- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
September 28, 2009
Exclusive: Oval Office Watch – Monday, September 28
Pastors Arrested at White House - SEE HERE.
President Obama is joined by French President Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Brown in taking a harsh tone towards the Iranian Government’s behavior. "A Growing Concern that Iran is Refusing to Live Up to Those International Responsibilities" CLICK HERE.
President Obama’s weekly address HERE
Obama to America: Drop Dead
Monica Crowley, Political Mavens.com
The president took time out from his busy schedule of having no strategy for Afghanistan to go to the United Nations and blather on incessantly while luxuriating in moral equivalency as he sat mere feet from the Iranian terrorist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Libyan terrorist Moammar Khadafi.
His speech Tuesday was a riot of Wilsonian collective action pipe-dreams and Carteresque naivete. Of course, the result of Woodrow Wilson’s “can’t we all just get along” idealism was World War II and 100 million people slaughtered. And the result of Jimmy “My Name is Earl” Carter’s childlike innocence was Americans taken hostage in Iran and Soviet troops marching through Afghanistan.
Our enemies smell a president’s weakness from miles away. And they certainly all saw the Bama coming.
They must have loved one particular thing he said in his address. The Bama slipped it in, and it largely went unnoticed. But it is the most profoundly disturbing thing I think I’ve heard from this president, or frankly, any president:
“In an era where our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game,” he began. And then the money line: “No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed….That is the future America wants.”
Those words should make your blood run cold.
What he is saying is not “what America wants” but what HE wants! Read article.
Bad Medicine: ObamaCare is hazardous to your health.
Pete Du Pont, Online WSJ.com
President Obama addressed Congress two weeks ago on the issue of health care, and on the same day an Associated Press GfK poll showed that the proportion of Americans who strongly approve of the way he is doing his job has fallen from 41% in December to 24% now. And the percentage of people who strongly disapprove of his performance has risen from 6% to 35%.
Those serious declines no doubt have to do with many issues--economic decline, the massive spending increases (enacted and proposed) of $6.5 trillion over the next decade, the coming massive tax increases that are presidential and congressional priorities, and currently most important, the proposed governmental takeover of health care. On that matter, more than 1.3 million people have signed and sent to Congress the Salem Radio Network's Free Our Health Care Now! petition to make sure individuals, not the national government, make their health care decisions.
But the Democratic congressional leadership, led by Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, has now offered a bureaucratic, government-intrusive health care proposal. The details change daily as the bill works its way through the Finance Committee, which Mr. Baucus chairs, for there are more than 500 proposed amendments being considered. But the bill would start off by imposing annual fees of $6.7 billion on health insurance companies, $4 billion on medical device producers, $2.3 billion on drug manufacturers and $750 million on clinical laboratories, all of which would surely be passed on to consumers in higher prices. Read article.
It Depends On What Your Definition Of “Tax” Is
The Foundry, Heritage.org
Throughout his presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama promised the American people: “If you’re a family that’s making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes.” As President, Barack Obama reiterated that pledge, promising the American people in his September 9th health care press conference: “The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” But as ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos pointed out to the President this weekend, Obama will break his promise to the American people if he signs a health care bill that includes an individual or employer mandate.
In an exchange that can only be described as “Clintonesque” Stephanopoulos was forced to read the definition of “tax” straight from Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, but even then Obama refused to acknowledge reality: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. … Nobody considers that a tax increase.” Really? Nobody? Read article.
Barack Obama's churlishness is unforgivable
David Hughes, Telegraph.co.uk
The juxtaposition on our front page this morning is striking. We carry a photograph of Acting Sgt Michael Lockett - who was killed in Helmand on Monday - receiving the Military Cross from the Queen in June, 2008. He was the 217th British soldier to die in the Afghan conflict. Alongside the picture, we read that the Prime Minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure a few minutes “face time” with President Obama after five requests for a sit-down meeting were rejected by the White House.
What are we to make of this? This country has proved, through the bravery of men like Acting Sgt Lockett, America’s staunchest ally in Afghanistan. In return, the American President treats the British Prime Minister with casual contempt. The President’s graceless behaviour is unforgivable. As most members of the Cabinet would confirm, it’s not a barrel of laughs having to sit down for a chat with Gordon Brown.
But that’s not the point. Mr Obama owes this country a great deal for its unflinching commitment to the American-led war in Afghanistan but seems incapable of acknowledging the fact. You might have thought that after the shambles of Mr Brown’s first visit to the Obama White House - when there was no joint press conference and the President’s “gift” to the Prime Minister was a boxed DVD set - that lessons would have been learned. Apparently not. Admittedly, part of the problem was Downing Street’s over-anxiety to secure a face-to-face meeting for domestic political purposes but the White House should still have been more obliging. Mr Obama’s churlishness is fresh evidence that the US/UK special relationship is a one-way street. Read article.
Foreign Policy by Personality Disorder
Tony Rubolotta, NMJ.us
Obama’s Afghanistan policy is the result of a political expediency, but may also be driven by a personality disorder. The expediency is easy enough to explain. Most Americans accept the premise that we must actively pursue, engage and destroy known terrorists, especially those with any connection to the 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were in Afghanistan and that was the place to go. Hence, Afghanistan became the “good war”. While this may have upset the extreme anti-war, anti-American faction that backed Obama’s candidacy, it was necessary to attract more reasonable voters.
If Obama were not the malignant narcissist that he is, and if he did not have to appease his extremist supporters, our mission in Afghanistan would be nothing more than the continuance of what it was when he took office. We have seen prior to Obama what happens when a narcissist is President and inherits a conflict. I’m referring to Bill Clinton and Somalia.
Bill Clinton inherited a murky mission in Somalia from George Bush. Other than to deliver some food, I don’t think anyone knows why we were there, and then stayed after what little could be done was done. Our misguided involvement was clearly Bush’s fault, but an opportunity for Clinton. What Bill Clinton didn’t want was an unpopular war because of American or civilian casualties. Bill “I loathe the military” Clinton also wanted his “legacy” as commander-in-chief and an easy out of Somalia. Somali warlord Aidid appeared to be Clinton’s ticket out with a newly crafted legacy. Take out Aidid and then bail out of Somalia would do the trick.
Our insane policy in Afghanistan doesn’t look so crazy from the eyes of a pathological narcissist. We have the Clinton example to look to and no reason to believe one narcissist would behave that much differently than another. Clinton played a long shot and so is Obama. Playing dice with other peoples’ lives is not beyond either of them. Read article.
The Disarmament Illusion: Obama pursues arms control treaties; Iran builds the bomb.
Review & Outlook, Online WSJ.com
President Obama appreciates "teachable moments," so let's all discuss this week's lesson in arms control theory and practice.
The President brought his soaring sermon about "a world without [nuclear] weapons" before the U.N. General Assembly. He called for a new arms control treaty and won Security Council support for a vague resolution on proliferation. On cue yesterday, Iran showed the world what determined rogues think about such treaties. On the evidence of his Presidency so far, Mr. Obama will not let that reality interfere with his disarmament dreams.
The disclosure that Iran has a second facility to make bomb-grade fuel, the latest of many Tehran deceptions, isn't exactly surprising. Administration officials say U.S. intelligence has known about the secret underground plant near the city of Qom for years. Iran sought other hidden sites after the Natanz facility was discovered in 2002, and now officials say they suspect there are other facilities too.
The U.S., France and the U.K. yesterday presented detailed evidence about the plant to the International Atomic Energy Agency. They acted after Iran got wind of the U.S. intelligence and sought to pre-empt possible consequences by informing the supposed nuclear watchdog in Vienna about what Tehran called a "pilot plant" for civilian use.
It's not clear why the mullahs even bothered to make that effort. The past decade of international efforts to monitor, control and sanction the Iranian nuclear program is a story of fecklessness. Iran's nuclear weapon efforts started many years ago. Read article.
Why are Jews liberals?
Richard Baehr, Online WSJ.com
In a conference call with more than 1,000 rabbis before Rosh Hashanah, President Barack Obama encouraged the religious leaders to use their sermons on the Jewish New Year to promote health-care reform. It is more than ironic that liberal Jews, who call for a complete separation of church and state, saw nothing wrong with the president scripting their sermons. The reason may be that the script came from a modern sort of Jewish holy book, what Norman Podhoretz calls the "Torah of liberalism."
"Why Are Jews Liberals?" is a fine and bracing examination of a question that has vexed Mr. Podhoretz for decades. He displays, along the way, the skill for supple reasoning and pugnacious argument that was the hallmark of his long editorship of Commentary magazine. Mr. Podhoretz grew up on the political left and remained there until the late 1960s, when he moved to the right. In "Why Are Jews Liberals?" he ponders, with a sense of deep frustration, why so few other Jews have made his journey.
Acknowledging that the allegiance of Jews to liberalism was once understandable, Mr. Podhoretz claims that the allegiance has now become irrational—and yet liberal Jews, which is to say most Jews in this country, show no sign of changing. "I cannot for the life of me give up the hope that the Jews of America will eventually break free of their political delusions," he writes, "and that they will begin to recognize where their interests and their ideals, both as Jews and as Americans, truly lie." Read article.
Was Sunstein picked for sharing Obama’s radical positions?
Aaron Klein, The Real Barack Obama.Wordpress.com
Was President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, chosen for radical positions that may mirror some of Obama’s own personal views?
WND last week exposed Sunstein argued it is “desirable” to redistribute America’s wealth to poorer nations.
Those comments seem eerily similar to a 2001 radio interview that surfaced on the Internet during last year’s presidential campaign in which Obama is heard promoting “major redistributive change.”
In the interview, Obama doubted whether redistribution of wealth could be brought about by the U.S. court system. Obama did not propose another mechanism for such radical change.
However, as WND reported, Sunstein, the new White House regulatory czar, proposed interpretation of federal laws be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him.
During the presidential campaign, the blogosphere was abuzz with audio clips from a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview in which Obama makes clear he favors redistribution of the country’s wealth while lamenting the court may not be the appropriate mechanism to bring about such change. Read article.
As Acorn Falls, Democrats Would Be Wise to Duck
Kevin Hassett, Bloomberg.com
The group known as Acorn found itself at the center of a media storm last week, when two young filmmakers exposed the willingness of workers at several of its offices to offer assistance to a nascent prostitution ring.
The video sent shockwaves through Washington.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is no fringe organization. It is woven into the political firmament at the highest levels. Over the past 15 years, Acorn has received more than $53 million from the U.S. government, according to a recent report by House Republicans. Democrats clearly appreciate the value they received for that funding. While specific budget lines seldom include the word Acorn, the group and similar nonprofits are eligible to receive as much as $8.5 billion in stimulus money alone.
Consider also a list of the luminaries who serve on its advisory council, which now has responsibility to reform the organization. They include Chicago native John Podesta, who was co-chair of President Barack Obama’s transition; Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union; and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, former lieutenant governor of Maryland and daughter of Robert F. Kennedy. This is clearly the A team.
What exactly has Acorn done with its money? It’s hard to tell. Acorn purports to serve noble objectives, such as registering voters, but the organization is unbelievably complex and opaque. Acorn makes Enron seem like a simple organization. Read article.
But They Want Jobs
Jennifer Rubin, Commentary Magazine.com
John Judis lets the cat out of the bag: health-care reform isn’t going to help Obama’s political problems, even if it passes. He explains that the real issues for voters are high unemployment and a weak economy. And it’s not enough for the rate of job loss to slow:
"Moreover, history suggests that it is not enough for the economy to be headed in the right direction; it has to be headed in the right direction in tangible ways that voters can see. Economists pronounced the recession of the early 1990s over in March 1991. But, when unemployment continued to rise through 1991 and most of 1992 and real wages stagnated, the public perceived the economy to still be declining–and it punished George H.W. Bush accordingly."
Well, that gets dicey if economists are right in predicting high unemployment for years to come. And Judis notes that Obama is doing far worse than his predecessors:
"Obama’s disapproval ratings exceed those of every president since Eisenhower at this early stage–except for Clinton, who had similar disapproval ratings nine months into his first term. And they can’t be explained as the inevitable result of the administration’s honeymoon period coming to an end: Eisenhower, Kennedy, and George H.W. Bush all saw their popularity rise during the same period Obama’s has fallen."
It doesn’t dawn on Judis – nor, more important, on Obama – that the administration shouldn’t just “hope” things get better but that it must get off the health-care kick (replete with taxes, mandates, and fines) and deploy policies that would spur job growth. Read article.
Is This the News or a Comedy Tour?
Robert R. Owens, PhD, NMJ.us
Everyone routinely called them the Mainstream Media. Rush now calls them the State Controlled Media. I’ve called them the Mainstream Media, the Poodle Press, and the Lap-Dog Media. Whatever you’ve called them the time’s come to call them irrelevant? Out with the old and in with the new.
When news organizations consistently slant their coverage and ignore major stories because they don’t fit their template or further their agenda it’s time to re-evaluate what they are. They portray themselves as objective yet everyone can see they’re partisan publicists for a particular party and a particular radical left-wing of that party. Study after study shows the corporations once known as the Mainstream Media are perceived by the public as advocates whose left-wing agenda is self-serving and deceptive. Instead of the fourth branch of government, honest brokers working to keep the public informed they’ve degenerated into craven corporate cheerleaders for Progressivism.
Ever since Walter Cronkite denounced America’s commitment in Vietnam the corporate media have championed increasingly radical left-wing causes. They first joined the Democrat Party in all but name. Then they joined the extreme liberal wing of that Party. Now they’ve joined the Cavalcade of Czars in the statist campaign to re-make America. Read article.
The President Risks Getting Stale: Continuous TV appearances can't rescue a bad argument.
Karl Rove, Online WSJ.com
It sounded to White House advisers like a good idea. Put President Barack Obama on five Sunday morning talk shows. This would focus attention on health care, re-establish momentum, and show off Mr. Obama's passion, intelligence, and persuasive abilities. It didn't work.
Mr. Obama made a classic mistake of politicians on a downward-bending arc. He jumps out in front of the cameras without having something fresh to offer.
As a result, he was on the defensive and failed to win over the slice of America that opposes his plans. His refusal to sit down with Fox News's Chris Wallace made him look petulant if not fearful, and his answers weakened his credibility.
Take, for example, his dustup on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" over whether requiring Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine was a tax. Legislation in the House and Senate defines it as a tax, and Mr. Stephanopoulos said it fit Merriam-Webster's definition of a tax. But the president insisted it was not a tax. That's because by favoring the mandate Mr. Obama is breaking his pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. He already signed a cigarette tax increase in February, but this tax could be as much as $3,800 a year for a family and is therefore a more material breach of his promise. Read article.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
