- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
October 28, 2009
Exclusive: Oval Office Watch – Wednesday, October 28
Obamadrama - SEE HERE.
Obama tries to fight the system. One wonders when it'll dawn on him that he is the system.
James Taranto, Best of the Web, WSJ.com
It diminishes the president for him to act as media critic. As Obama himself suggested in trying to dodge Savannah Guthrie's question, why isn't he concentrating on the economy, Afghanistan and other matters that are actually part of his job? Eric Burns of MediaMutters.org makes the point, hilariously if unwittingly, in a Puffington Host post:
The issue is not whether it was a good idea politically for the White House to say that the emperor has no clothes. The issue is that the emperor actually has no clothes. In other words, the administration's comments about Fox News aren't the story. Fox News is the story.
In Burns's rendition of "The Emperor's New Clothes," the president of the United States is cast in the role of the innocent child who isn't afraid to observe that the emperor is naked. That seems to get the fable exactly backward. Of course, for a professional ankle-biter like Burns, Fox News is the emperor--i.e., a vastly more powerful and important institution than MediaMutters. But it doesn't seem to occur to Burns that he diminishes the president by bringing him down to his own level--perhaps because the president has been so busy diminishing himself of late.
Which brings us back to Alinsky, and this quote from the "Rules for Radicals" prologue:
What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.
For an example of how the Have-Nots are capitalizing on Alinsky's insights, read our Weekend Interview with Andrew Breitbart, the Internet entrepreneur who masterminded the publicity campaign that made the Acorn scandal into a story the media couldn't ignore.
But Alinskyite tactics are of no use to Obama. As president of the United States, he is the ultimate Have. Maybe he is wearing an exquisite suit of clothes, but Obama doesn't seem to have a clue that he is the emperor. Read article.
Media Discovering that Obama Balloon a Hoax
Monte Kuligowski, American Thinker.com
The image was that of a post-partisan, post-racial, post-divisive, really nice guy.
But it is becoming clear that those adjectives don’t really apply to the man found hiding in the attic.
In keeping with the Heene saga what remains is for a teary-eyed David Axelrod to tell reporters that they should have seen the signs all along.
If not for the Obama mania, the soaring rhetoric, the messianic frenzy, the tingling legs, the false hope, the thronging, the fainting, the gushing, the emotionalism, the fawning, the hype, the rapture, the delusion, etc., the news reporters would have noticed.
They should have noticed that the man didn’t come out of Middle America, but out of the crooked streets of Chicago-machine politics. They should have noticed his associates were not exactly normal Americans. They should have noticed it wasn’t guilt by association, but guilt by associating. They should have noticed that remaining in Jeremiah Wright’s racist, divisive, anti-American church for 20 years was simply not reasonable. They should have noticed the countless, wonderful black churches across America that have nothing to do with “black liberation theology” and vile divisiveness. Read article.
President Obama Chooses Decline for America
Peter Ferrara, Spectator.org
"Decline Is a Choice: The New Liberalism and the End of American Ascendancy." That was the title of the devastating critique of Obama Administration foreign, defense, and domestic policies delivered by Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer at the annual Wriston Lecture at the Manhattan Institute in New York City on October 5.
Krauthammer responds to commentators arguing that America is suffering overdue, inevitable decline, saying, "For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline -- or continued ascendancy -- is in our hands."
And what are our leaders deciding? Krauthammer quite correctly explains, "The current liberal ascendancy in the United States -- controlling the executive and both houses of Congress, dominating the media and elite culture -- has set us on a course for decline. And this is true for both foreign and domestic policies."
President Obama and the ultraliberal leadership of Congress are now pursuing policies that will by design produce major declines in the standard of living of the American people. They are pursuing a foreign policy of worldwide retreat. They are actively tearing down our nation's defenses. Krauthammer is sounding the alarm for the American people to wake up. Read article.
Obama Abandons Abused Women in Afghanistan
Warner Todd Huston, Publius Forum.com
President Barack Obama is putting the finishing touches on making a mockery out of the unsupportable claim that Democrats care about women’s rights by his signal to the Afghan Taliban, warlords, strongmen, militias, and tribal leaders that he’s ready to negotiate with anyone there in order to smooth his efforts in that troubled region.
President Obama is letting it be known that he’s prepared to cut deals with the Taliban in order for Afghan warlords to cut ties with al Qaeda. Obama thinks he can work with the supposedly “moderate” Taliban groups in Afghanistan in a bid to oust al Qaeda. A Taliban moderate. What sort of mythical creature is this?
One thing is sure, however, if Obama turns Afghanistan back over to the Taliban and other Islamic warlords in an effort to make it appear as if he’s had success there, women will be the hardest hit. The possibility that Obama will abandon Afghanistan’s women frightens Wazhma Frogh, an Afghan women’s advocate who received the U.S. State Department’s 2009 International Woman of Courage Award.
As an Afghan woman who for many years lived a life deprived of the most basic human rights, I find unbearable the thought of what will happen to the women of my country if it once again falls under the control of the insurgents and militants who now threaten it.
Since the American efforts in Afghanistan began women have been most favorably affected. Human rights for women have advanced immeasurably there since 2001 but much, much more needs to be done. After all, centuries of abuse and entrenched attitudes that women are barely even human have to be overcome. That doesn’t happen in so short a time unless support for change is upheld and if the U.S. leaves Afghanistan all support for change will go with it. Read article.
Envoy Holbrooke missing from Afghan talks
Jon Ward, Washington Times.com
President Obama called Richard Holbrooke "one of the most talented diplomats of his generation" when he named the globe-trotting foreign policy expert to be special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. But 10 months later, Mr. Holbrooke was anchored in Washington and far from the front lines of diplomacy that led to Tuesday's Afghan election deal.
The Obama administration used other intermediaries to apply the pressure that got Afghan President Hamid Karzai to agree to a runoff after fraud-tainted elections.
And when Mr. Obama praised his diplomatic team for its success, Mr. Holbrooke's name was pointedly missing. There was high praise for U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry and "great congratulations" to Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, who met with Mr. Karzai.
Mr. Holbrooke's absence on the world stage in recent weeks has raised questions about his role going forward. Read article.
Hard Choices for the Environmentalist Movement
Patrick Moore, Green spirit.com
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:
· It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a "cancer" on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be "good" if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.
· It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and "unnatural'. The Sierra Club's recent book, "Clearcut: the Tragedy of Industrial Forestry", is an excellent example of this perspective. "Western industrial society" is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word "Nature" is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to "find our place" in the world through "shamanic journeying" and "swaying with the trees". Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with. Read article.
Price fixing does not solve cost problems
Ed Morrissey, Hot Air.com
Fixing prices does not lower costs. Let me repeat that: fixing prices does not lower costs. “Costs” are borne by providers, who get reimbursed by either consumers (in a rational market) or by third parties (American health care) for their goods and/or services. In a competitive market, providers have to set their prices at an attractive level in order to get business without missing out on profit opportunities, but their prices have to cover their costs — or they go out of business.
Not coincidentally, the latter is what happens when price-fixing is used. When government fixes the price of goods and services, it usually does so to mask costs, not reduce them. This is what Medicare has done for years, which is why doctors avoid Medicare patients now. When the fixed price becomes less than the actual cost to provide the service, the provider is forced out of business.
And what Medicare reimbursement schedule does the House use to show those cost savings, anyway? Would that be the schedule that will start dramatically cutting reimbursements over the next few years? Or will it use the Stabenow bill in the Senate that would eliminate those cuts, and which the Senate also ignored when calculating the cost of the Baucus bill? Read article.
Middle East: Things Look Catastrophic but It Will Work Out, Why I'm Optimistic
Barry Rubin, Gloria-Center.org
Let’s examine two aspects of the situation: Israel-Palestinian (and Arab-Israeli) along with the effort of Islamists to seize power in Muslim majority countries. By the way, it is the second—not the first—of those two topics is by far the most important in the Middle East, arguably the most important issue for our entire era. Then we'll say a few words about President Barack Obama's learning opportunity.
Israel-Palestinian
Despite all the sound and fury—note this well—absolutely nothing has changed on this issue since the end of the Gaza war in January. The Palestinian side is intransigent and has no interest in serious negotiations, therefore these go nowhere. Hamas has been intimidated into virtually stopping its attacks on Israel. (Note to Western leaders: force still works at achieving reasonable goals.) Israel’s morale and national unity is relatively high; the economy continues to do well, especially in light of the international recession.
A potential crisis in U.S.-Israel relations has been brilliantly defused by the Israeli government. The Obama Administration has still not taken—despite a lot of questionable verbiage—any material step against Israel. The West wants to pretend it is negotiating peace but won’t devote much real effort to doing so.
Therefore, all this talk of freezing construction, final status negotiations, Western pressure, Palestinian threats, and so on has amounted to absolutely nothing in practice.
What is the long-term prospect? On one hand, there will be decades more—an entire generation at least—without formal peace. Yet that doesn’t mean war either but rather a status quo punctuated by sporadic low- to medium-level violence. The biggest danger, a Hamas takeover of the West Bank, has been pushed back. Israel’s defensive capacity grows steadily stronger. Life will go on. Read article.
American Idea
Walter E. Williams, Townhall.com
Americans are harder workers, more philanthropic, individualistic, self-reliant, anti-government than people in most other countries. We’ve turned what was an 18th-century Third World nation into the freest and most prosperous nation in mankind’s entire history. Throughout our history, United States has been a magnet for immigrants around the world. What accounts for what some have called American exceptionalism?
We Americans, as human beings, are no different from any other people, including Germans, Russians, Chinese, Africans and other people who have produced tyrannical regimes such as those of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Idi Amin. As such we are just as capable of committing acts of gross evil that have been a part of mankind throughout his history. We’ve not been a perfect nation but we’ve never approached the level of hideousness seen in other nations. That’s despite the fact that our population consists of people who have for centuries been trying to slaughter one another in their home countries, whether it’s between the French and Germans, English and Irish, Japanese and Chinese, or Palestinians and Jews, Igbos and the Hausa of Nigeria. Thrown into the American mosaic are religions that have been in conflict for centuries such as Catholic and Protestant, and Christian and Muslim. The question is: Why is the United States an exception and will it remain so?
At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today’s Americans. Read article.
Jimmy Carter Vs. Barack Obama
Bruce Kesler, Maggie's Farm.com
It’s time for Jimmy Carter to take on Barack Obama on the issue of human rights. I don’t expect that to happen but it is clearly called for. Even Jimmy Carter doesn’t deserve for Barack Obama to be called the most incompetent president since Jimmy Carter. Barack Obama is worse.
I often surprise critics of Jimmy Carter’s presidency by reminding them he returned US foreign policy to an emphasis on human rights, and that laid a foundation for Ronald Reagan’s successes in reaffirming American dedication and actions to support those who fought to stay freer and to ultimately dismantle the Soviet Union and its Iron Curtain.
Skipping Carter’s own excesses of idealism and grave mistakes in executing foreign policy, which led to many considering his presidency a disaster and voters rejecting him in 1980, and his descent into outright extremism since then.
Obama isn’t about to listen to conservative critics, indeed he seeks to stifle them. Perhaps he and his acolytes inexperienced in the great moral battles and sacrifices of the Cold War might listen to allies who know better. These former liberal leaders owe that to their own integrity and legacy, or else cooperate in its demise. Read article.
Dem officials set stage for corporate-backed health care campaign
Ken Smith & Kenneth P. Vogel, Politico.com
At a meeting last April with corporate lobbyists, aides to President Barack Obama and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) helped set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups, that has played a key role in bolstering public support for health care reform.
The role Baucus’s chief of staff, Jon Selib, and deputy White House chief of staff Jim Messina played in launching the groups was part of a successful effort by Democrats to enlist traditional enemies of health care reform to their side. No quid pro quo was involved, they insist, as do the lobbyists themselves.
The result has been a somewhat unlikely alliance between an administration that came into power criticizing George W. Bush for his closeness to Big Business and groups such as the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the American Medical Association.
The previously undisclosed meeting April 15 at the offices of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee led to the creation of two groups — Americans for Stable Quality Care and a now-defunct predecessor group called Healthy Economy Now — that have spent tens of millions of dollars on TV advertising supporting health reform efforts. Read article.
All the President's Mavericks
W. James Antle III, Spectator.org
"Forget Sarah Palin," gushed the Associated Press' Laurie Kellman. "The female maverick of the Republican Party is Sen. Olympia Snowe." Soon it reverberated throughout the media echo chamber. "Take note Palin," advised the headline writers of a Delaware newspaper. "Snowe is a true GOP maverick." Asked another paper, "Palin who?"
So began the media lovefest for the liberal Republican senator from Maine after she cast a decisive vote in favor of Sen. Max Baucus's (D-Mont.) version of a national health care bill in the Senate Finance Committee. Snowe is being portrayed as a living embodiment of the Founding Fathers' vision for American government, an amalgamation of Margaret Thatcher and Joan of Arc.
Not even Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz can stomach it. He acknowledged that "Republican defectors tend to get good press especially, as in this case, if they're helping salvage a Democratic president's top domestic priority."
"Imagine the coverage a Democratic senator would have gotten by breaking with his party to help George Bush pass his Social Security plan," Kurtz continued. "No one hailed Joe Lieberman (yes, he's an independent, but he caucuses with the Dems) for turning against Obama on the Baucus bill."
The "maverick" meme was popularized by John McCain and Palin during the 2008 campaign, but it has since become a favorite liberal term of endearment for any Republican willing to follow the president into deepening the federal government's insolvency. And mavericks, like misery, love company. Read article.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
