Wednesday, September 30, 2009

R.I.P. BO-Care? The public option is dealt a serious blow by the Dems in the US Senate!

Can things get worse for Pres BO?

On Tuesday afternoon, a Senate Finance Committee voted 15-8 to kill a public option amendment:

"The first proposal failed in a 15-to-8 vote, which followed several hours of debate. The second proposal failed 13-10.

Taken together, the votes were a defeat for liberal Democrats who view government-sponsored insurance for the middle class as a key component of President Obama's health care overhaul." (FOX)

At the end of the day, it was Dems who killed it because Republicans did not have the numbers:

"In the end, Baucus and four other Democrats -- Sen. Kent Conrad (N.D.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Thomas R. Carper (Del.) -- joined all 10 Republicans on the committee in voting against the Rockefeller amendment.

On the Schumer amendment, Baucus, Conrad and Lincoln voted with the Republicans to defeat it." (WashPost)

What happens next? I think that the public option suffered a major setback in the Dem majority Senate!

My guess is that they will try again but run into the same result, specially after every poll shows that the public is in no mood to give up their current insurance.

Also, it will be even more difficult to pass anything as we get closer to the 2010 election cycle.

Moral of the story: There is no unity in the majority party AND the public opposition is reaching Washington.

More importantly, the public is smart enough to know that you can't create a huge entitlement (16% of GDP) without consequences, such as more taxes and lesser quality:

Sarkozy is the latest to cancel his subscription to "BO's fairy tale"!

Pres BO now finds himself in a very historic spot: The French president thinks that he is a wimp!

By the way, can you imagine what the 2002-03 Iraq UN meetings would have been like with the serious Sarkozy rather than the despicable Chirac in the pockets of Saddam Hussein?

Back to the present, Pres Sarkozy and PM Brown of the UK wanted to use the UN meetings to confront Iran.

What did Pres BO want to do? He did not want anything to spoil his debut running a Security Council meeting. (It was all about the show for BO!)

What did Pres BO get out of his meeting? He got a non-binding resolution promoting a fantasy world without nuclear weapons. Don't you feel safer now? The UN has passed another resolution telling the bad guys to behave and join the civilized world!

Jack Kelly, national security expert, has a good post: Sarkozy's Contempt for Obama

"The contempt with which the president of France regards the president of the United States was displayed in public last week.

Nicolas Sarkozy was furious with Barack Obama for his adolescent warbling about a world without nuclear weapons at a meeting Mr. Obama chaired of the United Nations Security Council last Thursday (9/24).

"We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth," President Obama said.

What infuriated President Sarkozy was that at the time Mr. Obama said those words, Mr. Obama knew the mullahs in Iran had a secret nuclear weapons development site, and he didn't call them on it."

"President Obama wants a unified front against Iran, and to that end he stood together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh on Friday morning to reveal the news about Tehran's secret facility to build bomb-grade fuel.

But now we hear that the French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America's handling of the announcement."

Sarkozy is not impressed.

Better than, Americans are not either: 51% Say Obama Not Tough Enough on Iran

How important is Pres Sarkozy's reaction? Our friend Bill Katz has a great post and explanation:

"But Sarkozy is clearly saying what others in Europe are thinking.

And Europe is moving to the right."

Just check the elections in Germany where "low taxes" won the day, i.e. no Obama-economics for the Germans!

P.S. So we will add Pres Sarkozy to the list of those who have cancelled their subscription to "the fairy tale":

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

This is not going to be the presidency that BO and his followers had in mind

George Friedman of STRATFOR makes a good point about the challenges facing Pres BO in Afghanistan and Iraq:

"During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, now-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said that like all U.S. presidents, Barack Obama would face a foreign policy test early in his presidency if elected.

That test is now here.

His test comprises two apparently distinct challenges, one in Afghanistan and one in Iran.

While different problems, they have three elements in common.

First, they involve the question of his administration’s overarching strategy in the Islamic world.

Second, the problems are approaching decision points (and making no decision represents a decision here).

And third, they are playing out very differently than Obama expected during the 2008 campaign."

Yes, the issues are indeed playing out very differently than candidate BO expected them Mr Friedman writes!

Sound the alarm: This is not going to be the transforming "domestic" presidency that Dems dreamed of!

This is not going to be the "health care" or "cap and trade" presidency! (He can't even get a Dem majority to go along with him on both of these campaign promises!)

Unfortunately for BO, and his devout followers caught up in mindless "hope and change", this is going to be a presidency consumed with national security and foreign policy problems.

Who would have believed that on election night when crowds greeted the president-elect with tears and so much hope?

As we enter the fall of 2009, Pres BO faces those awful foreign policy challenges that nobody wanted to talk about during the 2008 campaign.

He faces an emboldened Iran and an even more aggressive North Korea.

Who loved his UN speech? Chavez! Castro! Khaddafi!

In Afghanistan, he faces the reality of making a lot of campaign promises about sending troops and fighting to win.

Again, this is going to be a very unpleasant presidency, specially for those who thought that we could fix all our problems by simply voting for the anti-Bush!

Here is the bottom line: The bad guys don't care whether there is a Bush or a Gore or a Kerry or an Obama in The White House.

The bad guys care about the president's the guy in the Oval Office tough enough to make those unpleasant calls that only the president of the US gets to make?

Is BO tough enough?

Time will tell. However, Iran and North Korea do not think that he is!

In the meantime, get ready for a lot of disillusionment and disappointment when BO's supporters come to terms with the reality that the candidate was a lot more fun to watch than the president who won't be able to deliver on all those "healing the planet" speeches!

Like Carter and LBJ, Obama will be another Dem president who ran on domestic issues but got consumed with awfully difficult foreign policy problems.

It won' be very easy for Pres BO!

P.S. Greg Sheridan has some thoughts from down under. He is the foreign editor of The Australian.

"It's a lot of very impressive talk.

And yet, and yet...Machiavelli said for a prince it is better to be feared than to be loved."

It gets better:

"Here's my worry about Obama. Lots of people love him and he is indeed very lovable.

But I wonder if anyone at all, anywhere in the world, really fears him."

Iranian missiles, Afghan mess and BO is worried about Chicago 2016?

Richard Cohen is the latest liberal worried about BO:

"Sooner or later it is going to occur to Barack Obama that he is the president of the United States. As of yet, though, he does not act that way, appearing promiscuously on television and granting interviews like the presidential candidate he no longer is.

The election has been held, but the campaign goes on and on.

The candidate has yet to become commander in chief."

Cohen has a point!

Today, Iran fired 3 missiles, the last one capable of reaching 1200 miles!

Today, we are still waiting for Pres BO to make a decision vis-a-vis Afghanistan. After all, don't we have guys in harm's way over there?

Today, we learned that Pres & Mrs BO will be flying to Copenhagen to promote Chicago 2016.

Am I missing something? Can't Pres BO do a teleconference presentation and promote Chicago '16? Does he have to take Air Force One and fly all the Copenhagen for a quick personal appearance?

I don't get Pres BO's priorities.

What will the "Bush police state" crowd say about this?

Remember how Pres BO went to the UN and announced that the era of Bush was over?

Is it really? It's hard to tell when you look beyond the rhetoric.

Let's read today's editorial from The Washington Post: Mr. Obama Punts...And the left cheers as the president embraces what it once decried as a lawless detention scheme.

"Like President George W. Bush, President Obama now asserts that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force gives him the right to hold some terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial."

Here is my favorite part:

"If the administration's abdication is irresponsible, the reaction of the civil liberties community has been breathtakingly hypocritical."

No kidding? Don't you remember all of those marches with signs saying that Bush was shredding the constitution or creating a police state?

I agree that Pres Bush was right and I'm happy that Pres BO has broken another campaign promise.

The Wash Post is right about the left's hypocricy!

We liked the old UN a lot more!

Like many of you, I view the UN with much skepticism.

Let me add this.

I have met some very good people who've worked at the UN.

And the UN has done some good work in health and nutrition.

So we don't write off the UN.

We just don't like "the day of speeches"!

It was embarrassing to watch despot after despot go to the microphone and say one stupid thing after was sick!

We like this one from Tim Collard, a retired British diplomat who spent most of his career in China and Germany. He is an active member of the Labour Party.

"So the circus has come to town again. The unspeakable Gaddafi is given a reasonable 15 minutes to speak, and goes on for an hour and three quarters of clowning, tearing up the UN charter and talking complete nonsense about swine flu."

Here is the problem: Who is paying for all of this?

Also, how did the UN deteriorate into this? Who needs this?

Monday, September 28, 2009

Good morning Obama! Iran fired more missiles!

Coincidence or not? More missiles over the weekend!

Why do I get the feeling that Iran is not very impressed with "hope and change"?

Let's review the morning's headlines:

Again, we woke up to Iran's latest war games:

"Iran said it successfully test-fired the longest-range missiles in its arsenal on Monday, weapons capable of carrying a warhead and striking Israel, U.S. military bases in the Middle East, and parts of Europe." (FOX)

Elliott A. Cohen teaches at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. He served as counselor of the State Department from 2007 to 2009.

"Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program.

The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time."

Let's review the options again:

1) A nuclear Iran---This is an unacceptable option because Iran will pass the bombs to terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah.

2) Israel attacks----This is a very risky option because Iran will retaliate against our naval forces in the Straits of Hormuz or in Iraq. In other words, a huge war.

3) The US attacks-----This is the best military option because we are the only country with enough firepower to penetrate the underground facilities. (It will take an unprecedented aerial attack with some ground forces to check on the bombed facilities)

The bad news about Option 3 is that we will have to do it with little, if any, international support. Does Pres BO have the guts to be unpopular in the streets of Europe?

So here we are! There are no pretty options!

Of course, the best option is to support "regime change" and stand with the people demonstrating and getting killed in Tehran. Or, we could come up with real sanctions, such as a naval blockade that denies the regime gasoline! (Iran has oil but enough refining capacity!

Unfortunately, BO calls that "meddling" and would rather say or do nothing. (BO won't meddle in Iran because we're busy meddling in Honduras!)

Let's pray for a miracle. However, I don't see much hope for a peaceful resolution with Iran! You can't appease bad guys, as we learned in the past:

Even the liberals are telling BO to stop the TV blitz!

We've seen a lot of Pres BO this week.

We saw him at the UN.

We saw him at the G-20 meetings!

We also saw his numbers drop!

Rasmussen: "Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-one (51%) disapprove."

Coincidence? Perhaps?

Obama fatigue? Yes!

Howard Fineman, hardly a member of the right wing conspiracy, has a message for Pres BO: The Limits of Charisma---Mr. President, please stay off TV

"The president's problem isn't that he is too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube."

That's exactly right! He does not say anything new, except to remind us that he is not Bush or that he inherited a bad hand!

Well, it's getting boring and routine.

Back to Fineman and Pres BO's obsession with blaming everything on Pres Bush:

"He did it again in that U.N. speech.

The delegates wanted to know what the president was going to do about Israel and the Palestinian territories.

He answered by telling them what his predecessor had failed to do.

This was effective for his first month or two.

Now it is starting to sound more like an excuse than an explanation."

Again, Fineman is not a conservative or partisan like me. I think that a lot of liberals agree with Fineman! However, who is going to tell Pres BO that it's time to govern rather than give another speech?

Why are we cutting US-Mex border agents?

Did I miss something? Has US-Mexico border violence gone down?

Today, we learned that Pres BO's administration has decided to cut back on border agents:

"A Department of Homeland Security annual performance review updated by the Obama administration on May 7 said the Border Patrol “plans to move several hundred Agents from the Southwest Border to the Northern Border to meet the FY 2010 staffing requirements, with only a small increase in new agents for the Southwest Border in the same year.”" (CNNS)

Don't get me wrong. We want border agents on the US-Canada border, too. However, I am not reading about violence up there.

Also, what message are we sending to Mexico? Shouldn't we add more agents to work with Mexican customs officers?

Frankly, I don't understand this decision!

We will always remember William Safire (1929-2009)

We learned today that William Safire died.   He was born in 1929.

"Safire spent more than 30 years writing on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times. In his "On Language" column in The New York Times Magazine and 15 books, Safire traced the origins of words and everyday phrases such as "straw-man," "under the bus" and "the proof is in the pudding." (FOX)

Safire was a Nixon speechwriter and a great guest on Meet the Press.

I loved his annual predictions column. I will miss reading that!

He was also a lot of fun to read because of his unique way of using words.

According to news reports, Safire was fighting cancer. I understand now why I had not seen him on the Sunday morning shows in some time.

Great columnist. One of the best!

How can this principal keep her job?

We love people who are passionate about politics. However, they have no business bringing their politics to the nation's classrooms.

A couple of days ago, we heard about the little kids singing praises to Pres BO.

"The principal of a New Jersey elementary school where young students were videotaped singing the praises of President Obama is making no apologies for the videotape and says she would allow the performance again if she could, according to parents who spoke with her Thursday night."

That's wrong!

She should be reprimanded or fired for engaging in this kind of politicization of our classrooms.

Sorry! She needs to go and do something else for a living!

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Dear BO: Make a decision because there are soldiers in Afghanistan who need to know if you meant it during the campaign!

As we posted before, Afghanistan is and will be very tough.

However, we need a president who will make a decision, specially since he announced last March 27th that we had just implemented a new strategy in Afghanistan.

Pres BO also named a new commander, an extremely talented man who is an expert on the kind of military operation that we need in Afghanistan.

Frankly, Pres BO's indecisiveness is tough to watch. It is putting US and other NATO troops at risk because we don't have the resources necessary to do the job.

How do you tell the UK and Canada to stay? How do you ask others to join the US when our commander in chief can't make a decision?

Ruben Navarrette has a good post today: Obama At War With His General

"According to McClatchy, some members of McChrystal's staff said they don't understand why Obama called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" but still hasn't given them the resources they need to do what is necessary.

Good question.

We should all be asking the same thing."

Frankly, this is not very difficult at all.

First, was candidate BO, and subsequently Pres BO, sincere about Afghanistan being a war of necessity and "the central front" on the war on terror?

Did he mean it? Was he just telling a lot of Dems what they wanted to hear? Was he just using Afghanistan to beat up Bush, and McCain, over Iraq? (One left blog admits that the Dems were just playing politics with Afghanistan!)

Second, if "yes" then listen to your commanders rather than the polling data that shows Americans souring on the war.

By the way, I think that Americans are souring on Pres BO's indecisiveness not the overall mission. It's the Dem party not the public in general who is souring rapidly on this war! See Gallup: "The data indicate that Republicans do seem willing to support Obama should he make a decision to increase U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan. On the other hand, Democrats seem willing to oppose Obama in this case."

Third, if Afghanistan is not vital.....then pack up and come home. Leave a quick strike force behind and conduct covert operations to kill leaders, which is what we were doing under Pres Bush!

Go to the UN Security Council and let the UN worry about it. Let the Security Council pass resolutions. Let's give multinational operations a chance! Send a multinational force and do peace keeping as we build the Afghan forces and build schools.

Again, we need a decision, specially from a candidate, now president, who was so firm about the need to fight and win in Afghanistan.

This is a video from the campaign.

Let me help you identify the characters in this video.

One man in this video is saying that we must send more troops to Afghanistan.

His name is Barrack Obama and he won the election:

Regulations and taxes are killing California!

Captain Ed has a great post about California and all of those regulations driving taxpayers and employers to Texas or somewhere else: Regulation costs California economy almost $500 billion!

It is truly amazing:

"The study finds that the total cost of regulation to the State of California is $492.994 billion which is almost five times the State’s general fund budget, and almost a third of the State’s gross product.

The cost of regulation results in an employment loss of 3.8 million jobs which is a tenth of the State’s population.

Since small business constitute 99.2% of all employer businesses in California, and all of non-employer business, the regulatory cost is borne almost completely by small business.

The total cost of regulation was $134,122.48 per small business in California in 2007, labor income not created or lost was $4,359.55 per small business, indirect business taxes not generated or lost were $57,260.15 per small business, and finally roughly one job lost per small business."

A few days ago, we made reference to The Economist and America's future, a comparison of Texas and California.

Where would you rather open a business? It's Texas all the way!

Sadly, California has been destroyed by over-regulation, political correctness and high taxes.

Regime change? California needs one very badly!

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Who is going to tell the world that the Dems won't let BO close GITMO?

On Friday night, we got this headline: AP sources: Gitmo closing goal of Jan. may slip

What's the problem?

Nobody wants one of the 200-plus terrorists in their districts.

In "real world terms" rather "yes we can" fantasy land, our mainland jails reside in congressional districts AND nobody wants to tell their constituents that a terrorist is moving in AND we don't see a lot of countries lining up to take them either.

Frankly, I agree with Congress on this one.

GITMO is exactly where they belong! These are 200-plus people who must be kept away from the US mainland.

There goes another campaign promise......along with Iraq where Pres BO is fulfilling the Bush-Iraq agreement.

So who is going to tell the world?

Who is going to revise Pres BO's speech to the UN and remind the audience that closing GITMO ain't going to matter how popular it may be at the UN!

In the meantime, we refer the world to Professor VD Hanson's latest post on Pres BO's speech to the UN:

"By staking out the messianic, prophetic ground, and his strident anti-Bush credentials, observers are going to note his serial hypocrisies, such as keeping the Patriot Act, rendition, tribunals, Predator attacks, the Petraeus plan in Iraq, wiretaps, intercepts, etc., and in fact anything that smacks of a transnationalist protecting U.S. interests first, and global ones, second."

Caution: Obama-mania comes with lots of disillusionment!

Guess who lied about their nuclear program and moved us closer to a war?

We woke up Friday to some rather amazing headlines:

I agree with Bill Katz:

"The implications are grave.

The Iranians have been caught red-handed.

If they have one secret facility, we must logically ask how many others they have.

If the purpose of their nuclear program is peaceful, why was it necessary to hide part of it?"

The US is now moving toward two awful options:

First, we take out the Iranian facilities with a massive bombing campaign and some ground troops.

We will probably have to act alone (perhaps with the UK) because the UN Security Council will never agree to a military action.

Frankly, most countries don't have the aerial or naval power necessary to damage facilities underground.

Second, we let Israel do it.

However, we will likely get drawn in because Iran will retaliate against our troops in Iraq (or Afghanistan) and attempt to shut down the Straits of Hormuz.

Very bad options indeed. I don't see how we avoid a war with Iran, directly or indirectly, in the next 12 months!

Unfortunately, I don't see a peaceful solution to this because the Iranian leadership is not going to cooperate with any inspectors or obey UN resolutions.

Like Clinton with NAFTA, BO will not have the Dems in Afghanistan!

I agree with David Brooks:

"These are the realistic choices for America’s Afghanistan policy — all out or all in, surrender the place to the Taliban or do armed nation-building. And we might as well acknowledge that it’s not an easy call."

That's right! No easy call in Afghanistan, specially when NATO is balking at sending troops and US public opinion is turning against sending troops.

Today's Gallup tells the story:

"Americans are more likely to say they would oppose (50%) rather than favor (41%) a possible decision by President Barack Obama to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan."

The poll has more interesting information:

"The data indicate that Republicans do seem willing to support Obama should he make a decision to increase U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, Democrats seem willing to oppose Obama in this case. Independents are also on the opposition side of the ledger."

Again, what an awful situation for a Dem president with majorities in the House and Senate!

What a mess!

Friday, September 25, 2009

Thank you PM Netanyahu!

We love leaders who speak their minds.

We love leaders who tell the UN, and the world, what they need to hear.

Today, we join people of good faith everywhere....and say thank you PM Netanyahu!

We add our names to those of us who love freedom....thank you PM Netanyahu!

We join Christians and others who support the wonderful nation of Israel and their right to exist without missiles fired at their cities......we loved PM Netanyahu's speech!

Yes, we salute PM Netanyahu of Israel.

He had the guts to say what this collection of idiots at the UN had to hear:

""The man who called the Holocaust a lie spoke at this podium.

To those who refused to come and to those who left in protest, I commend you.

You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere -- have you no shame?

Have you no decency?""

Decency in the UN?

There is no decency in the UN, except for a handful of countries who walked out!

Again, we are so grateful that Israel has a leader. We believe that Israel has a right to defend itself:

Isn't this a bit weird? School children sing "praises to BO"?

Earlier this month, some of us objected to the lesson plans that were supposed to accompany Pres BO's speech to school children.

The lesson plans were eventually changed after parents raised questions about "the politicization" issue.

"The superintendent of a New Jersey school where students were videotaped being taught to sing the praises of President Obama issued a statement Thursday saying the taping was unauthorized, but failed to address whether the the lesson -- taught durnig Black History Month -- was approved."

What was the song all about? Try this:

"One song that the children were taught quotes directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children," though Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's:

"He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight/Barack Hussein Obama."

Here is a sample of the lyrics:

"Mm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand

To make this country strong again

Mmm, mmm, mm!Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today

Equal work means equal pay

Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand

To make sure everyone gets a chance

Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white

All are equal in his sight

Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama Yes!

Mmm, mmm, mm Barack Hussein Obama"

We like this from Kevin McCullough:

"Those at the B. Bernice Elementary School in Burlington Township, New Jersey, may be unable to overcome their sycophantic Obama obsessions, but the children of America should not be required to chant his name, raise their hands, and repeat dogma that may not be exactly based in reality."

I have a question:

Were the parents advised or allowed to read the lyrics?

Who authorized this? I can't believe that a teacher just decided to take a bunch of kids and turn them into "we a madly in love with BO" chorus.

Was any of this related to the lesson plans related to Pres BO's speech to children?

Again, isn't it a bit weird to have kids singing songs like these?

It is to me!

Frankly, I smell a little "personality cult" coupled with a teacher caught up in Obama-mania!

P.S. Here is the video from a school in New Jersey:

How can Pres BO snub PM Brown?

We just heard that the UK is sending another 1,000 troops to Afghanistan.

"The juxtaposition on our front page this morning is striking.

We carry a photograph of Acting Sgt Michael Lockett - who was killed in Helmand on Monday - receiving the Military Cross from the Queen in June, 2008.

He was the 217th British soldier to die in the Afghan conflict.

Alongside the picture, we read that the Prime Minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure a few minutes “face time” with President Obama after five requests for a sit-down meeting were rejected by the White House."

How can Pres BO be so busy that he can't sit down with PM Brown?

Does this have anything to do with the recent release of the Lybian terrorist?

I don't know but it's very strange to snub our # 1 ally in the world!

"To my knowledge, the United States has no just cause for Obama's repeated offenses to Great Britain.

Explanation for Obama's behavior must lie in personal or family feelings that have no bearing on his responsibilities as president and that he should therefore set aside in performing his official responsibilities.

Obama's behavior appears self-indulgent, misguided and boorish or, as Hughes has it, churlish.

To the extent that a private American citizen can render an apology for Obama's insults, I would like to say that we are grateful for what Churchill called "the special relationship" between the United States and Great Britain and sorry for our president's behavior."

Yes, I send my apologies too, specially to the families of every UK soldier who has fought with our guys in Iraq, and now, Afghanistan!

What are they thinking about BO's speech in the streets of Tehran?

Scott Johnson has an interesting analysis of Pres BO's speech: All he is saying

Scott has a lot of questions, and specially regarding this line from the speech:

"Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside.

Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect.

Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people, and - in the past - America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy.

But that does not weaken our commitment, it only reinforces it.

There are basic principles that are universal; there are certain truths which are self evident - and the United States of America will never waver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny."

Scott responds this way:

"While these statements can be explained away in some sense, like other axioms of Obama's foreign policy, they are demonstrably untrue.

In the past century the United States imposed democracy "from the outside," at great expense of American life and treasure, on countries including the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan.

Why does Obama deny the role of American arms in imposing democracy on America's former enemies?

Even in this otherwise mysterious paragraph, Obama is clear on one point.

He doesn't think very highly of the United States Before Obama..."

Yes, the US before BO was not a nice place.

Wonder what would have happened if he said something like that during the election?

Let me add this.

They had elections over in Iraq last January. We saw 4400 women running for public office, a first in the Middle East.

Was it a bad idea to liberate the people of Iraq from a repressive regime that had used WMDs against its own people and invaded two of its neighbors? And a regime that gave the finger to the same UN that BO spoke before?

We ask a simple question: Wonder what people in Iran, under attack by corrupt regime, think of this speech?

They can't be very impressed!

P.S. Michael Barone, one of the nation's premier political pundits, takes a look at the speech and concludes:

"The response has been to disrespect those who have been our friends and to bow to our enemies."

Again, what are they thinking in Iran when they need a supporter in The White House more than ever?

Thursday, September 24, 2009

What exactly is all of "this love" getting us?

We salute Rick Moran on the 5th anniversary of his blog: Right Wing Nuthouse

Check out this:

"But when push comes to shove and Obama has wanted to lead, where has he taken them?

Or, have our allies around the world simply gone their own way anyway, despite his eloquent importunings?

No help for our troops in Afghanistan.

Failure to convince the Europeans to overstimulate their economies.

Bad reactions to Obama’s stances on the war in Georgia, increased NATO membership, Turkey’s bid for EU membership, additional sanctions on Iran, and the clown show that the release of al-Megrahi turned out to be.

No go on carbon caps, economic development for Africa, third world debt relief…

Well, you get the picture.

It’s great that our allies love us but where has that gotten us?

What tangible benefit has accrued to our interests so far that would prove Obama’s approach to foreign policy is superior to anyone’s, much less that of George Bush?

Yes, but at least they’re not marching in protest when the American president comes for a visit.

They’re not saying nasty things in newspapers."

Yes, they are not marching anymore.....but is anybody sending troops to Afghanistan or getting tough with Iran?

The answer to both is "no".

My guess is that the US public is watching and asking a simple question: What are we getting for all of this love?

Again, we are not getting a lot back but Pres BO's ego is certainly getting a lot of stroking! And Chavez smells hope, not sulfur!

Praise from all the wrong places, concerns from allies AND Chavez attacks FOX News!

It was too funny to be watch. Even SNL can not top Qhadafi's speech!.

Yesterday, Lybia's Qhadafi put on a performance for the ages.....his long speech just went on and times he lost his was hilarious.

"“We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as president of the United States.”

BO didn't need that one!

A few hours before, he got this: Fidel Castro praises Obama on climate change

BO did not need this one from Chavez either:

"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez obliquely praised President Obama Thursday in an address to the U.N., saying he has replaced the "smell of sulfur" at the world body with the "smell of hope.""

Did we hear praise from our allies?

Greg Sheridan is foreign editor of The Australian, a very reliable ally.

"Here's my worry about Obama.

Lots of people love him and he is indeed very lovable.

But I wonder if anyone at all, anywhere in the world, really fears him."

Let's hope that our friend from Australia is wrong!

In the meantime, enjoy Chavez, who has now joined the growing list of the world's left that hates FOX News:




Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Silvio Canto Jr on BlogTalkRadio

Follow by Email



Search This Blog