domestic human rights record, it is also the main source of many human rights disasters worldwide,” the Chinese report said, according to the official Xinhua news agency.
“Especially a time when the world is suffering serious human rights disasters caused by the global financial crisis sparked by the U.S. sub-prime crisis, the U.S. government has ignored its own grave human rights problems and reveled in accusing other countries.”
So, after being required by law since 1976 to issue an annual report on Human Rights and not wanting to be excoriated by Congress if they made it a puff piece, our socialist leaning administration felt it necessary to walk it back in meetings with the Chinese by bringing up the new law in Arizona, “early and often”.
The Chinese must have been stunned with their good fortune. Here was the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, going out of his way to point to a new immigration law passed in Arizona to say America might be encouraging discrimination. Here is the question from a reporter and Secretary Posner’s response:
QUESTION: Did the recently passed Arizona immigration law come up? And, if so, did they bring it up or did you bring it up?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.
The Chinese, who under Mao killed millions of their own citizens, force families to have abortions after their first and only child is born, forcefully relocated peasants to Beijing to build the Olympic facilities and them sent them back to their farms, refuse to let information flow to their citizens over the Internet, completely dominate and subjugate Tibet, and we are criticizing our own behavior to them for passing a law in Arizona?
In testimony before Congress after publicly making remarks that the new Arizona law is discriminatory and may trigger a lawsuit from the federal government Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that he had not read the Arizona law. The Arizona law takes up all of ten pages and the Attorney General has not found the time to read it, but somehow knows the law is discriminatory.
In testimony before Congress Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano also admitted that she had not read the bill. The speedy Secretary, who was quick to point out that things were running swell at the Department of Homeland Security after a Muslim extremist in an Army uniform killed thirteen at Fort Hood and that the Times Square bomber was a “lone wolf” before investigators found numerous international ties, wasn’t quick enough to read the ten page law before testifying to Congress.
This is an administration and Congress that can crank out thousands of pages of laws that will change the landscape of liberty in America and then rams them through without reading them and cannot read a ten page law before declaring it discriminatory. It makes you wonder if anyone in this administration knows how to read, which would explain a lot about their ignorance of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
I was watching Mike Huckabee’s show this weekend when a curious exchange took place. Governor Huckabee tried to be fair to President Obama by saying “I believe in his heart that President Obama believes he is doing what is best for the country.” The governor is not alone among those who oppose President Obama who graciously say this. Perhaps it is a preemptive strike to avoid being tarred as a racist. At the same time, however, they will say they think President Obama is a smart man. How do you reconcile those two positions?
Either the man is an idiot and he is stumbling toward socialism without realizing it, or he is an intelligent man who is taking the country to socialism by design. I don’t see a middle ground. The only possibility is that he is a man with an arrogance so breathtaking in scope, that he ignores the will of the people and is implementing programs and policies that he believes is better for the unintelligent masses, and mistakenly thinks it is still capitalism. I can’t square the man’s intelligence, which I believe he has, with him not knowing the difference between capitalism and socialism/Marxism.
Okay, so what prompted this train of thought? It was prompted by some little know activity south of the border and I don’t mean Mexico. Earlier in his term, President Obama, Secretary Clinton and others tried to help return a Hugo Chavez puppet to the presidency in Honduras. Manuel Zalaya was following tactics of Chavez and Castro, to remain in office beyond his term which is limited. By doing so, he was immediately in violation of Honduran law and their constitution. He was removed by order of the Honduran Supreme Court with the backing of the Honduran legislature. The only step they might have taken which was too far was they put him on a plane out of the country.
Chavez, Castro, et al, were outraged. Did the Obama administration come down on the side of democracy and democratic institutions? No, they tried to strong arm Honduras to put Zalaya back in office, by cancelling visas, affecting trade and other measures. Honduras proceeded, ignoring these threats, to hold a general election to peacefully choose a new president which they did. The United States has reluctantly agreed to recognize the new president, but it was not easy for small Honduras to stand up to the United States and based on what they were fighting for and they shouldn’t have had to.
What other signs do I find troubling? After going against the will of the American people in forcing through ObamaCare, Fidel Castro heaped praise upon Obama for the law’s passage only criticizing him for taking so long. In April of 2009, President Obama embraced Hugh Chavez. Today Hugo Chavez is in the process of shutting down the last television outlet that is critical of him while forming closer ties to Ahmadinejad of Iran.
In Ecuador, President Rafael Correa is following the Chavez model. He is also chummy with Iran, is constantly threatening the free press, and the economy is in shambles. He fired congressmen who disagreed with him and replaced them with others who saw things his way. When the constitutional court said the fired congressmen had to be reinstated, Correa took to the airwaves to declare he was ignoring the court’s decision. Shortly thereafter an angry mob marched on the court, the police who are supposed to protect them stood aside. Do we have a statement of concern from the White House regarding this trampling of democracy? No, we have the State Department’s Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Arturo Valenzuela, calling on President Correa. According to the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady:
During Tuesday’s meeting before television cameras, Mr. Valenzuela expressed concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its budding relationship with Ecuador. According to Reuters, Mr. Correa told him: “We don’t want to get involved in that discussion. But what does it have to do with selling bananas to Iran or with Iran financing our hydroelectric plants?” Translation: Ahmadinejad is my friend. You butt out.
The U.S. response? Mr. Valenzuela would not rule out a meeting between Mr. Correa and Barack Obama. If that happens, prepare for a redux of the Obama embrace of Hugo Chávez in Port of Spain, Trinidad, in April 2009—more humiliation for Americans who used to think of their government as a noble defender of liberty against despots.
Creeping Socialism
Obama has given government control over one-sixth of the U.S. economy with the implementation of ObamaCare. He has nationalized two automobile companies. He has nationalized the student loan program. Unions, for the first time, have more members in the government than the private sector, but President Obama wants to increase their numbers in the private sector as well with Card Check. Who are the unions beholding to and vice versa? The Democratic Party. With more union members to do his bidding where does the average citizen stand? In a July speech President Obama said the following:
”We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” (emphasis added)
If this doesn’t send chills up your spine conjuring up dark images from the 1930s, you need to put down the Playstation and pick up a newspaper or a book. Consider that when he graduated from Columbia he became a follower of Saul Alinsky, a Marxist community organizer. Barack Obama did not cut his teeth by starting a small business. He cut his teeth learning how to take down capitalism using Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. As he gets chummy with America’s enemies, he gives the back of his hand to our allies: Israel, Great Britain, Poland,and the Czech Republic. Do you still believe this is a coincidence Governor Huckabee?
The other day George Stephanopoulos of ABC News had the temerity to ask President Obama his response to criticism from Sarah Palin on his new nuclear policy. In his typical haughty way he said:
“Because last I checked,” he added, “Sarah Palin’s not much of an expert on nuclear issues.”
A child on the playground, as Ms. Palin explained, understands nuclear deterrence better than this president. Tell a child that you can punch me in the nose and I won’t strike back and you’re asking for trouble. How far along has President Obama’s “let’s all be friends” initiative gotten us? He is reduced to scolding Iran and saying “this time we really, really mean it,” while Ahmadinejad snickers in his sleeve.
The Turning Tide
Rasmussen has added a feature to go along with their Daily Presidential poll that measures favorability of media reports on President Obama. What struck me when I looked at them today was that the favorable had dropped below 50%. Uh-oh, Mr. President, call your office. If he loses the lame stream media, stick a fork in his presidency, it’s done.
The left is gathering a circular firing squad and first up is Mr. Stephanopoulos himself, as indicated by this account:
“In effect,” wrote Steven Benen of The Washington Monthly, “the ‘GMA’ host was saying, “Some conspicuously unintelligent right-wing media personality said something stupid about a subject she knows nothing about. Mr. President, how do you respond?”
However, Stephanopoulos was having none of it, responding:
“Whatever Steve thinks of Sarah Palin,” he wrote, “she’s a former VP candidate — and potential challenger to President Obama — with a strong following in the GOP. She made a pointed critique of a new Presidential policy. By asking the President for his response, I was doing my job.”
Wow, impertinent questions for President Obama and respect for Sarah Palin, coming from the lame stream media. This could get very interesting.
With Ahmadinejad and the mullahs taking maximum advantage of Obama’s apology tour, it was time to make a bold statement regarding a second nuclear installation in Iran. What better place and what better time than at the U.N. Security Council meeting especially with President Obama holding the gavel as the current chairman. At least that was what French President Nicholas Sarkozy thought, as well British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
The problem was that President Obama was basking in the glow of his makeover of America. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, after all, told the General Assembly that he no longer smelled the sulfurous odor of El Diablo, President Bush. It was another Obama global love fest. Why spoil it by talking about global security in the Security Council of all places? It would be far better to talk about global security the following day at an economic summit of the G-20. Don’t you think?
French Fried
Sarkozy apparently had his U.N. speech prepared to take a strong stance against Iran in the Security Council Meeting, but was forced to remove that part of the speech.
President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been “frustrated” for months about Mr. Obama’s reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn’t want to “spoil the image of success” for Mr. Obama’s debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy. — WSJ, September 29, 2009
Welcome as it is, at the same time somewhat embarrassing that the French are frustrated that the United States isn’t taking a harder line. President Obama has certainly come full circle from President Bush in just nine months. As for me, I slept better with an American cowboy in the White House.
When given an opportunity to speak in Pittsburgh, President Sarkozy could hardly contain himself:
“We are right to talk about the future,” Mr. Sarkozy said, referring to the U.S. resolution on strengthening arms control treaties. “But the present comes before the future, and the present includes two major nuclear crises,” i.e., Iran and North Korea. “We live in the real world, not in a virtual one.” No prize for guessing into which world the Frenchman puts Mr. Obama.
Sarkozy continued,
“I support America’s ‘extended hand.’ But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges. And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations. What are we to do? What conclusions are we to draw? At a certain moment hard facts will force us to make decisions.”
Vive la France. I hope we make it to 2012.
Peter Baker writes in the New York Times, “Good Will, But Few Foreign Policy Benefits for Obama,” that
“As much as they may prefer to deal with Mr. Obama instead of his predecessor, George W. Bush, foreign leaders have not gone out of their way to give him what he has sought.”
Well, duh, who didn’t see that coming? Who doesn’t prefer to negotiate with someone who wants to be your best friend, so that they can clean your clock before you realize what hit you? I take that back, liberals didn’t see it coming and they never do. One liberal that I can think of who could see it, is no longer with us, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He wrote a book about it referring to the world in it’s title A Dangerous Place.
So what has Obama’s policy of “engagement” gotten us?
Foreign policy could not be more fundamental to the office of the President (Constitution: Article II, Section 2), but today President Obama will appear on five Sunday talk shows to continue to push his health care initiative that 56% of the American people don’t want and the Constitution doesn’t identify as a federal function. If he doesn’t get back on track with foreign policy it won’t be health care we need but medical triage in the aftermath of another terror attack or war on our soil.
From being the foregone conclusion as the first woman President of the United States in 2008 to a marginalized, snarky misrepresentative of the United States, it time for her to realize, the band stopped playing and everyone has gone home but her. It’s time to call it a day and resign.
Keep Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Closer
Proving, once again, he is the master of hardball politics, Barack Obama dangled the Secretary of State job in front of his vanquished rival. She took the bait. No more would she be a force in the Senate able to challenge Obama at the first stumble. She was now part of the problem, not a potential solution. Once ensconced at Foggy Bottom, she thought she enhance her image by holding the most prestigious post in the Cabinet. But she again underestimated Barack Obama.
He proceeded to divvy up foreign policy among many advisers, undercutting Hillary every step of the way. She’s no fool, she can see it and it is eating away at her, to the point where she is becoming a gaffe machine to rival Joe Biden.
She’s No Condoleezza Rice
Upstaged by her husband in North Korea, negotiating the release of the journalist hostages, she was asked what her husband thought about another matter while in Africa. In a similar situation, Condoleezza Rice, would have handled that with aplomb and not become rattled. But here is Hillary’s response. Hillary Snaps. Smacking down a questioner on the world stage? Well that will surely “correct” our image as the Ugly Americans.
The Apology Tour Continues
She goes on to make a speech in Nigeria and wants to emphasize that there is no place in the world for corrupt elections. A very good point to make, that few could argue with. But what does she use as an analogy? She openly suggests that Jeb Bush fixed the 2000 Presidential election for his brother. Of all the analogies of corrupt elections that she could have used, let’s see, Iran? Cuba? the old Soviet Union? she points to the oldest democracy in history and suggest that we are as corrupt as any third world dictator. Hillary Compares U.S. Elections to Third World Corruption. Disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who endorsed Hillary to take his Senate seat, must be turning over in his grave. He used to staunchly defend the United States at the UN and here his protege is saying we are no better than the worst of them.
In Honduras, the rule of law is being followed to prevent a Chavez style dictator from taking over that country, and who does Hillary and the Obama administration support? The Chavez puppet. What about standing up for democracy in our Hemisphere? It is time for her to go.
The Gore Thing in 2000
Let’s get this straight one more time. On election night 2000, Gore lost Florida. He lost the recount. He lost the re-recount. He lost the re-re-recount. He lost the official recount. He lost the private recount sponsored by newspapers.
Their count showed that Bush’s razor-thin margin of 537 votes — certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State’s office — would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.
“In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush should have been president of the United States,” said Mark Seibel, the paper’s managing editor. “I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questions about how the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked.” — CNN
If Democrats and their radical supporters want to salve their wounds with this myth, live the fantasy. But don’t smear this country with these lies while acting as our chief diplomat.
