- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
October 8, 2009
Exclusive: Oval Office Watch – Thursday, October 8
Michael Barone: A War of Necessity Turns Out Not So Necessary - SEE HERE.
Does Obama Have the Backbone? GO HERE.
Lose Afghanistan, Lose Pakistan, Lose Iran, Lose It All
James Lewis, American Thinker.com
The White House debate on Afghanistan is critical. That is why General McChrystal is risking his career by going public, and why the White House is sneering at him in public, the way they do. But McChrystal was appointed just ten months ago as the best expert in the Petraeus anti-insurgency doctrine. There aren't any better military leaders for this kind of conflict. His willingness to go public shows what kind of values he has.
Obama is now where he dreamed of being: Making a huge life-or-death decision on civilization. He has never shown any comprehension of America's strategic aims and doctrines in the last sixty years. I can only guess that he is getting intensive tutoring right now by General Jones and SecDef Robert Gates; maybe even by Hillary and Bill. Anybody with credibility will do.
If Obama makes the wrong decision, start digging that hole in your back yard. It'll be a long-term investment, because you'll want a bomb shelter for years to come.
This could be the real Obama Stimulus Plan.
Israel is bound and determined to defend herself. If the United States fails to back an Israeli attack on Tehran they will do it anyway. The US will then be caught in the middle, along with Saudi Arabia and all the rest.
There is no substitute for successful preemption. Bush and Cheney tried to point out those harsh realities, but they were shut out by our fantasy-driven media. The Left chose to close its eyes and ears to the plain facts.
Now Obama is in charge.
We're waiting for the answer. So are the gangster regimes. Read article.
The Tyranny of the Minority
Lance Fairchok, NMJ.us
The Diversity Czar of the Federal Communications Commission, Mark Lloyd, believes in racial exceptionalism. It is not enough to provide equal opportunity and a level playing field, Mr. Lloyd desires minority supremacy and the control of the media by “social justice” elites. Like the former White House green jobs Czar Van Jones, whose radical statements made him a shoo-in and a shoo- out for the new administration, Lloyd was picked because he lives in the echo chamber of radical leftist academia and adheres to beliefs that are so far out of the mainstream and so divorced from reality that most Americans would demand his resignation should they but hear them.
At the Conference on Media Reform: Racial Justice in May 2005, Lloyd made these statements:
"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
"[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."
“This... there's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem.”
“We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.”
Lloyd’s past statements make his political assumptions clear and we can extrapolate further--free markets are bad, corporations are bad, conservatives are bad, and free speech is bad, white people are bad. Lloyd is the kind of nasty political creature Obama has surrounded himself with, an ideologue that holds America, its people and its institutions in contempt. Read article.
Frauds, Fakes and Phonies
Beverly Eakman, NWV.com
We had a phony housing “crisis,” followed by a bubble that sent even tiny, two-bedroom, split-level homes soaring into the financial stratosphere. Investors loved it. This, of course, led to outcries about housing no longer being “affordable,” so our government, spearheaded by the likes of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) goaded Phony Fannie Mae and Phony Freddie Mac into providing megabuck mortgages to down-and-outers who never saw a plasma screen they couldn't buy on credit, much less a house. The trickle-down (or, maybe that should be “trickle-up”?) effect was that most of the population began buying better houses than they could afford, with the expectation that their “investments” would increase forever, allowing them to retire in luxury.
Bummer.
Meanwhile, we had phony science — “global warming,” which was later found to include more than a decade of cooling, but never mind. Just change the term to “climate change” and be done with it!
The phony alarmists managed to maintain credibility, thanks to a whole generation of poorly-schooled young adults who were unable to see far enough through the fog of their own preconceived (or, rather, “indoctrinated”) ideas to get riled up over misrepresented legislation like “Cap-and-Trade,” among other draconian transfer-of-wealth schemes. Dim bulbs like country singer Sheryl Crowe did her part by telling Americans to use just one square of toilet paper, as if that would save the planet, while a “C” student in science named “Al” won the Nobel Prize for pontification. Read article.
Obama: Any Real Accomplishments? What has President Obama actually accomplished while in office?
Gormogons.com
While spending time on Democratic and pro-Obama websites, there were quite a few lists that had much in common. But, alas, these lists were more wish lists of things the President wanted to do.
For example, many of the lists feature “Healthcare reform,” although the President has yet to get anything like a competent bill before the public’s review. Others list “Closing Guantanamo,” although again, that has yet to happen—and the President is nervously looking around to see if there is a way to disprove the notion that Bush nailed it by using Gitmo as a holding facility. Others list things like “Ended torture,” “Reset American diplomacy and respect abroad,” and “Finance reform.” Well, okay, but what tangible accomplishments were there? So far, things are so equivocal that more conservative sites like this one are able to make plausible mockeries out of all of these things.
Now, before we start changing words around, let us be clear: an accomplishment is something that he has done, not promised to do, not meant to do, not wanted to do but Bush screwed it up. Accomplishments do not mean started to do, either, or else the Czar’s father-in-law would be the most accomplished person alive.
Out of respect for the President, we should also discount things he has done but mean little, such as appearing on talk shows, televising speeches to Americans, or making videos to school kids about staying in school. And no one frankly considers non-tangible things as real, such as “inspiring a new generation of Americans to racial blather,” so stop that now. These things merely underscore the opposition’s attitudes that he is more Paris Hilton than King Solomon. Read article.
The Manchurian President
Vodka Pundit, Pajamas Media.com
It’s a little early in his administration to draw any broad conclusions, but the evidence is clear: As a younger man, Barack Obama was kidnapped and brainwashed by evil Republican operatives, then sent deep undercover to destroy the Democratic Party and perhaps even the entire liberal worldview.
How else do you explain:
• Obama leaving his signature domestic reform — health care — in the hands of people least likely to come up with a plan palatable to a majority of Americans.
• Within six months of assuming office, the Democrats’ left and center wings are at each other’s throats.
• A cap and trade bill so horrendously corrupt and mismanaged that its passage in the House marked the first time in years that Republicans out-polled Democrats on the generic congressional ballot.
• A candidate who called Afghanistan “the necessary war,” is now on his second major review, just since March, of how to fight it.
• Never meeting once face-to-face with the general in charge of commanding that “necessary war.” Read article.
Playing At Being President
W. A. Bussey, American Thinker.com/Blog
The longer he is in office, the more it appears that Barack H. Obama doesn't really want to be president but only to play at being president. He doesn't seem interested in dealing with the messy, day-to-day responsibilities of the president's job. He doesn't want to be the Chief Executive and propose legislation that will move the country forward to new heights. He doesn't want to be Commander-In-Chief of the military and execute a necessary war. He doesn't take on the fiscal responsibilities required of the executive to deal with our economic issues. He doesn't want to be leader of the United States and act with dignity and forcefulness to put American interests forward in the world community.
Barack Obama, like a child playing a game, seems to ignore reality and live in a make-believe world. He goes to international conferences and makes speeches so that (as he imagines) the countries of the world see him as the organizer of a global community; he appears on radio and television to speak and be seen as the leader of the country that he refuses to lead; he wants to talk; he loves to talk.
And like the child who plays at being doctor or father or mother, he talks about what he wants. Like a child, he overuses the first person pronouns. All his rhetoric is "I" and "me" and "my" and, sometimes, the inclusive "us" and "our." He wants to be seen and heard. But he doesn't want to do (except to make speeches, and even these are prepared by others, canned, and read from a teleprompter). Those speeches in which he does seem to be taking charge are followed by a child-like loss of interest in the subject. He loses interest in playing that game and goes on to another. Read article.
'Reform' horrors: O's Total Disconnect
Sally Pipes, NY Post.com
The disconnect is just about perfect: President Obama's utopian promises for what his health-care agenda would bring are the opposite of what the plans on the table would produce.
In his Sept. 9 speech before Congress, he laid out three principles. "It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses and our government." He's also been crystal-clear that any reform cannot add to our massive deficit.
Yet, his marketing just doesn't describe the product.
Stability and security: Every Democratic plan would break this promise -- and in multiple ways.
For starters, every bill would make everyone buy a plan that offers a government-designed benefits package. So, while they wouldn't directly force people to shift plans, they'd force most employers to change what they offer their workers -- and employer-provided coverage is the top way Americans get insurance.
Worse, the mandates would price many employers out of the insurance market -- dumping their employees onto the government-provided backup, whether that's the "public option" that liberals prefer or the "co-ops" being offered as a compromise. The Lewin Group has estimated that "reform" will push 119 million people out of their current coverage.
Second, the Democratic plans largely come up with some cash by looting GOP-created programs. Democrats want to cut over $100 billion from Medicare Advantage, for example -- a "reform" that will force millions of seniors back into traditional Medicare, a state-of-the-art plan for 1965. Read article.
The Most Squalid 'Reform' Deal Yet
Morris & McGann, Vote.com
The Democratic health-care bills targets Medicare Advantage for drastic cuts -- which would force up premiums and drive millions of seniors to drop it.
Which brings us to AARP -- which makes a hefty profit selling Medigap coverage, the chief alternative to Medicare Advantage.
Medigap is a more traditional policy -- it offers fewer benefits at higher premiums. It lacks such features as no-care coordination, chronic-care management and pay-for-performance incentives.
And Medigap doesn't do as much to control costs. Because Medicare Advantage negotiates payment levels and saves money via bulk purchasing, inpatient costs run 20 percent or more below Medigap charges. More patients are handled through outpatient care. X-rays and other radiation cost 10 percent to 20 percent less; devices like wheelchairs, walkers and oxygen bottles run a fifth less than under conventional policies.
But AARP is probably the most potent lobby in Washington -- and the White House has consistently tried to buy off the lobbyists on health-care reform. Its deals with the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies have gotten some coverge -- will we someday learn of a similar bargain with AARP? Read article.
Obama and the K Street Set - Whatever happened to 'change'?
Thomas Frank, Online WSJ.com
There is something uniquely depressing about the fact that the National Portrait Gallery's version of the Barack Obama "Hope" poster previously belonged to a pair of lobbyists. Depressing because Mr. Obama's Washington was not supposed to be the lobbyists' Washington, the place we learned to despise during the last administration.
But our anger diminished while K Street kept on going. Now the Washington Post, that great barometer of the capital's consensus, has taken on what can only be described as a worshipful attitude toward the lobbyist set. And as its journalistic leader ushers in a new era, the attitude of the capital changes: Let us give thanks that our lobbyists are prosperous.
"The economy may stink for some, but things are going swimmingly for Democratic insiders," a page-one story in last Sunday's paper asserted. And the stage on which those Democratic insiders flaunt their prosperity, an Italian restaurant called Tosca, is the object of the paper's admiration.
We learn, for example, about the fussy food the lobbyists like to eat; about how you can divine a lobbyist's "status" by how they are greeted by the restaurant staff; but most of all we read about where the lobbyists sit.
"Table 45, tucked discreetly behind the servers' station," the Post tells us, "always goes to Steve Elmendorf, a hot hand these days in Democratic lobbying circles" (emphasis in the original). According to lobbying disclosure forms filed with the U.S. Senate, Mr. Elmendorf has lobbied for Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Clear Channel. Nevertheless, he was not always such a well-seated power-broker: He "started out on the banquette," the Post notes, and had to earn "his upgrade." How he accomplished this is not described. Read article.
Obama Aide Concedes Climate Law Must Wait
Andrew C. Revkin, NY Times.com
President Obama’s top climate and energy official said Friday that there was virtually no chance Congress would have a climate and energy bill ready for him to sign before negotiations on a global climate treaty begin in December in Copenhagen.
The remarks by the official, Carol M. Browner, during an onstage interview in Washington, were the first definitive statement by the administration that it saw little chance of Congressional passage this fall.
Lawmakers and environmental campaigners have cast similar doubts on the prospect in recent weeks, given the high priority put on health care legislation and the array of hearings that would be needed on the energy initiative, to say nothing of the time needed to reconcile competing versions of it. Climate legislation was introduced in the Senate only Wednesday, a full three months after the House passed its version.
“Obviously we’d like to be through the process — that’s not going to happen,” Ms. Browner said at a conference on politics and history organized by The Atlantic magazine. Read article.
EPA Takes Another Shot at the Economy, Proposes More Micromanagement
The Foundry, Heritage.org
The Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the carbon capping Waxman-Markey bill project higher energy and other costs for a household of four - nearly $3,000 per year between 2012 and 2035. Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent by 2035. And if the EPA is running the show, the micromanaging of our economy and the compliance costs that come along with it will only increase the costs.
On April 17, the EPA issued an endangerment finding, saying that global warming poses a serious threat to public health and safety. Interestingly, Jackson spoke as if 60-comment period on the endangerment finding and the EPA’s plan to regulate carbon dioxide was met with unanimous support. She said, “We have received more than 400,000 responses in the 60-day public comment period. And we soon expect a final document that will lay the foundation for reducing greenhouse emissions and confronting climate change.”
But through The Heritage Foundation’s StopEPA.com site, nearly 30,000 of you voiced your opinion against EPA regulations. Other organizations, such as The US Chamber of Commerce, American Solutions, FreedomWorks, and the Institute for Energy Research aggregated similar numbers, but there’s no mention of that. Contrary to Administrator Jackson’s assertions, using the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 would likely be the most expensive environmental regulation in history and will bypass the legislative process completely. While some Members of Congress undoubtedly support the EPA’s attempt to curb global warming, the fact that unelected and unaccountable EPA bureaucrats are trying to use backdoor rulemaking to reduce carbon dioxide makes it all the more objectionable.
Contrary to Administrator Jackson’s assertions, using the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 would likely be the most expensive environmental regulation in history and will bypass the legislative process completely. While some Members of Congress undoubtedly support the EPA’s attempt to curb global warming, the fact that unelected and unaccountable EPA bureaucrats are trying to use backdoor rulemaking to reduce carbon dioxide makes it all the more objectionable. Read article.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
