|
Obama once dressed as
a
Somali elder. Now he has
to kill Somali
pirates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
event |
description |
| Absolute Proof That The Left Is Insane |
The Drudge Report Headline for April 23rd, 2009
THE
HUNDRED DAYS: SUPPORTERS INSIST HE IS GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER |
|
Prosecuting Patriots |
With the ugly sanctimony
of those who never had to make hard decisions, the American left demands
show trials of those who kept us safe after 9/11,
says Col. Ralph Peters. Wrapping themselves in repugnant
self-righteousness, the MoveOn.org set wants political prosecutions. Should Obama acquiesce, he won't be furthering the rule of
law, but dismantling it.
Show trials have long been popular with
leftists. Those who don't conform to each jot of doctrine become
"enemies of the people." From Stalin down to Putin, and from Mao to
Castro, vengeance disguised as law has been a mega-hit.
Those on the left don't want
justice. If they did, they'd be protesting the murderous torture
prevalent in Iran, the Gaza Strip, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and Russia. Instead, our leftists want us to show the leaders of those terror states
more respect.
The left is out for revenge. It always is. Hatred
of those who think differently is the left's unifying principle. Leftists don't need God, but they see devils everywhere.
When
President-for-Life Hugo Chavez called President George W. Bush "el
Diablo," our leftists agreed. Hatred of the last administration grew so
irrational that any terrorist, no matter how monstrous, became no more
than a victim of Bush-Cheney.
Now the left wants an Inquisition
for heretics who failed to share its worldview. Men and women who, in
their capacity as public servants, wrestled with difficult legal issues
in the course of our battle with terrorists are now to be tried and
shamed because the left disagreed with their legal opinions and actions. No matter that most Americans wouldn't view the methods of our
interrogators as torture when applied to hardened terrorists (despite
the media's ceaseless effort to convince us otherwise). No matter that
foreign leaders championed by the left use vastly more brutal
techniques.
No matter that interrogators differ on the utility
of "harsh" methods or that the information gleaned indisputably saved
American lives. No matter that our system of government functioned as it
was designed to.
The left just didn't like the results the
system produced. Law has nothing to do with this cry for vengeance. This
is purely about political differences. During the Bush administration,
leftists warned repeatedly that actions they didn't like put our country
on a "slippery slope." Well, once we initiate show trials of government
officials who did their best to protect us, we'll have skipped the
slippery slope and leapt to the bottom.
If Obama agrees to any
form of show trial, he and his own team will live to regret it. His
party won't always be in power, and he'll have set a hideous,
un-American precedent.
If the Obama administration fails to keep
us safe and our citizens are attacked at home or abroad, shall we then
prosecute those who dismantled our safeguards and gutted our
intelligence effort?
As countless leftists learned in the course
of the 20th century, today's witness for the prosecution is tomorrow's
enemy of the people.
The rule of law is paramount. When we
pervert the law for political ends, we attack our deepest foundations. Where would such show trials stop? Will we try Supreme Court justices
for issuing legal opinions with which a future administration disagrees?
There are plenty of genuine crimes worth prosecuting in
Washington, DC. Corruption abounds. Not a few members of Congress --
from both parties -- should be in jail. But corruption isn't taken
seriously. Politics are.
If the left gets its People's Court to
destroy the lives of patriots who did their human, imperfect best to
defend us (and who succeeded in that effort for seven years), it will do
more damage to the United States than all the dictators our president
longs to embrace could do together.
The left has nothing against
torture. It just wants to choose the victims. |
|
Presidential Poison |
The
Wall Street Journal says to mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21,
2009, is the moment that any chance of a new era of bipartisan respect
in Washington ended. By inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for
their anti-terror legal advice, President Obama has injected a poison
into our politics that he and the country will live to regret.
Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics.
Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama's
victory in November has given him the right to change policies on
interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough
support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided
the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for
policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or
Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of
political power.
If this analogy seems excessive, consider how
Mr. Obama has framed the issue. He has absolved CIA operatives of any
legal jeopardy, no doubt because his intelligence advisers told him how
damaging that would be to CIA morale when Mr. Obama needs the agency to
protect the country. But he has pointedly invited investigations
against Republican legal advisers who offered their best advice at the
request of CIA officials.
"Your intelligence indicates that there
is currently a level of 'chatter' equal to that which preceded the
September 11 attacks," wrote Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, in
his August 1, 2002 memo. "In light of the information you believe
[detainee Abu] Zubaydah has and the high level of threat you believe now
exists, you wish to move the interrogations into what you have described
as an 'increased pressure phase.'"
So the CIA requests a legal
review at a moment of heightened danger, the Justice Department obliges
with an exceedingly detailed analysis of the law and interrogation
practices -- and, seven years later, Mr. Obama says only the legal
advisers who are no longer in government should be investigated. The
political convenience of this distinction for Mr. Obama betrays its
basic injustice. And by the way, everyone agrees that senior officials,
including President Bush, approved these interrogations. Is this
President going to put his predecessor in the dock too?
Mr. Obama
seemed to understand the peril of such an exercise when he said, before
his inauguration, that he wanted to "look forward" and beyond the
anti-terror debates of the Bush years. As recently as Sunday, Rahm
Emanuel said no prosecutions were contemplated and now is not a time for
"anger and retribution." Two days later the President disavowed his own
chief of staff. Yet nothing had changed except that Mr. Obama's
decision last week to release the interrogation memos unleashed a
revenge lust on the political left that he refuses to resist.
Just as with the AIG bonuses, he is trying to co-opt his left-wing base
by playing to it -- only to encourage it more. Within hours of Mr.
Obama's Tuesday comments, Senator Carl Levin piled on with his own
accusatory Intelligence Committee report. The demands for a "special
counsel" at Justice and a Congressional show trial are louder than ever,
and both Europe's left and the U.N. are signaling their desire to file
their own charges against former U.S. officials.
Those officials
won't be the only ones who suffer if all of this goes forward. Congress
will face questions about what the Members knew and when, especially
Nancy Pelosi when she was on the House Intelligence Committee in 2002.
The Speaker now says she remembers hearing about waterboarding, though
not that it would actually be used. Does anyone believe that? Porter
Goss, her GOP counterpart at the time, says he knew exactly what he was
hearing and that, if anything, Ms. Pelosi worried the CIA wasn't doing
enough to stop another attack. By all means, put her under oath.
Mr. Obama may think he can soar above all of this, but he'll soon
learn otherwise. The Beltway's political energy will focus more on the
spectacle of revenge, and less on his agenda. The CIA will have its
reputation smeared, and its agents second-guessing themselves. And if
there is another terror attack against Americans, Mr. Obama will have
set himself up for the argument that his campaign against the Bush
policies is partly to blame.
Above all, the exercise will only
embitter Republicans, including the moderates and national-security
hawks Mr. Obama may need in the next four years. As patriotic officials
who acted in good faith are indicted, smeared, impeached from judgeships
or stripped of their academic tenure, the partisan anger and backlash
will grow. And speaking of which, when will the GOP Members of Congress
begin to denounce this partisan scapegoating? Senior Republicans like
Mitch McConnell, Richard Lugar, John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Pat Roberts
and Arlen Specter have hardly been profiles in courage.
Mr. Obama
is more popular than his policies, due in part to his personal charm and
his seeming goodwill. By indulging his party's desire to criminalize
policy advice, he has unleashed furies that will haunt his Presidency. |
|
Obama Doesn't Recognize Terrorism Threat |
Former Vice President Dick Cheney says that Obama no
longer believes that America is threatened by terrorists and is making
dangerous mistakes in lowering U.S. defenses.
"The threat is
there. It's very real and it's continuing," Cheney said. "And what the
Obama people are doing, in effect, is saying, well, we don't need those
tough policies that we had.
"That says either they didn't work,
which we know is not the case -- they did work, they kept us safe for
seven years -- or that now somehow the threat's gone away. There's
no longer a threat out there, we don't have to be as tough and
aggressive as the Bush administration was."
It’s that post-9/11 mindset
that most concerns him, Cheney said.
"Barack Obama and his
administration are no longer going to ask their guys tough questions when
they are captured. Now, maybe they won't behead our people when they
capture them. I mean, it's just -- it says something about a mindset
that I worry about very much," Cheney said.
"And I think there's
a problem out there nationally in the sense that we are 7.5 years,
almost 8 years now, away from 9/11, and a lot of
people would like to forget it and believe that the threat is gone, it's
diminished, it's disappeared.
"Unfortunately, that's not the
case, and one of the worst things we could do is start to act now as
though the attack of 9/11 is a thing of the past and will never be
repeated. That's just not true."
Continue reading
here . . . |
| 2,974 Reasons |
![9-11Cartoon.gif]()
|
|
ObamaCare Will Bankrupt America |
A growing
chorus of experts is warning that Obama's plan to add 47 million people
-- a number that includes illegal aliens -- to the health-insurance
rolls may kill hopes for a sustained economic recovery.
Obama’s
healthcare plan would follow the $700 billion TARP bailout, the $787
billion stimulus, and a $410 billion, earmark-laden budget appropriation
-- at a time when the U.S. budget deficit already exceeds $11 trillion.
Such
staggering deficits are leading economists to question whether enough
investment capital would be left over once the expected economic
recovery takes hold. Any economic recovery could stall or be seriously
limited, economists say.
Critics say the Democrats’
healthcare proposals are far from fiscally responsible, however.
"What it will mostly do is bloat -- once again -- spending and
borrowing," Doug Bandow, a Cato Institute Senior Fellow, tells Newsmax.
Bandow says spending hundreds of billions more on healthcare
will hurt job creation during a period of already high unemployment. He adds that government economists have already warned the economic
stimulus package will eventually reduce Gross Domestic Product by
crowding out private investment. A massive healthcare bill will only
make matters worse.
Bandow is not alone in his concerns.
In its January report on the budget outlook, the Congressional
Budget Office warned that even without the Obama health plan, the double
whammy of high deficits and rising health-care costs could throttle the
recovery.
"High deficits in the near term may be inevitable in
the face of the financial crisis and severe economic weakness," stated
the CBO report. "However, once the nation gets past this downturn, it
will still face significant fiscal challenges posed by rising healthcare
costs and the aging of the population.
"Continued large deficits
and the resulting increases in federal debt over time would probably
constrain long-term economic growth by reducing national savings and
investment, which in turn would cause productivity and wage growth to
gradually slow," the CBO concluded.
The greatest single threat
to budget stability over the long run, according to the CBO: The sharp
rise in Medicare and Medicaid. Such spending, the CBO reported, must be
controlled "for the fiscal situation to be sustainable in future
decades."
Continue reading
here . . . |
|
More Than $1 Million Paid To Top Law Firm |
Obama may be
using campaign funds to stomp out eligibility lawsuits brought by
Americans, as his campaign has paid more than $1 million to his top
lawyer since the election.
According to Federal Election
Commission records, Obama For America
paid $688,316.42 to international
law firm Perkins Coie between January and March 2009.
The campaign also compensated Perkins Coie for legal services
between Oct. 16, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2008 -- to the tune of $378,375.52.
Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie -- top lawyer for Obama, Obama's
presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama's
Organizing for America -- is the same Washington, D.C., lawyer defending
Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.
As
WorldNewsDaily.com reported earlier, Bauer sent a letter to plaintiff
Gregory Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, of Hollister v. Soetoro,
threatening sanctions if he doesn't withdraw his appeal of the
eligibility case that earlier was tossed by a district judge because the
issue already had been "twittered."
Bauer's warning was dated
April 3rd and delivered via letter to the plaintiff's attorney, John D. Hemenway. It is not the first such warning issued. Lawyers trying to
kill a similar California lawsuit filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan
Keyes also said they would seek sanctions against the plaintiff's
attorneys in that case unless they left the issue of the president's
eligibility alone.
"For the reasons stated in Judge Robertson's
ruling, the suit is frivolous and should not be pursued," Bauer's letter
warned. "Should you decline to withdraw this frivolous appeal, please be
informed that we intend to pursue sanctions, including costs, expenses
and attorneys' fees, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38
and D.C. Circuit Rule 38."
Bauer also represented
Obama and the DNC in Philip Berg's eligibility lawsuit and various other
legal challenges. He and the White House have not responded to WND's
request for comment.
Perkins Coie serves high-profile clients
such as Microsoft, Amazon and Starbucks. In 2006, the firm also
represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's alleged bodyguard and
driver.
The FEC allows elected officials to use campaign funds
to pay legal fees only if the action/investigations arise as a result of
their tenure in office or campaigns, according to Politico.
These illegal disbursements are for
just ONE of Obama's law firms. What is Obama hiding that is worth
more than a million dollars?
When I get a chance, I'll go through
this list to see what other surprises are in here --
DISBURSEMENTS BY PAYEE
-- OBAMA FOR AMERICA -- FEC Committee ID #: C00431445 -- Report type:
April Quarterly -- Filed 04/15/2009 |
|
Charlie Daniels On The Seeds of Dictatorship |
I'm going
to shock some of you people, others I will probably anger and some of
you will be amused at what I'm going to say in this column, but I don't
care if I'm the last man standing I would be less than honest and candid
if I didn't say it.
People if we don't get real this country is
going to slip right out from under us, or rather be pulled right out
from under us by a President bent on socialism and a power mad
Democratic Congressional leadership.
The new Treasury Secretary
can't even keep up with his income taxes and he is asking for powers
that nobody but kings and people like Hugo Chavez have. He wants to be
able to take over American companies that aren't toeing the Obama line. That is a downright abomination to the Constitution.
Nancy Pelosi
changes the procedures of the House of Representatives so the Democratic
majority can rush legislation thorough. Is this what the Congress is
supposed to be about? Ms. Pelosi and Harry Reid, her counterpart in the
Senate, are a clear and present danger to the republic.
Can't you
see what's happening, America? They're going to try to force you to join
unions, screw up your healthcare, invade every facet of your life, and
you can believe it now or you can believe it later…they will raise your
taxes, a lot.
And yet even with raising taxes they're not going
to be able to raise enough to service the debt they're making. The only
way out is to inflate the currency and folks when that begins in
earnest, Katie bar the door.
The American dollar, once the
standard for the planet Earth will become like green wallpaper and the
price of goods and services will rise exponentially.
Do you think
this can't happen, America? Well the sorry truth is that it is
happening; in fact it's accelerating on a daily basis as a socialist
President and a panicked Congress flounder around with no idea except to
throw more money at it. After all, it's only paper, they can always
print some more.
Things are moving so fast now; things once
thought unthinkable are becoming commonplace as Obama, Pelosi, Reid and
company consolidate their power over America.
This may sound
far-fetched, but Hugo Chavez was democratically elected, and then
started sowing the seeds of socialism in Venezuela. He was recently
successful in eliminating term limits for the presidency, and is now
essentially President for Life, as long as the people keep voting him
in. There's an old quote by a British historian named Lord Acton, "Power
tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I
don't like the role of alarmist, I love this country and always believed
in it, always thought that we could work out of any problem. I've seen
wars, recessions and national tragedy and the thought never entered my
mind that America wouldn't pull out of the problem, but America is in a
tailspin and if somebody doesn't grab the controls soon it's going to
crash.
And do you know what happens then? Total government
control. It's called dictatorship. What do you think?
Pray
for our troops -- God Bless America -- Charlie Daniels |
![]()
©
Copyright Beckwith 2009
All right reserved
|
