Obama Undermining America: 2014 Archives

DO WE HAVE A BORDER PROBLEM?



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.

|

OBAMA'S FAILURES TO PROTECT AMERICA THREATEN US ALL.

Do you feel safe with Obama in charge?


|

OBAMA CONDEMNED: HE'S BETRAYING WORKING AMERICANS.

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."

|

REPUBLICAN SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS SLAMS DEMOCRATIC AMNESTY PLAN THAT WOULD DEVASTATE JOBS AND WAGES OF AMERICAN WORKERS

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions is leading the fight for the men and women of America who are working and those who want to be working. Session is opposed to the plans of the Democratic Senate majority and Obama to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants that would tear apart the job market for Americans.

Supporting this unilateral grant of amnesty by Obama in a key vote in July were Democratic senators Shaheen of New Hampshire, Markey of Massachusetts, Hagan of North Carolina, Begich of Alaska, Pryor of Arkansas and Landrieu of Louisiana. These senators are all up for election on November 4th and should go down to defeat because they put their Democrat political donors ahead of the interests of the people they were elected to represent.

Senator Sessions, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, has been a relentless champion of protecting American jobs, battling the Obama Administration, congressional Democrats and the billionaire corporate immigration lobby that would crush the middle class.

On September 12th on the Senate floor Senator Sessions laid out in detail the facts about the enormous damage that the Democrats' immigration amnesty plan would do to America.

Session vowed that the voices of the American people would prevail over the billionaire "Masters of the Universe" who would rob Americans of their livelihood and their future.

“Earlier this week I spoke about the President's promise that he would issue an executive amnesty to 5 or 6 million people. The planned amnesty would include work permits, photo ID's, and Social Security numbers for millions of people who illegally entered the U.S., illegally overstayed their visas, or defrauded U.S. immigration authorities.

The Senate Democratic Conference has supported and enabled the President's unlawful actions and blocked every effort to stop them. Not even one of our Democratic colleagues has backed the House legislation that would stop this planned executive amnesty or demanded that Senator Reid bring it up for a vote. Every Senate Democrat is therefore the President's partner in his planned lawless acts.

Tonight I would like to talk about the influence of special interests on our nation's immigration system. How did we get to the point where elected officials, activist groups, the ACLU, and global CEOs are openly working to deny American workers the immigration protections to which they are legally entitled? How did we get to the point where the Democratic Party is prepared to nullify and wipe away the immigration laws of the United States of America?

Just yesterday Majority Leader Reid wrote in a tweet something that was shocking. He said: ‘Since House Republicans have failed to act on immigration, I know the President will. When he does, I hope he goes real big.’

Let this sink in for a moment. The Majority Leader of the Senate is bragging that he knows the President will circumvent Congress to issue executive amnesty to millions, and he is encouraging the President to ensure this amnesty includes as many people as possible. And the White House has acknowledged that 5 to 6 million is the number they are looking at.

Has one Senate Democrat stepped forward to reject Mr. Reid's statement? Has one Senate Democrat stepped forward to say: I support the legislation passed by the House of Representatives that would secure the border and block this executive amnesty? Have they ever said they support that? Have they ever said: I will do everything in my power to see that the House legislation gets a vote in the Senate so the American people can know what is going on? No. All we hear is silence.

Continue reading "REPUBLICAN SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS SLAMS DEMOCRATIC AMNESTY PLAN THAT WOULD DEVASTATE JOBS AND WAGES OF AMERICAN WORKERS"

|

EVERY DEMOCRATIC SENATOR'S VOTE IN 2008 FOR OBAMA'S PROGRAM HAS RESULTED IN LOWER INCOMES FOR BLACKS, HISPANICS, WOMEN, WORKING FAMILIES AND THE MIDDLE CLASS.

Every Democratic senator seeking re-election who was in office in 2008 is responsible for the economic disaster that has befallen the families of America. Their 60 votes installed Obama's "transforming" agenda to the detriment of the middle class and poor of America. They did it all without a single Republican vote. If the voters know the truth, those Democrats will pay at the polls in November.

The Democratic Party's great political victory in 2008 led to the realization of a progressive agenda in the making for a century. But that agenda resulted in economic failure for working Americans. It failed as it has always failed: Progressive policies buy votes but destroy prosperity.


Senate Democrats vs. the Middle Class
Senators elected in 2008 made Obama's agenda possible, and its results have harmed most Americans.

By Phil Gramm and Michael Solon
WSJ Aug. 18, 2014

On Nov. 3, 2008, seven new Democratic senators were elected, giving Democrats 58 votes. Eight months later, with the Minnesota Senate race settled and Arlen Specter having switched parties, Democrats secured the 60th vote to overcome filibusters and impose absolute control over the Senate for the first time in 31 years. In 78 days, American voters will render judgment on the record of the Senate Democratic Class of 2008, and on all 35 Democratic candidates seeking to perpetuate their Senate majority.

The Senate's Democratic majority was united after the 2008 election in its commitment to President Obama's progressive vision to remake America. And with a financial crisis afoot, it was determined to not waste the opportunity.

ObamaCare, which gave government control of the health-care system, was vigorously supported, promoted and defended by every Senate Democrat. It became law in March 2010 without a single Republican vote in either house of Congress. Every Democratic senator cast the deciding vote for ObamaCare.

Since the Progressive Era a century ago, Democrats have dreamed of seizing the commanding heights of the financial system to expand government's ability to influence the allocation of credit. The passage of Dodd-Frank in July 2010, also supported by every Democrat in the Senate, made that dream a reality.

In 1993, President Clinton had been unable to pass a comparatively modest $16 billion stimulus program. Democrats in 2009 passed a massive $787 billion stimulus program with every Democratic senator voting for it. And with the tacit support of Democratic senators who have blocked every bill, resolution or amendment that impeded any aspect of his regulatory agenda, President Obama has implemented the most massive expansion of federal regulatory authority since the Great Depression.

It is impossible for any Democratic senator running for re-election this year to credibly argue that he or she did not support the president's program or provide a critical vote to enact it. No Democratic candidate can argue that by electing him or her and sustaining the Democratic majority in the Senate, voters can hope to alter the president's program.

With his party's Senate supermajority, President Obama achieved a series of historic political victories. But the question most voters will have to answer on Nov. 4 is whether this program has been good for working Americans. We think the answer is clear. As is well known, the Obama recovery is the weakest in postwar history. If the Obama recovery had been as strong as the average of the previous 10 postwar recoveries, 13.9 million more Americans would be working today and the average real per capita income of every man, woman and child in America would be $6,308 higher.

Continue reading . . .

|

OBAMA'S ISLAMIC FAITH

The video below is not a new one. It was first published in 2009, but after some ten million viewings it is circulating again. With the rise of an Islamic caliphate in Iraq and Syria whose leaders threaten the U.S., Obama's refusal to do anything to stop it does raise the question of "Why not?"

Is the answer in this video?

Is his refusal endangering our national security?

|

OBAMA SWINGS THE WRECKING BALL

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.

|

CAROLINE GLICK: THE U.S. MUST CONTAIN BOTH IRAQ AND IRAN AND PREVENT IRAN'S ACQUISITION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

The Middle East's most perceptive observer is Caroline Glick, an American-Israeli living in Israel. Her rare ability to see the Middle East as an American and an Israeli provides us with valuable insight.


The threat is blowback
by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post
Friday, June 19, 2014

Watching the undoing, in a week, of victories that US forces won in Iraq at great cost over many years, Americans are asking themselves what, if anything, should be done.

What can prevent the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) – the al-Qaida offshoot that President Barack Obama derided just months ago as a bunch of amateurs – from taking over Iraq?

And what is at stake for America – other than national pride – if it does?

Muddying the waters is the fact that the main actor that seems interested in fighting ISIS on the ground in Iraq is Iran. Following ISIS’s takeover of Mosul and Tikrit last week, the Iranian regime deployed elite troops in Iraq from the Quds Force, its foreign operations division.

The Obama administration, along with Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham, views Iran’s deployment of forces in Iraq as an opportunity for the US. The US, they argue should work with Iran to defeat ISIS.

The idea is that since the US and Iran both oppose al-Qaida, Iranian gains against it will redound to the US’s benefit.

There are two basic, fundamental problems with this idea.

First, there is a mountain of evidence that Iran has no beef with al-Qaida and is happy to work with it.

According to the 9/11 Commission’s report, between eight and 10 of the September 11 hijackers traveled through Iran before going to the US. And this was apparently no coincidence.

According to the report, Iran had been providing military training and logistical support for al-Qaida since at least the early 1990s.

After the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, al-Qaida’s leadership scattered. Many senior commanders – including bin Laden’s son Said, al-Qaida’s chief strategist Saif al-Adel and Suleiman Abu Ghaith – decamped to Iran, where they set up a command center.

From Iran, these men directed the operations of al-Qaida forces in Iraq led by Abu Musab Zarqawi. Zarqawi entered Iraq from Iran and returned to Iran several times during the years he led al-Qaida operations in Iraq.

Iran’s cooperation with al-Qaida continues today in Syria.

According to The Wall Street Journal, in directing the defense of Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria, Iran has opted to leave ISIS and its al-Qaida brethren in the Nusra Front alone. That is why they have been able to expand their power in northern Syria.

Iran and its allies have concentrated their attacks against the more moderate Free Syrian Army, which they view as a threat.

Given Iran’s 20-year record of cooperation with al-Qaida, it is reasonable to assume that it is deploying forces into Iraq to tighten its control over Shi’ite areas, not to fight al-Qaida. The record shows that Iran doesn’t believe that its victories and al-Qaida’s victories are mutually exclusive.

The second problem with the idea of subcontracting America’s fight against al-Qaida to Iran is that it assumes that Iranian success in such a war would benefit America. But again, experience tells a different tale.

The US killed Zarqawi in an air strike in 2006. Reports in the Arab media at the time alleged that Iran had disclosed Zarqawi’s location to the US. While the reports were speculative, shortly after Zarqawi was killed, then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice floated the idea of opening nuclear talks with Iran for the first time.

The Iranians contemptuously rejected her offer. But Rice’s willingness to discuss Iran’s nuclear weapons program with the regime, even as it was actively engaged in killing US forces in Iraq, ended any serious prospect that the Bush administration would develop a coherent plan for dealing with Iran in a strategic and comprehensive way.
Moreover, Zarqawi was immediately replaced by one of his deputies. And the fight went on.

So if Iran did help the US find Zarqawi, the price the US paid for Iran’s assistance was far higher than the benefit it derived from killing Zarqawi.

This brings us to the real threat that the rise of ISIS – and Iran – in Iraq poses to the US. That threat is blowback.

Both Iran and al-Qaida are sworn enemies of the United States, and both have been empowered by events of the past week.

Because they view the US as their mortal foe, their empowerment poses a danger to the US. But it is hard for people to recognize how events in distant lands can directly impact their lives.

In March 2001, when the Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan, the world condemned the act. But no one realized that the same destruction would be brought to the US six months later when al-Qaida destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon.
The September 11 attacks were the blowback from the US doing nothing to contain the Taliban and al-Qaida.

North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic-missile tests, as well as North Korean proliferation of both nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to rogue regimes, like Iran, that threaten the US, are the beginnings of the blowback from the US decision to reach a nuclear deal with Pyongyang in the 1990s that allowed the regime to keep its nuclear installations.
The blowback from Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power is certain to dwarf what the world has seen from North Korea so far.
Yet rather than act in a manner that would reduce the threat of blowback from Iraq’s disintegration and takeover by America’s worst enemies, the Obama administration gives every indication that it is doubling down on the disastrous policies that led the US to this precarious juncture.

The only strategy that the US can safely adopt today is one of double containment. The aim of double containment is to minimize the capacity of Iran and al-Qaida to harm the US and its interests.

But to contain your enemies, you need to understand them. You need to understand their nature, their aims, their support networks and their capabilities.
Unfortunately, in keeping with what has been the general practice of the US government since the September 11 attacks, the US today continues to ignore or misunderstand all of these critical considerations.

Regarding al-Qaida specifically, the US has failed to understand that al-Qaida is a natural progression from the political/religious milieu of Salafist/Wahabist or Islamist Islam, from whence it sprang. As a consequence, anyone who identifies with Islamist religious and political organizations is a potential supporter and recruit for al-Qaida and its sister organizations.

There were two reasons that George W. Bush refused to base US strategy for combating al-Qaida on any cultural context broader than the Taliban.

Bush didn’t want to sacrifice the US’s close ties with Saudi Arabia, which finances the propagation and spread of Islamism. And he feared being attacked as a bigot by Islamist organizations in the US like the Council on American Islamic Relations and its supporters on the Left.

As for Obama, his speech in Cairo to the Muslim world in June 2009 and his subsequent apology tour through Islamic capitals indicated that, unlike Bush, Obama understands that al-Qaida is not a deviation from otherwise peaceful Islamist culture.

But unlike Bush, Obama blames America for its hostility. Obama’s radical sensibilities tell him that America pushed the Islamists to oppose it. As he sees it, he can appease the Islamists into ending their war against America.

To this end, Obama has prohibited federal employees from conducting any discussion or investigation of Islamist doctrine, terrorism, strategy and methods and the threat all pose to the US.

These prohibitions were directly responsible for the FBI’s failure to question or arrest the Tsarnaev brothers in 2012 despite the fact that Russian intelligence tipped it off to the fact that the 2013 Boston Marathon bombers were jihadists.

They were also responsible for the army’s refusal to notice any of the black flags that Maj. Nidal Hassan raised in the months before his massacre of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, or to take any remedial action after the massacre to prevent such atrocities from recurring.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the progenitor of Islamism. It is the organizational, social, political and religious swamp from whence the likes of al-Qaida, Hamas and other terror groups emerged. Whereas Bush pretended the Brotherhood away, Obama embraced it as a strategic partner.

Then there is Iran.

Bush opted to ignore the 9/11 Commission’s revelations regarding Iranian collaboration with al-Qaida. Instead, particularly in the later years of his administration, Bush sought to appease Iran both in Iraq and in relation to its illicit nuclear weapons program.

In large part, Bush did not acknowledge, or act on the sure knowledge that Iran was the man behind the curtain in Iraq, because he believed that the American people would oppose the expansion of the US operations in the war against terror.

Obama’s actions toward Iran indicate that he knows that Iran stands behind al-Qaida and that the greatest threat the US faces is Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But here as well, Obama opted to follow a policy of appeasement. Rather than prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or stem its advance in Syria and Iraq, Obama treats Iran as though it poses no threat and is indeed a natural ally. He blames Iran’s belligerence on the supposedly unjust policies of his predecessors and the US’s regional allies.

For a dual-containment strategy to have any chance of working, the US needs to reverse course. No, it needn’t deploy troops to Iraq. But it does need to seal its border to minimize the chance that jihadists will cross over from Mexico.

It doesn’t need to clamp down on Muslims in America. But it needs to investigate and take action where necessary against al-Qaida’s ideological fellow travelers in Islamist mosques, organizations and the US government. To this end, it needs to end the prohibition on discussion of the Islamist threat by federal government employees.

As for Iran, according to The New York Times, Iran is signaling that the price of cooperation with the Americans in Iraq is American acquiescence to Iran’s conditions for signing a nuclear deal. In other words, the Iranians will fight al-Qaida in Iraq in exchange for American facilitation of its nuclear weapons program.

The first step the US must take to minimize the Iranian threat is to walk away from the table and renounce the talks. The next step is to take active measures to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration appears prepared to do none of these things. To the contrary, its pursuit of an alliance with Iran in Iraq indicates that it is doubling down on the most dangerous aspects of its policy of empowering America’s worst enemies.

It only took the Taliban six months to move from the Bamiyan Buddhas to the World Trade Center.

Al-Qaida is stronger now than ever before. And Iran is on the threshold of a nuclear arsenal

|

OBAMA: "THE MAN WHO BETRAYED OUR PAST AND SQUANDERED OUR FREEDOM."

Will Congress rein in Obama?Will the Supreme Court?


The Collapsing Obama Doctrine

Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.

By Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney
June 18, 2014
Wall Street Journal

As the terrorists of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) threaten Baghdad, thousands of slaughtered Iraqis in their wake, it is worth recalling a few of President Obama's past statements about ISIS and al Qaeda. "If a J.V. team puts on Lakers' uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant" (January 2014). "[C]ore al Qaeda is on its heels, has been decimated" (August 2013). "So, let there be no doubt: The tide of war is receding" (September 2011).

Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many. Too many times to count, Mr. Obama has told us he is "ending" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—as though wishing made it so. His rhetoric has now come crashing into reality. Watching the black-clad ISIS jihadists take territory once secured by American blood is final proof, if any were needed, that America's enemies are not "decimated." They are emboldened and on the march.

The fall of the Iraqi cities of Fallujah, Tikrit, Mosul and Tel Afar, and the establishment of terrorist safe havens across a large swath of the Arab world, present a strategic threat to the security of the United States. Mr. Obama's actions—before and after ISIS's recent advances in Iraq—have the effect of increasing that threat.

An Iraqi soldier in Baghdad with volunteers to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, June 17. Reuters
On a trip to the Middle East this spring, we heard a constant refrain in capitals from the Persian Gulf to Israel, "Can you please explain what your president is doing?" "Why is he walking away?" "Why is he so blithely sacrificing the hard fought gains you secured in Iraq?" "Why is he abandoning your friends?" "Why is he doing deals with your enemies?"

In one Arab capital, a senior official pulled out a map of Syria and Iraq. Drawing an arc with his finger from Raqqa province in northern Syria to Anbar province in western Iraq, he said, "They will control this territory. Al Qaeda is building safe havens and training camps here. Don't the Americans care?"

Our president doesn't seem to. Iraq is at risk of falling to a radical Islamic terror group and Mr. Obama is talking climate change. Terrorists take control of more territory and resources than ever before in history, and he goes golfing. He seems blithely unaware, or indifferent to the fact, that a resurgent al Qaeda presents a clear and present danger to the United States of America.

When Mr. Obama and his team came into office in 2009, al Qaeda in Iraq had been largely defeated, thanks primarily to the heroic efforts of U.S. armed forces during the surge. Mr. Obama had only to negotiate an agreement to leave behind some residual American forces, training and intelligence capabilities to help secure the peace. Instead, he abandoned Iraq and we are watching American defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

The tragedy unfolding in Iraq today is only part of the story. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are resurgent across the globe. According to a recent Rand study, between 2010 and 2013, there was a 58% increase in the number of Salafi-jihadist terror groups around the world. During that same period, the number of terrorists doubled.

In the face of this threat, Mr. Obama is busy ushering America's adversaries into positions of power in the Middle East. First it was the Russians in Syria. Now, in a move that defies credulity, he toys with the idea of ushering Iran into Iraq. Only a fool would believe American policy in Iraq should be ceded to Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terror.

This president is willfully blind to the impact of his policies. Despite the threat to America unfolding across the Middle East, aided by his abandonment of Iraq, he has announced he intends to follow the same policy in Afghanistan.

Despite clear evidence of the dire need for American leadership around the world, the desperation of our allies and the glee of our enemies, President Obama seems determined to leave office ensuring he has taken America down a notch. Indeed, the speed of the terrorists' takeover of territory in Iraq has been matched only by the speed of American decline on his watch.

The president explained his view in his Sept. 23, 2009, speech before the United Nations General Assembly. "Any world order," he said, "that elevates one nation above others cannot long survive." Tragically, he is quickly proving the opposite—through one dangerous policy after another—that without American pre-eminence, there can be no world order.

It is time the president and his allies faced some hard truths: America remains at war, and withdrawing troops from the field of battle while our enemies stay in the fight does not "end" wars. Weakness and retreat are provocative. U.S. withdrawal from the world is disastrous and puts our own security at risk.

Al Qaeda and its affiliates are resurgent and they present a security threat not seen since the Cold War. Defeating them will require a strategy—not a fantasy. It will require sustained difficult military, intelligence and diplomatic efforts—not empty misleading rhetoric. It will require rebuilding America's military capacity—reversing the Obama policies that have weakened our armed forces and reduced our ability to influence events around the world.

American freedom will not be secured by empty threats, meaningless red lines, leading from behind, appeasing our enemies, abandoning our allies, or apologizing for our great nation—all hallmarks to date of the Obama doctrine. Our security, and the security of our friends around the world, can only be guaranteed with a fundamental reversal of the policies of the past six years.

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan said, "If history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom." President Obama is on track to securing his legacy as the man who betrayed our past and squandered our freedom.

Mr. Cheney was U.S. vice president from 2001-09. Ms. Cheney was the deputy assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs from 2002-04 and 2005-06.

|

WHAT IS NEXT ON OBAMA'S MISSION OF DESTRUCTION?

To build a socialist state, the existing nation of freedom and independence must first be destroyed.

The Pace of Obama's Disasters

Bergdahl one week. Then Ukraine. Now Iraq. What could be next?

By Bret Stephens
June 17, 2014
Wall Street Journal Opinion

Was it only 10 months ago that President Obama capitulated on Syria? And eight months ago that we learned he had no idea the U.S. eavesdropped on Angela Merkel ? And seven months ago that his administration struck its disastrous interim nuclear deal with Tehran? And four months ago that Chuck Hagel announced that the United States Army would be cut to numbers not seen since the 1930s? And three months ago that Russia seized Crimea? And two months ago that John Kerry's Israeli-Palestinian peace effort sputtered into the void? And last month that Mr. Obama announced a timetable for total withdrawal from Afghanistan—a strategy whose predictable effects can now be seen in Iraq?

Even the Bergdahl deal of yesterweek is starting to feel like ancient history. Like geese, Americans are being forced to swallow foreign-policy fiascoes at a rate faster than we can possibly chew, much less digest.

Consider the liver.

On Thursday, Russian tanks rolled across the border into eastern Ukraine. On Saturday, Russian separatists downed a Ukrainian transport jet, murdering 49 people. On Monday, Moscow stopped delivering gas to Kiev. All this is part of the Kremlin's ongoing stealth invasion and subjugation of its neighbor. And all of this barely made the news. John Kerry phoned Moscow to express his "strong concern." Concern, mind you, not condemnation.

If the president of the United States had any thoughts on the subject, he kept them to himself. His weekly radio address was devoted to wishing America's dads a happy Father's Day.

Continue reading "WHAT IS NEXT ON OBAMA'S MISSION OF DESTRUCTION?"

|

WHY IS AMERICA LOOKING LIKE A FOOL IN EVERYTHING IT IS DOING?

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.

|

OBAMA HAS DONE MORE DAMAGE TO AMERICA THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT. IS IT BY INCOMPETENCE OR INTENTION?

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.

THE PRESIDENT WHO HAS DONE THE MOST DAMAGE TO AMERICA
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.

|

WHITE HOUSE CEREMONY TO CELEBRATE ISLAM FOR RELEASE OF AMERICAN SOLDIER DESERTER BERGDAHL

Famed international writer Mark Steyn filled in for Rush Limbaugh on June 3rd and put the weird Rose Garden ceremony with Barack Obama and the Bergdahls in context. His comments begin at about 2:39 minutes in the recording and last for about 25 minutes. Worth listening to every minute. (You can skip the first 2:39by using your cursor to move the bump along the line.)


Mark Steyn on deserter Bergdahl.mp3

|

OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY FAILURES (?) EMBARRASS AND ENDANGER THE U.S.

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.

|

RESCUE AMERICA BEGINS WITH THE 2014 ELECTIONS!

This is becoming one of the most watched video of the year and the response is overwhelming -- vote for the conservatives in 2014.

|

OBAMA -- A FAILURE OR A SUCCESS?

Here's a succinct assessment of Obama by Peter Wehner in Commentary:

The lofty expectations and grand pronouncements of Obama–unmatched by any presidential candidate in my lifetime–have crashed against reality time and time again.

It’s not simply that Mr. Obama has fallen short of what he promised; it’s that he has been, in so many respects, a failure. Choose your metrics. Better yet, choose Mr. Obama’s metrics: Job creation. Economic growth. Improving our health-care system. Reducing the debt. Reducing poverty. Reducing income inequality. Slowing the rise of the oceans. Healing the planet. Repairing the world. The Russian “reset.” Peace in the Middle East. Red lines in Syria. Renewed focus on Afghanistan. A new beginning with the Arab world. Better relations with our allies. Depolarizing our politics. Putting an end to the type of politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.” Working with the other party. Transparency. No lobbyists working in his administration. His commitment to seek public financing in the general election. The list goes on and on.

Wehner's is a charitable assessment. Wehner attributes Obama's failure to his inexperience, lack of preparedness and temperament. There are many who are convinced that Obama came into the presidency with the determination of a Saul Alinksy to cut America down in size, to make its people no better economically than the hundreds of millions of colored people they had oppressed around the world and to make the nation incapable of effective military action, a superpower no more.

No matter how you look at him, the results are the same. One's characterization of of "failure" or "success" depends on what Obama intended to do, has done and is continuing to do.

|

SALUTE THE KOCH BROTHERS -- FIGHTING TO RESTORE THE FREE SOCIETY THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS DESTROYING

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.

Continue reading "SALUTE THE KOCH BROTHERS -- FIGHTING TO RESTORE THE FREE SOCIETY THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS DESTROYING"

|

DR THOMAS SOWELL: WHY BARACK OBAMA IS UNDERMINING AND DAMAGING AMERICA AND ROBBING CITIZENS OF OUR LIBERTIES

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.

Continue reading "DR THOMAS SOWELL: WHY BARACK OBAMA IS UNDERMINING AND DAMAGING AMERICA AND ROBBING CITIZENS OF OUR LIBERTIES"

|

OBAMA HOSTILE TO CHRISTIANITY - VATICAN

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

|

DOES OBAMA'S LAW BREAKING UPSET ANYONE IN CONGRESS? YES.

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.

|

D'SOUZA LOVES AMERICA. WHY DOESN'T OBAMA?

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.

|

WHY ARE OBAMA AND HILLARY STONEWALLING ON BENGHAZI?

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?

|

WHY DO OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRAT ELITES WANT TO DESTROY AMERICA?

It isn't only Obama who is intent on destroying America, it is now the guiding philosophy of the Democratic Party that "bad" America must be punished for its sins.

Dinesh D'Souza, who produced and directed "Obama's America: 2016," goes into much more detail than he could in his film.

Obama's America 2016 is the 2nd highest grossing political documentary in the history of the United States, pulling in over $33 million.

D'Souza has produced a new documentary entitled "America" to be in theaters before the 4th of July, Independence Day, this year. The trailer just released is below:

|

OBAMA'S WAR ON JOBS

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.

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE FEBRUARY 13, 2014 8:00 PM

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

|

WHO IS THE MOST CORRUPT PRESIDENT?

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.


NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
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.

Continue reading "WHO IS THE MOST CORRUPT PRESIDENT?"

|

NOBODY'S LISTENING TO OBAMA ANYMORE

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."

|
WE ARE THE PARTY OF LINCOLN.
WE STAND FOR FREEDOM AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL.



Contact: Diane Bronsdon 508 945 9218
C R Facebook
GREATEST THREATS TO THE U.S.
ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM
ISLAMIC TERRORISM
RADICAL ISLAMIC IMMIGRATION
ISLAMIC HATRED OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS
Watch
To help us do our part to keep America strong and well informed, just click below. Donate Now!

News
Syndication
rdf
rss2
atom

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

Causes:

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

Archives

Categories