Herbert E. Meyer, American Thinker.com

 

During the last 30 years we Americans have been so politically divided that some of us have called this left-right, liberal-conservative split a "culture war" or even a "second Civil War." These descriptions are no longer accurate. The precise, technical word for what is happening in the United States today is revolution.

 

Because of our country's history, we tend to think of revolutions as military conflicts, and of the revolutionaries as the good guys; the image of Minutemen fighting valiantly against the British forces at Lexington and Concord lies deep within our DNA. But sometimes -- quite often, actually -- revolutions aren't military conflicts, and the good guys are the ones trying to keep the revolution from happening. In January 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany by its elected president; he would spend the next two years consolidating his power with the legislative connivance of his political allies in the Reichstag. In October 1917, Lenin and his Bolsheviks took control of Russia from Kerensky and his Social Democrats -- who had overthrown the Czar earlier that year -- entirely through parliamentary maneuvering in Russia's fledgling Duma.

 

What defines a revolution -- and this is the crucial point to grasp -- is that when it's over a country has changed not merely its leaders and its laws, but its operating system. Read article.

 

Marilyn M. Barnewall, NWV.com

 

It is obvious to me that Barack Obama has little regard for the military… and no, I won’t call him “President” until I see a real, honest-to-God birth certificate or see which nation’s Passport he used while traveling abroad as a college student. Was it American, British, or Kenyan? Neither document is difficult to produce.

 

He is just a young man and doesn’t seem to this old woman to be very wise… or even very aware of which citizens from which nation provided him the power he now wields so carelessly around the world.

 

To my European friends, I say the following:

 

A man who carries the official title of President of the United States recently came to your continent and made apologies for American arrogance. I ask that you accept that apology as coming from the man, not the nation. I, personally, feel no sense of obligation to offer you an apology for the energetic American entrepreneurial spirit… something about which you seem to have little understanding – which is probably why you prefer socialism to capitalism.

 

You have my apologies for the behavior of the man who calls himself this nation’s President. On any given day, more Americans oppose his condescending behavior than approve it. He and his wife may not be proud of America. We, the people, are. Read article.

 

Rich Lowry, NRO.com

 

Put Barack Obama in front of a teleprompter and one thing is certain — he’ll make himself appear the most reasonable person in the room.

 

Rhetorically, he is in the middle of any debate, perpetually surrounded by finger-pointing extremists who can’t get over their reflexive combativeness and ideological fixations to acknowledge his surpassing thoughtfulness and grace.

 

This is how Obama, whose position on abortion is indistinguishable from NARAL’s, can speechify on abortion at Notre Dame and come away sounding like a pitch-perfect centrist. It’s natural, then, that his speech at the National Archives on national security should superficially sound soothing, reasonable, and even a little put-upon (oh, what President Obama has to endure from all those finger-pointing extremists).

 

 But beneath its surface, the speech — given heavy play in the press as an implicit debate with former Vice President Dick Cheney, who spoke on the same topic at a different venue immediately afterward — revealed something else: a president who has great difficulty admitting error, who can’t discuss the position of his opponents without resorting to rank caricature, and who adopts an off-putting pose of above-it-all self-righteousness. Read article.

 

Michael Gerson, Townhall.com

 

Congress have delivered a series of blows to the pride and morale of the Central Intelligence Agency.

 

It began with the release of the Justice Department memos -- a move opposed by CIA Director Leon Panetta along with four previous directors. Then, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. did not rule out Justice Department cooperation with foreign lawsuits against American intelligence operatives. Then, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA of lying to her in 2002 about waterboarding, which she admitted learning about five months later anyway but did nothing to oppose because her real job was to "change the leadership in Congress and in the White House."

 

Is there any precedent for a speaker of the House of Representatives seeking political shelter by blaming national security professionals? Or for a commander in chief exposing intelligence methods at the urging of the ACLU? Actually, such treatment has precedents. In 1975, the Church Committee nearly destroyed the human intelligence capabilities of the CIA. In the early 1990s, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan urged closing the agency entirely. The Clinton administration imposed massive budget cuts, leaving behind a demoralized institution.

 

And now Obama has described the post-9/11 period as "a dark and painful chapter in our history." Read article.

 

Dick Morris, Vote.com

 

It's obvious that either Leon Panetta, Obama's head of the CIA, or Nancy Pelosi, his party's Speaker of the House, has to go. No administration can tolerate a permanent, public civil war between two such high-ranking officials.

 

Especially when their disagreement stems not from issues of policy but from matters of veracity and credibility, the battle must end in one of their resignations. You cannot have the head of the nation's first line of defense against terrorism calling the Speaker of the House a liar and being attacked by her in turn.

 

Obviously, Obama cannot fire Panetta. First of all, he just appointed him. And second, to cave in to Pelosi (D-Calif.) would earn him the massive disrespect and disapproval of the very operatives on whom he must depend to keep the nation safe.

 

 Already skeptical of his leftist credentials, the analysts at the CIA would regard it as a massive vote of no confidence if their chief were fired for believing in them.

 

Like Clinton -- whose draft-dodging made his relationship with the military problematic -- Obama takes office amid reservations about him on the part of the intelligence community. He has taken pains to reach out to both the uniformed and white-collar intelligence officials to smooth his way and win their trust.

 

Panetta took over as CIA chief under the cloud of his agency's distrust of the man who appointed him. Now he is standing firm for his agency and winning its loyalty and support. Read article.

 

Bentley Rayburn

 

President Obama’s 2010 budget amounts to an eye-popping $3.7 trillion, and opens the floodgates to a projected $42 trillion in the next decade. This is the largest domestic-spending increase in history. The interest on the national debt will be $800 billion in 2014 — more than we currently spend on national defense.

 

Meanwhile, Obama is cutting our military’s budget to the bone and marrow. Funding for land-based missile defense, the F-22 Raptor, and the Air Force’s refueling tankers will be reduced, eliminated, or delayed — even though these programs are vital to our national defense.

 

As a career Air Force officer, I agree with Defense Secretary Robert Gates that we must focus on winning the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we also need to be preparing for — and deterring — future conflicts. At a time when Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons and North Korea is firing missiles over Japan, it makes no sense to cut $1.4 billion from missile defense. The U.S. has made major strides in missile-defense technology and has spent enormous diplomatic capital to encourage Poland and the Czech Republic to let us base missile-defense installations in those countries. Cutting this program at this time sends the wrong signal to our friends and adversaries alike. Read article.

 

Sher Zieve, Canada Free Press.com

 

Under Supreme Leader Obama’s directive of ‘I’m in power now, I’ve seized your country to destroy it as I choose and none of you can do anything about it’, new attacks (which could logically be called “hate crimes”) against the American people are in full play.

 

Laughing almost as gleefully during his daily television appearance on Tuesday 19 May—as he probably did while he watched his TV showing the masses in New York running from his flyover 747 and two fighter jets—the US Dictator Obama smiled while delivering the news that essentially said that US citizens will probably no longer be able to afford electricity. With his and the Democrats’ “Cap and Trade” legislation—which will result in a minimum additional $3,100/year/household—Obama is planning to tax it out of existence. 

 

As liberals and leftists—liberal Republican included—continue to tell us “man made global warming is more dangerous than Islamist terrorists,” the also continue to pilfer our personal resources. Even though this hoax has been fully exposed, the liberals continue to use the bogus argument as a way to continue to pilfer and steal from We-the-People. And We-the-People have yet to really fight back against the tyrants who now rule—not work for—us. Read article.

 

Larry Elder, Townhall.com

 

The topic: "The Future of Capitalism."

 

Time magazine, to discuss this, assembled a "stellar cast." One such "honoree" works as a Public Broadcasting Service/National Public Radio host. The tax dollars produced by the capitalism he criticizes help pay his salary. (The irony was apparently lost.) At least other "business roundtable" panelists -- commentator/publisher/author Arianna Huffington and singer John Legend -- make their money the old-fashioned way, by enticing consumers to buy what they sell.

 

"I don't think that left to its own devices," the taxpayer-supported broadcaster/pundit said, "capitalism moves along smoothly and everyone gets treated fairly in the process. Capitalism is like a child: If you want the child to grow up free and productive, somebody's got to look over the shoulder of that child." Good grief. Read article.

 

Mark Steyn, NRO.com

 

The Obama-Netanyahu meeting seems to have been a chilly affair:

 

There was a conspicuous lack of praise for his 59-year-old Israeli visitor, whom he said had the "benefit of having served" previously as prime minister and for having "both youth and wisdom".

 

The meeting overran to two hours, suggesting that the two sides had struggled to find a way of presenting a unified face to the watching world.

 

It's in the grand tradition of delusional leaders to inflict ever goofier "linkage" on the Zionist Entity: Only solve the Palestinian problem and [INSERT CRISIS DU JOUR HERE] will go away! This time round the Israelis are being told that another go-round of the ol' "two-state solution" two-step will so entrance Iran that the nuke program will be mothballed.

 

This makes even less sense than the previously confident "linkage" that a Palestinian state would eventually make al-Qaeda beat their suicide bombs into plowshares. Iran has no interest in the Palestinian "peace process." The lack-of-peace process has enabled its proxies to annex Gaza and a big chunk of Lebanon. The only relevant linkage here is that Teheran's destabilization of the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon and beyond is a good indicator of where the broader region will head once the mullahs have gone nuclear. Read article.

 

Monica Crowley, Political Mavens.com

 

The Bama did two things this week that actually add up to one big point about how he’s governing.

 

He called Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY) and “asked” (read: told) him NOT to challenge Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in the New York Senate Democratic primary in the special election next year.

 

He also blew off Nevada’s Governor Jim Gibbons, because Gibbons had the audacity to criticize The Bama’s economic policies and his comments critical of Nevada that have hurt that state’s economy. The Governor was notified today that the Bama has “refused” to meet with him.

 

Up next: a horse’s head in the bed.

 

This is supposed to be “hope and change?” This is supposed to be “a new era of civility?” This is supposed to be a time when we “put away childish things?”

 

It’s more like old-time politics, Chicago-style.

 

And both episodes fit right in with a pattern of strong-arm tactics this White House has used on the banks (want to pay back that TARP money? Too bad!), the auto industry (the political hit on GM’s Rick Wagoner, anyone?), hedge funds, etc. Tony Soprano is running the country. Read article.

 

Kenneth R. Timmerman, Washington Times.com

 

"Now, understand that part of the reason that it's so important for us to take a diplomatic approach [toward Iran] is that the approach that we've been taking, which is no diplomacy, obviously has not worked. Nobody disagrees with that." Mr. Obama then added a few illustrations to bolster his case:

 

"Hamas and Hezbollah have gotten stronger. Iran has been pursuing its nuclear capabilities undiminished. And so, not talking, that clearly hasn't worked. That's what's been tried. And so what we're going to do is try something which is actually engaging and reaching out to the Iranians."

 

Let's assume for an instant that the people briefing Mr. Obama on Iran haven't read the files that the George W. Bush administration turned over to them about the previous eight years of diplomacy and outreach toward Tehran. But you don't need to have access to classified information to figure this one out: A simple Google search will suffice.

 

U.S. government officials at the ambassador level or above met publicly no fewer than 28 times with their Iranian counterparts during the Bush administration, according to published accounts. So Mr. Obama's briefers either were Internet-challenged, lazy or just out-and-out dishonest. Read article.

 

Lorie Byrd, Townhall.com

 

Obama’s most recent changes of position were recounted in an L.A.Times article by Christi Parsons and Janet Hook.

 

“In quick succession last week…Obama announced two major shifts on sensitive national security issues…he said he would oppose making the detainee pictures public -- a switch that could put him at odds with a federal judge who ordered them released. And he declared that the administration would stick with a modified version of the Bush administration's military tribunals for trying terrorism suspects; during the campaign he had promised to rely on federal courts and the traditional military justice system.”

 

This was not the first time President Obama changed his position on issues relating to national security. Many in his leftwing base are upset that he is not ruling out the practice of “extraordinary rendition” for which President Bush was very harshly criticized. Read article.

 

The Editors, NRO.com

 

Barack Obama was not the candidate in last year’s presidential race who reminded us the most of a used-car salesman — that distinction went to his eventual running mate, Joe Biden. Since taking office, though, President Obama has sounded increasingly like the nation’s car-salesman-in-chief. Announcing his plan to instate strict caps on auto emissions — a move his own administration says could add around $2,000 to the cost of each new vehicle by 2016 — Obama said, “If you buy a car, your investment in a more fuel-efficient vehicle as a result of this standard will pay off in just three years.”

 

Obama’s hard sell — “This is a winning proposition for folks looking to buy a car” — is premised on some sketchy math. For one thing, experts outside the administration say the added per-vehicle cost could go as high as $8,000. You can’t save money getting more miles to the gallon if you can’t afford the car in the first place. For another, those estimated savings are based on the administration’s ability to predict gas prices seven to ten years into the future. If gas is still as cheap as it is now, savings on better mileage could be minimal. Even if gas prices go up, the savings Obama predicts might not materialize. Cars that are more fuel efficient are cheaper to drive, increasing the likelihood that people will drive more. That wouldn’t just offset the savings — it would also offset promised reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions and oil imports, to say nothing of adding to congestion.

 

Even if gas prices go up, the savings Obama predicts might not materialize. Cars that are more fuel efficient are cheaper to drive, increasing the likelihood that people will drive more. That wouldn’t just offset the savings — it would also offset promised reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions and oil imports, to say nothing of adding to congestion. Read article.

 

Print This E-mail This

Share It: