The Teflon President May 13, 2009
Posted by os2011 in Government Interference, President Obama, Taxes & Debts.add a comment
A lot has been said about the kind of company Obama has been keeping over the years. There was Reverend Wright, for example, who unashamedly and publicly called out “God damn America”. Needless to say, this was news that hit the Washington Messiah like a 4-by-4 in the face, for he had NEVER heard Reverend Wright say ANYTHING like it during his more than one-and-a-half decades in this Church.
Yeah, (W)right !
Then there was Rashid Khalidi, who called the establishment of Israel a “catastrophe” and who worked on behalf of the PLO when it was labeled a terror group by the State Department. Barack Obama served as a paid director on the board of a nonprofit organization that granted funding to Khalidi’s pro-Arab, US-based group.
There is Bill Ayers – an unrepentent terrorist who helped establish the Weather Underground Movement in the 60’s. This group bombed several public buildings in the 60’s and 70’s and was rather explicit about their ultimate goal, namely the overthrow of the US Government. Today, he is Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois, Obama’s home state.
Strangely, none of thus has “stuck” – the mainstream media continue to be gooey about and with the President: in the times of a major economic crisis, the White House press corps contents itself with asking questions like “What do you find most enchanting about living in the White House?” So much about the “Slobbering Love Affair” between them and the President, that Bernie Goldberg wrote about.
Do you remember the President’s past as a “community organizer”?
“Community Organizer” – that’s a term that reflects a grass-root kind of “connection to the people”, and makes him so much more likeable, doesn’t it ? There is that nice, fluffy, fuzzy feeling about the President again …
By the way: do you know where the term “community organizer” comes from ? The name Saul Alinsky doesn’t ring a bell ? Well, it should, because this man’s teachings influenced our young President immensely.
Saul Alinsky was a committed Marxist, who studied criminology and in the course of his studies became friendly with Al Capone and his mobsters.
In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” — a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to forment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted — a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse — to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed. (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314).
Saul Alinsky’s motto was “The most effective means are whatever achieve the desired results” – Macchiavelli pure.
You might want to know how this kind of “community organizing” might have already impacted the policy of the present administration. Let me enlighten you with one example only.
The state of California is bankrupt. Everybody knows it, but such financial subtleties must of course not get into the way of daily politics. So, while the Governator and his Democratic Congress have agreed to cut costs, this does not go down well with “community organizations” like the SEIU (Service Employees International Union), which “donated” $ 33 million to Obama’s presidential campaign.
Guess what happened ? While five other unions agreed to the proposed cuts, SEIU simply made a phone call to the White House, which resulted into the Federal Government threatening the State of California Governor and Congress to rescind federal funds of in excess of $ 6 billion, unless wage cuts, which would have amounted to budgetary savings of $ 74 million, would be restored.
If this doesn’t leave you breathless, you’re probably a community organizer yourself.
Good-bye USA – formerly the Land of the Free. Welcome to Federal Fascism.
P.S.: If you like the above cartoon – many more like it can be viewed at http://cubanology.com/Aymee/cartooncorner.htm
Obama’s Judgement May 12, 2009
Posted by os2011 in Law, President Obama.add a comment
Judge Souter is due to retire, thereby giving Obama the chance to further advance the cause of liberalism in America.
This is what he said to the White House Press Corps (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/05/01/The-Presidents-Remarks-on-Justice-Souter/):
“So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives — whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.”
In essence, this describes an activist judge in the most politically correct way a liberal can put it.
Sure, it’s filled with nice, fluffy words that are liable to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. Of course, “justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory”, and “empathy” is always a fail-safe device to make any liberals heart faint with gooey fuzziness.
The question is, however, whether “empathy” and the ability to see beyond “abstract legal theory” are the top two qualities that we need in a Supreme Court Judge.
Anyone is most welcome to correct me, but by my understanding, it is the Supreme Court’s job to uphold the Constitution and the Law. It is NOT the Courts job to make decisions as to “how to apply them in our time”, for this would mean that the essence of the law depends on “the times” and thereby on how fashion, mood and opinion would like to see them applied.
There is such a thing as “checks and balances”, remember ?
Congress MAKES the laws. The President EXECUTES them. The Jurisprudence assesses whether they are in keeping with the constitution and ensures they are being upheld.
The Supreme Court’s is NOT to assess how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives – doing so would mean creating a multi-tiered justice system. Previously, what’s good for the goose was good for the gander, but now, that we’re busy assessing the laws’ impact on people’s lives, this might change.
Take a case of, let’s say, rape: the poor guy, who had a tough childhood, got hit by his Mum and abandoned by his Dad, who never amounted to anything in life and who has always been the butt of all jokes wherever he went, might invoke “empathy” in the judge and be sentenced much milder than the “rich kid” who grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth.
Where is the empathy with the victims ? Did the woman who got raped by the “poor kid” suffer less than the woman who got raped by the “rich kid” ? Of course not.
Where is the respect for the law, if it can be bent ad libitum by the application of “empathy” ? Where is the respect for the Constitution, which to uphold is the primary concern for the Supreme Court ?
What is going to happen to the Supreme Court, if Judges like Sotomayor, who are obvious activist judges (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q) are being seriously considered for the vacant seat ?
This is, what Obama SHOULD have said:
“So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice is about the application of the Law to everyone, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or religious and political convictions, regardless as to whether rich or poor. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.”
It’s just a minor change that I propose – but a decisive one.
Hamas – Force of Peace ? May 9, 2009
Posted by os2011 in Foreign Policy, Islam, Israel, President Obama.add a comment
The New York Times ran a five-hour interview with the Leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshal. With the Obama administration making overtures to rogue states like Syria and Iran, and frowning openly at the Israeli government, this crafty representative of a militant terrorist organization that holds an entire people hostage, sees his time coming.
And the Grand Old Lady, the New York Times falls for it. Just like they did for Arafat during the Clinton administration. Charles Krauthammer, my favorite columnist, analyzes the situation with uncanny love for historical detail and truth.
I wonder why appeasement remains such an appealing political concept – considering that it has never ONCE kept dictators and rogue states at bay for any length of time, it should be a dead fish in the water. Interestingly enough, it is being revived again and again, because “reasonable” people never stop talking; the lines of communication need to be kept open; and anything that remotely smells of “movement” on the other side of the fence must be immediately acknowledged, analyzed, and – most of all – awarded.
Incidentally, “Socialism” is another such concept, that has failed again and again and cost millions of people their lives. Yet, again and again, it is being resurrected as the ideal that everyone has to work towards: Europe leads the way, Latin America is following suit, and the newest American Administration is taking care that the Europization of the United States becomes a fact before the American voters wake up and smell the flowers.
Read the original interview at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/world/middleeast/05meshal.html, and enjoy Charles Krauthammer’s analysis at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/07/AR2009050703054.html?nav=hcmodule&sub=AR&sid=ST2009050703548.
Notre-Dame May 8, 2009
Posted by os2011 in Family Values & Life, President Obama.add a comment
A Catholic University is about to honor President Obama with an honorary law degree.
This is in direct violation of an edict of the Catholic Hierarchy NOT to honor individuals whose political convictions stand in opposition to the Church’s teachings.
This is most certainly the case here: Obama even favors partial-birth-abortion.
Supporters of Notre-Dame’s decision say that the Church must move on and change her ways in order to keep track with the people and “the times”. They accuse the Church of being “old-fashioned” and too “dogmatic”.
I don’t argue the case either way, because the question as to whether the Church should adapt to the “modern” times is not the question at hand here.
Let’s not forget: the Church is NOT a political party that in order to retain voters or members is required to alter its political message. It is not an institution in which membership is mandatory. It is not obliged to satisfy its members’ wishes to change policy.
The Roman Catholic Church represents an institutionalized religion with a non-democratic, hierarchical power structure, in which membership is entirely voluntary.
It has existed like this for almost two thousand years and has managed to keep continuity of its “political message” throughout. It has made mistakes, and horrendous crimes were committed in its name – but it has recognized mistakes and changed its ways (albeit admittedly late). It has survived schisms and provided a continuity of moral authority that millions of people have recognized as their own.
It is entirely in her right to exclude those people whose opinions are diametrically opposed to hers from her embrace.
Let’s take the National Rifle Association for example, and assume that a significant portion of the membership decides that they no longer support a citizen’s right to bear arms. Do you expect the NRA to change her policy in response and declare herself to be in favor of gun laws? Hardly likely.
Would the NRA entertain the thought of awarding an honorary membership to Michael Moore? Probably not. Would you expect her to ? Probably not.
Would you expect a club of lettuce farmers to accommodate rabbit breeding members by allowing their animals to feast on their club’s lettuce fields? Probably not. Would you expect this club to award a price to the member with the biggest and fattest rabbit? Probably not.
So why should the Catholic Church be forced to change its message and to “move with the times” just because part of her message is becoming “unpopular”?
If you don’t agree with the right to bear arms, get out of the NRA. If you rather breed rabbits than grow lettuce, get out of the lettuce farming club. If you rather kill babies than honor the sanctity of life, get out of the Church – but don’t expect neither the NRA, nor the lettuce farmers or the Church to change their ways because of you.
The Church has been a beacon of moral values through the centuries. It has supported the sanctity of life and marriage and now faces a time when neither seems to be very much in favor with the majority of people.
While democracy is ruled by its majority, this does not always imply that the majority is right – Hitler had the majority of the German people behind him in 1932; does it mean his message was the “right” one?
President Obama should have the moral standing and politely refuse acceptance of this honorary law degree, recognizing that his moral principles are incompatible with the Roman Church’s. If he hopes to incite a change of direction within the Church by accepting this honor, he is hopelessly deluding himself.
Memo: Don’t waffle ! April 23, 2009
Posted by os2011 in National Security, President Obama.add a comment
A very interesting and surprisingly objective article on CNN’s website today, where the former political director of Ronald Reagan, Ed Rollins, analyses the past few days of Obama’s “waffling” about the CIA torture memos. While he himself favors the idea of abolishing the enhanced interrogation techniques, he describes how President Obama has set foot into a minefield and now struggles to get out of it again.
In previous blogs, I mentioned Obama’s ambition to be the likeable guy, while lacking the executive experience to know that international politics is a game fought without gloves. Ed Rollins – without having read my blog, I suppose – seems to be on the same line and warns that public self-mutilation over this issue will ultimately weaken the institutions in charge of defending Americans’ constitutional liberties and rights.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/23/rollins.obama.torture/index.html
Fidel April 22, 2009
Posted by os2011 in Cuba, Foreign Policy, President Obama.Tags: Castro, Foreign Policy, Obama
add a comment
Today, Cuba’s de-facto leader Fidel Castro somehow thwarted hopes that Obama’s Grand Ouverture towards his country would result into any form of liberalization on his island. So what did Raul say, that could have been so misinterpreted by the American administration ? He mentioned something about being open for talks about everything.
Now talk is cheap, particularly in communist countries, even though Western politicians are quite good at that themselves, and a gifted speaker like Obama is certainly no stranger to taking a mouthful either.
So far, however, Obama’s attempts to gain good standing with friends and foes alike has not brought about any results:
Apologies to Europe brought about a dizzying array of compliments and declarations of sympathy, but no real commitment from the Europeans, who have simply disregarded Obama’s request for more engagement in Afghanistan.
The President’s bow before the King of Saudi-Arabia yet has to yield any measurable results – subservient behaviour like this will be undoubtedly interpreted as a sign of weakness in a culture of machoism that has made human rights violations an integral part of its society.
The continuation of his “Tour d’apologie” in Latin America has provided Hugo Chavez with a welcome opportunity to get his face on the headlines of every single news-outlet on the planet, while he continues to play footsie with the Iranian mad-man Ahmadinedjad.
This trend seems to be continuing with Cuba, and one wonders when the President – who has no executive experience – will come to realize the sharp realities of international politics. If he doesn’t learn his lessons soon, he will take the risk of his presidency being named in the same breath with Jimmy Carter’s.
For those readers who are suspicious of the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”, I should mention that even though the below-mentioned article appears on the Fox News website, it is written by the Associated Press (AP).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/22/fidel-castro-obama-got-overture-wrong/
Memo April 21, 2009
Posted by os2011 in Foreign Policy, National Security, President Bush, President Obama, Vice-President Cheney.Tags: Bush, Dick Cheney, National Security, Obama
add a comment
While President Bush was often maligned by his political adversaries, he was just as often (if not more) the butt of everybody’s jokes. His Vice President, Dick Cheney, however was hardly ever the subject of liberal ridicule (with the exception of his notorious hunting accident). His role in the past administration was often compared to “The Evil Lord” Darth Vader in the Star Wars Trilogy.
Well, the man supposedly mostly responsible for ensuring that the US was never hit again after 9/11 has now returned into the limelight. In an interview with Fox News, he commented on the new administration’s decision to release the CIA torture memos. Said memos described the CIA’s interrogation techniques of suspected terrorists. President Obama decided to have these memos published to … well, why did he ? Unfortunately, he never did make a strong case for publishing these secret files.
However, the decision to do so is entirely in keeping with the new President’s policy: on his recent European and Latin American “Tour d’Apologie” he prostrated himself (and thereby: America) in front of friend and foe alike. The memos will further the purpose of demonstrating that the “Evil America” is dead, and the “Good America” has risen – the Messiah has arrived !
Undoubtedly, this will elevate America’s – and particularly his own – image in “civilized” countries like Europe. On a continent that for the past 70 years has been unable to end military conflicts on its own soil without the help and leading support from the United States, America-bashing is well and alive and always a welcome instrument to distract from its own incompetencies and failures. Other countries, such as Russia, Iran, the Arab States and North-Korea might interpret this more as a weakness in the new administration’s political armor.
Dick Cheney’s proposal to release further memos, namely those that reveal the results of said interrogation techniques is a danger for the new President, because this step could reveal how many potentially catastrophic assaults on the US worldwide have been prevented. As a result, the American people might just change their stance on these techniques.
The liberal press has realized this, and it is no surprise that Dick Cheney’s interview with Fox (the American flagship of the alleged “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy“) has not made it to the frontpage of a single American newspaper.
The whole interview is available online under the following link of the UK Daily The Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6138465.ece
Charles Krauthammer April 20, 2009
Posted by os2011 in President Obama.Tags: Krauthammer, Obama, Washington Post
add a comment
I have always enjoyed reading the analyses and essays of Charles Krauthammer, a well-known, nationally syndicated columist. Considering his professional background (he used to be a psychiatrist) makes his recent essay on President Obama’s mission worth reading. It is published in the Washington Post (Link below) and provides an interesting insight into Obama’s true motives and ambitions. Despite the easy readability, the contents might be a little hard to digest. See for yourself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/02/AR2009040203287.html
Obama’s Nominees April 18, 2009
Posted by os2011 in President Obama.Tags: Obama
add a comment
Click on the picture to reach the link
A Libertarian's Rant 