- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
October 29, 2009
Exclusive: Oval Office Watch – Thursday, October 29
ObamaCare Taxes..........so far SEE HERE.
New network to bring tomorrow's news today - Read funny satire HERE.
“It’s not that the Emperor has no clothes; it’s that the clothes have no Emperor!” CLICK HERE.
Dismantling America - Will the country wake up before it’s too late?
Thomas Sowell, NRO.com
Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many “czars” appointed by the president, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?
Did you think that another “czar” would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers — that is, to create a situation where some newspapers’ survival would depend on the government’s liking what they publish?
Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called “experts” deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?
Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life-and-death decisions about your loved ones?
Does any of this sound like America? Read article.
It's Time for Obama to Get a Clue
Lauri B. Regan, American Thinker.com
If the Obama administration took as much time to focus on the issues of the day as it does to attack its critics, this country might actually be headed in a different direction - the right direction. It is becoming tiresome to open a newspaper, sign onto the Internet, or turn on the television and read or hear about the most recent inane attacks by Obama, Gibbs, Emmanuel, or any of the other radical administration spokesmen who have an implausible theory on what they perceive as their adversaries' contributions to the downfall of the country.
If Obama and his Chicago thugs simply focused on the country's real enemies rather than American citizens and institutions which provide constructive criticism and honest discourse on the policies emanating from the White House, effective policy might be put in place which would advance an agenda supported by a true majority of citizens. But rather, we see an administration so focused on what, in its paranoid state, it perceives as enemies, that all of its energies are centered on discrediting Bush and Cheney, Fox News, talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, town hall attendees, tea party organizers, health insurance companies, Wall Street executives, and a sundry other groups not yet in their pockets.
I don't know about the rest of the American citizens, but I'm getting pretty sick of watching the Obamas spend our tax dollars going out on date nights, hosting gala affairs at the White House, dancing a jig to whatever latest ethnic music group fills their politically correct agenda, traveling the world caving to the country's true enemies, and perpetually campaigning while the country is going to pot. Enough of blaming Bush for every wrong in the world. What was the point of taking on the presidency if they didn't have a plan to turn the country in the right direction and help American citizens better their lives? Did they think it was going to be easy? Read article.
Time to Use the "C" Word
Laura Hollis, Townhall - October 16, 2008
Like clockwork, Obama apologists and handlers are trying to assuage the public’s concerns with assurances that Obama is “not that radical;” he knows that “socialism is dead;” he is a pragmatist, not an ideologue.
Uh-huh. Sure. Well, they got the “pragmatist” part right, anyway. Obama’s immersion in the philosophy of Saul Alinsky has made him a master of political pragmatism. Conservatives make another fundamental error when they wonder why Obama is heralding policies like higher taxes that have been proven, time and time again, to fail. Newsflash: You don’t get it. It’s not that Obama is ignorant, or misguided. He knows – as do his Red backers – that the policies he espouses will cause further economic trauma. This is deliberate. Because the worse things get, the more receptive the public will be to Obama’s & Co.’s honey-tongued assurances that the government will step in and “make it all better.” Look at Hurricane Katrina, and the recent financial crisis: how many people were clamoring for the government to “do something”? And that’s nothing compared to what we’re going to face when Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid collapse.
Obama’s colleagues are shrewd; they know that they have little chance of taking over all of private enterprise by force. Instead, they want the public to hand it over to them, bit by bit.
Even the briefest study of Communist Party ideology dating back to the 1930s reveals a concerted campaign to infiltrate and destroy the United States from within, by gaining control of the universities, of the media, of primary and secondary school, of the courts, and ultimately the entire government. Joseph McCarthy’s monumentally bad rap notwithstanding, dozens of former spies have come forward, as have the documents, attesting to the Party’s intentions. When the Soviet Union fell in 1989, those ideas pretty much went the way of the dodo in Russia, but they have been alive and well in this country for 80 years. People like William Ayers are proof.
We are outraged by the army of children in Sudan, but think nothing of American black boys in camouflage pumping their fists and chanting propaganda from Obama’s campaign. We are repulsed by some dictators’ claims that they are gods, but shrug it off as insignificant when Louis Farrakhan – a vicious anti-semite, among other reprehensible things – says “the Messiah is speaking” in a speech referring to Obama.
Still don’t think it can happen here? Well, you’re in good company. Neither did the Russians. Or the Germans. Or the Chinese. Or the North Koreans. Or the Vietnamese. Or the Cubans. Or the Cambodians. Read article.
They’re ALL Communists
Laura Hollis, Townhall.com
Back when people were tippy-toeing around the “s” word (“socialist”), and before he was elected, I called out Obama’s basic political inclinations for what they are - communist.
Though plenty pooh-poohed this, and called it extreme or unsubstantiated, there was ample proof in Obama’s own writings, his interviews, and the political leanings of his mentors (Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshall Davis), his pastor (Jeremiah Wright) and his friends. It’s absurd to hear people say now that Obama is governing differently than he campaigned. If you think that, you weren’t listening.
But those who still harbor any doubts need only look at his team of “advisors.”
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn is the most recent Obamirror. In the address so many have been airing recently, she offered Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong as an inspiration to students who might need to “figure out how to do things that have never been done before.” Well, golly - a man who “figured out” how to murder 70 million Chinese certainly gets points for novelty.
Before Dunn, it was ousted “green jobs czar” Van Jones, a self-admitted communist.
“Science czar” John Holdren has written of the possible need (and constitutionality) of mandatory sterilization and forced abortions to forestall whatever crisis du jour he and his colleagues Paul and Anne Ehrlich were predicting back in the 1970s (The coming ice age! Catastrophic food shortages! Death to billions!)
“Regulatory czar” Cass Sunstein has argued in favor of government regulations banning hunting and eating meat, humans representing animals in court to protect their “rights,” government intervention to ensure that the “constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals,” (whatever those are) and “libertarian paternalism,” whereby government controls the choices you make. (Late comedian George Carlin would have had a field day with that oxymoronic suggestion.) Read article.
Hillary Reborn: At State, as in the Senate, she often talks softly—but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t carry a big stick.
John Heilemann, New York Magazine.com
Hillary Clinton was on the trot again this week, with an itinerary that took her from Zurich to London to Dublin to Belfast to Moscow and a nonstop schedule of diplomatizing on topics ranging from the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations to the Iranian nuclear crisis. But the headlines Hillary generated back home—and there were plenty of them—had precious little to do with her official duties as secretary of State.
They were about her disclamation of any interest in a future presidential bid. About her insistence that she really (really!) is Barack Obama’s foreign-policy supremo. About the new Gallup numbers showing that Hillary is now more popular than Obama, which represents a truly stunning nineteen-point swing since the start of the year. About Hillary qua Hillary, in other words.
The sudden Clinton clamor in the media strikes the ear as especially cacophonous in light of how quiet she has been for most of her nine months in her new job. And the sound of silence out of State, in turn, has given rise to a clear conventional wisdom about Hillary’s role in Obamaville, which is part of what she was reacting to in her interviews with NBC and ABC this week. The CW, put succinctly, is that Hillary is a virtual nonentity in the administration: that in terms of political status, she ranks in the second tier, and that when it comes to policy sway, she has been out-barked and out-bitten by the pack of alpha dogs that the president has installed around her.
It’s easy enough to understand this interpretation of Clinton’s standing. After her soap-operatic campaign, the absence of drama around HRC creates cognitive dissonance for the punditocracy and other Beltway tea-leaf readers. Yet the truth is that the conventional wisdom is wrong, I think, in both its particulars and its overall verdict. And not just wrong but illustrative of a set of misapprehensions about how the woman thinks and operates. Read article.
Nine Months Into Obama's Presidency, Hillary Clinton Still Citing ‘Inherited’ Problems
Patrick Goodenough, CNS News.com
From the time he entered the White House, President Obama frequently has spoken about having “inherited” an economic mess, and he has been criticized for it. But the expression arguably has been used even more often by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Nine months later, it is a theme she returns to regularly at home and abroad.
During her most recent trip, a six-day visit to Western Europe and Russia earlier this month, Clinton used the phrase publicly at least four times on three occasions.
At a joint press conference with her British counterpart David Miliband in London on October 11, she said with regard to Afghanistan, “We have been in office about nine months. We obviously believe that the prior eight years were not as effective or focused as they might have been … our challenge has been to take what we inherited…”
The following day, during a BBC Radio interview, she said, “I think there has been to some extent, inherited from our prior involvement in Afghanistan, a lack of clarity.” A few moments later she added, “We also don’t want to continue doing what we inherited.”
In Russia on October 14, Clinton said during a town hall event at Moscow State University, “We are making an in-depth review of our policy in Afghanistan. There were some things that we inherited from the prior administration …” Read article.
The Window of Opportunity is Now Closed and Locked Down: Passing Goldstone Resolution Marks End of Peace Process Era
Barry Rubin, Gloria-Center.org
The UN Human Rights Council has now endorsed the Goldstone Report. There are important implications to this decision that make it a turning point.
It means the first make or break test for Obama's foreign policy. There is no easy way out. The president must either block a disastrous UN resolution through effective diplomacy in the UN corridors, accept a bad resolution in order to avoid a confrontation, or veto such a resolution an accept the price in unpopularity. Oh, and it also marks the end of the peace process era that began in 1993, showing both sides why they don't want a compromise deal.
Of course, it says a great deal about the nature of international affairs nowadays. What does it say about the UN that it condemns Israel but says not a word and does not a deed against Hamas, which is guilty of aggression, terrorism, seizure of power by force, calls for genocide, anti-semitism, indoctrination of children to become suicide bombers, oppression of women, systematic use of civilians as human shields, and a range of war crimes.
Trying to present the Goldstone report in a more favorable light, Western media overstated its “evenhandedness,” playing up a few mentions of Hamas to pretend that both sides in the conflict were condemned. The UNRC drops this pretense and only speaks of Israel, totally removing the factors that forced a reluctant Israel to launch an operation on the Gaza Strip.
This is not merely another of the many ritual condemnations of Israel but a demonization. Israel is now accused of massive war crimes on a remarkably flimsy basis. Of course it is all political but this is a step toward de-legitimization. The Arabic-speaking, Muslim-majority, and left-wing governments that supported the resolution see this as a step not toward a compromise peace but an elimination of Israel altogether. Read article.
Counterinsurgency Doctrine and the Global Jihad
Jim Sauer, American Thinker.com
There have been some phony arguments put forth for another "surge" in Afghanistan. We need not a surge of troops, we merely need to let our forces there do what needs to be done - kill the enemy.
There is this misconception about Afghanistan in particular (and Islam in general) that somehow we can bring Central Asia (and the rest of the Islamic world) kicking and screaming into the 21st Century through good will. This is simply not the case. There is no amount of money to spend, infrastructure to build, schools to provide, hospitals to heal, or good will that Americans can display toward the Afghan people that will produce a lasting effect. I was once told by an accomplished Afghan intelligence analyst that, "you can rent an Afghan, but you can't buy him."
The hard fact is that the "hearts and minds" of the Afghan "people" are not for sale! The descendants of "The Great Khan" and their tribal cousins have no interest in being Westernized in any way. And, the human sewers that serve as their political leadership can only be rented. Americans are interlopers in a land where interlopers generally have their heads lopped off.
Nobody read their Kipling. (I know, "who or what was Kipling?" Look it up.) Americans do not know their own history (except the spun trash that passes for "social studies" in our heavily leftist high schools) much less the history of Afghanistan. And, this includes our political leadership! Ask an American on the street -- or a congressman in the House -- to point to Afghanistan on a map, and they will probably start with their finger cautiously orbiting somewhere over Rhode Island. Read article.
It's Not a War Against FOX News
AJ DiCintio, NMJ.us
In the fifties, a corps of legal commandos began carrying out an insidious mission to achieve what FDR’s open blitz of 1937 could not, thereby beginning what would become the successful establishment of liberal judicial activism as a legitimate, constitutional practice of jurisprudence not just at the Supreme Court but in the public consciousness.
In the Presidential Campaign of 1964, liberal tacticians launched a missile called “Daisy Ad” to fire the first shot in a nationwide propaganda campaign that to this day — from kindergarten to higher education to the workplace to the nursing home — equates the word “conservative” with the idea of extremism.
Throughout the first half of the 20th century, devout liberal generals dogmatically quoted gobbledygook from the Bible of the Liberal Church when they were asked why mass murdering leftists such as Stalin and Mao, intellectual buffoons such as Marx, and pipsqueak gangsters such as Ché and Castro deserve praise that ought never be afforded a Hitler, Coughlin, or Pinochet.
Then, in ’68, those five-star leaders declared that their bible enjoins every liberal to extend the special treatment to all leftist ideologues, even uncommonly vulgar, suburban-born, bourgeois-bred punks.
In true goose step fashion, their perfectly obedient army of liberal salvationists immediately began defending the thugs as victims of “Gestapo tactics” carried out by “pigs” — until the generals decreed it is more effective to perform the filthy work underground and thus delegated it to the ACLU and liberal judges.
Finally, with ever increasing frequency since ’68, liberal politicians, media figures, professors, artistes, and Joe Blows have labored mightily not just to defeat but to annihilate perceived political enemies by viciously carpet bombing them with the latest bombe du jour — the most common among this fetid ordnance being racist, fascist, extremist, anti-intellectual, anti-immigrant, anti-Constitution, mob, evil-monger, and, supreme irony of ironies, anti-choice and un-American.
Those are the tactics employed in the war liberals have been waging since the fifties. Read article.
Fox News Reaches Across Party Lines
Morris & McGann, Vote.com
Is FOX News "an arm of the Republican Party" as White House Communications Director Anita Dunn says?
Democratic and Independent voters beg to differ. A national survey shows that 46% of those who watch FOX News "just about every day" are Democrats or Independents as are 50% of those who watch it "several times each week" or more.
Overall, the survey showed that 21% of all American voters watched FOX News every day and 18% watched it several times each week. So, combined, 39% watched the station several times each week or more.
• Among Democrats, 17% watched it several times each week or more
• Among Independents, 46% the station several times each week or more
• And among Republicans, 55% tuned in several times each week or more
The survey indicated that 11% of all American voters watched CNN "just about every day" and 20% watched several times each week or more.
Combined, 31% watched CNN several times each week or more. Read article.
McChrystal: Watch Your Left Flank
Rowan Scarborough, Human Events.com
The political Left is now attacking Gen. Stanley McChrystal over his proposed troop surge in Afghanistan in the same way it tried to besmirch the character of Gen. David Petraeus when he promoted the successful Iraq reinforcement.
The lesson: when a four-star commander wants to win a war with more troops they get profiled by the Left as betrayers, rogues and liars. With Petraeus, they failed. Will McChrystal fare as well?
Everyone should remember the infamous 2007 newspaper ad from MoveOn.org, the hard Left advocacy group that posted a video showing George W. Bush transforming into Hitler.
In Petraeus' case, MoveOn was a bit kinder. It only depicted him as a traitor to his country. "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" the ad said. "Cooking the books for the White House."
Today, it is McChrystal who must watch his Left flank, getting flack from the same type of leftists who applauded former Gen. Eric Shinseki for publicly saying the U.S. needed more troops for an Iraq invasion. Read article.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
