Peter Hannaford, Spectator.org

 

America's "mainstream" media missed it, but April 17 was a red-letter day for its Deep Ecologists. Red letter because it was the day the Obama Administration declared that carbon dioxide and five other gases emitted by industry threaten "the health and welfare of current and future generations."

 

This opens the door to regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency to "cap" emissions. The Deep Ecologists see this as the path to their cherished dream of a less populous nation with greatly reduced industrial production. It will also lead to a poorer (they would call it "simpler") standard of living.

 

The Deep Ecologists' philosophy came together in 1973 with a treatise by a Norwegian philosopher, Arne Naess. He and his followers disdained the "utilitarian" environmentalists who, up to that time, had been working on clean air or water and saving this or that species.

 

The facts of science and logic were not enough, he believed. They lacked an ethical framework that required deep questioning and commitment. Naess said that humans didn't rank above other creatures. That is, "the right of all forms [of life] to live is a universal right which cannot be quantified. No single species of living being has more of this particular right to live and unfold than any other species." Read article.

David A. Patten, NewsMax.com    

 

A former FBI agent who recently won a lawsuit defeating FBI attempts to muzzle him tells Newsmax that the agency's morale may be at its lowest ebb ever, and warns the "chilling" effect of Obama administration policies is making another terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland "inevitable."

 

Speaking in an exclusive Newsmax interview, retired FBI Agent John Vincent says his gravest concern is that the Obama administration is repeating mistakes of the past, thereby leaving America vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

 

"I'm not exactly sure where the president is coming from, but all the signals he gives out is that the United States is prepared to talk peace, we're not going to do anything to upset any of the people that are conducting all these terrorist acts, we're going to back out of everything we've done before, we're going to apologize for everything we've done in the past – what kind of signals does that send?" Vincent asks. "It sends a signal of weakness and: 'We are not willing to try and stop what you have planned.'" Read article.

 

John Yoo, JWR.com

 

During the campaign, Obama spoke movingly on the role of religion in public life, putting him at odds with liberal justices who have sought to drive even symbolic invocations of religion out of the public sphere. Obama's very election signals a new and welcome American attitude on race, but it runs counter to the liberals' uncompromising defense of racial preferences in school admissions, government contracting, and voting rights.

 

A justice who followed candidate Obama's views would come from a very different list from one who went beyond cases and footnotes to reach for a higher state of empathy. Yet the judicial mold created by the candidate would be more beneficial to the president, whose ambitious economic and political program argues for a justice with a more modest, neutral vision of his role.

 

With solid majorities in Congress, Obama's policies face little meaningful Republican opposition. Therefore, he should seek judges who will give the bills of his Congress as little trouble as possible, which, ironically, counsels in favor of justices who don't believe in judicial activism. Read article.

 

 Sher Zieve, NewsBull.com

 

Obama’s position of the consummate US dictator is not truly being challenged by many—if any—of our elected officials. This administration’s gutting of US resources and wealth is historically unprecedented. It was designed and is being implemented by the political power elite to impoverish the American people—via stealing all of their now former wealth—and create a single proletariat (worker) class that is dependent upon Obama’s “benevolence” (for those who support the secular messiah or malice toward those who do not).

 

And Obama’s new energy policy is designed to increase utility rates to a now projected increase of more than $3,100/year/US household. The Washington Times notes: “A study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the cap-and-trade tax will cost every American family more than $3,100 per year!”

 

While his in-pocket mainstream press refuses to disseminate any truthful less-than-positive news about him and continues to attempt suppression of said truth, within the US population the fear of Obama and his government is growing geometrically. As We-the-People’s fear of the apparent usurper of the US presidency escalates, the Obama administration is said to fear losing their positions. Therefore, Obama by way of his DHS chief has already labeled those who oppose him or his policies as enemies of the state. In their own countries, tyrants known as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Jong-Il and Idi Amin did much the same to stop their opposition. When that didn’t work, the opponents to totalitarian rule were first jailed and then murdered. Eventually, these tyrants bypassed the imprisonment part and went straight to the murders. 

 

Therefore, Obama by way of his DHS chief has already labeled those who oppose him or his policies as enemies of the state. In their own countries, tyrants known as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Jong-Il and Idi Amin did much the same to stop their opposition. When that didn’t work, the opponents to totalitarian rule were first jailed and then murdered. Eventually, these tyrants bypassed the imprisonment part and went straight to the murders. Read article.

 

George Will, Townhall.com

 

Anyone, said T.S. Eliot, could carve a goose, were it not for the bones. And anyone could govern as boldly as their whims decreed, were it not for the skeletal structure that keeps civil society civil -- the rule of law. The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness.

 

In February, California's Democratic-controlled Legislature, faced with a $42 billion budget deficit, trimmed $74 million (1.4 percent) from one of the state's fastest growing programs, which provides care for low-income and incapacitated elderly and cost the state $5.42 billion last year. The Los Angeles Times reports that "loose oversight and bureaucratic inertia have allowed fraud to fester."

 

But the Service Employees International Union collects nearly $5 million a month from 223,000 caregivers who are members. And the Obama administration has told California that unless the $74 million in cuts are rescinded, it will deny the state $6.8 billion in stimulus money.

 

Such a federal ukase (the word derives from czarist Russia; how appropriate) to a state legislature is a sign of the administration's dependency agenda -- maximizing the number of people and institutions dependent on the federal government. For the first time, neither sales nor property nor income taxes are the largest source of money for state and local governments. The federal government is. Read article.

 

CFIF.org

 

As the size and scope of the federal government have exploded over the past 75 years, we have learned a great deal about the confidence games that accompany the growth of the state.

 

There are Ponzi schemes, such as Social Security, where the government claims to “save” workers’ money while actually funneling it straight to current beneficiaries – at least until the inevitable day when the money runs out. There are sleights of hand, such as confiscating huge amounts of wealth through taxation and then expecting citizens to be grateful when they get a small fraction back in benefits. And then there’s the federal government’s classic two-step.

 

First, Washington meddles in a private market, usually to tame the extremities of “unregulated capitalism.” Then, having made the market suitably dysfunctional, politicians lay the blame at the feet of industry and claim that only government has the wisdom to save it.

 

Silently and subtly, the Obama Administration is applying this strategy to higher education in America. While President Obama’s proposals to incrementally bleed the private health care and energy sectors are receiving far more coverage in the mainstream media, his plans for education are dramatically more radical. For what the White House has in mind stops just inches short of the total abolition of private lending for college students. Read article.

 

George Friedman, Stratfor.com

 

After U.S. airstrikes killed scores of civilians in western Afghanistan this past week, White House National Security Adviser Gen. James L. Jones said the United States would continue with the airstrikes and would not tie the hands of U.S. generals fighting in Afghanistan. At the same time, U.S. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus has cautioned against using tactics that undermine strategic U.S. goals in Afghanistan — raising the question of what exactly are the U.S. strategic goals in Afghanistan. A debate inside the U.S. camp has emerged over this very question, the outcome of which is likely to determine the future of the region.

 

On one side are President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and a substantial amount of the U.S. Army leadership. On the other side are Petraeus — the architect of U.S. strategy in Iraq after 2006 — and his staff and supporters. An Army general — even one with four stars — is unlikely to overcome a president and a defense secretary; even the five-star Gen. Douglas MacArthur couldn’t pull that off. But the Afghan debate is important, and it provides us with a sense of future U.S. strategy in the region. Read article.

 

Timothy J. Alberta, Online WSJ.com

 

President Barack Obama's nomination of Robert Groves to head the Census Bureau has resurrected a fierce debate over how to get the most accurate count of the population -- not just in 2010 but for decades to come.

 

The conflict is expected to be front and center at Friday's confirmation hearing for Dr. Groves, director of the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center and a former Census Bureau official. Some lawmakers are uneasy about Dr. Groves's longtime advocacy of "sampling," extrapolating a larger population from a smaller slice of it.

 

Critics say sampling violates the Constitution, which calls for an "actual Enumeration" of the population every 10 years. They worry it would subject the results of the census -- used to apportion seats in the House of Representatives as well as federal funds -- to political meddling. But proponents argue that attempting to count every person individually leaves portions of the population undercounted -- usually minorities living in large cities -- and say sampling would produce a more accurate total. Read article.

 

Arnold Ahlert, Political Mavens.com

 

Few things are more fascinating to me than the American left’s continuing attempt to disconnect cause and effect with regard to the war against Islamic terror.

 

To listen to these misguided souls, one would think the Bush administration’s success in preventing another domestic terror attack for seven-plus years had virtually nothing to do with the strategies and tactics employed by it. In fact, in watching the latest expression of leftist self-righteousness regarding those strategies and tactics, one could be forgiven for thinking that such things as enhanced interrogation of terrorists, wiretapping international phone calls, tracking financial transactions and putting troops in the Middle East was little more than a “neo-con over-reaction” to 9/11.

 

If there is (God forbid), this effort to criminalize the previous administration’s approach to terror–the one that kept us safe–will be recognized as the ideologically-driven witch hunt that it really is. And once again, just as with 9/11, those who believe America is “just another country” will be ideologically neutered by those of us who think American exceptionalism is worth defending–as vigorously as necessary, even as we do it as thoughtfully and humanely as any country in the world has ever done it.

 

With apologies to no one. Read article.

 

Victor Davis Hanson, JWR.com

 

Americans in 2002 were scared of the spreading worldwide conflagration of radical Islam, and looked to the president to keep them safe. And he did — to bipartisan applause of most in government.

 

By the end of Nov. 2002, the Bush administration had created the new Department of Homeland Security. We all began removing belts and shoes, as well as surrendering any liquids in our carry-on luggage, at the airport. Air marshals began flying selected routes. The recently passed Patriot Act allowed American anti-terrorism agents to intercept phone calls and e-mails of suspected jihadists.

 

At the newly opened Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, jihadists were detained. While specific dates of who was briefed when concerning the waterboarding of certain detainees is now being debated, it seems clear that select members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, became aware of the practice — and that no objections were publicly voiced.

 

And former Clinton Justice Department official Eric Holder — now the attorney general — even declared in a 2002 interview that none of the terrorists detained at Guantanamo were protected by the Geneva Convention statutes concerning prisoners of war. Read article.

 

Diana West, Mercury.com

 

I have seen the future of conservatism and ... he is a hedge fund manager.

 

I refer to hedge fund manager Clifford S. Asness, and I'm only halfway kidding. Or maybe I'm not kidding at all. The fact is, Asness has launched the single most lucid and inspiring counter-attack against the Obama administration's brazen assault on capitalism as seen in its Chrysler bankruptcy shakedown.

 

Basically, the White House Chrysler plan picks economic losers and winners according to a naked political calculation that penalizes bondholders and rewards the union bosses of the United Auto Workers.

 

It's that simple, that appalling, and that anti-capitalist. The hedge funds, seeking not to surrender the protections afforded their investors by the bankruptcy court process, quite naturally balked at the Obama administration's blatant power grab on behalf of what amount to union cronies.

 

As Asness explained, "Some bondholders thought (the White House plan was) unfair. Specifically, they thought it unfairly favored the United Auto Workers. ... So, they said no to the plan and decided, as is their right, to take their chances in the bankruptcy process." Read article.

 

Print This E-mail This

Share It: