Monday, May 30, 2011

The Arab World Is
Heading For Its Own
Winter Of Discontent

by Norman Tebbit - May 30th, 2011 - The London Telegraph

Now as I look at what has happened in Iran and Syria, I feel sad. When I look at Iraq, I ask myself what is better for most people there than it was before the allied invasion. The Marsh Arabs in the south and the Kurds in the north may be safer, but Christians are certainly not. A secular and broadly tolerant prosperous middle class has been destroyed, economic development set back, and terrorism has become endemic.

It is too bad that George W. Bush envied Ronald Reagan so much that he refused to take advise from those he saw as aligned with Reagan. Though he loved Blair as the leader of the British people, it is a shame Bush did not spend more time with those who followed the Thatcher side of politics as Tebbit did. He wouldn't because of his resentment of their identity with Reagan. However if Bush had been more mature in his insights he might have avoided one disaster that happened under his leadership.

The brief bio on the article mentions that Lord Tebbit was a senior minister under Thatcher. Tebbit has long been a practical and knowledgeable advisor on the Middle East. His knowledge of terrorism is more personal. He and his wife were buried for hours under the rubble from the Brighton bombing intended to kill Thatcher, and it left his wife paralyzed. Lord Tebbit has few illusions about those who would use terror as a tactic.

Unfortunately George W. Bush has proved to be more gullible. He has wasted thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars seeking a "free democracy" in Iraq and Afghanistan that is never going to happen. We won the war against the evil people in these two countries. We then threw away the victory searching for an ideologically driven end result, nation building, that we never had a chance to make happen.

It is still never going to happen.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

A World Of Financial Ruin

by Conrad Black - May 28th, 2011 - National Post Of Canada

The world’s reserve currency, the fabled vehicle of the “faith and credit of the United States,” is now virtual money — a symbol for all the other massive problems afflicting the U.S. economy. The imported share of America’s oil consumption, for instance, has gone from 20% to 60%. Large suppliers like Iran and Venezuela have become hostile countries. Yet Americans remain neurotic about paying half the gas price of other oil-importing countries.

The cost per capita of U.S. medical care is $7,000 compared to the average among Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom, of $3,000; 70% of the people have immensely generous plans that they love with passionate attachment and don’t pay for, either as contributors or as taxable benefits, and the political class won’t touch this. [Emphasis added] Unfortunately, much of the other 30%, 100 million Americans, get what amounts to emergency health care only, and much of it is uninsured and is billed to the recipient until the patient is out of money, and only then provided gratis. Most of the largest states are bust; Social Security, student loans, Medicare (for the elderly in the U.S.) are all, also, in desperate need of an utterly cacophonous national conversation.

Unless the United States has the most spectacular cognitive awakening since Brunhilda, if not Lazarus, the laws of arithmetic are going to assert themselves in Zeus-like terms.

This article's honesty about the rest of the Western World, is equal to the above about the United States. We are hurtling towards a financial crisis that will dwarf the 2008 crisis. That one was mostly a crisis created by the panic of investors who were going to lose their fortunes and was rigged to get the average tax payer to bail out the rich who had bet wrong.

The next crisis is coming because government has continued to spend like there is no tomorrow, virtually assuring that there is no tomorrow.

Saturday, May 28, 2011

From Worst Disaster
To Biggest Embarrassment

by Humberto Fontova - May 27th, 2011 - The Washington Times

“It cannot be repeated often enough,” says Louisiana marine biologist Jerald Horst. "Crude oil is a natural substance; it’s biodegradable. It’s a feast for microbes. And these consumed most of it from the BP spill.” The horrid black goo that leaked into the Gulf of Mexico from the BP spill last year is certainly toxic - but so are broccoli, beer and salt. It all depends on the dosage. In fact, that horrid black goo has spilled naturally into the Gulf for millenniums - at the rate of two Exxon Valdez spills annually.

This is an article that dispels the chicken little hysteria of the environmental extremists. Or it would if they cared about reality instead of demagoguery. But they don't. They lie about anything to promote their religion of government tyranny. They want a government powerful enough to take away cheap energy. That is the true agenda. Political power.

They really could care less about oil versus wind.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Obama's Mideast Bombshell

Editorial - May 26th, 2011 - The Washington Times

The Obama administration is being subjected to a minute examination of everything it says connected to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. As reported by The Washington Times’ Kerry Picket, attention is being focused on a May 18 State Department circular announcing the visit of Deputy Secretary of State James B. Steinberg to Israel, Jerusalem and the West Bank; The implication in the wording is that the State Department consciously separates Jerusalem from Israel. This is part of an emerging pattern coming from Foggy Bottom. An April 14 press release announced, "Ambassador-at-Large for Global Womens Issues Melanne Verveer will travel to Egypt, Israel, Jerusalem and the West Bank from April 15 through April 22." A release from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad noted, "Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration Eric P. Schwartz will travel to Geneva, Iraq, Israel, Jerusalem and the West Bank from May 2-12."

The Jerusalem Post reported that the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv denied any shift in policy and explained that the odd phrasing was because of great sensitivity to words in the region and that America was trying to be a fair interlocutor. That's nonsense because the fair interlocutor standard simply affirms Palestinian claims on the city, something Israel rejects and the Obama administration refuses to address openly. In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama said, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." He has not made the same pledge recently and has taken a number of steps that demonstrate he has flipped on this issue.

Dividing Jerusalem from Israel in official communiques affirms what the White House is too timid to say openly, namely that Mr. Obama sees carving up the city as a legitimate path to peace.

Of course Obama does not care what the American people want any more than he cares what our allies in Israel want. He only cares what the extreme left wing radicals in his Marxist circle of sycophants want. And they want Israel destroyed.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

The Sheer Idiocy Of
Income Inequality Rhetoric

by Louis Woodhill - May 25th, 2011 - Forbes Magazine

Envy is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, but Progressives seem to believe that it is a virtue. How else to explain articles like “For Our Top 400 Taxpayers, A Near-Record Year“?

This report was cited approvingly by left-wing columnist Harold Meyerson in an article he published in the Washington Post on May 17. Here is a quote:
Well, America’s 400 wealthiest taxpayers certainly can (afford to pay more taxes). In 1955, according to the Campaign for America’s Future, the country’s 400 wealthiest taxpayers had an average income of $13.3 million (in 2008 dollars) and paid 51.2 percent of that in federal income taxes. In 2008, according to IRS calculations, they had an average income of $270.5 million and paid 18 percent of that in federal income taxes. And in 1955, by the way, we could afford to pave roads.

Envy appears to lead to idiocy. Meyerson doesn’t seem to realize that the facts that he cites so disapprovingly actually make the case for supply-side economics. They demonstrate that cutting tax rates increases both GDP and federal revenues.

The math comes out the same way every time. The above math only appears to give the advantage if you focus on the rates rather than the tax receipts. Total taxes received are 50% higher from the rich under low tax rates as opposed to high tax rates. Democrats are so stupid they just cannot deal with the consequences of high tax rates. They never seem to understand that high rates means less investment, a refusal to take risk, lower profits and thus less tax receipts . It is not complicated. So why are Democrats so consistently and repeatedly stupid that they NEVER understand this?

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

The Truth Behind Chrysler’s
Fake Auto Bailout Pay Back

by Conn Carroll - May 24, 2011 - The Washington Examiner

It is not every day that the White House and Democratic National Committee celebrate a supposedly private company’s debt restructuring plan, but such is the marriage of big government and big business under the Obama administration. The New York Times reports: “Chrysler said Tuesday that it had paid back $7.6 billion in loans from the American and Canadian governments, marking another significant step in the revival of the company, the smallest of the Detroit automakers.”

The truth is that $4 billion of a $13 billion loan was forgiven, not paid back, in the Chyrsler bailout bankruptcy.

Now another $3.5 billion is being loaned to Fiat under totally corrupt interpretations of another grant program to allow Fiat to pay back a similar amount against the original loan. In fact, nothing has been paid back. Chrysler still owes the American government $9 billion after giving up rights to $4 billion of the original loan of $13 billion.

This is called Obamanomics. In earlier days it was called a lying fraud.

An Ill Season

by Andrew McCarthy - May 14th, 2011 - National Review Online

Screaming “With our blood and soul, we will defend you, Islam,” jihadists stormed the Virgin Mary Church in northwest Cairo last weekend. They torched the Coptic Christian house of worship, burned the nearby homes of two Copt families to the ground, attacked a residential complex, killed a dozen people, and wounded more than 200: just another day in this spontaneous democratic uprising by Muslim hearts yearning for freedom.

In the delusional vocabulary of the “Arab Spring,” this particular episode is known as a sectarian “clash.”

Our President lauds this "Arab Spring" explosion of hate and violence as a good thing. That it is led by our enemies does not seem to bother President "America is evil and owes the world and apology" Obama. It is indeed "An Ill Season" and Christians and Jews across the world will pay for Obama's indifference to that.

Juan Willams Says The US
"Pokes Out Eyeballs & Teeth"
Of Detainees

by Jim Hoft - May 8th, 2011 - Human Events

Today Juan Williams said the US tortures people and "pulls teeth and eyeballs" of terror detainees.

The absolutely intolerable lies spewed by liberals (or progressives or whatever they want to be called) brand them as traitors to America. No U.S. soldier has pulled out (or poked out) eyes or teeth. Yet Juan Williams slanders everyone who is a patriot with his lies and no one on the left even cares.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Netanyahu's Rules Of Debate

by Hugh Hewitt - May 22nd, 2011 - The Washington Examiner

The battle between the warrior and the academic was bound to turn out this way. President Obama was a community organizer once. Netanyahu was commander of the Israeli Defense Forces' elite special forces unit, Sayeret Matkal. Faculty meetings can get rough, but not as rough as the hostage rescue mission to free Sabena Flight 571.

So the president's absurd declaration about 1967 borders is off the table. In fact, the table is gone. Israel can wait out the 20 months left to Obama's presidency, or even 48 months [more] if American voters insanely choose to experiment with epic incompetence at the top for another term. Israel isn't going back to the Auschwitz borders, and only a naive and inexperienced academic would think that Thursday's speech would do other than worsen prospects for a negotiated settlement.

The left is furious with Netanyahu for "insulting" their President, going on every news show to express their resentment. Yet Netanyahu never once raised his voice, or sneered at Obama the way Obama sneers at those he constantly insults. Obama is fond of inviting people to meetings and then using the power of his office to mock them in public. At some point he had to realize he was going to meet someone on who such tactics did not work. Certainly someone like Netanyahu, a man who has proven his mettle in the face of real danger in battles more complex than debating a narcissist like Obama, was going to have little trouble dealing with him.

I was actually impressed with how polite and courteous Netanyahu remained. It was not tone or aggression with which he won the confrontation. It was command of the facts and the logic of his analysis.

The best line in the article is where Hewitt describes Obama as a man of "epic incompetence".

I would love the opportunity to see someone say that to Obama's face.

Friday, May 20, 2011

Heading To Holocaust

When you accept delusions it is impossible to chart a rational path forward. Unfortunately Barack Obama made it clear in his speech on Thursday that he has accepted some of the delusions promoted by Hamas and the Islamic Jihadists, molding the delusions into his desires for a Middle East future. As a consequence he never made clear what that future would be. He also ignored the nuclear elephant sitting in the middle of the Middle East, adding further to the confusion over his goals.

The armistice line that ended the first Israel-Arab war in 1949, after the partition of the region by the United Nations in 1948 created Israel and Jordan as states, has no validity as a permanent solution to ending the continuing war. The ongoing rejection by the Palestinians of the right of Israel to even exist will only be advanced by Obama insisting on borders that give the Islamic extremists an advantage in making this destruction a reality. Encouraging that destruction is what Obama did in his speech. The armistice line (also called the "pre-1967 borders") is not a rational solution. For a start these are not the borders established when Israel was created in 1948. What is rational about picking the armistice line during one of the three wars waged by the Arabs against Israel and saying this is where we start our discussions?

Some claim that Obama is clueless when he accepts as a precondition to bargaining - acceptance of these armistice lines as borders for Israel. I don't agree he is clueless even though I disagree with his proposal. Obama has proved in earlier discussions he understands that these borders will not end the conflict. They only give the Islamic Jihadists a clear bargaining advantage and leave unresolved the intractable issues of Jerusalem and "the right of return". So you have to accept that Obama feels he must weaken the Israelis to accomplish his goals. That only leaves the question, what are his goals for a Middle East future? How does weakening an ally advance those goals?

In his speech, Obama claimed he has been supportive of the so-called 'Arab Spring' from its beginning. That is confusing since it is a clear rewrite of history. Elliot Abrams writes emphatically in his article "Obama's Empty Speech":
This is simply not true. The by-word early in his administration was “engagement,” with a caustic rejection of the Bush “Freedom Agenda.” Bush’s tougher policies toward Iran and Syria were to be replaced by outreach, discussion, diplomacy — far more civilized. And that engagement was with the rulers, not the ruled; Obama’s was a world of states, and you engaged with the people ruling them.

That is the antithesis of support for the 'Arab Spring'.

His new support for this movement to democracy signals some credible belief that he may now be embracing the growing movement as one of his goals. Yet the problems inherent in this embrace of a movement that may well lead to greater conflict in the region, does not have consistency in its opposition to dictators. Obama in his speech still reaches out to one of our clear enemies by his refusal to promote the removal of Assad in Syria.

That leaves muddled the question, what are his goals for a Middle East future?

It is certainly not shoring up our allies. As Jay Soloman and Carol Lee noted in their article "Obama's Israel Surprise":
Mr. Obama rattled some Arab allies by strongly criticizing the political repression orchestrated by Bahrain's ruling Khalifa family, though his statements garnered praise from opposition leaders in Bahrain. "We have insisted publicly and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain's citizens, and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away," Mr. Obama said.

Obama was indifferent to the anti-American tone of the demonstrators who he was supporting by this attack on our Bahrain ally. In fact, taking sides in this conflict mirrors the problem in almost every country in the Middle East. The rulers of many of these nations may not represent the majority of their people, yet the opposition is not representative of a group that would be less dictatorial or abusive of freedom. There is at best a small minority that is both opposed to the current leadership and supportive of true freedom. In no country is the outcome likely to favor this group coming to power. Taking sides, especially against a reliable ally, makes no sense.

What Obama totally ignored was the issue addressed in the Investor's Business Daily editorial "The Nuclear Genie". Its important point:
... during his lengthy address, billed as a comprehensive new policy toward the Muslim world, Obama barely mentioned the biggest threat of all: the growing nuclear threat of Pakistan and Iran, which may soon metastasize to other countries in the region.

Even as Obama spoke, the nuclear genie was leaving the bottle. Iran's state radio on Wednesday announced that its Bushehr nuclear plant, built illicitly with Russian help, is now "operational." This is a first for Iran — and a watershed in its bid to gain nuclear weapons.

Does Obama understand this? How is it impacted by his still muddled plan for the future of the Middle East? With Obama seemingly abandoning not just Israel but even our Arab allies, exactly what does Obama see as American interests in the region? Why should we spend any money trying to buy popularity when such plans have never worked?

In his failure to chart a clear path on any of these critical questions, Obama leaves us heading towards the nuclear holocaust that we avoided during the earlier proliferation of nuclear weapons in the twentieth century. Does he understand this? Does he care? How are we supposed to know?

Adios, Pakistan

by Victor Davis Hanson - May 17th, 2011  - National Review Online

What is the problem? The majority in Pakistan, so far as we can tell, is religiously intolerant, anti-American, and tribal. A plebiscite, fairly conducted, would result in a far more illiberal government than the Westernized megaphones that the often rigged and corrupt elections produce. Because elite Pakistani military and political leaders do not have real legitimacy, they must alternately disguise and lament, and then indulge and appease, the illiberal natures of their constituents.

What is the solution? Praise Pakistan. Avoid provocative statements. But by all means gradually and without fanfare prune back aid — say, at the rate of about $100 million a month. And then accept that in reaction Pakistan will more shamelessly hide terrorists, threaten nuclear proliferation, and destabilize the Karzai government, as it is freed to express its natural proclivities and “national interests” as a de facto enemy of the United States. Develop much closer relations with India. All of this will not make the situation in the region any better, but it will bring clarity, send a message that America is tired of treacherous allies — and save money. And in this ungodly mess, that at least counts for something.

I agree. Anyone think that Obama will do something so practical?

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Mystery Solved

by Noemie Emery - May 17th, 2011 - The Washington Examiner

Some of the best, though not last, words about Sarah Palin come from Joshua Green of the Atlantic Monthly, trying to square the circle between Palin I, the prenomination wildly popular centrist reformer, and the polarizing, divisive, culture-war icon that is Palin II.

As governor she was the very antithesis of the boneheaded ditz of our snottier pundits: a shrewd, canny, focused and very effective state governor.

"The Alaskan Palin fought corruption within her own party, attacked the nexus of government and big business, avoided polarizing feuds and cut successful bipartisan deals," Ross Douthat tells us, someone who settled "insoluble" problems and put her state on a glide path to fiscal integrity.

Compare her at this stage to Barack Obama at a similar point in his life, and she is by far the more accomplished political figure, and by far the less partisan, yet within months she was fixed in some people's minds as a wing nut and a cretin. What occurred?

An early-in-the-campaign reporter round-table of both leftists and conservatives asked what they should do with Sarah Palin, considering that she didn't fit in with preconceived notions of what either party represented. Incredibly it was Peggy Noonan whose solution that day was, "Kill her, and do it quickly."

Noonan has never stopped. She has been a constant critic of Sarah Palin from the beginning, writing vitriol against Palin that has left Noonan despised by a major element of the conservative movement even as moderates abandoned Palin because of the smears. A number of other moderates who pretend to be conservatives have joined Noonan in her smears of Palin.

Of course the left has never stopped their constant Alinsky smears either, going even further to denigrate Palin with lies, half truths and irrelevant smears. They have even smeared her husband and children with lies.

One of the ironies of the smears is that Palin, like Ronald Reagan before her, does not believe in government telling people what to do about abortion, the most contentious issue for which she is attacked. The left has successfully spread the lie that she would take away abortion rights. The truth is she refused when given the chance. She believes abortion is wrong and, for both her daughter and with Trig, did what she believed is morally right in her personal life. However she believes just as strongly that it is a sin and that government has no role in making someone else make the same decision she made. Sins are between you and God, not you and a government goon.

Sarah Palin is still the same "shrewd, canny, focused and very effective" administrator she was before the smears started. She is still the same decent non autocratic everyday American that made her the most popular governor in America. She may not be capable of changing the obscene caricature that the MSM (along with a handful of inside the beltway Republican moderates) have created in the public mind. That is a shame. A very decent person's reputation has been destroyed by lies and smears. That is America today.

That is the horrified Republican "beltway leadership" of today too, equally aghast at Palin's rectitude and determined to destroy her as Noonan predicted in that early round-table so she does not interfere with their "conservative big government" goals. "Kill her, and do it quickly." With this as the view of Palin by Republican leadership, why is anyone surprised at the results? I wonder how America survives when corruption motivated smears dominate the public discourse?

Friday, May 06, 2011

Labour May Have Just
Destroyed The Union
– It Has Nothing To Celebrate

by Benedict Brogan - May 6th, 2011 - The London Telegraph

What we are seeing is the consequence of twenty years of Labour opportunism in Scotland. In the 1980s Labour, driven on by a young Gordon Brown, responded to Margaret Thatcher by egging on hatred of her that carried unmistakeably anti-English overtones. They pushed devolution as an alternative to counter the SNP, but assured us it would put the Nats in a box and save the Union. After 1998 as Chancellor Mr Brown focused on extending Scotland’s reliance on public money and Labour munificence. But he encouraged the politics of grievance and a form of fantasy economics that insisted that the pot of English public money was unlimited. If Scotland has said ‘enough’ this morning, it would be nice to think that it is because it wants no more of the sclerotic, public sector clientism of Labour politics that have paralysed huge chunks of Scotland for so long, though I doubt it. Alex Salmond is promising that referendum...

The growing threat of the United Kingdom breaking apart is given no credibility by some. Unfortunately it is the same group that thinks that America is not at risk of breaking apart either. Yet both are credible possibilities due to the hate mongering of those on the left.

When your enemies are constantly referred to as evil, racists, wishing for the death of old people, there comes a time when it is no longer possible for the people being derided to turn the other cheek and pretend it is just politics. Separation, if not civil war, is usually the answer.

America can be torn apart. It is starting to happen... just as it is starting to happen to Great Britain.

Obama A Great Benefactor
To Al-Qaeda

by Tara Servatius - May 6th, 2011 - Human Events

No one on Earth has done more to help al-Qaeda in the last six weeks than Barack Obama. Don’t let the bin Laden assassination thing fool you. Even with the loss of bin Laden factored in, al-Qaeda’s prospects have improved dramatically in recent weeks, and the group has Obama to thank.

Sure, bin Laden is gone, and that was a bit of a PR hit to the group. But Obama more than made up for that by setting up al-Qaeda financially for years to come. One of the first things the U.S.-led coalition did when it invaded Libya in March was to help the radical Islamist led rebels capture the oil fields. Thanks to Obama, they will no longer need to depend on rich Saudi sheiks to fund jihad because they now control oil fields capable of generating $34 billion worth of black gold a year.

Within a week of the takeover of the oil by the rebels, and while the White House was still promising to send the CIA to Libya to “figure out” who the rebels really were, the U.S. and NATO had brokered a sweet deal for them to control Libya’s oil and sell it to Qatar. The rebels sent the first shipment, worth about $100 million, by tanker in the beginning of April.

It’s a windfall that the al-Qaeda infiltrated rebels, led by a former Gitmo detainee and two former jihadists fresh from battle in Afghanistan, couldn’t possibly have achieved without the help of US airpower in Libya . With billions they’ll eventually reap in profits from the oil each year, they could easily wage a multi-front jihad and have plenty of money left over for a bio weapon to wipe out the entire American East Coast. The thought of what these jihadist thugs could do inside our borders with the kind of money Obama and NATO helped secure for them ought to terrify Americans.

Unfortunately, the American public does not seem to understand these issues. Even our Republican leadership seems so distracted by the fiscal disaster our nation is facing, they do not appear to have time to understand what is happening in the war against the Islamo-fascists. That failure will be disastrous.

This Could Start
The Terror War's End

by Michael A. Walsh - May 6th, 2011 - New York Post

In the late 19th century, a charismatic jihadist named Muhammad Ahmad ibn as-Sayyid Abd Allah -- who called him self "the Mahdi" -- swept across the Sudan, routing the "infidel" forces of the Egyptian rulers and arriving in 1884 at the gates of Khartoum. There, an equally charismatic British general named Charles Gordon led the city's defense by native troops. The city held out for nine months before falling.

Gordon was speared, his head cut off and put on a tree, where people could throw rocks at it.

The Mahdi instituted a sharia state before dying of natural causes and was succeeded by a disciple.

It took 13 years, but the outraged British population got vengeance. A punitive force under Gen. Horatio Kitchener defeated the Mahdist forces at Omdurman, killing more than 10,000 warriors against a loss of 48 men. The jihadists' faith and primitive weapons were no match for Kitchener's machine guns and artillery.

In retaliation for Gordon's death -- and to break the Mahdi's spell -- Kitchener destroyed the Mahdi's ornate tomb, exhumed the body, cut off the head, threw the bones into the Nile and (much to Queen Victoria's horror) for a time kept the skull as a souvenir.

Of course America's left wing extremists in the Democrat Party think that such actions are intolerable - unless they are performed against Republicans of course. They are not just in love with Alinsky smears. Their mobs will attack Republicans in an instant.

However there is no way that Democrats would even publish pictures that might offend our foreign enemies. Who thinks then that Democrats might actually appreciate the value to civilization of retaliating in terms that the Islamo-fascists can understand?

Obama and his minions could not even shut up about their brief victory long enough for the CIA and our forces to take advantage of the intelligence they could get from the computers in the Bin Laden compound to take out a couple more leaders. That would have required caring more about our troops than the political advantage they might gain from bragging about killing a man whose location they would never have known about if they were in charge of interrogations.

With Obama in charge, any hope this could bring the war to an end with other than retreat is highly unlikely.

America Will Always Get Its Man
-- Whatever The Cost

by Sharon Owens - May 5th, 2011 - Belfast Telegraph

It's useful to remember this if you have a grudge against the US, for this nation may be based on personal freedom, but it comes down hard on offenders, both native and foreign.

This is the country that dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 and which, alone of all the Western democracies, still employs the death penalty in some states for capital crimes.

So who in their right mind, knowing all this, would mount a terrorist attack on some of America's most cherished national symbols?

Someone who made a mistake. Someone who mistook our indifference to early small attacks as indicative of a lack of courage. Someone who did not understand America at all -- if you keep kicking us, at some time we will wake up. Most assuredly, that is not a good thing for those we decide will not leave us alone.  Usama Bin Laden just found that out.

Thursday, May 05, 2011

Obama Administration Takes
Victory Lap In Clown Car

by Jim Treacher - May 4th, 2011 - The Daily Caller

It’s been less than 72 hours since President Barack Obama announced that U.S. Special Forces had killed Osama Bin Laden. Since then, his administration has been hard at work screwing the whole thing up.

Let’s start with that speech Sunday night. It was originally announced for 10:30 but didn’t happen until 11:30. By that time, the news Obama was supposed to be breaking had broken already. Not the best start. Presumably he was delayed arguing with his speechwriters about keeping in all the “I,” “Me,” and “Mine.” Everything having to do with this raid was “I”; anything that could be attributed to the Bush administration was “We.” “I gave the order, I did this, I did that.” The hallmark of any great leader is a willingness to bravely take credit for the hard work and sacrifice of others.

At least that appears to be the Obama view of 'leadership'. Think he learned that during his months of experience as a 'community organizer'?

I love the headline. That truly is everything you need to read to understand this article.

Wednesday, May 04, 2011

The Mysterious Mr. O

by Robin of Berkeley - May 4th, 2011 - The American Thinker

Imagine this scenario: You're divorcing your spouse, but he or she refuses to release personal financial records. You both hire attorneys. In fact, your ex spends a substantial amount of money on legal fees to avoid the release of records. Your spouse enlists the help of officials and governors all over the country to keep the information well hidden.

And one day, years later, your ex releases the sought after documents. You scratch your head in wonderment. Why did this person hide them in the first place?

Robin of Berkeley is a very intelligent former liberal who has become a conservative of conviction. She has an intriguing talent to explain the motivations of liberals through the insight of being one until quite recently. She is also a psychotherapist and understands people very well. For those reasons, and because she is bright and a good writer, her articles are extremely useful in helping to bridge misunderstandings.  

Yet the intriguing and bizarre actions by Obama over his birth certificate are still something that many are struggling with, even Robin. As I wrote a few days ago, I am convinced his hiding the birth certificate was a complex need to defend the myth of Obama on which the Magic Marxist Messiah idolatry of his followers was built. That is my hypothesis. Yet Robin is correct when she notes the following:

There are plenty of other enigmas about the mysterious Mr. O. And these may not be resolved so easily: the questions about his Social Security number; the trip to Pakistan as a college student; the missing college and law school transcripts and client roster in private practice. And why exactly are Barack and Michelle no longer licensed to practice law?

But the biggest riddle about Obama isn't his lack of a paper trail; it's the man himself. He's been the most prominent person in the world for over four years now. But the longer he's around, the less we know about him.

He is an enigma. We really do not know him. That is not a good thing. Not even the deceitful and duplicitous Machiavelli ever recommended that a leader be so inconsistent that his nation had huge majorities who despise and distrust them. However that is the reaction of many to a man who we don't understand at all.

The problem is that no one trusts a chameleon who flips from hiding in the background to attempting to stand out with no rational pattern to either act. That is Obama.

Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Obama Breaks Arm
Patting Himself On The Back

One of the most accurate articles written (assessing the self indulgent bragging by our President) on Obama's address of two nights ago was the editorial in the Washington Times titled "No Class: Obama snubs Bush, praises himself" that started out as follows:

It can be awkward when a dove tries to pass himself off as a war hero. From the tone of President Obama’s speech Sunday night, it’d be easy to conclude he was the one who came up with the idea that America should hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden. He also made it sound like he was the one who formulated the takedown plan...

“Shortly after taking office,” the president said, “I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the capture or death of Osama bin Laden the highest priority of the war on terror.”

It is insulting that this man thinks so little of our intelligence that he would actually pretend this was something he can claim credit for initiating. A more adult response came from a number of former officials in both the Bush and Clinton administrations who thanked our fabulous military, the revitalized CIA and the excellent job performed by the courageous Seals who actually risked their lives to pull this off.

Does Obama really think we do not remember that he was going to close Gitmo, end the interrogations and try these people in civilian courts, having first provided them with their Miranda rights and an American taxpayer funded team of lawyers? When the Seal double tapped the gutless Bin Laden as he hid behind his wife, I wonder if he was slow to surrender because he expected a Miranda warning first? Attorney General Holder had promised that would happen.

It is certainly arguable that Barack Obama's speech on this can be classified as either no class or low class, but nothing else is reasonable. What a petty little man.

Monday, May 02, 2011

Inside The Raid
That Killed Bin Laden

by Staff - May 2nd, 2011 - Associated Press

Helicopters descended out of darkness on the most important counterterrorism mission in U.S. history. It was an operation so secret, only a select few U.S. officials knew what was about to happen.

The location was a fortified compound in an affluent Pakistani town two hours outside Islamabad. The target was Usama bin Laden.

Most important counterterrorism mission in U.S. history?

What grandiose claims of importance for someone whose organization has been gutted for years. Again and again we have been told that Usama Bin Laden's death or capture was not important by various government officials. Symbolically it always was. It still is. The question is whether the symbolism will matter less if we now pull out of the region? Or if it will matter even more because we pull out?

It never seemed that killing Bin Laden was important to George W. Bush. He was far more focused on nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also was far too concerned with being a good friend to the people in Pakistan, who were conning him from day one. They were also conning America out of billions and billions for what never seemed to be all that much support.

As much as I disagreed with Bush on many things, his support for the military has had far more importance in making this happen than Obama's actions have. Without the superiority of our forces, it could not have happened. Without the intelligence gained from the interrogations at Gitmo, it would not have happened. That said, I can't see Bush authorizing keeping this mission secret from Pakistan. Without that secrecy, it would have failed. The consequences of this action are going to be very interesting. Once again Obama gets to claim he is better than Bush, no matter how little that matters to current affairs or the future of our nation.

Since it was the Democrats who passed the law that made assassination illegal, how upset do you think they are going to be that Obama ordered the assassination of Usama Bin Laden?

Considering the constant mantra by Democrats that anything we did against the Muslims aided in recruitment for terrorists, think killing Bin Laden will get anyone on the left to criticize Obama for turning poor innocent Muslims against us?

Usama Bin Laden always admired the strong horse more than the weak horse and insisted everyone else did too. Today you have to wonder about his musings on the dead horse. Oops. Too late.

I will settle for this final thought. Attack America and we will get you. We will not quit until we do. Maybe it is only symbolism - it is good symbolism for a free nation. John Wayne would be proud.