Victor Davis Hanson, Pajamas Media.com

 

1)   Why did we reject the Bush policy of non-engagement with a monster like Ahmadinejad, who oppressed his own and threatened nuclear destruction to Israel? Is it all that moral, or all that wise, or all that much in US realpolitik interests to apologize to a thug? Does it show solidarity with the Iranian people to court a nut? What is so smart in making Iran the center of our attention rather than the Maliki democratic government in Iraq? Hamas rather than democratic Israel? Is what we are now seeing in the streets of Iran proof of all the praise once heaped on theocratic “democratic” Iran by the likes of Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and the NY Times?

 

2)   Will someone please tell President Obama that when you send videos to Ahmadinejad, apologize for something that happened over a half-century ago, and ignore serial Iranian killing of Iraqi and American democrats in Iraq, you, well, send a message that implicitly you either approve of him-or are afraid of him? One of two things is happening in Iraq: either a boasting, cocky Ahmadinejad rigged the election, without worry that anyone-much less the present US-would care. Or, if the election result is semi-accurate (I doubt it), he energized his base, by showing the rural believers that even much worshipped Barack Hussein Obama was courting their all-wise leader and de facto agreeing to the new Persian Islamic nuclear hegemony. Read article.

Berit Kjos, NWV.com

 

Obama didn't lie when he promised CHANGE. He just didn't define it. Nor did he explain the basis for his HOPE. Today, with a bit of hindsight, the fog is lifting and we see the immediate future more clearly. Both words imply a shift away from the foundational truths and values of America. As Communist nations have determined, man's hope must rest in a useful worldly vision, not in the disturbing distraction of the Biblical God or other-worldly heaven.

 

Today, CHANGE and HOPE point to a New World Order -- a virtual utopia where the masses would eventually enjoy peace, pluralism, parity and the promise of universal welfare. Both slogans serve as bait to draw the masses into a web of deception.

 

A recent article in the Russian Pravda titled "American capitalism gone with a whimper" has been spreading a somber view of America. Unlike its old Soviet-era namesake, this new Pravda may actually be telling the truth. Most of this message can be verified, as you will see in the links and facts that follow these excerpts: Read article.

 

Alan Caruba, Facts Not Fantasy.Blogspot.com

 

Here’s a question I would pose to you. If the Supreme Court can act within days to approve the sale of Chrysler to Fiat, why can it not act to hear cases filed months ago regarding whether President Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the United States? Why have some lower courts refused to hear such cases citing that the parties bringing them, citizens under the rule of the Constitution, have no “standing” to do so?

 

The question of preserving and protecting the Constitution would be hard to prove except in hindsight, but by then it would be too late for the nation, ruined by excessive, unjustified taxation and borrowing that threatens the collapse of the economy.

 

I would argue that a President who appoints over twenty “czars” to supersede the powers of the secretaries of various federal departments; people who are apparently exempt from Congressional approval or oversight, and people who apparently do not feel the need to hold press conferences to explain what they are doing, is distinctly unconstitutional. It will be argued that there have been various such “czars” in the past, mostly particularly “drug czars” whose purpose was to oversee and coordinate efforts to address the nation’s problems with illegal drugs, but the imposition of people to virtually replace members of the President’s cabinet is unprecedented. Cabinet officers must receive the approval of Congress, but these “czars” have not.

 

It will be argued that there have been various such “czars” in the past, mostly particularly “drug czars” whose purpose was to oversee and coordinate efforts to address the nation’s problems with illegal drugs, but the imposition of people to virtually replace members of the President’s cabinet is unprecedented. Cabinet officers must receive the approval of Congress, but these “czars” have not. Read article.

YNet News.com

 

Obama’s address seemed to have been constructed around the belief that the Muslims constitute a monolithic community and that their actions are motivated by certain issues of common concern to all the Muslims of the world. This is a wrong belief. The Muslims are not a monolithic community and there is no common thread uniting the anger motivating the Muslims in different countries and different regions. There are Muslims and Muslims and issues and issues.

 

If Obama wanted to address the Muslims of the world, Cairo was the wrong place from which to seek to do so. There was a time when Egypt was seen as the beacon of the Arab world. It is no longer so. Al-Qaeda and pro-al-Qaeda organizations project Egypt and its leaders as apostate. President Hosni Mubarak is a very unpopular Arab leader .Obama going to Cairo to deliver the address is seen by large sections of pro-al-Qaeda and pro-Taliban leaders as a leader of the American infidels traveling to the country of apostates to deliver an address to the Muslims from a platform provided by the apostates. Read article.

 

Charles Krauthammer, Townhall.com

 

When President Obama returned from his first European trip, I observed that while over there he had been "acting the philosopher-king who hovers above the fray mediating" between America and the world.

 

Now that Obama has returned from his "Muslim world" pilgrimage, even the left agrees. "Obama's standing above the country, above -- above the world. He's sort of God," Newsweek's Evan Thomas said to a concurring Chris Matthews, reflecting on Obama's lofty perception of himself as the great transcender.

 

Not that Obama considers himself divine. (He sees himself as merely messianic, or, at worst, apostolic.) But he does position himself as hovering above mere mortals, mere country, to gaze benignly upon the darkling plain beneath him where ignorant armies clash by night, blind to the common humanity that only he can see. Read article.

 

Julian Krasta, Novo Ordo Seclorum.com

 

He would’ve made one heck of a Kamikaze pilot. Just like those disillusioned and desperate souls who, beginning in October 1944, slammed their Model 52c Zeroes into U.S. and Ally naval vessels to cause as much death and destruction as possible, Obama is similarly caught up with the same target fixation. “Target fixation” is when a pilot becomes so fixed on his mark that he flies straight into it.

 

That underground nation known as his administration, including the MSM pit vipers, claim that the spiky focus and steely stare in Obama’s eyes is radiance and derring-do. Wrong. What emanates from those icy orbs is pathological pride and suicidal condescension.

 

The target now in his sites is Iran with whom he wants to “open a dialogue.” What he fails to accept is that they are not enchanted with his porous speeches, which are, at all times, top-heavy with artless sincerity. I’m pretty sure that the more he tries to sway Iranians to his bizarre thought processes, the more he is making a meal out of his own tongue. Read article.

 

David Limbaugh.com

 

During the presidential campaign, when some warned against Barack Obama's soft approach to the war on terror, I doubt they had any idea he would greatly exceed their worst expectations. But he has.

 

A common refrain of the Bush administration and its defenders in the prosecution of the war was that prior to the 9/11 attacks, the American government had been treating Islamo-terrorism as a law enforcement problem. The 9/11 attacks forced us, kicking and screaming, into the realization that the Islamo-jihadists were indeed in a war with us and that we would have to wage war against them, as well.

 

This new approach seemed to have been accepted as a necessity by both parties, and the nation united -- temporarily, at least -- around our new policy to adopt a proactive and comprehensive military approach to fight terrorism. For a time, we achieved a degree of bipartisanship on such ideas as breaking down the forced walls of separation imposed by the Clinton administration that discouraged our intelligence agencies from sharing information on terrorist activities.

 

Before long, though, Democrats reverted to their perennial practice of politicizing every exploitable issue and began systematically attacking and undermining our newfound war-oriented approach. They began their specious assaults, in the name of protecting the privacy of U.S. citizens, against the various programs we were using to monitor terrorists and prevent future attacks. Read article.

 

Michael Tanner, Townhall.com

 

Much of the discussion to date about health care reform has understandably focused on the contents of the reform plan itself. But with the plan expected to cost $1-1.5 trillion over the first ten years, an equally important question is how the president and congressional Democrats plan to pay for it. While we won’t know for certain until we see the final bill, it looks like the answer is going to be higher—much higher—taxes. And many if not most of those taxes will fall squarely on the middle class.

 

Some of the sticker-shock items all but certain to be in the bill:

 

Taxing employer-provided health insurance. Under current law, health care benefits provided by an employer are not considered to be part of an employee’s taxable income. Congressional Democrats are considering proposals to repeal, cap, or limit this tax exclusion. That is, they would tax employer-provided health benefits, at least for some types of plans and for some people. Read article.

 

Online WSJ.com

 

Some things in politics you can't make up, such as President Obama's re-re-endorsement Tuesday of "pay-as-you-go" budgeting. Coming after $787 billion in nonstimulating stimulus, a $410 billion omnibus to wrap up fiscal 2009, a $3.5 trillion 2010 budget proposal, sundry bailouts and a 13-figure health-care spending expansion still to come, this latest vow of fiscal chastity is like Donald Trump denouncing self-promotion.

Check that. Even The Donald would find this one too much to sell.

 

But Mr. Obama must think the press and public are dumb enough to buy it, because there he was Tuesday re-selling the same "paygo" promises that Democrats roll out every election. Paygo is "very simple," the President claimed. "Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere."

 

That's what Democrats also promised in 2006, with Nancy Pelosi vowing that "the first thing" House Democrats would do if they took Congress was reimpose paygo rules that "Republicans had let lapse." By 2008, Speaker Pelosi had let those rules lapse no fewer than 12 times, to make way for $400 billion in deficit spending. Mr. Obama repeated the paygo pledge during his 2008 campaign, and instead we have witnessed the greatest peacetime spending binge in U.S. history. As a share of GDP, spending will hit an astonishing 28.5% in fiscal 2009, with the deficit hitting 13% and projected to stay at 4% to 5% for years to come.

 

The truth is that paygo is the kind of budget gimmick that gives gimmickry a bad name. As Mr. Obama knows but won't tell voters, paygo only applies to new or expanded entitlement programs, not to existing programs such as Medicare, this year growing at a 9.2% annual rate. Nor does paygo apply to discretionary spending, set to hit $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2010, or 40% of the budget. Read article.

 

Kimberley A. Strassel, Online WSJ.com

 

To understand why Sen. Max Baucus has taken so long to release his health-care reform, tune in to Oregon radio. That's where Mr. Baucus's fellow Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden, has been flayed by unions for his own reform proposals.

 

"The last thing we need is to pay more," moans a radio ad aired by three labor outfits, including the National Education Association. It excoriates Mr. Wyden for daring to fund his plan with what has become liberal taboo: taxes on existing health-care benefits.

 

Mr. Baucus, the Finance Committee chairman who is helping lead the Obama health effort, is still deciding what to include in the bill. But his far bigger headache remains how to pay for this blowout. He and other Democrats have been inching toward the taboo benefits-tax, putting them on a collision course with liberal special interests like unions. Mr. Baucus's newest solution? A union payoff. Read article.

 

AJ DiCintio, NMJ.us

 

Let me be upfront about something right from the jump: This piece is in no way critical of the behavior some Indian citizens are directing toward a remarkable color-changing member of the genus Rana recently discovered in the province of Kerala (as reported in Britain’s Sun).

 

Yes, it is true that some folks are coming not just to see the frog but “to pray and ask for miracles.” However, their actions are entirely consistent with the Hindu belief that all creation is an extension of the perfectly omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Brahman.

 

Despite their considerable labors, Matthews and Dowd have only come close to expressing what liberals really feel and think about Obama, explaining why it fell to Newsweek’s courageous Evan Thomas to teach every liberal not just to say “it” but to say it right, that is, to say it explicitly, without an article and with a capital “G.”

 

...Reagan was all about America...Obama is “we are above that now”...We stand for something — I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world, he’s sort of God...

 

So, that’s the real, disgusting scandal about worship and frogs.

 

Now, at times we will be tempted to react to it by simply and exclusively mocking the liberal media as a bunch of arrogant, obsessive-compulsive zealots who, having made a religion of politics and gods of politicians, can’t resist calling their god with throaty croaks that one particularly perceptive and creative reader of The Sun characterized as sounding something like this: “Br-aaak! Br-aaak! Br-aaak!”

 

But we can’t allow temptation to win the day because history teaches that this kind of worship is unspeakably dangerous in its maniacal, rapturous certainty. Therefore, let’s have our fun; but let’s also recall that admirable Indian amphibian as we return to engaging a frightening perversity with all the seriousness it deserves. Read article.

 

Amil Imani, NMJ.us

 

What is a demagogue? According to the encyclopedia, a demagogue is a politician skilled in oratory, flattery, and invective, evasive in discussing vital issues, promising everything to everybody, appealing to the passions rather than the reason of the public, and arousing racial, religious, and class prejudices.

 

History tells us that personal liberty is most often the demagogue's first victim, particularly when popular sentiment is whipped up against some internal or foreign enemy. In other words, liberty and demagogos cannot coexist. The ancient Greek word "demagogos" means simply a spokesman for the people or, more pejoratively, a leader of the mob. “Modern usage implies rhetorical gifts and the ability to arouse an audience, usually with the promise of radical change.”

 

We have been warned of three kinds of people: charlatans, demagogues, and politicians. And, more often than not, someone will rise up who is all three of these characters wrapped into one. Our liberty is the most precious possession. Many will aim to rob us of it and, by so doing, add to their own power, while trying to force us to become robots. We need to be vigilant and guard our liberty with our very lives.

 

Desperate situations spawn desperate measures. Not having learned the lessons of history, many people will turn to charlatans, demagogues, and politicians with dire consequences. Just a few old and recent cases of this tragic misstep should warn us not to be victimized in the future by frauds. Read article.

 

 

 

Print This E-mail This

Share It: