Victor Davis Hanson, Pajamas Media.com

 

 

“Lie” is a rather harsh word; the noun and its verb form leave little to context or extenuating circumstances. So I use it sparingly.

 

But I know no other word for President Obama’s long string of “misstatements,” especially the blatant ones about closing Guantanamo within a year of his inauguration or serially declaring that he would insist on health care debate airing live on C-SPAN.

 

How odd that the liberal block is quiet that once coined “Bush lied, thousands died” (even when the CIA and Defense intelligence was accepted by both parties and in sync with what the Arab world and Europe were insisting upon [recall the charge of a supposed naïve Bush taking us to war against a nut who would gas our troops marshalling in Kuwait.]). In any case, not telling the truth has a lot to do with sinking polls

 

So I don’t quite buy the liberal lament that the people will support Obama when the economy improves.

 

It was roaring in 2005-6, and still Bush was unpopular — given the violence in Iraq and the administration’s inability to articulate our objectives there. And even when Iraq was winding down in 2008, polls still showed persistent American anger at the media narrative of a botched Katrina, the insurgency in Iraq, and a “jobless recovery.”

 

No, the American people are losing confidence in Team Obama because quite simply they are tiring of being lied to, and treated like children in need of Ivy-League Platonic guardians. Read article.

Alec MacGillis and Paul Farhi, Washington Post.com

 

Whether President Obama's upcoming State of the Union address focuses on jobs, health care, foreign policy or something else entirely, there is one thing we can count on: Obama will make himself absolutely clear.

 

All politicians have their verbal tics -- say, John McCain's "my friends" -- but few resort to their crutches as often as Obama relies on his "let me be clear" set-up. He deploys it in formal speeches as well as in impromptu remarks, meaning that the White House speechmakers have keyed in on the boss's security blanket.

 

"Let me be clear," Obama said when he introduced himself to the country at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. "We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued. And they must be defeated."

 

Talking about health care in July: "Let me be absolutely clear: Medicare is in place, and as long as I'm here, Medicare will continue to be in place."

 

And when he got word of his Nobel Peace Prize in October: "Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments."

 

Plenty of others have taken note of this habit, but they usually dismiss it as a standard time-buying device, like Bill Clinton's "make no mistake" or Richard Nixon's eerily similar "let me make one thing perfectly clear." But Obama's declarations of clarity are far more than a little presidential throat-clearing.

 

When Obama is being "clear" these days, he is saying something quite different than when he was being clear in 2007 and 2008. Read article.

Ian Swanson, The Hill.com

 

A big reason why the government is inefficient and ineffective is because Washington has outdated technology, with federal workers having better computers at home than in the office.

 

This startling admission came Thursday from Peter Orszag, who manages the federal bureaucracy for President Barack Obama.

 

The public is getting a bad return on its tax dollars because government workers are operating with outdated technologies, Orszag said in a statement that kicked off a summit between Obama and dozens of corporate CEOs.

 

“Twenty years ago, people who came to work in the federal government had better technology at work than at home,” said Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget. “Now that’s no longer the case.

 

“The American people deserve better service from their government, and better return for their tax dollars.”

 

The White House release that included Orszag’s comments said one “specific source” of ineffective and inefficient government is the huge technology gap between the public and private sectors that results in billions of dollars in waste, slow and inadequate customer service and a lack of transparency about how dollars are spent. Read article.

Wesley Pruden, Washington Times.com

 

What this country really needs, more than that famous "good nickel cigar," is a federal agency to regulate the apologies of public officials. The Apologetics and Atonement Administration would be assigned to the Ministry of Euphemy, charged with measuring the sincerity of the miscreants and gauging how abject they really are.

 

Public apologies have become a growth industry. Such an apology is marked with capricious cant and blatant insincerity ("… if I've offended anyone I regret it") and meant only to turn down the heat. Sometimes even Democrats, not often but sometimes, are called out for the outrageous things they say. Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate, is even now making the rounds to tug at his forelock (what there is left of it), paw the ground with his left foot and affect the kind of humility that politicians are famous for. He's offering practiced amends for his remarks about Barack Obama — that he was a presidential candidate who wouldn't frighten white folks because he was "a light-sk——d" African American who spoke with "no N——o dialect, unless he wanted one." (Excuse the ellipses, but I want no trouble from the language police.)

 

This is actually how a lot of politicians of both parties, black, white, tan and various shades between, talk when they're in a smoke-filled room, trying to sort out who ought to run against whom. Mr. Reid, who will soon have a lot to answer for in regard to his part in saddling the nation with the monstrosity of health care "reform" legislation, no doubt meant nothing more "insulting" than a candid judgment that Mr. Obama, for the good and sufficient reasons he enumerated, would make a good candidate for president. And he was right, as anyone who read the papers on Nov. 9, 2008, could tell you. Read article.

 

Lee Ellis, NMJ.us

 

Our economy and even our culture are being harmed by the absence of just one word. This missing word has been interred during the past few years by far-left leaders who aim to transform America, as promised by candidate Barack Obama and with the help of many others who prefer a European type of a Marxist society to a capitalist Republic .

 

What is this missing word, and why has it interfered with their attempts at transformation? The word was part of what was promised by our forefathers, those who created this Republic under God as a capitalist nation. A country where one could pursue happiness and earn as much as one’s talent and willingness to work with diligence, morality and ethics would allow.

 

Yes, the word earn has been lost as the Chicago community organizers propagandized for a Marxist life-style where instead of producers benefiting from the rewards of their hard work, all wealth had to be spread equally, regardless of who had earned it. “redistribution” became the replacement word for “earn.”

 

How did Marxism spread here in this land of opportunity?

 

Another Chicago organizer, studied by both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and admired by many others including Bill Ayres and NBC’s Chris Matthews, was a Communist named Saul Alinsky. In Rules for Radicals, he addressed the 1960s generation of radicals, outlining his views on organizing for mass power. In the opening paragraph of his book, Alinsky wrote, "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."

 

And “take it away” is what our Marxists leaders in our government want to do! Read article.

 

Rosslyn Smith, American Thinker.com.blog

 

Two years before America elected Barack Obama to be its President, the voters of Cook County, IL elected a Board President who had no executive experience and an undistinguished record as a legislator. In fact, Todd Stroger may been elected because during the final week of the campaign Senator Barack Obama sent a letter to voters calling Stroger "a good progressive Democrat" who will "lead us into a new era of Cook County government."  

 

How's that new era worked out?  

 

Todd Stroger got in political hot water when he enacted a one percentage point increase in the county sales tax in 2008 in order the balance a bloated county budget. That move made the combined state, county and city tax in Chicago 10.25%, the highest in the nation. The increase seriously hit those Cook County retailers that specialize in large ticket items and woke many county residents up to the true cost of the corruption that has been part of Cook County Government for decades. 

 

Mayor Daley came out against it and almost immediately County Commissioners attempted to overturn or at least reduce the increase. Enough commissioners changed their vote to pass a reduction but they never had the 14 votes needed to override Stroger's veto. Things really heated up last fall when the state legislature overwhelmingly voted to reduce the number of votes it takes Cook County commissioners to override the President's veto, lest those representing Cook County in Springfield also became the target of irate voters.

 

What is more disturbing is that some Stroger supporters are reverting to a level of racial and sexist animosity not seen in Chicago since Jane Byrne was mayor. Read article.

 

Commentarama.Blogspot.com

 

As the battles over health care, cap 'n tax, additional stimulus money and the host of leftist schemes rage, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that a much longer-standing battle is being waged, and the Democrats would like you to put it on the back burner. As the electorate flees the Obama agenda, the Democrats need instant voters, and they intend to get them. That plan requires quick and immense naturalization of immigrants who are in the United States illegally.

 

It is far too easy to fall into complacency about alien amnesty, since previous bills have gone the way of the Kyoto accords. Nevertheless, the nation is distracted with so many massive government schemes coming down the pike that an amnesty could slip through, nearly unnoticed. In addition, there are many indications that the pro-immigration crowd is much better organized for this round, and have learned how to plan their amnesty so that it slips in under the radar. On top of that, there are so many hot button issues in front of Congress that this vital issue might not produce the immediate negative reaction that the Democrats fear on most of the others.

 

The pro-amnesty crowd has a much more favorable environment than in the past. With the economic doldrums hurting every business, including farms, illegal immigration has fallen to near-record lows. Those who still come in find it harder to hide among the illegals hanging out in the parking lots of the local 7-11s looking for illegal wages that have dried up. Read article.

 

Ted Belman, Ruthfullyyours.com

 

In Appraising Obama’s Foreign Policy: From Hope to Audacity, Zbigniew Brzezinski, described Obama’s, and his, world view which he characterized as “reconnect(ing) the United States with the emerging historical context of the twenty-first century.”

 

To this end, he writes Obama “has comprehensively reconceptualized U.S. foreign policy with respect to several centrally important geopolitical issues”. I shall comment on each of these in turn.

 

• Islam is not an enemy, and the “global war on terror” does not define the United States’ current role in the world;

 

This has always been America’s policy. Even Bush 44, with his neocon stalwarts, refused, after 9/11, to identify the enemy as Islam. He avoided naming the enemy by declaring “war on terror”. He went so far as to declare Islam, “a religion of peace”.

 

What Obama has done differently was to publicly praise Islam, at the expense of truth and to bow down to its titular head, the King of Saudi Arabia. He has moved from tolerance to overt partnership.

 

But a form of partnership has existed between Britain, US and the Arab oil interests ever since last century’s thirties. The British worked with the Arabs in the Middle East to thwart Germany’s expansion there - all at the expense of Jewish settlement rights. In the late seventies Britain, with the complicity of the US brought about the downfall of the Shah because the Shah wanted to have an independent oil policy and not one controlled by Britain. Read article.

 

Print This E-mail This

Share It: