I have a case of the Obama blues, a nagging depression that is exacerbated daily by having to listen to the endless lies he tells about everything when he isn't blaming Congress, the Republicans, and everyone else for the horrid state of the economy and his rejection of the leadership America demonstrated through both World Wars and since.
Showing posts with label Alan Caruba. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alan Caruba. Show all posts
I've got the Obama blues
I have a case of the Obama blues, a nagging depression that is exacerbated daily by having to listen to the endless lies he tells about everything when he isn't blaming Congress, the Republicans, and everyone else for the horrid state of the economy and his rejection of the leadership America demonstrated through both World Wars and since.
We now living in an Orwellian era of super-dooper snoopers
By Alan Caruba
While in the U.S. Army in the early 60s, I worked in the G-2 (intelligence) office of my battalion. I was surely no James Bond, but I did need a security clearance and quickly was granted one to be around documents marked “secret.” There are now thousands waiting for their security clearances and 4.8 million who already have one!
Gas prices should be a lot lower
In the past whenever gas prices began
to climb, whoever was president usually got the blame for it, but there never
was anything he could do about it. The price at the pump was and is dependent on
global factors. What can, however, be said about Barack Obama is that he has led
the most anti-energy administration in the history of the nation.
A nation's economic stability and growth depends on affordable, abundant energy, especially hydrocarbon energy in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas. In the U.S. so-called "renewable" energy – wind and solar – has been a huge, costly bust as billions in loans during Obama's first term were lost as one "green energy" company after another went belly up. At the same time, a war on coal closed mines and shut down plants using it to generate electricity. Look for it to continue.
A nation's economic stability and growth depends on affordable, abundant energy, especially hydrocarbon energy in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas. In the U.S. so-called "renewable" energy – wind and solar – has been a huge, costly bust as billions in loans during Obama's first term were lost as one "green energy" company after another went belly up. At the same time, a war on coal closed mines and shut down plants using it to generate electricity. Look for it to continue.
Benghazi lies
At an April 17 session before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the new Secretary of State, John Kerry, lightly dismissed the assassination of a U.S. ambassador and three security personnel in Benghazi, Libya, saying "I don't think anybody lied to anybody. And let's find out exactly, together, what happened, because we need – we got a lot more important things to move on to and get done."
Relentless liars:
The great green edifice is crumbling
The New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club emailed to invite me to attend a
"conversation on climate change in a post-Sandy New Jersey" intended to focus on
the "impacts of fossil fuel pollution" later this month. "We need to take action
to address and prevent the future impacts of climate change. Hurricane Sandy was
the latest storm in an increasing trend of more extreme and severe
weather."
Gun control is DOA in Congress
April 7, 2013
When I was a teenager I was a magician
performing at birthday parties and before local clubs whose adults enjoyed
legerdemain as much as the kids. The essence of magic is diversion, distracting
the audience to watch the right hand while the left is setting up the illusion.
It was a lesson I never forgot as I watch politicians divert attention from
their actual agenda and right now President Obama is engaged in that as he goes
around the nation asking for more gun control.
The killings in Colorado and at Sandy Hook school were committed by
certifiably insane individuals. No background check can determine a person's
sanity. If seeking the advice and care of a psychiatrist and psychologist would
disqualify a person from gun ownership than their privacy will have been invaded
in ways prohibited by medical ethics and the constitutional right to privacy.
Police cannot arrest anyone on the suspicion they're nuts. The only protection
against them is a sane armed gun-owner.

The right to self-defense is as old as mankind. All tyrannical governments seek to disarm their citizens. The Founders of America understood this. Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall ever been debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
It has become a cliché to say that Barack Obama has become the greatest gun salesman because, as noted in a December 2012 report by CNSnews.com, "Compared to the number of background checks completed from January through December of 2011, all but two states saw net increases in gun sales in 2012." Background checks to ensure that those with criminal records are a good idea, but criminals or crazy people can always get their hands on a gun. The Sandy Hook murders were perpetrated by a lunatic using the legal guns purchased by his mother. She was his first victim.
"Washington, D.C. saw the largest year-to-year increase," reported CNSnews.com, "with sales jumping 49.7%. Wisconsin followed with 45.5%, then New Jersey with 42.5%. New Hampshire with 40.9% and Rhode Island with 39.3%. The largest increases occurred in Georgia, Oregon, New Hampshire, Texas and Montana.
In 2011 gun owners in America outnumbered hunters by 5 to 1. Hunters constitute only 15.9% to 18% of the estimate 70-80 million gun owners. Together they owned an estimated 300 million firearms, about 100 million of which were handguns.
That is one hell of a voting bloc!
The members of Congress know this. Writing in January, Wall Street Journal columnist, Kimberley A. Strassel, castigated "the elites" noting that the "one issue on which Congress still resoundingly agrees" is gun rights. The so-called debate over gun-control is led by the most elitist of all, Obama.
"On the other side," wrote Strassel, "is the reality that any of these proposals must, in the normal course of things, pass Congress. A few quick facts about that body. (1) More than half of its members have an 'A' rating from the National Rifle Association. (2) The few members today calling for gun control are the same few who have always called for gun control. (3) The House is run by Republicans."
"Even were the Senate to summon 60 votes (unlikely), and even if Mr. Boehner to risk the renewed wrath of his caucus by moving such a bill (crazy unlikely), any legislation would fall to members such as Virginia's Bob Goodlate (who runs the Judiciary Committee) and Pete Sessions (who runs the Rules Committee). Mr. Goodlate is strong on gun rights. Mr. Sessions is from Texas."
A new gun control law on top of the 1,100 that already exist is dead on arrival in Congress. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, knows this. Even Obama knows this. So why is he going around the nation giving gun control speeches? It is the old magician's trick of diversion and distraction. Gun control has no priority in a nation awash in debt, concerned about illegal immigration, and even threatened by the insane leader of North Korea.
"The more sweeping any gun proposals," observed Ms. Strassel, "the more dead on arrival they will be in Congress. Mr. Obama might know that and be planning to take credit for going big while blaming failure on Congress. If so, he'll have to beat on his own party."
There are harsh, irresponsible and irrational gun control laws being passed in heavily liberal states, but they can and will be repealed in time as political control passes to legislators who get elected running against them. The Wall Street Journal reports that "This year, five states have passed seven laws that strengthen gun restrictions, while 10 states have passed 17 laws that weaken them, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which tracks and promotes gun-control-laws.
Nothing can be done to stop the crazies, but the vast numbers of gun owners are not crazy. They are, however, worried about a government showing signs of trying to take their guns away. Elections are a defense against such actions.
The right to self-defense is as old as mankind. All tyrannical governments seek to disarm their citizens. The Founders of America understood this. Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall ever been debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
It has become a cliché to say that Barack Obama has become the greatest gun salesman because, as noted in a December 2012 report by CNSnews.com, "Compared to the number of background checks completed from January through December of 2011, all but two states saw net increases in gun sales in 2012." Background checks to ensure that those with criminal records are a good idea, but criminals or crazy people can always get their hands on a gun. The Sandy Hook murders were perpetrated by a lunatic using the legal guns purchased by his mother. She was his first victim.
"Washington, D.C. saw the largest year-to-year increase," reported CNSnews.com, "with sales jumping 49.7%. Wisconsin followed with 45.5%, then New Jersey with 42.5%. New Hampshire with 40.9% and Rhode Island with 39.3%. The largest increases occurred in Georgia, Oregon, New Hampshire, Texas and Montana.
In 2011 gun owners in America outnumbered hunters by 5 to 1. Hunters constitute only 15.9% to 18% of the estimate 70-80 million gun owners. Together they owned an estimated 300 million firearms, about 100 million of which were handguns.
That is one hell of a voting bloc!
The members of Congress know this. Writing in January, Wall Street Journal columnist, Kimberley A. Strassel, castigated "the elites" noting that the "one issue on which Congress still resoundingly agrees" is gun rights. The so-called debate over gun-control is led by the most elitist of all, Obama.
"On the other side," wrote Strassel, "is the reality that any of these proposals must, in the normal course of things, pass Congress. A few quick facts about that body. (1) More than half of its members have an 'A' rating from the National Rifle Association. (2) The few members today calling for gun control are the same few who have always called for gun control. (3) The House is run by Republicans."
"Even were the Senate to summon 60 votes (unlikely), and even if Mr. Boehner to risk the renewed wrath of his caucus by moving such a bill (crazy unlikely), any legislation would fall to members such as Virginia's Bob Goodlate (who runs the Judiciary Committee) and Pete Sessions (who runs the Rules Committee). Mr. Goodlate is strong on gun rights. Mr. Sessions is from Texas."
A new gun control law on top of the 1,100 that already exist is dead on arrival in Congress. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, knows this. Even Obama knows this. So why is he going around the nation giving gun control speeches? It is the old magician's trick of diversion and distraction. Gun control has no priority in a nation awash in debt, concerned about illegal immigration, and even threatened by the insane leader of North Korea.
"The more sweeping any gun proposals," observed Ms. Strassel, "the more dead on arrival they will be in Congress. Mr. Obama might know that and be planning to take credit for going big while blaming failure on Congress. If so, he'll have to beat on his own party."
There are harsh, irresponsible and irrational gun control laws being passed in heavily liberal states, but they can and will be repealed in time as political control passes to legislators who get elected running against them. The Wall Street Journal reports that "This year, five states have passed seven laws that strengthen gun restrictions, while 10 states have passed 17 laws that weaken them, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which tracks and promotes gun-control-laws.
Nothing can be done to stop the crazies, but the vast numbers of gun owners are not crazy. They are, however, worried about a government showing signs of trying to take their guns away. Elections are a defense against such actions.
Is National Poetry Month an oxymoron?
April 1st marks the beginning of
National Poetry Month and I want you to restrain yourself from dashing around
trying to find a single book or anthology of poetry where you call home. If you
do have one, it likely is something you brought home from college or an older
relative gave you as a birthday gift. Poetry does not line our bookshelves and
plays virtually no role in our lives these days unless you are older and
developed a liking for it in your youth.
A carbon tax would destroy America
you want to know what a carbon tax on emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would do to America you need only look at the destruction of industry and business in Australia, along with the soaring costs for energy use it imposes on anyone there.
An hour of darkness. or light!
On Saturday, Greens around the world will turn off their lights in a symbolic "Earth Hour" gesture against climate change, the term they adapted in the face of the fact that the Earth has been cooling for seventeen years and is on the cusp of a mini-ice age that will ensure cold weather for many years to come.
What the sex lives of California mice can tell you
According to Cheryl Rosenfeld, an associate professor of biomedical sciences in the University of Missouri's Bond Life Science Center, loading up a bunch of California mice with a mega-dose of bisphenol A (BPA) showed researchers that "What we have observed in those models is that BPA affects male rodents differently from females."
Obama's carbon dioxide lies
The utter desperation of the "Warmists," the advocates of global warming – now called climate change – is evident in a recent "study" reported in the Daily Caller in which "an international team of researchers" concluded that "earthworms could be contributing to global warming." Earthworms!
American way of war
The U.S. military has been in
Afghanistan since shortly after September 11, 2001. That's eleven years and it
is longer than the time spent in Vietnam, though with less casualties. We
invaded Iraq twice, once to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait after he invaded
in 1990 and then, in 2003 to depose him in the hope of bringing "democracy" to
that nation. After the 2005 elections, Iraq was eager to see us leave, but many
observers say it is as wracked with violence today as it was during our
occupation.
The American way of war is not working and has not been working since the 1970s.
Armies are not intended to be "nation building" forces. Their job is to kill the enemy and break things until a threat to our national security is ended. We did that during World War II, fighting it in two theatres, Europe and Asia. We won because we inflicted an enormous amount of damage in both theatres of war in just four year's time.
Empires have invaded Afghanistan for centuries and usually left bloodied and battered, Alexander the Great, the British Empire, and the former Soviet Union are examples. I doubt there is anyone who thinks we should still be there, particularly since we fought the war by shuffling in a new general every year, none of whom were there long enough to grasp what had to be done other than to build up an Afghani security force that is just as likely to oppress the people as the Taliban. The rules of engagement there are a threat to the lives of every American soldier. It is the seventh century in Afghanistan still today.
This is a very bad way to wage war in the 21st century and I suggest we need to go into combat with the intent of waging short, brutal engagements, enough to suppress the existing threat and then leave with the obvious option of returning if that is required.
World War II was one in which we had to occupy Japan to build an entirely new government and we had to aid Europe to ensure the Soviet Union would not be able to go beyond the eastern nations that were sacrificed to keep those in the west free to rebuild. Cont. Reading
The American way of war is not working and has not been working since the 1970s.
Armies are not intended to be "nation building" forces. Their job is to kill the enemy and break things until a threat to our national security is ended. We did that during World War II, fighting it in two theatres, Europe and Asia. We won because we inflicted an enormous amount of damage in both theatres of war in just four year's time.
Empires have invaded Afghanistan for centuries and usually left bloodied and battered, Alexander the Great, the British Empire, and the former Soviet Union are examples. I doubt there is anyone who thinks we should still be there, particularly since we fought the war by shuffling in a new general every year, none of whom were there long enough to grasp what had to be done other than to build up an Afghani security force that is just as likely to oppress the people as the Taliban. The rules of engagement there are a threat to the lives of every American soldier. It is the seventh century in Afghanistan still today.
This is a very bad way to wage war in the 21st century and I suggest we need to go into combat with the intent of waging short, brutal engagements, enough to suppress the existing threat and then leave with the obvious option of returning if that is required.
World War II was one in which we had to occupy Japan to build an entirely new government and we had to aid Europe to ensure the Soviet Union would not be able to go beyond the eastern nations that were sacrificed to keep those in the west free to rebuild. Cont. Reading
Doomsday et cetera
America and the rest of the world are
in a confluence of events that are causing widespread anxiety and fear. The
Connecticut massacre is just one, isolated example.
It is being reported that the killer's mother was as mentally unstable as her son. A report in the British daily, the Mail, said "Friends and family portrayed Adam Lanza's mother Nancy as a paranoid 'survivalist' who believed the world was on the verge of violent, economic collapse" who had been "stockpiling food, water, and guns in the large home she shared with her 20-year-old son in Connecticut."
Why Adam Lanza decided to kill children and staff will never be
known, but it fits into a larger picture of the widespread fears surging over
the planet like winds of doom. The tens of thousands of Syrian civil war victims
are too great a number to grasp, but twenty children and six teachers and staff
is.
We view the world through the prism of our own life experiences and the young among us have considerably less on which to draw in terms of understanding a world that appears to be — and is — a dangerous place where our freedoms and our lives are seen to be in imminent danger.
On Friday, December 21, millions around the world will await the fulfillment of a Mayan prediction that it will come to an end. When one considers that the end came long ago for the Mayan civilization, there is some irony in this, but it is testimony to the many end-of-the-world predictions that are embedded in religions that billions adhere to and believe.
There are Bible stories such as Noah's flood preparations to avoid an angry God's decision to start over again or with the story of Armageddon. When the first atomic bomb tests were successful, Robert Oppenheimer, one of its creators reportedly said, "I have become Shiva," the god of death and the destroyer of worlds from the Hindu holy book, the Bhagavad Gita: "If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one."
It was an apt quote because mankind has arrived at a point where
nuclear weapons can kill millions. In the back of our minds, we all worry that
Iran, a nation ruled by fanatical Muslims who believe that widespread death and
destruction is necessary to bring about the return of a mythical Twelfth Imam
and the rule of Islam over the world. These leaders regard the U.S. as "the
great Satan" and Israel as the "Little Satan." Irrationality has never been a
deterrent to war and, in the last century, we witnessed two world wars and many
lesser ones that arose from the human instinct to conquer and kill.
It is noteworthy that the Iranians and other Muslims adamantly deny the Nazi Holocaust that systematically killed six million Jews in Europe during World War II. The resurrection of the state of Israel is one of the true miracles of modern times after the passage of two thousand years.
The prospects for avoiding a Middle East cataclysm are growing slimmer as the Obama administration has hued closely to the belief — disproven throughout history — that one can resolve such outcomes by talking to one's enemies, even those who have openly stated their wish to kill us. In a world filled with nations in the grip of despots — often elected to office — this is wishful thinking to the point of national suicide.
Then, too, since the 1980s the world has been assailed by the greatest hoax, global warming claiming the destruction of all life on Earth due to the rise of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. It has been rising although it remains a trace gas, barely 0.038%, but the Earth has been in a natural cooling cycle for the past sixteen years and shows no evidence of warming, nor ever could be affected by CO2 which plays no role in climate change. What does? The Sun.
Religious zealots have been joined in recent times by a new priesthood, the many scientists who have been predicting the end of mankind. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich, a biologist who worked closely with the current science advisor to the President, John Holdren, predicted that "The battle to feed all over humanity is over." He predicted that millions would die. They didn't.
The Bulletin of the Atomic scientists moved its Doomsday Clock one minute closer to midnight at the start of 2012, saying "The global community may be near a point of no return in efforts to prevent catastrophe from changes in Earth's atmosphere." Rubbish! The Earth's climate has gone through many epochs that were filled with catastrophes, including Ice Ages and magnetic reversals that brought with them mass extinctions of species.
The classic Bible story in Revelation depicts the Four Horseman, conquest, war, disease and death. Despite these, the world population quadrupled in the 20th century, given improved agricultural advances in seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, transport, and irrigation. Even so, we're told that family size continues to shrink on every continent, despite predictions that it will top out at around nine billion by 2050. But they are only predictions, much like the Mayan calendar prediction.
Lastly, for Americans, there is the prospect of debt that could render the dollar useless and yet we continue to see Congress relentlessly borrowing and spending more money than the economy can possibly sustain; $4.8 billion is borrowed every day. All good and bad things come to an end if prudence and good governance is not exercised.
All this has long been known. In 55 BC, the Roman philosopher, Marcus Tillius Cicero, said "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."
Finally, America is as deeply divided among its citizens as it has ever been since 1861 when it engaged in a Civil War that killed a tenth of its population. A nation this divided has little hope to sustain itself, especially when one half of the population is heavily taxed to sustain the other half that ops to live on government handouts.
A random, senseless act of violence such as occurred in Newtown, Connecticut, only exacerbates our fears. There are, however, far greater things to fear — real, not imaginary — and individually we feel helpless to avert them.
It is being reported that the killer's mother was as mentally unstable as her son. A report in the British daily, the Mail, said "Friends and family portrayed Adam Lanza's mother Nancy as a paranoid 'survivalist' who believed the world was on the verge of violent, economic collapse" who had been "stockpiling food, water, and guns in the large home she shared with her 20-year-old son in Connecticut."
We view the world through the prism of our own life experiences and the young among us have considerably less on which to draw in terms of understanding a world that appears to be — and is — a dangerous place where our freedoms and our lives are seen to be in imminent danger.
On Friday, December 21, millions around the world will await the fulfillment of a Mayan prediction that it will come to an end. When one considers that the end came long ago for the Mayan civilization, there is some irony in this, but it is testimony to the many end-of-the-world predictions that are embedded in religions that billions adhere to and believe.
There are Bible stories such as Noah's flood preparations to avoid an angry God's decision to start over again or with the story of Armageddon. When the first atomic bomb tests were successful, Robert Oppenheimer, one of its creators reportedly said, "I have become Shiva," the god of death and the destroyer of worlds from the Hindu holy book, the Bhagavad Gita: "If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one."
It is noteworthy that the Iranians and other Muslims adamantly deny the Nazi Holocaust that systematically killed six million Jews in Europe during World War II. The resurrection of the state of Israel is one of the true miracles of modern times after the passage of two thousand years.
The prospects for avoiding a Middle East cataclysm are growing slimmer as the Obama administration has hued closely to the belief — disproven throughout history — that one can resolve such outcomes by talking to one's enemies, even those who have openly stated their wish to kill us. In a world filled with nations in the grip of despots — often elected to office — this is wishful thinking to the point of national suicide.
Then, too, since the 1980s the world has been assailed by the greatest hoax, global warming claiming the destruction of all life on Earth due to the rise of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. It has been rising although it remains a trace gas, barely 0.038%, but the Earth has been in a natural cooling cycle for the past sixteen years and shows no evidence of warming, nor ever could be affected by CO2 which plays no role in climate change. What does? The Sun.
Religious zealots have been joined in recent times by a new priesthood, the many scientists who have been predicting the end of mankind. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich, a biologist who worked closely with the current science advisor to the President, John Holdren, predicted that "The battle to feed all over humanity is over." He predicted that millions would die. They didn't.
The Bulletin of the Atomic scientists moved its Doomsday Clock one minute closer to midnight at the start of 2012, saying "The global community may be near a point of no return in efforts to prevent catastrophe from changes in Earth's atmosphere." Rubbish! The Earth's climate has gone through many epochs that were filled with catastrophes, including Ice Ages and magnetic reversals that brought with them mass extinctions of species.
The classic Bible story in Revelation depicts the Four Horseman, conquest, war, disease and death. Despite these, the world population quadrupled in the 20th century, given improved agricultural advances in seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, transport, and irrigation. Even so, we're told that family size continues to shrink on every continent, despite predictions that it will top out at around nine billion by 2050. But they are only predictions, much like the Mayan calendar prediction.
Lastly, for Americans, there is the prospect of debt that could render the dollar useless and yet we continue to see Congress relentlessly borrowing and spending more money than the economy can possibly sustain; $4.8 billion is borrowed every day. All good and bad things come to an end if prudence and good governance is not exercised.
All this has long been known. In 55 BC, the Roman philosopher, Marcus Tillius Cicero, said "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."
Finally, America is as deeply divided among its citizens as it has ever been since 1861 when it engaged in a Civil War that killed a tenth of its population. A nation this divided has little hope to sustain itself, especially when one half of the population is heavily taxed to sustain the other half that ops to live on government handouts.
A random, senseless act of violence such as occurred in Newtown, Connecticut, only exacerbates our fears. There are, however, far greater things to fear — real, not imaginary — and individually we feel helpless to avert them.
Alan Caruba
December 20, 2012
December 20, 2012
Americans at risk from anti-terrorism law
While Americans were going about their
lives Wednesday evening, the U.S. House of Representatives voted for the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), said to provide the government with
great means to fight terrorism.
One of its provisions would permit government law enforcement authorities to detain terror suspects without trial and thus eviscerate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution that protect citizens "against unreasonable searches and seizures" and to ensure that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury..." with some exceptions.
On December 14th, Politico.com reported that "the measure split Democrats right down the middle, with 93 voting in favor and 93 against legislation that President Barack Obama tactily endorsed earlier in the day be retreating from a veto threat." Civil liberties and human rights groups "were in a furor Wednesday night over Obama's decision to drop his veto threat following changes made to the detainee-related sections of the bill."
Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch said, "By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law."
In Michigan, its House of Representatives unanimously voted to oppose NDAA 107-0. Its bill asserts that no state employee or agency would assist the federal government — in any way — in the detainment of people under the 2012 NDAA. The Obama administration has reportedly aggressively argued in court that the executive branch has this power. It does not. NDAA not only is unconstitutional, it poses the greatest threat to individual freedom every proposed by the government.
A law suit was instituted in March against NDAA and it was initiated by leading members of the nation's left. They include Michael Moore, Daniel Ellsberg, Chris Hedges, Noam Chromski, Naomi Wolf, and Cornell West. The suit was brought against President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, House Speakers, and Department of Defense representatives for "injunctive relief barring the implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act's 'homeland battlefield' provisions for indefinite detention and suspension of Habeus Corpus.
Chris Hedges, a New York Times reporter, said at the time that "I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists. But does not make me one," warning that "if there is no rolling back of the NDAA law we cease to be a constitutional democracy. Totalitarian systems always begin by rewriting the law. They make legal what was once illegal."
"Crimes become patriotic acts," warned Hedges. "The defense of freedom and truth becomes a crime. Foreign and domestic subjugation merges into the same brutal mechanism. Citizens are colonized. And it is always done in the name of national security. We obey the new laws as we obeyed the old laws, as if there was no difference. And we spend our energy and our lives appealing to a dead system."
The lead attorney, Carl Mayer, said, "The Homeland Battlefield Law is as Orwellian as its name implies. America is not a 'battlefield'; it is a democratic republic. This law is unconstitutional because it violates the free speech and due process rights of American citizens."
The issue of lost rights and protections is beginning to manifest itself in the public forum. In a column published in the Washington Post in January, JonathanTurley, the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University, identified the many ways the civil liberties we take for granted have been rolled back in the wake of 9/11. They include the assertion under both President Bush and Obama to assassinate any citizen deemed a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Both assert indefinite detention and the president may now order warrantless searches, the use of secret evidence, and secret courts, as well as immunity from judicial review. This is not just unconstitutional, it is totalitarianism in bold letters.
A former member of the National Security Agency, William Binney, recently warned that all Americans are under virtual surveillance. Binney said that "the FBI can access the emails of virtually everybody in the nation." The former director of the CIA, Gen. David Patreaus, discovered that to his dismay.
On May 16th, an Obama-appointed judge, Katherine B. Forrest, blocked the section of last year's NDAA that purported to 'reaffirm' the 2001 authorization to use military force against al Qaeda. The judge agreed with the plaintiffs that the relevant section of the law was "not merely an 'affirmation." Judge Forrest pointed out that a variety of other statutes permit the detention of those engaged in terrorism or its support.
The wording of the law passed by the House reinstates the provision to detain anyone the federal government deems a terrorist threat for any reason, including as Hedges pointed out, having dinner with a suspected terrorist.
Does it come as any surprise that, on December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the NDAA, codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trail into law for the first time in American history?
Sad to say, the Bush administration asserted similar claims of worldwide detention authority to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody. The ACLU, a liberal organization, is on record saying that "any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA" adding that "the breadth of the NDAA's detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war."
When those on the far left line up against such a law, you have to know it is noxious, unconstitutional, and a threat to the life and liberty of every American. It is nothing less than a form of Nazism.
Also See
One of its provisions would permit government law enforcement authorities to detain terror suspects without trial and thus eviscerate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution that protect citizens "against unreasonable searches and seizures" and to ensure that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury..." with some exceptions.
On December 14th, Politico.com reported that "the measure split Democrats right down the middle, with 93 voting in favor and 93 against legislation that President Barack Obama tactily endorsed earlier in the day be retreating from a veto threat." Civil liberties and human rights groups "were in a furor Wednesday night over Obama's decision to drop his veto threat following changes made to the detainee-related sections of the bill."
Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch said, "By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law."
In Michigan, its House of Representatives unanimously voted to oppose NDAA 107-0. Its bill asserts that no state employee or agency would assist the federal government — in any way — in the detainment of people under the 2012 NDAA. The Obama administration has reportedly aggressively argued in court that the executive branch has this power. It does not. NDAA not only is unconstitutional, it poses the greatest threat to individual freedom every proposed by the government.
A law suit was instituted in March against NDAA and it was initiated by leading members of the nation's left. They include Michael Moore, Daniel Ellsberg, Chris Hedges, Noam Chromski, Naomi Wolf, and Cornell West. The suit was brought against President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, House Speakers, and Department of Defense representatives for "injunctive relief barring the implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act's 'homeland battlefield' provisions for indefinite detention and suspension of Habeus Corpus.
Chris Hedges, a New York Times reporter, said at the time that "I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists. But does not make me one," warning that "if there is no rolling back of the NDAA law we cease to be a constitutional democracy. Totalitarian systems always begin by rewriting the law. They make legal what was once illegal."
"Crimes become patriotic acts," warned Hedges. "The defense of freedom and truth becomes a crime. Foreign and domestic subjugation merges into the same brutal mechanism. Citizens are colonized. And it is always done in the name of national security. We obey the new laws as we obeyed the old laws, as if there was no difference. And we spend our energy and our lives appealing to a dead system."
The lead attorney, Carl Mayer, said, "The Homeland Battlefield Law is as Orwellian as its name implies. America is not a 'battlefield'; it is a democratic republic. This law is unconstitutional because it violates the free speech and due process rights of American citizens."
The issue of lost rights and protections is beginning to manifest itself in the public forum. In a column published in the Washington Post in January, JonathanTurley, the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University, identified the many ways the civil liberties we take for granted have been rolled back in the wake of 9/11. They include the assertion under both President Bush and Obama to assassinate any citizen deemed a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Both assert indefinite detention and the president may now order warrantless searches, the use of secret evidence, and secret courts, as well as immunity from judicial review. This is not just unconstitutional, it is totalitarianism in bold letters.
A former member of the National Security Agency, William Binney, recently warned that all Americans are under virtual surveillance. Binney said that "the FBI can access the emails of virtually everybody in the nation." The former director of the CIA, Gen. David Patreaus, discovered that to his dismay.
On May 16th, an Obama-appointed judge, Katherine B. Forrest, blocked the section of last year's NDAA that purported to 'reaffirm' the 2001 authorization to use military force against al Qaeda. The judge agreed with the plaintiffs that the relevant section of the law was "not merely an 'affirmation." Judge Forrest pointed out that a variety of other statutes permit the detention of those engaged in terrorism or its support.
The wording of the law passed by the House reinstates the provision to detain anyone the federal government deems a terrorist threat for any reason, including as Hedges pointed out, having dinner with a suspected terrorist.
Does it come as any surprise that, on December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the NDAA, codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trail into law for the first time in American history?
Sad to say, the Bush administration asserted similar claims of worldwide detention authority to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody. The ACLU, a liberal organization, is on record saying that "any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA" adding that "the breadth of the NDAA's detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war."
When those on the far left line up against such a law, you have to know it is noxious, unconstitutional, and a threat to the life and liberty of every American. It is nothing less than a form of Nazism.
Also See
Is Pearl Harbor ancient history?
Alan
Caruba
December 6, 2012
December 6, 2012
I recall in my youth thinking that the
Civil War (1861-1865) was ancient history. As with most children, anything that
occurred before my birth was "ancient." In point of fact, the Civil War had
ended just 72 years before I was born in 1937 and there were likely some men
still alive who had fought in it or recalled it as youth.
I suspect that the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, December 7, 1941, the day that Franklin Delano Roosevelt said "will live in
infamy" is ancient history to several recent generations of Americans, many of
whom are the aging baby boomers, the children born after our troops returned
home, married, and began to raise families after 1945, the year World War II
ended.
What I fear most is that the children and grandchildren of those baby boomers may not even know what occurred on that Sunday morning 71 years ago.
The general ignorance of Americans about their own history comes with its own price. Forgetting or never knowing that a long Cold War was fought with the Soviet Union from the end of World War II until its collapse in 1991 has left this nation with a President whose ideology concerning capitalism and centralized government closely mirrors the communist empire America expended blood and treasure to defeat.
While younger generations may have a fleeting grasp of the 1970s Vietnam War, most probably do not even know that, shortly after World War II ended, many U.S. servicemen were called to duty to fight the invasion of South Korea by North Korea, 1950-1953, a communist satellite of China whose troops were involved. I have an older brother who served in the Tokyo-based Supreme Headquarters Far East Command during that war. You can bet he remembers it.
The Korean War ended in a stalemate. Technically, only a ceasefire agreement exists. South Korea went on to become an industrial success story while North Korea still cannot keep the lights on at night. It makes nuclear weapons and missiles to pay the bills these days, in addition to a variety of other criminal activities. The grandson of its first dictator is the new dictator and observers have dubbed North Korea "China's hidden dagger" because nothing happens there without Chinese oversight and permission.
Pearl Harbor has a special place in American history because it marked the U.S. entry into World War II. The war had been raging in Europe since 1939 and, frankly, a lot of Americans did not want to get involved in a second European conflict since memories of World War I which had ended in 1918 were still relatively fresh in people's minds. Pearl Harbor changed all that.
Men lined up to enlist to fight World War II. They volunteered in
the thousands because they understood the threat to freedom the regimes of the
Nazis and the Japanese Empire represented. Similarly, after 9/11 there was a
surge of enlistments to fight the rising tide of Islamic aggression.
The Cold War was still active when President Lyndon Johnson decided to increase the numbers of U.S. forces in Vietnam. The war had begun in 1955 against the French for whom Vietnam was a colony. By 1975, after the U.S. had been involved from the 1960s, the death toll topped 58,000 when the U.S. negotiated its way out of what had become an ignominious defeat.
Why did LBJ escalate our participation? He had fought in WWII and spent much of his life in Congress during the Cold War. For him, WWII and the Korean War were still relatively fresh in mind. Like many others, he believed in the "domino theory" that postulated a loss in Vietnam would lead other Asian nations into the Communist orbit. Red China was still very much an enemy at the time. Ultimately, the war was so unpopular that he decided against running for a second term.
It was left to Richard Nixon to extricate us from Vietnam and then to open the doors to China. In doing so he transformed the future for both our nations. He will, however, be remembered for Watergate and for being the only President to resign the office.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are beginning to fade from public memory, despite the 9/11 attack on our homeland.
In 1986 I boarded a boat at Pearl Harbor to visit the Memorial over the USS Arizona, a sunken battleship. As I looked around me, I realized that the majority of other visitors were Japanese tourists! When we disembarked, one by one they would stand in front of the names of U.S. casualties on that day that filled one of the walls. Then they would bow deeply and say a prayer for their souls. We had all come a long way from December 7, 1941.
Do our present youth and perhaps even their parents remember Pearl Harbor? I doubt it.
What I fear most is that the children and grandchildren of those baby boomers may not even know what occurred on that Sunday morning 71 years ago.
The general ignorance of Americans about their own history comes with its own price. Forgetting or never knowing that a long Cold War was fought with the Soviet Union from the end of World War II until its collapse in 1991 has left this nation with a President whose ideology concerning capitalism and centralized government closely mirrors the communist empire America expended blood and treasure to defeat.
While younger generations may have a fleeting grasp of the 1970s Vietnam War, most probably do not even know that, shortly after World War II ended, many U.S. servicemen were called to duty to fight the invasion of South Korea by North Korea, 1950-1953, a communist satellite of China whose troops were involved. I have an older brother who served in the Tokyo-based Supreme Headquarters Far East Command during that war. You can bet he remembers it.
The Korean War ended in a stalemate. Technically, only a ceasefire agreement exists. South Korea went on to become an industrial success story while North Korea still cannot keep the lights on at night. It makes nuclear weapons and missiles to pay the bills these days, in addition to a variety of other criminal activities. The grandson of its first dictator is the new dictator and observers have dubbed North Korea "China's hidden dagger" because nothing happens there without Chinese oversight and permission.
Pearl Harbor has a special place in American history because it marked the U.S. entry into World War II. The war had been raging in Europe since 1939 and, frankly, a lot of Americans did not want to get involved in a second European conflict since memories of World War I which had ended in 1918 were still relatively fresh in people's minds. Pearl Harbor changed all that.
The Cold War was still active when President Lyndon Johnson decided to increase the numbers of U.S. forces in Vietnam. The war had begun in 1955 against the French for whom Vietnam was a colony. By 1975, after the U.S. had been involved from the 1960s, the death toll topped 58,000 when the U.S. negotiated its way out of what had become an ignominious defeat.
Why did LBJ escalate our participation? He had fought in WWII and spent much of his life in Congress during the Cold War. For him, WWII and the Korean War were still relatively fresh in mind. Like many others, he believed in the "domino theory" that postulated a loss in Vietnam would lead other Asian nations into the Communist orbit. Red China was still very much an enemy at the time. Ultimately, the war was so unpopular that he decided against running for a second term.
It was left to Richard Nixon to extricate us from Vietnam and then to open the doors to China. In doing so he transformed the future for both our nations. He will, however, be remembered for Watergate and for being the only President to resign the office.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are beginning to fade from public memory, despite the 9/11 attack on our homeland.
In 1986 I boarded a boat at Pearl Harbor to visit the Memorial over the USS Arizona, a sunken battleship. As I looked around me, I realized that the majority of other visitors were Japanese tourists! When we disembarked, one by one they would stand in front of the names of U.S. casualties on that day that filled one of the walls. Then they would bow deeply and say a prayer for their souls. We had all come a long way from December 7, 1941.
Do our present youth and perhaps even their parents remember Pearl Harbor? I doubt it.
The Middle East minefield
I often wonder whether Americans
really care about the outcome of events as regards Israel. I know that a segment
of American Jews are concerned and that evangelical Christians may care even
more.
I can't escape the feeling, though, that other than the horror of an
Iranian nuclear missile blowing up Israel and killing its citizens (both Jewish
and Muslim), that most Americans are not that committed to its survival. I
suspect that most Europeans are even less committed.
I cite Israel because of the hostility of all others in the Middle East, but they may not be as hostile as things appear. Israel is a major deterrent to Iran's ambitions.
Things are never what they seem in the Middle East.
A recent article in CanadaFreePress.com by Doug Hagmann suggests that the Benghazi affair that the Obama administration is trying to get passed actually masks a major arms movement from Libya to the Syrian rebels in order to overthrow its dictator, Bashar Assad. Hagmann asserts that it was a CIA operation, not a diplomatic one, and what was attacked was not a consulate, but rather a site for the storage and transmittal of weapons. The attack was an effort to disrupt it by those seeking to keep Assad in power, both Russia and Iran.
The major actors in this are the U.S., Turkey, and Egypt. The main benefactor would be Saudi Arabia whose oil fields are within the range of Iranian missiles. The Russians are part of the picture because they do not want to lose a key Syrian port for its naval ships, but Russia, too, is a major oil producer and anything that might harm its interests is seen as a bonus.
After 9/11 when the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were attacked Americans supported an energetic response, but after George W. Bush committed troops to Afghanistan and Iraq it wasn't long before Americans decided it was a bad idea. Too many memories of Vietnam along with too much cost in blood and treasure took the edge off of the reprisal in Afghanistan or the deposing of Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Iraq is an oil producer as well, but is now allied with the Iranians where its president found sanctuary during Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.
Leon Trotsky, an associate of Stalin, once said, "You might not be interested in war, but war may be interested in you." Wars occur in various ways, deliberate and accidental, but it is the latter that would seem the case these days in a Middle East where Hamas engaged in a lengthy barrage of rockets and then acted surprised that Israel responded, killing a number of their top people and inflicting a lot of damage in Gaza.
Hamas was acting under the orders from Iran. The president of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, brokered a cease fire deal, but also decided he wants to be the next dictator of Egypt. Who saw that coming? The Egyptians had risked life and limb in Cairo's Tahrir Square to depose Hosni Mubarack and then turned around and voted Morsi into office.
What were they thinking? Why didn't they embrace a more secular leader? The answer is that Islam is everything in the Middle East. Muslims cannot change and it is foolish to think they will. If you loved the seventh century, you will love the Middle East.
Egypt is important to the U.S. What happens there determines much of the direction the Middle East takes. That explains why the Obama administration wants to forgive a billion in debt and to throw another billion or more at Morsi by way of enlisting him to act as a counter weight to Hamas. On Nov 24 Iranian president Mahmud Ahmadinejad was on the phone to Hamas's Ismail Haniya and with Jihad Islami leaders to assure them they would be receiving munitions to refill their arsenals.
Reportedly, Obama has agreed to send U.S. troops to Egypt's Sinai to interdict the arms smuggling routes through the desert to Gaza. Indeed, it was this offer that is said to have gotten Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu to back off a ground invasion, but in this three dimensional game of chess, Israel, Egypt, and Turkey are all working with the U.S.
The U.S. Navy has been busy throughout the brief conflict and earlier. For years it has taken up permanent residency off the coast of Iran and in the Persian Gulf. Other elements are presently positioned off the coast of Syria where their Russian counterparts can also be found.
Bashar Assad has made Turkey very nervous. Moscow, Tehran, and Damascus want to keep him alive. Turkey borders Syria, Iraq, and Iran, and is in proximity of Russia, bordering Georgia. It has its hands full just tending to the thousands of Syrians that have fled there. The U.S. is providing Turkey with Patriot missiles and AWACs, manned by U.S. military, and that could become yet another flashpoint.
None of the nations involved want a really big war to break out.
The wild card is Israel whose very existence is threatened by Iran. The U.S. is doing what it can to avoid that. So far the cooperation is working. If Iran announces it has nuclear weapons or Israeli intelligence determines that's the case, all bets are off.
The major beneficiary of all of this is Saudi Arabia and, as the leader of the majority Sunni Muslims worldwide, it has no love for Shiite Iran. In effect the U.S. intelligence capabilities and its military have become its mercenary army, eliminating Saddam Hussein, standing aside when Mubarack and Gaddafi fell and now working to eliminate Bashar Assad.
The U.S. doesn't mind working with dictators, so long as they are "our" dictators, friendly to our interests.
I cite Israel because of the hostility of all others in the Middle East, but they may not be as hostile as things appear. Israel is a major deterrent to Iran's ambitions.
Things are never what they seem in the Middle East.
A recent article in CanadaFreePress.com by Doug Hagmann suggests that the Benghazi affair that the Obama administration is trying to get passed actually masks a major arms movement from Libya to the Syrian rebels in order to overthrow its dictator, Bashar Assad. Hagmann asserts that it was a CIA operation, not a diplomatic one, and what was attacked was not a consulate, but rather a site for the storage and transmittal of weapons. The attack was an effort to disrupt it by those seeking to keep Assad in power, both Russia and Iran.
The major actors in this are the U.S., Turkey, and Egypt. The main benefactor would be Saudi Arabia whose oil fields are within the range of Iranian missiles. The Russians are part of the picture because they do not want to lose a key Syrian port for its naval ships, but Russia, too, is a major oil producer and anything that might harm its interests is seen as a bonus.
After 9/11 when the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were attacked Americans supported an energetic response, but after George W. Bush committed troops to Afghanistan and Iraq it wasn't long before Americans decided it was a bad idea. Too many memories of Vietnam along with too much cost in blood and treasure took the edge off of the reprisal in Afghanistan or the deposing of Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Iraq is an oil producer as well, but is now allied with the Iranians where its president found sanctuary during Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.
Leon Trotsky, an associate of Stalin, once said, "You might not be interested in war, but war may be interested in you." Wars occur in various ways, deliberate and accidental, but it is the latter that would seem the case these days in a Middle East where Hamas engaged in a lengthy barrage of rockets and then acted surprised that Israel responded, killing a number of their top people and inflicting a lot of damage in Gaza.
Hamas was acting under the orders from Iran. The president of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, brokered a cease fire deal, but also decided he wants to be the next dictator of Egypt. Who saw that coming? The Egyptians had risked life and limb in Cairo's Tahrir Square to depose Hosni Mubarack and then turned around and voted Morsi into office.
What were they thinking? Why didn't they embrace a more secular leader? The answer is that Islam is everything in the Middle East. Muslims cannot change and it is foolish to think they will. If you loved the seventh century, you will love the Middle East.
Egypt is important to the U.S. What happens there determines much of the direction the Middle East takes. That explains why the Obama administration wants to forgive a billion in debt and to throw another billion or more at Morsi by way of enlisting him to act as a counter weight to Hamas. On Nov 24 Iranian president Mahmud Ahmadinejad was on the phone to Hamas's Ismail Haniya and with Jihad Islami leaders to assure them they would be receiving munitions to refill their arsenals.
Reportedly, Obama has agreed to send U.S. troops to Egypt's Sinai to interdict the arms smuggling routes through the desert to Gaza. Indeed, it was this offer that is said to have gotten Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu to back off a ground invasion, but in this three dimensional game of chess, Israel, Egypt, and Turkey are all working with the U.S.
The U.S. Navy has been busy throughout the brief conflict and earlier. For years it has taken up permanent residency off the coast of Iran and in the Persian Gulf. Other elements are presently positioned off the coast of Syria where their Russian counterparts can also be found.
Bashar Assad has made Turkey very nervous. Moscow, Tehran, and Damascus want to keep him alive. Turkey borders Syria, Iraq, and Iran, and is in proximity of Russia, bordering Georgia. It has its hands full just tending to the thousands of Syrians that have fled there. The U.S. is providing Turkey with Patriot missiles and AWACs, manned by U.S. military, and that could become yet another flashpoint.
None of the nations involved want a really big war to break out.
The wild card is Israel whose very existence is threatened by Iran. The U.S. is doing what it can to avoid that. So far the cooperation is working. If Iran announces it has nuclear weapons or Israeli intelligence determines that's the case, all bets are off.
The major beneficiary of all of this is Saudi Arabia and, as the leader of the majority Sunni Muslims worldwide, it has no love for Shiite Iran. In effect the U.S. intelligence capabilities and its military have become its mercenary army, eliminating Saddam Hussein, standing aside when Mubarack and Gaddafi fell and now working to eliminate Bashar Assad.
The U.S. doesn't mind working with dictators, so long as they are "our" dictators, friendly to our interests.
What I heard at the debate
As civil as the debate may have
seemed, it was a brawl. Central to it were all the lies President Obama
continues to tell about his record in office and about his challenger, Mitt
Romney. And Romney would not let him get away with it. Time and again he rose to
his feet to rebut and debunk those lies and I suspect a lot of people who saw
him in the first debate were in agreement with him in this second
debate.
In a column on Tuesday, Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens
perfectly anticipated Obama's lies. Under the headline, "To
the Wavering Voter" it repudiated the Obama campaigns assertions about a
totally bogus "war on women" saying, "No, abortion rights and access to
contraception will not be jeopardized if Mitt Romney becomes president. Not
remotely, not vaguely, not even close."
He went through the claims that Romney would engage in another Middle East War or that the nation would become a global pariah with Romney as president. Moving on, Stephens said, "No, your taxes will not go up by a couple of grand"noting that "As for the $5 trillion tax cut the Obama campaign insists Mr. Romney is offering, Obama campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter admitted on CNN that 'It won't be near $5 trillion,' once deductions and loopholes are closed."
I cite Stephen's prescient column because, if he could anticipate Obama's lies, than you can be sure Mitt Romney did and that was demonstrated throughout the debate. At the very end, Obama could not resist misrepresenting Romney's earlier "47%" comment during a closed fundraising event. Romney described that as an "inelegant statement" and then repudiated it, but Obama repeated it in his closing statement.
Throughout the debate Romney called Obama a liar in the most gentlemanly way possible, but a liar he was and is.
One lie that jumped out at the very beginning of the debate was Obama responding to a college student's question saying "Your future is bright," adding "I want to build on the five million jobs we've created." What jobs? Half of today's college graduates cannot even find a job comparable to their educational level, if at all. And the future is most demonstrably not bright.
Romney responded with the fact that there are 23 million Americans out of work. The truth! He cited the phony official unemployment rate and said it was a lot closer to 10.7%. Obama said, "What Gov. Romney said just isn't true." Obama lied. Romney cited figures that appear daily in newspapers.
Throughout the debate Obama demonstrated how obsessed he is with class warfare, returning time and again to observations about the nation's wealthiest class.
He lied about his energy policies and claimed that Romney's plan was "to let oil companies write energy policy." The absurdity of this was seen as Romney cited the cost of gas at the pump, Obama's veto of the Canadian pipeline, and the refusal of his administration to allow drilling for oil and natural gas on federal lands. He cited the fact that the coal industry was targeted and the loss of coal-fired plants to generate electricity.
And Obama's response was to lie again! "Very little of what Governor Romney said isn't true." But it was and it is. It's not even a secret.
Romney scored some good points promising that he would fix the tax code, promising "No tax on your savings, interest, dividends and capital gains." This is the money that investments generate and the nation is experiencing slow growth because such investments have been discouraged or rendered meaningless with the Federal Reserve's low-to-no interest rates. And Obama's only response was that "We have to make the wealthy do more."
This is how a man worth ten million dollars responded, but surely Obama knows that the wealthy in this nation, through their taxes, represent 60% of the revenue collected annually.
Romney showed himself in control throughout the debate and showed something that has been sorely missing for nearly four years; leadership!
And all Romney had to do is cite facts that most voters already know; that Obama "doubled" the deficits, that 23 million are out of work, that millions more are on food stamps, that millions have slipped into poverty while Obama and Michelle lived and vacationed like royalty on the taxpayer's dime.
On the issue of inequality in the workplace for women, Romney masterfully told how as Governor of Massachusetts he sought out women for his cabinet, then pointed out that "in the last four years 558,000 women lost jobs and many moved into poverty."
"It's not a strong economy," Romney said and anyone listening knew he was telling the truth.
And yet Obama actually claimed there had been "31 months of job growth." Then he criticized Romney for investing in companies in China. The fact is that Obama's chairman of his jobs council, GE's CEO Jeffrey Immelt closed GE divisions here in the U.S. and moved them to China!
In an understated, but quite symbolic moment, an African-American, Michael Jones, stood up and told Obama "I'm not optimistic about the future."
Obama's response was "Osama bin Laden is dead." "We saved the auto industry." And then he rattled on about "millionaires and billionaires."
Romney's response was "I think you know better," adding "The President has tried, but his policies haven't worked.
There were many other issues, but on the issue of the assassination of a U.S. ambassador in Libya, Obama first dodged the question and then claimed he had instructed that all embassies "beef up" their security when that was a lie. Then he had the audacity to claim Romney was trying to make "political points" from the attack, but Romney referenced the weeks that went by as the White House lied about a "spontaneous" attack. All Obama could cite was a speech in the White House Rose Garden that day after the killings.
Obama does not seem to understand that Americans do not want or need another speech.
In the end, Romney said "We don't have to settle for what we're going through."
One can only hope that a lot of Americans, particularly those yet undecided, agree with him.
He went through the claims that Romney would engage in another Middle East War or that the nation would become a global pariah with Romney as president. Moving on, Stephens said, "No, your taxes will not go up by a couple of grand"noting that "As for the $5 trillion tax cut the Obama campaign insists Mr. Romney is offering, Obama campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter admitted on CNN that 'It won't be near $5 trillion,' once deductions and loopholes are closed."
I cite Stephen's prescient column because, if he could anticipate Obama's lies, than you can be sure Mitt Romney did and that was demonstrated throughout the debate. At the very end, Obama could not resist misrepresenting Romney's earlier "47%" comment during a closed fundraising event. Romney described that as an "inelegant statement" and then repudiated it, but Obama repeated it in his closing statement.
Throughout the debate Romney called Obama a liar in the most gentlemanly way possible, but a liar he was and is.
One lie that jumped out at the very beginning of the debate was Obama responding to a college student's question saying "Your future is bright," adding "I want to build on the five million jobs we've created." What jobs? Half of today's college graduates cannot even find a job comparable to their educational level, if at all. And the future is most demonstrably not bright.
Romney responded with the fact that there are 23 million Americans out of work. The truth! He cited the phony official unemployment rate and said it was a lot closer to 10.7%. Obama said, "What Gov. Romney said just isn't true." Obama lied. Romney cited figures that appear daily in newspapers.
Throughout the debate Obama demonstrated how obsessed he is with class warfare, returning time and again to observations about the nation's wealthiest class.
He lied about his energy policies and claimed that Romney's plan was "to let oil companies write energy policy." The absurdity of this was seen as Romney cited the cost of gas at the pump, Obama's veto of the Canadian pipeline, and the refusal of his administration to allow drilling for oil and natural gas on federal lands. He cited the fact that the coal industry was targeted and the loss of coal-fired plants to generate electricity.
And Obama's response was to lie again! "Very little of what Governor Romney said isn't true." But it was and it is. It's not even a secret.
Romney scored some good points promising that he would fix the tax code, promising "No tax on your savings, interest, dividends and capital gains." This is the money that investments generate and the nation is experiencing slow growth because such investments have been discouraged or rendered meaningless with the Federal Reserve's low-to-no interest rates. And Obama's only response was that "We have to make the wealthy do more."
This is how a man worth ten million dollars responded, but surely Obama knows that the wealthy in this nation, through their taxes, represent 60% of the revenue collected annually.
Romney showed himself in control throughout the debate and showed something that has been sorely missing for nearly four years; leadership!
And all Romney had to do is cite facts that most voters already know; that Obama "doubled" the deficits, that 23 million are out of work, that millions more are on food stamps, that millions have slipped into poverty while Obama and Michelle lived and vacationed like royalty on the taxpayer's dime.
On the issue of inequality in the workplace for women, Romney masterfully told how as Governor of Massachusetts he sought out women for his cabinet, then pointed out that "in the last four years 558,000 women lost jobs and many moved into poverty."
"It's not a strong economy," Romney said and anyone listening knew he was telling the truth.
And yet Obama actually claimed there had been "31 months of job growth." Then he criticized Romney for investing in companies in China. The fact is that Obama's chairman of his jobs council, GE's CEO Jeffrey Immelt closed GE divisions here in the U.S. and moved them to China!
In an understated, but quite symbolic moment, an African-American, Michael Jones, stood up and told Obama "I'm not optimistic about the future."
Obama's response was "Osama bin Laden is dead." "We saved the auto industry." And then he rattled on about "millionaires and billionaires."
Romney's response was "I think you know better," adding "The President has tried, but his policies haven't worked.
There were many other issues, but on the issue of the assassination of a U.S. ambassador in Libya, Obama first dodged the question and then claimed he had instructed that all embassies "beef up" their security when that was a lie. Then he had the audacity to claim Romney was trying to make "political points" from the attack, but Romney referenced the weeks that went by as the White House lied about a "spontaneous" attack. All Obama could cite was a speech in the White House Rose Garden that day after the killings.
Obama does not seem to understand that Americans do not want or need another speech.
In the end, Romney said "We don't have to settle for what we're going through."
One can only hope that a lot of Americans, particularly those yet undecided, agree with him.
Can Obama's foreign policies suck any worse?
Other than the sound bites on the TV
news, I doubt that most people have actually read Mitt
Romney's Monday speech at the Virginia Military Institute. It was
extraordinary and demonstrated a grasp of the many regions of the world that
pose problems for their citizens, their neighbors, and, in some cases, the whole
world.
The world always has been and likely always will be a dangerous place somewhere. When I look at the United Nations headquarters in New York, what I see is a place that would make a decent condominium, complete with its own theatre, because it is the most failed international institution on Earth.
Even though the UN has 192 members, the U.S. in 2010 contributed on average between 22% and 27% of the budgets for thirty-seven UN organizations, agencies, commissions, and programs. With the exception of Western member nations, the UN is a cruel charade about peace, human rights, and democracy.
There's an independent watchdog organization called Freedom House that performs a valuable service by surveying the nations of the world to identify those where freedom is still struggling to emerge. In its recent report, "Countries at the Crossroads 2012" it spells out where the trouble spots are and, without intending to, it is also a global map of Obama's pathetic foreign affairs policies.
If you put the Freedom House report side-by-side with Mitt Romney's speech text, you would discover that he has a remarkable grasp of the realities of the shifting dynamics of world affairs. As he said in his speech, "Hope is not a strategy." If anything, Obama's strategies — assuming he even has any — have demonstrably weakened America's role in the Middle East and throughout the world. A President who does not attend daily intelligence briefings as those before him did is quite simply absent without leave.
Freedom House analyst, Vanessa Tucker, says bluntly that "The weakness of the governance institutions in the Middle Eastern and North African countries can be seen in the riots occurring across the region and the authorities' inability to respond effectively to unrest. After decades of corrupt and repressive rule, citizens in these states are facing brutal and ineffective security forces, habitually divisive and confrontational politics, and a lack of productive avenues through which to lodge their grievances and assert their rights."
It's not just the Middle East. In Latin America there has been a surge of violence and organized crime — drug cartels — have not hesitate to kill journalists in Mexico and Honduras, affecting as well the political process in Mexico and in Guatemala. In Asian nations, particularly Sri Lanka and Vietnam, Indonesia and Cambodia, the governments continue to restrict freedom of expression. South Africa is suffering the dominance of the African National Congress and there are electoral abuses in Malawi and Uganda. Tanzania and Zimbabwe are cesspools of corruption.
Romney's speech was filled with specifics, but you would not know that from the way it was generally under-reported.
# Romney identified the attacks in Libya and against our embassies in "two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia" as evidence of widespread anti-Americanism. They were, he said, the work of those "who seek perpetual war on the West." Can you spell j-i-h-a-d? Romney can.
# Romney said, "I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability." By contrast, Obama has done everything he can to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
# Romney said, "I will roll back President Obama's deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military. I will make critical defense investments that we need to remain secure. The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war." That is a lesson that even the ancient Greeks understood when they said "Si vis pacem, para bellum" If you want peace, plan for war.
# Romney said "I will champion free trace and restore it as a critical element of our strategy...the President has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years. I will reverse that failure."
I have never lived in an America that was not a world leader and, following WWII, a superpower. For more than four decades the U.S. faced off against the former Soviet Union until its collapse. The U.S. Navy has kept the sea lanes of the world open. The U.S. has gone to war when it was deemed the only option.
Obama has been the first President since George Washington to assert that "any world order that elevates one nation or group over another will inevitably fail." A world that looks to the U.S. for leadership has witnessed the failure of Obama's foreign policy.
We can only continue our exceptional role if we get our fiscal house in order and that means ridding the nation of the most profligate chief executive in our history. We can rebuild our military and create thousands of jobs in the process. We can tap our enormous energy reserves and create more thousands of jobs. We can lift the regulatory burden from businesses large and small. We can reform our tax laws.
We can make ourselves and our allies safer in an ever-dangerous world, but not if we have a President whose only strategy for peace and security is "hope." It is no substitute for leadership and preparedness.
Best known these days as a commentator on issues ranging from environmentalism to energy, immigration to Islam, Alan Caruba is the author of two recent books, "Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy" and "Warning Signs" — both collections of his commentaries since 2000 and both published by Merril Press of Bellevue, Washington
The voter ID thing
Alan
Caruba
September 27, 2012
September 27, 2012
On September 25th, according to
Congressional Black Caucus Chairman, Emmanuel Cleaver, "we cannot even find an
instance of voter fraud" but the NAACP would disagree as it strives to keep
Voter ID laws from being passed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



















