Julian Krasta, Novus Ordo Seclorum.BlogTownhall.com

 

Cult of personality is “…when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships. A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders.”

 

In early 2008, the worldwide liberal media began a blowout selling-binge hawking Barack Hussein Obama as a “heroic public image.”

 

Fifteen months later, the fragments of what remain of that media (now more confined in the U.S. rather than planet-wide) are still attempting to plug that image (“The 55-minute speech was remarkable and historic not so much for the delivery or even the words, but for the context, the orator, the moment”), which was posted immediately after Obama’s 6,000-words speech in Cairo.

 

The article, written by Mike Allen at Politico.com, also describes a moment when Obama drew hushed gasps from the audience for a comment he made that they perceived as audacious. But, all in all, it is portly with praise, despite discrepancies and to-be-expected contradictions, such as when he said, “The U.S. should not impose its values on the world…”—yet he is demanding that Israel concede on preposterous points. Isn’t that an imposition? And then in his Cairo speech: “America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire.”

 

Dizzy yet? But wait, there’s more. Read article.

 

Edwin Mora, CNS News.com

 

The nation’s largest veterans’ organization, the American Legion, criticized President Obama for apologizing for to the Muslim world for U.S. behavior in the in aftermath of the 9/11 attacks during his address from Cairo last week.

 

“When the president pronounces, as he did in his conciliatory address in Egypt, that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, in his words, ‘led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals’, he must, in our opinion, demand equally public admission from the Muslim world,” David K. Rehbein, national commander of the American Legion said in a news release.

 

Obama, who reiterated his commitment to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by 2012, apologized for the way the U.S. reacted to the 9/11 attacks by Muslim extremists.

 

“9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country,” he added. “The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals.”

 

The president also pointed out that he believes the U.S. has a “responsibility” to give Iraq back to its people.

 

“Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world,” Obama said. Read article.

Deroy Murdock, NRO.com

 

President Obama has the perfect reason to abandon his foolish promise to close Guantanamo: The American people overwhelmingly reject his policy. Popular opinion aside, keeping Gitmo full of homicidal Muslim maniacs still makes sense, never mind the global Left’s relentless moaning and molar-gnashing.

 

Among 1,015 adults USA Today/Gallup surveyed between May 29–31, 65 percent oppose closing Guantanamo and moving some detainees to U.S. prisons. Only 32 percent favor this proposal. Asked if they want Gitmo shut and some detainees transferred to “a prison in your state,” 74 percent of respondents disagree; just 23 percent approve. (Error margin: +/- 3 percent.)

 

Beyond the American public’s wishes, national security requires that Guantanamo stay open. Read article.

David Sirota, Salon.com

 

Though not (yet) having children of my own, I often consider what my future offspring won't know about and will find humorous. I fantasize that they will have no idea what gasoline-powered cars or private health insurance policies are. But I also worry they will guffaw in disbelief when I tell them politicians once knew that breaking campaign promises without explanation had consequences.

 

Historically, Americans generally held campaign promises sacred. We understood that republican democracy makes us rely on pledges of future action as the metric for choosing representatives; we knew that politicians reneging on pledges without adequate reason were desecrating that democracy; and we therefore often punished promise-breakers accordingly.

 

I'm not idealizing halcyon days that never were -- just ask George H.W. Bush, who lost re-election in 1992 after trampling his "no new taxes" guarantee. Indeed, breaking campaign pledges was one of the surest ways for politicians to hurt themselves -- until 2006. Read article.

 

Andrew Brietbart, Washington Times.com

 

The Democratic Party's attitude to elections is admirable: Win. And recent history has shown it will do anything to do so.

 

When, if not now, will Republicans develop such a fighting spirit?

 

Democrats invest - with taxpayer money, mind you - in groups like ACORN that, among other sordid tactics, seek out Skid Row bodies and wheel them to polling places. All the Democratic National Committee needs are vans and smelling salts. Pop culture and the "education system" have done the rest, making "D" the default choice on Election Day.

 

Democrats brazenly take policy positions - think government services and even amnesty for illegal immigrants - not because they are the right thing to do, but because they are time-tested demographic bribes. Forget cigarettes and beer, Democrats would distribute needles, methadone, medical marijuana and biscotti in voter goodie bags if they could get away with it.

Democrats long ago jettisoned America's melting-pot ideal - E Pluribus Unum ("Out of Many, One") - because it imperils their campaign for permanent rule. Splitting the country into separate identity groups and playing them against each other works a lot better. And anyone who disagrees is a racist.

 

Win. Win. Win.

 

One of the first things President Obama attempted to do after taking office was to take control of the Census Bureau. Read article.

 

Steven Thomma & David Lightman, McClatchyDC.com

 

How hard was it, after all, for President Barack Obama to get a Democratic Congress to spend gobs of money? Now come the first real political tests of his presidency, a summer of mounting challenges that will be much more difficult than anything he's faced and that will force him to navigate through pressures from both right and left.

 

Among them, he's:

 

Tackling the Middle East and putting pressure on Israel, looking to change the status quo but risking political backlash at home and in Israel.

 

Trying to get universal health care, a dream that's eluded Democrats for 60 years and which might require broad tax increases.

 

Pushing a plan to limit emissions that cause global warming, one that has fellow Democrats excited — but also increasingly worried that they could pay a political price if Republicans are right and prices jump as a result.

 

Facing a growing rebellion from his party over the fact that he still has no plan for what to do with the detainees once he closes the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

 

There will be plenty of other challenges too, including resistance from Republicans to his Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, objections from Democrats to his proposed meager budget cuts and complaints from liberals about his escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Read article.

 

George Joyce, American Thinker.com

 

The "righteous wind" that has propelled the American left to unprecedented success over the last year has forced most of the American right into an underground bunker. Those few conservative politicians like Dick Cheney who remain topside are blasted with an additional gale force of invective and vitriol. In the left's ferocious desire to implement "change" there seems to be little patience for any meaningful dialogue about what America should become.

 

The leftist onslaught that met Dick Cheney's recent defense of his country pales in comparison however to the ugly reception Democrat Al Smith received in 1936 when he challenged his own party's attempt to remake America. A four term Democratic governor from New York, Smith had lost the 1928 presidential election to Republican Herbert Hoover. In 1932 Al Smith joined in to support Roosevelt for President but by 1936, despite the immense popularity of FDR, Smith began to panic: his party and his country were becoming unrecognizable to him. 

 

Several weeks ago the Democrats' leading spokesman for the "little guy," Joe Biden, gave the Commencement address at Syracuse University. Biden, who represents the most radical, leftist, big government president in the history of America had this to say about America's plain people:

 

"Ladies and gentlemen, imagine a country that lifts up the windows of opportunities instead of slamming them down that has occurred over the last 15 years. . . . Imagine a country where every single American has a fighting chance, just a fighting chance, and a country that lives up to our promise of our ideals and leads the world with the power of our example, not just the example of our power. This is the story of America"

 

Sorry Mr. Biden. When the American businessman is vilified, when bureaucrats rule instead of the law, when taxpayers are robbed to pay for useless federal agencies, when government spends more than it takes in, when the middle class is forced to pay for increasing federal debt, when states rights are disrespected, when socialist intellectuals drive national policy, when Congress cowers in the face of the Executive Branch and fails to read its own legislation no one in America will have a "fighting chance" other than the new Robber Barons leading the Democratic Party.

 

As a great Democrat once put it, it's all right if you want to disguise yourself as Karl Marx or Lenin. But please don't claim to be marching "under the banner of Jefferson, Jackson, or Cleveland." When Democrats rob the little guy of his initiative and supplant it with Big Brother, the party in power is not living up to "the promise of our ideals" Mr. Biden. 

 

Some, like Al Smith, may even wonder if the Party is over. Read article.

 

Nile Gardiner, Ph.D, Heritage.org

.

The Obama White House has made a greater effort than any U.S. administration in history in extending the hand of friendship to unsavory regimes. There is barely a tyranny on the face of the earth that hasn't been earmarked for "engagement" by the Obama team, from Tehran to Caracas to Khartoum.

 

But the Obama Doctrine is increasingly defined by a refusal to take an aggressive stand against despotism, and by the relegation of human rights concerns to the bottom of the well of foreign policy issues.

 

The promotion of human rights is a mere flicker on the radar screens of the Obama administration, and every effort is made to downplay its significance in dealings with hostile governments. In his address to both Houses of Congress in February at the start of his term, the new president made no mention at all of human rights.

 

Barack Obama has barely uttered a word since taking office about the mass starvation of North Koreans by Kim Jong-Il, the savage repression of the Burmese people by the junta in Rangoon, or the continuing state-sponsored violence in Zimbabwe. Nor has he highlighted the suppression of political freedoms in China and Russia.

 

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, and Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir have all been beneficiaries of Washington's softer approach on the world stage. Instead of broadsides from the United States, Washington has offered these three leaders respectively a polite video message, a summit handshake, and hints of a weakening of economic sanctions. Read article.

 

Jed Babbin, Human Events.com

 

President Obama, in his long-promised address to the Muslims given Thursday in Egypt, embraced Islam, gave a green light to Iran’s nuclear program, and said that the “trauma” of 9-11 led America to act contrary to its ideals. 

 

In 6000 words, the president managed to prove that everything conservatives worried about -- his naivete, lack of expertise and belief in moral equivalency -- was correct and even understated.  

 

The Commander-in-Chief described his view of America’s relationship to Islam and his own responsibility:

 

“I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” Obama said. He continued, “So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations - to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share.”

 

But do we really share these things? Is Islam a part of America? No. Its influence isn’t seen in the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers or, most importantly, in the Constitution. In fact, Islam -- by its system of Shari’a law -- sets up its own system of civil and criminal law in which church is inseparable from state. Separation of church and state are a fundamental principle without which democracy cannot exist. Read article.

 

Michael Goodwin, NY Daily News.com

 

The outlines of an Obama Doctrine are taking shape. Our President's world view can be summarized as "Everybody is a little bit guilty, especially Israel."

 

His demand in Cairo that Israel make major concessions before Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist was a pander of the rankest sort. What a difference a year and the audience make.

 

Exactly a year before his Cairo speech, on June 4, 2008, candidate Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee he would "never force Israel to the negotiating table" or to make "concessions."

 

He cited Iran's vow to eliminate Israel and said, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything."

 

In Cairo, he was vague at best and inviting at worst on the nuke issue, saying, "I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons."

 

Feeling the mad mullah's pain won't mollify them. Nor was it a sign of courage to ignore Anwar Sadat, the brave Egyptian leader who made peace with Israel in 1979 and was later assassinated by Islamic extremists.

 

To judge from this speech and others, the Obama Doctrine holds that all guilt is morally equal and the solution is to split the difference and call it even.

 

Take women's rights, where he interchangeably indicted a debate in Europe about women wearing head coverings in school and the Taliban's whipping of women for going to school.

 

The result is the jarring sense he is equally offended. "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality," he said.

 

As if to show absolute even-handedness, he allowed that while some Islamic countries have had women as national leaders, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."

 

That's rich coming from the man who defeated Hillary Clinton.

 

The moral muddle is a shame. Read article.

 

Jonathan Tobin, Commentary Magazine.com

 

What was most noticed in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s interview yesterday on ABC’s “This Week” was her seemingly bellicose warning to Iran that any nuclear attack on Israel would be treated as an attack on the United States. Some are interpreting this extension of America’s nuclear umbrella over the Jewish state as an expression of warm support that ought to reassure any Israelis nervous about Iran’s fast track into nuclear capability.

 

However, before we get all warm and fuzzy over Hillary’s reiteration of her presidential campaign rhetoric about defending Israel, let’s place this statement in the context of her current position and President Obama’s speech in Cairo last week. What was missing from both the Clinton statement and Obama’s speech was a declaration from the United States that Iran’s enrichment of uranium and, indeed, its drive for nuclear capability had to be stopped in its tracks. Instead, Obama merely mouthed some vague platitudes about non-proliferation while Clinton was jumping ahead to dealing with the policy implications of a situation in which Iran already had a nuclear weapon.

 

The point is that despite Obama’s campaign rhetoric about an Iranian nuke being a “game changer,” his administration has, in effect, already given up on trying to stop the game from irreversibly changing. Read article.

 

Lawrence Kudlow, Human Events.com

 

Testifying before the House Budget Committee this week, Ben Bernanke said that when the time comes, the Fed will raise interest rates in order to stop inflation from building in the next recovery. He also asked for "fiscal balance" to sustain financial stability. On the surface -- in terms of keeping prices stable and restoring value to the softening U.S. dollar -- this is positive. Surely Bernanke wants to do right for America, and he's giving it his best shot.

 

But when you talk to traders and economists, the whisper story is that Bernanke and the Fed are no longer truly independent of the Obama White House and Treasury. As a result, Bernanke will not be able to slow down the printing presses and gradually lift the near-zero target rate in a timely and effective manner. Already the Fed has created more than $1 trillion in new cash, and the M2 money supply is growing at its fastest pace in 25 years. This monetary explosion explains what's really driving the dollar down and Treasury rates up (alongside rising gold and oil prices). It's not huge budget deficits, but the growing fear that a less-than-independent Fed will keep pushing new money into the financial system in order to fund Obama's liberal spending policies.

 

This monetary explosion explains what's really driving the dollar down and Treasury rates up (alongside rising gold and oil prices). It's not huge budget deficits, but the growing fear that a less-than-independent Fed will keep pushing new money into the financial system in order to fund Obama's liberal spending policies. Read article.

Print This E-mail This

Share It: