The Rise and Fall of Hope and Change

The Rise and Fall of Hope and Change

Alexis de Toqueville

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Alexis de Tocqueville

The United States Capitol Building

The United States Capitol Building

The Constitutional Convention

The Constitutional Convention

The Continental Congress

The Continental Congress

George Washington at Valley Forge

George Washington at Valley Forge

Monday, January 31, 2011

Obama's 3AM Moment

From The American Thinker:

January 31, 2011

Obama's 3 AM Moment

By Nancy Morgan

One of the issues raised in the run-up to our last presidential election was the question "Which candidate is best qualified to handle a '3 AM moment'?" America now has a partial answer: not President Obama.

Last Friday was Day 4 of the ongoing protests in Egypt, where tens of thousands Egyptians took to the streets to demand the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak. As the situation reached a flash point, with a mounting death toll and Egyptian tanks in the streets of Cairo, President Obama maintained his silence. Well, not quite. He did Twitter, by proxy.

Around noon Friday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs issued a 22-word statement on Twitter: "Very concerned about violence in Egypt - government must respect the rights of the Egyptian people & turn on social networking and internet." The White House also informed the media that Obama had received a forty-minute briefing on the situation. Phew!

After the U.S. markets tanked Friday, a full four days after the beginning of the Egyptian crisis, Obama finally addressed the nation. As usual, our president first absolved himself of any blame, stating that if only Egypt has instituted the reforms Obama had been suggesting for the last two years, the crisis could have been averted. He then went on to make a bold statement about human rights: "[A]nd the US will stand up for them -- everywhere." Period.

By Saturday, the uprising in Egypt had spread to other countries, with waves of Arab protests in Tunisia, Jordan, and Yemen. Saturday night, Obama partied. "The Washington A-List was out in force Saturday night at the farewell party for senior adviser David Axelrod, with a roster of guests featuring Cabinet secretaries, big shot journos and Obama."

On Sunday, with the protests turning into a conflagration, the only word from the White House was that Hillary Clinton, our secretary of state, was heading to Haiti to "mediate the political crisis." That's right: Haiti.

Meanwhile, the only information available to Americans comes from talking heads and the few journalists not hung over from Saturday's rollicking good time at the White House. The only "official" information so far from the White House was Joe Biden's statement on Day 3 of the protests. Joe said that President Hosni Mubarak should not step down. He then proceeded to downplay the protests spreading across the Mid-East as generally unconnected to each other.

The world is left wondering what position America, the world's former superpower, will take. The only stance our administration has taken to date is a generic plea for an end to the violence and the oft-repeated call for human rights. Meanwhile, the world teeters on the brink as a global crisis with profound geopolitical implications for the U.S. continues to unfold.

Obama's 3 AM moment has come. And gone. Obama was noticeably AWOL. America is now officially bereft of leadership, at least until the latest polls come in.

Under Obama's leadership, the U.S. has voluntarily ceded its authority as the world's superpower. After all, according to Obama, all countries and cultures are equal. America's voice should be but one of many. This is now becoming a reality. Egypt continues to burn. And Obama parties and Twitters by proxy. Welcome to the new world order.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site She lives in South Carolina.

Obama's Central Planning Promises

From Town Hall:

Mike Needham

Obama's Central Planning Promises

Email Mike Needham
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg

Sign-Up Give President Obama credit for saying the right thing when he praised America’s spirit of entrepreneurship in his State of the Union address. It’s a shame his policies contradict his rhetoric.

“None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be, or where the new jobs will come from,” the President said, just moments before announcing that he can, in fact, predict that 1 million electric-powered cars should be on the street in 2015. “Thirty years ago, we couldn't know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do - what America does better than anyone - is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook. In America, innovation doesn't just change our lives. It's how we make a living.”

Policymakers should study the stories of Google and Facebook – as well as all the other entrepreneurial ventures that have created jobs in America – to inform their decision-making. If they did, we’d have a very different set of policies than both Republicans and Democrats have pursued for decades.

Google was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin. The first funding they received was $100,000 from Andy Bechtolsheim, the co-founder of Sun Microsystems in 1998. It continued to grow because of $25 million of funding provided in 1999 by the venture capital companies Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia Capital (firms that also helped, Genentech, Apple, and Kayak get started). Eventually, Google hired Wall Street investment bankers to underwrite an initial public offering which raised $1.67 billion.

Facebook, for those who haven’t seen the movie, was started by Mark Zuckerberg. It received its first funding from Peter Thiel, the founder of PayPal, who invested $200,000. In 2006, another venture capital firm, Greylock Partners, led a $25 million round of financing. At some point in the future, Facebook may choose to hire Wall Street investment bankers to underwrite an initial public offering to raise more money.

This money was used to hire employees and buy computer servers. This is how the free enterprise system works.

The free enterprise system does not just work for software companies. In the last five years, venture capital firms have invested nearly $14 billion in CleanTech companies, according to the National Venture Capital Association.

The advantage of the free enterprise model of investment is it recognizes President Obama’s observation that we cannot know what the next big industry will be. Some venture capitalists believe CleanTech is it – that’s why they invested all that money. Others think CleanTech is a lot of hype and they haven’t invested.

Eventually, one group will be proven more right than the other. They will make more money, attract more investors, and make new investments. Investors who are consistently wrong, on the other hand, will eventually go out of business. And in this way, the free market efficiently allocates capital from those that have it to those that need it.

Despite his rhetoric, President Obama has a different vision. He thinks the government, not the American people, will “win the future.” He believes the “best and the brightest” minds in America can sit in a room in Washington and choose winners and losers. So he has chosen the electric car to be a winner and wants 1 million of them on the streets by 2015.

How does he know that 1 million electric cars is the right number and not 500,000? Why not 2 million? Why electric cars and not plug-in hybrids or fuel cell-powered hydrogen cars? Why 2015 and not 2014? How about 2020?

Recognizing there is no way to know the answers to these questions requires a great deal of humility. Humility is what the free market is about: Anybody who wants to can invest in an idea they think has merit.

At the end of his State of the Union, Obama criticized other nations where “if the central government wants a railroad, they get a railroad - no matter how many homes are bulldozed.” How far down this road has our central government travelled? Our central planners pick winners by giving tax breaks or subsidies to favored industries; they pick losers by setting up burdensome regulations which put firms out of business or create a barrier to entry for potential entrepreneurs.

The favoritism played by elected politicians and unelected bureaucrats in Washington has spawned a multi-billion lobbying industry in Washington. Lobbyists work to ensure regulations are crafted in ways that help their clients and hurt the competition. Companies profit by hiring a lobbyist to secure them an earmark rather than creating a product that people want to buy. Businessmen secure a taxpayer subsidy for producing a product or sometimes a subsidy for not producing a product.

So don’t be fooled by President Obama’s false modesty. He does think he can predict what the next big industry will be. He thinks he knows where jobs will be created. And Washington chooses the answers to those questions every single day.

Mike Needham

Mike Needham is the Chief Executive Officer of Heritage Action for America, a grassroots advocacy organization dedicated to advancing legislation that promotes freedom, opportunity and prosperity for all Americans.

Obama Lacks True Grit

From Town Hall:

Lurita Doan

Obama Lacks True Grit

Email Lurita Doan
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg

Sign-Up In the movie True Grit, U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn and Mattie Ross, are no-nonsense, fearless, tough as nails characters adverse to sugar-coating problems, with a single-minded determination to get the job done. Rooster and Mattie exemplify an American virtue of “true grit”. On the other hand, Obama, in his recent State of the Union address, showed nothing but gloss.

Americans have always admired grit. Our nation, formed from audacious, ambitious adventurers and intellectuals, would not have survived without the “true grit” of generations of Americans willing to fearlessly fight foes, endure hardships, and bulldoze their way to a better life.

Americans expected the president to deliver the bad news about the economy, job creation and tough days ahead and propose tough solutions to get the job done. But, that didn’t happen.

Instead, in a weird, back-to-the-future kind of moment, Obama recommended that the nation spend more. He proposed more infrastructure spending in his plan to “win the future” and create more jobs. Didn’t he promise that two years, and $1,000,000,000,000.00 dollars ago?

No additional federal funding is needed to stimulate a federal construction boom by bbuilding bridges, roads, and other federal buildings, creating jobs and stimulate the economy. Federal construction is restricted, not by the lack of money, but by lengthy timelines caused by slow permitting processes and excessive bureaucratic regulations.

What is needed—desperately-- is no-cost, regulatory reform of the existing federal building process and a leader with girt that is willing to reduce the stifling bureaucratic process and regulatory regime that throttle all infrastructure projects in the US. To illustrate the problem, today the average cycle to conceive, design, fund and ultimately construct a federal building takes approximately 7 years. Most of that time is wasted on bureaucratic, regulatory process.

But make no mistake, a building boom is possible, and doesn't need to be stimulated by a federal handout. What is needed is dedicated leadership willing, and able, to curtail excessive bureaucratic reviews and focus more on the actual building of new infrastructure, versus a timid, rote adherence to an unsuccessful process that does not serve the nation.

What is needed is a leader with grit, to confront and refuse demands that require union involvement in construction, adherence to insanely lengthy environmental reviews, and endless wrangling on construction permits and reviews.

Congress knows this, too. Moving from conception, to prospectus, to congressional approval often takes as much as three years. Design, Bid and Award can take another two years. And then, there's the actual time required for construction. No wonder the average timeframe for a government building project is seven, long, costly years.

President Obama and his advisors do not understand the government procurement process, or the government construction process, and learned nothing from the supposed, “Shovel Ready” projects sold as part of the stimulus bill. A quick review of the construction projects, once touted by President Obama, will show that most are still tied up in nightmarish, regulatory processes, scoring rules, prospectuses, approvals, assessments, FONSIs (Finding of No Significant Impact) and Permitting.

Had Obama really wanted to push infrastructure projects, he could have eliminated or reduced any or all of the many different, bureaucratic hurdles that a building project must navigate. All sorts of infrastructure projects could be made “Shovel Ready” if a dedicated leadership were willing to curtail excessive bureaucratic reviews.

The simple fact is that federal building projects need regulatory reform to get moving. For example, an Executive Order to reduce the time required for the State department to issue Presidential Permits for construction of border crossing points would cost no money and could expedite border construction projects, with the added benefit of unclogging the nation’s trade arteries required for spurring exports.

Yet another good move would be for the President to issue an Executive Order to reduce the amount of time required for the government’s approval of FONSIs (Finding of No Significant Impact) on federal construction. Obama could increase the frequency of presenting building design and cost prospectuses to congress for approval. Why not change the rules regarding small business participation and joint ventures in construction projects under $50 million dollars? Obama could rescind the requirement for Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) which punish non-union, small construction businesses and often prevents them from bidding or performing federal construction work in their communities. Federal construction projects, such as federal office buildings, federal court houses and land border ports of entry could create jobs in local communities throughout the United States, since most of these types of projects utilize local labor, local, skilled craftsmen and local, licensed construction professionals, many of which are small and minority businesses.

These projects don’t need more money; they need better understanding the federal construction process’ bottlenecks and more willing leadership in removing those bottlenecks.

If we are to actually ignite a national effort to build and repair the bridges, roads, and other critical infrastructure in the country, what is needed most is a man with true grit. In his State of the Union message, President Obama showed instead, that he is not willing to face the problem squarely and take the actions needed to get results. What a pity.

Lurita Doan

Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.

Mis-Understanding Inflation Through The Years

From The CATO Instutute:

Previous: The New York Times’ Glib Call for Internet and Software Regulation

Misunderstanding Inflation through the Years

Posted by David Boaz

NPR reports on rising food prices across the world. They may have played some role in the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt, and if so, those wouldn’t be the first revolutions sparked by inflation. NPR reporter Marilyn Geewax mentioned several reasons that food prices are rising — droughts, floods, oil prices, financial speculation – but not the obvious one: the continuing creation of unbacked money by central banks around the world. As Milton Friedman said, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” And as Jerry O’Driscoll wrote just two weeks ago, about rising food prices, “Inflation is here.” But that point isn’t yet universally understood, at least not at our government radio network.

Anyway, I turned off the radio and turned on the television, where TCM was just broadcasting the 1942 MGM propaganda film “Inflation” (made at the request of the Office of War Information but then never released because it was too anti-capitalist even for wartime propaganda). Edward Arnold plays the Devil, in league with Hitler and posing as a businessman who who encourages people to buy more, evade price controls, stockpile goods, and use the black market. (The film was made by Cy Endfield, who had been a member of the Young Communist League at Yale and went on to make such films as Zulu and Universal Soldier.) The film features what appears to be President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s April 28, 1942, radio speech, “Total War and Total Effort.” As the young couple in the film go to buy a new radio, the shopkeeper turns on the radio and they hear FDR say:

You do not have to be a professor of mathematics or economics to see that if people with plenty of cash start bidding against each other for scarce goods, the price of those goods (them) goes up.

Yesterday I submitted to the Congress of the United states a seven-point program, a program of general principles which taken together could be called the national economic policy for attaining the great objective of keeping the cost of living down. I repeat them now to you in substance:

First. we must, through heavier taxes, keep personal and corporate profits at a low reasonable rate.

Second. We must fix ceilings on prices and rents.

Third. We must stabilize wages.

Fourth. We must stabilize farm prices.

Fifth. We must put more billions into War Bonds.

Sixth. We must ration all essential commodities which are scarce.

Seventh. We must discourage installment buying, and encourage paying off debts and mortgages.

As it happens, I have a 1942 OWI poster with that same message hanging in my kitchen:

In fact, of course, price inflation was the natural result of a substantial increase in the money supply before and during the war. All of FDR’s policies — cartels, destruction of crops, wage and price controls, rationing — were misguided attempts to deal with the consequences of monetary manipulation and other bad policies.

By the way, FDR famously said, “The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.” Which might explain another propaganda film produced by MGM, this one in 1933, that extolled the virtues of FDR’s policy of inflation, utilizing the argument that is variously called “stimulus” or “the broken window fallacy.” The film cited the successful results of Civil War inflation. “What inflation has done before it will do again! . . . What a man! And what a leader! Yowzer! Happy days are here again!” Yeah, that went well. And by 1942 MGM was back on board, making a government propaganda film opposing inflation.

For background on inflation, read Cato adjunct scholar Lawrence H. White at the Concise Encylopedia of Economics.

David Boaz • January 31, 2011 @ 9:20 am

Politics By The Numbers

From Human Events:

Politics by the Numbers

by Michael Barone


Numbers can tell a story. Looking back on Barack Obama's second State of the Union message, and looking forward to the congressional session and the 2012 elections, they tell a story that should leave Democrats uneasy.

Start off with the audience in the House chamber. Not all members of Congress attended; Obama briefly and Paul Ryan at greater length in his otherwise brief rebuttal both appropriately noted the absence of Gabrielle Giffords.

But the contrast between the audience at Obama's first State of the Union last year and the audience this year is remarkable. Then there were 316 Democrats and 218 Republicans in Congress. This year there are 289 Republicans and 246 Democrats. No president has seen such a large change in the partisan composition of his State of the Union audience since Harry Truman.

That obviously will have legislative consequences. Obama told Republicans to give up on all but the most minor changes to Obamacare. They're not going to follow this advice.

As for spending, Obama reiterated his call for a limited freeze on domestic discretionary spending and cuts in defense. Again, as Ryan made clear, this Congress has different ideas.

The political incentive for Obama is to sound consensual, not confrontational. The current uptick in his job approval, putting him just over 50 percent, began when he agreed with Republicans to continue current income tax rates rather than raise taxes on high earners.

But on Tuesday night, he continued to call for higher taxes on the greedy rich in a time of sluggish economic recovery. Not as consensual as one might expect.

House Democrats, almost all elected from safe districts, won't mind that. But they're not going to have much to say about legislative outcomes. House Republicans will take it as a poke in the eye and perhaps as an attempt to renege on a deal. Not helpful in reaching other agreements.

In the Senate, where Democrats have a 53-47 majority, but not iron control, the situation is different. In the 2012 cycle, 23 Democrats come up for re-election and only 10 Republicans. You can get a good idea of their political incentives by looking at the 2010 popular vote for the House in their states. Since the mid-1990s, when partisan percentages in presidential and House elections converged, the popular vote for the House has been a pretty good gauge of partisan balance.

Of the 10 Republican senators up for re-election, only two represent states where Democrats won the House vote -- Olympia Snowe of Maine and Scott Brown of Massachusetts. They're both well ahead in local polls.

For the 23 Democrats up for re-election, the picture is different. Eight represent states where the House vote was 53 percent to 65 percent Democratic and where Barack Obama got more than 60 percent in 2008. Count them all as safe.

But 12 represent states where Republicans got a majority of the House vote in 2010. These include big states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Virginia, and states like Montana and Nebraska, where Republican House candidates topped 60 percent. Missouri, New Jersey, North Dakota, West Virginia and Wisconsin round out the list.

In another three states -- New Mexico, Washington, Minnesota -- Republicans won between 46 percent and 48 percent of the House popular vote. These were solid Obama states in 2008. They don't look like solid Democratic states now.

The point is that Democratic senators from all or most of these 15 states have a political incentive to reach agreements with Republicans that go a lot further than Obama did at the State of the Union.

Finally, what about the portents for the 2012 presidential race? Well, start off with the fact that Democrats won the House popular vote in only two of the 17 states that do not have Senate elections next cycle. The other 15 went Republican.

Overall, Democrats carried the popular vote for the House in 15 states with 182 electoral votes in 2012; add three more for the District of Columbia. Democrats were within 5 percent of Republicans in House elections in five more states with 52 electoral votes.

That gets Democrats up to 237 electoral votes, 33 votes shy of the 270-vote majority and 128 short of the 365 electoral votes Obama won in 2008.


Mr. Barone is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and the principal co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, published by National Journal every two years.

Did Obama Forget About The Teachers Unions?

From Dick Morris:



Published on on January 31, 2011

Printer-Friendly Version

When Obama started to speak about the need to improve education, upgrade our schools and attract quality teachers, an elephant appeared in the living rooms of most Americans who were watching. Obama never mentioned the beast, but most of the country saw clearly the three letters on his back -- AFT. American Federation of Teachers -- the union that, along with its counterpart, the NEA, National Education Association, has destroyed public education in America.

How can we take seriously any proposal to improve schools that does not deal with the force that has dragged them down -- the teachers union?

Detroit is a great example of the damage they have wrought. Due to the costs imposed by the union, the public school system has already had to close 59 of its 200 schools, and another 70 are slated for closure. The result will be eighth-grade classes of 40 children and high school classes predicted to have more than 60 students.

Why is Detroit in such bad shape? The same reason its car companies are broke: the unions. Not only do they get high salaries and benefits, but their union has a monopoly on health insurance coverage for teachers and marks the coverage up a third higher than private insurance companies with no better benefits -- and it's all paid by the taxpayer. Detroit will actually now have to pay teachers more to compensate them for their bigger class sizes.

In New York, it is almost impossible to fire an incompetent teacher. It took three years of litigation and $300,000 in legal fees to fire a teacher who sexually solicited a 16-year-old student.

Governors throughout the country are getting it, even if the president is not. Rick Scott in Florida, John Kasich in Ohio, Mitch Daniels in Indiana, Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania and Chris Christie of New Jersey have all proposed major new initiatives to promote school choice. (This week is National School Choice Week). They will promote private, parochial, charter, and virtual schools and home schooling, and provide vouchers and scholarships to permit the poor and middle class to afford them.

Over the next two years in these states, public schools will face real competition for students for the first time. Just as our colleges maintain standards of excellence in order to attract good students, so our lower schools will have to do the same.

As states grapple with intractable budget problems, the attractiveness of alternative schools that cost, on average, about one-third less than public schools will be irresistible. The teachers unions will run afoul of Margaret Thatcher's dictum that socialism cannot succeed because, sooner or later, "you run out of other people's money."

Missing from this list of innovative states, conspicuously, is New York state, where the state government is totally beholden to the teachers union. No experimentation, no opening of the system seems in the offing, and the Empire State appears to be content to continue its downward spiral. If they don't turn things around, they are headed for the same place as Detroit.

The real question is: Can our cities and states free themselves from the ropes with which the unions have bound them? The problem is that states cannot abrogate contracts. It's in the Constitution. But a federal bankruptcy court can. So to free ourselves of the ties that bind, we need Congress to create a procedure for federal Chapter 9 voluntary bankruptcy for states. When that initiative is coupled with the school-choice policies of the new Republican governors, the teachers union will have lost its power, and then we can have the kind of schools Obama professes to dream about. But not before.


Sunday, January 30, 2011

Experts Indicate Job-Killing ObamaCare May Actually Leave More Americans Without Insurance

From Gateway Pundit:

Jan 29, 2011 (yesterday)Figures. Experts Say Job-Killing Obamacare May Actually Leave More Americans Without Insurancefrom Gateway Pundit by Jim HoftExperts now believe that Obamacare will actually leave more Americans without insurance than before the law was passed.

FOX News reported:

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has now tripled the number of waivers granted to employers who cannot meet with the requirements of the new law — from a little more than 200 to more than 700.

“Even the Obama administration is admitting by granting these waivers that they better make some exceptions or they’re going to have the unintended consequence of having more uninsured, not less,” according to Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a former official in the White House Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004.

John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis says “What’s happening is the federal government is trying to force workers to have a health insurance plan that’s more expensive than they or their employers can afford.”

The law now forces all plans to offer at least 750,000 dollars in annual benefits, but the administration has already granted waivers to McDonald’s and other low wage firms.

Goodman and others fear employers will just drop insurance altogether and pay the penalties, or hire fewer people.

“The cheapest thing for an employer not to do is not to hire people,” Goodman says, “to hire only temporary workers. To hire contract laborers. And then you get out from under the fines. You get out from under the mandates, but is that really where we want to go?”

Hundreds of entities from banks to church groups to school districts are saying they can’t live up to the law.

Michelle Malkin adds that the growing numbers of ObamaCare waivers alone prove it is unconstitutional: it violates the Equal Protection clause.

Constitutional Contempt

From A Charging Elephant:

8:22 PM (1 hour ago)Constitutional Contemptfrom Charging Elephant by divingnews@gmail.comNorth East Intelligence Network

H/T 1dragpn

By Douglas J. Hagmann

This is the most difficult report update I’ve ever filed on any investigative matter on which I’ve worked, and certainly the most important. It strikes directly at the heart of the national security of the United States, which has been under attack from within for the last 75 years or longer. What exists today began with people who are long dead, but whose agendas live on through others to whom the torch has been passed. It is the proverbial rabbit hole that goes deeper than most can fathom.


At center stage stands Barack Hussein Obama, the man who currently holds the highest office in the free world. He is the contemporaneous result of decades of treasonous deceptions and socialist penetration into areas of our government that we were warned about by Senator Joe McCarthy, a man whose legacy has been deliberately rewritten so that the mere mention of his name evokes undeserved revulsion by the majority of people in America. Even though Mr. McCarthy has not been with us for over 50 years, his investigative work as a U.S. senator figures prominently into our current state of affairs.

Before you accuse me of taking leave of my senses, I ask that you research the declassified revelations of the 1990′s that came about after the break-up of the Soviet Union. Consider the documentation that was exposed, such as the Venona papers, and other once classified yet still heavily redacted documents released under the radar to be the predecessor of Wikileaks. Look carefully at what McCarthy was trying to warn Americans about, and then analyze for yourself the well crafted methodology of marginalization through obfuscation used by those in power, those in the media, and even many in Hollywood. You will find that what existed over 50 years ago not only exists today, but has been magnificently refined.

The marginalization of McCarthy and the deliberate expunging of historical records exposing the Marxist, Socialist and Communist infiltration into nearly all levels of our government of that era explains why we still find ourselves questioning not only the eligibility status of our current president, but the majority of his background. It is an undeniable fact that Barack Hussein Obama has refused to provide authenticated evidence of his eligibility to occupy our White House, the house of the American people. In fact, he has fought the release of records that would prove, once and for all, this most basic issue, and further refused to release documents that would provide insight into America’s most mysterious president.

The mystery behind Obama extends well beyond the birth certificate controversy, although that has grown into the most recognizable issue of late. For better or worse relative to the truly important aspects of Obama, the actions and behavior of Hawaiian Governor Neil Abercrombie have fueled speculation among “birthers,” a pejorative term assigned to Americans who care about constitutional issues and the rule of law. Over a half-century ago, it’s likely that birthers would have been referred to as “McCarthyites” instead. The names have changed, but the template of marginalization is the same.

Students of history – true history, not the revisionist type – would do well to recall the communist infiltration of the U.S. State Department and other federal agencies under the watch of Roosevelt and Truman. History shows that they were aware of what was taking place, but for reasons that are still applicable today, allowed the progression of infiltration to continue. Like a game of geopolitical chess, wars were fought under pretense while the coffers of the power elite hedged their bets by financing all sides in these conflicts. Nation building and the implementation of “fundamental change” of America was underway long before Obama uttered that promise on which he is delivering.

The infrastructure of infiltration was designed for the long term, having the ultimate objective of one day taking control of the United States from within. Through a series of hand-offs otherwise known as elections of those who were selected before they were elected, the fundamental change was well in progress by those in power behind the scenes.

The objective then was to institute a communist agenda within America, from the inside out as our status as a military superpower would disallow a takeover by any other means. So too was the formidable patriotic American psyche that existed. The time was just not right. But the power brokers of the day, the globalists, knew that times would change and Americans would become softer. They have, and we have, thus leading to our current state where the U.S. Constitution is under daily attack.

Consider then that assuming the office of the U.S. presidency, the highest office in the free world, is the ultimate subversion of the Constitution. The safeguards built into the Constitution by our founders were left to individuals who were the products and by-products of the infiltration and ultimate compromise of our legal and moral principles that began long ago. It was and continues to be a metastatic infiltration that involves all branches and levels of our government and both sides of the political spectrum.

This history of infiltration provides the answer to how America could possibly elect a president who has refused to prove his eligibility under the provisions of the Constitution. It provides insight into how our electoral vetting process was compromised, and why there is such a vociferous campaign by politicians and pundits alike to disparage anyone questioning the legitimacy of Obama.

There are precious few in the media who lack culpability in this matter. Many pundits who command audiences of millions, whether on the radio or television, have made it a blood sport to mock reasonable people who deserve answers to legitimate questions. Some make it about race while others make it about conspiracy. Some intentionally obfuscate the issue, while others make false claims of having seen or holding a paper of historical importance. Meanwhile, the instruments of this administration have created, willfully and deliberately, a fictitious Internet clearing house to reportedly separate rumor from fact. There is ample evidence of intent to deceive the American people, and strong suggestions of criminal intent.

The things that do not make sense when considered individually, such as our schizophrenic approach to our national security, our borders, and the seemingly deliberate erosion of our national sovereignty, now become a bit more understandable, albeit in a most uncomforting way. The talk of a New World Order by both Republicans and Democrats that began over a half century ago, absurd denials of the existence of the coming of a North American Union, and the manner in which those who dare talk about these issues are marginalized now become more understandable.

The goals of the globalists have not changed. The desire to subjugate our national sovereignty has never before been so rabid. The closer our enemies within come to accomplishing their objectives, the greater the danger becomes to the freedom granted to us by God and our Constitution.

As long as Obama is permitted to occupy the highest office without any person, group or agency demanding answers and accountability, the more dangerous and perilous times become. The longer we allow our elected officials to disregard our demand for answers, dismiss us, ignore us, or impugn the reasonableness of our concerns, the closer we are to losing our Republic.

At issue is more than a piece of paper detailing the pedigree of Barack Hussein Obama. We need complete disclosure, and we need it now, not in 2012. Tomorrow might be too late.

Obama In 1980 Said He Was Born In Mombasa, Kenya

From A Charging Elephant:

8:42 PM (1 hour ago)Obama in 1980 said he was born in Mombasa, Kenyafrom Charging Elephant by divingnews@gmail.comPost and Email

Another story about Obama buried by the media


by John Charlton

(Dec. 3, 2009) — The stunning admission was made to a member of the U.S. Marine Corps, in a chance meeting in the vicinity of Kalakaua Blvd., one evening in early August of 1980.

The now, former Marine is a highly respected member of the Free-Republic online-community, and he has published the account of his personal meeting with the then Barry Soetero online at the Gathering of the Eagles Blog. After the divorce of Barry’s mother from his adopted father, Lolo Soetero, he began using the name “Barack Hussein Obama,” by which he is known the world over, today. At the Free Republic, the ex-Marine goes by the nik “Race Bannon.”

Race Bannon, U.S. Marine

“Race Bannon,” U.S. Marine who heard Obama’s “confession.”

The crucial part of his testimony regards what he writes in his essay, “Another crappy day in paradise, or The things you see when you ain’t got a gun.” Speaking of his encounter with Soetero, Bannon writes:

(Dec. 3, 2009) — The stunning admission was made to a member of the U.S. Marine Corps, in a chance meeting in the vicinity of Kalakaua Blvd., one evening in early August of 1980.

He also told me something that I never forgot, for it caused me to do some other things in an effort to be nice to him and possibly a favor. We spoke of where I had been and the world as I saw it. I told him I had been to Africa , Mombassa specifically, and he said to me abruptly, “I was born there.” I told him he is not eligible to be president if that was true, but I remembered he said his mom was an American, so, maybe it was okay. But it was what I did after that makes this a true memory: I went back to the barracks and told others of this guy and suggested we all grab our photo albums and visit him again and show him pictures of Mombassa so he could see where he was from.

No one wanted to go, and at that time, my camera had failed me weeks before we hit Mombassa and it was late August or early September until I had borrowed someone else’s pictures to develop myself so I had copies of where I was. But I never forgot meeting that man for those reasons. I was going to do him a favor and show him his home country of birth. And I never went back for some reason, most likely I forgot to or just felt that a one time chance encounter would be meaningless to both of us and didn’t mean we were friends.

Bannon then closes his testimonial with the following observation:

In the light of what is called “The Birther” movement, these memories are still foremost in my mind concerning this. While I cannot swear it was Barak Obama, all the details I do remember of that chance encounter fit the profile of the man who some people claim is born in Kenya and others claim he was born in Hawaii . The man I met was about 18, thin, Mulatto, told me he was born in Mombassa, raised overseas, was living in Hawaii and hadn’t yet been to many places in the world outside of those places, mostly, hadn’t been to the mainland of America for any long time period if at all. And he openly told me he wanted to be President.

And I remember that face, the face of a young man who sat on a table to my right front, his hands resting on the edge of the table, him leaning forward, his smile, all teeth. It was Barak Obama. I don’t know if I’d bet my life on it, but I am willing to tell people openly at the risk of my ridicule. I was there, and saw him, spoke to him, and he openly told me he was born in Mombassa, Kenya, not Hawaii .

Does it matter? Of course it does. It should not have to be explained as to why it matters.

Race Bannon’s testimony is corroborative of that of two witnesses to the uncut version of the Obama vs. Keyes Senatorial Debates of 2004. The first and second testimonials of which can bre read at The Post & Email. Five African News Agencies also reported that Obama was born in Kenya.

A discussion of Bannon’s testimony can be found at Free Republic, repleate with comments by the Marine himself and other photos of himself, from his time in the U.S. Marines.

Finally, The Post & Email has employed the modern spelling of Mombasa; but Bannon has used the former spelling.

See the tags at the bottom of this story for many more reports about these issues.

© 2009, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

As Egypt Burns, Obama Parties, Watches Basketball

From Gateway Pundit:

12:01 PM (10 hours ago)AS EGYPT BURNS… OBAMA PARTIES, WATCHES B-BALLfrom Gateway Pundit by Jim HoftAs Egypt continues to burn… Islamic radicals escaped from prison, the Muslim Brotherhood joined Elbaradei on the street, and socialists continued to mobilze protests in Cairo…

Barack Obama watched basketball and partied on Saturday.

Egyptian gather around the burning headquarters of the of the ruling National Democratic party (NDP) in central Cairo. Egypt’s embattled President Hosni Mubarak called out the army and declared a curfew in key cities on Friday as tens of thousands of protesters rampaged through the streets demanding an end to his three decades in power. (AFP/Khaled Desouki)

On Saturday, Obama spent the morning watching his daughter play basketball.

Then on Saturday night he went out and partied with David Axelrod.

Kristinn reported this:

As thirty years of United States Middle East strategy teeters on collapse, Barack Obama spent Saturday night at a going away party for David Axelrod who is leaving the administration to set up Obama’s reelection campaign in Chicago. The party was held at the Dupont Circle condo of former Obama aide Linda Douglass.

Douglass, who is now with the National Journal, played host to a gathering of cabinet secretaries including Arne Duncan (Education), Timothy Geithner (Treasury) and Steven Chu (Energy) and prominent reporters including Major Garrett (National Journal), Jake Tapper (ABC), Chuck Todd (NBC) and John Harwood (CNBC/New York Times).

Obama spent nearly two hours at the party.

Greta Van Sustern appears to be the only one in the media to report on Obama’s party with her colleagues. Were it not for her posting the pool reports by the National Journal’s Rebecca Kaplan at Fox News’ GretaWire, the public would not know that Obama spent Saturday night partying with the media while Egypt burns.

Meanwhile… Things are getting so bad that even Lebanon is evacuating their citizens from Egypt.

Obama And the Ripple Effect

From The American Thinker:

January 30, 2011

Obama and the Ripple Effect

Leo Rennert

One of President Obama's weaknesses is that, in foreign policy, he is not a clever chess player, anticipating moves and consequences several steps down the line.

This failure to visualize all likely ripple effects of his own words and actions is again evident in his unsteady reactions to the turmoil in Egypt. Having failed to anticipate massive protests in the Arab world, Obama first kept his counsel, then tip-toed toward increasingly harsh criticism of Egyptian President Mubarak.

With Secretary of State Clinton as his main bullhorn, the President now is hectoring Mubarak to all but step down. Through his press spokesman, Obama threatened to cut off U.S. aid to Mubarak and brushed aside his attempts to steady his regime with appointment of new faces in top positions. In many ways, Obama is squeezing Mubarak to the point of leaving him with no option but to capitulate to the protesting crowds -- with the Muslim Brotherhood only too happy to pick up the pieces.

However, in toughening his anti-Mubarak stance, Obama doesn't seem to realize that he is putting himself into the camp or pro-Iranian radical forces in the Middle East, including Hamas and Hezb'allah, while parting company with Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas -- two erstwhile members of the pro-U.S. camp.

Obama's pummeling of Mubarak nicely fits the agenda of the Hamas regime in Gaza, which makes no secret that, in the current Mideast state of play, it is in full solidarity with anti-Mubarak crowds in Egypt. By the same token, Obama's public flogging of Mubarak represents a 180-degree turn away from Abbas, who sides publicly with Murbarak. The Palestinians are split right down the middle. No big surprise. Except that Obama has aligned himself with Hamas and against Abbas. That is bound to have some consequences for U.S. peace-mediation efforts down the line, to say the least.

In the meantime, we are left with a head-shaking picture of Obama suddenly finding himself in the Iranian/Hezb'allah/Hamas orbit, while leaving in the lurch his own friend, ally and presumed "moderate" peace partner, Mahmoud Abbas, who's working tirelessly to stifle anti-Mubarak demonstrations in the West Bank.

It's getting curiouser and curiouser about where this leaves George Mitchell, Obama's U.S. envoy and peace-negotiator in chief.

When it comes to U.S. policy vis a vis Egypt, especially during this highly fluid period, it can be argued that Mubarak doesn't deserve much sympathy after 29 years of iron rule. But an American president, when wading into such turbulent and unpredictable waters, ought to know at least all the ramifications of his own strategy -- something Obama doesn't seem to have thought through.

Watching Obama, Hamas must be licking its chops, while the Saudis and Abbas must be wondering how constant, reliable and predictable a Mideast player the U.S. really is with Obama in the White House.

Posted at 04:06 PM

Priorties...Priorities: Obama Spent One Hour On Egyptian Crisis, Then Two Hours Partying With Axelrod

From Gateway Pundit:

7:10 PM (27 minutes ago)Priorities… Priorities… Obama Spent 1 Hour Talking Egypt – Then 2 Hours Partying With Axelrodfrom Gateway Pundit by Jim HoftAs Egypt Burns…Obama Parties

It’s much worse than we thought.

Barack Obama sure is concerned about the future of the Middle East, Isreal and the world.

As Cairo burned yesterday he met with his security team — for an hour.

It was exhausting. He needed a break.

Then on Saturday night he went out and partied with Axelrod… for at least two hours!

Kristinn reported:

As thirty years of United States Middle East strategy teeters on collapse, Barack Obama spent Saturday night at a going away party for David Axelrod who is leaving the administration to set up Obama’s reelection campaign in Chicago. The party was held at the Dupont Circle condo of former Obama aide Linda Douglass.

Douglass, who is now with the National Journal, played host to a gathering of cabinet secretaries including Arne Duncan (Education), Timothy Geithner (Treasury) and Steven Chu (Energy) and prominent reporters including Major Garrett (National Journal), Jake Tapper (ABC), Chuck Todd (NBC) and John Harwood (CNBC/New York Times).

Obama spent nearly two hours at the party.

Everyone has their priorities.

Saturday, January 29, 2011

For New White House Press Secretary, Herding Media Back Into Obama's Lap Is Job #1

From Michelle Malkin:

4:32 PM (5 hours ago)For New WH Press Secretary, Herding Media Back Into Obama’s Lap is Job 1from Michelle Malkin by Doug Powers**Written by Doug Powers

Jay Carney, as you know, was **Time Magazine’s Washington bureau chief who is now charged with making President Obama look good in the press.

**The “Redundancy of the Day” is brought to you by Beltone hearing aids — to avoid having to repeat yourself, lend your loved one’s ear to Beltone!

Remember the re-set button Hillary gave to the Russians? Carney’s challenge is to give a similar one to the White House Press Corps. It seems that in the past couple of years, some in the media have strayed and actually started reporting what’s going on.

Time for a “come to Obama” meeting:

President Obama’s decision to tap Jay Carney as his new press secretary completes a series of White House personnel changes meant to mend dysfunctional relationships.

If new chief of staff Bill Daley was brought on to repair Obama’s relationship with business, then Carney’s appointment is designed to continue a charm offensive unleashed on the White House press corps shortly before the midterms.

The thinking inside the West Wing is that Carney, a longtime reporter and bureau chief for Time magazine who knows what it’s like to be a reporter, will smooth over relations with network executives and editorial page editors in addition to daily reporters at the White House.

Carney shouldn’t have much difficulty delivering the re-set button to anybody at ABC News. He’s married to Claire Shipman, ABC’s senior national correspondent on Good Morning America. Maybe another low-rated infomercial is in the works.

Carney’s “charm offensive” is expected to provide a stimulus to the Whitman’s Sampler company and save or create dozens of jobs delivering FTD Talk-Me-Up bouquets to media outlets all around the nation. Secretly distributing some of the same Hope & Change rufies that Chris Matthews slips himself on an almost nightly basis couldn’t hurt either.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Understanding Obama

From The Patriot Word:

5:31 PM (4 hours ago)Understanding Obama.... Drunk Philandering Luo Tribesman Reincarnatedfrom The Patriot Word by Walter L. Brown Jr.Understanding how Obama thinks is not easy. Dinesh D'Souza conclusion that he is playing the part of a drunk philandering Luo Tribesman reincarnated continues to be the best explanation of the current occupant of the White House's logic. We can't help but observe that the characteristics are eerily similar to Mohamed another tribesman that has caused a lot of trouble...

How Obama Thinks, Dinesh D'Souza,

Barack Obama is the most anti-business president in a generation, perhaps in American history. Thanks to him the era of big government is back. Obama runs up taxpayer debt not in the billions but in the trillions. He has expanded the federal government's control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy. The Weekly Standard summarizes Obama's approach as omnipotence at home, impotence abroad.

The President's actions are so bizarre that they mystify his critics and supporters alike. Consider this headline from the Aug. 18, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal: "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling." Did you read that correctly? You did. The Administration supports offshore drilling--but drilling off the shores of Brazil. With Obama's backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro--not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.

More strange behavior: Obama's June 15, 2010 speech in response to the Gulf oil spill focused not on cleanup strategies but rather on the fact that Americans "consume more than 20% of the world's oil but have less than 2% of the world's resources." Obama railed on about "America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels." What does any of this have to do with the oil spill? Would the calamity have been less of a problem if America consumed a mere 10% of the world's resources?

The oddities go on and on. Obama's Administration has declared that even banks that want to repay their bailout money may be refused permission to do so. Only after the Obama team cleared a bank through the Fed's "stress test" was it eligible to give taxpayers their money back. Even then, declared Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the Administration might force banks to keep the money.

The President continues to push for stimulus even though hundreds of billions of dollars in such funds seem to have done little. The unemployment rate when Obama took office in January 2009 was 7.7%; now it is 9.5%. Yet he wants to spend even more and is determined to foist the entire bill on Americans making $250,000 a year or more. The rich, Obama insists, aren't paying their "fair share." This by itself seems odd given that the top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes; the next 9% of income earners pay another 30%. So the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes; the bottom 40% pays close to nothing. This does indeed seem unfair--to the rich.

Obama's foreign policy is no less strange. He supports a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center. Obama's rationale, that "our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable," seems utterly irrelevant to the issue of why the proposed Cordoba House should be constructed at Ground Zero.

Recently the London Times reported that the Obama Administration supported the conditional release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber convicted in connection with the deaths of 270 people, mostly Americans. This was an eye-opener because when Scotland released Megrahi from prison and sent him home to Libya in August 2009, the Obama Administration publicly and appropriately complained. The Times, however, obtained a letter the Obama Administration sent to Scotland a week before the event in which it said that releasing Megrahi on "compassionate grounds" was acceptable as long as he was kept in Scotland and would be "far preferable" to sending him back to Libya. Scottish officials interpreted this to mean that U.S. objections to Megrahi's release were "half-hearted." They released him to his home country, where he lives today as a free man.

One more anomaly: A few months ago nasa Chief Charles Bolden announced that from now on the primary mission of America's space agency would be to improve relations with the Muslim world. Come again? Bolden said he got the word directly from the President. "He wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering." Bolden added that the International Space Station was a model for nasa's future, since it was not just a U.S. operation but included the Russians and the Chinese. Obama's redirection of the agency caused consternation among former astronauts like Neil Armstrong and John Glenn, and even among the President's supporters: Most people think of nasa's job as one of landing on the moon and Mars and exploring other faraway destinations. Sure, we are for Islamic self-esteem, but what on earth was Obama up to here?

Theories abound to explain the President's goals and actions. Critics in the business community--including some Obama voters who now have buyer's remorse--tend to focus on two main themes. The first is that Obama is clueless about business. The second is that Obama is a socialist--not an out-and-out Marxist, but something of a European-style socialist, with a penchant for leveling and government redistribution.

These theories aren't wrong so much as they are inadequate. Even if they could account for Obama's domestic policy, they cannot explain his foreign policy. The real problem with Obama is worse--much worse. But we have been blinded to his real agenda because, across the political spectrum, we all seek to fit him into some version of American history. In the process, we ignore Obama's own history. Here is a man who spent his formative years--the first 17 years of his life--off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa.

A good way to discern what motivates Obama is to ask a simple question: What is his dream? Is it the American dream? Is it Martin Luther King's dream? Or something else?

It is certainly not the American dream as conceived by the founders. They believed the nation was a "new order for the ages." A half-century later Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of America as creating "a distinct species of mankind." This is known as American exceptionalism. But when asked at a 2009 press conference whether he believed in this ideal, Obama said no. America, he suggested, is no more unique or exceptional than Britain or Greece or any other country.

Perhaps, then, Obama shares Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. The President has benefited from that dream; he campaigned as a nonracial candidate, and many Americans voted for him because he represents the color-blind ideal. Even so, King's dream is not Obama's: The President never champions the idea of color-blindness or race-neutrality. This inaction is not merely tactical; the race issue simply isn't what drives Obama.

What then is Obama's dream? We don't have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father's dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn't writing about his father's dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father.

So who was Barack Obama Sr.? He was a Luo tribesman who grew up in Kenya and studied at Harvard. He was a polygamist who had, over the course of his lifetime, four wives and eight children. One of his sons, Mark Obama, has accused him of abuse and wife-beating. He was also a regular drunk driver who got into numerous accidents, killing a man in one and causing his own legs to be amputated due to injury in another. In 1982 he got drunk at a bar in Nairobi and drove into a tree, killing himself.

An odd choice, certainly, as an inspirational hero. But to his son, the elder Obama represented a great and noble cause, the cause of anticolonialism. Obama Sr. grew up during Africa's struggle to be free of European rule, and he was one of the early generation of Africans chosen to study in America and then to shape his country's future.

I know a great deal about anticolonialism, because I am a native of Mumbai, India. I am part of the first Indian generation to be born after my country's independence from the British. Anticolonialism was the rallying cry of Third World politics for much of the second half of the 20th century. To most Americans, however, anticolonialism is an unfamiliar idea, so let me explain it.

Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America. As one of Obama's acknowledged intellectual influences, Frantz Fanon, wrote in The Wretched of the Earth, "The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races."

Anticolonialists hold that even when countries secure political independence they remain economically dependent on their former captors. This dependence is called neocolonialism, a term defined by the African statesman Kwame Nkrumah (1909--72) in his book Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. Nkrumah, Ghana's first president, writes that poor countries may be nominally free, but they continue to be manipulated from abroad by powerful corporate and plutocratic elites. These forces of neocolonialism oppress not only Third World people but also citizens in their own countries. Obviously the solution is to resist and overthrow the oppressors. This was the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. and many in his generation, including many of my own relatives in India.

Obama Sr. was an economist, and in 1965 he published an important article in the East Africa Journal called "Problems Facing Our Socialism." Obama Sr. wasn't a doctrinaire socialist; rather, he saw state appropriation of wealth as a necessary means to achieve the anticolonial objective of taking resources away from the foreign looters and restoring them to the people of Africa. For Obama Sr. this was an issue of national autonomy. "Is it the African who owns this country? If he does, then why should he not control the economic means of growth in this country?"

As he put it, "We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now." The senior Obama proposed that the state confiscate private land and raise taxes with no upper limit. In fact, he insisted that "theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."

Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father's history very well, has never mentioned his father's article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no reporting on a document that seems directly relevant to what the junior Obama is doing in the White House.

While the senior Obama called for Africa to free itself from the neocolonial influence of Europe and specifically Britain, he knew when he came to America in 1959 that the global balance of power was shifting. Even then, he recognized what has become a new tenet of anticolonialist ideology: Today's neocolonial leader is not Europe but America. As the late Palestinian scholar Edward Said--who was one of Obama's teachers at Columbia University--wrote in Culture and Imperialism, "The United States has replaced the earlier great empires and is the dominant outside force."

From the anticolonial perspective, American imperialism is on a rampage. For a while, U.S. power was checked by the Soviet Union, but since the end of the Cold War, America has been the sole superpower. Moreover, 9/11 provided the occasion for America to invade and occupy two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and also to seek political and economic domination in the same way the French and the British empires once did. So in the anticolonial view, America is now the rogue elephant that subjugates and tramples the people of the world.

It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.

For Obama, the solutions are simple. He must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West. And here is where our anticolonial understanding of Obama really takes off, because it provides a vital key to explaining not only his major policy actions but also the little details that no other theory can adequately account for.

Why support oil drilling off the coast of Brazil but not in America? Obama believes that the West uses a disproportionate share of the world's energy resources, so he wants neocolonial America to have less and the former colonized countries to have more. More broadly, his proposal for carbon taxes has little to do with whether the planet is getting warmer or colder; it is simply a way to penalize, and therefore reduce, America's carbon consumption. Both as a U.S. Senator and in his speech, as President, to the United Nations, Obama has proposed that the West massively subsidize energy production in the developing world.

Rejecting the socialist formula, Obama has shown no intention to nationalize the investment banks or the health sector. Rather, he seeks to decolonize these institutions, and this means bringing them under the government's leash. That's why Obama retains the right to refuse bailout paybacks--so that he can maintain his control. For Obama, health insurance companies on their own are oppressive racketeers, but once they submitted to federal oversight he was happy to do business with them. He even promised them expanded business as a result of his law forcing every American to buy health insurance.

If Obama shares his father's anticolonial crusade, that would explain why he wants people who are already paying close to 50% of their income in overall taxes to pay even more. The anticolonialist believes that since the rich have prospered at the expense of others, their wealth doesn't really belong to them; therefore whatever can be extracted from them is automatically just. Recall what Obama Sr. said in his 1965 paper: There is no tax rate too high, and even a 100% rate is justified under certain circumstances.

Obama supports the Ground Zero mosque because to him 9/11 is the event that unleashed the American bogey and pushed us into Iraq and Afghanistan. He views some of the Muslims who are fighting against America abroad as resisters of U.S. imperialism. Certainly that is the way the Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi portrayed himself at his trial. Obama's perception of him as an anticolonial resister would explain why he gave tacit approval for this murderer of hundreds of Americans to be released from captivity.

Finally, nasa. No explanation other than anticolonialism makes sense of Obama's curious mandate to convert a space agency into a Muslim and international outreach. We can see how well our theory works by recalling the moon landing of Apollo 11 in 1969. "One small step for man," Neil Armstrong said. "One giant leap for mankind."

But that's not how the rest of the world saw it. I was 8 years old at the time and living in my native India. I remember my grandfather telling me about the great race between America and Russia to put a man on the moon. Clearly America had won, and this was one giant leap not for mankind but for the U.S. If Obama shares this view, it's no wonder he wants to blunt nasa's space program, to divert it from a symbol of American greatness into a more modest public relations program.

Clearly the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. goes a long way to explain the actions and policies of his son in the Oval Office. And we can be doubly sure about his father's influence because those who know Obama well testify to it. His "granny" Sarah Obama (not his real grandmother but one of his grandfather's other wives) told Newsweek, "I look at him and I see all the same things--he has taken everything from his father. The son is realizing everything the father wanted. The dreams of the father are still alive in the son."

In his own writings Obama stresses the centrality of his father not only to his beliefs and values but to his very identity. He calls his memoir "the record of a personal, interior journey--a boy's search for his father and through that search a workable meaning for his life as a black American." And again, "It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself." Even though his father was absent for virtually all his life, Obama writes, "My father's voice had nevertheless remained untainted, inspiring, rebuking, granting or withholding approval. You do not work hard enough, Barry. You must help in your people's struggle. Wake up, black man!"

The climax of Obama's narrative is when he goes to Kenya and weeps at his father's grave. It is riveting: "When my tears were finally spent," he writes, "I felt a calmness wash over me. I felt the circle finally close. I realized that who I was, what I cared about, was no longer just a matter of intellect or obligation, no longer a construct of words. I saw that my life in America--the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I'd felt as a boy, the frustration and hope I'd witnessed in Chicago--all of it was connected with this small piece of earth an ocean away, connected by more than the accident of a name or the color of my skin. The pain that I felt was my father's pain."

In an eerie conclusion, Obama writes that "I sat at my father's grave and spoke to him through Africa's red soil." In a sense, through the earth itself, he communes with his father and receives his father's spirit. Obama takes on his father's struggle, not by recovering his body but by embracing his cause. He decides that where Obama Sr. failed, he will succeed. Obama Sr.'s hatred of the colonial system becomes Obama Jr.'s hatred; his botched attempt to set the world right defines his son's objective. Through a kind of sacramental rite at the family tomb, the father's struggle becomes the son's birthright.

Colonialism today is a dead issue. No one cares about it except the man in the White House. He is the last anticolonial. Emerging market economies such as China, India, Chile and Indonesia have solved the problem of backwardness; they are exploiting their labor advantage and growing much faster than the U.S. If America is going to remain on top, we have to compete in an increasingly tough environment.

But instead of readying us for the challenge, our President is trapped in his father's time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father's dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost.

Dinesh D'Souza, the president of the King's College in New York City, is the author of the forthcoming book The Roots of Obama's Rage (Regnery Publishing).

Correction: Dinesh D'Souza writes that on June 15, 2010, Obama gave a speech in response to the BP oil spill that was "focused not on cleanup strategies but rather on the fact that Americans 'consume more than 20% of the world’s oil but have less than 2% of the world’s resources.'" D'Souza slightly misquoted the President who said, "2% of the world's oil reserves." In addition, Obama's speech did discuss concrete measures to investigate the oil spill and bring it under control.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Obama, In A Bubble Of His Own Making

From The American Thinker:

January 26, 2011

Obama in a bubble of his own making

Rick Moran

The temptation when you work in the White House as president is to close yourself in, shutting out the world beyond the gates, with the hubristic belief in your own perfection. After all, you made it all the way to the White House - what does the rest of the world know that can help you?

Good presidents always have one or two aides that will disabuse him of his own brilliance. They try to cut through the staff sycophants and yes men in order to present the real world to the president - warts and all. But apparently, Obama's arrogance extends to his inner circle as well.

John Hielermann:

Few perceptions were more widely shared or loudly voiced around Washington than that the Obamans were huffing their own fumes. "You know the cliché about our strengths being our weaknesses? It's true for them as well," says a top political strategist in a previous White House. "I think they felt like if they had listened to conventional wisdom in 2007, they never would have run. When they hear criticism, they say, ‘Been there, done that, we're gonna stay the course.' There's almost a Zen-like quality about how they've been in their own universe and their own bubble."

The more pointed variant of this critique was directed specifically at Obama. Unlike 42-who loved to stay up late, jabbing at the speed dial, spending countless hours gabbing with local pols and businesspeople around the country to gauge the political wind and weather-44 not only eschewed reaching out to governors, mayors, or CEOs, but he rarely consulted outside the tiny charmed circle surrounding him in the White House. "What you had was really three or four people running the entire government," says the former White House strategist. "I thought they put a pretty good Cabinet together, but most of those guys might as well be in the witness-protection program."

A funny line, no doubt, but an overstatement, surely? Well, maybe not. "I happen to know most of the Cabinet pretty well, and I get together with them individually for lunch," says one of the most respected Democratic bigwigs in Washington. "I've had half a dozen Cabinet members say that in the first two years, they never had one call-not one call-from the president."

(H/T: Hot Air )

Cabinet members have been reduced to glorified PR people for their departments over the years so I am not concerned that the president hasn't talked with the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. They don't run those departments anyway - their assistant secretaries do the job.

What is much more troubling is the president's failure to reach out and discover what the rest of the country really thinks of his policies. That kind of myopia leads to bad government - which is what we have now. And Obama shows no signs of changing.

The State of the Union speech tonight will probably sound strange to most of us because of this disconnect.

Posted at 12:05 AM

On-going Disaster In The Gulf

From The American Thinker:

January 26, 2011

Ongoing Disaster in the Gulf

By George Scaggs

While the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the Obama administration's subsequent six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico are common knowledge, the fact that the federal government has turned the tragic accident into an ongoing economic calamity seems to be drawing scant attention.

Though the drilling moratorium was officially lifted three months ago, it has been replaced with an ongoing de facto ban. But the full scope and damaging consequences of the federal government's reactions to the gulf spill go well beyond deep-water drilling.

While the moratorium was limited to deep-water rigs, the work stoppage in the Gulf was not. Due to new regulations and ever-evolving permit processes, many shallow-water oil and gas drilling operations have been effectively shut down as well. Mind you, there is no evidence that the rigs being prevented from operating are anything but safe.

During the six-month hiatus, though most companies decided to ride out the situation (believing the work stoppage was for a fixed period of time), no fewer than five of the 33 deep-water rigs in operation at the time of the spill moved to foreign shores to fulfill their intended purpose.

Now rig owners, the contractors who lease them, and tens of thousands of workers find themselves subject to an indefinite waiting game as the federal bureaucracy mills about. As rigs continue to sit idle, pressure is mounting for contractors to void existing leases, and an increasing number of jobs are under threat.

Indeed, just this month, Marathon Oil terminated its contract on the Noble Corp's Jim Day rig that arrived in the Gulf in September. Similarly, deep-water rigs built by Pride International and the Maersk Group which were intended to set up operations in the Gulf have been redirected elsewhere.

Less oil drilling in the Gulf means less oil production in the Gulf. In addition to drilling rigs sitting dormant, many of the hundreds of production platforms operating in the Gulf have also been affected. From there, the ripple of economic death extends out to equipment, transportation, fuel and food suppliers, and other businesses that support the region's oil industry and its workers.

The frustrations of Gulf Coast residents affected by the federal government's actions were on full display earlier this month (seen here and here) as Oil Spill Czar Feinberg held a series of town hall meetings in Mississippi and Louisiana coastal communities. Many local businesses harmed by the oil spill are still suffering due to the government shutdown of the oil and gas industry in the Gulf.

With no recovery in sight for our nation's private-sector job market and government revenues (at all levels) consequently stagnating, if not declining, it is troubling to find the federal government in the business of killing private-sector jobs, and many of them good middle-class jobs, in wholesale fashion.

Though it has been estimated that some 20,000 jobs have been lost due to the federal government's actions, Lee Hunt, President of the International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC), contends that job losses are only a part of the overall economic impact resulting from the continued ban.

The massive deepwater rigs that operate in the Gulf generate about $500,000 per day in revenues, though numerous owners have reduced daily rates by as much as $200,000 to keep companies in place while the shutdown continues. Additionally, Hunt estimates that "companies spend approximately another half million a day for consumables, transportation, maintenance operations and other costs" per rig.

All told, Hunt conservatively estimates that there is a direct "$30 million a day negative impact to the economy" due to the deep-water shutdown alone. However, he said that considering factors including lower dividend payments, stock prices, lost wages and investment dollars, "the total enterprise loss is incalculable."

Texas Railroad Commissioner Elizabeth Ames Jones, who is one among three commissioners overseeing Texas energy policy, agrees, commenting that "[p]eople should be up in arms[;] it's not as though we [America] can afford this much longer."

So where are the Democratic Party and Big Media on this development? The self-proclaimed champions of the "little guy" have fallen strangely silent, considering the dramatic impact on jobs and prosperity in the Gulf Coast region.

When thousands of jobs are lost due to corporate layoffs, it is the stuff of headlines. When the jobs of local and state bureaucrats are threatened unless they receive federal "stimulus" funding, a hue and cry goes out across the land. But when the government kills private-sector jobs, the sufferings of average Americans are suddenly of no import whatsoever.

Indeed, though local news outlets thoroughly covered Feinberg's recent visit to the region, one would be hard-pressed to find any national coverage of the controversial meetings which took place. This is a direct contrast to media coverage when the ire of Gulf Coast residents was directed at BP.

Official sources now project a 13% decrease is domestic oil production in 2011, and most industry executives now predict that it will take several years before production in the Gulf of Mexico returns to 2009 levels. Hunt predicts that by the end of 2011, only four to ten deep-water rigs in the gulf will have returned to full operation. These are troubling developments, considering America's already overwhelming dependence on foreign oil.

The shutdown in the gulf will also have a direct impact on the size of the federal government's deficit. Though leftist politicos inside the Beltway routinely demonize the oil industry, in truth, Washington reaps huge windfalls from the industry in the form of royalties and excise taxes.

In sum, there are two rather troubling realities which are completely at odds with the present course being pursued by an overzealous federal government and the intrusive "Green" movement that sets the tone for much of today's government policy.

First, energy produced from oil and gas is literally the fuel for the world's major economies. As unpalatable as it must be for some, economic prosperity throughout the world depends on oil and gas.

Secondly, much of government's revenues come from the exploration, production, and usage of these hydrocarbons.

Whether the continuing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is due to deliberate government fiat or just gross bureaucratic incompetence, the results are the same. Congress should act immediately to end the Obama administration's overreach into this vital American industry.

Obama The Alchemist Would Pluck Your Savings Clean

From The American Thinker:

January 26, 2011

Obama the Alchemist Would Pluck Your Savings Clean

By Geoffrey P. Hunt

Whatever abject failings Obama has as a statesman or legislative leader, he's become a master wizard at projecting illusions and capturing the yearning of so many who want to be deceived. There have always been people like Obama, and the greats of literature have satirized them.

Subtle, the con-man alchemist; Face, an unscrupulous butler; and Dol, a common London street prostitute, open Ben Jonson's popular and enduring 1610 farce by arguing how to swindle the gullible ones. Such a caricature couldn't possibly resemble the leading political actors a year ago, could it?

The Alchemist, a drama combining medieval sleight-of-hand and magic, captured the bawdy imagination of post-Elizabethan theatergoers. It was two hours of lewd repartee and characters unconvincingly taking on new appearances in nearly every scene, where patrons departed the Blackfriars Theatre with the same temperament as when they entered. Sounds like an Obama State of the Union, doesn't it?

Alchemy in ancient times wasn't only the stuff of ignorance, proto-chemistry, and witchcraft. It was the longing for the secret of life, the sweet elixir, the Philosopher's Stone -- the magic catalyst bringing riches and immortality. The promises of modern-day politicians can be filled with as much fantasy, preying on gullible voters who routinely buy lottery tickets and vote for someone who will buy them groceries.

Chaucer, in his Canterbury Tales, perfectly pegs Obama's latest triangulation and "pivot to the center" in his "Canon's Yeoman's Tale." The Yeoman, companion and squire to the Canon, in his prologue begins to sound like the typical fawning Obama apologetic media:

I say, my lord has so much subtlety

But all his art you cannot learn from me,

And yet I help by working at his side,

That all this pleasant land through which we ride,

From here right into Canterbury town,

Why, he could turn it all clean upside-down

And pave it all with silver and with gold.

Chaucer's pilgrims, allured by the promise of such a philosopher in their midst, want to know more:

Since of the learning of your lord you boast,

Tell how he works, I pray you heartily,

Since he's so clever and withal so sly.

Where do you dwell, if you may tell it me?

The pilgrims learn soon enough, as the Yeoman becomes a truth-teller, that the Canon, the alchemist, is a fraud:

We stir and mix and stare into the fire,

But for all that we fail of our desire,

And never do we come to our conclusion.

To many folk we bring about illusion,

And borrow gold, perhaps a pound or two,

Or ten, or twelve, or any sum will do,

And make them think, aye, at the least, it's plain,

That from a pound of gold we can make twain!

Obama the 21st-century alchemist -- promising to turn lead into gold, his oratory weaving straw into silk thread -- has been spinning the ancient craft of illusion since the shock and awe of the November midterms. Which of Chaucer's Canon's "wily stratagems" for turning mercury and copper into silver have we seen from Obama? Capitulating to the tax rate extensions while hailing the new law as a "good deal" for taxpayers and calling for the spirit of compromise to continue into 2011? This after he has railed against tax cuts for the rich and was happy enough to jam ObamaCare through without a single Republican vote?

How about naming Bill Daley as his new Chief of Staff, which has the so-called moderates marveling at how graceful and pragmatic Obama has become in his ostensible embrace of Wall Street and Main Street? Does that mean that Obama will disavow his own nonstop demonizing of the private sector?

How about Obama's "new" theme of jobs while appointing Jeff Immelt of GE as chair to his "Council on Competitiveness and Jobs"...while GE moves more jobs to China?

The ancients never seriously believed the black art occult aspects of alchemy. Yet there was always the allure of mystery and metaphysics and enough proto-science, such as the discovery of arsenic and how to make gunpowder, to persist in attracting practitioners to the craft, always aided and abetted by man's innate gullibility.

How many of the audience for Obama's State of the Union enjoyed the scene for its entertainment value alone, as did Ben Jonson's theatergoers? And how many -- like Chaucer's host, who has the last word after the Canon's deceit has been revealed -- will be wise enough to discern a magician's guile?

Meddle no more with that base art, I mean,

For if you do, you'll lose your savings clean.

State Eligibility Law: Obama's Achilles' Heel In 2012?

From The American Thinker:

January 28, 2011

State Eligibility Law: Obama's Achilles' Heel in 2012?

By Monte Kuligowski

In his recent AT piece, Paul Kengor looks at Obama's aggregate poll numbers and concludes that the president may cruise to reelection in 2012. And Kengor didn't even factor in the additional votes Obama may secure with our tax dollars via entitlements, subsidies, and his ever-increasing army of government workers. Neither did he factor in the effects of widespread voter registration fraud complements of ACORN-type front groups.

On the other hand, it does appear that much of Middle America has awakened to the consequences of electing Obama in 2008. The Tea Party movement is not going away; in fact, it is getting stronger. And based on the amount of fiscal damage the Democrats have already wrought, it doesn't appear that the economy will be lifting Obama at election time.

There is something else that might provide a little optimism: the eligibility laws of the states. Presently, at least ten states are working on election law eligibility requirements for candidates who wish to be placed on their respective 2012 ballots for the presidency.

Two objectives may be obtained via election law requirements. The first is to compel the United States Supreme Court to define one aspect of presidential eligibility. The second is to force Mr. Obama to release his hospital-generated birth certificate.

Getting a definition of "natural born Citizen"

The Constitution requires "natural born Citizen" status as a requisite for the U.S. presidency. But no one can say authoritatively what the phrase means. The Supreme Court has had no on-point litigation from which to provide a definition. Additionally, in 2008, neither Congress nor the states had any legislation in place defining the phrase.

The historic view of the phrase "natural born Citizen" -- going back to Emmerich de Vattel's "Law of Nations" -- requires a birth in the country and (in our context) U.S. citizen parents at the time of the candidate's birth. Another view is that only U.S. citizen parents are required in order to qualify. And, of course, some believe that the constitutional language is merely referring to a birth in the U.S., irrespective of parental citizenship.

Defending Obama's birthplace narrative and secrecy has become a pop-media standby. But the requirement of citizen parents for eligibility has traditionally been the preeminent question when considering whether one is a "natural born Citizen." Avoiding conflicting interests, influences, loyalties, or allegiances is the undisputed reason for the requirement. A son of a foreign national taking the reins of the U.S. presidency is presumably what the founders wished to prevent.

State legislators should define the phrase "natural born Citizen" in their election eligibility codes, requiring U.S. citizen parents at the time of the candidate's birth as a requisite to being placed on the presidential ballot. With such a law in place, you can rest assured that the issue would make its way to the Supreme Court -- on a fast track.

It's likely, but no one knows for sure whether the Court will agree that a presidential candidate must have been born to citizen parents to qualify as a "natural born Citizen." Either way, a ruling on the issue and a definition of the phrase are what the country needs.

Forcing Obama into transparency

The other objective that may be achieved via election law requirements would be the release of Obama's hospital-generated birth certificate.

Mr. Obama knows how much money he has spent defending lawsuits to avoid releasing his detailed birth certificate showing his hospital and physician of record. The dollar amount spent to avoid transparency must be staggering.

Recently, Hawaii governor and staunch supporter of Obama Neil Abercrombie announced that he would end the controversy by verifying the existence of Obama's birth certificate. The only problem was that Abercrombie discovered that a detailed birth certificate couldn't be found in the Hawaii vital records.

Regardless of whether the details of the president's birth can be documented, Mr. Obama has a problem. If a detailed birth certificate does exist, it reasonably may be inferred to contain candidacy-ending information. Who believes that Obama would stubbornly refuse to release his records if they contained harmless information?

Mr. Obama has been able to legally avoid releasing information because no eligibility law defining "natural born Citizen" and requiring specific proof was in effect at the time of his election. The states effectively waived their constitutional rights in 2008. But apparently, that mistake will not be repeated.

Additional thoughts for legislators

The key for state legislators drafting eligibility law for 2012 is specificity. Merely requiring that each candidate submit his/her "birth certificate," or that candidates "prove constitutional eligibility," as many drafts read, is not enough.

The document Mr. Obama posted online, his "Certification of Live Birth," has been referred to by some as a "birth certificate." It is therefore possible that Obama's incomplete certification could pass a state's eligibility requirements under generic wording. If the law merely calls for submission of a "birth certificate" to the state secretary, a court could rule that Obama's certification is sufficient. Legislators drafting eligibility law must be sure to require each candidate to produce a hospital-generated birth certificate showing the hospital and physician of record -- or at bare minimum, medical records showing the same. An Obama-type certification should be acceptable only to document non-hospital births.

After recommendation, one state lawmaker, Rep. Leo Berman of Texas, has already informed me that he will take my advice and add some extra language to his eligibility bill for the reasons stated above.

The new eligibility laws of the states could prove to be quite consequential. Therefore, the laws need to be drafted with precision and with focus, for time is of the essence.

If enough carefully written state eligibility law is passed in time, I believe either that Obama will be stopped or that we will find out what he's been hiding. As a bonus, we might also get a ruling on the definition of "natural born Citizen."

Monte Kuligowski is an attorney whose work has been published in several law journals.