The Foundry, Heritage.org

 

President Obama’s remarks on Afghanistan in today’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly reveal that he is beginning to second-guess U.S. strategy in the region. While he stated clearly that his administration would not allow al-Qaeda to find sanctuary in Afghanistan or “any other nation” (i.e. Pakistan), he did not so much as mention the Taliban insurgency that is threatening to engulf Afghanistan and the necessity of preventing such an outcome. His backtracking on Afghanistan also is evident in statements he made on this past Sunday’s morning talk shows in which he openly questioned whether the U.S. is pursuing the right strategy in Afghanistan and whether fighting the Taliban insurgency is necessary to stopping al-Qaeda.

 

For most Afghan watchers, this question has already been settled, and that’s why the Washington Post in its lead editorial yesterday gently reminded President Obama that he seems to have forgotten his own arguments for pursuing a counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan. Obama rightly said on March 27 “…if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban - or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged - that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” So why is he fumbling now? Read article.

David Limbaugh.com

 

While I couldn't bring myself to watch President Barack Obama's 1,000th-1,004th health care propaganda spiels on the Sunday shows, I did read some transcripts and watch a few video highlights. What is it about this guy's personality that compels him to keep beating his head against the wall?

 

Why does he keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result?

 

The more Obama stumps for socialized medicine the less popular it becomes. Yet Obama keeps going back to the well, apparently believing that if he just explains it one more time -- or maybe 10 more times -- to the ignorant masses, his wards will finally come around to his way of thinking.

 

On the one hand, it seems that Obama truly believes that the majority of people are as sick as he is of America and reject many of its founding principles. After all, during his formative years and beyond, he was always surrounded by those -- family and mentors -- who had bones to pick with America and its "exploitive" capitalistic economy. To say that most of his role models were outright Marxists is hardly inflammatory hyperbole.

 

When it was time for him to make his own associational choices, he opted to continue the pattern in which he'd been raised, from the church he chose to the angry, activist, anti-establishment street agitation he embraced in Chicago.

 

So he very well might believe that his attitude favoring fundamental change for America is the norm and that the only ones who want to preserve the nation's "outmoded" founding principles are selfish, moneyed elites. Read article.

Editorial, Washington Times.com

 

It astonishes us how quickly Afghanistan is moving from being a "war of necessity" to "too tough to do." President Obama's comments over the weekend gave the clearest signal yet that his administration is seeking an exit strategy from a conflict he described in August as "not only a war worth fighting" but "fundamental to the defense of our people." Commitment to that fundamental defense is eroding.

 

The president is being foiled by complex terrain, by which we mean the Congress. The Democratic leadership has indicated it would not look favorably on requests for more troops, which most analysts believe are necessary to stabilize the situation.

 

An Aug. 30 initial review by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, U.S. commander in Afghanistan, concluded that more troops are necessary to provide a "bridge capability" until Afghan forces have been adequately trained to take on the task. This increase of force is vital. "Resources will not win this war," the report states, "but under-resourcing could lose it."

 

Rather than follow the conclusions of the most comprehensive review of the Afghan situation to date, the White House is trying to redefine the mission. Read article.

Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard.com

 

Give President Obama credit for persistence. And stubbornness. And lack of imagination. He declared again last week that his health care plan "will slow the growth of health care costs for our families and our businesses and our government." And this historic achievement will be accompanied by a dazzling array of new medical benefits that everyone will receive--guaranteed by law. Okay, you've heard this before. But that's the president's story, and he's sticking to it.

 

The question is, why? Does he think we're stupid? His argument has failed to persuade a sizeable majority of the American people precisely because they're not stupid. They understand the laws of addition and subtraction. When you offer more--much, much more in this case--of a good, it's going to cost more. Somebody has to pay for it. Yet Obama says we'll all be paying less, and that includes businesses and government.

 

If he could actually pull off this feat, he would indeed be the One we've been waiting for. But he can't. This is apparent whenever Obama explains where the "savings" will come from. They're from eliminating "hundreds of billions of dollars" in waste, fraud, and abuse (WFA) in the health care system. Surely, he knows better. Everyone in Washington recognizes these savings are imaginary. They're offered with a wink. They never happen. President Reagan promised to slash WFA in the 1980s. The result: zilch. Where Reagan failed, Obama is not likely to succeed. Read article.

 

Mary Starrett, NewsWithViews.com

 

Americans are incensed over what’s being done to them and their country under the guise of “change.” Conservatives, liberals, “progressives”, Democrats and Republicans are fuming. Those of us who fit into the category of “constitutionalists” are downright apoplectic.

 

Socialism has failed everywhere it’s ever been tried. Yet Obama’s ilk will try, try and try it again, even if it kills what’s left of this country’s liberties, industry, prosperity and free market genius. The bailouts, the cronyism, the lack of fiscal sanity, the cash machine that cranks us further into debt, the lunacy of programs like “Cash for Clunkers,” the endless, catastrophic wars, the relentless battering of the Bill of Rights- the list reads like the index in a book that could be titled How to Finish Off A Republic in Four Years or Less. Of course, none of this could be happening unless prior Republican regimes hadn’t set the stage for the abolition of Constitutional restraints on government.

 

Mercifully, the tide appears to be changing and the seething is leading to an awakening that more government is not the answer, indeed, it is the problem. A recent poll shows a whopping 70% say they’d prefer less government and lower taxes. According to the Rasmussen survey only 19% would choose a government that provides more services and higher taxes

 

Most Republicans (88%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (78%) would like a government with lower taxes and fewer services, and 48% of Democrats agree.

 

So while President Obama is busy trying to turn this country into the United Socialist States of America, citizens are busy countermanding. Another recent survey shows 57% of those asked would boot the current Congress out on its collective keister in one fell swoop and start over again. But who would voters replace them with? Electing more of the same, establishment party D.C. insiders would be like putting on dirty clothes after taking a bath. Only 25% said they’d keep the current Congress. It’s a start. Read article.

Morris & McGann, Vote.com

 

The ups and downs of the published polls about Obama's health care proposals dramatically illustrate the ferocity of the headwinds he faces as he desperately tries to sell his program to a suspicious and wary public.

 

Before Obama addressed the nation and a joint session of Congress, his proposals drew only 45% approval (Rasmussen). But after he spoke, support for his health care proposals rose until it peaked at 52%. Then, a scant week after his speech ended, public support had quietly but quickly eroded back down to 42%.  

 

It is no surprise that a nationally televised presidential speech can move support for the chief executive's program by 7 points. But it is shocking that - in the absence of any other major independent negative event - these new supporters would flee in the space of one week and that three percent more would move against him.

 

That spells big trouble for Obama. Read article.

 

Beth Fouhy, MyWayNews.com

 

NEW YORK (AP) - Despite sweeping Democratic successes in the past two national elections, continuing job losses and President Barack Obama's slipping support could lead to double-digit losses for the party in next year's congressional races and may even threaten their House control.

 

Fifty-four new Democrats were swept into the House in 2006 and 2008, helping the party claim a decisive majority as voters soured on a Republican president and embraced Obama's message of hope and change. Many of the new Democrats are in districts carried by Republican John McCain in last year's presidential contest; others are in traditional swing districts that have proved tough for either party to hold.

 

From New Hampshire to Nevada, House Democrats also will be forced to defend votes on Obama's $787 billion economic recovery package and on energy legislation viewed by many as a job killer in an already weak economy.

 

Add to that the absence of Obama from the top of the ticket, which could reduce turnout among blacks, liberals and young people, and the likelihood of a highly motivated GOP base confused by the president's proposed health care plan and angry at what they consider reckless spending and high debt.

 

Taken together, it could be the most toxic environment for Democrats since 1994, when the party lost 34 House incumbents and 54 seats altogether. Democrats currently have a 256-178 edge in the House, with one vacancy. Republicans would have to pick up 40 seats to regain control. Read article.

 

Kill Grandma or Terrorists Win - The Latest Argument for ObamaCare

James Taranto, Best of the Web, WSJ.com

 

Remember when George W. Bush was pushing his plan for partial privatization of Social Security, and he warned that if Congress didn't pass it, it would weaken his presidency, with dire results for the war on terror?

 

Neither do we. He never said any such thing. As best we remember, no one thought to make such a ludicrous argument. Add that to the list of things that have changed in the age of Obama.

 

The other day Trudy Rubin, a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, penned a column called "Taliban's Unwitting Assistants." Her subject was ObamaCare:

 

 

 

The truth, as we have argued, is precisely the opposite. It is Obama who is endangering national security by failing to prioritize it.

 

To begin with, contrary to Rubin's assertion, no decision about foreign policy has been "forced on him." Obama sought the presidency and won it, thereby assuming the responsibilities that go with the office. Dealing with the threats posed by America's enemies is part of the job description.

 

Attempting to seize control of one-sixth of the nation's economy, by contrast, is not. ObamaCare is a "war of choice"--though this analogy goes only so far, since it is a domestic "war" in which the "enemy" consists of fellow Americans. Read article.

 

Austin Hill, Townhall.com

 

Are they agendas for the betterment of America? Or are they agendas for the betterment of the rest of the world?

 

I’m referring to President Obama’s policy agendas. Despite how much he reasserts that we “must” embrace this or that policy simply because it is “the right thing to do,” it’s becoming increasingly difficult to claim that Obama’s stated plans and intentions advance any sense of American wellbeing.

 

In this regard, Rush Limbaugh recently articulated what many of us have been thinking on this subject (as he often does). Noting last week that he began this year saying that he hopes Obama fails, Rush went on to say “I’m actually wondering…I’m asking myself…is it maybe that Obama wants America to fail, so he can rebuild it and remake it?”

 

That’s a legitimate question. With as much as Barack Obama has sought to “change” America, it’s fair to ask “so what’s the real intention here?” Read article.

 

Gerald Warner, Telegraph.co.uk

 

Barack Obama’s chances of re-election in three and a half years’ time may be evaporating at unprecedented speed, but his presidential ambitions could still be realized in another direction. He would be a shoo-in to win the next Russian presidential election, so high is his popularity now running in the land of the bear and the knout. Obama has done more to restore Russia’s hegemonial potential in Eastern and Central Europe than even Vladimir Putin.

 

His latest achievement has been to restore the former satellite states to dependency on Moscow, by wimping out of the missile defense shield plan. This follows on his surrender last July when he voluntarily sacrificed around a third of America’s nuclear capability for no perceptible benefit beyond a grim smile from Putin. If there is one thing that fans the fires of aggression it is appeasement.

 

Despite propaganda to the contrary, 58 per cent of Poles were in favor of the missile shield. But small nations must assess the political will of larger powers. Thanks to President Pantywaist’s supine policies, the former satellite states can see that they are fast returning to their former status. The American umbrella cannot be relied upon on a rainy day. Read article.

 

John Bolton

 

President Obama's upcoming visit to the 64th UN General Assembly, which opened yesterday, will be nothing if not entertaining. Substantively, Obama should be delighted. A confluence of recent events has brought to fruition his campaign promises to launch diplomacy with our adversaries: Negotiations without preconditions are blooming everywhere.

 

Whether these negotiations will benefit the United States is, of course, a different question. Nonetheless, Obama's UN appearances will showcase that he now unambiguously "owns" (as he likes to say) our foreign policy.

 

The President's speech to the General Assembly a week from today is his first major UN public event, and we can predict he will receive a rapturous reception. This was not true for President George W. Bush, who described his annual UN remarks as a "visit to the wax museum" because of the audience's unenthusiastic response.

 

And why should we not expect a visible demonstration of Obamamania at the UN? He is giving them pretty much what they ask for, as did President Bill Clinton.

 

As Obama speaks, the General Assembly will be chaired by former Libyan Foreign Minister Ali Abdessalam Triki, who was elected president of that body yesterday. Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy himself addresses the General Assembly right after Obama, and they will certainly have a chance to speak together in the cozy waiting area just behind the General Assembly podium. This would be an excellent opportunity to discuss the health of recently released mass murderer Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted of destroying Pan Am Flight 103 and killing 270 people, including 189 Americans, and now free in Tripoli, Libya.

 

Even if their paths don't cross then, Khadafy will be only a few seats away from Obama at the Security Council table on Sept. 24, when the President chairs a meeting on nonproliferation and disarmament. Khadafy can easily walk over to Obama and present him, a la Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, with a copy of the "Green Book," Khadafy's 1975 bestseller (in Libya at least). They will certainly have a chance at the Security Council to muse about eliminating the U.S. and Israeli nuclear stockpiles, always popular subjects at the UN. Read article.

 

Bob Unruh, WND.com

 

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann warns, "ACORN still remains eligible for billions of your tax dollars."

 

"And don't think that the Democrats won't try to strip the ACORN language from whatever bill finally makes it to the White House," Bachmann continued. "These votes were their cover.

 

"They think that you'll be fooled into thinking that they've heard your outrage and are abandoning their good buddy, ACORN."

 

House Minority Leader John Boehner today called on Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to schedule an immediate up-or-down vote on legislation to end all federal funding for ACORN as a separate, stand-alone bill.

 

His demand comes just a day after the House adopted that as an amendment on a 345-75 vote.

 

"Yesterday's overwhelming bipartisan vote to defund ACORN represented critical progress in our effort to sever this corrupt organization's ties to the federal government, but it was only the beginning," he said. "Now that the House has spoken in such resounding fashion, Speaker Pelosi should schedule an up-or-down vote on the Defund ACORN Act without delay. This critical priority should not be held hostage to a government takeover of student lending.

 

"If the speaker refuses to act, I will file a discharge petition to force a vote on this legislation. The sooner we can send the Defund ACORN Act as a stand-alone bill to the Senate, which has already voted to deny federal funds to this corrupt outfit, the sooner we can get it to the president's desk," he said. "Every day we continue to allow ACORN access to federal funding is another opportunity for this troubled organization to misuse and abuse taxpayer dollars," Boehner said. Read article.

 

SharonThiemer & Pete Yost, MyWay.com

 

ACORN has long been involved in politics.

 

In the 1970s, the group supported candidates in Little Rock and several ACORN members were elected themselves.

 

In 1984, seven local ACORN groups supported Jesse Jackson for president in state primaries, and four years later the organization had 30 delegates at the Democratic National Convention on his behalf.

 

In the early days in Little Rock, the local power structure tried to ignore ACORN, a tactic that didn't work, recalls Walker, the civil rights lawyer.

 

"They were very vocal and very active for the years of their infancy," Walker recalls. "They were very effective."

 

ACORN calls itself the largest grass-roots community organization of low- and moderate-income Americans. It claims over 400,000 families and more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in about 75 cities.

 

The group and Obama have long known each other.

 

Obama helped represent ACORN in a 1995 lawsuit against Illinois that forced enactment of the "motor-voter law," making it easier to register to vote.

 

ACORN's political action committee endorsed Obama for president and his campaign gave an ACORN subsidiary $832,000 for get-out-the-vote activities.

 

In a video posted on YouTube days before the November election, Lewis told New Yorkers to "vote for the community organizer Barack Obama."

 

"I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career," Obama told ACORN leaders in November 2007, according to a posting on Obama's campaign Web site. "Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work." Read article.

 

Randall Hoven, American Thinker.com

 

The best person to answer that question would be a communist. Since I don't have a communist under my bed (I looked), I turned to the Communist Party USA as a source. Here then, is my report on what the CPUSA has been up to recently (or at least what it is willing to post on its public web site). CPUSA

 

(Some of you might be thinking it a bit retro to call someone a communist. I am very aware that we cannot read what is written in the heart of another man. But when a person is a member of the Communist Party, calls himself a communist, and justifies his arguments based on the teachings of Marx and Lenin, I think it safe to call him a communist.)

 

The CPUSA's home page consists of various articles posted in reverse chronological order. I list and summarize those below.

 

Resetting the Health Care Debate, by Sam Webb, National Chair, 9/10/2009. In this article, Sam praises President Obama's speech of the previous night for turning the debate back around after being attacked by "the right-wing extremists, the letting loose of the demagogues of hatred, fear, racism, and division, and the digging in of private insurance companies and other sections of corporate America. ....

 

"As for the supporters of health care reform, we have to be every bit as tenacious as right-wing reaction. Justice, morality, and truth are on our side, but they are not enough. Only when combined with persistence, united action, and struggle over the bill's content, including a public option, will real health care reform see the light of day."

 

So what would a communist do about health care? Support Obama, tenaciously and with persistence, and especially insist on including a public option. And attack your opponents as right-wing extremists and racists.

 

Summer Health Care fight heats up!, by CPUSA National Board, 8/10/2009. This is more of the same about the health care debate. While Sam, above, listed who the bad guys are (right-wing extremists, racists, insurance companies and corporate America), the National Board lists who the good guys are. "If health care reform fails, it will be a giant step backwards for the Obama administration and for working people, the labor movement, African American, Latino, Asian-Pacific Island communities, women and youth on every issue including the economy, peace and democracy."

 

"If health care reform fails, it will be a giant step backwards for the Obama administration and for working people, the labor movement, African American, Latino, Asian-Pacific Island communities, women and youth on every issue including the economy, peace and democracy." Read article.

Print This E-mail This

Share It: