Sher Zieve, NewsBull.com

 

Key to establishing a dictatorship worth its salt is gaining virtually absolute control of a country’s financial system. Today, that is what’s happening in the United States of America. In order to gain said control Barack Obama’s minion and Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner is pushing for converting the current government-owned bank (under the pretense of “tax payer owned”) preferred stock to common stock. This will give Obama’s government majority control of all banks who have taken advantage of the bogus TARP and “stimulus” bills. Do any still really wonder why the government is refusing to take back payment of those loan monies from the banks?

 

In order to maintain his unconditional control over his targeted financial institutions, Obama plans to implement his own “bank stress tests.” These “tests” are designed to be changed at any time—dependent only upon the whims of the US Dictator—he wishes; so as to maintain iron fisted power over those who may receive money and those who may not. For those who have not been taught truth in the government-run public schools, this is called “tyranny.”

 

Another story that the mainstream media has failed to report on is the looming government takeover of the press—oddly, a press that is already left-wing and fawning in its reportage of the despot Obama. Obama’s appointment of radical left-wing columnist and attorney Rosa Brooks as his ‘advisor to the Pentagon’ presages Obama’s planned takeover of the nation’s press. Read article.

Mitt Romney, NRO.com

 

At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega’s denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro’s dictatorship was that he shouldn’t be blamed “for things that happened when I was three months old.” Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba’s freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas.

 

In his first press interview as president, he confessed to Arabic television that America had “dictated” to other nations. No, Mr. President, America has fought to free other nations from dictators. And in Strasbourg, the president further claimed that America has “showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” London’s Daily Telegraph observed that President Obama “went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.” Read article.

Vincent Gioia, GAJ.com

 

If you thought you had heard all the bad news coming from the Obama administration and a Democrat packed congress, you were wrong.

 

Two weeks ago, Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) quietly re-introduced the so-called hate crimes bill--H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. It is now expected that on Wednesday April 22, the full US House Judiciary Committee will vote on H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

 

Crimes already illegal will be considered “hate crimes” depending on the intent of the criminal. Therefore we must only hire psychologists as policemen or we have to assume all policemen are trained psychologists. Penalties for “hate crimes” will be greater than for the same crime not considered based on hate of the victim. Does this make any sense to a reasonable person? The criminal act is the same only the impossible assessment of the motivation is supposed to be different.

 

The so-called hate crimes bill will be used to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, business owners, Bible teachers, Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, Christian counselors, religious broadcasters and anyone else who the law deems capable of committing a crime motivated by hate of the victim. The problem is that innocent people like those just mentioned who believe in the Bible teachings will come under the rubric of committing a hate crime if they express their religious beliefs. Read article.

 

MarketWatch.com

 

The Obama administration has announced plans to cut $100 million from the federal budget, and department heads will have to make the cuts within 90 days.

 

To get a handle on how insultingly trivial the announcement is, one need only compare the targeted cuts to the administration's spending plan for 2010.

With cuts in federal spending by $100 million, the government will save roughly 1/36,000 of the $3.6 trillion it expects to spend next year.

 

Put another way, if the budget were a yardstick, the administration would be proposing to shorten it by 1/1000 of an inch. That's 25.4 microns, or about half the width of a human hair. Read article.

 

Gal Luft, Financial Times.com

 

Last week's hullabaloo over Barack Obama's seeming bow before King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia centered mainly on the question of whether it was appropriate for a U.S. president to pay obeisance to a foreign dictator. But the real problem lies deeper than that. King Abdullah's alliance with the United States, combined with his oil wealth, has allowed his radical breed of Islam, Wahhabism, to flourish, poisoning the Middle East. With so much at stake, is it irrational to yearn for a world in which the Saudi regime just miraculously ceased to exist and there was no King Abdullah to bow to (or not) at all?

 

The House of Saud affects the world in three main ways: It is the world's largest producer of oil and holder of most of the market's spare production capacity; it acts as custodian of Islam's holy places and the religious center of Sunni Islam; and it maintains Wahhabism as a state-sponsored sect. When it comes to the first two elements, a world without the Saudi kingdom would not necessarily be a better one. Read article.

 

Jackson Diehl, Washington Post.com

 

New American presidents typically begin by behaving as if most of the world's problems are the fault of their predecessors -- and Barack Obama has been no exception. In his first three months he has quickly taken steps to correct the errors in George W. Bush's foreign policy, as seen by Democrats. He has collected easy dividends from his base, U.S. allies in Europe and a global following for not being "unilateralist" or war-mongering or scornful of dialogue with enemies.

 

Now comes the interesting part: when it starts to become evident that Bush did not create rogue states, terrorist movements, Middle Eastern blood feuds or Russian belligerence -- and that shake-ups in U.S. diplomacy, however enlightened, might not have much impact on them.

 

The first wake-up call has come from North Korea -- a state that, according to established Democratic wisdom, would have given up its nuclear weapons years ago if it had not been labeled "evil" by Bush, denied bilateral talks with Washington and punished with sanctions. Stephen Bosworth, the administration's new special envoy, duly tried to head off Pyongyang's latest illegal missile test by promising bilateral negotiations and offering "incentives" for good behavior.

 

North Korea fired the missile anyway. Read article.

Bruce Bialosky, Townhall.com

 

This entire episode with pirates is just way to cool. Everyone can relate to this story because pirates have been a part of all our lives. Some of us grew up with Treasure Island and Long John Silver. Others envision Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean. Pirates captivate Americans of all ages.

 

The coolness does not end there because the recent incident of the attempted taking of an America ship had thrills for everyone. First, you had the Captain, Richard Phillips, exchanging himself for the freedom of his crew. All Americans want to claim him as their own.

 

The Republicans were thrilled as the Navy Seals took out the captor pirates – Bam, Bam, Bam – and freed the Captain. The Democrats loved that their man, Obama, stepped up to the plate and authorized the Navy to do what it had to do. Read article.

 

Judith A. Klinghoffer, Political Mavens.com

 

A less than enamored Sarkozy, acknowledged that Obama has a “subtle mind” and is “very intelligent, very charismatic.” That may explain the reason he gets away with repeatedly denigrating America under the guise of “self criticism” and Bush “bashing” when similar sentiments discredited his less subtle mentor, Jeremiah Wright. For Obama, like Rev. Wright (though without religious justification), his individual interpretation of global (if not cosmic) “fairness” first and the country second.

 

According to his notion of “fairness,” the US has been “unfairly” rich and powerful and he has been elected to “change” her by clipping her wings. Pretending that he is only ameliorating the excesses of the “Bush administration” enables him to America strategically and economically weaker and meeker with less damage to his popularity than could have been expected.

 

Note the relative equanimity with which his America bashing foreign trips, his economic kowtowing to China (despite record decline of US manufacturing caused in part by the dollar strength) or his undermining the intelligence agencies in charge of protecting the homeland from foreign terrorists are received. Read article.

 

Byron York, JWR.com

 

There are undoubtedly people who have a more vivid memory of Will Farrell’s "Saturday Night Live" version of the "Axis of Evil" — the one in which Farrell, as President George W. Bush, denounced Iran, Iraq and "one of those Koreas" — than of the real thing from Bush's 2002 State of the Union address. A lot of comedians made a lot of fun of the "Axis of Evil" concept. But now, more than seven years later, it's looking pretty solid.

 

This is what Bush said on the subject of Iran, Iraq and North Korea:

 

"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger."

 

You can argue till the end of time about Iraq's place in that group. But is there anything you would disagree with in the former president's assessment of Iran and North Korea? The last administration's comedy fodder is this administration's bipartisan consensus. Read article.

 

Just One Minute.com

 

Last week I finished Walter Isaacson’s “Einstein”. Einstein had moved to Princeton in 1933 and remained there until his death in 1955. During the 30’s, he was world famous, beloved, quirky and kind. To my surprise, in a section called Prewar Politics, the author writes the following on page 445.

“A survey of incoming freshmen in 1938 produced a result that is now astonishing, and should have been back then as well; Adolf Hitler polled highest as the “greatest living person.” Albert Einstein was second.”

This passage had a footnote which I followed to the back of the book. Here is the footnote:

 

“Hitler Is ‘Greatest’ in Princton Poll: Freshmen Put Einstein Second and Chamberlain Third,” New York Times, Nov 28, 1939. The story reports that this was for the second year in a row.”

 

Simply food for thought and a possible worthwhile rejoinder when discussion turns to the perceptions held by our best and our brightest of the ‘coolest’ Politician of the day." Read article.

 

The Prowler, Spectator.org

 

Obama administration chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is telling senior White House advisers, as well as outside lobbyists and business leaders he has had contact with, that he will not allow the cap and trade plan put forward by Rep. Henry Waxman in late March to move very far along the legislative process.

 

Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, put forward a co-sponsored bill with Rep. Ed Markey that set specific policy markers that would reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 20% of their 2005 levels in 20 years. Waxman says he's only doing "what the scientists are telling us we must do." Such a goal, as well as the cap-and-trade emissions credit system, is viewed as the kind of policy that could deepen U.S. economic troubles at a time when Democrats, particularly in the Senate, are looking to avoid any radical policies that could worsen their economic stewardship.

 

Such a goal, as well as the cap-and-trade emissions credit system, is viewed as the kind of policy that could deepen U.S. economic troubles at a time when Democrats, particularly in the Senate, are looking to avoid any radical policies that could worsen their economic stewardship. Read article.

 

Print This E-mail This

Share It: