Joseph A. Rehyansky, Human Events.com

 

D-Day + 65. Their numbers are dwindling, but former Second Lieutenant Bob Dole was there. Our Apologist-in-Chief is concluding another triumphant tour, breast-beating and genuflecting all the way. He probably goes through kneepads faster than an NBA starter. But you’ve got to give the man credit. He never misses an opportunity to peddle his squishy pabulum, his deviant views of the world we live in, and his apparent desire to retire from office in 2017 to a rousing universal chorus of Kumbaya.

 

“We live in a world of competing beliefs and claims about what is true. It’s a world of varied religions and cultures and forms of government . . . . The nations that joined together to defeat Hitler’s reich were not perfect. They made their share of mistakes, had not always agreed with one another on every issue. But whatever God we prayed to . . . we knew that the evil we faced had to be stopped.”

 

“[W]hatever God we prayed to . . . .” Now what do you suppose he could have meant by that? Whom do you think he was talking to in his uniquely reassuring and condescending tone? And while we’re at it, how did I -- philistine that I must be -- overlook for almost 63 years the indispensable contribution to the overthrow of tyranny by those of our brothers so deeply committed to freedom and equality, the Nations of Islam?

 

“[C]laims about what is true.” If he was only talking about determining the truths, if any there are, in organized religion I would agree with him. But do you have the same hunch I do? He’s talking moral equivalence here, the delusions fostered by John le Carre and his cohort: the KGB and the CIA are brothers under the skin. Strangling your daughter because she wants to divorce the husband you forced her to marry is alien to our own beliefs, to be sure, but it’s a cultural difference, you see.

 

Slowly hacking off the head of a helpless hostage is not acceptable, but we’ve been guilty of our own provocations, right? Just take a look at those terrible photos from Abu Ghraib, where the minor delicts of three or four low-level borderline morons were used to justify claims that our entire effort in Iraq is morally corrupt. The truth, objective reality if you will, is something to be determined, not endlessly debated by those whose level of tolerance for “competing beliefs” borders on the suicidal. Read article.

 

Frank Gaffney, Jr., Center For Security Policy.org

 

During his White House years, William Jefferson Clinton - someone Sonya Sotomayor might call a "white male" - was dubbed by an admirer in the African-American community "America's first black president." Applying the standard of identity politics and pandering to a special interest that earned Mr. Clinton that distinction, Barack Hussein Obama would have to be considered America's first Muslim president.

 

This is not to say, necessarily, that Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim, any more than Mr. Clinton actually is black. After five months in office and most especially after his just-concluded visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, however, a stunning conclusion seems increasingly plausible: The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name prominently featured has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Hitler duped Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.

 

What little we know about Mr. Obama's youth certainly suggests that he not only had a Kenyan father who was Muslim, but that he spent his early, formative years as one in Indonesia. As the President likes to say "much has been made" - in this case by him and his campaign handlers - of the fact that he became a Christian as an adult in Chicago, under the now-notorious Pastor Jeremiah Wright.

 

With Mr. Obama's unbelievably-ballyhooed address in Cairo last Thursday to what he calls "the Muslim world" (hereafter known as "The Speech"), there is mounting evidence that the President not only identifies with Muslims, but may actually still be one himself. Consider the following indicators: Read article.

Jeffrey Heller, Reuters.com

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday he would strive for "maximum understanding" with Washington on peace issues but gave no sign he intends to bow to its demand to halt settlement expansion.

 

Under pressure from U.S. President Barack Obama over settlements in the occupied West Bank and Palestinian statehood, which Netanyahu has not endorsed, the Israeli leader said he would set out his policies in a major speech later this month.

 

"I want to make clear, it is our intention to achieve peace with the Palestinians and with the countries of the Arab world while attempting to reach maximum understanding with the United States and our friends in the world," Netanyahu said.

 

"I aspire to a stable peace based on the solid foundations of the security of the state of Israel and its citizens," he told his right-wing cabinet at its weekly meeting.

 

By mentioning security, Netanyahu again highlighted an issue he has called paramount to Israel's approach to peace with the Palestinians, whom he has said should have self-government but only limited powers of sovereignty.

 

In a speech on Thursday to Muslims in which he reaffirmed a U.S. commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state, Obama said Washington "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

 

Despite the rare rift with the United States, Israel's main ally, Israeli officials said Netanyahu has no intention of risking the collapse of his coalition by ceasing all settlement activity in the West Bank. Read article.

 

Matt Bai, NY Times.com

 

The first senator elected directly to the Oval Office since 1960, Obama has an entirely different theory of how to exercise presidential power, and he has consciously designed his administration to avoid Clinton’s fate.

 

After winning the office with the same kind of outsider appeal as his predecessors, he has quietly but methodically assembled the most Congress-centric administration in modern history. Obama’s White House is run by Rahm Emanuel, a former House leader who was generally considered to be on a fast track to the speakership before he resigned to become chief of staff, and it is teeming with aides plucked from the senior ranks of both chambers.

 

Obama seems to think that the dysfunction in Washington isn’t only about the heightened enmity between the parties; it’s also about the longstanding mistrust between the two branches of government that stare each other down from twin peaks on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

And so, from Obama’s perspective, passing a health care plan this fall isn’t primarily a question of whether to include an “individual mandate” requiring every American to have insurance or how fully to regulate providers or even how to hit back against “Harry and Louise”–type attack ads, although his aides spend time contemplating all of those things. It’s more about navigating the dueling personalities and complex agendas within his own party’s Congress. Rather than laying out an intricate plan and then trying to sell it on the Hill, as Clinton did, Obama’s strategy seems to be exactly the opposite — to sell himself to Congress first and worry about the details later. As Emanuel likes to tell his West Wing staff: “The only nonnegotiable principle here is success. Everything else is negotiable.” Read article.

 

Dr. Paul Williams, The Last Crusade.Org

 

Speaking at the University of Cairo, President Barack Hussein Obama said that Americans are indebted to Islam for the great contributions Muslims have made to the history and development of the United States.

 

“I know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story,” Mr. Obama told the throng of unenlightened Muslims. “The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. . . And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.”

 

Mr. Obama went on to say: “They [Muslims] have fought in our wars. They have served in our government. They have stood for civil rights. They have started businesses. They have taught at our universities. They’ve excelled in our sports arenas. They’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building and lit the Olympic torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same holy Koran that one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, kept in his personal library.”

 

No one at the Egyptian University or the international media took issue with the President’s bizarre interpretation of American history, let alone his confusion of the Nation of Islam (the religion of Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X) that bears scant similarity to orthodox Islam. The Nation of Islam teach that Allah in the flesh was a bona fide nutcase named Wallace Fard and that Eli Muhammad, a conman with a tested IQ of 70 and not the Prophet Muhammad, was the true last prophet of Allah. Read article.

 

Ercille I. Christmas, NMJ.us

 

No, the “Denizens” are not our new neighbors. They are you and me.

 

Denizen: a person admitted to residence in a foreign country.

 

Citizen: a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it.

 

While Americans are still considered citizens of the United States, today they’re not all that certain about their status. Why is this? After all, our citizenship derives from being born on American soil (native-born), born to verifiable American parents (natural-born), or naturalized (having earned citizenship by legal entry). Most of us fit quite neatly into those categories, so what’s the problem?

 

Now I’m not referring to the ongoing search for proof that our new president is a U.S. citizen and, in fact, eligible to hold the office of POTUS. That determination will take a judge with “testicular fortitude,” to borrow an expression from the new secretary of state, or with the wisdom of Solomon.

 

My contention that citizens have become denizens – strangers in their own country – has to do with the increasing alienation our populace is experiencing, a condition created by their government, and also by the abdication of their duty as citizens to hold their government accountable. Many ordinary folks are feeling alienated, feeling that they are losing their birthrights.

 

Just who is this person making this contention? Read article.

 

Thomas D. Segel, Capitol Hill Coffeehouse.com

 

In the 1984 world of Orwell everyone in society is equal. However, there is the Inner Party, the Outer Party and Proles. The Inner Party makes the rules and provides governance. The Outer Party is made up of the “worker bees” or followers and the Proles are everyone else or almost non-people. With the exception of the Inner Party, life is a dank drudgery with little to no joy. There are Inner Party officials examining almost everything and everyone at every hour of the day and night.

 

It could be said that we already have these Inner Party officials in our own government. The Obama Administration has already appointed the Border Czar, Alan Bersin; the Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, the Guantanamo Closure Czar Daniel Fried; the Urban Czar Aldolfo Carrion, Jr.; the Faith-Based Czar Joshua DuBois; the Non-Proliferation Czar Gary Samore, the Terrorism Czar John Brennan: the White House Weather Czar John Holdren; the Car Czar Dr. Ed Montgomery; the Green Czar Van Jones, the surgeon-general who is usually called the Health Czar Nancy Ann DeParle; the Tech Czar Vivek Kundra; and there are plans to establish a cyber security czar. All of these positions have been appointed and have dodged any examination by Congress or confirmation by the Senate. There is nobody to challenge them, nobody to overrule them and nobody who even knows what they are doing, or to whom they are doing it. Added to all of the unregulated and unchallengeable mandates these “Inner Party” people can bring forth are the inescapable dangers we face by having created a one party power structure in Washington D. C.

 

But we have failed to mention the messages contained in Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. In this tale about the animals taking control of the farm there is a proclamation that all are now equal. However, the pigs assume the animal leadership role and soon have all the power and privileges. The tale is one that truly displays the hypocrisy of governments that proclaim the absolute equality of all citizens. As the pigs of “Animal Farm announce, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Read article.

 

David Podwin, CFP.com

 

Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo exemplified the craven liberal compulsion to appease evil. While progressives accuse conservatives who oppose affirmative action of being racist, Obama lavished praise upon his Muslim audience that enslaves millions of Africans. 

 

America’s first black president uttered nary a word on behalf of Islam’s many black captives. Liberals once opposed slavery rather aggressively, but now ingratiate themselves to the slave masters.

 

Obama also abandoned gays to the predations of Muslim zealots. Although liberals have vilified Miss California USA for opposing gay marriage, Obama did not issue even the mildest rebuke to the Muslim world for perpetrating gay murder. When Mormons support traditional matrimony, progressives publicly explode in anger. When Palestinians commit homophobic homicide, the Left is unable to generate any discernible outrage.

 

The liberal devotion to Islam constitutes history’s greatest unrequited love. Every social principle that progressives claim to cherish is rejected by the Muslim world:

 

Freedom of speech… Freedom of the press… Separation of Church and State… Civil rights...Women’s equality...

 

Liberals insist that these tenets are incomparably precious. Islamists could not disagree more. As Obama has proven again, progressives eagerly capitulate whenever protecting their cherished beliefs conflicts with the higher liberal principle of appeasing Islam. Read article.

 

Dr. Tim Ball, CFP.com

 

What did Obama mean when he promised change? He did say it was “Change you can believe in”, but that doesn’t clarify anything. You can believe in change but not understand or agree.

 

Many understood or at least hoped he meant a change to something completely new. Most were more limited and partisan wanting anything but Bush; a view reinforced by Obama’s rhetoric on the campaign trail. Politicians using words or phrases in vague ways that appear full of conviction, but are actually quite hollow, fuel the confusion. I heard an economist recently describe Obama as 100 yards wide and six inches deep. It is rather cruel, but seems supported when you look beyond the rhetoric at the actual policies.

 

Understanding is not helped by the many different definitions or usages of change.

 

Change is the most overused, misused, and exploited idea in the last fifty years. There are two distinct concepts of change creating the confusion in this case, one in the scientific world with climate change and the other in Obama’s promise of change in the political world. Confusion is amplified by his blending the two in policies that can’t work or are unnecessary. Bertrand Russell identified the difference between the two. “Change is scientific, progress is ethical; change is indubitable, whereas progress is a matter of controversy.” In other words change identified by science is unquestionable, whereas change in the Obama concept is progress, which may not be an improvement. Read article.

 

Burt Prelutsky, Townhall.com

 

Whenever I have suggested that left-wingers aren’t normal human beings, and have wondered if perhaps they’re some weird interplanetary life form like the pods in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," the liberals accuse me of indulging in ad hominem attacks, and I suppose I am. But I am honestly bewildered. It just doesn’t seem plausible that Americans could find good things to say about tyrants like Castro, Chavez and Ahmadinejad, while at the same time reviling the likes of Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and General Petraeus.

 

Left-wingers side with the so-called Palestinians and insist that their country was stolen from them by the Jews, but when you ask them just exactly where the country was located, what their flag looked like and who their president was, they huff and they puff and they denounce you as a tool of the Jewish lobby.

 

Liberals argue for the sanctity of the 1st amendment as if they had personally invented free speech, but they’re the same people who’d like to use the Fairness Doctrine to turn off the microphones of conservative talk show hosts. Furthermore, they are so terrified of hearing or letting other people hear the words of those who disagree with them that they boo their opponents into silence on those rare occasions when conservatives are invited to speak on college campuses. Read article.

Review & Outlook, Online WSJ.com

 

President Obama and CIA Director Leon Panetta have been at pains to say they don't want to punish intelligence officials and agents who had a role in "enhanced interrogation" after 9/11. But tell that to Philip Mudd, who withdrew his nomination late Friday to be the intelligence chief at the Homeland Security Department under pressure from Democrats in Congress.

 

Mr. Mudd is a well-regarded career intelligence officer who has worked in senior positions at the FBI and CIA, including deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Mr. Obama nominated him on May 4 amid fulsome praise from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. But in a statement issued by the White House on the eve of a late spring weekend, Mr. Mudd said he was withdrawing so as not to become "a distraction to the president and his vital agenda."

 

The truth is that he risked being a distraction to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democrats, who suddenly don't want to talk about what they knew about the interrogation techniques they once endorsed and long funded but now denounce. So Ms. Pelosi doesn't have to answer any questions about her changing claims about her CIA briefings, but a foot soldier like Mr. Mudd who did what his country asked him to do to keep the country safe is blackballed.The White House said Mr. Obama accepted Mr. Mudd's withdrawal "with sadness and regret," but it's clear the President wasn't willing to fight for him. The message that will be heard loud and clear across the intelligence services is that you better not take any risks to keep America safe, because if you get into political trouble Mr. Obama will throw you over the side, albeit with "regret."

 

The White House said Mr. Obama accepted Mr. Mudd's withdrawal "with sadness and regret," but it's clear the President wasn't willing to fight for him. The message that will be heard loud and clear across the intelligence services is that you better not take any risks to keep America safe, because if you get into political trouble Mr. Obama will throw you over the side, albeit with "regret." Read article.

Print This E-mail This

Share It: