- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
November 3, 2009
Exclusive: Oval Office Watch – Wednesday, November 4
Controversial New Video of Obama’s Pastor - SEE HERE.
Obama's Fight to Win or Lose
Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard.com
The easy life is about to end for President Obama. For the first time, he can't defer or delegate or depend on the media to bail him out. He has to stand and fight for the policy that defines his presidency--liberal health care reform. And the fight won't be pleasant.
Obama is exactly where he didn't expect to be. His popularity has declined at a record rate. His supposed power of persuasion has turned out to be nonexistent. More Americans oppose his health care initiative than support it. And Republicans are prepared to combat him and Democrats on every major provision of it.
The large Democratic majorities in the Senate and House may look overwhelming, but they're not. At least a half-dozen Democratic senators are queasy about Obama-style reform. If two of them bolt, Republicans should be assured of the 41 votes that would block a motion to end debate on the legislation. If only a single renegade Democrat emerges, that will suffice so long as all 40 Republican senators, including Maine's Olympia Snowe, hang together.
There's less for Obama to worry about in the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi can afford to lose about 40 Democrats and still pass Obamacare. Yet there is significant uneasiness in her ranks. When Democrats met last week, 47 said they're opposed to the bill, and four or five sneaked out of the room to avoid declaring themselves. Pelosi softened it ever-so-slightly, and Republicans figure she'll have the votes for passage.
The Senate is the battleground. Read article.
The First Step Into A Thousand Years Of Darkness
J.D. Longstreet, FaultlineUSA.Blogspot.com
This is a sad time in world history. The “Shining City on a Hill,” so often referred to by Ronald Reagan, has fallen.
The great American Spirit has been broken by a socialist government, which feeds on power and has neither love nor concern for its people. Just power, raw political power, and they’ll do whatever is necessary to maintain their grasp on that power.
Is this the way the greatest nation ever to exist in the history of the planet goes out… on bended knee, with heads bowed, and necks bared to the blade of a government grown fat and ugly on raw power? Is this it? Or… do we rise up, in righteous anger, and take our government back from those whose thirst for power has taken the USA to the brink of extinction as a nation?
Or… do we rise up, in righteous anger, and take our government back from those whose thirst for power has taken the USA to the brink of extinction as a nation? Read article.
Liberals: America’s Termites
Burt Prelutsky. Blogspot.com
Back when I was a kid, the two major fears in America revolved around polio and Communism. Because the first disease was so prevalent and so often fatal prior to the miraculous cures wrought by Dr. Albert Sabin and Dr. Jonas Salk, neither of whom managed to garner a Nobel Prize for their heroic efforts, children were kept out of public swimming pools and were discouraged from having too much physical activity. It’s a wonder that our entire generation didn’t grow up to be hypochondriacs because if you were even slightly fatigued or had an aching back or a stiff neck, anguished parents started measuring you for an iron lung.
The second disease, Communism, created its own form of hysteria. During the late 40s and early 50s, we had A-bomb drills in public schools. We grammar school kids were led to believe that in case the Russians hit L.A. with an atomic bomb, we would be safe so long as we dropped to the floor and huddled beneath our desks with our hands clasped tightly behind our necks. As everyone knows, there’s nothing better than tiny hands to ward off the effects of atomic radiation. To this day, I wonder who came up with that particular brainstorm.
On the off-chance that the Russkies elected not to vaporize us, a lot of people were convinced that the plan to prevent tooth decay by introducing fluoride into our reservoirs was a Commie plot. The fluoride, we were warned, would turn our brains to mush and make us easy prey for the Soviet Menace. It’s taken about 60 years, but I am now convinced that the scaremongers were right. How else to explain American liberals except by accepting that the Commies contaminated our water supply?
The fact that most Americans haven’t turned into brain-dead zombies muttering “hope…change…hope…change” like those scary creatures in horror movies only goes to prove that people have different tolerances to tainted water, just as they do to alcohol, various viruses and Barack Obama’s voice.
I mean, seriously, when Obama, during the campaign, spoke about judging him by the people he surrounded himself with, he pointed to Richard Lugar, Joe Biden and Warren Buffett, while drawing the curtain on Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi. These days, though, he surrounds himself with such visitors from a strange planet as Van Jones, Jeff Jones and Sass Sunstein. I’m just wondering if it’s still okay for us to judge him by his associates. Read article.
President Obama Is More Steamroller than Change Agent
Terry Paulson, Townhall.com
Even with all the awards and accolades our president has already received for "talking about" change, hope, diplomacy and peace, President Obama seems to know little about being a change agent, about building hope in anything but getting a government stimulus "bailout," or about seeking "peace" through bipartisan diplomacy with those Americans who disagree with his policies.
He's eager for diplomatic talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez, but talking to Fox News, that evil conservative cable network, is just out of the question. He says that he's everyone's president, except of course those "Tea Party" radicals controlled by conservative talk-show hosts.
For all his silvery talk about openness, transparency and bipartisanship, President Obama is acting more like a Chicago political-machine steamroller-"It's my way, or you become part of the highway!" Read article.
Deja vu! Russians arming Cuba's military: Plans include sensitive electronic eavesdropping station 90 miles from U.S.
Joseph Farah, WND.com
Russia is offering to modernize Cuba's deteriorating weapons systems – installed when the former Soviet Union was expanding worldwide – and it also wants to reactivate a sensitive electronic eavesdropping station on the nearby island at Lourdes, use Cuba as a base to refuel its bombers and a port to replenish supplies on its warships, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
These developments emerged following the visit to Cuba in late September by Gen. Nikolai Makarov, chief of the Russian General Staff. Makarov met with Cuban President Raul Castro in Havana.
Cuba's Soviet-made military equipment has been falling apart. After an assessment, the Russian military has decided to undertake a comprehensive modernization. In addition, the Cuban army also will receive Russian military training.
Cuba is only 90 miles south of Florida, where the U.S. has considerable military facilities which the Russians could easily monitor.
"We inspected the condition of this equipment, and outlined the measures to be taken to maintain the defense capability of this country," Makarov said. "I think a lot of work needs to be done in this respect, and I hope we will be able to accomplish this task." Read article.
Czar-Struck
Michael Maiello, RuthfullyYours.com
Soon after being elected president of the United States, Barack Obama and his cadre of hand-selected experts and advisers began to infiltrate the federal government to an alarming degree. In a series of deft maneuvers cloaked in publicity, Obama seemed to suggest that elections have consequences: He appointed cabinet officials to help run government agencies and all manner of special advisers called “czars” as his public counsel on topics ranging from the economy to national security to energy.
The count varies (high seems to be 32) but Sen. Joe Lieberman, Democrat-ish, Conn., and Sen. Susan Collins, actual Republican, Maine, of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs committees, seem to think Obama has “at least 18″ czars–and senators are concerned about it. Czars, you see, don’t have to be confirmed by the Senate; the president can simply pick whoever he wants to listen to. Of course, czars can’t make laws, which is why they don’t need the vetting. It’s up to Obama to take or leave the advice of his friends or colleagues.
The Senate is worried that the president is using all of these czars to circumvent congressional authority. In short, they think the executive branch is over-reaching. Yes, that’s right, the body of lawmakers that doesn’t think “Homeland Security and Government Affairs” is too broad a mandate for any one committee does think the president is over-reaching by choosing who he thinks will be able to answer questions about the myriad of responsibilities that ultimately fall on the guy with the password to the presidential BlackBerry.
These senators have succumbed to “czaranoia”–the insane belief that making Larry Summers your economic adviser will somehow grant you extra-constitutional powers. For his part, Obama suffers from Seasonal Defective Disorder, which is the insane belief that Larry Summers–who kind of caused the financial mess in the first place–is the guy to help get Citigroup and Bank of America off the government dole. Read article.
W.H. tells Congress that policy 'Czars' won't testify
Stephen Dinan, WaTimes.com
The White House has told Congress it will reject calls for many of President Obama's policy czars to testify before Congress - a decision senators said goes against the president's promises of transparency and openness and treads on Congress' constitutional mandate to investigate the administration's actions.
Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, said White House counsel Greg Craig told her in a meeting Wednesday that they will not make available any of the czars who work in the White House and don't have to go through Senate confirmation. She said he was "murky" on whether other czars outside of the White House would be allowed to come before Congress.
Miss Collins said that doesn't make sense when some of those czars are actually making policy or negotiating on behalf of Mr. Obama.
"I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar, Carol Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the negotiations she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant policy changes with regard to emissions standards," Miss Collins said at a hearing Thursday that examined the proliferation of czars.
The debate goes to the heart of weighty constitutional issues about separation of powers. Read article.
Civilian Courts Are No Place to Try Terrorists
Michael B. Mukasey, Online WSJ.com
The Obama administration has said it intends to try several of the prisoners now detained at Guantanamo Bay in civilian courts in this country. This would include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and other detainees allegedly involved. The Justice Department claims that our courts are well suited to the task.
Based on my experience trying such cases, and what I saw as attorney general, they aren't. That is not to say that civilian courts cannot ever handle terrorist prosecutions, but rather that their role in a war on terror—to use an unfashionably harsh phrase—should be, as the term "war" would suggest, a supporting and not a principal role.
The challenges of a terrorism trial are overwhelming. To maintain the security of the courthouse and the jail facilities where defendants are housed, deputy U.S. marshals must be recruited from other jurisdictions; jurors must be selected anonymously and escorted to and from the courthouse under armed guard; and judges who preside over such cases often need protection as well. All such measures burden an already overloaded justice system and interfere with the handling of other cases, both criminal and civil.
Moreover, there is every reason to believe that the places of both trial and confinement for such defendants would become attractive targets for others intent on creating mayhem, whether it be terrorists intent on inflicting casualties on the local population, or lawyers intent on filing waves of lawsuits over issues as diverse as whether those captured in combat must be charged with crimes or released, or the conditions of confinement for all prisoners, whether convicted or not.
Even after conviction, the issue is not whether a maximum-security prison can hold these defendants; of course it can. But their presence even inside the walls, as proselytizers if nothing else, is itself a danger. Read article.
Dithering, Flitting & Caterwauling Is Not Leadership
Peter Lemiska, NMJ.us
It was nearly a year ago when Americans, inspired by the words of a different, perhaps even revolutionary presidential candidate, flocked to the polls to hand him the keys to the White House. His speeches were always undeniably moving and uplifting, and many voters at that time, having grown weary of the war in Iraq and distrustful of the Bush Administration, were eager to embrace this inspirational agent for change, despite the obvious voids in his resume.
They were filled with hope by his promises, promises like a new openness and transparency in government, an end to partisan bickering and to corruption in government, a unified and prosperous America, and a renewed respect for our country on the world stage.
While some remaining Obamaphiles have dutifully written off all those promises, many of those who once supported him have learned that a silver tongued politician is, after all, still just a politician. But broken promises aside, what have we learned about the man’s character and leadership since he took office?
During the campaign, Obama maintained that the engagement in Afghanistan was a “necessary war.” In March of this year, he boldly reaffirmed his commitment there by announcing, “So let me be clear: al Qaeda and its allies – the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks – are in Pakistan and Afghanistan…And 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.” He went on to say “I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”
Later in June, Obama appointed respected Army General Stanley McChrystal to take control and evaluate the situation in Afghanistan. The general quickly determined that things were worse than expected, and without the infusion of at least 40,000 additional troops, Afghanistan could be lost. Though his official report was only recently acknowledged by the White House, everyone has been aware of the contents for some time.
So being the man that he is, Obama made the toughest decision of his life. He decided to delay his decision. He found a lifeline of sorts in the recent corrupt election in Afghanistan, so he can now cautiously suggest that any military action must be linked to a stable Afghan government.
But could it be that this newfound caution is more closely tied to his seething far left base than to the corrupt Afghan government? After all, Obama had been well aware of the problems with that government since taking office. He acknowledged that in his March speech, noting that “Afghanistan has an elected government, but it is undermined by corruption...”
While some individuals thrive on the responsibility that comes with leadership, others slink away from it. And as president, Obama has countless opportunities to slink away. He can spend time bantering with David Letterman, or jet off to Copenhagen to lobby the IOC. Or he can deliver countless assorted speeches across the country, or attend fundraisers – 23 of them since taking office. And so, a career military officer who knows how to win this war is left waiting.
And so, a career military officer who knows how to win this war is left waiting. Read article.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
