I find this article extremely interesting. The possibilities are so broad that it almost boggles the mind. It would seem that the only truly untouchable law would be those that the Supreme Court has declared constitutional. That would prevent anyone from trying to ignore Roe vs Wade, hopefully we can get that particular ruling overturned, but some of the laws that are being put in place by the EPA could be voided.
I am sure that Barack Obama would find this so wrong, though! They do seem to have some trouble seeing the possibilities of their actions. This truly points out that elections have consequence.
- Dr. Thomas Woods on Nullification 2-13-11 (weekendidaho.com)
I love finding stories like the one I have linked to below. God‘s work is amazing in everything, but this just goes to show that the world is in his hands and that we have been given every thing that we need. It is a shame that the deniers will always try to find a way to discredit His works, but to those with the eyes to see, the evidence is clear.
I give thanks to the Lord for the blessings that He has given us. I give Him praise and glory, in His wonderful Son’s name. Amen
The virus, dubbed “Organic Lake Virophage” or OLV, was discovered in the Organic Lake, a 6,000-year-old body of saltwater in eastern Antarctica. Researchers found its genome hidden in sequences of local Phycodnaviruses–giant viruses that basically live in the lake and attack algae. Evidence suggests these two viruses have been swapping genes and co-evolving, and it looks like the OLV actually depends on the Phycodnaviruses for, well, its dinner.
What’s more, although the OLV turns out to be the predominant virophage in the area, scientists believe there may be other virus-eating viruses lurking in the depths.
- ‘Virus-eater’ discovered in Antarctic lake (nature.com)
- A Sputnik moment for virus-infecting viruses [Thoughts from Kansas] (scienceblogs.com)
- Antarctic lake hints at a world of virus-attacking viruses | Not Exactly Rocket Science (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
Give war a chance! I heard someone say that phrase after Mr. Obama’s speech on Libya and it just hit me like a club. That is the most disturbing phrase that I have ever heard. It’s like saying that if this doesn’t work out, then we will try something else. How insane is that! What are you going to try next? Peace? In the meantime, thousands of people are going to die. Some of them would have died anyway, but you can not escape the fact that missles fired by our side, and bombs dropped by our side, kill. They do not discriminate between the good guy and the bad guy. They don’t discriminate between children, women, and men who are trying to kill them. How in the world can we pretend that we are trying to save lives by destroying them. And how in the world can Barack Obama claim that it is in our interests to do so.
Libya is unstable, but we made it more so! Our President should either shut up or put up! If we are in Libya, then we should finish the job. Quaddafi is not going to go quietly, what would he have to gain? He is going to have to be forcibly removed and if we are not willing to do that, we should not have gotten involved in the first place.
And if this is just a short term experiment on Barack Obama’s part, what is the goal? Are we going to keep bombing and dropping missles until we have none left or the country itself is destroyed? And if it is so important to save lives in Libya, what about the other countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa? Are they any less important? Is it the oil that he is protecting? Is that the reason that other countries are not as important to us? If that is the reason Mr. Obama owes it to the country and the world to make that clear. If he thinks that this will brings us any more respect he is probably delusional. How can anyone in the rest of the world truly believe that we are doing this for humanitarian reasons? When we have so little regard for the violence in countries like Iran, or Syria? How does Barack Obama decide who is worth saving?
And then what if Quaddafi doesn’t leave and isn’t killed? When we leave, what will he do? Does Barack Obama seriously believe the man will not search every home and kill every man, woman and child that belongs to a family that rebelled against him. Perhaps I am just naive, but it seems as if we are setting the country up for a blood bath.
Edward Luttwak has a very good argument for “Give War a Chance”, but his premise is based on having an objective and being in it to finish it. The difference we have with Barack Obama and the Libya intervention is that he has stated from the outset that he does not intend to finish the job!
If Mr. Obama is going to war, he needs to have an objective and it must be a war worth winning! It must not just be bomb a country for a few weeks or a few months and then let the country go to whatever force that is able to take control. If we let forces that are friendly to our enemies have power when we could have prevented it, we are in the process of cutting our own throats!
- al Qaeda swipes ‘surface to air’ missles from Libyain Arms Depot (yourdaddy.net)
Mr. Obama says that what drove him to make the decision to go to war over Libya was the danger the people were in, but why not Syria? Or Tunisia? Or any of the other states that are erupting violently in the Middle East and North Africa? And if you apply that principle, where and when do you stop? How can you protect the people if you are not on the ground? And if the President has the right to go into any conflict simply because the people are in danger, does that make him the Emperor of the world? How will he decide who should live and who should die? Who gave him that right?
If violence were to erupt in the United States would Barack Obama get together a coalition of other countries, such as Eqypt or Saudia Arabia, and put down the people of this country? When you start a process such as this, what is to stop someone with evil intent from carrying the process all the way to the end?
Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya – what we have done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.
I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved. Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda around the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I am grateful to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and their families, as are all Americans.
For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.
Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt – two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.
- Obama Finally Explains What We’re Doing In Libya (businessinsider.com)
A friend told me today that Sarah Palin was 10,000 times better than Barack Obama (thank you HM) and she was so right. When you listen to Sarah, you know where she stands. There is no dithering, with one thing one day, and another the next. She doesn’t have to get a committee together that maybe she will agree with. She knows what she believes and she doesn’t hesitate to tell you if she is asked.
She knows who our friends are, and she knows who are enemies are. She doesn’t try to appease our enemies in order for them to think better of us.She knows that it doesn’t matter if they like us or not, what is important is that they know that we are strong and will not tolerate threats to us or our friends. She knows that showing weakness endangers everyone and that it is better to be respected and feared.
More Quote of the Day Honorable Mention, Part 242
“Did Palin Zone Out on Obama and Israel? Nope… An on-line discussion at Politico about her comments was headlined on its homepage as concerning ‘Palin’s idiotic comments about Israel.’ So how ‘idiotic’ were they? The correct answer is not very… Far from stupid, these remarks are actually very much to the point about the willingness of this administration, and some of its predecessors to pressure Israel to make concessions when the real obstacle to peace is what it always has been: the Palestinians‘ unwillingness to make peace or to give up terrorism… If Palin thinks of it in terms of zoning, it may be because, unlike Obama, she takes it for granted that Jews have the right to be in their own country and build wherever it is legally permissible to do so. Twice in his first two years in office Obama picked very nasty and public fights with Israel’s government over the building of homes in existing Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. These arguments were not only an unprecedented attack on Israel from an American president on the issue of Jerusalem. They were both unnecessary and had the effect of making peace negotiations with the Palestinians less likely. So when you look at it from that perspective, maybe it’s Obama and not Palin who has been the ‘idiotic’ one when it comes to Israeli building policies.”
MariaS at Dodo Can Spell:
“I absolutely love her stance on Israel… No wonder the hard-Left hates her the way they do …. she’s going to push their faces into the dust at every opportunity… much to our eternal entertainment.”
Mendy Ganchrow, M.D. at Ganchrow World View:
“As I wrote previously, I did not believe Sarah Palin was a credible candidate for President. Last nite she was on Fox with Greta,and I have to say that both Sheila and I were truly impressed with her demeanor. She just returned from India and Israel. It was not just her views in Israel that I felt comfortable with, but her whole approach to Libya and leadership. She has matured since the hectic days of the campaign. If she runs she will be a formidable candidate.”
- Palin excoriates Obama over Israel (politico.com)
- Is Sarah Palin ready to lead America? (wdednh.wordpress.com)
- Palins Outspoken Support of Israel Makes Her the Anti-Obama We Need (genomega1.wordpress.com)
Whether you were on the same side of the political spectrum as Geraldine Ferraro or not, one thing that you could always say for her, was that she didn’t inject meanness into what was often a dirty game. She was respected and she earned that respect with everything that she did. For those who took the opportunity to try to portray her as a racist during the 2008 campaign, they hurt a wonderful woman who never deserved the treatment that she got. I liked her a lot and appreciated her honesty and forthrightness. She will be missed and she was well loved.
On the Passing of Geraldine Ferraro
My family and I would like to express our sincere condolences to the family of Geraldine Ferraro. When I had the honor of working alongside Geraldine on election night last year, we both discussed the role of women in politics and our excited expectation that someday that final glass ceiling would be shattered by the election of a woman president. She was an amazing woman who dedicated her life to public service as a teacher, prosecutor, Congresswoman, and Vice Presidential candidate. She broke one huge barrier and then went on to break many more. The world will miss her. May she rest in peace and may her example of hard work and dedication to America continue to inspire all women.
- Sarah Palin
When are the Jewish American’s who supported Barack Obama going to wake up and realize that he and his administration hate Israel even worse that they hate the United States. Every step that they take is in the direction of destroying both Israel and the U.S. I can not believe that they have any doubts. If they do they are going to get a very rude awakening in the next few months. The forces in the Middle East and Northern Africa, are rapidly moving into position to attack Israel and whether the U.S. actively helps them or not, I do not believe that they will do any thing to help Israel. And the destruction will be on the hands of all those who stood by while they were threatened and that includes those American Jews who are so blind that they choose not to see.
via Randy’s Right
American Thinker has a great article about “What does Presidential Mean?” They are discussing Presidential in regards to Sarah Palin, But I would like to ask the same question in regards to Barack Obama. Have the actions and words of Barack Obama been Presidential?
The Constitution lays out the legal requirements for President so I won’t go over them here. If you don’t know them I recommend getting a small copy for yourself, they are available all over the internet. I am talking about the attributes that most people consider to be Presidential.
One of the very first attributes has to be connectivity and Barack Obama does have that with a good deal of the population. Another has to be an ability to communicate, again Barack Obama has that. Next would have to be the ability to understand the issues, that one is a question mark. I am not sure whether Barack Obama doesn’t understand the issues, or whether he simply doesn’t care. That is one issue where Obama really fails on. Another is love of country, Obama really falls down on this one, he is the only President that we have ever had that appears to actively hate the country.
That last attribute is the very one that disqualifies Barack Obama from being Presidential. That puts everyone in the country at risk, and the primary job of the President of the United States is to protect the country. In every chance that Mr. Obama has had to do something to improve the status of the country itself or the people within the country, he has chosen the opposite path. So in asking the question of whether Barack Obama is presidential, my answer has to be no. But that is just a personal opinion, if there is some other explanation for the actions of Barack Obama, I would love for someone to take the time to give that explanation. Do you think I am right? Do you know of any other President that actively hated the country? What do you think is Presidential?
Having sorted through the flotsam and jetsam for the last year of what those who scorn Sarah Palin have to say, I’d like to offer a little down-home, Nebraska fly-over country armchair musing.
Let’s address the “pundits” first. They fall into three classes; first you have the Roves and the Gingriches, the big guns no longer in power. They’re on the wane — Gingrich is nearly irrelevant and Rove is hanging on through the grace of the Fox Powerbrokers. He’s like the incest born offspring on display at the carnival sideshows of my youth. Parade him out; wring what juice is left in his continence as his notoriety evolves from architect to anachronism.
Next in the pecking order are the elitist “blog” by-liners, spewing left-handed compliments as justification for conservatism — a dime a dozen, and not worth the cost of a candle to shine the light on their “do over” mentality.
Last of course, and the group I belong to, the actual class of people so minor as to be only found pathetically seeking recognition or redemption for votes of elections past.
All have something to say about Palin, while most don’t have a clue as to what she represents, or are incapable of critical analysis. These scornful voices emanate from those who simply do not understand what lies in the hearts and minds of people such as Sarah Palin. What many of us do understand is simply that we do not care who is President; we care who is “Presidential.”
Obama to address the nation on Libya…a day late and a dollar short. another great wordpress post by Kingjester, who always has something really good!!!!
Guest Saturday #1 with The Free Market Project from Conservatives on Fire
Cronyism and Central Planning
When Barack Obama told the world that he wanted to “fundamentally change” America, most of the people who voted for him, assumed that he wanted to make it better. Some people suspected that it was not what he had in mind, but it was ridiculed and discarded, by the media, and most Americans. After all, that wasn’t what they wanted. They were so hungry for things to be better than they were getting under George W. Bush. They were afraid that their finances were disappearing, and Obama was the “One”, he was going to make it all better.
But once he was elected, it seemed that he had plans, that most people weren’t aware of. It was not that he hadn’t told people, it was that they really didn’t listen. Mostly because they just listened to what they wanted to hear, and many in the media, didn’t bother to report it. The ones that did report it, were ignored by a lot of the people, because they were portrayed as supporting the other side, and by that standard were not to be trusted.
As each month passed, many people began to understand that what Mr. Obama was giving them, wasn’t quite what they had expected. Many of those started looking at those who were protesting the changes that were beginning to appear, some with delight, others with fear or unease. More and more people started questioning exactly what kind of change that Barack Obama intended.
It seems that the idea of creating jobs, was to alter the lifestyle of everyone in American, by destroying the jobs that they had in mining, oil wells, insurance, and many other industries. It no longer appeared that what Mr. Obama wanted, was what most of the rest of America wanted. The fears of many were returning, and becoming stronger. The confidence that things would improve was beginning to get worse.
Barack Obama seemed to be intent on apologizing for the actions of everyone who came before him, and it seemed that everything that the United States had ever done, was bad. The fact that this was the place that most of the world wanted to come, to when their country let them down, didn’t count. It didn’t matter that we had one of the best standards of living in the whole world. In fact, Barack Obama seemed to feel as if we should lower our standard of living. As if we would be more respected, and admired if we had the same standard of living as the Middle East , or Africa.
If fact that was the direction that he intended to take us. No matter if that was what we wanted or not. The faster he could get us there, the better. It didn’t matter if he overloaded the system. If we were unable to pay our bills, there was always China. So don’t worry, we will just borrow more money. If China says enough one of these days, no problem, we will just devalue our money, and print more.
The article below brings reason to the argument that this is all by design. I have felt that way for a long time. I don’t pretend to know the purpose, maybe no one but Barack Obama will ever know that. However, although the article lays out the reasoning, it doesn’t ask the further question of what will Barack Obama do if he loses re-election in 2012? He has shown that the Constitution and the law of the land have no meaning for him and his administration, so, you have to ask, what happens next? What is to stop Barack Obama from declaring some emergency, and putting a halt to the elections? Would the military step in to stop him? Would the National Guard? Are there enough Democrats who believe in the country to stop him? Or is it what he plans? Is driving this country into a cival war the real goal? Is there anybody else out there who wonders if Barack Obama believes that he is in any way bound by a Constitution that he doesn’t believe in?
We can survive many traits in presidents,
but malice is not among them. In the unfolding saga of the Libyan adventure I note that, even though it is early innings, a popular strain of conservative criticism centers around the always popular idea of ‘stupidity in government;’ with a variant on the subset of ‘the president is not as smart as he thinks.’ The popular variant this time is: ‘deep down, Obama is shallow.’ This notion includes various complimentary subsets such as ‘he is lazy,’ ‘he is incompetent,’ ‘he’s hooked on the perks and doesn’t care for the work.’ All comfortable notions that imply that the critic is, conversely, smarter, more diligent, and more fit to make governmental decisions than the president. The problem here is that the critic is not the president and hence has no power to do anything remotely presidential.
‘m no friend of conspiracy theories. The truthers who imagine that hundreds of people have all kept the federal government’s dark roll in 911 hold no attraction to me. Too complex and with a membership that is too substantial to keep such secrets. The birthers who look to finally exposing the odd origins of the president who seems to have sprung from the brow of Zeus? Too irrelevant if true, sinc
e it will not alter the election, and, if false, pure fritterware.
At the same time, I acknowledge that there are conspiracies in the world. By extension, the most successful conspiracies would involve a very few people with a lot of access to money and power. Taking one more step, one would have to posit that the perfect conspiracy would not involve even a few people, but only one person with access to money and power.
That person would be a sociopath but if he was the right sociopath in the right place at the right time his native intelligence, high or low, stupid or smart, wouldn’t really matter. What would matter would be the level of his maliciousness. It would not matter what his real IQ was but rather his level of cleverness and his innate shrewdness. Indeed, to the clever and shrewd person a critical conversation involving whether he was being “stupid” or “lazy” only works to his advantage since is draws attention away from malice and gives him more time and space to pursue his goals. As Machiavelli knew, and Stalin proved, when the ends secure pure power, the means are irrelevant and history rewritable.
- Barack Obama Has Awakened A Sleeping Nation By Gary Hubbell (via ~ The GUNNY “G” BLOG & E-MAIL ~) (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Barack Obama: The Weakest President in History? (peregrine5700.wordpress.com)
Lately it seems more and more as if the whole of the Obama administration is insane. In the article below, Bryan Preston points out some of strange verbal machinations that Barack Obama and his administration are using with the English language. It’s bad enough that they can not take any responsibility for their actions, but this goes beyond that.
Who is the others that volunteered America‘s military? And what exactly is a “kinetic military action?” Does Obama speak a different language than everyone else? Or is this simply a way to discourage questions by implying that the person who has the guts to ask is not smart enough to understand the answer?
Obama’s serial abuse of language
On Wednesday we noted President Obama’s remark that America’s military had been “volunteered by others” for the action in Libya. Today, we learn that the action in Libya is not war, but “kinetic military action.” And what was once called a “rush to war” even though Congress was consulted and the debate lasted a year, is now acting in an “unprecedented fashion and with unprecedented speed.” The president presiding over three wars overseas contingencies resulting from man-caused disasters: Keeping the Peace Prize.
Just don’t call it a war undertaken without much debate or leadership, and without congressional approval, or Joe Biden might try to impeach you.
- War? What War? (powerlineblog.com)
- Don’t Call It “War,” Call It… (virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com)
- Is Obama’s Use of Military in Libya Constitutional? (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- “What Would We Do Without the Arab League?” and related posts (pajamasmedia.com)
Right or left, for or against! Does Barack Obama even know what he wants to do? Or is he simply reacting to whatever voice is the loudest at any particular time? Are we the United States of America or simply a tool for the UN? Whatever Mr. Obama’s policy is, it is insane. You simply can not be everything to everyone.
And if there is no plan to end, why begin? What do we gain by getting involved in the Libyian situation? Are we truly saving any lives? Or is Gaddafi going to kill even more because of our intervention? Isn’t it time that Barack Obama answered the concerns of both Congress and the rest of America, too?
In the Oval Office, President Obama keeps busts of his heroes — Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. He should add one of Milton Berle, the so-called Mr. Television of the 1950s. Berle used to signal his studio audience to both continue and stop applauding by holding up one hand to wave them on and another to quiet them. This is the president’s Libya policy in a nutshell.
The Berle Doctrine, the closest thing this administration has to a coherent foreign policy, has almost certainly cost lives. It entailed a heroic amount of dithering as the Obama administration first went to war with itself — to intervene or not to intervene — with the so-called boys (Bob Gates, Tom Donilon) arguing with the girls (Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Power), a summer-camp metaphor unbecoming the seriousness of the situation. Clinton ultimately got her no-fly zone but claimed no credit. “We did not lead this,” she said in Paris.
That’s for sure. The French did this, with President Nicolas Sarkozy saying “France has decided to assume its role, its role before history.” Oui! For all the galling Gallic-ness of that statement, Sarkozy was right — as was Sen. John Kerry, who called for international intervention in the Libyan civil war almost from the onset. Along with some others, Kerry and Sarkozy appreciated that Moammar Gaddafi is a sociopath, a killer of innocents, and that should he corner his foes in Benghazi, he would massacre them with utmost glee. He virtually promised as much, and when it comes to murder, he has usually been true to his word.
- Obama seen as ineffectual leader (westernexperience.wordpress.com)
- Libya and what becomes of liberal interventionism? (debaser84.wordpress.com)
- I Don’t Buy Obama’s War (radcontra.wordpress.com)
What is the purpose to deny Americans the ability to drill their own oil and at the same time encourage, and give American money to Brazil, to drill oil that they are going to sell. It’s not as if they are going to turn around and sell it to us at a cheaper price than we could drill it ourselves. They intend to make a profit, and if they can sell it to someone else at a higher price, they will probably do so.
But look at the increasing cost to all Americans. Not only in the price of food and fuel, but also in the loss of jobs to our own citizens. Only someone with no knowledge or someone who is deliberately trying to destroy the American economy, would pursue such a policy.
What does that say about Barack Obama? Do we believe that the man is too stupid to invest in jobs and oil in our own country? If that is true, what in the world is the man still doing in the Whitehouse? There is a process where the President can be removed from office if he is judged incapable to serve.
If he is not stupid, then he must be deliberately destroying the country. That is TREASON. In that case we are in for a future at war with ourselves, and that is closer that you think. We are at the edge of destruction, and unless there are a great many in power with enough sense to put a stop to the present policies, there is coming a dire tripping point, at which there is only a cliff over which we will fall, or a long slow journey to where we can regain a meager amount of what we have lost.
Where we will stand in the next few months will decide where we will go! When will the powers that be wake up? Who will stop the coming storm?
Obama: Drill, Brazil, Drill!
Energy Policy: While leaving U.S. oil and jobs in the ground, our itinerant president tells a South American neighbor that we’ll help it develop its offshore resources so we can one day import its oil. WHAT?!?
With Japan staggered by a natural disaster and a nuclear crisis, cruise missiles launched against Libya in our third Middle East conflict and a majority of U.S. senators complaining about a lack of leadership on the budget, President Obama decided it would be a good time to schmooze with Brazilians.
His “What, me worry?” presidency has given both Americans and our allies plenty to worry about. But in the process of making nice with Brazil, Obama made a mind-boggling announcement that should make even his most loyal supporter cringe:
We will help Brazil develop its offshore oil so we can one day import it.
We have noted this double standard before, particularly when — at a time when the president was railing against tax incentives for U.S. oil companies — we supported the U.S. Export-Import Bank‘s plan to lend $2 billion to Brazil’s state-run Petrobras with the promise of more to follow.
Now, with a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska’s continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico — and a de facto moratorium covering the rest — Obama tells the Brazilians:
- Obama: Drill, Brazil, Drill! – We’ll Pay Brazil to Drill (dewgeneral.wordpress.com)
- Drill, Brazil, Drill? (hotair.com)
- Obama Tells Brazil, Drill Baby Drill! (ironmill.wordpress.com)
- “Obama Supports Drilling; In Brazil!” and related posts (onebigdog.net)
It is such a shame that our current administration does not seem to realize that Israel is much more important to our future than Hamas. What we can expect from Hamas is more hatred imported into the United States. What we have in Israel is a strong ally in a violent part of the world. Barack Obama is wasting his time courting the rebel Muslim Brotherhood. The only thing that will get us is a poison seeping into the very fabric of our nation.
I hope that Sarah Palin has impressed the Israeli people enough that they in turn, can influence the liberal American Jews who seem to believe that they can only vote for Democrats. Perhaps by now they have realized that Barack Obama cares nothing for the State of Israel. Do they truly believe that Israel gives more the the Palestian people, that they will be willing to live with Israel as a State? Do they not understand that when Iran and others wish to remove Israel from the face of the Earth, that they actually mean it?
- Sarah Palin visits the Western Wall Tunnels in Israel. Will meet with PM Netanyahu. (riehlworldview.com)
It is an admirable goal to prevent the deaths of civilians in Libya, but is a no fly zone really going to accomplish that? If Mumar Gaddafi remains in power, what happens then. We cannot prevent him from killing people with his ground forces, and we have already seen him do that by going into hospitals and shooting all the protestors that had been wounded in the demonstrations against him. So, if we know from the start that it will not work, what is the real goal. If we are not going to deploy troops, how can we possibly reach the stated goal?
And what authority has Barack Obama decided he is to operate under? The last time I checked, the UN is not a recognized authority. The United States has a Constitution and under that an estabished procedure to follow, and yet to this date, we have no information that Mr. Obama has even raised the issue with the Congress.
Another question on what is Barack Obama’s endgame is the future of oil. It seems counter productive to grant Brazil our hard earned money to further their ability to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, and then promise to buy it, at the same time that he is shutting down our own ability to drill in the same area. We wind up losing money from the drilling itself and then losing again when we have to import even more that we could have drilled ourselves.
It almost seems as if we are putting ourselves in a box and closing all the sides. Where are we headed? Does Mr. Obama intend that we lose the total ability to provide for ourselves? Are we supposed to be better off if we import everything from somewhere else? It is awfully nice that Barack Obama is concerned with the welfare of the rest of the world, but when is Mr. Obama going to show some of that concern for the country that elected him to be President? Or did he somehow think that he was elected by the world to decide it’s future?
A premise to our form of government, which has been embraced by the other western-style democracies, is that we all are concerned with our own self-interest. Therefore, In order to keep anyone’s own need for power in check, there must be a system in place which forces those in the executive branch from making decisions on their own that affect the rest of us. Otherwise, we would have an emperor or a king who could unilaterally decide to wage war, or place people in prison who they don’t like, or shut down newspapers that oppose them, or a host of other objectives that I’m sure most presidents at times wished that they could do.
Who decided to engage America in this war? Was it the United Nations? Please, give me a break. If I remember right, the only reason that the UN decided to fight the invasion of South Korea was because Russia was in the middle of a boycott. Even if the UN decided to act, exactly what forces the United States from lending our military might to this effort without regard to our own Constitution? Consider Britain, one of the European nations that we are claiming to support. Tomorrow, Prime Minister Cameron will have the Parliament vote on whether that nation should continue this engagement. When is Congress planning to vote on this?
The administration also claimed that the Arab League wanted our intervention. However, after they saw that the western powers were not merely providing a no-fly zone but were also attacking ‘military’ targets, they revoked their support.
So what is going on here? Was there a build-up in public support prior to sending our troops into battle? Hardly. A week ago, all who spoke about the war were some legislators who propose invading almost everywhere, at least in that part of the world. And nobody paid any attention to them, since most of them are in the back pocket of an interest group. Polling conducted in the last few weeks showed support for this effort hovering around 30%. Now that we’ve placed troops in harm’s way, that number will hardly increase. To my recall, the only war where public support actually increased was the Kuwaiti-Iraq War, and that was only because Bush 1 kept his word, and we decided not to invade Iraq. What’s the chance that Hillary, once she has her decrepit hands on our military, will ever permit us to disengage without sending her media soldiers to keep our troops involved. All that they need is one shot-down plane, one poor rebel in Benghazi who needs some food, one Libyan woman who has been mistreated, and they’ll have all the ammunition that they need to keep us in war for another decade or so.
Once again Sarah shows her love of the Israel people and her desire to show them that there are still a great majority who appreciate having her as a strong ally and friend. God bless Sarah Palin and protect both her and Israel from the violence we see arising around both.
Her first stop – The Wailing Wall.
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin arrives at the Western Wall tunnels in Jerusalem’s Old City March 20, 2011. Palin began a private visit to Israel on Sunday, her first to the Jewish state, and planned to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and tour holy sites. (REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun)
Sarah Palin arrived in Israel today, her first trip to the Jewish state. She plans on meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and an Israeli settlement leader during her visit.
The Jerusalem Post reported:
Leading US Republican Sarah Palin began a private visit to Israel on Sunday, her first to the Jewish state, and planned to meet Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and tour holy sites.
Palin, a 2008 vice presidential candidate, is a potential White House contender in 2012 and a leading light in the fiscally conservative Tea Party movement.
“As the world confronts sweeping changes and new realities, I look forward to meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu to discuss the key issues facing his country, our ally Israel,” Palin, who flew in from India, said in a statement on her website.
When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, many Americans were scared of the way the country was going. The banks were failing and we had had a loss of jobs and optimism for the direction the country was going. Many were not happy with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and were hoping that Mr. Obama would keep his promise to end the wars. They were also hoping that the stimulus money, that had been promised, would bring “shovel ready jobs”, would really work. Barack Obama was the man who was going to bring America together and the rest of the world would follow along. He was the “smartest man in the room” and he knew how to solve our problems.
Somewhere along the way, reality kicked in and we are finding that not only does Mr. Obama not know how to fix all those problems, but that they are actually getting worse. The excitement has worn off and what we are left with is a promise of another war, more violence in the Middle East since WWII, and disasters as far as you can see.
Far from the people of America coming together, they are being driven further and further apart. The sad part is that, it seems to be a deliberate ploy on the part of many of those in the Obama administration, and those who are his biggest supporters. When you add to that the fact that, it seems Mr. Obama is deliberately betraying our allies, and embracing the very enemies that are intent on our destruction, you have a place where we are much farther apart that we were under George W. Bush.
All that is leading to a pessimism about, not only the future of the country, but the future of the people. Instead of the stimulus money creating jobs, it went to the pockets of many of Barack Obama’s supporters. And it went to many of the union jobs that were in danger of losing their ability to remain unions, because they were unwilling to take less in order to retain those jobs. Our unemployment rate is higher now than it was when he took office, and of the people who are working, many of them are working for less than half the amount of money they made before.
Unfortunately, it does not look as if it will get better in the near future, and even the long term is starting to look very murky. The costs in fuel and food are increasing everyday, and it doesn’t look as if they will go anywhere but up. Housing that was once a dream of many Americans has, in many cases, become a nightmare. The value of the home, that was bought just 5 or 6 years ago, is often less than a third of what people financed the home for. In some places, you can’t even give the home away.
Is it any wonder that people are afraid? Is it any wonder that people are beginning to ask Barack Obama, who are you? When are we going to get some answers? Or is the Presidency that promised to be “the most open in the hisory of the United States” going to go down as even more secretive that the Presidency of Richard Nixon?
It is sad to see that, in the article below, we learn that optimism in the United States has dropped to an all time low of 33% and uncertainty has risen to 49%. I don’t know about you, but I am not happy with Obama’s change, and I can only see things getting worse. I want to have faith that things will turn around, but the only possibility that I see, is to get someone else in the Whitehouse in 2012. And then it is probably going to be a long time before we have the real change for the better that we wanted in 2008.
So are you happy with Obama’s change? What do you want in the future? Was the change that he promised, the change that you were hoping for?
Question No. 10 was particularly interesting:
“As far as the future is concerned, thinking about our system of government and how well it works – is this something you feel generally optimistic about, generally pessimistic about, or uncertain about?”
Only 26 percent were optimistic. Another 23 percent were pessimistic.
ABC News reported that the optimism level has never been lower in the poll, which dates to August 1974.
That is remarkable considering all the bad times we have had over the last 36 years.
In August 1974, Richard Nixon resigned as president in disgrace, the Vietnam War was lost, and the rate of inflation was 10.9 percent as the economy hit an iceberg.
Still, 55 percent of Americans were optimistic and only 15 percent were pessimistic. As I recall, people felt that Nixon’s resignation showed that the system worked.
Or consider February 1983, when unemployment hit 10.4 percent.
Optimism was at 51 percent, pessimism at 21 percent.
President Reagan would not allow the American people to get down on themselves.
Or consider January 2008, when Americans were sick of the wars and sick of President Bush. Optimism was much higher – 44 percent – than pessimism, which stood at 23 percent.
Looking at the numbers, I noticed that the pessimists remain about the same at 22 percent or so in each poll.
I also noticed that optimism is usually around 50 percent, never falling below 44 percent until last October, when it fell to 33 percent.
Uncertainty was never higher than 33 percent for 36 years until last October, when it rose to 46 percent. It is at 49 percent today.
- Barack Obama’s lack of leadership – John Podhoretz – NYPOST.com (cricketmarie.wordpress.com)
- Barack Obama: The Weakest President in History? (peregrine5700.wordpress.com)
- CBO: Obama Understates Deficits by $2.3 Trillion – ABC News (news.google.com)
Do we simply have a President who has no feelings for people? He really has shown no emotion on the deaths of thousands in the Middle East, and it seems as if he had to be told to come out and speak about Japan. For over two years we have been told what a cool customer Barack Obama is. The truth seems to be that he goes way beyond cool, to cold.
When Bill Clinton was President, you knew that the man cared, he could touch a grief stricken woman and the tears would begin to roll. We also knew that George W. Bush had the ability to connect with people. The only emotion we see coming from Barack Obama is either when he is playing, basketball or partying, or when he is with his children. Other than that people seem to matter very little to him.
Oh, I forgot, we see anger when the unions are involved. Where does that leave the rest of the free world? We already know that if you are not on his side of the argument in America, that you are a enemy, but where does that leave that other millions of America who are just trying to get along?
We had a saying when I was growing up, “don’t cut off your nose to spite your face”, it seems that Mr. Obama is determined to cut the head off of America. Is he doing it for spite? Or is there some other reason that he wants to destroy this country?
I say destroy because that is what is he on the way to doing, and he seems to be determined to take the rest of the world with us. His negligence on acting in the situation in Libya is homicidal. No matter what his supporters try to claim, he must take responsibility in the instance. George W. Bush is long gone, and this is all his. Where will he go next? Off to Brazil to find and bigger and better party!
Yesterday the United Nations Security Council voted 10–0, with five abstentions, to authorize military action in Libya. Specifically, the resolution “authorizes member states … to take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.” Celebrations erupted across Benghazi after news of the vote reached rebels. A 17-year-old rebel told The Wall Street Journal: “I give Qadhafi a maximum of two days.” If only.
In reality the U.N. resolution is nothing more than a “feel-good” palliative measure that is not likely to decisively affect the fighting on the ground in Libya. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified last week: “Let’s just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone. And then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down. But that’s the way it starts.” But is that what the Obama Administration is planning? Even if the Administration has a plan on Libya, it certainly has not communicated it to the American people. Here are just some of the fundamental questions the Administration has failed to answer as our military stands on the brink of a new and costly commitment:
Stupidity is no Excuse
The media tells us over and over, how bad Sarah’s poll numbers are, and some insane comparison to Charlie Sheen, of all people. What, they can’t even honestly compare her to her possible opponents anymore? They have to come up with some coked up star who is burning himself up? Sounds like they used Charlie the same way they use Sarah sometimes, just a way to get a catchy headline. If they can’t even pretend to be serious anymore, why in the world would we take them seriously.
It is amazing how much Sarah does that they can ignore, like her plan the other day, on how to get this country to the point where we wouldn’t have to rely on Saudia Arabia, Libya and other countries in the Middle East for our oil. Unlike our current administration, who can’t even decide if he wants to keep Gaddafi from being able to kill his people from the air. Wonder how many died while Obama dithered and filled out his brackets? Sarah will talk to the people in India in the next few days, and will tell them why she loves this country, and how it is still exceptional. Then she will stop in Israel and remind them that some of the country still thinks that they are important.
What is our “Playboy in Chief” going to do? Jet to Rio and party hearty!
Jedediah Bila, Human Events columnist, penned an excellent article today to set the record straight regarding Governor Palin’s accomplishments, qualifications, and policy positions. This is one of those pieces that is almost too good to excerpt. Be sure to read the entire piece here.
It’s truly astonishing the lengths that some will go to in order to try to discredit Sarah Palin. Sure, the left-wing media loons are a given, but what about the folks on the Right who relentlessly brand her as unelectable, unintelligent, unpresidential, and/or unqualified? What is their basis for those assessments? And if she is so darn unelectable—why the need to consistently, near-obsessively attempt to tear her down?
What’s most interesting about the repeated attacks on Palin – from the Left and the Right – is that they are routinely empty. They are often featured in online hit pieces that are void of any reference to her record and/or her contributions over the past two years to discussions of national and international significance. They focus on absurd criticism of her TLC series, which so many elitists deemed anti-intellectual and so many regular Americans deemed relatable. They call her a “quitter” because she resigned from the governorship, but don’t reveal the reality that she was faced with numerous frivolous ethics charges made by political operatives that were costing her state hundreds of thousands of dollars and her staff countless hours to refute. The fact that she made the right decision for Alaska, and that the charges were all ultimately dismissed, get buried under the frenzied need some have to try to sabotage her at all costs.
- Gov. Sarah Palin for President 2012! (twitsthattweet.wordpress.com)
With England already putting in effect policies, that require Doctors to leave premature babies, that are born less than 24 weeks, to die, how long will it be before the policy is part of Obamacare? We have recently had more than one story where in each instance, babies were just walked away from, by the Doctors, mostly because the British healthcare system has decided that the cost is too great. Here in the United States there have been insurance companies that have made that determination, but the Hospitals and Doctors had the ability to over rule those decisions. They were in the business of saving lives.
Things are beginning to change here. With the initiation of the policies in the new healthcare bill, Doctors and Hospitals will not have the final say. It will come down to whether some government agent thinks that the care is worth the cost. There will not be any ability to question the decision. Once the government makes that determination, there is no one else to go to.
As a former nurse, I understand that not every life can be saved, but I believe that the decision should be made on a individual basis and then only after you have given every effort that you can. I find it very disturbing that our care will be evaluated on cost alone. Is this what we really want in improving healthcare? What will be next in evaluating the worth of our lives? Will our children be evaluated on what they have to offer society? Will our elderly be evaluated the same way?
Recently, we’ve all read stories from around the world about nuclear meltdowns, earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes. Needless to say they’re scary, heart wrenching and terrible. But for me a story published yesterday is scarier. A story in the UK’s Daily Mail says that doctors turned their backs on a premature baby born at 22 weeks despite the mother begging for help and the baby struggling for life for 46 minutes.
You see, the baby was born 12 days too early to receive care, according to hospital rules. 12 days. So they turned their backs and walked out of the room.
Tracy Godwin, 31, went into labour at just 22 weeks but despite being very early her tiny baby Tom was born alive.
The heartbroken mother said she begged doctors to help her struggling baby but they refused because they do not intervene when a baby is less than 24 weeks old.
The hospital claims they don’t help babies born under 24 weeks because their quality of life would be impaired.
But while the hospital would have you think that they were acting altruistically, this news comes on the heels of an NHS official who stated that babies born at 23 weeks or earlier should be left to die because they’re very expensive to care for and the chances of them growing up without a disability are small. So what they’re really saying is that babies with disabilities are better off dead. An imperfect life is not worth living. They’re saying that baby Tom was born with a price tag and that figure was just too darn much. They figured that 46 minutes was all the life he deserved.
- NHS Puts Budgets Over Babies (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
- What if it was your premature baby! (prem2pram.wordpress.com)
- Article from the BBC website about Premature Baby Documentary – I cant say I agree with the person who made it! All babies should be revived regardless of what age they were born at!!!!! (lifeofaprembaby.wordpress.com)
- Premature: Mother’s 22-week-old son dies in her arms after doctors refuse to treat him due to ‘no revival’ policy (dailymail.co.uk)
For all those who are so insistent that Sarah Palin is either stupid or has no plan on how to solve problems, perhaps they should take the time to read her latest solution to the problem. Unlike Mr. Obama she doesn’t seem to feel the need to form a committee and get a consensus so that a year or so from now, he can present it to the American people.
Sarah Palin lays it out concisely and simple enough that even those who are determined to tear down everything that she says, will find it very difficult to find fault with her plans. Of course the environmentalists will think that it is the worst thing in the world, but since they are trying to find any way they can to stop all kinds of development, that will be nothing new. If the Republican party really wants to have a winner in 2012 and truly solve the problems of the country, how can they not choose Sarah Palin?
The $4-Per-Gallon President
Is it really any surprise that oil and gas prices are surging toward the record highs we saw in 2008 just prior to the economic collapse? Despite the President’s strange assertions in his press conference last week, his Administration is not a passive observer to the trends that have inflated oil prices to dangerous levels. His war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security.
The evidence of the President’s anti-drilling mentality and his culpability in the high gas prices hurting Americans is there for all to see. The following is not even an exhaustive list:
Exhibit A: His drilling moratorium. Guided by politics and pure emotion following the Gulf spill instead of peer-reviewed science or defensible law, the President used the power of his executive order to impose a deepwater drilling moratorium. The Administration even ignored a court order halting his moratorium. And what is the net result of the President’s (in)actions? A large drilling company was forced to declare bankruptcy, the economy of the region has been hobbled, and at least 7 rigs moved out of the Gulf area to other parts of the world while many others remain idle. Is it any surprise that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to fall by 240,000 bbl/d in 2011 alone?
But that’s just the Gulf. There’s also the question of a moratorium on the development of Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf. It seems the Obama Administration can’t agree with itself on whether it imposed a moratorium there or not. The White House claims that they didn’t, but their own Department of the Interior let slip that they did. To clear up this mess, Gov. Parnell decided to sue the DOI to get a solid answer because such a federal OCS drilling moratorium would violate federal law.
Exhibit B: His 2012 budget. The President used his 2012 budget to propose the elimination of several vital oil and natural gas production tax incentives. Eliminating these incentives will discourage energy companies from completing exploratory projects, resulting in higher energy costs for all Americans – and not just at the pump. According to one study mentioned in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, eliminating the deduction for drilling costs “could increase natural gas prices by 50 cents per thousand cubic feet,” which would translate to “an increased cost to consumers of $11.5 billion per year in the form of higher natural gas prices.”
- Sarah Palin’s 2012 Win? (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
- A Little Less Talk, a Little More Action on Gas Prices | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. (gds44.wordpress.com)