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 students rose up against the mullahs in Iran, the Obama administration was strangely silent while demonstrators were murdered in the streets.  But Israel is condemned at the drop of a hat. When the Mubarak regime started to wobble so did the president’s position, for Mubarak, against Mubarak, for Mubarak, against Mubarak. In capitals across the Middle East and around the world our enemies rubbed their hands in glee, while our friends started looking for new friends.

When Khadafy rattled his saber at Ronald Reagan and bombed a discothèque in Berlin that killed two American servicemen, Reagan responded with a raid on Libya that landed 277 hits with 5 misses. Khadafy went back in his cage. When violence broke out from this terrorist slaughtering his own people, President Obama remained silent for days due to a “scheduling conflict.” The scheduling conflict concerned getting Americans out of the country. Between Reagan’s action and Bush’s taking out of Hussein in Iraq followed by Khadafy’s throwing in the towel on his nuclear program, it seems clear that Khadafy does not want a military conflict with the U.S. So a clear message to him that the fastest way to get into a military conflict with the U.S. would be to impede the evacuation of any U.S. citizens will give him pause. To back that up the Sixth Fleet should have been put on station in the Gulf of Sidra and Obama could then be a leader and speak out forcefully against this terrorist.

Instead our leader made it clear he was ready to follow the United Nations. So look out, Khadafy, we’re going to let you have it in Switzerland and kick you off the Human Rights panel. Take that! You can almost see Khadafy’s wrist getting red and starting to swell. I’ll bet that any American left in Libya is bursting with pride over that step. Now we are going to start applying sanctions. Am I the only one who thinks Libya will deteriorate to chaos, if it is not already there, before any sanctions can have an effect? How many people think, Khadafy is going to pull up short because we have frozen his assets like his mansion in New Jersey? With all due respect to the Garden State, I don’t think that is top of mind for Khadafy.

Budget Matters

On budget matters we are now kicking around $4 billion in cuts to prevent a government shutdown for two weeks. How about Harry Reid getting back to Washington and putting the Senate in session to consider the bill already passed by the House that cut $61 billion from the budget? We are running a $1.6 trillion single year deficit. A cut of $61 billion may change that number to $1.5 trillion after rounding. Let’s get serious! Where is the leadership from the White House. His budget was a joke, boasting of saving $1.1 trillion over TEN YEARS. We will be that much deeper in the hole by NEXT YEAR.

Meanwhile my congressman is out fighting the spending cuts that were included in the House bill that passed that chamber. Doesn’t anyone understand the urgency of the problem? We are hemorrhaging red ink and it is time to stop blaming Bush and start looking at the people who are doing the spending.

All the Democrats want to talk about is that the Republicans want to shut down the government, the Republicans want to shut down the government, while they pick up their fiddles and play a tune. If President Obama was a leader, the leader of the Democratic party, he would be on the phone to Harry Reid and tell him to get back to work. Put together the best deal you can, but this is a crisis. But President Obama doesn’t see any crisis. He is more focused on preventing  a solution in Wisconsin than in doing his duty.

The Ultimate Organizer

The president is organized, if nothing else. In this realm he shows his strength. He manages to play a round of golf about every other week. He has top union leaders to the White House about every other week and his White House is on the phone with them several times per week. He has hosted swell parties at the White House and today the New York Times introduces us to his personal trainer. But to show his community spirits, he shares his personal trainer with other White House staffers.

Instead of a President Obama with nice six pack abs, I would much prefer the leadership and waistline of Chris Christie.

That’s my opinion. I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

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?

Wagner and Kennedy

In 1958, New York City mayor Robert F. Wagner was running for reelection. He had a little problem, though, and that was the fact that all five Democratic county leaders were opposed to him. Not only did that make getting reelected an uphill fight, he realized that he might not even be the nominee of the Democrat party. He needed a bold stroke of political genius. He found his stroke with the point of a pen. He penned an executive order giving public sector employees the ability to unionize. Were the public sector employees in some sort of danger that they needed additional protections? No. They were already protected under civil service provisions. This was purely a political power play designed for the sole purpose of getting Mayor Wagner reelected against the wishes of the leaders of his own party. Sounds a little bit dictatorial, no? One man creates the first public sector unions for the purpose of getting himself reelected. Let the public be damned with the long term consequences. He would be long retired before that piper had to be paid.

President John F. Kennedy won the presidency by the slimmest of margins. Some have reasonably argued that voting shenanigans in Chicago threw the election his way. President Kennedy saw how well things were going for the Democrats in New York after Wagner’s executive order. He also didn’t want to face another tough election. What could he do to put a thumb on the scale? In 1962, President Kennedy picked up his pen and wrote Executive Order 10988, that gave federal workers the right to organize. Again, no public outcry that public sector unions were needed, no act of Congress; one man, exercising executive power, dramatically changed the direction of public worker compensation that we are now buried under. Sounds somewhat dictatorial, no?

In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker is trying to use the democratic legislative process to pass a law, changing the scope of the collective bargaining abilities, not eliminating them, and somehow that earns him the comparisons to Middle East dictators. What does that tell you about the intellectual honesty of the left? Likes the states, it’s bankrupt.

The Unspoken Truth

The unions in Wisconsin have said they agree to the health care contributions that the governor has demanded, they have agreed to the retirement contributions that the governor has demanded, so it is not about the money it is about breaking the unions. I wish that Governor Walker would come clean and explain exactly what the goals are.

 Without the changes in collective bargaining, sure the unions will give in now, but they will still have all their political power. Meaning that in the next election, they can once again come out in force to elect their future bosses and then negotiate to restore everything they gave up. It is not only about the money today, it is about the money in the future as well. As long as unions can take money from their members, use it to elect politicians who will give away the store to them as payback, any concessions today are only a short term fix. Governor Walker is trying to effect a permanent fix. He wants to bend the cost curve downward so that Wisconsin can attract businesses to the state and jobs. With jobs and a growing economy the states fiscal health will be restored. With the changes in collective bargaining, compensation in the public sector will not continue to outgrow private sector compensation that pays the salaries and benefits of the public sector. Is that fair? Ask a taxpayer and then ask a union member.

Right to Work

If the place of unions is so glorious in the tradition and success of the American economy, why are unions so desperately afraid of Right to Work laws? Why do unions need the coercive power of the state to force people to join unions in some states? Sounds more like Iran than America, no?

When I was in college I took a summer job with UPS. UPS was a union shop, which means they can hire union or non-union workers but after a set period of time the non-union workers have to join the union or lose their jobs. In the period that I was there, I and the guy I was teamed with developed a reputation as hard workers. Whenever a tractor trailer came in with just a few minutes left before the transfer point closed for the night, we were typically asked to be the ones to unload it because we could to it faster than anyone else. My work performance got me a raise in the short time I was there. But after about two months the foreman came to me and said it was time to join the union. Again, this was a summer job that I would be leaving to go back to college regardless. But there was no give. Rather than join, I quit, and finished out my summer at another job that appreciated a hard worker.

Where Right to Work laws are in play, an individual cannot be forced to join a union. If unions are the mother’s milk that the left claims they are why does the left oppose Right to Work laws? Why should an individual be forced to join a union as a condition of their employment?  If unions are so wonderful, why is union membership in the private sector plummeting? What happened to our steel industry? Our ship building industry? Our auto industry? Tell me again where the dictators are and where the democracy lies.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

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.

Leadership springs from some deep personal convictions. It is perhaps why, leadership is not common in politics. In politics, to be relevant you have to get elected and reelected. It is hard to take a stand on principles and get people to elect you time and again. It is easier, to get along, hand out some goodies, bribe the public with the public’s money and slide back into office. If they are adroit enough perhaps the individual can do some real good in the interval between elections. But over time, they tend to get sloppy and stay in the reelection mode and forget what public service means.

One of the challenges of the Republican party today as the field assembles on the starting line for the 2012 presidential sweepstakes is the lack of a leader in the declared field. Ronald Reagan was a leader. Chris Christie is a leader. Herman Cain is a leader. Alan West is a leader. But many whose names are mentioned are more politicians than leaders, with resumes filled with compromises to get along with the opposition. Some of those who are leaders, including a number of the above, are too new to their current jobs to start looking for the next one.

But what about President Obama? Even on his signature socialist programs like health care, cap and trade, increasing taxes on the wealthy, he didn’t lead. Sure, he drove them hard to get them through, but the finished products were awful, and it was ugly right down to the final passage of the health care program because he abdicated the writing of the legislation to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

On foreign policy, he has been outmaneuvered by almost everyone. When the people rose up against the mullahs in Iran, he didn’t say a thing in support of them, preferring to coddle the dictators in charge believing they would return measure for measure. They didn’t. In Egypt he was for Mubarak, then against Mubarak, than for him, against him, such that no matter who came out on top they would have reason not to trust us as a friend or ally. In Honduras, their president tried to become a dictator along the lines of Hugo Chavez and the government would have no part of it. Did this administration side with democracy? No, they sided with Chavez, Castro and their puppets.

We are now in the midst of a budget crisis and President Obama talks but he does not lead. He says nothing about entitlements, the most toxic part of the budget, because he didn’t want to go first. Isn’t that the definition of lead? The leader goes first and the rest follow. He appointed a budget commission, spending more tax dollars in the process, as a way to slide past the November elections appearing to be doing something. When the commission finished its work, the president ignored it. When a reporter asked him about it, he complained that the media is impatient and that the commission’s work is not dead, just not now. Well when, then? President Obama is in the third year of his term. He is proposing a budget for the next fiscal year that will end a month before the next election. Is he assuming he will be returned to office to implement the commission’s work? Judge for yourself in the following video. Is this the nature of a man firmly in charge of the reins of government? Or does it bring to mind a certain man from Plains, Georgia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Il_aoTYORM

Feel inspired? Do you feel like this man has a firm grasp of the problem and a concrete plan to resolve it? Neither do I.  In 2012, we can do better.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

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:

Bishop’s grade of F is based on a comprehensive study undertaken by the group, which analyzed every significant national security vote cast by Rep. Bishop since he assumed office in 2003. Bishop’s failing grade is rooted in his multiple votes to transfer terrorist detainees, currently housed at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to U.S. soil, thereby granting them additional Constitutional rights and hindering intelligence gathering.

Bishop further cast a vote against allowing the U.S. military to develop a contingency plan to deal with the growing threat posed by Iran.

The ranking was based on House member’s votes on twenty-seven national security rated bills.

As our enemies continue to try to kill us, can we afford weakness in our resolve to defeat them?

Other scorecards

How has Tim Bishop measured up on other scorecards?  Here is a sampling:

• ACLU – Tim Bishop has an 83% lifetime favorable rating from the organization
• The Club for Growth is an organization that supports policies that will help grow the economy through limited government and economic freedom.  A growing economy, naturally, creates jobs.  Mr. Bishop’s rating is 0% from the Club for Growth
• Another security organization, the Center for Security Policy, gives Mr. Bishop a score of 25%
• The American Conservative Union gives Mr. Bishop a lifetime score of 2.86% favorable, with a rating for 2009 of 0%.  While I understand Mr. Bishop is not a conservative, neither is he middle of the road. You cannot get much further left than a 2.86% lifetime rating from the ACU coupled with voting lockstep with Nancy Pelosi 97% of the time.  Some of Mr. Bishop’s positions that earned him this low rating include:
  • He voted against a bill to end TARP and return the unspent TARP money to the Treasury
  • He voted for the stimulus
  • He voted against a Republican proposal to balance the budget within ten years and extend the Bush tax cuts and $482 billion in spending cuts over five years.  In his debate with Randy Altschuler he scoffed at Republicans seriously having a plan to cut spending. Well there it is, and he voted against it.
  • He voted against deleting an earmark for an airport in Rep. John Murtha’s district in Pennsylvania.  Murtha, one of the kings of pork before passing away, channeled $150 million to this airport that handles six flights a week. A Wall Street Journal reporter visited this airport and said that they walked around for fifteen minutes before seeing another person.  Just what the taxpayers in New York need Tim Bishop to vote for, wasteful spending in Pennsylvania.
  • He voted against additional funding for missile defense, a function of Congress that is actually in the Constitution.
  • He voted for Cap and Trade, that will cause energy prices like home heating oil and gasoline to skyrocket.  Most of Long Island’s electricity comes from fossil fuels so this should also drive up electricity prices, already among the most expensive in the country.
  • He defeated an amendment to impose spending caps through 2014, limiting spending and deficits to a percentage of GDP.
  • He opposed spending cuts to the budgets of the Housing and Transportation departments by 5%.
  • He voted for ObamaCare over the strong objection of his constituents
  • He voted against extending the ban on the death tax, which could impact many small businesses and family farms in his district.
• The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council gave Tim Bishop a rating of 0%.

It is clear that Mr. Bishop is not a moderate, middle of the road, Democrat.  He often votes against the concerns of his constituents and in lockstep with the leadership of his party.  That would be an indication that he has his focus on moving up the ladder of his party and getting more power rather than serving his district.  At a time when jobs and the economy are critical to get our country moving again, Tim Bishop’s record is among the most anti-business in the entire Congress.  It is business that creates jobs, not government.  How can Mr. Bishop possibly hold the solution to the problem?

Mr. Bishop’s Support

So where does Mr. Bishop’s support come from?  In reading news stories, comments on newspaper articles, blogs and the like, the constant theme that I hear is that Mr. Bishop is responsive to the individual needs of his constituents and helps them with their problems.  Okay, that may be true and I have also heard the arguments from the other side that if you disagree with him, he is deaf to your requests for support.

Let’s talk about what is commonly known as constituent service, that is, helping people in the district with their individual problems.  This is a noble thing to do, but let’s also look at why they need the help?  How did the problem come about?  It is probably because government has gotten so big, and so complex, and is increasingly embedded in our lives, that we sometimes need to reach out to those more powerful (Mr. Bishop) to cut through the red tape.  But here is a thought experiment for you.  What if the government wasn’t so big?  What if Washington didn’t try to tell you what kind of light bulb to buy, what kind of toilet to install, how many thousands upon thousands of tax regulations you have to follow?  What if the government in Washington focused on those powers given to it under the Constitution and left the rest to state and local government and to ourselves?

What the people who support Mr. Bishop speak most passionately about is little more than a Tammany Hall fixer.  He wants his constituents to depend on him.  The more he can help out, the more they will vote for him and get their friends to vote for him.  So he is motivated to make the government bigger and more complex and then rather than deal with it yourself, you go to him to deal with it for you.  It’s time to break the cycle of dependency.

An Historic Moment

This election day presents an historic moment to turn the tide against big government.  Government that doesn’t listen to the people because it thinks the people are incapable of taking care of themselves.  Tim Bishop thinks he is smarter than all of us and he has proven that he thinks the fundamental purpose of the Constitution is to provide for the common good.  The Constitution says no such thing.  The purpose of the Constitution is to limit government to the few things that are best done for all of us, such as, national defense, a common currency, a court system, delivery of the mail, and manage or relationships with foreign nations.  It is not about light bulbs or toilets or government run health care.  It is for those things that affect all Americans, equally.  The reason we have legislation that is two and three thousand pages long is because this leviathan government has its tentacles into the far corners of our lives.  It is time to vote for a change.  It is time to start putting the monster back in its cage, where we are the masters, not the slaves.  Where we have the freedom to live our lives without interference from government intrusion.

Do you want your freedom for yourselves and your children, or do you want to continue to grow a massive government that will condemn your children, grandchildren and generations onward to a debtor’s prison, forever paying for the choice we make tomorrow?  Think carefully, my friends, your family is depending on it.

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?

• Putin getting Obama to drop missile defenses based in Poland and the Czech Republic for… “a player to be named later” from Putin?
• Ahmadinejad fixes an election in Iran, kills and rapes the opposition, presses on with its intention of getting nuclear weapons and the Obama administration says, “That’s a no, no,” as if chiding a tot.  Ahmadinejad can’t believe his good fortune.  He will play Russia off the U.S. and merrily stall until he has nuclear weapons and the missile technology to deliver them anywhere.
• Chavez is trying to help a dictator abolish democracy in Honduras, and Obama and Clinton try to help him by telling the Honduran people that have to allow their law breaking former president to return to power.
• Chavez is getting buddy-buddy with Ahmadinejad, so as soon as Iran has nuclear weapons, we may soon see nukes in South America.  JFK went to the brink of nuclear war to keep such weapons out of this Hemisphere.  Does anyone believe Obama would do the same?
• North Korea continues to thumb its nose at the Obama Administration, while it tests more missiles until it gets one that can hit Kansas City.
• Europeans dismiss Obama’s calls for more troops in Afghanistan
• The Saudi’s dismiss (despite or because of,  the bowing of Obama to their king) his requests for concessions on Israel
• Israel refuses to stop building settlements on the West Bank
• Obama has marginalized the State Department.  What is Hillary Clinton actually responsible for?  Biden seems to be handling (?) Russia; George Mitchell the Middle East; Holbrooke Afghanistan; Dennis Ross for Iran.

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.