by: Harrison Price

He gave away SDI to the Russians for their “help” in getting sanctions passed against Iran.  The Russians gladly took the SDI concessions then said nyet on Iran.  Obama is delaying making a decision on Afghanistan saying the whole presidential “voting thing” needs to be cleared up first.  And he picked a fight with Fox News which David Carr of the New York Times warned:

that the White House war on Fox “may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling.”

“While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence,” Carr wrote over the weekend. “So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year.”

The question one has to ask themselves is: “What is Obama’s problem?”

This article clears up that question very nicely:

President Obama’s presidential campaign focused on “making” the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was “controlled,” White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference.

“Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control,” said Dunn.

“One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters,” said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama’s chief campaign manager.

“We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it,” Dunn said.

Continued Dunn: “Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying.”

You may see the video here.

Sir Barack Obama, Imperial Leader cannot be questioned.  I think they do that in North Korea, too (and a few other places with whom Obama has opened up a “dialog”).

via email- author unknown

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So They created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, Then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one Year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost."

So they laid off the night watchman.

NOW s l o w l y, let it sink in.

Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ... during the Carter Administration?

Bottom line. We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency ... the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!

Ready??

It was very simple ... and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate. The Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977. TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh???

AND NOW, IT'S 2009 -- 32 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!

THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WAS I THINKING?"

Ah, yes -- good ole bureaucracy.

AND, NOW, WE ARE GOING TO TURN THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?

HELLOOO ! Anybody Home?

by: Andrew Moylan

Today, NTU released a coalition letter that we circulated that was signed by 20 state and national groups in opposition to an attempt to deceive the American public about the true costs of health care reform. Tomorrow evening, the U.S. Senate will vote on S. 1776, the so-called "Medicare Physicians Fairness Act." This legislation, worth $247 billion (all racked up on the deficit, of course, as it contains no spending reductions elsewhere) is, plain and simple, an attempt to reduce the apparent costs of the comprehensive health care reform bills before Congress.

Here's how they plan to do it. Remember the Baucus bill, which received a CBO score of $829 billion in cost over ten years? The CBO said that legislation would actually reduce the deficit by a small amount. I'm sure that was music to President Obama's ears, as he has stated time and again he wouldn't sign a bill that increased the deficit.

But S. 1776 would immediately reverse a portion of the Baucus bill that was included specifically to reduce its apparent cost for analyses like what the CBO did. It would increase reimbursements to physicians through Medicare by a whopping $247 billion over the next ten years, reversing cuts to those reimbursement rates the Baucus bill used to artificially deflate its score.

So, by splitting this provision off into a different piece of legislation, leaders in Congress are trying to have their cake and eat it too. If they were to pass the Baucus bill, the President would sign it and rightly claim that it didn't increase the deficit (because they raised taxes slightly more massively than they raised spending). But at the same time, S. 1776 would pass into law and ring up another quarter trillion dollars in deficit spending on the side, outside the context of the "comprehensive" health care bill.

Put it this way, when the Washington Post agrees with NTU on something like this, you know something's awry.

by: James Pethokoukis

The state of the dollar probably hasn’t been a first-tier political issue in the United States since, say, the presidential election of 1896. Back then, it manifested as whether or not America would stay on the gold standard or switch to a bimetallic one. (The William Jennings Bryan “cross of gold” speech and all that.)

The aftershocks of the global financial crisis may now be propelling the dollar back to the political forefront. The greenback’s continuing slide makes it a handy metric that neatly encapsulates America’s current economic troubles and possible long-term decline. House Republicans for instance, have been using the weaker dollar as a weapon in their attacks on the Bernanke-led Federal Reserve.

For more evidence of the dollar’s return to political salience, look no further than the Facebook page of Sarah Palin. The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee — and possible 2012 presidential candidate — has shown a knack for identifying hot-button political issues, such as the purported “death panels” she claims to have found in Democratic healthcare reform plans. In a recent Facebook posting, Palin expressed deep concern over the dollar’s “continued viability as an international reserve currency” in light of huge U.S. budget deficits.

She might be onto something here, politically and economically. A recent Rasmussen poll, for instance, found that 88 percent of Americans say the dollar should remain the dominant global currency. Now, the average voter may not fully understand the subtleties of international finance nor appreciate exactly how a dominant dollar has benefited the U.S economy. But they sure think a weaker dollar is a sign of a weaker America.

And that’s the political problem for the Obama administration. Its benign neglect of the dollar is another example of an economic policy — along with TARP and the $787 billion stimulus — that the White House thinks is helping the economy, but many Americans find wrongheaded.

In his New York Times column today, Paul Krugman makes the usual case for a weaker dollar: It helps U.S. exporters and is a necessary part of a global economic rebalancing. And there is some truth in that, particularly the idea that Rising Asia will result in a less-dominant dollar. Then again, a devalued currency hasn’t exactly been a proven path to prosperity. (Ask Jimmy Carter.)

But Krugman too easily dismisses the idea that the dollar’s decline could tumble out of control. Former Clinton economic officials such as Robert Rubin and Roger Altman have been making the case that investor concern about budget deficits could lead them to abandon the dollar. As Altman argued in a Financial Times op-ed piece today: “The dismal deficit outlook poses a huge longer-term threat. Indeed, it is just a matter of time before global financial markets reject this fiscal trajectory. That could lead to a punishing dollar crisis.”

Now many Democrats and liberals, like Krugman, don’t want to hear such talk, fearing a rerun of the Clinton era when the progressive policy agenda was sacrificed on the altar of budgetary rectitude.

But that is a tremendous political and economic gamble, one that may result in taunting Republican cries of “Who lost the dollar?”

by: Johnny Locke

What He Said:

1.  “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this Presidency.”  He also said that as part of that transparency he will publish all pending legislature (except sensitive military, etc) on the web for five days before he puts his signature to a bill so the public has a chance to read what will be impacting them.

2.  “Public officials need to draw on what people know and that’s why as of today I’m directing members of my administration to find new ways of tapping the knowledge and experience of ordinary Americans.”

3.  “—because when I am president meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public.  No more secrecy.  That’s a commitment I make to you as President.”

What He Did

1.  Rushed the original Medical bill through the House and demanded a vote before any of the legislators had a chance to read it.  Later refused to put the bill up on the Internet for 72 hours for perusal by the public.  Is still refusing to put the legislative language version on the Internet.

2.  Showed absolutely no interest in tapping the knowledge and experience of “ordinary” Americans.  Ignored the townhalls that truly reflected the will of the people.  Polls showed that the majority of Americans are satisfied with their current insurance and DO NOT WANT A PUBLIC OPTION.  In addition the Democrats labeled those that attended the townhalls as “organized,” destructive, terrorists, malcontents and Nazis.

 3.  Increased the number of closed-door meetings.  In fact, the merging of the House and Senate medical bills is being done in complete secrecy behind closed doors yet this bill happens to impact the American public probably more than any other bill in recent history.

There is clearly a disconnect between what he says and what he does.   Just a reminder, Sir.  Half-truths, partial information and careful omissions are just as much of a lie as the big bold one.

Our President’s word should be good; and it’s not.  Our President’s intentions for this country should be clear and they are not.  I fear he is rapidly losing the trust of the people and it is, unfortunately, a deserved loss.

And I thought Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for advancing peace.  He won’t commit to Afghanistan, he makes distinctions between “good” and “bad” Taliban, he offers to meet with Iran but yet his spokespeople call Fox News the enemy.  Interesting times.

That whole “reaching out” thing hasn’t done too well, not surprisingly.  Russia is very cool to the idea of sanctions against Iran, the Taliban have upped their attacks on civilians and troops in Afghanistan, North Korea continues to fire missiles off like it’s the 4th of July, and Obama, by giving away SDI to the Russians in Eastern Europe, has weakened relationships with our friends there.

But Fox News is a great threat!  Why is Fox News such a great threat?  They have the audacity to check facts that’s why!  Here’s why the White House Communication’s Director had to say about it on CNN:

In the round of Sunday shows, Chris Wallace from the Sunday shows. And I told Major quite honestly that we had told Chris Wallace that having fact-checked an administration guest on his show, something I’ve never seen a Sunday show do, and Howie, you can show me examples of where Sunday shows have fact-checked previous weeks’ guests.

We asked Chris for example where he had done that to anybody besides somebody from the administration in the year 2009, and we’re still waiting to hear from him. When they want to treat us like they treat everyone else — but let’s be realistic here, Howie. They are — they’re widely viewed as, you know, part of the Republican Party. Take their talking points and put them on the air. Take their opposition research and put them on the air, and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.

Well, it seems as though Ms. Dunn should have used Google because the answer to her question is right there:

Today on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace tried to pin down a straight answer on Palin’s bridge position from McCain campaign manager Rick Davis. When Davis refused to acknowledge Palin’s misleading statements, Wallace detailed her support for millions of dollars in earmarks, including the bridge:

WALLACE: During her 1.5, 2 years as Governor, Alaska continued to get more federal money for pork-barrel projects per capita than any state in the country and…she supported the Bridge to Nowhere. And it was only after the federal government dropped it out, killed it, the Congress killed it that she then opposed it. And in fact she still got the money for the approach, the ramp to the Bridge to Nowhere.

So the Obama White House is upset that on a hard news show the moderator would actually do research before the interview to challenge guests should they provide inaccurate or misleading information.  We have an example as to when Fox’s Wallace tried to get a straight answer about Sarah Palin’s “Bridge to Nowhere” yet Ms. Dunn said no example of this existed.

And when Saturday Night Live ripped into Obama for not doing anything while he’s been president CNN devotes an entire segment on Wolf Blizter’s Situation Room to debunking the assertions.  CNN didn’t come to the defense of the Bush administration when they were mocked numerous times or when Tina Fey made fun of Sarah Palin.  What did the White House Communication’s Director have to say about the mocking of Obama?

I think the bigger point is that — and the president himself said this, that he was surprised, as I think most of the press corps was. He feels that he, you know, didn’t really deserve it, as I think there are many people who feel this is still particularly in terms of this presidency, it’s the first year.

So I think that those people who are saying this is really quite unusual. This really does seem to be, you know, a big surprise to everyone…

Too early in his presidency?  Was there a grace period during the last (Republican) administration?  No.

By “taking on” Fox News yet agreeing to talk to corrupt dictators bent on destroying the United States the Obama administration shows where its priorities are.  If anything, Obama should go on to Fox News Sunday to defend himself and answer the tough questions… but that’s what this really is about - not answering the tough questions combined with a “how dare you challenge me” attitude.

I know this will come as a surprise for some of you, but those of you who visit often know my opinion already on this subject.  First, allow me to say that I am not a homosexual and, in fact, a happily married man to a beautiful woman.  Next, I am 100% for gay rights.  My question is, "why are you not"?  I consider myself a true Republican and in being so, I believe that the Government should remain small and not infringe on our individual rights.  I have a hard time understanding Republicans who believe that the government has no right to enter your closet and tell you to get rid of your guns (which of course the Gov't has NO right to do), yet they believe that the government has a right to enter your bedroom and tell you who you are legally allowed to share your life with.  It makes no sense.  Whether homosexuality is right or wrong, the government should be the last one to tell law-abiding, tax-paying American citizens who they can or cannot marry.  That last point sometimes gets lost on many Americans.  Despite them being gay, they are STILL Americans and as such, they deserve every right that we enjoy.  There are people who disagree with inter-racial marriage, should that too be illegal?  Of course not.  Proposing that would be ridiculous. 
     The most tragic example of discrimination against homosexuals must be the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the Armed Forces.  Especially in this day and age, it is mind-boggling that good soldiers are being thrown out of the military because of their sexual preference.  I have met many homosexuals in my life and I promise you, they are not vicious animals who will kidnap and sodomize you in a dark alley.  They are people, the same as us, and they want the same goal as we do.  They want the government to stop desecrating their individual liberties.  I only hope that for once Obama has more to contribute than just a speech.  He has got it wrong so many times, but this is the one cause that he can prove himself a successful President by backing.

by: Paul

I find it very disheartening that our President continues to blow off his commanding General in the field, questions his judgment and plays politics with soldiers lives.

General McChrysatal has made it abundantly clear on more than one occasion that the US forces in Afghanistan are facing “mission failure” unless it quickly sends large number of forces there.  To use Obama’s catch phrase, “Let me be perfectly clear” - mission failure means more US soldiers dying.

As well as putting lives in danger, the weakness we are displaying in Afghanistan will undoubtedly have serious ramifications for the entire region.  The region will become more and more unstable as rogue states are embolden by our cowardice.  Even President Obama must realize that the chance of a major war in the Gulf next year is increasing rapidly to 100% --accelerated by the fact that the lunatic in Iran is going to have Nukes. 

It is looking more and more like Israel will be force to take preemptive action against Tehran.  So what is going to happen when Israel attacks Iran?  Well, you can bet that Ahmadinejad is not going to just take it.  He will undoubtedly retaliate, but the question is where?  He may be a lunatic, but even Ahmadinejad realizes that Israel is the best-defended state in the region, so he may very well direct his attack elsewhere.  There are plenty of less defended targets in the region well within the reach of Iran’s missile capability, including US troops in Iraq and in the Gulf.

Unlike Israel, the Arab states in the region rely on us to protect them. So, the US will be drawn into another Gulf war if these states are threatened or attacked.  There will be no way for us to stay out.  The Saudi oil fields are well within Iran’s reach, so if President Obama thinks we can stay out of a war that spreads outside of Israel-Iran he needs to think again.

So what does this all mean?  Well the the stability of the region is really dependent on swift and decisive US action in the region, undoubtedly what McChrystal has been telling President Obama.  We can surmise this by the fact that he has gone public, risking his career.  You can bet that for a General of his stature to risk his career his convictions are deep.

If the US pulls out of Afghanistan, you can bet that the flood gates will open and the oppressive regimes will again rule the region and we will be back where we started with some having bigger bargaining chips.

If President Obama decides to not head the warning of his commanders on the ground, you can bet the US will be back in the region in short order and fighting a more costly war and more soldiers will die.