Exclusive – Oval Office Watch – Wednesday, December 2

by OVAL OFFICE WATCH December 2, 2009
7 stories Obama doesn't want told - GO HERE.
 
Climate Fraud and the Environmental Agenda - SEE HERE.
 
Why Global Warming is Not Science - HERE.
 
Life on the Rogue: Sarah Palin is a force to be reckoned with. CLICK HERE.
 
Why Grovel?
Maj. Gen. Jerry R. Curry (ret), CurryforAmerica.com
 
For some unrevealed reason President Obama finds it necessary to genuflect to the King of Saudi Arabia and then deny that he did it even though it was caught on film. Using the same rationale he did not find it necessary to bow to the Queen of England, yet just a
 
Few weeks ago he felt compelled to bow deeply to the Emperor of Japan petty, yes, mysterious, even more so.
 
Obama knows that as President of the United States when he bows or restrains from bowing to foreign royalty it sends a message. But one has to wonder what message is he trying to send? Perhaps he is indicating a change in the tone of American foreign policy signaling that the U.S. no longer intends to support the dollar as the world’s currency, or perhaps he is signaling that America has wearied of accepting the heavy responsibilities that come with being the world’s only remaining super power?
 
Fortunately our Founding Fathers were made of sterner stuff. In those days America’s leaders projected strength, commitment and passion, not just mere political ambition. Perhaps Obama and his followers are part of a larger problem? Perhaps it is a lack of understanding of what America is and does and who Americans really are and how our Founders viewed life and the world? Could this be why politics in the USA are so broken and petty these days?
 
One has to wonder … Read article.
 
American Presidents Do Not Bow
Susan Dale, Human Events.com
 
George Washington was 6’4” tall. Not only did he have great height, he was a huge man in general. He had extremely broad shoulders, very wide hips, (most likely the cause for his being the preeminent horseman of his age), and a size 13 boot (though boot size in the 18th century was a bit hard to discern, as there were no left and right feet in footwear in late 18th century America). General Washington possessed immense physical strength and fortitude, as well, with a stature and presence so impressive that it was said about him that he “put European princes to shame.”
 
Try as I might, I cannot imagine this man bowing -- not to an emperor, king or Middle East potentate. Not, in fact, to anyone.
 
In representing the nation he was pivotal in creating, it would have been unthinkable to George Washington to shame it by appearing in such a servile manner before another national leader. He was always an elegant and formal man who was ever conscious of his dignity, and equally conscious that what he did as leader of America directly reflected on his nation. Read article.
 
Holder's al Qaeda Incentive Plan
William McGurn, Online WSJ.com
 
When it comes to terrorists, you would think that an al Qaeda operative who targets an American mom sitting in her office or a child on a flight back home is many degrees worse than a Taliban soldier picked up after a firefight with U.S. Army troops.
 
Your instinct would be correct, because at the heart of terrorism is the monstrous idea that the former is as legitimate a target as the latter. Unfortunately, by dispatching Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda leaders to federal criminal court for trial, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will be undermining this distinction. And the perverse message that decision will send to terrorists all over this dangerous world is this: If you kill civilians on American soil you will have greater protections than if you attack our military overseas.
 
"A fundamental purpose of rules such as the Geneva Conventions is to give those at war an incentive for more civilized behavior—and not targeting civilians is arguably the most sacred of these principles," says William Burck, a former federal prosecutor and Bush White House lawyer who dealt with national security issues. "It demolishes this principle to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed even more legal protections than the Geneva Conventions provide a uniformed soldier fighting in a recognized war zone."
 
We don't often speak of incentives in war. That's a loss, because the whole idea of, say, Geneva rights is based on the idea of providing combatants with incentives to do things that help limit the bloodiness of battle. These include wearing a uniform, carrying arms openly, not targeting civilians, and so on.
 
Terrorists recognize none of these things. They are best understood as associations of people plotting and carrying out war crimes, whether that means sowing fear with direct and indiscriminate attacks on marketplaces, offices and airlines—or by engaging enemy troops without distinguishing uniforms, so that the surrounding civilians essentially become used as human shields. Terrorists reject both the laws of war and the laws of American civil society. To put it another way, they reject both the authority and the obligations their legal rights imply.
 
None of this seems to bother Mr. Holder. Read article.
 
Obamacare: Big State Tax Hikes
Dick Morris & Eileen McGann, Townhall.com
 
Anxious to avoid raising taxes too much to pay for their health care proposals, the Obama administration and its congressional allies hit on a great new idea: Make the states raise their taxes to fund the program, instead.
 
Both the House and the Senate bills require that states cover a larger percentage of their people under Medicaid -- a joint state and federally funded program. The idea was to force states to raise their taxes to cover a big part of the health care bill for treating poor people. Since the Feds can simply charge any increase in spending to their already overdrawn bank account, but the states have to balance their budgets, the increased state spending for Medicaid will cause sharp increases in state taxes. And the governors will get the blame, not Obama and not the Congress.
 
The House bill requires states to give Medicaid to those whose incomes are less than 150 percent of the poverty level, while the Senate will settle for only 125 percent. For most states, this is a hefty increase. Read article.
 
Marching off a cliff: Dems' health-care delusion
Rich Lowry, NY Post.com
 
Saturday night's health-care vote in the Senate was a theatrical fizzle. Sure, Majority Leader Harry Reid made senators sit at their desks for their vote to create a sense of "history" -- but everyone knew that he'd get the 60 votes he needed to start debate on ObamaCare.
 
If a $100 million Medicaid payoff to her state wasn't enough to keep Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu bought for at least a few days, there truly is no honor among thieves. Landrieu bragged about her swag, calculating that the "Lousiana Purchase" was really worth $300 million.
 
The two other centrist Democrats whose votes were in doubt -- Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- took refuge in the explanation that they had only a Socratic interest in opening a debate on the bill, and who could be against that?
 
But there was real drama Saturday -- the same drama playing out every day the Democrats persist in the political and fiscal heedlessness that characterizes their push for ObamaCare. It's as if they don't realize that they're led by a marginally popular president (dipping below 50 percent public approval in the Gallup poll last week for the first time), are deeply unpopular themselves and are pushing for legislation that is opposed by more people than support it in almost every single opinion poll.
 
But they do realize it -- they just don't care. They've talked themselves into the ludicrously self-delusional notion that what ails them and the president is that they haven't yet passed the hundreds of billions of dollars of tax hikes and Medicare cuts that finance (albeit incompletely) ObamaCare. Read article.
 
Kill the Bills. Do Health Reform Right
Charles Krauthammer, Townhall.com
 
The United States has the best health care in the world -- but because of its inefficiencies, also the most expensive. The fundamental problem with the 2,074-page Senate health-care bill (as with its 2,014-page House counterpart) is that it wildly compounds the complexity by adding hundreds of new provisions, regulations, mandates, committees and other arbitrary bureaucratic inventions.
 
Worse, they are packed into a monstrous package without any regard to each other. The only thing linking these changes -- such as the 118 new boards, commissions and programs -- is political expediency. Each must be able to garner just enough votes to pass. There is not even a pretense of a unifying vision or conceptual harmony.
The result is an overregulated, overbureaucratized system of surpassing arbitrariness and inefficiency.
 
Throw a dart at the Senate tome:
 
-- You'll find mandates with financial penalties -- the amounts picked out of a hat.
-- You'll find insurance companies (who live and die by their actuarial skills) told exactly what weight to give risk factors, such as age. Currently insurance premiums for 20-somethings are about one-sixth the premiums for 60-somethings. The House bill dictates the young shall now pay at minimum one-half; the Senate bill, one-third -- numbers picked out of a hat.
-- You'll find sliding scales for health-insurance subsidies -- percentages picked out of a hat -- that will radically raise marginal income tax rates for middle- class recipients, among other crazy unintended consequences.
 
The bill is irredeemable. It should not only be defeated. It should be immolated, its ashes scattered over the Senate swimming pool.
 
Then do health care the right way -- one reform at a time, each simple and simplifying, aimed at reducing complexity, arbitrariness and inefficiency. Read article.
 
The pols' housing hustle - Leave taxpayers holding the bag
Thomas Sowell, NY Post.com
 
After the economic disasters that began in the housing markets in 2006 and spread into the financial markets, the private sector pulled back. Banks stopped making so many risky loans. Homebuyers began buying homes they could afford, instead of going out on a limb with financing schemes to buy homes that were beyond their means.
 
But politicians went in the opposite direction. In the name of "rescuing" the housing market, Congress passed laws enabling the Federal Housing Administration to insure more and bigger risky loans -- loans where there was less than a 4 percent down payment.
 
A recent news story told of three young men who chipped in a total of $33,000 to buy a San Francisco home costing nearly a million dollars. Why would a bank lend that kind of money on such a small down payment? Because the loan was insured by the Federal Housing Administration.
 
The bank wasn't taking any risk. If the guys defaulted, it could always collect the money. The only risk was to the taxpayers. Read article.
 
A National Nightmare, Indeed
David Limbaugh.com
 
In a Democratic fundraising speech in Iowa over the weekend, Vice President Joe Biden told party loyalists that opponents of the Obama administration's agenda "should be worried about us, for we are their worst nightmare." Duh.
 
Finally we can agree on something, Joe. Even the liberal New York Times reports that at the current level of federal spending, the annual interest on the national debt will exceed $700 billion by 2019 -- compared with $202 billion this year. Some forecasters predict it will be much higher. This additional half-trillion dollars a year in interest is more than our current combined expenditures on education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
Oh, and the Times isn't even factoring in the cap-and-trade nightmare you and Barack have in store for us, Joe -- you know, that urgent legislation to catapult the nation back into Third World status based on hysteria generated by fraudulent science and corrupt zealots and politicians.
 
Nor is the Times including in its calculations the additional debt that would result from Obamacare.
 
Joe, when The New York Times is sounding the warnings over the exploding national debt, you and Barack insist not only on not reversing your disastrous course but also on making it worse. How can reasonable people assume anything other than that you are trying to run this nation into the ground financially? Read article.
 
Cloward-Piven Government
James Simpson, American Thinker.com
 
It is time to cast aside all remaining doubt. President Obama is not trying to lead America forward to recovery, prosperity and strength. Quite the opposite, in fact.
 
In September of last year, American Thinker published my article, Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis. Part of a series, it connected then-presidential candidate Barack Obama to individuals and organizations practicing a malevolent strategy for destroying our economy and our system of government. Since then, the story of that strategy has found its way across the blogosphere, onto the airwaves of radio stations across the country, the Glenn Beck television show, Bill O'Reilly, and now Mark Levin.
 
The methodology is known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and we can all be grateful to David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks for originally exposing and explaining it to us. He describes it as:
 
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
 
Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two lifelong members of Democratic Socialists of America who taught sociology at Columbia University (Piven later went on to City University of New York). In a May 1966 Nation magazine article titled "The Weight of the Poor," they outlined their strategy, proposing to use grassroots radical organizations to push ever more strident demands for public services at all levels of government.
 
The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces ... for major economic reform at the national level." They implemented the strategy by creating a succession of radical organizations, most notable among them the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with the help of veteran organizer Wade Rathke. Their crowning achievement was the "Motor Voter" act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 with Cloward and Piven standing behind him.
 
They implemented the strategy by creating a succession of radical organizations, most notable among them the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with the help of veteran organizer Wade Rathke. Their crowning achievement was the "Motor Voter" act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 with Cloward and Piven standing behind him. Read article.
 
 

blog comments powered by Disqus

Jeanne Shaheen's answer on Obama's job approval greeted with laughter [video]

October 21, 2014  09:03 PM

It was a yes-or-no question.

'Land of the free': Michigan Gov signs bill outlawing Tesla's retail model

October 21, 2014  08:28 PM

"If you can't beat em, have the government shut em down."

'Eastwooding' makes a comeback; Sen. Kay Hagan a no-show at debate

October 21, 2014  08:11 PM

Rapid response team does its best on Twitter.

Charlie Crist says 'woman's right to choose' extends to releasing wife's tax returns

October 21, 2014  07:33 PM

Now that's pro-choice.

'Headline or straight line?': White House intruder found 'not competent'

October 21, 2014  07:23 PM

"Cue rimshot."

FSM Archives

More in PUBLICATIONS ( 1 OF 25 ARTICLES )