Recent Posts

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Ronald Reagan's America



"It has nothing more to say, nothing to add to the debate. It has spent its intellectual capital, such as it was -- and it has done its deeds."
-- President Reagan on liberalism
Conservative Political Action Conference

March 1, 1985  

With every passing minute of every passing day, the truth Ronald Reagan long ago understood is once more emerging from the political fog.

"Somewhere a perversion has taken place," Reagan said in discussing his former political faith as a Democrat and a "near hopeless hemophilic liberal." The party of Jefferson and Jackson had headed down a different road altogether "under the banners of Marx, Lenin and Stalin." Or, as he was also unafraid to say and in words that resonate vividly today in the Obama era, the objective of the modern liberal was "to impose socialism" on the American people.

Reagan would have none of it.

He had spent decades carefully studying what was happening, leading the Hollywood branch of the fight as the president of the Screen Actors Guild. As he made the change from actor and union leader to governor of California and president, Reagan minced no words, which is precisely why Americans would come to revere him. He was not afraid to speak the truth -- and that truth applies even more today than when he was sharply critical of the Democrats of his own day.

In the midst of what can only be described as a laughable attempt by Obama aides and the President's left-wing media allies to wrap Obama in the Reagan mantle -- a photo-shopped Time magazine cover has the two paired like grinning escapees from a presidential buddy movie -- the nation prepares to celebrate Reagan's centennial birthday. More to the point, the reminder of exactly why Reagan's presidency was such a stunning success, and Obama's thus far a stunning failure, can easily be found by pairing Reagan's wisdom with Obama's results.

Ronald Reagan understood to his core what Barack Obama has not only never accepted but rejects out of hand based on both his actions as a private citizen and president: that socialism is now and has always been a failed philosophy. Obama, as well documented from his days at Occidental College to today -- is a now (if belatedly)   well-documented socialist true believer.

To believe that the Obama presidency will end in other than utter failure because he thinks he speaks Reaganite at a State of the Union speech is to believe that a man who has spent an adult lifetime disbelieving in gravity will survive a leap from the Empire State Building because he's suddenly muttering incantations from Newton on the way down.

Amidst all the sudden veneration for Reagan from today's left as a man of moderation (in contrast, but of course, to the wicked conservatives of today) those with longer memories recall vividly that liberals of the day hated Ronald Reagan's guts. This jewel of a statement from his arch-adversary House Speaker Tip O'Neill is but an understated example, as Reagan biographer Steven Hayward has noted:
"The evil is in the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He's cold. He's mean. He's got ice water for blood."
In fact, as Time magazine notes well, while Tip O'Neill was fuming about Reagan and others compared him to Hitler, Columbia student Barack Obama was so angered he decided to personally devote himself to the task of changing the White House. Reports Time of Obama's sentiments toward Reagan:
"I personally came of age during the Reagan presidency," Obama wrote later, recalling the classroom debates in his courses on international affairs. When he graduated from Columbia in 1983, Obama decided to become a community organizer. "I'd pronounce the need for change," Obama wrote in his memoir. "Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds." A decade later, he was still at it, leading a 1992 Illinois voter-registration effort aimed at breaking the Reagan coalition's hold on his state's electoral votes.
Right, right, right.

But why did Ronald Reagan summon such utter hatred and contempt as exhibited in the 1980s from House Speaker O'Neill and Columbia graduate Obama? Amid the current cries for civility it should be noted that Reagan's career brought forth a particularly vehement vitriol from the left on a regular basis. Whether it was the liberal fellow actor who spat in Reagan's face in a chance street encounter in late 1940's Hollywood (hissing "Fascist!") or the anonymous voice on a phone threatening to throw acid in his face (as was actually done to labor columnist Victor Riesel, like Reagan prominent for his anti-communist views. Riesel was disfigured for life, losing his eyesight), Ronald Reagan's habit of plainly speaking truths obvious to increasing millions infuriated leftists while worrying his friends. The latter acid-throwing threat against then-actor Reagan had his alarmed movie studio boss Jack Warner summoning the police, who insisted on issuing Reagan both a gun permit and a loaded .32 Smith and Wesson.

From threats of violence to the type of sentiment like the one expressed by O'Neill -- the sitting Speaker of the House when he made the remark -- Reagan decades later was still targeted for a special hatred reserved both for himself and his fellow conservatives. With liberals simply not caring in the least. Imagine the reaction today if House Speaker John Boehner referred to President Obama as the "evil… in the White House." And how long would it take before the drumbeat would begin for Boehner's resignation?

The Daily News: February 1, 2011



Monday, January 31, 2011

Workers of the World Unite: The American Left’s Role in Leading Mid-East Regime Change

Twitter, Facebook, and various instant messaging platforms (SMS, Skype, Google Chat, etc.) act as force-multipliers for revolutionary movements…” — Jeffrey Carr
________________

As the world watches Egypt crumble into chaos, with over 100 dead and 2000 injured, the Obama administration continues to be somewhat and rather curiously ambivalent. On the one hand, on Friday, Vice President Biden came to the defense of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, saying that he shouldn’t step aside. Yet, on the same day, the Telegraph (ala Wikileaks) reported that the U.S. had planned “regime change” for the “past three years” while both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton demand that internet be restored to the Egyptian protesters. This morning, Secretary of State Clinton again clarified the United States’ official position, ”We do not want to send any message about backing forward or backing back.”


For all the lack of clarity on where the Obama administration stands, one thing is becoming more and more clear: Signs are beginning to point more toward the likelihood that President Obama’s State Department, unions, as well as Left-leaning media corporations are more directly involved in helping to ignite the Mid-East turmoil than they are publicly admitting.

If it is indeed the case that the Obama administration, with help by private-sector companies and the union movement has led an “internet revolution” in the middle east and toppled two governments within a month, the longer-term ramifications for U.S. relations with other allies such as Saudi Arabia and certain other Arab monarchies, could prove to have much more far-reaching consequences.  

The Daily News: January 31, 2011




Egypt and the Future of the Middle East

This is the full statement about the crisis in Egypt given by Walid Shoebat, a former Palestinian terrorist and former member of the Muslim Broherhood. He will be on Hannity tonight on the Fox News Channel. - Reggie

By Walid Shoebat
1/31/2011

With socialist revolutions, the rule is: “take out a Czar and you will get a Stalin!”

Keep in mind the fire of revolution that engulfs Egypt was ignited by socialists and later embraced by Islamists. It is true that the Muslim Brotherhood was banned as an organization in 1954 but it’s been tolerated and has forged alliances with legal and political groups in the last two decades; the liberal socialists, the Wafd, and other socialist labor parties have been allies.

Of course, the U.S policy led by closet socialist president Obama has been to publicly support the Egyptian people. Obama wants “rights of assembly” and “elections” in Egypt. Americans need to realize that democratic elections in the Middle East have never resulted in western style freedom! The rule in any Muslim majority nation, is that democracy is used DURING the elections ONLY… Period!

What did democratic elections in Muslim majority nations do? Iran is now a theocracy, Lebanon is in a state of chaos, Palestine is still a state of psychosis, Sudan is on the verge of splitting, and Turkey’s democratic elections are slowly emerging as an axis that will eventually lead to an Islamist alliance against Israel and the West. Soon, we’ll also see North Africa – in the name of democracy – remove all their dictators so they can elect you know who!

The most plausible outcome for Egypt’s chaos is a future election as demanded by world opinion, the outcome of which can be seen from the experience we had in the Palestinian elections, on which president George W. Bush insisted. The results ushered in a divide between Islamists and so-called moderate Palestinian Authority. Palestinians were killing Palestinians in the streets as Hamas ran rampant, executing other Muslims who didn’t agree with their agenda. But unlike that miniature state of psychosis, the scale of mayhem in Egypt will be immense! Egypt’s “democratic elections” will simply change one form of dictatorship into another!

Whether it is the Iranian Shia or Sunni Revolutions, the way to victory will not be only by stepping over Israel but also over Arabia – the cradle of Wahabism that started the trouble in the first place. As a consequence, the world will kiss its addiction to Arab oil good-bye after Iran destroys Arabia with nuclear weapons. You can say that I am mad, but the documents released by Wikileaks revealed that King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran in order to halt its suspected nuclear weapons program. If in doubt, ask yourself, didn’t Saddam Hussein send scuds crashing over Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War? If he’d had nuclear warheads wouldn’t he have used them there?

And while the progressives cry “where are the weapons of mass destruction,” is there any doubt that Iraq’s neighbors are building them? Once Obama succeeds in pulling our troops out of Iraq as a good gesture to satisfy the screaming and complaining progressives that the U.S is not an occupier, then Iraq will immediately be gobbled up by Iran. And like the miniature Hezbollah-Hamas alliance against Israel, you will have a future Turkish-North Africa-Iranian alliance which will try to put the Islamic Caliphate “Humpty-Dumpty” back together again so they can dash in and “liberate” Jerusalem!

In the meantime, the Islamists will lay low, calling for democracy and – just like Arafat did – pretend to denounce terrorism at the cost of upsetting Al-Qaeda, who then gobbles it up and into the belly of its Trojan Horse, which, upon fully entering the fortresses of the West, will release its Al-Qaeda “locusts” into Israel, where they will meet their final destruction!

Florida Court Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional and Void

A Federal Court in Pensacola, Florida has ruled the ObamaCare law unconstitutional and void. This lawsuit was brought by 26 states. The court ruled, in part: 

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

Read the decision here.





Heritage Foundation: Federal Judge: Obamacare is Void

Hot Air: Federal judge rules ObamaCare is unconstitutional in its entirety

This is excellent! Levin needs to push this and get on the phone with the 26 Attorneys General about this fact. However, I am curious as to why all the other attorneys I've heard talk about this decision haven't made this point. They claim the implementation can proceed because the individual mandate doesn't take effect until 2014. Only Levin is claiming the judge has stopped this law in its tracks. I believe Levin is right because of the implication  made by the judge that he assumes the feds to comply with his ruling. Why would the judge say that if the implementation could continue unabated? - Reggie
Mark Levin: Obama cannot continue to implement ObamaCare





S.E. Cupp to host new show on Insider Extreme

The S.E. Cupp Show will debut next Tuesday, February 8th, at 1pm ET.

Fear the Muslim Brotherhood

At the Daily Beast, Bruce Riedel has posted an essay called “Don’t fear Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood,” the classic, conventional-wisdom response to the crisis in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood is just fine, he’d have you believe, no need to worry. After all, the Brothers have even renounced violence!

One might wonder how an organization can be thought to have renounced violence when it has inspired more jihadists than any other, and when its Palestinian branch, the Islamic Resistance Movement, is probably more familiar to you by the name Hamas — a terrorist organization committed by charter to the violent destruction of Israel. Indeed, in recent years, the Brotherhood (a.k.a., the Ikhwan) has enthusiastically praised jihad and even applauded — albeit in more muted tones — Osama bin Laden. None of that, though, is an obstacle for Mr. Riedel, a former CIA officer who is now a Brookings scholar and Obama administration national-security adviser. Following the template the progressive (and bipartisan) foreign-policy establishment has been sculpting for years, his “no worries” conclusion is woven from a laughably incomplete history of the Ikhwan.

By his account, Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna “preached a fundamentalist Islamism and advocated the creation of an Islamic Egypt, but he was also open to importing techniques of political organization and propaganda from Europe that rapidly made the Brotherhood a fixture in Egyptian politics.” What this omits, as I recount in The Grand Jihad, is that terrorism and paramilitary training were core parts of Banna’s program. It is by leveraging the resulting atmosphere of intimidation that the Brotherhood’s “politics” have achieved success. The Ikhwan’s activist organizations follow the same program in the United States, where they enjoy outsize political influence because of the terrorist onslaught.

Banna was a practical revolutionary. On the one hand, he instructed his votaries to prepare for violence. They had to understand that, in the end — when the time was right, when the Brotherhood was finally strong enough that violent attacks would more likely achieve Ikhwan objectives than provoke crippling blowback — violence would surely be necessary to complete the revolution (meaning, to institute sharia, Islam’s legal-political framework). Meanwhile, on the other hand, he taught that the Brothers should take whatever they could get from the regime, the political system, the legal system, and the culture. He shrewdly realized that, if the Brothers did not overplay their hand, if they duped the media, the intelligentsia, and the public into seeing them as fighters for social justice, these institutions would be apt to make substantial concessions. Appeasement, he knew, is often a society’s first response to a threat it does not wish to believe is existential.

Here’s Riedel again:
By World War 2, [the Brotherhood] became more violent in its opposition to the British and the British-dominated monarchy, sponsoring assassinations and mass violence. After the army seized power in 1952, [the Brotherhood] briefly flirted with supporting Gamal Abdel Nasser’s government but then moved into opposition. Nasser ruthlessly suppressed it.
This history is selective to the point of parody. The Brotherhood did not suddenly become violent (or “more violent”) during World War II. It was violent from its origins two decades earlier. This fact — along with Egyptian Islamic society’s deep antipathy toward the West and its attraction to the Nazis’ virulent anti-Semitism — is what gradually beat European powers, especially Britain, into withdrawal.

Sunday, January 30, 2011

The Real Time Magazine Cover

For those that have seen the cover of Time this week, Big Journalism wants you to see the view from behind. Perfect!
click images below for larger view






Senator Schumer on the Three Branches of Government

For those that are new to this country, here's a review of the three branches of American government set up by our Founding Fathers:

1) Legislative branch
2) Executive branch
3) Judicial branch

Got it? Now, watch a United States Senator tell us the three branches of government. There is absolutely no need to wonder why we are in the horrible shape we're in.

Our elected officials are morons! - Reggie

h/t The Blaze

Robert Redford, environmental hypocrite?

Read about the making of this short film and the reasons behind it at Hot Air.

House Speaker John Boehner on Fox News Sunday

Obama's Answers to America's Problems

Michael Ramirez Cartoon
click on image for larger view

John Bolton on Egypt

I believe this interview took place Friday, January 28th.

Fate of Coptic Christians in post-Mubarak Egypt worries some

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton warns Egypt’s ancient Coptic Christian minority could become increasingly endangered should the protests against Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak drive him from power.

The rioting against the Mubarak regime began on Jan. 25, in the wake of the Jan. 15 overthrow of Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, with the publicly stated goals of ousting Mubarak from power and protesting Egypt’s high unemployment and rampant corruption, among other issues.

The rioting claimed the ruling party headquarters Friday and pushed the Mubarak regime to shut down Internet and cell phone communications in an effort to clamp down on opponents, and the regime sent the army into the streets Saturday to confront demonstrators as Cairo fell into near anarchy.

Bolton points out Egypt’s outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, which promotes the Islamist ideology employed more violently by Hamas and other terror groups, stands to gain despite being a late comer to the revolt.

“One thing I want to say about all of these young people and all of these university students is what they’re learning in the universities is very similar to what the Muslim Brotherhood preaches,” Bolton said. “So we have to worry about the radicalism among the students is very, very high.”

Consequently, conservatives are mistaken thinking anti-Mubarak forces will replace the current regime with a Western-style democracy because Mubarak represents the lesser of two evils when compared with the opposition, according to Bolton.

“The overthrow of the Mubarak regime will not by any sense of the imagination lead to the advent of Jeffersonian democracy,” Bolton said. “The greater likelihood is a radical, tightly knit organization like the Muslim Brotherhood will take advantage of the chaos and seize power.

“It is really legitimate for the Copts to be worried that instability follow Mubarak’s fall and his replacement with the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The Copts, who constitute between 10 and 20 percent of Egypt’s population and whose church traces its founding back to St. Mark the Evangelist, have been increasingly targeted by Islamic extremists in recent years and have suffered intense persecution.

Egypt shuts down Al Jazeera bureau

Network's licences cancelled and accreditation of staff in Cairo withdrawn by order of information minister.

Al Jazeera denounced the closure of its bureau, saying the move was designed to stifle free reporting


The Egyptian authorities are revoking the Al Jazeera Network's licence to broadcast from the country, and will be shutting down its bureau office in Cairo, state television has said.

"The information minister [Anas al-Fikki] ordered ... suspension of operations of Al Jazeera, cancelling of its licences and withdrawing accreditation to all its staff as of today," a statement on the official Mena news agency said on Sunday.

In a statement, Al Jazeera said it strongly denounces and condemns the closure of its bureau in Cairo by the Egyptian government. The network received notification from the Egyptian authorities on Sunday morning.

"Al Jazeera has received widespread global acclaim for their coverage on the ground across the length and breadth of Egypt," the statement said.

An Al Jazeera spokesman said that the company would continue its strong coverage regardless.

'Designed to stifle'

If Brotherhood takes over, IDF will face formidable enemy

Analysis: This year is turning into critical one for Israeli isolation in the Mideast. Turkey is gone and Egypt appears to be on way.

The collapse of Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt is not yet about Israel but soon will be, depending on his successor.

If the Muslim Brotherhood grabs the reins in the massive Arab country, Israel will face an enemy with one of the largest and strongest militaries around, built on some of the most advanced American-made platforms.

The impact on Israel will be immediate – the IDF will need to undergo major structural changes, new units will need to be created and forces in the South will likely need to be beefed up. Since the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the IDF has not had to worry about two fronts at once. Until now.

The appointment of Intelligence Minister Omar Suleiman as the vice president in Egypt is a reassuring sign for Israel.

Suleiman has played a key role in Israeli- Egyptian relations over the years and is considered in charge of the “Israeli Dossier” His office has been responsible for coordinating efforts to stop smuggling via tunnels under the Philadelphi Corridor with Gaza and he is considered something of a moderate in comparison to outgoing Defense Minister Mohamed Tantawi.

Protests Raging in Egypt

From January 29, 2011. Brigitte Gabriel talks about the crisis in Egypt.

Outwitting Lethal Government Policies

Over the past fifty years, at least a half-million Americans, and perhaps many more, have died prematurely due to ill-designed and badly executed liberal programs. The causes, as I reveal in detail in Death by Liberalism, range from the criminal justice "reforms" of the 1960s, which triggered a crime wave that killed up to 268,000 Americans, to government-mandated fuel standards responsible for up to 125,000 lives. At least a thousand people are murdered each year by the derelict insane, with many deinstitutionalized lunatics dying as well, giving us a total of as many as 70,000 deaths. The number of deaths of children under the "protection" of state child care agencies is unknown (largely concealed by "privacy" laws) but must total in the thousands. (Twenty-one children died in this manner last year in Los Angeles County alone.)

All this strikes very close to home. There are few families that have not suffered a death from one of these causes over the last half-century. It's horrifying to consider that our lives are threatened by the actions of our own government, but we must consider it or risk becoming victims. How do we protect ourselves against democide?

When confronted with a risk, we analyze it and learn as much as we can in order to take the proper steps to avoid it. The process is no different here, even with the vast power of the government involved. While democide operates on a national scale, it should not be taken as overwhelming for that reason alone. Comprising small-scale elements, it is huge only in the aggregate. Responding to the threat is far from hopeless.

Crime - Crime remains the chief democidal killer. We're still living in the backwash of the great crime explosion of the late 20th century, triggered by interference with the criminal justice system by progressive judges and Supreme Court justices. Such cases as Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona were intended to "level the playing field" between law enforcement and criminals. This they did, with the innocent public paying the price.

Many municipalities, courts, and police forces have not learned the lesson, and they all continue applying failed policies. In such cases, citizens must take their own protection in hand.

Self-defense is the key. "Self-defense" means weapons -- weapons that are effective at a distance, that will fend off potential criminals, that will, if possible, end the confrontation with no escalation to higher levels of violence. Only one item meets this standard: the handgun.

It is possible to criticize ownership and use of handguns on a number of grounds. We will not debate this. Some of these contentions are exaggerated, butg some are well-taken -- the threat of suicide and particularly the possibility of children toying with a loaded gun are two examples.

But as the saying goes, you may need a gun only once in your life, but when you need it, nothing else will do. Drawbacks of gun ownership are similar in nature to the drawbacks of many other common items, such as cars and electrical appliances. All are dangerous, even deadly in certain circumstances. But dangers can be minimized. Despite accidents and misadventures, it remains true that guns are unexcelled at what they do, which is to end criminal activity. According to John Lott, the leading expert on gun use, guns are utilized in confrontations with criminals up to 3 million times a year. In most cases, the simple appearance of a gun causes a felon to flee. No shot is fired, and no one is hurt.

The first order of business is to study the firearms laws of your jurisdiction. Several states and many cities have adapted the anti-gun position as policy and expressed it in law, which is often enforced with far greater ferocity that any laws aimed at actual criminals. It is no coincidence that these jurisdictions (New York City, Chicago, and the District of Columbia among them) include some of the most liberal areas in the country. Under such circumstances, the dangers presented by legal sanctions must be carefully balanced against those presented by criminals.

On purchasing a gun, care must be given to the choice of model, caliber, size, and other important factors. For instance, there are some calibers too powerful for a woman to handle. Also, a gun featuring a hammer may become entangled with clothing, purse straps, and so on. Other factors include the difference between double and single action, concealability, and size.

Obtain a carrying permit and whatever other paperwork is necessary. Take gun safety, marksmanship, and self-defense courses. Purchase of a gun safe or locking system is advisable.

Familiarize yourself with the danger levels of various neighborhoods as revealed by recent crime rates. (Somebody wishing to perform a valuable public service might consider establishing websites for each municipality charting crime rates in various neighborhoods and providing warnings of criminal activity). Take care as to where you are traveling and the routes you choose, along with your destination. Patronizing bars in grubby neighborhoods is never a good idea.

Such steps taken by enough Americans would deter crime by raising the cost of doing business among felons. It would also take the pressure off police forces (although most police oppose an armed populace, operating under the assumption that cops and "civilians," as they refer to us, exist in a state of open war), and ease budget problems in many municipalities. The fact that any such activity by law-abiding citizens is widely discouraged is simply one more example of human perversity.

Such incidents as the recent Tucson shootings, though grounds for serious reflection on a number of counts, do not alter the primary case. Once again, according to John Lott, a large number of such incidents have been curtailed by individuals wielding legal weapons.

Cars -

The Muslim Brotherhood is the Enemy

Suddenly, Washington is consumed with a question too long ignored:  Can we safely do business with the Muslim Brotherhood?

The reason this question has taken on such urgency is, of course, because the Muslim Brotherhood (or MB, also known by its Arabic name, the Ikhwan) is poised to emerge as the big winner from the chaos now sweeping North Africa and increasingly likely to bring down the government of the aging Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak.

In the wake of growing turmoil in Egypt, a retinue of pundits, professors and former government officials has publicly insisted that we have nothing to fear from the Ikhwan since it has eschewed violence and embraced democracy.



For example, Bruce Reidel, a controversial former CIA analyst and advisor to President Obama, posted an article entitled “Don’t Fear Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood” at the Daily Beast.  In it, he declared:  “The Egyptian Brotherhood renounced violence years ago, but its relative moderation has made it the target of extreme vilification by more radical Islamists. Al Qaeda’s leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri, started their political lives affiliated with the Brotherhood but both have denounced it for decades as too soft and a cat’s paw of Mubarak and America.”

Then, there was President George W. Bush’s former press spokeswoman, Dana Perino, who went so far on January 28th as to tell Fox News “…And don’t be afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This has nothing to do with religion.”

One reason we might be misperceiving the MB as no threat is because a prime source of information about such matters is the Muslim Brotherhood itself.  As the Center for Security Policy’s new, best-selling Team B II report entitled, Shariah: The Threat to America found:  “It is now public knowledge that nearly every major Muslim organization in the United States is actually controlled by the MB or a derivative organization. Consequently, most of the Muslim-American groups of any prominence in America are now known to be, as a matter of fact, hostile to the United States and its Constitution.”  


The old Obama in new clothing

Friday, January 28, 2011 

The November election sent a clear message to Washington: less government, less debt, less spending. President Obama certainly heard it, but judging from his State of the Union address, he doesn't believe a word of it. The people say they want cuts? Sure they do - in the abstract. But any party that actually dares carry them out will be punished severely. On that, Obama stakes his reelection.

No other conclusion can be drawn from a speech that didn't even address the debt issue until 35 minutes in. And then what did he offer? A freeze on domestic discretionary spending that he himself admitted would affect a mere one-eighth of the budget.

Obama seemed impressed, however, that it would produce $400 billion in savings over 10 years. That's an average of $40 billion a year. The deficit for last year alone was more than 30 times as much. And total federal spending was more than 85 times that amount. A $40 billion annual savings for a government that just racked up $3 trillion in new debt over the past two years is deeply unserious. It's spillage, a rounding error.

Obama’s Carter Moment


In stark, bitter contrast to his indifference to the popular Iranian uprising in the summer of 2009, Barack Obama has almost immediately engaged in events on the ground in Egypt, and it’s not good. Obama took no such action with Iran — a jihadist terrorist state agitating in countries all over the world. That was an historic missed opportunity.



In 2009, his silence about the brutal, murderous putdown of its people by the Iranian mullahcracy amount to his tacit support of that putdown, and spoke volumes. Obama became part of the problem, not part of the solution. He gave religious barbarism the free hand. In response, Iranian protestors had a direct message for America’s president: “You’re Either With Us or With Them.”

And since then also, Obama’s most consistent response to Iran (as well as to North Korea’s hostile moves) has been to ignore them and hope that proven evildoers will behave themselves. Wrong. The good cop is off the beat.

Obama failed, and the consequences of his failure have begun to be made manifest now in Egypt. I cannot understate the importance of Egypt to American interests and Israeli security. Egypt is arguably the second-most important country to the US in the region. Mubarak has been a U.S. ally for decades. We send three billion dollars a year to Egypt. And Egypt made a peace deal with Israel.

But knowing Obama, he will throw another ally under the bus.
 

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Waivers for Favors: Big Labor’s Obamacare escape hatch

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 28, 2011 11:15 AM 
















My syndicated column today takes another thwack at Obamacare waiver-mania, with more analysis of the 182 union beneficiaries who’ve obtained safe harbor from the costly mandate pushed by their Big Labor bosses.


***

Cap and Trade Returns From the Grave

The president's plans for "clean energy standards" amount to carbon controls by other means.

Cap and trade is dead. Long live cap and trade.

The president presented his new, conciliatory face to the nation this week, and his State of the Union was as notable for what it didn't include as what it did. He uttered not one word about global warming, a comprehensive climate bill, or his regulatory attempts to reduce carbon. Combined with his decision to give the axe to controversial climate czar Carol Browner, political analysts took all this as further proof that Barack Obama was moving to the middle, making nice with Republicans.

Snort. Guffaw. Chortle.

Listen carefully to Mr. Obama's speech and you realize he spent plenty of it on carbon controls. He just used a different vocabulary. If the president can't get carbon restrictions via cap and trade, he'll get them instead with his new proposal for a "clean energy" standard. Clean energy, after all, sounds better to the public ear, and he might just be able to lure, or snooker, some Republicans into going along.

The official end of cap and trade, and Mrs. Browner, wasn't conciliation—it was necessity. The public now understands that cap and trade is an economy killer, and no small number of Democrats lost their seats in midterms for supporting it. Few in the party want to take it up again, and House Republicans won't let it pass. Mr. Obama would be crazy to continue calling for it.

The Daily News: January 28, 2011

As you know this show was pre-empted yesterday but Fox did run it overnight and my usual source, The Daily Beck, captured and uploaded it for us all. - Reggie

Friday, January 28, 2011

Egypt in Revolt

Today's episode of The Daily News was pre-empted by breaking news in Egypt.

I have been watching this story closely for several days trying to figure out who these revolutionaries are in Egypt. Are they communists, radical Islamists, freedom loving citizens seeking democratic government?

This uprising is extremely serious and I pray radical Islamists are not going to take over the government in Cairo or any other middle eastern Muslim nation where riots are taking place.

I see the Egyptian government has shut down the Internet, Facebook and Twitter. This is the power Joe Lieberman is trying to get for President Obama. The famous Internet "kill switch" that congress is pushing. We must not allow any president to have that power over us.

Pray for Egypt, the middle east and Israel.

God help us, all. - Reggie

Watch the broadcast.  Al Jazeera English: Live Stream

Statement by Egyptian President Mubarak:



Statement by President Obama:

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Budget Committee Hearing Highlights

The Fiscal Consequences of the New Health Care Law
House Budget Committee Witnesses Testify on the Law’s True Budgetary Impact

January 26, 2011

WASHINGTON – The House Budget Committee held a hearing today on the fiscal impact of the Democrats’ new health care law. Key witnesses, including the Obama Administration’s own non-partisan actuary for Medicare, testified that the law’s much-touted savings were unlikely to materialize; that it would drive health care costs higher, not bend them down; and that the new spending entailed by the law would probably be much higher than originally projected.

Chief Medicare Actuary on President's health care claims: "I would say false, more so than true"



To see more testimony click here.

Mark Levin Talks to Senator Orrin Hatch About Proposed Balanced Budget Amendment


Israeli ambassador to U.S. on pressing Iranian nuclear threat, Arab uprisings and the ‘Palestine Papers’

In a wide-ranging interview for a profile to be published by The Daily Caller next week, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told TheDC that despite reports that Iran’s nuclear program has experienced serious setbacks, the Islamic Republic remains a pressing threat.

When asked whether the comment reportedly made this month by lionized outgoing Mossad chief Meir Dagan that the “soonest Iran will have a nuclear device is 2015, if that,” means Iran is no longer the immediate threat it was once thought to be, Oren said Dagan’s view is just one assessment of the situation.

“I have great regard for Meir Dagan,” Oren told TheDC in an interview conducted at the Israeli Embassy in Northwest Washington. “His assessment is one assessment of one person. It’s not an assessment that reflects all of Israel’s intelligence community or Israel’s military community or Israel’s political echelon.”

“There are other opinions out there,” Oren continued, “and the other opinions are that we do not have a lot of time here.”

Asked whether the ongoing pro-democracy, anti-government demonstrations in capitals across the Arab world were welcomed by Israel, Oren responded cautiously, saying while Israel “welcomes democratization,” it is concerned about the stability of neighboring states crucial to its security.

“Well, I think Israel welcomes democratization of the Middle East. I think we see democratization as a factor for stability,” he said. “Looking forward to any future Palestinian state, we want that Palestinian state to be democratic. At the same time we have concerns about the stability of some neighboring states whose stability is very important for us and important for the peace process.”

Oren explained that the Israeli government is particularly worried that the popular uprisings will be hijacked by Islamists.

“We are concerned lest the uprising in Tunisia goes the way of the uprising in Iran in 1979 — what began as a sort of secular, very diffuse, popular movement was rather quickly hijacked by Islamic extremists because they are the most organized and best-funded of these groups. And there very focused. They know exactly what they want. And it’s always a danger in the Middle East that these movements can be hijacked,” he said.

The Daily News: January 27, 2011

What is the state of our union?


Postmen drinking on the job in Philadelphia

The link to this video was sent to me by a retired postal worker that I know. This is beyond outrageous in so many ways. I wonder how many other postal workers are doing the exact same thing all over the country. Hopefully, no one will have to die at the hands of a drunk driving mailman in order to find out. - Reggie


UPDATE: Part 2 below


Cavuto: 4 Billion Reasons to Cut the Debt

Sarah Palin 'On the Record'




Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Rumors of War: Glenn interviews Joel Rosenberg

S.E. Cupp joins GlennBeck.com




S.E. Cupp joins GlennBeck.com

MERCURY RADIO ARTS INTRODUCES NEW AND IMPROVED GLENNBECK.COM

S.E. Cupp, Conservative Political Commentator and Writer, Joins Updated GlennBeck.com.

(New York, NY – January 26, 2011) Mercury Radio Arts today announced the launch of the newly redesigned and expanded glennbeck.com, which includes the hiring of conservative political commentator and writer S.E. Cupp as a full time employee to the site. The improved glennbeck.com offers free 24/7 stream of Glenn’s radio show, behind the scenes access to all things Glenn– including news and updates on Glenn’s radio show, TV show, live events, and books. The new glennbeck.com is also HTML 5 compatible, allowing fans to watch glennbeck.com video on iOS devices.

S.E. Cupp is a political columnist and culture critic and has written for the New York Daily News, Townhall, Newsmax, the Washington Post, Slate, Human Events, American Spectator, FOXNews.com, Sports Illustrated online, Maxim online, NASCAR.com, FrontPage, Detroit Free Press and others.  As a political commentator, Cupp has appeared on FOX News, MSNBC, CNN and CSPAN.  She is also a regular guest on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” “The Joy Behar Show,” “Hannity,” “Fox & Friends,” and “Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld.”

The Daily News: January 26, 2011


Obama’s Sputter-nik moment: Cash for Education Clunkers

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 26, 2011 03:53 AM



My column today contrasts President Obama’s State of the Union hype about “innovation” and “investment” in education with the abysmal failures of massive federal spending on America’s schools. The White House love to talk about global “competitiveness,” but refuse to support competition in our government-run K-12 schools monopoly. “Sputnik moment” — or Sputter-nik moment?

As I mentioned yesterday, this is National School Choice Week. Today, House GOP Speaker John Boehner and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Ct.) will propose legislation to revive the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships for low-income families in D.C.. Remember who’s standing in the schoolhouse door.

Related: The Cartel, an excellent documentary on the bloated, bottom-performing New Jersey public schools, features a telling quote from Trenton councilman Jim Coston that sums up decades of government education sinkhole spending: “There’s almost a sense that the worse we do the more money we get.”

Related: Democrat Newark (NJ) Mayor Cory Booker’s telling admission last night on Twitter responding to a reader’s call to “give money to schools:” “OK but I know from experience more $ doesn’t mean better schools. It is necessary but not sufficient.




Related: NEA Gave More Than $13 Million to Advocacy Groups, including: Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate – $200,000; Health Care for America Now! – $450,000; MediaMatters – $100,000; Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund – $25,000; People for the American Way – $64,538; and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network – $10,000.

Related: ‘Report card’ on science: Most US students aren’t ‘proficient’ Sample questions here. It’s going to be pretty damned difficult for America’s kids to achieve the next “Sputnik moment” when they can’t identify which of the Earth’s poles has the coldest weather.

***

Obama and his speech

This is the entire post from Mark Levin's Facebook page this morning. - Reggie

by Mark Levin on Wednesday, January 26, 2011 at 6:41am

President Obama's foot remains where it has been since the day he entered the Oval Office, on the gas pedal. He's not braking for anyone or anything. All this pre-SOTU spin from Obama's whisperers, gobbled up by the Obama-hungry media, was always nonsense. Obama has no intention of touching entitlements in any significant way, period. Why would he tamper with the New Deal and Great Society when he considers them a good start but insufficiently bold to advance his statist beliefs? Obama has no intention of honestly working with Republicans on health care, cap-and-trade, etc. These are hallmarks of his transformative agenda. They define him and his presidency. His bureaucracy is working overtime to institute them.

It amazes me that some usually thoughtful people seize on anything they can find to argue, or hope, that Obama has been chastened by the last election. For weeks they've pointed to the tax deal as evidence of his "pivoting." Actually, what Obama did is tee-up the tax fight for a time when he believes his class warfare demagoguery can be best employed -- during the final weeks of his re-election bid. He already started it last night. And, of course, the Republicans fell for it, hailing the tax deal as momentous. Obama is ready to deal some more, they reckoned -- a sad delusion.

As a matter of basic logic, how could the biggest deficit-spender in American history reverse course and become a responsible fiscal hawk? It was never going to happen. How could a man who believes his lot in life is a matter of destiny, his and the nation's, allow his legacy to be tainted by a Tea Party-driven election? In his mind, he won't. "We are the ones we have been waiting for," as he famously said about himself and his supporters. He's not going to allow a single mid-term election, driven by what he perceives to be yahoos and miscreants, change the course of history -- his history or the nation's. Too many commentators just don't comprehend this man.

The contradictions and ironies in his speech are too numerous to catalogue. Suffice it to point out a few of the most glaring examples. This is our Sputnik moment, he says, at the same time he is cutting NASA's budget (one of the few programs he wants to cut), directed its top administrator to focus on Muslim outreach, and entered into a treaty with the Russians that weakens our strategic defense efforts. Obama says he is willing to work with Republicans on reforming Obamacare, yet the GOP has offered several reforms that Obama has completely ignored for they focus on private alternatives and competition -- neither of which are compatible with Obama's top-down, government-driven ideology. He says Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable, yet he not only offers no suggestions on how to reform them, he rejects his own Deficit Commission's recommendations, uses Obamacare to expand Medicaid, and drains resources from Medicare. Obama's idea of unleashing research, development, and science to create the new technologies and jobs of the future is centered on targeted federal grants and initiatives -- bigger government, more spending, and more regulating. It is, of course, the American private sector that is the engine of spectacular economic progress. And a Democrat SOTU speech would not be complete without an attack on the oil industry. But for the Obama administration's anti-energy production policies, the oil industry would, in fact, be exploring and drilling more within and around our shores, thereby increasing supply and driving down price. Still, Obama says the government shouldn't be subsidizing these companies with tax breaks. No, direct taxpayer subsidies are to be reserved for GE, GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other favored businesses or quasi-businesses.

Obama said that it is time to put party labels aside and work for the nation. Within 12 hours of that statement, he hit the road to begin his re-election and raise an astounding $1 billion in campaign cash. I guess he meant for everyone else to put partisan politics aside. After all, history calls him.

We conservatives must stay focused. We must defeat Obama in 2012 by nominating an intelligent, articulate, confident conservative for president. We must keep a close eye on the Republican leadership in Congress to make sure it does not return to its loser ways. Keep in mind; they are not of the Tea Party movement, although they've benefited politically from it. We must continue to take on the Left (including the mainstream media) both intellectually and politically. And we must send more conservatives to Congress. Our focus must be victory and we must not be distracted by the symbolism, games, ways, and intimidation tactics of those who've brought this great nation to this perilous point.