Victor Davis Hanson, Pajamas Media.com

 

Oh, I know that President Obama’s approval ratings are still around 62%. But I also remember that George Bush’s at the end of 2001 got even higher — and stayed at or above 60% through most of 2002, explaining why he increased his congressional majority in the midterm elections.

 

Nevertheless, I think we are beginning — after less than four months — to see fissures in Obama’s Pentelic statuary. And the cracks will widen, because in about six areas he has taken on human nature itself, age-old logic, and common sense-opponents that even a Harvard Law degree and Chicago organizing are no match for.

 

1) The Rule of Law. We are on dangerous ground here with the reordering of the bankruptcy statutes with Chrysler and the UAW; with the strong-arming of stimulus money for California predicated on the protection of unions; with the serial disdain for paying taxes on the part of Geithner, Solis, Daschle and others; and with the selective release of CIA memos, to denigrate those out of office as veritable torturers (they should reread the transcript of Eric Holder’s 2002 CNN interview with Paula Zahn in which he grandly denies that the Gitmo detainees have any recourse to the Geneva Convention accords and can be held there for as long as we think the war lasts). What separates the U.S. from Mexico, Cuba, or Haiti is the rule of law, the protection of capital and property, the evenhanded treatment of investment, and the faith in a fair media to uncover abuse. I think that is now all in question, as the Utopian ends justify the tawdry means. Read article.

Terry Easton, Human Events.com

 

David Kamerschen is a professor of Economics at the University of Georgia who has fun teaching economics to new students fresh to the field. Lots of people who teach economics, including yours truly, have used a variation of David's illustration over the years. It never fails to hit the mark -- if not Marx.

 

Econ 101 or its equivalent is usually a required course for most college students, most of whom groan when they are forced to take a class in the "dismal science". That's because they never were exposed to real-world lessons in economics when they were in grade school. If we begin to teach our children the facts about how things really work when they are 8 instead of 18, we'd get much smarter voters at 18 -- and far less mushy-thinking socialist "progressives

 

"The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction." says Professor Kamershen. "Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier." 

 

President Obama and the Democratically-controlled congress, good wannabe socialists all, should remember this lessen before all of the rich people (mostly Democrats, by the way, but that's the topic of another article) stop going to the pub with all their other good friends. Raising taxes using a "progressive" tax system penalizes the productive, wealthiest members of our society much more than the average taxpayer. And I'm against that even though it would hurt the many Democrat billionaires far more. Read article.

Larry Kudlow, National Review.com

 

Does anybody really believe that adding 50 million people to the public health-care rolls will not cost the government more money? About $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion more? At least.

 

So let’s be serious when evaluating President Obama’s goal of universal health care, and the idea that it’s a cost-cutter. Can’t happen. Won’t happen. Costs are going to explode.

 

Think of it: Can anyone name a federal program that ever cut costs for anything? Let’s not forget that the existing Medicare system is roughly $80 trillion in the hole.

 

And does anybody believe Obama’s new “public” health-insurance plan isn’t really a bridge to single-payer government-run health care? And does anyone think this plan won’t produce a government gatekeeper that will allocate health services and control prices and therefore crowd-out the private-insurance doctor/hospital system?

 

Federal boards are going to decide what’s good for you and me. And what’s not good for you and me. Read article.

Jon Christian Ryter, NWV.com

 

When Sen. Barack Hussein Obama started campaigning for the White House in December, 2007, he promised the voters two things. Universally, he promised change. He never specified what that promised change was going to be, or who would benefit from it. But change of any type seemed to be good enough for an electorate—Democrats and Republicans alike—since everyone seemed to be tired of eight years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

 

Second, when he addressed the 99th Annual Conference of NAACP on July 14, 2008 Obama told the assembled audience: "Social Justice is not enough. It matters little if you have the right to sit at the lunch counter if you can't afford the lunch. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issue of redistribution of wealth and...[the]...issue of political and economic justice in this society...[T]he Supreme Court interpreted in the same way that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

 

"It says what the States can't do for you. It says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or State government must do on your behalf." Obama then promised to return to the NAACP's 100th Anniversary Conference to declare that the redistribution of wealth was taking place. Read article.

Jonathan Spyer, Gloria-Center.org

 

A month ago, US President Barack Obama announced a new strategy to address the current crisis in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama's plan to 'disrupt, dismantle and defeat' al-Qaida and the Taliban in 'Afpak' includes deployment of an additional 21,000 US troops in Afghanistan, and an increase in civilian officials to aid in developing the Afghan economy and governmental structures.

 

The strategy also contains a diplomatic element. The President said that he intended to bring together all those countries who 'should have a stake in the security of the region.' Among the countries he named as belonging to this group was Iran. Seeking Iranian cooperation in dealing with the grave and urgent situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan looks set to form a cornerstone in the US policy of 'engagement' with Teheran.

 

The first tentative moves in the diplomatic dance between the US and Iran on this issue have already begun.   Richard Holbrooke, the Administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, recently had an 'unscheduled' encounter with Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Mehdi Akhondzadeh, at a conference on Afghanistan.

 

The Administration's approach rests on a crucial assumption: It is considered that since Iran and the Taliban are mortal enemies on the ideological and theological level, and since in the past, Iranians and Taliban have clashed, there ought to be a common Iranian-US interest in defeating or containing the Sunni extremists. This, however, is deeply questionable. Read article.

 

Timothy P. Carney, DC Examiner.com

 

President Barack Obama declared last Monday that the gathering of drug makers, health insurers, unions, hospitals and doctors at the White House was “so remarkable” because these diverse interests agreed on containing health care costs — a first step in his plan to remake the American health care system.

 

The White House claim that the “medical-industrial complex” is on board with health care reform prompted disbelief in some quarters, rosy speculation in others.

 

To understand why the medical-industrial complex backs Obama’s reform, just read the executives’ words. Simply put, health care reform — if it’s the right blend of Obama’s plan and Sen. Ted Kennedy’s plan — will increase profits for health care giants while diminishing competition. Read article.

 

David Goldman, Seeking Alpha.com

 

Don’t zombies come from places where they grow bananas?

 

Over a year ago (in a “Spengler” essay) I characterized Barack Obama as a third world anthropologist profiling the United States:

 

Obama profiles Americans the way anthropologists interact with primitive peoples. He holds his own view in reserve and emphatically draws out the feelings of others; that is how friends and colleagues describe his modus operandi since his days at the Harvard Law Review, through his years as a community activist in Chicago, and in national politics. Anthropologists, though, proceed from resentment against the devouring culture of America and sympathy with the endangered cultures of the primitive world. Obama inverts the anthropological model: he applies the tools of cultural manipulation out of resentment against America. The probable next president of the United States is a mother’s revenge against the America she despised.

 

Was that an exaggeration? We will find out. Read article.

 

Jeff Jacoby, JWR.com

 

Without judicial restraint there is no rule of law. We live under "a government of laws and not of men," to quote John Adams's resonant phrase, only so long as judges stick to neutrally resolving the disputes before them, applying the law and upholding the Constitution even when doing so leads to results they personally dislike. That is why the judicial oath is so adamant about impartiality. That is why Lady Justice is so frequently depicted — as on the sculpted lampposts outside the US Supreme Court — wearing a blindfold and carrying balanced scales.

 

And that is why President Obama's "empathy" standard is so disturbing, and has generated so much comment.

 

Time and again, Obama has called for judges who do not put their private political views aside when deciding cases. In choosing a replacement for Justice David Souter, the president says, he will seek not just "excellence and integrity," but a justice whose "quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles," would be "an essential ingredient" in his jurisprudence. In an interview last year, he said he would look for judges "sympathetic" to those "on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless."

 

When he voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005, Obama declared that the "truly difficult" cases that come before the Supreme Court can be decided only with reference to "the depth and breadth of one's empathy," and that "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."

 

But such cardiac justice is precisely what judges "do solemnly swear" to renounce. Sympathy for others is an admirable virtue, but a judge's private commiserations are not relevant to the law he is expected to apply. Read article.

 

Robert Robb, JWR.com

 

The country is about to have a very frustrating debate over health care, characterized more by misdirection than an honest discussion of the alternatives.

 

A good illustration was provided by the confab at the White House on Monday, in which health-care executives committed to reduce expenditures by $2 trillion over the next decade.

 

Or did they?

 

President Barack Obama, in his remarks, said that they did: "They are pledging to cut the rate of growth of national health-care spending by 1.5 percentage points each year - an amount that's equal to over $2 trillion."

 

The actual letter signed by the executives, however, says something importantly different: "We will do our part to achieve your administration's goal of decreasing by 1.5 percentage points the annual health-care spending-growth rate - saving $2 trillion or more." "Our part" is much different, and far more ambiguous, than "we will do the whole thing."

 

This is best seen as collusion by the health-care industry and the Obama administration to misdirect the American people. Read article.

 

Vincent Gioia's Blog.com

 

Picture young people lined up in special uniforms, maybe with arm bands, holding their arms out stretched in a salute to President Barack Obama as he stands before his teleprompter inspiring the youth of the nation to do the bidding of a socialized state; scary isn’t it?

 

I came across a photo from Germany in the 1940’s recently of just such a vision and it reminded me that many of us have not properly understood and reacted to a law signed by President Barack Obama on April 21, 2009. The law was known in Congress as H.R. 1388 and has the glorious title: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, or the GIVE Act.

 

 Of course, the Act doesn’t give anything; it does take however – it takes away our freedom a bit at a time by lending physical support to the other Obama laws that “change” our country from the one we started with to a country of the kind envisioned by Obama’s mentor, communist Saul Alinsky, and it authorizes $5.7 billion to get it off the ground. Read article.

Brent Bozell, Townhall.com

 

The raucous sound of applause for President Obama when he spoke at the White House Correspondents Dinner underlined what could be the news media's motto: "You had us at hello." They shamelessly cheered and screamed even louder when he only half-joked, "I am Barack Obama. Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me."

 

The public should wonder: Are the media too personally infatuated with this president? A recent video even showed the White House press corps standing up in homage when President Obama entered the briefing room -- a definite, emotional break with the normal, disinterested stay-seated routine for that room. Any sense of detachment is utterly missing, even in their body language. In the media's own mythology, they are the constant, unbending defenders of democracy who "speak truth to power" and refuse to act as a "stenographer" for the power elite. In the unfolding reality, our national press has become one giant ... poodle to this president.

 

In the media's own mythology, they are the constant, unbending defenders of democracy who "speak truth to power" and refuse to act as a "stenographer" for the power elite. In the unfolding reality, our national press has become one giant ... poodle to this president. Read article.

 

Print This E-mail This

Share It: