Obama the Shameful: 2014 Archives


What did the mid-term elections tell us about American attitudes towards immigration?

Victor Davis Hanson observes:

It would seem that Americans appreciate the vibrancy, energy, and new ideas that immigrants bring. But a great many Americans also insist that immigrants come legally, in manageable numbers, in ethnically diverse fashion, and that they be eager to learn English and assimilate quickly.

Read it all.



Do you feel safe with Obama in charge?



Although the American public overwhelmingly are opposed to the President taken unilateral action on immigration, that is just what Obama plans to do after the mid-term elections.

The U.S. senator who has been fighting hardest and longest against Obama's plans that would do great damage to working Americans is Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. He accuses the president and Senate Democrats working for global CEOs and special interests rather than their own people.

"The world has turned upside down. Instead of serving the interests of the American people, the policies of President Obama and every Senate Democrat serve the needs of special interests and global CEOs who fail to understand the duty a nation owes to its own people.

Read the whole thing.

"The Wall Street Journal confirmed today that the President is planning to issue a massive unilateral executive amnesty after the election.

"In its report, the WSJ certifies that this executive amnesty would provide work permits for illegal immigrants—taking jobs directly from struggling Americans.

"Based on the USCIS contract bid and statements from USCIS employees, we know this executive immigration order is likely to be broader in scope than anyone has imagined.
"Earlier this week, President Obama’s former head of Homeland Security revealed that she overrode resistance from administration lawyers and law enforcement agents in implementing the President’s earlier unlawful amnesty and work authorization program for illegal immigrants 30 and under. This was an open admission by one of the most senior people in government of violating one’s oath of office in order to accomplish a nakedly political aim.

"The President is assuming for himself the sole and absolute power to decide who can enter, work, live, and claim benefits in the United States. He has exempted virtually every group in the world from America’s immigration laws: people who enter before a certain age, people related to people who enter before a certain age, adults traveling with minors, minors traveling with adults, illegal immigrants who are not convicted of serious crimes, illegal workers who are convicted of serious crimes but not enough serious crimes, almost anyone who shows up the border and demands asylum, the millions who overstay their visas, and, as was recently exposed, illegal immigrants with serious criminal histories. The list continues to grow.

"A nation creates borders and laws to protect its own citizens. What about their needs?

"The President is systemically stripping away the immigration protections to which every single American worker and their family is entitled. He doesn’t care how this impacts Americans’ jobs, wages, schools, tax bills, hospitals, police departments, or communities.

"But it gets worse still. The WSJ reports that the President is ‘expected to benefit businesses that use large numbers of legal immigrants, such as technology companies.’ Those changes include measures to massively expand the number of foreign workers for IT companies—measures aggressively lobbied for by IT giants like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. Yet we have more than 11 million Americans with STEM degrees who don’t have jobs in these fields. Rutgers professor Hal Salzman documented that two-thirds of all new IT jobs are being filled by foreign workers. From 2000 through today, a period of record legal immigration, all net gains in employment among the working-age have gone entirely to immigrant workers.

"And now, in order to help open borders billionaires, President Obama is going to deny millions of Americans their shot at entering the middle class and a better life.

"The world has turned upside down. Instead of serving the interests of the American people, the policies of President Obama and every Senate Democrat serve the needs of special interests and global CEOs who fail to understand the duty a nation owes to its own people. But the citizens of this country still hold the power, and through their voice, they can turn the country right-side again."



Professor Haim Harai is a brilliant Israeli scientist who wrote an eye-opening account of Israel's situation years ago entitled "A View from the Eye of the Storm." Now retired from his post as president of the Weizmann Institute, he still has vital views to share.

Read every word.

A View From the "Emergency Routine" Under the Iron Dome
Prof. Haim Harai

"These lines are written ten days after the beginning of the latest Gaza conflict and thirteen years since the Hamas started launching thousands of rockets from Gaza exclusively into Israeli civilian targets. It has also been nine years since Israel completely left the Gaza strip, and a few hours since the Hamas rejected two Egyptian cease fire proposals, and Israel launched a ground operation aimed at destroying Hamas offensive facilities.

In Israeli towns, near the Gaza border, 13 year old children celebrated their Bar Mitzvah without experiencing, since their birth, even one day free of fear of rockets, always having 15 seconds to reach for an improvised cover. High school graduates, the class of 2014, never went to school or returned from school, since kindergarten, without a real threat of a Hamas rocket hitting them on the way. It is debatable whether the children's stress or their parents' anxiety has more damaging long term effects. It is a hard competition.

The Hamas, which is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brothers, is openly committed to the annihilation of the State of Israel and to the extermination of all Jews, wherever they are. The United States, The European Union, Egypt and Israel consider the Hamas a terrorist organization. The Palestinian authority and most Arab countries treat the Hamas with suspicion, if not with animosity. They would be delighted if Hamas were destroyed, although they would not say so publicly.

The amazing fact is that the only solid support of the Hamas comes, in recent years, from two countries: Qatar, an alleged staunch ally of the United States, home of the American Forces in the Gulf, and Turkey, a member of NATO, whose mask of moderation was lifted when the hot-headed Mr. Erdogan recently started making openly anti-Semitic statements, in the best traditions of Nazi Germany and the Muslim Brothers. The most disturbing factor of this unusual alliance is the mind boggling attitude of the United States and its President Barack Obama.

The United States, "leading from behind", as its current policy dictates, has consistently avoided helping the Egyptian negotiators, who tried to broker a cease fire between Israel and the terrorists. The Egyptians openly stated that President Obama has joined forces, in an unholy partnership, with Qatar and Turkey, supporting the Muslim Brothers, under the faint excuse of "they won the democratic election in Egypt". They won? So did Hitler, after all.

Life in much of Israel is progressing on the basis of an unusual oxymoron: The Emergency Routine. This means going about your normal business, and getting, from time to time, into a barely protected area, not a real shelter, within 15 or 60 or 90 seconds, depending on the distance the rocket has to travel from Gaza in order to reach your area. Parents bring their children to their place of work, if possible; grandparents are drafted as babysitters; little children are taught to lie face down on the floor when an alarm catches them outdoors, and they are more than a few seconds away from cover. A few minutes later, explosions are heard. Perhaps a rocket falling in an empty area; Often the protective "Iron Dome" defensive missile intercepts the intruder from the sky; sometimes a rocket falling in a built area, causing damage and bodily harm. And then life goes on till the next siren sounds.

The success of the "Iron Dome" is a milestone in the history of armed conflicts, comparable to the first appearance of tanks, submarines, missiles, and military airplanes. It allowed Israel to absorb more than a thousand rockets, solely intended for murdering civilian population, without one fatality. An incredible achievement, based on technological excellence, but also on pure luck.

The Hamas rockets are sufficiently inaccurate to miss entire towns. This is a clear proof that their single goal is murdering civilians. You cannot pretend that a rocket, which misses an entire town, has been aimed at some strategic or military target, and the Hamas is not even trying to make such a claim. By any definition, this is a continuous, methodical and persistent pursuit of war crimes, by a murderous terrorist organization. The terrorists and their allies accuse Israel of deliberately harming civilians. No one, in the entire global history of wars, made a greater effort to avoid civilian casualties, by giving advance warnings and by avoiding clear military targets protected by human shields of women and children. If Israel would have been interested in harming civilians, nothing could stop it from killing hundreds or thousands per day. There is no evidence whatsoever of one deliberate case of harming civilians.

The percentage of non-combatants accidentally hurt in Gaza is far smaller than anything ever seen in the American operations in Iraq or Afghanistan, or in the allied operations in Kosovo or Belgrade. That does not stop the entire world from accusing, preaching and pontificating to Israel. On the same day ninety(!) civilians die in a suicide murder in Afghanistan and one child is accidentally hit, together with an arch-terrorist, by Israel in Gaza. The ninety dead civilians get a small corner in the world media, while the Gaza casualties get major headlines. It is not who died and how many of them did, that the world cares about. It is who hit them, and who can be conveniently accused by finger pointing, says the smart money.

An interesting symmetry or, perhaps, asymmetry: the Hamas is shooting only at civilians, mostly children, women, elderly people and all others, and protects itself mainly by using civilians as human shields, almost exclusively children, women and elderly people. The young male terrorists, and their leaders, are well hidden in tunnels and bunkers under hospitals, schools and mosques. Israel is attacking only military terrorist targets, even if it regretfully and accidentally also hits civilians, and defends itself militarily with the successful Iron Dome anti-missile defense. A telling caricature in the Israeli press shows a dialogue between an Israeli wearing a helmet and a masked Hamas terrorist, "wearing" a little child over his head. The Israeli says: "Why don't you stop these stupid rockets? We have an Iron Dome". The Hamas guy responds, pointing to the little child: "We too". And the Hamas fire continues, unabated.

The behavior of the Hamas is neither surprising nor is it hidden behind claims of "objectivity". They are publicly and openly committed to murdering Jews (not only Israeli Jews, and not at all Israeli non-Jews; just Jews, plain and simple). But the "objectivity" of some of the global media is amazing. A BBC interviewer angrily asks the Israeli Ambassador to London: "How many Palestinians were killed? More than a hundred! And no Israelis were killed". The Ambassador is supposed to apologize for the success in intercepting thousands of rockets, a success which somehow turns Israel into a violent aggressor. Flashback seventy years to the first half of 1945, with British forces advancing on all fronts inside Nazi Germany and relentlessly bombing one German city after another. How many German civilians and how many British civilians died in the first few months of 1945? Apparently Hitler was right! Shouldn't he deserve our support, due to the huge number of dead German civilians in those days?

An "objective journalism" report by Steven Erlanger of the New York Times "explains" that 80% of the people in Gaza are refugees of the 1948 war, and that "the rockets that they launch are aimed at their own former towns and villages". Many miracles happened in the holy land, but the Erlanger miracle is a real masterpiece. 80% are refugees? Anyone who was born in 1948 is at least 66 years old now. Anyone who was an 18 year old adult in 1948 is at least 84 years old. And these people, who may have indeed been refugees, 66 years ago, left places which were 15 minute (!!!) drive from Gaza, and are still persistently maintained and fed by the United Nations as refugees, rejecting any attempts to resettle them. But we are now told by the enlightened New York Times that 80% of the people in Gaza are refugees! For the average 25 year old Hamas terrorist, 1948 is something that happened 40 years before he was born, a similar time relation as World War I for a 60 year old European. Except that the European is not told, 24 hours a day, since his childhood, that all Jews must be slaughtered (The standard battle cry is: "Itbah Al Yahood", meaning "Slaughter the Jews", not even "Kill the Jews").

In the same 1948 war, an equal number of Arabs and Jews became refugees. The Jews left behind their enormous property in Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon and other Arab countries. They moved to a newly born, very poor distant country with a different language, had absolutely no support from the UN and created an impressive miracle in the desert. The Palestinians moved by a fifteen minute drive to their own brothers in Gaza, and have been kept by them as hostages for 66 years, fed by the United Nations. Mr. Erlanger of the New York Times knows all of these facts but chooses to quote only the Hamas lies. Why? Perhaps because facts that he has known for decades are not news. Or is there some other reason?

For years Israel has been clearly stating that the Hamas, as well as its subcontracting terror organizations in Gaza, are using private homes, schools, mosques, kindergartens and hospitals as cover for ammunition supplies, bunkers hiding their leaders, and launching pads of rockets. Israel avoids hitting these locations, except if it has clear intelligence that the place has no civilians. Numerous videos proved the point, both in the present operation and in the previous two rounds, by showing huge secondary explosions, after an Israeli missile destroyed the hiding place: A first explosion of the Israeli missile itself and a secondary, much more impressive, blast, of the stored rockets (or, perhaps, of the incendiary school textbooks, or the explosive oriental carpets in the mosque). But now, on July 17, 2014, UNRWA, the United Nations Agency which feeds the Palestinians for 66 years, at Western taxpayer expense, admitted publicly that they have discovered 20 ready-to launch rockets inside one of their schools. The UN statement refers to it as "for the first time". Indeed, for the first time it was publicly confirmed by UN sources, but they obviously knew all along that this was a standard practice.

Did this discovery make headlines in the Western press? That evening, CNN did not even mention it, but reported events which were less significant and which happened later. The New York Times website published a 500 word report on Gaza, with the "rockets in the school" story buried two lines from the bottom of the report. In a way, they are right: This is not news. It has been known for years. But these are the same media sources that pretended that no such things have ever happened. So perhaps it is news?

There is also a war of pictures and video clips. The International New York Times, following an old tradition of its predecessor, the Herald Tribune, has a headline about Israel being hit by rockets, but the large photo is of the usual crying poor Arab woman. How many people read the article and how many see the photo? Pictures of smashed bodies of children, from the Syrian civil war, appear in Hamas propaganda as being murdered by Israel, copied by the international press. But here there is real news: The BBC notices it and complains! It seems that someone must have developed a new app for smartphones: Choose a picture of an old crying Arab woman, choose a photo of a big tank, arrange the woman of your choice in front of the threatening tank of your choice and publish in your newspaper or website. Endless such photos appear repeatedly in the Western press. Where do you find so many different old Arab women posing in front of tanks?

In the 2006 Lebanon war, the same body of the same child was photographed, carried by several different Hizbullah operatives, all claimed by the figure captions to be his father. Many photos of the rubble of a destroyed terrorist position include another miracle: a dust-free bright-color clean teddy bear or other toy, miraculously surviving the destruction without a stain or a speck of dust. But a new record is broken in the current conflict: In 2011, in broad daylight, a Hamas squad, near the Israel-Gaza border, spotted a clearly marked school bus. It deliberately launched an anti-tank missile into the school bus, which had luckily just returned from depositing the children. There was one boy in the bus. He wanted to go for a ride with the bus driver. The boy was killed. Now, in July 2014, the Hamas, eager to boast about some of its "victories", proudly replayed everywhere the three year old video of the great military triumph of hitting a school bus.

Flashback to September 12, 2001, the morning after the Al Qaida attack on the World Trade Center. Imagine the Prime minister of Britain or Canada or Germany, calling a press conference, and making only the following statement: "We support the right of the United States to self-defense, and we call upon both sides to exercise restraint". Do we need to add one word?

Yet, following thousands of Hamas rockets, aimed exclusively into Israeli civilian targets, the spokesperson of the White House announced at the beginning of the Israeli operation: "We support the right of Israel to self-defense, and we call upon both sides to exercise restraint". Does President Obama endorse this statement? May we assume that it reflects his views? Is his consistent support of the Egyptian Muslim Brothers, against President Al-Sisi of Egypt, now extends also to the Hamas niece, a daughter of the (Muslim) Brothers?

In contrast, Germany's Angela Merkel is loud and clear, condemning the Hamas, standing by Israel and supporting its actions. A brave lady. About people like her, it was said: "Being a leader is like being a lady. If you need to prove it, you are not."

When Israel declared the beginning of its ground attack, Secretary Kerry, a proven successful Middle East expert, warned Israel to go exclusively after the Hamas tunnels. Presumably, if the Israeli forces encounter rocket launchers or terrorist leaders outside of tunnels (e.g. in schools and mosques) they should not touch them. The entire Middle East and much of the Muslim world are burning. Iraq is in flames. Syria is destroyed. Libya and Yemen are in civil wars. Lebanon is occupied by a terrorist organization. Sudan and Somali are non-governments hosting freely roaming terrorist entities. Nuclear Pakistan is endangered by the Taliban. Qatar and Turkey support the Hamas. Hamas is trying to infiltrate the Egyptian Sinai. Bahrain is encroached by Iran. Afghanistan is in deadly chaos. Iran is developing nuclear weapons. But Israel, absorbing thousands of rockets, should only go after the tunnels, nothing else, and exercise restraint! Indeed, leading from behind.

Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey has now stated: "Since its founding in 1948, Israel has been performing genocide every day". He is also openly threatening the Jewish community of Turkey and his followers attack the Israeli Embassy, with the Turkish police closing one and a half eyes. But the total combined number of Arabs and Israelis, military and civilians, killed in one hundred years of conflict, since 1920, with endless terrorism, and more than ten rounds of vicious fighting, is still less than 10% of the number of Armenians butchered by Turkey in a very short time.

This is the same Mr. Erdogan, who is openly and consistently supporting the Hamas murderers, and who is also supporting the Muslim Brothers everywhere in the Arab world, yet is a leading member of NATO, and is allegedly a military ally of all Western European nations, as well as of the United States and Canada. This is also Mr. Erdogan who has been declared to be "my very close friend" by President Obama. How can the US and all EU nations explain the fact that their military ally, whom they must defend, if attacked, is openly supporting an organization (Hamas) which all of them define as a terrorist organization? Isn't it time to reconsider Turkey's membership in NATO, in view of its open support of terror? Did we hear one negative comment about the explicit anti-Semitism of Erdogan, from one of Turkey's allies?

The European and American radical Left marches together with the Islamist Jihadists in the streets of the Western World, condemning Israel. A very interesting coalition: "Human rights advocates" support dictatorships which stone criminals and amputate their hands and using children as human shields; "Peace loving activists" support suicide bombing, rockets on civilians and numerous other atrocities; Feminists endorse those who treat women like low animals and murder them "to save the honor of the family" when they are raped; Gay rights organizations collaborate with those who execute gays, just because of their sexual preference. There is not one attribute of Fascism that does not apply to the Muslim Brothers and their associates, including, of course, the Hamas, the Palestinian Branch of the Muslim Brothers. The green flags of Islamic Fascism mix well with the Red flags of a deranged Radical Left, making a mockery of every good thing for which socialism used to stand. May I suggest an appropriate name for the city square in which these people march, shoulder to shoulder? Call it "Piazza Ribbentrop-Molotov". It all happened before, and the one joint target of their hatred, the single common item on their political platform, was always the Jews. The regretful fact that some of the most virulent demagogues are self-hating Jews, does not change this conclusion. "Nothing new under the sun" said the wise biblical King Solomon.

Even under the barrage of rockets, Israel continues to send trucks with food and medicines to Gaza, providing Gaza with much of the electricity needed for producing new rockets, and accepting ailing Palestinians into its good hospitals. Perhaps someone should inform Erdogan? Or tell the hateful and blind radical left allies of the Jihadists? We might even face a malpractice suit for treating a sick Palestinian, coming from the creative brain of a blind agitated radical demonstrator somewhere. Israel has also been treating numerous wounded civilians from the horrible Syrian civil war, which produced in one year more refugees than 100 years of Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. Has anyone heard of these refugees?

A Hamas rocket hits the high voltage line leading electricity from Israel to Gaza. Hamas and the objective United Nations demand that Israeli workers will risk their lives, providing immediate repairs, as befits a loyal and good friendly customer. If the line is not repaired, two major difficulties might arise: Israel will cause a major humanitarian crisis and the next Hamas rocket will not be able to hit again the power line. It seems that the second of these is the one that really bothers Hamas, because nothing would suit their propaganda more than a self-inflicted humanitarian crisis.

In the past, before Egypt closed the tunnels connecting Gaza and Egypt, the Hamas was routinely attacking the food trucks coming from Israel. After all, Hamas operatives received fat commissions on anything transported through the tunnels, and the Israeli trucks were not part of this lucrative business. Just watch the big mansions that the Hamas leaders built for themselves in Gaza. It was a flourishing organized crime scene, complete with "protection fees", known to all, but mentioned nowhere in the global media. The new Egyptian regime, declaring Hamas a terrorist organization, blocked the tunnels, putting an end to the bonanza. Hamas cannot pay salaries to its thousands of employees. Hence the urgent need for an exciting war.

Sigmund Freud, the great Viennese father of psychoanalysis, was a great expert on dreams. When the Hamas barrage of rockets into the center of Israel started, we happened to host a Viennese Psychiatrist, as our guest at the Weizmann institute. He had an amazing dream, worth reporting here. On the day preceding his dream, the Hamas aimed rockets, for the first time, in the direction of Jerusalem. They were intercepted, like most rockets aimed at populated areas, by the successful Iron Dome defensive system. The remarkable dream of our Viennese guest went like this: A Hamas rocket from Gaza, aimed at Jewish Jerusalem, hit the Al Aqsa mosque. The United Nations Human Rights Council immediately called for an emergency session, and severely condemned Israel for the war crime of not intercepting the rocket with the Iron Dome.

July 18, 2014

* Professor Harari is Chair of the Board of the Davidson Institute of Science Education at the Weizmann Institute and Chair of the Management Committee of the Weizmann Global Endowment Management Trust in New York. He served as the President of the Weizmann Institute of Science from 1988-2001.



The most important of the wars against America is the one being fought within America.

Elements of the left -- which now dominate the Democratic Party -- have for decades been arguing that we as Americans should be ashamed of our country, that it has been a force for evil in the world and needs to be changed, or, in Obama's words, "transformed."

Dinesh D'Souza in a book "America" and a motion picture of the same name, exposes their collective efforts to make Americans ashamed of their history and their rich, superpower status while much of the world, from which we have stolen their wealth, suffers. It is only justice that we now share our wealth and step down from our mighty perch in the name of "justice."

If you are in Chatham, stop by the bookstore "Where the Sidewalk Ends" and order or pick up a copy.

To round out the "lesson," why not also ask for a copy of Howard Zinn's "The People's History of the United States" which has educated millions of American schoolchildren on how evil American history has been. This brainwashing is in evidence on American university campuses and in government functionaries today. America must pay.

Both books are available on Amazon in print and Kindle as well.

Also, the movie "America" is currently playing at the Regal Cinemas at the Cape Cod Mall. This week the showings are in the evening: 7:05 and 9:35.

Here's a good review of the movie. It really is a "must see."

Dinesh D’Souza Tells the True Story of America
Posted By Arnold Ahlert On July 17, 2014 FrontPage Magazine

Dinesh D’Souza’s latest film, “America, Imagine a World Without Her,” which earned a rare A+ rating from CinemaScore, is apparently such a threat to progressive ideology that Costco initially ordered the book on which the movie is based removed from its shelves. One can understand why: the film is a devastating takedown of those who see America as the primary source of evil in the world.

The picture opens with a what-if scenario that includes the assassination of George Washington by a British sniper, and the subsequent disintegration of Mount Rushmore, the Lincoln Memorial, the Iwo Jima Memorial, and the Statue of Liberty, as D’Souza asks, “What would the work look like if America did not exist?”

The question is used as a vehicle to set up—and subsequently knock down–the left’s grievance agenda and its victims. Those grievances include theft of land, labor and the American Dream, as well as genocide, segregation and racism. The victims include Native Americans, black Americans, Hispanics and ultimately all Americans. “These indictments developed separately, and each has been around for a long time,” D’Souza explains. “But now they’ve come together in a single narrative of American shame.”

The main driver of that narrative is historian Howard Zinn, whose polemic, “A People’s History of the United States,” has been required reading in thousands of American public schools and universities for years. “When I hear young people on the campus repeat the narrative of American shame, I know they haven’t been told the whole story,” D’Souza notes.

Continue reading...



What Obama has done, is doing and is planning to do is pushing America into chaos, danger and fear.

There can be conclusion other than that he is doing all this deliberately to punish this great country for the wrongs he claims we have done to the oppressed peoples of the world. In their name with the power of the chief executive of the United States, he is sticking a dagger into the country's heart.

When President Lincoln said the nation would never be defeated except from within, he could not have imagined that a successor of his would be the cause of such intentional destruction.

The Constitution? An old piece of paper to be ignored. Congress' authority to make laws? Nonsense, I have a pen and a phone, so "sue me." Enforce the laws? They oppress, let's let the oppressed in to take back what you've stolen from them.

Victor Davis Hanson writes at National Review Online and all too accurately captures the horror of the Obama wrecking rampage. And no one is stopping him.

Our Roost, Obama’s Chickens
From the Middle East to Russia to our own southern border, Obama’s bills are coming due.

By Victor Davis Hanson

Often, crazy things seem normal for a time because logical catastrophes do not immediately follow.

A deeply suspicious Richard Nixon systematically and without pushback for years undermined and politicized almost every institution of the federal government, from the CIA and the FBI to the IRS and the attorney general’s office. Nixon seemed to get away with it — until his second term. Once the public woke up, however, the eventual accounting proved devastating: resignation of a sitting president, prison sentences for his top aides, collapse of the Republican party, government stasis, a ruined economy, the destruction of the Vietnam peace accords that had led to a viable South Vietnam, the end of Henry Kissinger’s diplomatic breakthroughs, and a generation of abject cynicism about government. Did Nixon ever grasp that such destruction was the natural wage of his own paranoia?

In the post-Watergate climate of reform, for nearly three years a naïve Jimmy Carter gave utopian speeches about how American forbearance would end the Cold War and create a new world order based on human rights — until America’s abdication started to erode the preexisting global order. Scary things followed, such as the fall of the shah of Iran, the rise of Iranian theocracy, the taking of American hostages in Tehran, revolutions and insurrection throughout Central America, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, radical Islamists taking over Mecca, more gas lines, continued stagflation, and China invading Vietnam. Did the puritanical Carter ever understand what might be the consequences of his own self-righteousness in an imperfect world?

Barack Obama likewise has done some crazy things that seemed for years to have no ramifications. Unfortunately, typical of the ways of Nemesis (a bitter goddess who waits until the opportune moment to demand payment for past hubris), suddenly the bills for Obama’s six years of folly are coming due for the American people.
When a president occasionally fails to tell the truth, you get a scandal like the monitoring of the Associated Press reporters. When a president serially fails to tell the truth, you get that plus the scandals involving the IRS, the NSA, the VA, Benghazi, and too many others to mention.

The same is true abroad. The American public hardly noticed when Obama recklessly withdrew every peacekeeper from Iraq. Did he not boast of “ending the Iraq War”? It did not mind when the U.S. posted dates for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Trashing all the Bush–Cheney anti-terrorism protocols, from Guantanamo to renditions, did not make much sense, when such policies had worked and, in fact, were of use to Obama himself. But again, most Americans took no note. Apparently the terrorists did, however, and they regrouped even as the president declared them “on the run.”

Lecturing Israel while praising Islamist Turkey was likewise ignored. America snoozed as its president insidiously redefined its role in the Middle East as secondary to the supposed pivot to Asia. Each new correction in and of itself was comparatively minor; but in aggregate they began to unravel the U.S.-inspired postwar global order.

At first, who cared whether Iran serially violated every Obama deadline on halting nuclear enrichment? Did we worry that Libya, where Obama was proud of having led from behind, was descending into Somalia? Few Americans were all that bothered over Obama’s empty order to Syrian president Bashar Assad to step down, or over Obama’s later vacuous red-line threats that bombs would follow any use by Assad of chemical weapons.

Few noted that Obama lied to the nation that a video had caused the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, that Obama had known who the real terrorist perpetrators were but had ordered no immediate action to kill or capture them, and that Americans had been engaged in mysterious and still unexplained covert activities in Benghazi. After all that, we still shrugged when the president traded five top terrorist leaders for an alleged American deserter.

Trashing George W. Bush’s policy toward Vladimir Putin while promising a new reset approach (illustrated with a plastic red button) to an aggressive dictator raised few eyebrows at the time. Nor did many Americans worry that our Pacific allies were upset over Chinese and North Korean aggression that seemed to ignore traditional U.S. deterrence.

We were told that only Obama-haters at home had catalogued the president’s apologies abroad, his weird multicultural bowing to authoritarians, his ahistorical speeches about mythical Islamic achievements, his surreal euphemisms for radical Islam, terrorism, and jihadism, his shrill insistence about civilian trials for terrorists and closing Guantanamo, or the radical cutbacks at the Pentagon, coupled with the vast increase in entitlement spending.

But after six years of all that, our allies have got the message that they are on their own, our enemies that there are few consequences to aggression, and neutrals that joining with America does not mean ending up on the winning side. The result is that the Middle East we have known since the end of World War II has now vanished.

Supposedly crackpot fantasies about a worldwide “caliphate” are becoming reified. What were once dismissed as conspiracy theories about an “Iranian arc” — from a nuclear Tehran through Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon to the borders of Israel to the Shiite minorities in the Gulf kingdoms — do not seem so crazy.

The idea of visiting the Egyptian pyramids or hoping to reengage with a reforming Libya is absurd. The best of the Middle East — Israel, Jordan, Kurdistan — no longer count on us. The worst — ISIS, Iran, Syria — count on us to remain irrelevant or worse. Old allies in the Gulf would probably trust Israel or Russia more than the Obama administration. In the next two years, if Obama continues on his present course, we are going to see things that we could not have imagined six years ago in the Middle East, as it reverts to premodern Islamic tribalism.

The same trajectory has been followed on the home front. Americans at first were amused that the great conciliator — and greatest political recipient on record of Wall Street cash — went after the rich with an array of hokey epithets and slurs (fat cats, corporate-jet owners, Vegas junketeers, limb-lopping and tonsil-pulling doctors, business owners who should not profit, or should know when they have made enough money, or should admit they didn’t build their own businesses). Few connected the dots when the polarizing attorney general — the John Mitchell of our time — referred to African-Americans as “my people” and all the rest of the nation as “cowards.” Did we worry that the craziest things seem to come out of the president’s own mouth — the Trayvon-like son he never had, the stereotyping police, the absence of a “smidgen” of corruption in the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, or the mean Republicans who “messed” with him?

The president before the 2012 elections lamented to Latino groups that he did not have dictatorial powers to grant amnesty but urged them in the meantime to “punish our enemies” — a sort of follow-up to his 2008 “typical white person” incitement. Who was bothered that with “a pen and a phone” Obama for the first time in American history emasculated the U.S. Border Patrol, as part of a larger agenda of picking and choosing which federal laws the executive branch would enforce?

Those choices seemed to be predicated on two extralegal criteria: Did a law contribute to Obama’s concept of social justice, and did it further the progressive political cause? If the answer was no to either, the statute was largely unenforced. No president since World War II has done more to harm the U.S. Constitution — by ordering the executive branch not to enforce particular laws, by creating by fiat laws never enacted by Congress, by monitoring the communications of journalists and average Americans, by making appointments contrary to law — to the apparent yawns of the people.

Too few also seemed to care that almost everything the president had promised about Obamacare — keep your health plan, retain your doctor, save money on your premiums, sign up easily online, while we were lowering the annual deficit and reducing medical expenditures — was an abject lie. In such a climate, Obama felt no need to issue accurate data about how many Americans had lost their health plans, how many had simply transferred to Obamacare from Medicaid, how many had actually paid their premiums, or how many were still uninsured. The media ignored the serial $1 trillion deficits, the chronic high unemployment and low growth, the nonexistence of the long-promised “summer of recovery,” and the nonappearance of “millions of shovel-ready and green jobs.” The fact that electrical-power rates, gasoline prices, and food costs have soared under Obama as wages have stagnated has never really been noticed. Nor have the record numbers of Americans on food stamps and disability insurance.

Meanwhile, as Obama has refused to enforce immigration law, the result is chaos. Tens of thousands of children are flooding across our border illegally, on the scent of Obama’s executive-order amnesties. Advocates of open borders, such as progressive grandees Mark Zuckerberg and Nancy Pelosi, assume that these impoverished Third World children will not enroll in the private academies attended by their children or grandchildren, or need housing in one of their vacation estates, or crowd their specialists’ waiting rooms. They do not worry about the effects of illegal immigration on the wages of low-income Americans. Dealing first-hand with the ramifications of open borders is for unenlightened, illiberal little people.

Obama’s economic legacy is rarely appreciated. He has institutionalized the idea that unemployment between 6 and 7 percent is normal, that annual deficits over $500 billion reflect frugality, that soaring power, food, and fuel costs are not proof of inflation, that zero interest rates are the reward for thrift, that higher taxes are always a beginning, never an end, and that there is no contradiction when elite progressives — the Obamas, the Clintons, the Warrens — trash the 1-percenters, while doing everything in their power to live just like them.

We are the roost and, to paraphrase the president’s former spiritual adviser, Obama’s chickens are now coming home to us.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.



Is Obama grossly incompetent? Or is he creating these messes intentionally? What is he trying to do?

Denesh D'Souza maintains that Obama is intentionally cutting back America's power and position in the world. He believes that Obama, like many left Democrats from Jane Fonda on raised in the 1960s, believes most of the world's problems are to be blamed on America, that America is a bully, an oppressor, a thief who has stolen riches from the colored people of the world. The bully needs to be reined in, it's payback time and he's the one to make it happen.

So whether it's creating a major threat to America in Iraq and Syria, or obliterating our border, Obama is "leveling" the field, bringing America down towards the third world conditions that he believes America has plunged much of the world into.

D'Souza's book "America" is out in Kindle and print and his movie "America" opens July 2nd.

So, is Obama grossly incompetent or is he pursuing a plan do harm to America and Americans, to punish us for our past behavior, to chop us down in size?

Megyn Kelly was startled, but rushed away from the comparison of America to an evil father that could still be loved by his child.



Dennis Prager wrote this column back in October, 2013. He would be more horrified today than he was when he wrote this all too accurate piece.

By Dennis Prager

I have been broadcasting for 31 years and writing for longer than that. I do not recall ever saying on radio or in print that a president is doing lasting damage to our country. I did not like the presidencies of Jimmy Carter (the last Democrat I voted for) or Bill Clinton. Nor did I care for the “compassionate conservatism” of George W. Bush. In modern political parlance “compassionate” is a euphemism for ever-expanding government. But I have never written or broadcast that our country was being seriously damaged by a president.

So it is with great sadness that I write that President Barack Obama has done and continues to do major damage to America . The only question is whether this can ever be undone.

This is equally true domestically and internationally.

Domestically, his policies have had a grave impact on the American economy.
He has overseen the weakest recovery from a recession in modern American history.

He has mired the country in unprecedented levels of debt: about $6.5 trillion — that is 6,500 billion — in five years (this after calling his predecessor “unpatriotic” for adding nearly $5 trillion in eight years).

He has fashioned a country in which more Americans now receive government aid — means-tested, let alone non-means-tested — than work full-time.

He has no method of paying for this debt other than printing more money — thereby surreptitiously taxing everyone through inflation, including the poor he claims to be helping, and cheapening the dollar to the point that some countries are talking about another reserve currency — and saddling the next generations with enormous debts.

With his 2,500-page Affordable Care Act he has made it impossible for hundreds of thousands, soon millions, of Americans to keep their individual or employer-sponsored group health insurance; he has stymied American medical innovation with an utterly destructive tax on medical devices; and he has caused hundreds of thousands of workers to lose full-time jobs because of the health-care costs imposed by Obamacare on employers.

His Internal Revenue Service used its unparalleled power to stymie political dissent. No one has been held accountable.

His ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi , Libya . No one has been blamed. The only blame the Obama administration has leveled was on a videomaker in California who had nothing to do with the assault.

In this president’s White House the buck stops nowhere.

Among presidents in modern American history, he has also been a uniquely divisive force. It began with his forcing Obamacare through Congress —the only major legislation in American history to be passed with no votes from the opposition party.

Though he has had a unique opportunity to do so, he has not only not helped heal racial tensions, he has exacerbated them. His intrusions into the Trayvon Martin affair (“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon”) and into the confrontation between a white police officer and a black Harvard professor (the police “acted stupidly”) were unwarranted, irresponsible, demagogic, and, most of all, divisive.

He should have been reassuring black Americans that America is in fact the least racist country in the world — something he should know as well as anybody, having been raised only by whites and being the first black elected the leader of a white-majority nation.

Instead, he echoed the inflammatory speech of professional race-baiters such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

He has also divided the country by economic class, using classic Marxist language against “the rich” and “corporate profits.”

Regarding America in the world, he has been, if possible, even more damaging. The United States is at its weakest, has fewer allies, and has less military and diplomatic influence than at any time since before World War II.

One wonders if there is a remaining ally nation that trusts him. And worse, no American enemy fears him. If you are a free movement (the democratic Iranian and Syrian oppositions) or a free country ( Israel ), you have little or no reason to believe that you have a steadfast ally in the United States .

Even non-democratic allies no longer trust America . Barack Obama has alienated our most important and longest standing Arab allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia . Both the anti–Muslim Brotherhood and the anti-Iran Arab states have lost respect for him.

And his complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq has left that country with weekly bloodbaths.

Virtually nothing Barack Obama has done has left America or the world better since he became president. Nearly everything he has touched has been made worse.

He did, however, promise before the 2008 election that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America .” That is the one promise he has kept.



Middle East: Three nations, one conflict
By Borzou Daragahi
The crises in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon are merging into a single sectarian war, says the Financial Times. (Article behind paywall) http://tinyurl.com/n8ajgqc

Another Obama foreign policy failure. By not negotiating a status of forces agreement, he abandoned Iraq and created a vaccum. By failing to act early on in Syria, he has left the U.S. in a no-win situation where the sectarian Islamic war is enveloping three countries in which already almost 200,000 civilians have died.

President Obama continues his retreat from Afghanistan
By Editorial Board, Washington Post http://tinyurl.com/pbemz2m

YOU CAN’T fault President Obama for inconsistency. After winning election in 2008, he reduced the U.S. military presence in Iraq to zero. After helping to topple Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi in 2011, he made sure no U.S. forces would remain. He has steadfastly stayed aloof, except rhetorically, from the conflict in Syria. And on Tuesday he promised to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2016.
The Afghan decision would be understandable had Mr. Obama’s previous choices proved out. But what’s remarkable is that the results also have been consistent — consistently bad.

From the ultra-left Washington Post, a scorching denunciation of Obama’s foreign policy. The question never goes away: Is this sheer incompetence or part of a plan to reduce the United States to an unreliable weakling? Allies are worried and China, Russia and Islamic terrorists everywhere are rising up with little or no fear of reprisals from the United States.



Trey Gowdy will provide electifyingly capable leadership: Even some Democrats think so. Rep. Trey Gowdy's Select Committee on Benghazi will get the facts.

What do the folks back home in Greenville, SC think of their former federal prosecutor and now second term Congressman? Read this.

And take a look at this Gowdy meeting with the press corps not too long ago.

He is the right man to head the Select Committee on Benghazi. Watch the mainstream left wing media, the White House and Democrats in Congress try to destroy him.

Speaker Boehner has appointed a strong committee to work with Chairman Gowdy.

House Speaker John Boehner's selection of seven Republicans on a select committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other diplomatic staff members in September 2012 reveals a mix of male and female lawmakers who bring a variety of experience and political power to the table.

The committee led by Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. includes Republican Reps. Susan Brooks, Indiana; Jim Jordan, Ohio; Mike Pompeo, Kansas; Martha Roby, Alabama; Peter Roskam, Illinois; and Lynn Westmoreland, Georgia.

Westmoreland, a building construction executive, is the only member of the committee who is not an attorney by trade.

Out of the group, four are fairly new lawmakers. Gowdy, Pompeo, and Roby were elected to the House during the Republicans' sweep in 2010, and Brooks is a freshman representative who was elected in 2012.

Gowdy, a former prosecutor with 16 years of prosecutorial experience, including six years on the federal level, has been pushing for further investigation into the Benghazi attacks since the a few days after they happened, saying last week that he has evidence of a "systematic, intentional" effort by the Obama administration to withhold documents from Congress about the attacks.

The tea party Republican is a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He also chairs a House Judiciary Committee subcommittee on immigration policy.

Brooks, the only freshman representative picked for the Benghazi committee, is also a former federal prosecutor, giving the panel a second member with investigative and prosecutorial experience. She is one of the two committee members who was not a member of four House committees — Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight — that have already investigated the Benghazi attacks.

She was appointed U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Indiana in 2001 by then-President George W. Bush and is a former deputy mayor of Indianapolis.

Jordan is the former head of the Republican Study Committee, a caucus for conservative Republicans, and has served as a liaison for several top House GOP leaders. Like Gowdy, Jordan served on the Oversight Committee, which has already investigated the Benghazi attacks, The Post reports.

Pompeo, a retired captain from the U.S. Army, is the select committee's only military veteran. He also serves on the Intelligence Committee and has been mentioned as a possible chairman after Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., retires, although serving on the investigation may suggest that he won't be picked to head Intelligence, The Post speculated Friday.

Pompeo graduated first in his class from West Point in 1986 and is the founder of Thayer Aerospace, where he served as CEO for more than a decade, providing components for commercial and military aircraft before becoming president of Sentry International, an oil-field equipment manufacturing, distribution, and service company.

Roby is a former member of the Armed Services Committee and a prominent female spokesperson for the Republican Party. Prior to being elected to Congress, Roby worked as an attorney and served as a city councilman in her hometown of Montgomery.

She has already lead one investigation into the attacks as chairwoman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, probing the military’s preparation and response.

Roskam, as the House chief deputy whip, is the select committee's political link to Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, The Post reports. He is a senior member of the select committee, having been elected to the House in 2006, and since that time has become a mentor to the many newer Republican House members. Roskam, like Brooks, has not served on any of the other panels that have already investigated the attacks.

He practiced law in Illinois and represented Chicago's western suburbs in both the Illinois House of Representatives and Senate, where he served alongside then-state Sen. Barack Obama, where they partnered to enact reforms to the state’s criminal justice system.

Westmoreland, who has been named as the deputy chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, is credited with leading led GOP redistricting efforts in the wake of the 2010 Census that helped Republicans retain a large majority in the House.

He founded his own building company, L.A.W. Builders, and served in the Georgia State House for 12 years before coming to Washington.

He serves on the House Financial Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.



Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal sizes up the gamesmanship of Putin, the weakness of Obama and suggests Putin move on with his invasions. Nothing will happen, because Obama will do nothing.

Stephens has a great line: In discussing Obama leading Europe in a sanction squeeze on Russia and Putin, he observes this:

In short, the West could win a sanctions war with Russia, but it would take an iron political stomach. Mr. Putin knows Mr. Obama. He knows that the U.S. president has the digestive fortitude of a tourist in Tijuana.

Stephens' advice to Putin: Now's the time, charge! You will never have a weaker American leader.

Putin's Moment

The Kremlin has an interest in conquest. The White House makes the taking easier.

By Bret Stephens

April 8, 2014

If I were Vladimir Putin I'd invade eastern Ukraine this week. Strike while the iron is hot.

Never again will the taking be so easy. Never again will the government in Kiev be so helpless. Never again will the administration in Washington be so inept, its threats so hollow. Never again will the powers in Europe be so feeble and dependent. Never again will Western monetary policy do so much to prop up energy prices.

While Mr. Putin is at it, he might consider invading one of the Baltic states. Barack Obama isn't about to ask Americans to die for Estonia, where a quarter of the population is ethnically Russian. The U.S. president wants "nation-building at home," after all. Let him have at it.

Even now, the West misses the point. We have convinced ourselves that Russia is inherently weak; that its economy would collapse if the price of oil were to fall; that human and financial capital are in flight; that its population is shrinking (and frequently drunk); that the regime has lost the support of an urban middle class disgusted by endemic corruption. And so on.

All true. And all the more reason for Mr. Putin to strike. We've come to think of Mr. Putin as the embodiment of ruthlessness. He's that. But he also has a genius for self-reinvention. Agent of Soviet communism turned political patriarch of Russian Orthodoxy. St. Petersburg technocrat turned Moscow strongman. Enemy of the oligarchs turned godfather of the oligarchs. Law-and-order economic modernizer turned old-school Russian revanchist.

Maybe the disguises go with the KGB training. Maybe it's just a well-honed survivor's instinct. Whichever way, Mr. Putin has been frog-like in his ability to jump off his lily-pad the moment it begins to sink under his weight. He's never had trouble landing on another one.

A staple of political commentary since Mr. Putin seized Crimea is that he is making a big mistake. Typical of this view is an op-ed in Monday's New York Times NYT +0.38% by Oxford historian Robert Service, who compares Mr. Putin to Nicholas I, the reactionary 19th century czar who blundered into the disastrous Crimean War. The comparison would be somewhat more apt if NATO were making plans to lay siege to Sevastopol.

Oh, but we'll soon lay siege to Russia's economy, right? Wrong. As the Journal's Paul Sonne and Anton Troianovski reported Monday, Angela Merkel attended an industrial trade fair in Hannover, Germany, over the weekend where a company named Tavrida Electric was displaying its wares. Tavrida's CEO is one of 33 people sanctioned by the European Union as governor of the new pro-Russian regime in Sevastopol. And yet, the Journal reports, "the impact on Tavrida has been zero so far."

It's true that sanctions could be made a lot tougher. We could impose asset freezes and travel bans on, say, executive suites at Gazprom OGZPY -0.27% and Rosneft and other state-controlled Russian companies. Questionable bank accounts in Switzerland and Cyprus could be frozen. We could subject the Russian economy to the kind of treatment we imposed, briefly, on the Iranian economy. And we could accept the consequences of such sanctions, as the Kremlin responds tit-for-tat by cutting off gas supplies to the Baltics, shipping advanced antiaircraft missiles to Iran, or freezing us out of the International Space Station.

In short, the West could win a sanctions war with Russia, but it would take an iron political stomach. Mr. Putin knows Mr. Obama. He knows that the U.S. president has the digestive fortitude of a tourist in Tijuana.

And that's why Mr. Putin should move quickly. Russia's chokehold on Europe's energy supplies won't last forever. The easy Fed money that jacks up the price of commodities won't last forever. Even Mr. Obama's presidency won't last forever. On present course, Russia will get weaker, which leaves Mr. Putin with two options: liberalize or conquer. The first option would ultimately require him to step down from power and put him at risk of legal prosecution. The second option gives him the chance to re-legitimize his regime by whipping Russians into a nationalist frenzy and stay in power till he dies in bed.

If you were Mr. Putin, which option would you choose?

That's what makes the White House's repeated offers of an "off-ramp" so silly. For the Kremlin, foreign conquest is the off-ramp. And if a Western off-ramp is offered with every fresh Russian insult and assault, why take the first one? Let's take this metaphor to its logical conclusion: If the Obama diplomatic freeway has an off-ramp every few miles, it means Mr. Putin is probably betting he can drive all the way to the state line before he pulls over to fill the tank.

Which, in his case, is a T-72.

Mr. Obama has a habit of underestimating his foes. He thought al Qaeda was on the run. He thought Bashar Assad would be gone by now. He thinks Iran will abandon its nuclear programs in exchange for sanctions relief. He thinks of Vladimir Putin as the kid with the bored expression, slouching in the back of the classroom.

News for the law professor. That kid is smarter than you are. He's bored because you bore him. He's about to eat your lunch.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com



Democrats attack Republicans all the time and way too often Republicans suffer in silence or react defensively, which means they have lost the argument before it began.

One Centerville resident Marvin Hoovis wasn't going to let the "usual pack of lies" in a Letter to the Editor of the Cape Cod Times go unanswered, so he crafted an answer which the Times elevated to a My View column.

For those of us who sometimes have difficulty quickly marshaling facts, Mr Hoovis presents an excellent encapsulation of some of the disasters wrought by Democrats in Washington.

End the blind allegiance to Obama

Cape Cod Times
April 07, 2014

The March 24 My View "Columnist parrots GOP talking points" was another demonstration of blind allegiance to President Obama and Democrats, with total disregard for the facts. I will focus on two of the issues.

The first is blame the Republicans, the hallmark of Democratic campaigns. The Democrats have been responsible for major events that cost lives and hurt our economy.

President Clinton had an opportunity to take Osama bin Laden when offered by the Sudan, and to kill or capture him on several occasions; he chose not to.

Democrats prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing information, and having on-ground intelligence. These measures would have prevented 9/11.

The Democrats controlled the Senate and House from 2007 and rejected attempts by President Bush and Republicans to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The housing crisis was caused by Democrats requiring lending institutions to provide mortgage loans to unqualified borrowers. The 2008 economic collapse with job losses could have been prevented if Democrats had agreed to regulating.

Another example is the 2009 BP oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. The Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior gave categorical exclusion that exempted the BP operation from the detailed environmental impact required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

The administration did not give waivers that would have allowed ships with the expertise from other countries to control and clean up the oil spill, and then further affected the Gulf States economies with a misleading report to justify their imposed moratorium on drilling in the Gulf.

The Democrats made Bush responsible for the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. Years before, the Army Corps of Engineers deemed it necessary to upgrade the levees surrounding New Orleans. Environmentalists protested and a judge agreed. Later funds were allotted to upgrade the levees, but the Democratic-controlled federal and state Legislature used the funds for other purposes. The Democratic governor of Louisiana and Democratic mayor of New Orleans did not heed early warnings and were slow to act. Democrats, not Republicans, were to blame.

The second issue is blaming Republicans for obstruction and unwillingness to work with Obama and Democrats.

When Obama took office and Democrats controlled the House and Senate, he, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid excluded Republicans from participating in drafting legislation or offering amendments. Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote.

Obama is exceptional; unlike all of his predecessors, he has not taken the opportunity to work with the other party to pass bipartisan legislation. When Republicans wanted to delay parts of Obamacare they were harshly criticized, yet Obama did a bypass around Congress and made changes that were designed to help Democratic candidates, and still left subscribers with uncertainty.

Obama still offers no negotiation, and his compromise is "do it my way." He continues his nasty criticisms of those who disagree with his policies.

Unfortunately his economic, energy, military and diplomatic policies have been sad failures.

The above is in response to the false accusations. More important, I believe most people, whether Democrat, Republican or independent, share mutual friendship and respect for one another, want what is best for our country and value their own freedoms and the opportunities our country provides.

With all the problems our country faces, it is time to be united and have a president and a Congress that will work together to pass bipartisan legislation that can help to resolve the problems.

Marvin L. Hoovis lives in Centerville.



The character assassins of the Democratic Party have decided that the hugely successful Republican businessmen, the so-called Koch brothers, Charles and David Koch, will be the scapegoats for all their failures. They use their poisonous invective to inflame hatred against the brothers among their followers who know no better.

Democratic Senators Harry Reid and Charles Schumer along with White House operatives egged on by Obama are the most prominent of the slimes who attack the Kochs without shame or any sense of decency.

This morning (April 3, 2014) Charles Koch decided to have his say and wrote an extraordinary piece that appears in today's Wall Street Journal. He rightly charges the Obama Democratic character assassins with choking the economy as they seek to gain more and more control over peoples' lives by demonizing those who stand in their way.

This is a war by the government against its own people. He makes clear what it is at stake:

The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.

Charles Koch has sounded the alarm. Every freedom loving American must join the fight.

I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society
Instead of welcoming free debate, collectivists engage in character assassination.
By Charles G. Koch
April 3, 2014

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. "The natural progress of things," Jefferson wrote, "is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He knew that no government could possibly run citizens' lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.




Dr. Sowell is one of the most distinguished commentators writing today. His columns are widely syndicated. Trained as an economist, he has authored more than a dozen books. He is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.

A two-part essay released this past week (April 1 & 2, 2014) by Professor Sowell deal with Obama’s foreign policy and his attitude towards the United States. What Dr. Sowell points out is profoundly disturbing not just with respect to foreign policy but to everything that is happening under his administration.

Barack Obama is doing serious damage to America and to our liberties as citizens.

Is this deliberate? What about his oath to uphold the Constitution? Obama long before he became president expressed his distaste for the Constitution and his history in office has been a record of attacking it.

The damage he has done in five years to this country and our allies is enormous. Many believe it is a result of his gross incompetence and that of the ideological soul mates he has surrounded himself with. Maybe.

Or is he on a mission along with his Democratic colleagues to remake America into something different from what it was and what it was never was intended to be: a centralized dictatorship running the lives of its subjects. Does Obama see America as America the too powerful that needs to be chopped down and run differently, not from the ground up, by citizens electing leaders, but from the top down by elites who know better than you how to run your lives?

Dr. Sowell examines these questions and supplies facts that the Democrat-supporting media never reported even if they bothered to find out about them.

How Foreign Is Our Policy?: Part I

Many people are lamenting the bad consequences of Barack Obama's foreign policy, and some are questioning his competence.

There is much to lament, and much to fear. Multiple setbacks to American interests have been brought on by Obama's policies in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Crimea and — above all — in what seems almost certain to become a nuclear Iran in the very near future.

The president's public warning to Syria of dire consequences if the Assad regime there crossed a "red line" he had drawn seemed to epitomize an amateurish bluff that was exposed as a bluff when Syria crossed that red line without suffering any consequences.

Drawing red lines in disappearing ink makes an international mockery of not only this president's credibility, but also the credibility of future American presidents' commitments.
When some future President of the United States issues a solemn warning internationally, and means it, there may be less likelihood that the warning will be taken seriously. That invites the kind of miscalculation that has led to wars.

Many who are disappointed with what seem to be multiple fiascoes in President Obama's foreign policy question his competence and blame his inexperience. Such critics may be right, but it is by no means certain that they are.

Like those who are disappointed with Barack Obama's domestic policies, critics of his foreign policy may be ignoring the fact that you cannot know whether someone is failing or succeeding without knowing what he is trying to do.




As Obama is more and more openly sympathetic towards Islam, even preventing his administration from linking it to obvious acts of terrorism, murder and mayhem, he is increasingly showing his disdain and dislike for Christianity.

This condemnation of Obama's anti-Christian policies is surprising for the usually quiet voice of the Vatican on what some might call political matters, which in fact have serious moral and U.S. constitutional implications.

Vatican Chief Justice: Obama’s Policies ‘Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization’

March 21, 2014 - 1:32 PM

Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court at the Vatican.

(CNSNews.com) -- President Barack Obama's policies “have become progressively more hostile toward Christian civilization,” Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the highest court at the Vatican, said in a recent interview.

Cardinal Burke added that Obama wants to restrict religious freedom and force the individuals, outside of his or her place of worship, “to act against his rightly-formed conscience, even in the most serious of moral questions.”

In an interview first published in Polish in Polonia Christiana magazine and republished exclusively in English at LifeSite News, Cardinal Burke, the former archbishop of St. Louis, was asked about President Obama’s policies towards Christian civilization and if there are any “Catholic reactions against this policy? If yes, what are they, [or] if not, why?”

Cardinal Burke, who heads the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court at the Vatican, said: “It is true that the policies of the president of the United States of America have become progressively more hostile toward Christian civilization. He appears to be a totally secularized man who aggressively promotes anti-life and anti-family policies.”

“Now he [Obama] wants to restrict the exercise of the freedom of religion to freedom of worship; that is, he holds that one is free to act according to his conscience within the confines of his place of worship but that, once the person leaves the place of worship, the government can constrain him to act against his rightly-formed conscience, even in the most serious of moral questions,” said Cardinal Burke.

He continued, “Such policies would have been unimaginable in the United States even 40 years ago. It is true that many faithful Catholics, with strong and clear leadership from their Bishops and priests, are reacting against the ever-growing religious persecution in the U.S.”

“Sadly, one has the impression that a large part of the population is not fully aware of what is taking place,” said the cardinal. “In a democracy, such a lack of awareness is deadly. It leads to the loss of the freedom, which a democratic government exists to protect. It is my hope that more and more of my fellow citizens, as they realize what is happening, will insist on electing leaders who respect the truth of the moral law as it is respected in the founding principles of our nation.”

As CNSNews.com has reported, the Catholic bishops of the United States have stated that the Obamacare mandate requiring individuals (and businesses) to carry health insurance that offers contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs without co-payments is an “unjust and illegal mandate.”

They have also declared the mandate a “violation of personal civil rights,” and that it should be “rescinded.”

“The mandate continues to represent an unprecedented (and now sustained) violation of religious liberty by the federal government,” said the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

“As applied to individuals and organizations with a religious objection to contraceptive coverage, the mandate violates the First Amendment,” they said.

In a 2012 letter on the issue, sent to parishes across the country to be read at Sunday Mass, the bishops said, “We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law.”

So far, 94 lawsuits have been filed against the Obamacare mandate and the Department of Health and Human Services, by a variety of plaintiffs. In several dozen of those lawsuits, the courts have granted the plaintiffs an injunction, meaning they do not have to comply with the mandate as their case moves through the courts. Some of those cases are headed to the Supreme Court.

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/vatican-chief-justice-obama-s-policies-progressively-more-hostile#sthash.3MfmIIBw.dpuf



In his Oath of Office, the President swears to uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws, neither of which he is doing. Republican South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy of South Carolina objects.



Dinesh D'Souza authored the extraordinary expose of Barack Obama as an anti-colonialist, anti-American blaming America for all the ills of the world Obama's America: 2016. As he put it, explaining why he made the film, you may like Barack Obama, you might not like Barack Obama, but you don't know Barack Obama. In choosing his friends, his studies, he disclosed the dislike he had for America. He wanted to be president to put America in its place, destroy its capitalist economy and make America pay for the sins he perceived it was responsible for. The film was the second highest revenue producing documentary in history. Yet it was was never in very wide circulation, since it was viewed as "controversial" by the left wing which dominates the movie industry.

For his "mistake" in being critical of Obama, he has now been indicted by the Obama administration for claimed illegal campaign donations amounting to $15,000.

D'Souza has now produced a new movie "America" that will open on July 4th. He describes it as a love story about America. Here's the movie trailer.


It's also worth watching the video of D'Souza debating the anti-American terrorist who planted bombs at the Pentagon Bill Ayers, a long time friend and associate of Obama's. Click here to view it.



Representative Trey Gowdy asks the press questions about Benghazi. If they don't know the answers, why don't they? What are they doing to find out the answers? Why are they accepting the phony excuses of the Obama administration? Why aren't they doing their job?



Policies of the Obama administration, especially those integral to Obamacare, are providing incentives for one-time workers to settle into relatively comfortable government dependent poverty. They may not have gainful work to do for anyone, but they will have votes for the Democratic Party. It is shocking that policies are being deliberately deployed favoring votes for Democrats over the economic health and strength of the nation. But wasn't Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty just that? It provided government incentives to do without marriage with subsidies for single mothers and fatherless children, resulting in the tragic reality of today of millions of lost black youths but 90% Democratic black voters.

Lincoln freed the black millions of Americans in servitude so they could lead independent, successful, self-sufficient lives. After decades of progress under Republican administrations Democratic policies have put millions back into dependency, this time dependent on a new master, the government. And they don't have to work. Just idle the time away with predictable results.

Currently, 93 million Americans are without work. In large part this is due to the slow growth economy resulting from the anti-growth policies of the Obama administration. Too much regulation, demonization of the successful and government destruction of private sector jobs such as Obama is doing with his Obamacare health care weapon. The consequence is that millions are being forced into government dependent poverty for Democratic votes.

Charles Krauthammer sizes up the Obamacare War on Jobs in its pursuit of more Democratic votes from government dependents, the economic catastrophe for individual lives and the nation be damned.


Obamacare’s War on Jobs

In the new opportunity society, you are given the opportunity for idleness while living off others.
By Charles Krauthammer

In the ongoing saga of the Affordable Care Act, oddly referred to by Democrats as the law of the land even as it is amended at will by presidential fiat, we are beginning to understand the extent of its war on jobs.

First, the Congressional Budget Office triples its estimate of the drop in the workforce resulting from the disincentive introduced by Obamacare’s insurance subsidies: 2 million by 2017, 2.3 million by 2021.

Democratic talking points gamely defend this as a good thing because these jobs are being given up voluntarily. Nancy Pelosi spoke lyrically about how Obamacare subsidies will allow people to leave unfulfilling jobs to pursue their passions: “Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.”

Nothing so lyrical has been written about work since Marx (in The German Ideology) described a Communist society that “makes it possible for me to . . . hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner.”

Pelosi’s vision is equally idyllic except for one thing: The taxes of the American factory worker — grinding away dutifully at his repetitive, mind-numbing job — will be subsidizing the voluntary unemployment of the artiste in search of his muse. A rather paradoxical position for the party that poses as tribune of the working man.

In the reductio ad absurdum of entitlement liberalism, Jay Carney was similarly enthusiastic about this Obamacare-induced job loss. Why, Obamacare creates the “opportunity” that “allows families in America to make a decision about how they will work, and if they will work.”

If they will work? Pre-Obama, people always had the right to quit work to tend full time to the study of butterflies. It’s a free country. The twist in the new liberal dispensation is that the butterfly guy is to be subsidized by the taxes of people who actually work.

In the traditional opportunity society, government provides the tools — education, training, and various incentives — to achieve the dignity of work and its promise of self-improvement and social mobility. In the new opportunity society, you are given the opportunity for idleness while living parasitically off everyone else. Why those everyone elses should remain at their jobs — hey! I wanna dance, too! — is a puzzle Carney has yet to explain.

The honest liberal reply to the CBO report is that a disincentive to work is inherent in any means-tested government benefit. It’s the unavoidable price of helping those in need because for every new dollar you earn, you lose part of your subsidy and thus keep less and less of your nominal income.

That’s inevitable. And that’s why we have learned to tie welfare, for example, to a work requirement. Otherwise, beneficiaries could choose to live off the dole forever. That’s why the 1996 Gingrich-Clinton welfare reform succeeded in reducing welfare rolls by two-thirds. It is not surprising that the same Obama administration that has been weakening the work requirement for welfare is welcoming the disincentive to work inherent in Obamacare.

But Obamacare’s war on jobs goes beyond voluntary idleness. The administration is now conceding, inadvertently but unmistakably, Obamacare’s other effect — involuntary job loss. On Monday, the administration unilaterally postponed and weakened the employer mandate, already suspended through 2015, for yet another year.

But doesn’t this undermine the whole idea of universal health coverage? Of course it does, but Obamacare was so structured that it is crushing small business and killing jobs. It creates a major incentive for small businesses to cut back to under 50 employees to avoid the mandate. Your business becomes a 49er by either firing workers or reducing their hours to below 30 a week. Because that doesn’t count as full-time, you escape both the employer mandate to buy health insurance and the fine for not doing so.

With the weakest recovery since World War II, historically high chronic unemployment, and a shockingly low workforce-participation rate, the administration correctly fears the economic consequences of its own law — and the political fallout for Democrats as millions more Americans lose their jobs or are involuntarily reduced to part-time status.

Conservatives have been warning about this for five years. This is not rocket science. Both the voluntary and forced job losses were utterly predictable. Pelosi insisted we would have to pass the law to know what’s in it. Now we know.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2014 The Washington Post Writers Group



In the O'Reilly interview, Obama airily lied again and again and again. He is more expert than Clinton ever was and he was the all time champion. While the left wing Democratic media (that's all the mainstream media) knows he's lying they accept it and don't even raise an eyebrow. Those committed to truth, like Michael Ramirez, beg to differ.

Ramirez smidgen.jpg



Professor Victor Davis Hanson calls out Obama for his corrupt, lying dictatorship favoring cronies who bundle campaign gifts and sending the IRS and FBI after his critics.

The filmmaker and arch-critic of Barack Obama, Dinesh D’Souza, is now under indictment for improper campaign contributions. If he deliberately violated campaign-finance laws and compounded the violation by conspiring with others, then by all means he should face the full force of the law. The problem, though, is that even if D’Souza proves to be guilty as charged, others with far greater culpability — but with the correct political views — have not met the same degree of administration scrutiny.

Note, for example, what D’Souza did not do: He did not, as an Obama insider in the heat of the reelection campaign, leak classified information about vital national-security secrets like the Stuxnet virus attacks, the bin Laden raid, the drone protocols, or a double agent in Yemen in order to bolster the anti-terrorism credentials of the president; he did not, as a high-level Obama official, lie under oath to Congress about the NSA program; he is not a former Democratic governor who defrauded thousands of investors out of billions of dollars. Apparently none of that will get you arrested by this administration.

Mr. D’Souza also did not, as did Obama himself, have a soon-to-be-jailed felon sell him a lot next to his own house at below-market rates, without paying gift taxes on it, in exchange for perceived political favors. He did not pass illegally into the United States and reside here illegally by habitually lying on documents about his resident status. He did not go to the polls with clubs to intimidate voters. He did not bundle $500,000 to buy an ambassorship to Norway without knowing much of anything about Norway. He did not pitch green ideas to friends now in the Obama administration in order to land millions of dollars in federal loans that he would default on.

He did, though, make a movie critical of Barack Obama, and this is most likely what brought him under administration scrutiny, as did the activities of a video maker arrested for producing a politically incorrect video about Islam, or those of unduly audited Tea Party groups or Hollywood conservatives who have criticized the president. All of that, in this age of pen and phone, can get you arrested, audited, or on the IRS watch list.

Such lawlessness and corruption of power for personal and political gain is reminiscent of gangster Chicago where Obama learned his politics. Yet the cowardly Republicans are afraid to attack him for what he has done and is doing in violation of the Constitution and laws of Congress because he's half black and the biased media will call them "racist." The media doesn't criticize and Democrats in Congress go along.

Read all of what Professor Hanson has to say.

JANUARY 28, 2014
Governing by Pen and Phone

Obama used to sigh that he was not a dictator who could act unilaterally. No more.
By Victor Davis Hanson

Lately a weakened President Obama has fashioned a new attitude about consensual government: “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” Obama boasted Tuesday as he convened his first cabinet meeting of the year. At least he did not say he intended to govern by “pen and sword.” If Obama used to sigh to supporters that he was not a dictator who could just implement progressive agendas by fiat, he now seems to have done away with the pretense of regret.

Obama has all but given up on the third branch of government since he lost control of it in 2010: “And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”

There are lots of creepy things about such dictatorial statements of moving morally backward in order to go politically “forward.” Concerning issues dear to the president’s heart — climate change, more gun control, de facto amnesty, more massive borrowing supposedly to jump-start the anemic, jobless recovery — Obama not long ago had a Democratic supermajority in the Senate and a strong majority in the House. With such rare political clout, he supposedly was going to pass his new American agenda.




The State of the Union address by the president is Tuesday.

But Peggy Noonan says nobody's listening to Obama anymore. Why?

He has been for five years a nonstop windup talk machine. Most of it has been facile, bland, the same rounded words and rounded sentiments, the same soft accusations and excuses.
The bigger problem is that the president stands up there Tuesday night with ObamaCare not a hazy promise but a fact.

When the central domestic fact of your presidency was a fraud, people won't listen to you anymore.

And every Democrat in the House and the Senate knew he was lying to the American people and they supported him and said nothing. Anyone hear a protect or criticism from the all Democrat Massachusetts congressional delegation? Everyone of them is complicit, guilty of dereliction of duty and deserves to be defeated.

The Democrats saw Obamacare for what its would be and liked it. It was a giant opportunity to make more and more people beholden to and dependent on government for free stuff to pay for health care costs. Citizens will turn into subjects and thank their masters with their votes.

It was worth ramming Obamacare down the throats of the American people without a single Republican vote. Who cared that 85% of the American public were happy with their health plans? Obama is pro-choice for abortion, but for no other choice for Americans who don't want a government-dictated health plan.

Who will follow the "talk machine" now that he's been exposed as the liar he is? And letting men in Benghazi die without making an effort to save them is inexcusable.

Peggy Noonan thinks even the Democratic congressman thinking ahead to the Obama speech know that

Americans aren't impressed anymore by congressmen taking to their feet and cheering. They look as if they have electric buzzers on their butts that shoot them into the air when the applause line comes. "Now I have to get up and enact enthusiasm" is what they look like they're thinking.

Obama has done untold damage to America both at home and abroad. It has been so bad it is difficult to believe it wasn't deliberate, that he really thinks the U.S. has been on its high horse too long, done a lot of bad things and deserved to be denigrated and humiliated.

In 2014 we have a the chance to elect Republicans to Congress to start restoring honesty, honor and competence to the national government. In Massachusetts there are nine members of the House of Representatives and one U.S. senator up for re-election. Everyone of them deserves to be sent packing.

Read all of Peggy's column entitled "The Sleepiness of A Hollow Legend."


Contact: Diane Bronsdon 508 945 9218
C R Facebook
To help us do our part to keep America strong and well informed, just click below. Donate Now!


Michael O'Keffe District Attorney
Leo Cakounes Barn.Cty Commish
Sheriff Cummings
Hot Air
Legal Insurrection
National Review
Power Line
Pajamas Media


Semper Fi Fund
Cape Cod Cares for Our Troops
Wounded Warrior Family Support
New England Center and Home for Veterans
Chatham Info
Monthly Archive

Category Yearly Archives