Foreign Policies of President Obama

Recently I was asked to comment on President Obama’s foreign policy. By no means am I a foreign policy expert and what I know – if anything—is based entirely on what I have read and seen on TV. However, based upon that limited foundation, I think President Obama’s foreign policy rests on two key factors. I believe he is first and foremost an “Internationalist” in the sense that he believes in World Government. This translates into a tendency to subordinate America’s interests to those of the UN and the international community as a whole. The second factor is his belief that America is an overbearing arrogant super power that acts unilaterally and without regard for the interests of other nations.

President Obama came to the Presidency with no experience in business, government, or the military but with an activist vision of all of these things. He promised to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to close the Guantanamo Prison, to repair America’s relationship with the Islamic World, to reach out to Iran on their Nuclear ambitions, to reset relations with Russia toward ridding the world of nuclear weapons, to work with the Chinese on global issues, and to make peace in the middle east. In retrospect it is easy to see the naïveté of these goals because of their idealism and failure to account for any of the underlying details. President Obama’s lack of experience left him unprepared for the reality of his position and the constraints on his power. Each of his objectives individually are worthwhile but he did not realize that none of these stood alone but had strings and impacts in Congress and with other countries.

From the outset he found that there were constraints on his power, constraints from congress, from the people, and even from other countries. It seemed to him closing Guantanamo and moving the prisoners to prisons and to civilian trial would only require his order. He was unprepared for the cost, the public outcry, and the legal issues. Ultimately he was forced to abandon this goal and act pragmatically. In fact President Obama’s efforts to achieve the lofty goals he promised have consistently yielded to practical decisions and compromises.

Having been raised as a Muslim or simply exposed to Islam, he came to office perhaps with a greater understanding of Islam than any previous president. Armed with this knowledge he aimed to repair America’s reputation within the Islamic community. This objective formed the basis for much of his foreign policy. This was a policy that not only failed in its objective but seriously damaged his position at home. His actions and compromises have been viewed abroad as signs of weakness and intransigence and at home as examples of his inexperience, incompetence, and subordination of American interests to internationalism.

One of President Obama’s objectives was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but he quickly discovered that starting a war is much easier than ending one. But there was never a declaration of war so as President he could end them with a stroke of a pen, which he more or less did. This was done over the objections of the military and the result left Iraq dominated by religious conflict, an incipient civil war, a corrupt government heavily influenced by Iran, and with Al Qaeda resurgent. The results in Afghanistan are similar. By announcing a withdrawal date the Taliban and Al Qaeda took that as surrender and have become resurgent. In this instance he fulfilled his campaign promise but his foreign policy failed and the Islamic community saw this as an example of American unreliability and weakness.

As part of his policy of Islamic refurbishment President Obama distanced himself from Israel. To a rational person that might have made sense but the Islamic countries simply saw that as another sign of weakness and a demonstration of how unreliable America is as an ally. Rather than improving the situation in the Middle East President Obama’s policies have left the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda stronger throughout the area. More importantly the policy toward Israel has emboldened Iran and the Palestinians and has made the possibility of another war greatly increased.

The Foreign policy toward China has been one of talk more than action. The Chinese government has consistently attacked our government and industrial computers for the purpose of stealing secrets. The Chinese do not honor copyright laws and manipulate their currency. All of these things are known and reported in the press, yet there has been no action taken to correct or prevent these. This has had a huge impact on the American economy through the loss of jobs and revenues. The idea that problems can be solved through talk is the basis of diplomacy but ultimately diplomacy must be backed up by action and these actions have been missing throughout this administration.

The foreign policies of President Obama have been well intended with the idea that by retreating from an aggressive leadership position America’s image would be enhanced, but clearly this has not been the result.

The Founding Fathers

From time to time I encounter various quotes attributed to various members of the Founding Fathers of America, you know that group of self-serving hypocrites Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin. More recently as the new Messiah, Barrack Obama, has ascended to power, the number and frequency of these quotes is increasing, especially those attributed to Thomas Jefferson. So precisely what did this slave owning rich hypocrite do – what are his beliefs?

It was Jefferson who inserted into that revolutionary document that forms the very basis of our nation the statement that has stood as a stumbling block to all tyrants and would be tyrants:
“ ...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. Americans are the only people in the world who have the RIGHT to the pursuit of happiness. Not very specific but it was meant to be imprecise because it represents the first separation of government from individual rights. As long as the individual does not break the law Jefferson intended that he should be free to pursue his own pathway to happiness. Even though Jefferson’s words laid the foundation for the elimination of slavery the fact that he owned slaves forever brands him in the eyes of the modern revisionist history professors – a hypocrite and unworthy of admiration or even study, even though he was a driving force behind the Bill of Rights. It is this Bill of Rights that buttress the Constitution, spell out and guarantee the very fundamental rights that Americans take for granted, but it is this same Bill of Rights that is under attack by those Oligarchs in Washington. Perhaps it is time to review these basic rights, which have been so interpreted and distorted by the Congress and the Supreme Court as to be virtually unrecognizable.

Article 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note that Congress is prohibited from making any law the curtails or restricts the free exercise of religion. It does not state that religion or God should be separate from the government if those governed desire to worship God. Congress cannot abridge the freedom of speech but it says nothing about “hate speech” or the use of profanity but the Supreme court acting unilaterally has declared profanity and pornography protected by free speech but God and racial slurs are not. Precisely who is the hypocrite today?

Article 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Of course this Article is under heavy attack as the Congress and those Oligarchs seek to expand their power. It is to their benefit to disarm the people and it is this precise risk to our freedom that his Article was inserted. The argument is that only the “militia” can be armed which is interpreted as the “National Guard” but it was the Minutemen Farmers who fought and won our independence and it is the well armed citizenry that will and can maintain it. The Constitution specifically spells out this right because the Founding Fathers wanted to protect the people FROM THE GOVERNMENT.



Article 5
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This article has been quoted and employed to great effect but more recently the little phrase at the end regarding private property seems to be routinely ignored by the current administration. We see the government taking over private industry and determining unilaterally the value of the property being taken from the share holders and bond holders. The Bond Holders in particular had a contract that guaranteed them “just compensation” but the administration gave preferential treatment to the labor unions – their big supporters while giving the investors – the capitalists—pennies on the dollar-- Jefferson and Madison be damned!!

As President Jefferson reminded America that our happiness and prosperity rested on a wise and frugal government and a government that would remain free of regulating business and industry and that government “shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned”. The time has long past for Americans to return to those fundamental rights and limitations established by the Founding Fathers and increasingly ignored by Congress, the Supreme Court (and Ninth Circuit Court) and the current Administration who are by passing Congress entirely in their drive for power never intended by the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Obama & Racism

I continue to be amazed how the mainstream media continues to ignore or gloss over the blatant racism and incompetence of Obama and his entire administration. This man has made sure his thin track record is kept in the background and that his early years and writings are kept secret – literally secret. He has never published his master’s thesis and his records at Harvard are kept sealed. He was editor of the Harvard Review – a prestigious position that usually goes to the most promising law student based on their writings but none of Obama’s articles or writings have ever been made public. This is a point totally ignored by the media as they publish paean after paean to America’s first black president. Of course on inspection the color of his skin seems to be his only qualification. Apparently only white folks can be racist because the media has systematically failed to exposed the racism expressed by Obama – racism that would have led to outrage had these things been said and done by a white conservative.

For example Obama spent 20 years attending the Church of Reverend Wright a blatant racist. The media took note of this then simply glossed over it as if it had no bearing on Obama. Of course the fact that he spent 20 years attending that church means either he agreed with the Reverend or he didn’t. If he didn’t then he is a hypocrite and if he did then he is a racist – something the media just ignored. Then during his campaign he referred to his grandmother as a “typical white person”. Had any white person referred to him as a typical black person they would have immediately been branded as a racist bigot but not Obama. Once again the media gave him a pass because they seem to be unable to see this man for what he is – a racist given the highest job in the land with no qualifications whatsoever.

But once in office Obama has continued to demonstrate his racism because when a white police officer doing his duty and acting in accordance with approved procedure arrested a black professor, Obama immediately charged the police officer for acting stupidly and being a racist. This led to his patronizing and condescending “beer summit” apparently on the premise that no white police officer would know how to behave in the White House. Then when the black panthers were charged with voter intimidation he kept his Justice Department from investigating or taking any action. Clearly when the action is white on black it is racism and should be condemned but when it is black on white then Obama does not see that as racist – blatant hypocrisy and racism on his part once again.

Now in a recent speech Obama made to a group of Latino’s – some of whom I’m sure were in this country legally – he stated that Republicans should be sent to the “back of the bus” and then referred to the American Public as “our enemies” -- placing himself as a minority opposed to the white majority. Never in the history of the country has any major politician ever referred to the American people as his “enemy”. This President is a racist that is aided and abetted by a slavish and politically correct media. This is a man who is an internationalist who believes in World Government. He clearly sees the role of government as being paramount to the people’s wishes and that it is the role of government to rule over the people not to govern at the will of the people.

This President is a person who has never held a real job, never met a payroll, and never had to show a profit. He seems to think that the money he so freely spends comes from the mint and not from the people. He has no grasp of practical economics or business. He has been educated by Marxists, socialists, and left wing academics. He has surrounded himself with more incompetent and inexperienced people than any president in our history. He is not just incompetent and a racist, he is an embarrassment.

America In Afghanistan

At the risk of being viewed as a “cut and run” anti-war activist, I think it is time for a review of President Obama’s Strategy and some historical perspective. Afghanistan is a fractious nation if in fact it could even be called a nation. Imperial China rarely had more than nominal control of the country and the reality was that the country was actually under the control of various warlords and this persisted until Mao centralized control in Beijing with a communist government. Although with his death modern China is increasingly looking more and more like Imperial China with a different name. But the point is that Afghanistan has always been a central government with only loose control while the real power was – and is – held by various war lords. Historically Afghanistan has been at war with the various warlords battling each other over various slights real and imaginary. While it may appear that the Taliban had total control over Afghanistan they did not. The Northern Alliance was not under their control and it was the Northern Alliance that worked with the NATO forces (read American) to over throw the Taliban. What has been lost in all of the subsequent rhetoric is that the objective was never the overthrow of the Taliban it was the destruction of Al Qaeda and had Mullah Omar agreed to turn over Osama bin Laden the Taliban would still be in power. Unfortunately, Mullah Omar stood by bin Laden because to do otherwise would have been a serious breech of Islamic hospitality which could have jeopardized his hold on the country because the Taliban were not popular, and his power rested on his strict adherence to Islamic Law and Custom.

So historically Afghanistan has been a series of tribal areas run by Tribal Chiefs with only loose loyalty to any central authority and the only unifying force has been Islam. It must be noted that Islam is not just a religion but it is the supreme authority over government. While the west likes to pretend that there are Islamic “nations” the reality is that these “nations” are actually shells which are under the control and direction of various Islamic authorities in the form of Mullahs and Imams. This means the US strategy of establishing a representative government in Afghanistan has always been somewhat misguided for several reasons. First Islam directs Muslims to not make or honor any treaty with non-Muslims. So any US efforts to establish anything from bureaus to schools will always be on shaky ground because Muslims are forbidden to accept or interact with infidels. Even if this can be overcome, any government will always be under the tacit control of Islamic authority, which means Karzai and his government will always be on shaky ground. So the US and President Obama are faced with a very thorny problem without any clear cut path to any sort of reasonable conclusion – given that withdrawal is not an option.

We are caught up in an insurgency, meaning that we are facing a light infantry guerilla force that melts into the population and attacks at will. Efforts to locate and destroy them inevitably leads to civilian deaths as they deliberately leak misinformation to the US which leads to attacks and the intended civilian deaths which causes the population to blame America. In the meantime efforts to locate and attack the Taliban are only marginally effective because when put under pressure they simply move across the border into Pakistan. Some might move into Iran but the real sanctuary is in the Pakistani Tribal areas where the Pakistani government has little authority and the Taliban enjoy the Islamic protections of hospitality and are supported due to the Islamic directive to kill infidels – meaning the Americans. So to these Pakistani Tribesmen – the Taliban are doing God’s (Allah’s) work.

Whether or not President Obama is sending one or 100,000 troops is almost beside the point because the probable outcome would be to force the Taliban across the border and into Pakistan where they can regroup, rearm, and raid back across the border – as these tribes have done for centuries. That would lead to a never ending war until the Americans tired of it and gave up and left at which time the Taliban would return and a civil war may or may not occur. So the troop surge is more of a tactic than a strategy, but unless the Pakistani’s step up to the plate and aggressively root out the Taliban and keep them in a vise between their military and the Americans, then the surge is just a waste of lives and treasure. But the darker side of this is can the Pakistani’s carry out their campaign against the Taliban? The answer is a very problematic maybe.

The Taliban are an irregular force, meaning they have no uniforms and cannot be distinguished from local population. It has already been demonstrated that the Pakistani military is not free of hidden Taliban agents, meaning any Pakistani military operation could be and to date has been-- betrayed. The Pakistani Intelligence Agency has been deeply infiltrated by the Taliban which means that both Pakistani and joint American operations are unlikely to be highly successful since the Taliban will be warned in advance by their hidden sympathizers. Before any really successful operation against the Taliban can be mounted the Pakistani military and military intelligence will have to be purged of Taliban plus the Pakistani intelligence agency will have to infiltrate the Taliban. While American surveillance techniques are superb they only go so far and cannot ensure victory in the long term. If victory is to be achieved it will only be possible through the Pakistani’s – not through more American Troops.

The other part of the Obama strategy is to bring the Afghan military up to a level where it can defend the country against the Taliban. But this means that the Afghan military must be free of Taliban sympathizers and it has already been demonstrated that it is not. This does not mean that all is lost and the situation is hopeless, but it does mean that the situation has no easy solution. The key is Pakistan. They must force the Taliban out of Pakistan, Pakistan must purge its military of Taliban sympathizers and Islamic extremists and the Afghan government must purge itself of corruption, Taliban sympathizers, and infiltrate the Taliban in order to gain better intelligence. And finally – the source of the Taliban’s military supplies and funding must be located and destroyed because without arms and ammunition they will exhaust themselves and if the troops are not being paid they will leave – because they too have families that must be fed.

So President Obama is faced with a situation that has no easy answer and more troops may not be the best answer. The real answer lies in diplomacy and strategy, let’s hope that the Pakistani government can finally gain control of their country – all of it.

Obama Strategy?

As the decision relative to Afghanistan continues to wait on President Obama, perhaps it is time to ask precisely what his strategy is relative to America and American foreign policy. During one of his overseas trips, President Obama was asked about the exceptionalism of America. Specifically Ronald Reagan viewed America as “A shining city on a hill” and how did President Obama see America? He was very clear in that he did not see America as unique or with any interests above or different from those of – say – Cuba, Greece, or Venezuela. This startling view was reflected in the mainstream media as a refreshing change from the jingoism that has characterized America. Newsweek almost got the vapors in their fawning over President Obama’s stance that America is no longer chauvinistic and parochial, but we stand as equals with the world and that Obama stands above the country – even above the world – “he is sort of God”. I think even with his overweening ego, President Obama might be a little embarrassed by that quote. But it does raise the question of exactly how does President Obama see the US and where does he think our interests lie?

The United States never intended to be world power much less a super power. America never set out to create the Pax Americana – that role was forced upon us by the continued Machiavellian machinations of Europe. It was the nationalistic policies of Europe that initiated the First World War and it was they who dragged America into it. It was they who set the stage for World War II with the Treaty of Versailles and it was they who so destroyed their own countries that they were left defenseless in face of USSR imperialism. So it was the very people who today criticize the US, accuse Americans of being arrogant, and who work against our interests at every turn while relying on the American Military for protection. It is these Europeans who continue their devious and self-destructive policies as they strive to gain control over America and American power through a world government. Is NATO necessary any longer? What benefit does the US gain from NATO other than to annoy the Russians? Does the UN provide any benefit to the US given its domination by Islamic countries and almost universal anti-American stance? This is the situation and questions that face President Obama and how he deals with these is vital to America’s long term interests.

If President Obama has any over arching strategy, it is one of negotiation and withdrawal – ironically this is analogous to the isolationist position the US had in the early 20th Century. If any policy exists today it seems to be to negotiate with North Korea, Palestine, and Iran while abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that President Obama has been asleep like Rip van Winkle because he is unaware of the diplomatic efforts of Presidents Clinton and Bush, who have tried negotiating with North Korea, Palestine, and Iran with virtually no effect, although Arafat did stab President Clinton in the back. So what is Obama’s new diplomatic strategy that he plans on using to negotiate? He has leaned on the Israeli’s and supported the Palestinians only to leave both angrier so what is his new basis for negotiation? Perhaps someone should point out that negotiation is not a policy or even a strategy – it is a technique or process that is used in order to accomplish some objective. Both Presidents Bush and Clinton established objectives of disarmament and failed but President Obama’s approach seems to be encapsulated in the term “negotiation” which really reflects the almost total lack of experience both he and his administration have in international affairs. An objective of “peace” doesn’t seem to be very specific and this has been the objective for 16 years without any noticeable change, other to spend millions of dollars which have gone to fund terrorism and into Swiss Banks. So is the current plan to continue the failed policies of the past are does he intend to set new objectives?

So what about the other part of what appears to be President Obama’s over arching strategy of negotiation and withdrawal. It seems that he promised to withdraw the troops from Iraq because they had no business being there in the first place, but this promise seems to have been made to his liberal constituency without any knowledge of the real situation. Iraq is Islamic and has historically been dominated by the Sunni’s who were a minority. The Shiites are the majority and supported by Iran – a Shiite dominated country. The focus seems to be on withdrawing troops rather than a stable government in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal of American troops could easily throw Iraq into a civil war and destabilize the entire region as the US would be seen as unreliable, intransigent, and defeated by radical Islam. This would greatly strengthen Iran and Hezbollah while dramatically increasing the threat to Israel. Iran has been pushing for a causus belli because the current government is very unstable and they need a unifying force. A perceived defeat of the US by Islam, which is what a withdrawal by the US would be viewed as, would certainly help Iran and would throw Iraq into even greater chaos. But the real problem lies in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan itself is really not the issue, the issue actually is Pakistan. The Taliban supported Al Qaeda who used Afghanistan as a base of operations to attack the US and to spread terror across the world. So the invasion of Afghanistan was actually an attack on the guerilla group known as Al Qaeda who fled into Pakistan. A large part of Pakistan is tribal and only loosely under the control of the central government. It is in these semi-autonomous regions that Al Qaeda found a home from which they launch attacks into Afghanistan and across the world. Once the US began to attack Al Qaeda in these tribal regions the whole area has erupted into chaos and the Taliban is attempting to destabilize Pakistan and to take over the country much as they did in Afghanistan. This is a real threat because in Islam the true Muslim is first and foremost a Muslim with no allegiance to his nation. In Pakistan the government is heavily infiltrated by these radical Muslims who are first Muslim and only secondarily Pakistani. If Pakistan cannot root out these radical forces and establish control then it is possible the substantial nuclear arsenal in Pakistan would fall into the hands of the Taliban and then into the hands of terrorists. Currently the American forces in Afghanistan in association with the Pakistani Army have Al Qaeda and the Taliban caught in classic pincer. But the American Military says they need more troops because the NATO troops there are little more than a token force. The border is very porous, the Pakistani’s hard pressed, and the Americans can’t be everywhere. But President Obama’s liberal supporters are anti-war and want him to withdraw American troops entirely. Apparently he intends to try to satisfy both camps and send some troops into Afghanistan but not the number requested. This of course is the worst possible solution and is a reflection of his total lack of military experience, knowledge of international affairs, and failure to grasp the difference between policies and action.

To date Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons while laughing their way to Obama’s negotiating table. More importantly they are using their diplomats to drive a wedge between Israel and the US because Israel is the only country outside of the US with a military force capable of confronting the Iranian military. The Iranian strategy seems to be to divide and conquer. The North Koreans are playing Obama just like they have played the entire international community into providing them with whatever it is they want at the time, but this is really just a side show and Obama seems to be just going along like Bush and Clinton before him.

So does President Obama have a strategy? Will he make a decision in America’s best interest or does he plan on fulfilling his election promises to his liberal constituency? He no longer has time on his side – he must show his plans now.

America – Europe – Peace

The Europeans can’t stand America because America represents their lack of ability to protect themselves or even to sustain their economies independent of the United States. The Norwegians awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama in some bizarre hope that Barrack Obama will revert to some previous Presidential policy that will consult with them and actually allow them to guide if not directly veto American foreign policy. I think what the Norwegians are missing is the same thing that Western Europe is missing and that is how fed up the average American is with the Europeans.

During the 19th Century the Europeans invaded and colonized most of Africa. Actions which they either choose to ignore or see as a benefit to the Africans. What they did was to create totally impossible countries which have led to seemingly endless bloodshed in Africa as one tribe fights another and the national borders are ignored because of their artificiality. This European arrogance carried over into the 20th Century as the Europeans continued their centuries old internal battles and squabbles. By 1914 these squabbles led to WW I and the horrendous slaughter as a whole generation was wiped out. It would have even been worse had not the power of the United States interceded and brought the war to a close.

But European arrogance didn’t end with the first war, they continued their age old games of diplomacy as they divided the spoils and laid the foundations for WW II, the Iraqi wars, the Jihadist War now under way and the wars between Israel and the Arab World. It was the European nations that stood by and watched Hitler rise to power along with Lenin and Stalin. From 1919 until 1939 it was peace at any price in Europe and the Nobel Peace Prize went to Neville Chamberlain for his claim of “Peace in Our Time”. The world wallowed in the Great Depression as Europe watched Communist Russia rise fearful that Marxism would spread and hoping Hitler would be a counter force. Finally Hitler made his move and so once again Europe turned to the US to bail them out of a mess that they created, but this time things had changed.

The US became a world super power facing the Russian colossus over a prostate Europe. With the end of WW II the former European powers of France, Germany, and Britain no longer mattered or at least didn’t matter very much. The relationship between the US and Britain suffered a total reversal. Instead of Britain being Lord of Seas with the US being a client, now it was the US who was Lord of the Seas and Air while Britain was – and continues to be – a client. By 1947 what Europe wanted or didn’t want really didn’t matter, the US consulted them but acted on its own. Europe never recovered its military strength or even its economic power. Europe sank into a socialist funk where the people wanted the government to take care of them. They just wanted to be comfortable, to sit in their cafe’s and watch the world go by – which it has. Western Europe is virtually irrelevant today since they have little to no military power and rely on the US for protection – all the while criticizing America for its bellicosity, materialism, and untrustworthiness.

Since the liberation of Europe by America, the Europeans have been rebuilding their economy but they are no longer the great mercantile nations they once were but have become welfare states with high taxes and a work force more interested in vacations than in wealth accumulation. They are terrified that their great protector – the US – will embroil them in a war. They can no longer rely on American to honor their wishes relative to foreign policies. They still consider America to be run by cowboys who have no sense of history or the value of their more sophisticated world view. The Europeans liked Kennedy because he said things they agreed with ignoring his brinksmanship with the Russians and Viet Nam. But since tha time they have hated virtually every other President but they particularly hated George W Bush because he acted unilaterally. They were stunned when he consulted them after 9/11 but then ignored their advice.

Now we find the Norwegians awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama solely on the basis that he isn’t George Bush. They forget that if it weren’t for those American Cowboys who saved them they would be speaking German. They ignore the fact that it was America who rid Europe of the USSR who had been a threat to them for 70 years. They ignore the reality that Eastern Europe is moving away from socialism and sides with the US on the world stage while Western Europe is in decline due to their heavy socialist programs. The Nobel Committee saw in Obama some one who they think shares their view of socialism and America’s place in the world. That place being where it was in 1914 – subordinate to the will of Europe. Alas those days are gone – never to return no matter what the Norwegians would like to see happen.

President Obama is locked into the reality of the world. He is faced with two wars which he cannot lose because it would threaten world stability for years. His socialist programs are under heavy attack at home and his economy is in a shambles partially due to his attempts to push his socialist agenda. Then he is faced with the economic reality of the rise of India and China both militarily and economically. So while the Norwegians are glad that George Bush is gone what they thought they got may not turn out to be what they wanted, because they represent the past while the US must face the future and President Obama cannot ignore these realities.

Congressional Waste and Self Serving

Here is a letter that needs to be sent to every Republican Congressman. There is no point in sending this to any Democrat or any media outlet because they are in denial. I'm not sure the Republicans aren't in denial as well but at least here is a wake up call. It seems clear to me that the people are being ignored by the congress -- and that goes for the entire congress. When I heard John McCain say that the Healthcare Bill needs "tweaking" I almost barfed!!! The man is totally out of touch with reality. I hear Michael Steele blather on and on being politically correct and not willing to attack the administration or voice any inconvenient truth. It seems to me that the entire elected political structure is totally out of touch and needs to be replaced in its entirety. The idea that you can "spend your way to prosperity" is so ludicrous that you have to question the intelligence of the entire gang in Congress and it isn't just the Democrats that have lost their way -- the Repubicans are just as bad. Shouting that "You lie" to the President means nothing other than bad manners unless the congress is willing to act and so far the only action I have seen has been self serving -- from all of them. The linked letter calls for the impeachment of the President, which I think is not just extreme but a bad precedent. The "people" (incuding a lot of dead ones registered by Acorn) elected this man but it is the Congress who truly holds the power -- power they seem incapable of wielding in a responsible manner and in response to the people whom they are alleged to represent. I'm not even sure that most democrats think they are being properly represented. If nothing else comes from this congress the evils of a one party system are clearly evident. Send this letter to your Republican representative and call for action -- loud, clear, and forceful ACTION!!

Callaway



OPEN LETTER TO MICHAEL STEELE AND THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE

On the first page of your website you have a section that says something to the effect, “tell me what you think.” OK, here it is. How much longer do “we the people” have to sit out here and wait for you to do something? Where is your voice? Where is your spine? Why does a talk show host/entertainer have to do your job? Where is the leadership of the Republican Party in Congress?

If the United States of America survives past 2009 it will certainly not be because the RNC and the congressional leadership stood firm and held news conferences and produced YouTube videos, to keep us, the citizenry informed. What a sad state of affairs when the media controls what we get to hear from you, the elected officials. Are you fearful of what they will call you? Have you no power? Do they own you?

The grassroots have been fighting since April to voice our opposition to what is happening in our government. We have held tea parties, town halls, rants in public places, we have all become proficient on Facebook, twitter, blogs, etc. We stay up most nights trying to Google information, watch Glenn Beck, read and re-read our constitution. We have been like blind people trying to put a puzzle together and now that we are succeeding in seeing what is being done to us, it’s a frightening thing. I can only speak for myself but there have been times in the last six months that I have to pinch myself and ask if I am still in my country.

We have spent time calling, writing, emailing, petitioning our elected officials and we are called un-American, terrorists, mobs, dangerous, right-wing extremists, kooks, etc. I don’t hear national voices calling the main stream media to task for attacking us. I have only heard of one congressman who is going to the Library of Congress before the session begins to look up information on “redressing of grievances”. Why hasn’t the entire Republican congress called a meeting to ask the same thing?

We begged the Republicans to stop cap and trade and they did not. I can’t believe that any thinking person would even be talking about trying to pass something as heinous as HR 3200. When I hear a Republican, especially McCain talk about tweaking the bill and then passing it, I want to scream! What could these people be thinking. The only thing that could help this bill is for it to be flushed!

Do you watch television? Do you watch Fox News? Do you watch Glenn Beck? I’m appalled that there has not been a movement from the Republican Party to impeach this man who is living in our White House. Don’t even try to tell me that we can’t do that. We must impeach him. Are you aware that Van Jones, the green job czar, whose organization, the Apollo Alliance wrote the stimulus bill and is receiving tax dollars to dismantle our country? Van Jones is a self-avowed communist! Those are his words. This man is an advisor to the President? How can that happen? How can any elected official stand by and let this happen? Who is representing us?

What about Cass Sunstein? This man is a fascist nut. Yes, I did say fascist. I’m sick of not being able to speak truths because we’re fearful of not being politically correct. Guess what? We are out of the p.c. closet. Sunstein is a proponent of the ‘nudge’ philosophy – Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Our decisions, our health, our wealth and our happiness. No thank you. This man thinks animals should have the right to take people to court??? This is not a fairy tale.

Now we hear that our internet may be taken from us through legislation. SB 773. Will this be carried out through martial law? I have not heard one Republican official say that they are not going to allow this to happen.

Are all the conspiracy theorists correct when they say that the Republicans are just as instrumental in destroying our country as the liberal fascist arm of the Democratic Party are?

The President is destroying the United States of America. If a Russian Professor can see it, and write articles about it, why can’t you? What do we need to do to start the impeachment process? I could list numerous other things that he has done that I believe are in direct opposition to our constitution but I don’t have the time or the space. You could contact Glen Beck, he will fill you in.

I am going to put this letter on Facebook, Twitter, blogs; I’m going to email it to every address I can get my hands on. I will send it as a press release to every media outlet I can think of and who knows, maybe one or two will print it. I’m going to send it to talk shows and I’m also going to email it to you. I certainly hope I receive an answer and if I do, I will also send that out to all the above mentioned sites.

Thank you for your time and I pray that God will Bless America.

Sincerely,
Pat Wright
Sealy, Texas

President Obama and Chancellor Hitler

From the outset of the Obama Presidential Campaign I was fascinated by the cheering crowds of people. There were hundreds or even thousands of people cheering a man about whom they knew virtually nothing. He was black and that seemed to be the only criteria for the cheering, the opportunity to show that we white folks weren’t racially prejudiced. Here was a man who promised change without ever actually specifying what that change would be or even should be. The crowds were filled with emotion but never seemed to know precisely what they were cheering for or about. However, I remembered the old newsreels showing Hitler speaking before crowds of cheering thousands, people who were cheering a man about whom they knew little but a man who was promising change. Of course things in Germany at the time were very dire, unemployment was high, the economy was in collapse, and national debt was high due to reparations and Hitler was preaching change – changes for the better. When I first raised the issue that people seemed to be cheering Obama with virtually no knowledge of what they were cheering for other than he was black, I was roundly castigated. I was accused of calling Obama –Hitler when in fact all I did was to point out the crowds cheering Obama were eerily like the crowds cheering Hitler.

Since my initial observation Obama has been elected President apparently on the basis of emotion – much like Hitler – because Obama had nothing to recommend him for the job as President. He was an unknown with no experience in any area normally associated with a President. But now that he has assumed the reins of power, perhaps it is time to once again review the parallels between Adolph Hitler and Barack Obama.
The economic conditions in Germany after World War I were horrible. Hitler promised to put people back to work and to restore the economy. Hitler was not very specific regarding what he intended to do but he seemed to know who to blame. The economic conditions in America had suffered the collapse of the High Tech Bubble and had barely recovered when the financial markets collapsed creating chaos and rising unemployment. Obama was never very clear how he intended to change things or improve the economy but he knew he could blame the preceding administration and did and continues to do so even though it is increasingly clear his policies – founded in ideology and not experience – have failed.
Adolf Hitler honed his oratory skills and became a superb speaker. It isn’t necessary that you understand what Hitler is saying because just watching him speak is mesmerizing. Obama isn’t quite as good of as speaker as Hitler was but he is very polished. Of course everything he says in read from a teleprompter so perhaps it is more accurate to call Obama an accomplished reader than a speaker.
Adolf Hitler surrounded himself with thugs and Jew haters. Obama has surrounded himself with tax evaders, Jew haters, and thugs (SEISU).
Adolf Hitler and the Nazis blamed the Jews for their problems. The Obama administration blames everything on the preceding administration and some like Rev Wright blame the Jews and certainly the administration has turned away from Israel.
Adolf Hitler spoke of change and a new Germany. Obama speaks of change and a new America. What goes unsaid is that the New America will be a Socialist America. Hitler was head of the National Socialist Party.
The Nazis burned books to eradicate records and contrary thoughts. Obama hasn’t gone so far as to burn books but his administration attempts to suppress any dissent. While Hitler used his Brown Shirts to bully and intimidate any who opposed him, Obama uses ACORN and the SEISU thugs to bully and intimidate any opposition. This has been very apparent at the Town Hall Meetings where citizens have been intimidated and called Nazi’s and un-American for exercising their rights of free speech.
Hitler was opposed to communism while Obama surrounds himself with people like Bill Ayers and Van Jones who are not only un-American but avowed Marxists. But just as Hitler gradually established one man rule we see Obama doing the same thing as he appoints one Czar after another answerable only to him. This President represents the greatest threat to America, to capitalism, and individual freedom since the British left.

The Founding Fathers

From time to time I encounter various quotes attributed to various members of the Founding Fathers of America, you know that group of self-serving hypocrites Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin. More recently as the new Messiah, Barrack Obama, has ascended to power, the number and frequency of these quotes is increasing, especially those attributed to Thomas Jefferson. So precisely what did this slave owning rich hypocrite do – what are his beliefs?

It was Jefferson who inserted into that revolutionary document that forms the very basis of our nation the statement that has stood as a stumbling block to all tyrants and would be tyrants:
“ ...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. Americans are the only people in the world who have the RIGHT to the pursuit of happiness. Not very specific but it was meant to be imprecise because it represents the first separation of government from individual rights. As long as the individual does not break the law Jefferson intended that he should be free to pursue his own pathway to happiness. Even though Jefferson’s words laid the foundation for the elimination of slavery the fact that he owned slaves forever brands him in the eyes of the modern revisionist history professors – a hypocrite and unworthy of admiration or even study, even though he was a driving force behind the Bill of Rights. It is this Bill of Rights that buttress the Constitution, spell out and guarantee the very fundamental rights that Americans take for granted, but it is this same Bill of Rights that is under attack by those Oligarchs in Washington. Perhaps it is time to review these basic rights, which have been so interpreted and distorted by the Congress and the Supreme Court as to be virtually unrecognizable.

Article 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note that Congress is prohibited from making any law the curtails or restricts the free exercise of religion. It does not state that religion or God should be separate from the government if those governed desire to worship God. Congress cannot abridge the freedom of speech but it says nothing about “hate speech” or the use of profanity but the Supreme court acting unilaterally has declared profanity and pornography protected by free speech but God and racial slurs are not. Precisely who is the hypocrite today?

Article 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Of course this Article is under heavy attack as the Congress and those Oligarchs seek to expand their power. It is to their benefit to disarm the people and it is this precise risk to our freedom that his Article was inserted. The argument is that only the “militia” can be armed which is interpreted as the “National Guard” but it was the Minutemen Farmers who fought and won our independence and it is the well armed citizenry that will and can maintain it. The Constitution specifically spells out this right because the Founding Fathers wanted to protect the people FROM THE GOVERNMENT.



Article 5
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This article has been quoted and employed to great effect but more recently the little phrase at the end regarding private property seems to be routinely ignored by the current administration. We see the government taking over private industry and determining unilaterally the value of the property being taken from the share holders and bond holders. The Bond Holders in particular had a contract that guaranteed them “just compensation” but the administration gave preferential treatment to the labor unions – their big supporters while giving the investors – the capitalists—pennies on the dollar-- Jefferson and Madison be damned!!

As President Jefferson reminded America that our happiness and prosperity rested on a wise and frugal government and a government that would remain free of regulating business and industry and that government “shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned”. The time has long past for Americans to return to those fundamental rights and limitations established by the Founding Fathers and increasingly ignored by Congress, the Supreme Court (and Ninth Circuit Court) and the current Administration who are by passing Congress entirely in their drive for power never intended by the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Climate Change Hypocrisy

There seems to be some really bad news for those uneducated and over educated alarmists who jumped on Al Gore’s self serving Climate Change Bandwagon. It is amusing watching the political sponsors backpedal and distance themselves from this “important” issue that they were so recently extolling. Both Barrack Obama and John McCain drank the Al Gore Kool-aide on Global Warming but now are suffering from the effects of unintended consequences as their support for ethanol as a fossil fuel replacement is causing alarming rises in food prices and creating worldwide food shortages. Apparently the politicians along with many of the trendy fashion setters on the East and West Coasts fail to understand that corn is not just eaten, it is used in a wide variety of ways – like corn syrup. John McCain has joined other GOP politicians in proposing that the Environmental Protection Age (aka We know what’s best for you agency) in loosening federal mandates on ethanol in the fuel supply. Barrack Obama in his usual breathtaking grasp of problems and solutions stated that “this is just something we are going to have to deal with”. Very decisive and I’m sure he HOPES that someone somewhere will come up with a solution while he is focused on CHANGE.

It is understandable that Al Gore has led the charge to de-industrialize the Western Powers, the US in particular, because after all he has admitted at a March 1st conference that he has a financial stake in various “green” companies that are pushing alternative energy sources. But this must be placed in context with his alarmist warnings “that what is at stake here is our ability to live on planet Earth, to have a future as a civilization.” But it seems that in light of recent developments both McCain and Obama are moving away from Gore and his “inconvenient truth” which was never the whole truth and certainly self-serving. What are these “recent developments?” Well it seems amidst the dire warnings from the Goreacle that the Earth was in imminent danger of becoming the “scorched Earth “ due to global warming, we are now faced with a cooling planet.

What science has learned from that old fashioned scientific standby – observation – and not easily manipulated computer models – is that temperatures on Earth have been cooling since 1998. Arctic sea ice is growing and the Antarctic summer thaw began later because of colder temperatures. Furthermore a report in Nature projects that cooler ocean currents are going to cause at least a decade of colder weather. This projection follows two straight mild hurricane seasons. This last winter was the worst that has been experienced in the US and Canada in some time and the snowfall in Michigan was the worst they have experienced in the last 50 years. And all of this happened in spite of a rise in carbon dioxide emissions.

These are facts which the Goreacle and other alarmists would rather not consider even though reputable climatologists have been sounding the warning that the Earth’s climate is a great deal more complex than a self-serving oracle like Gore realizes and that these dire warnings are very pre-mature. Nevertheless this debate is far from over but the spike in food prices and growing food shortages worldwide show the folly of premature action and a failure to understand the ever changing Earth and the scientists who study the Earth and its climate. Recently there was a great deal of media attention over a large calving glacier but what was not given the same amount of media attention was the explanation offered by a University of Alabama scientist (Roy Spencer) who dismissed all of the concerns by pointing out that this “happens every 150 years”. This is very indicative of the way the whole climate change hysteria has been handled by the media. In the early 19th Century Charles Lyell postulated the “Theory of Uniformitarianism” which essentially says that the geological processes that we see today are the same processes that have always existed. This means that it is very rare – if it occurs at all – for something to happen that has never happened before.

There has been concern over the Great Lakes and their falling water levels. This has been viewed as another example of global warming and environmental destruction brought on by irresponsible human activity. However, the Army Corps of Engineers who monitors these things has reported that Lakes Ontario and Erie are closer to record high water marks than they are to their low water marks and this is after just ONE snowy winter. Perhaps it is time for the environmental alarmists to re-examine their position now that it seems that so many of their concerns seem to be unfounded or at least not demonstrable based on empirical data. Computer models can be manipulated and must be verified based on actual observations. Instead of supporting his “Inconvenient Truth” self-serving hype and the de-industrialization of America based on the Kyoto Protocol, maybe it is time for Al Gore to listen to scientists specializing in the climate rather than psychology, sociology, or other unrelated disciplines.

Critical Thinking and Politics

The question that continues to arise is “does anyone think critically anymore?” We are now treated on an almost daily basis to pictures of teenagers and college students waving placards and cheering for Obama. The media dutifully reports this without questioning what all of the cheering is about. The young Senator is for “change” and that seems to be all that is required to electrify the youth – out with the old and in with the new without regard for what is being tossed out and what is being brought in – other than its new. It is time a little critical thinking is employed when it comes to Obama. The media very carefully never challenges him or asks difficult questions and this has become so pervasive and obvious that even Saturday Night Live has parodied this, but when Senator Clinton tries to simply go with the flow on this, the same media attacks her. But the topper came with Obama’s idiotic statement regarding Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Senator proudly announces – when he finally begins to be a little more specific about the “changes” he intends to make – that he would immediately withdraw all American Troops from Iraq and let the natives duke it out. Then if Al Qaeda set up a base in Iraq then he would send the troops back.

Hello – is he so ignorant or so confident of the lack of critical thinking and understanding of the events during the last ten years by his youthful supporters that he honestly thinks that Al Qaeda ISN’T already in Iraq? Has the media taken this opportunity to point this salient fact out to the Senator? Has the media or anyone in that cheering crowd stopped to think that if we immediately withdraw from Iraq, Al Qaeda will not establish a base there because they already have a base there and they will seize the opportunity to regroup and flood the country with another round of murder, intimidation, and destruction. Then the US will have to send troops back in – under the command of Obama – at another huge cost in lives and treasure. If anything ever demonstrated his total lack of experience and unsuitability to be president – this one statement is it. Has the media or his band of rosy cheeked supporters challenged him on this? Not a chance – they simply gloss over it and the cheering and the parade moves on to what they clearly think will be his coronation next January.

But this lack of critical thinking isn’t limited to Senator Obama but the entire media seems to have eliminated any idea that their role is to challenge authority. Instead they seem to now believe that their role is to advance their own agendas, which increasingly seem to rest on emotion and are devoid of any concept of history, economics, and even political theory. The most recent, but certainly not the first nor the last, is the mess in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez rose to power promising the poor that he would eliminate their poverty and break the backs of the capitalists. To that end he fixed prices, nationalized industries, has driven out all of the foreign capitalists, suppressed the press, and launched diversionary attacks on the US. It is the diversionary attack on the US that has enamored the American left with him who did not waiver even when he announced he really wasn’t a “socialist” but a “Marxist”. If anything this self-evident announcement made him even more attractive to the American media and political left.

Well the chickens are coming home to roost, because Venezuela now has a shortage of food, the foreign capitalists are suing Venezuela for the cost of their property seized by Chavez, shortages are everywhere, the quality of life – even for the poor – has declined, and in the classic move by Marxists – he is blaming everyone but him self and his policies. Price controls were tried by the Emperor Diocletian, it failed, and of course he blamed everyone but his policies and himself. Richard Nixon tried to fix prices in the 1970’s which had the same result – shortages. Does the media challenge or even acknowledge the failed policies of Chavez? No indeed, they focus on his attacks on the US, US policies, and his threats regarding the oil companies and their efforts to recover the investments that he stole.

Then of course we have the tired old football being kicked around once again by the left and the media and that is “healthcare”. There is no doubt that the Healthcare system in the US is terrible but the media and left continue to call for government run universal healthcare, without once actually critically examining the results in other countries where the government has taken over the healthcare system. In Canada and the UK waits for critical surgery can be months or even years. In one recent case in Canada a pregnant woman was told the first available appointment with a specialist was in 10 months. In the UK the government control left them without sufficient doctors so they enticed foreign doctors into the country while incentivizing students to go to medical school. Now they have too many doctors and are trying to force the foreign doctors out. This was a failure of central planning when applied to Healthcare, but once again these obvious shortcomings of socialist style programs are ignored because critical thinking is not a strong point by either the media or those that believe the government can do anything efficiently.

Critical thinking is definitely in trouble because no one seems willing to point out that the Emperor has no clothes.

The Press and Objectivity

We are being bombarded with extravagant praise by the popular media for Barrack Hussein Obama. They carefully neglect using his middle name for fear of arousing “unfounded” concerns by the fascistic, homophobic, ignoramuses called “Republicans”. These paeans to the new JFK seem to be based on his “blackness’, his youth, and his charming way of saying nothing at all while making it sound really really important. His platform seems to consist of one plank called change, but precisely what he intends to change or how he intends to change it goes unreported. We are told by the media that 86% of blacks voted for Obama but none of the press or media view this as racist. Insead it is announced with pride that the blacks are clearly voting for the best man, not the black man, although the voting pattern among blacks has consistently been racially based (think Marion Barry among others) and independent of qualifications or even past criminal records. The only solid thing coming from Obama is his determination to end the war in Iraq – not by victory but by surrender – surrender to the Muslims – but we are assured that he is not a Muslim or at least not one of those radical Muslims and that surrender is really not surrender but simply wise policy. Wise policy for who seems to go unreported, but we are told that the youth of American are solidly behind Obama. The assumption here is that these youths are capable of critical thinking and have carefully considered Obama as well as the other Democratic and Republican candidates. Of course this is unlikely because the college campuses from which these youths spring are heavily weighted to the left and any critical discourse is discouraged if not outright forbidden.

The press in the US has continued to drift left as the colleges graduate more and more students who have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the politics of the left. The highly acclaimed Katie Couric in her visit to Cuba in 1992 announced to the world that the standard of living in Cuba was “very high for a third world country”. Of course this oxymoronic observation was duly reported with no critical comment or comparison. In fact Cuba had been among the wealthiest Latin American nations when Castro obtained power by force but now it ranks among the poorest with even the Dominican Republic having a higher standard. Of course the left leaning media do not criticize Marxist regimes that have taken over by force, criticism is aimed only at those brutal dictators that are not Marxists. In fact even as the USSR was disintegrating before the eyes of the world and the evils of Marxism were becoming clear, Peter Jennings continued to laud Cuba and their Marxist paradise – of course ignoring the hundreds – if not thousands of Cubans risking their lives in leaky boats in their desperate flight to the US. So is it any wonder that the media cannot bring themselves to critically examine the leftist politics of a young black man who promises change without specifying what changes. It is worth noting that this was the mantra of Hugo Chavez when he took over Venezuela and who is now admitting to his Marxist beliefs.

It is also worth noting that Robert Frost once said that “A liberal is a man too broad minded to take his own side in a quarrel”. This quote really sums up the liberal position in most situations, especially when it comes to the US. These are the people who will automatically assume that anything the US wants to do is automatically wrong. These are the people who “blame America first” and certainly never give America credit and blame Republicans for everything that they see as being wrong in the world. It was Ronald Reagan who revived the American economy, restored the vitality of NATO, restored America’s domination of the world stage, and forced the USSR to abandon its drive toward world domination and ended the cold war. All of these are enormous achievements but at the conclusion of this Time magazine made Gorbachev “Man of the Year” and to this day the liberal establishment denies that Reagan won the cold war or that he accomplished anything significant – other than to arm the Contras and crush the incipient Marxists for which he was castigated by the press then and now. Any attack on any Marxist government is roundly condemned by the leftist press in America.

Of course the very foundation to the current Democratic platform – if indeed there is one beyond “we aren’t George Bush” is that we need to withdraw from Iraq. The rationale for this position is a little vague other than American Troops are getting killed and we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place. The critical scrutiny of this seems to be restricted to the basis for the decision which is generally believed by the press to be an invasion to support President Bush’s oil interests. Any strategic thinking or examination of the long range effect and impact is missing. Why there is no critical examination of the global situation and the necessity of removing Hussein can only be attributed to a lack of critical thinking, an inability to think strategically, ignorance of geopolitics, or a burning desire to discredit a Republican President – take your pick. Now this same band of geniuses is supporting a very junior senator who has no military experience, no business experience, no administrative experience, very little experience in government, who belongs to a racist and possibly anti-Semitic church and whose only qualification as a candidate seems to be he is black and inexperienced. It would seem that even the media – who are not noted for their high IQ’s – would recognize that the Presidency of the United States is too important of a job to be filled by a candidate who has no experience whatsoever.

The supreme irony here is that the Democrats had a very strong and viable candidate in Governor Richardson. A man whose resume was very strong and who was amply qualified to lead the country. Unfortunately Governor Richardson wasn’t black, wasn’t young, and lacked charisma – all he had were the qualifications necessary to effectively lead the country. Instead the Democrats and the media once again opted for veneers and flash with no substance.

Political Rant 2008 Q 1

Well the 2008 Presidential Campaign is now in full swing with the media fawning all over the Democratic candidates because they know that the current fascist, homophobic and Islamophobic administration is about to come to an end as the American public comes to its senses and finally elects the socialist government that will put America back in synch with our European Allies. Of course in the spirit of fairness the ever left leaning media have anointed that laughable hayseed Pastor Huckabee as the shoo-in candidate of the Republicans. This support of course is quite calculated because the Democratic Party and their sycophantic media pundits are convinced that the Pastor could never be elected by the American electorate because even those denizens of “flyover land” could not possibly be dumb enough to vote for such a yahoo, especially when they are presented with truly great alternatives who will put America on the right track – that is bring the country into the conformance with the UN and the socialist European Community. It isn’t certain that this strategy by the media of supporting a rightwing loser in order to guarantee a victory for the Democratic Party will succeed, especially when the Democratic candidates are given a critical review.

The candidates being put forward are truly a wonder and the wonder is how the public can see any of them as a reasonable choice. Depending on your point of view, the front runner is Hillary Clinton – whose credentials are truly amazing—amazing for their lack of substance. It is true she spent eight years in the white house but by that standard the White House Butler is more qualified because he has spent even more time there, this is known as the “Jeeves Effect”. Hillary Clinton view herself as Co-President and attempted to share the power of the President, which was displayed in her universal healthcare program which flopped. She did run for Senator but her experience as a Senator has been minimal and she can not point to any major legislation or success during her tenure. She is widely viewed as the best and most qualified person to run the country, but this conclusion seems to be based exclusively on her gender because she has never had any diplomatic experience, any military command, or actually managed anything including a business. Somehow the Democratic Party views this almost total lack of experience as inconsequential, but perhaps she is an expert in parliamentary procedures.

The other front runner is Barrack Hussein Obama, who has even fewer qualifications than Hillary Clinton who has almost none. The actual facts surrounding Barrack Obama are carefully glossed over or denied altogether. He is NOT a Muslim but both his father and step-father are not only Muslim they are radical Muslims. So for Obama not to have been influenced by these men he must repudiate them altogether, something that has not been done. He is a Christian, and well he might be but the Christian Church he belongs to is all black, focused on black issues (presumably while still enjoying tax exemptions) and a supporter of Louis Farrakhan a noted bigot and anti-Semite. These things must be placed into perspective when considering Obama’s statement that he will withdraw (surrender is the better word) from Iraq. His position on Israel is either vague or non-existent but like most of the left we can assume he is for peace, which always translates into more concessions by Israel and more justifications for the murderous attacks by the Palestinians.

Nevertheless, these things can be ignored and the focus should be on his qualifications. He has never been in the military, he has no diplomatic experience, he has less than one term as a Senator, he has never managed a business or had to turn a profit, he has no administrative experience in government, and he cannot point to any activity in his past that would qualify him to manage a cookie drive must less the country. So the primary reason to vote for Obama is that he is black. He is also given to demagogic speech laced with vague statements like “we will change the world”. He never explains how he intends to change the world, what he intends to change, or how he intends to change it. A few specifics in his rhetoric would help.

This brings us to former Senator John Edwards. To accept that John Edwards is a simple lawyer who has made a fortune defending the poor and downtrodden is to believe that the famous sailor Edward Teach – aka Blackbeard – made his fortune in shipping. There is nothing quite so satisfying as dipping into the pockets of large corporations while protecting the unfortunate and banking some very handsome fees. But here we have another leading candidate who has no experience outside of the courtroom. He has no diplomatic, administrative, or military background. He has been a Senator so he is as qualified as the other two leading candidates, which is to say, unqualified.

The Democratic Party has truly lost its way and should be renamed the “People’s Socialist Party” because they no longer believe in capitalism or a capitalist America. These are indeed harsh words but these candidates are the ones who are calling for an immediate withdrawal of American Troops from Iraq and Afghanistan which is tantamount to surrendering to the very forces that have attacked America and American interests for more than 30 years. This is the party that has eliminated free speech through their dedication to multi—culturalism and political correctness. Conservative voices are routinely drowned out across college campuses through protests and intimidation reminiscent of the Nazi Brown Shirts and any challenge to the politically correct viewpoint on marriage, abortion, or evolution is not tolerated. This is the party that is dedicated to social engineering through government control and this has already been accomplished through legislation against smoking and efforts at gun control, trans-fats, and fat people. This new Democratic Party is pushing universal – and government controlled – healthcare, while denying they are in favor of socialism or that this is a socialist program.

The candidates for the Democratic Party are advocating change but are saying what changes they are advocating or how they intend to implement them. They should have nominated Joe Lieberman or Governor Richardson, but these men have nothing to recommend them except experience and electability.

Death of the Democratic Party

The strength of the United States was founded upon or certainly has been maintained by the two party system. True, there have been attempts to establish third parties, the Bull Moose Party and the Dixiecrats come to mind, but these have never been successful and the country has continued to be steered by first one party and then the other, but always by a Republican or Democrat. This situation has moved the country first left and then right and then back again. Certainly at various times both parties have been plagued with failures, corruption, and scandal just as each has been distinguished by courage, principles, and success. But the dignity, honor, and strength that has characterized both parties seems to be waning, but more so with the Democratic Party which seems to have become impotent as its members are driven further and further left.

The Democratic Party began moving left with the election of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, but this shift was really barely perceptible and typical of the way the parties had balanced each other because prior to the election of FDR the country had been very conservative and that conservatism – rightfully or wrongfully – was held accountable for the disastrous Great Depression. But the real inflection point came with the appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Justice, an appointment made by the Republican President – Dwight Eisenhower. It was the Warren Court that started the judicial system down the pathway of judicial activism that continues to this day and it was the rulings of this court than began the dramatic shift to the left. Subsequent Republican Presidents have been able to slow this drift but they have not been able to stem the tide toward socialism and left wing activism.

The rule of the majority, the founding principle of the country, has been replaced through judicial activism by the rule of the minority. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights has been stretched by first one judge and then another to include the “right to not be offended” The Freedom of Religion has been distorted to guarantee the right of all minorities to practice their religion (?) while slowly curtailing the right of the Christian majority to practice theirs. The right to not be offended is trampling the Freedom Speech except when that Freedom of Speech is immoral, obscene, anti-American, or anti-Christian. As bad as these things are they still fall within the realm of “correctible”. The real threat to the country comes from the waning power and influence of the Democratic Party and the growing strength of the “progressives” which is the code word for socialists which in turn is code for Marxists.

This dramatic shift to the extreme left began with the founding of Moveon.Org by George Soros, a Hungarian by birth and political activist who claims (with some justification) to have been instrumental in bringing down the communist party in Poland and the governments of Georgia and Czechoslovakia. He has now embarked on a campaign to bring down the government of the United States and to replace it with one more to his liking, which is one where he is the power behind the throne. Clearly he is seeking a role – on a global scale – of Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin. In effect, Soros is using his vast wealth to fund various organizations that support various politicians, who if elected, will be beholden to and controlled by him. This bevy of politicians under the sway of Soros includes, Clinton, Roberts, Gore, and Obama. The election of anyone of these would give Soros the power he seeks and the ability to redirect the government and the foreign policy of the United States. As a naturalized citizen he cannot be President but as one of the richest men in the world, he clearly intends to be the shadow president.

The Democratic Party abandoned Joe Lieberman because he supported the foreign policy of the government, he viewed Islam as a great threat and the War on Terror as real. Now we see Moveon.Org attacking General Petraeus without any condemnation from the leading candidates, who either dodge the issue or soft pedal it but do not condemn it. Now we see the same organization plus many of the front organizations supported by Hillary Clinton (who is supported by Soros) attempting to shut down talk radio and censor Rush Limbaugh. This blatant attack on free speech is not condemned by Moveon.Org or any of the Presidential candidates, instead they are again either silent or softly supporting the Moveon.Org positions.

The real issue here is the absolute silence from the “official” Democratic Party. Howard Dean – the Chairman of the Democratic Party appears to have been transported to some distant planet because he has not uttered any word about anything in months. In fact the Democratic Party appears to have disappeared entirely and has been replaced by Moveon.Org. The policies of the left are not being formulated and articulated by the Democratic Party, they are being formulated by George Soros and articulated by his mouthpieces – Clinton, Roberts, and Obama. The real Democrats like Dodd, Biden, and even Kennedy are silent while the extremists like Reid, Pelosi, and Murtha spend all of their time attacking the current administration rather than trying to run the country. All of this is signals a decline in the power and influence of the national Democratic Party and this represents a threat to the entire country. Remember, Soros has the objective of overthrowing the government and he intends to install himself as the power behind the President. Unfortunately I think Obama, Roberts, and Clinton think they can control Soros, just like the German politicians thought they could control Hitler.

Obama

It seems the party of white guilt has caught Obama Fever – apparently in the vain hope this is a remedy for the Bush Disorder Syndrome, which is characterized by irrational thinking and sometimes by hallucinations regarding facts. Dan Rather succumbed to BDS, so clearly the remainder of the Democratic Party is attempting to recover their sanity by pushing Obama – the fact that he has virtually no qualifications other than his race, seems to be lost in the rush for a cure to BDS.

From the time of his announcement that he was a candidate for President the media has showered him with fulsome praise to the point that one would think he was the second coming of Jesus, but then the radical left doesn’t believe in God much less Jesus, so Obama must be viewed as simply the hero of the hour. Of course hero here is a relative term because the Presidential wannabe has no military experience and is calling for a complete surrender to Al Qaeda, so his heroism seems to be restricted to waving the white flag. So what precisely makes Obama so popular with the left – other than his color and Muslim roots?

Well the media fawn over Obama because of his eloquence, but eloquence really only describes the quality of the delivery not the content, and Obama is certainly slick in his delivery. In his announcement speech Obama stated without hesitation that he firmly believes in “the basic decency of the American People”. Very heady and controversial stuff which certainly sets him apart from most of the Liberals who are rushing to prove how tolerant they are by supporting a black (semi) Muslim.. Unfortunately, while this controversial stand regarding the decency of the American people may distinguish him from the other Democratic candidates, it sort of places him right in the middle of the Republicans, who generally – and I’m not making this up—believe America and Americans are good and decent people.
But Senator Obama went on to condemn the “smallness” in our politics, but precisely what he meant by that isn’t clear. Perhaps this was his eloquent way of saying those people who believe in “small government” shouldn’t vote for me because I am firmly convinced that government should be big and the bigger the better. Of course, he may have meant that there is a certain “pettiness” in contemporary politics, which is certainly true but since most of his Liberal constituency is directly responsible for all of the sniping and mud slinging, he prudently left this a little vague. Courage requires honesty, nevertheless Obama forthrightly decried "a smallness of our politics" -- deftly slipping a sword into the sides of the smallness-in-politics advocates. (To his credit, he somehow avoided saying, "My fellow Americans, size does matter.")
Continuing in his forthright and controversial vein, he took a strong stand against the anti-hope crowd, saying: "There are those who don't believe in talking about hope." Take that, Hillary! But he didn’t stop there, no-siree bob – he underscored his courageous stand by continuing with "I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness in this -- a certain audacity -- to this announcement." Naturally this was a stunning statement that truly impressed the media who are hungry for any controversial morsel, but those of us who are harder to impress were also stunned by Obama’s courageous stand in favor of hope. What stunned the less gullible was what is so audacious about announcing that you're running for president? Any idiot can run for president and many do. Dennis Kucinich is perpetually running for president as is Ralph Nader. Even John Kerry ran for president and Al Gore aka the Goreacle actually got elected Vice President, proving that anyone can be elected. Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.
Obama made his announcement surrounded by hundreds of adoring Democratic voters, who were mostly the reporters. However, to be fair one or two of these reporters actually attended Mitt Romney’s announcement, but they were more interested in seeing a live Mormon and interviewing his wives, who unfortunately turned out be just one wife. But Mormonism lacks the cachet that the controversial Barrack Hussein Obama brings with his Muslim roots, his blackness, and his penchant for saying penetrating and moving statements as he endorses the American People and takes a firm stand in favor of decency. He electrifies the crowd of adoring reporters and other Democratic loyalists by telling us he's brave for announcing that he's running for president and if life gives you lemons, make lemonade. However, to prove that he is really a serious candidate and in an effort to turn his inexperience into an asset, he went on to say: "I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." The reporters all swooned at this so they missed the great tagline delivered by Jesse Jackson “What did he say?”