Mosab Hassan Yousef says he will be killed if he is deported from the United States to the West Bank. The oldest son of one of Hamas' founders, he was an Israeli spy for a decade, and he abandoned Islam for Christianity, either of which calls for his death!
About four months ago his memoirs were published. In those memoirs he stated that he was one of the Shin Bet (Israeli) Security Agency’s best assets and was dubbed The Green Prince, a reference to his Hamas pedigree and the Islamists' signature green color.
Yousef's case seems straightforward: He helped Israel find and kill members of the militant group. Those actions make him a marked man back home.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey says, “His deportation would discourage other potential spies. It is not an exaggeration to say that such an action would set us back years in the war on terrorism,"
But the Department of Homeland Security wants him gone, calling him "a danger to the security of the United States" who has "engaged in terrorist activity." Twenty seven members of Congress wrote Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano this week that Yousef would be in "grave danger" in the Middle East.
Yousef, now 34, settled in Southern California after arriving in Los Angeles with a tourist visa in January 2007.
In May, Yousef wrote on his blog, "Exposing terrorist secrets and warning the world in my first book cost me everything. I am a traitor to my people, disowned by my family, a man without a country. And now the country I came to for sanctuary is turning its back.”
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency within Homeland Security that is arguing the government's case, declined to comment, saying in a statement that it "respects the privacy of all individuals involved in the immigration litigation process."
He is scheduled to plead his case tomorrow before a San Diego immigration judge.
Is this the result of the Obama anti-Semitism or more ass kissing diplomacy?
In either case, it is wrong! We should instead be recognizing his great contributions and providing for his safety!
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The Grand Old Party Needs To Be More Grand And Less Old.
From the Idaho Conservative Blogger
Hello Conservatives,
Brace yourselves, this might not be easy for many of you to read but someone needs to say it and as many of my regular readers know, I just call it like I see it
Idaho Conservative Blogger is dedicated to the Conservative movement in Idaho. That does not mean I am a lapdog for the Idaho Republican party. Now don’t misunderstand, I support most of our Republican candidates, not because they are Republican but because they align closer to my Conservative values. And I report it here, hence the word “Conservative” in Idaho Conservative Blogger.
Over the last year I have gotten to know many of our Representatives and many in the Republican Party. I have greatly enjoyed much of the interaction, but over the last few weeks and months I have noticed that the Idaho “Grand Old Party” seems at times to be more Old than Grand.
Click here for the rest of this article
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Hello Conservatives,
Brace yourselves, this might not be easy for many of you to read but someone needs to say it and as many of my regular readers know, I just call it like I see it
Idaho Conservative Blogger is dedicated to the Conservative movement in Idaho. That does not mean I am a lapdog for the Idaho Republican party. Now don’t misunderstand, I support most of our Republican candidates, not because they are Republican but because they align closer to my Conservative values. And I report it here, hence the word “Conservative” in Idaho Conservative Blogger.
Over the last year I have gotten to know many of our Representatives and many in the Republican Party. I have greatly enjoyed much of the interaction, but over the last few weeks and months I have noticed that the Idaho “Grand Old Party” seems at times to be more Old than Grand.
Click here for the rest of this article
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Collateral Damage In Obama's War On Arizona
By Austin Hill
It wasn’t all that long ago when they fawned over him.
But now, three congressional Democrats from Arizona are twisting in the wind, as their beloved party leader President Barack Obama continues to punish their cash-strapped state with a costly and unpopular law suit to prevent the implementation of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law. It’s Obama versus the people – with congressional Democrats caught in the middle.
But things were different on February 17, 2009.
The delegation standing on the tarmac was electrified with excitement, as Air Force One taxied to a stop at Phoenix, Arizona’s Sky Harbor Airport. The man who was the embodiment of all their dreams – the man who would give everyone a job, apologize to the world for President Bush, punish the “rich people” who “earned too much” over the previous eight years, give everyone in the U.S.” free” healthcare, make the world love America again, and ensure a Democrat majority in the Congress for years to come - President Barack Obama was visiting their state, and this was their very special moment in time.
And there was the congenial, grand-fatherly-looking Harry Mitchell, giddy with excitement as he stood with a camera strap draped over his neck, snapping photos by the second as the President stepped down from the aircraft. It was cute to see an older gentleman so caught-up in the victorious moment of a much younger man, like a dad on the sidelines at his son’s big game.
But Harry Mitchell is an elected member of the United States Congress. He represents hundreds of thousands of people in the House of Representatives, and those people expect more from him than mere cheerleading, more than merely being an adoring father-figure.
And today, Congressman Harry Mitchell appears to be on a path to electoral defeat, because of eighteen months of cheerleading and adoration of a President with a very self-serving agenda. Things have become so bad for Congressman Mitchell that he had to publicly chastise the “Dear Leader,” and suggest that President Obama might spend tax payers in some more productive fashion than suing Arizona. Worse still, Mr. Mitchell has had to – gasp!- publicly call for securing the U.S. / Mexico border , an idea that has been championed by Arizona Republicans for decades, and by Tea Partiers and Minutemen enthusiasts for at least the past six years.
In the southern Arizona city of Tucson, Congresswoman Gabriella Giffords is in a similar struggle. For her part, Giffords learned much earlier than Mitchell that her constituents were not as infatuated with President Obama as she was. After voting in favor of the President’s $800 billion so-called “economic stimulus bill,” Giffords was met with outcries of “government waste” and quickly issued press statements assuring constituents that she was in Washington to serve them, and not merely to “rubber stamp” the President’s agenda.
Yet Giffords is still being damaged by the President’s thrashing of Arizona, as well as the behavior of her fellow Southern Arizona Democrat, Congressman Raul Grijalva. While Giffords’ appears very vulnerable in her re-election bid, Grijalva’s seat is believed to be “safe,” so Grijalva has been encouraging the President to sue Arizona, while he encourages businesses around the world to boycott (note the caliber of congressional leadership that has emerged in the era of Obama – we’re talking here about a sitting U.S. Congressman who is openly encouraging people to economically damage his community).
In Central Arizona, Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick is also paying the price for playing “follow the leader.” Hopelessly enamored with President Obama’s every thought, Ms. Kirkpatrick was the first member of Congress to issue press releases claiming that she personally wanted to enroll in the proposed “Obamacare health plan,” rather than continue with the exclusive, more lavish health plan granted to members of Congress.
But today it’s a different, as Kirkpatrick has joined Mitchell and Giffords in chastising their community-organizer-in-chief. She has also adopted the long-standing cry of Republicans to “secure the border first,” telling the President that “the time for talk is over, and the time for action is here.”
So, what happened? What has changed in the past eighteen months to force these Obama partisans to now disagree with him? And how could these elected members of the United States Congress have so horribly miscalculated the true sentiments of their constituents?
Their biggest problem is that they – along with the majority of the Congress itself – made the horrible mistake of finding their hopes and aspirations in the embodiment of one man, one personality, one persona. As constitutionally and historically illiterate as many members of Congress may be, there are still millions of us who understand that the United States is a nation resting on the foundation of specific principles and ideals, and not on the whims and charm of any individual personality.
Congressional Democrats are now in the painful process of discovering that Barack Obama’s agenda was never about them, never about “the party,” and never about the United States. They have been slavishly empowering a man who is committed to his own raw pursuit of power, and they are now finding themselves to be victims of his agenda.
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
It wasn’t all that long ago when they fawned over him.
But now, three congressional Democrats from Arizona are twisting in the wind, as their beloved party leader President Barack Obama continues to punish their cash-strapped state with a costly and unpopular law suit to prevent the implementation of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law. It’s Obama versus the people – with congressional Democrats caught in the middle.
But things were different on February 17, 2009.
The delegation standing on the tarmac was electrified with excitement, as Air Force One taxied to a stop at Phoenix, Arizona’s Sky Harbor Airport. The man who was the embodiment of all their dreams – the man who would give everyone a job, apologize to the world for President Bush, punish the “rich people” who “earned too much” over the previous eight years, give everyone in the U.S.” free” healthcare, make the world love America again, and ensure a Democrat majority in the Congress for years to come - President Barack Obama was visiting their state, and this was their very special moment in time.
And there was the congenial, grand-fatherly-looking Harry Mitchell, giddy with excitement as he stood with a camera strap draped over his neck, snapping photos by the second as the President stepped down from the aircraft. It was cute to see an older gentleman so caught-up in the victorious moment of a much younger man, like a dad on the sidelines at his son’s big game.
But Harry Mitchell is an elected member of the United States Congress. He represents hundreds of thousands of people in the House of Representatives, and those people expect more from him than mere cheerleading, more than merely being an adoring father-figure.
And today, Congressman Harry Mitchell appears to be on a path to electoral defeat, because of eighteen months of cheerleading and adoration of a President with a very self-serving agenda. Things have become so bad for Congressman Mitchell that he had to publicly chastise the “Dear Leader,” and suggest that President Obama might spend tax payers in some more productive fashion than suing Arizona. Worse still, Mr. Mitchell has had to – gasp!- publicly call for securing the U.S. / Mexico border , an idea that has been championed by Arizona Republicans for decades, and by Tea Partiers and Minutemen enthusiasts for at least the past six years.
In the southern Arizona city of Tucson, Congresswoman Gabriella Giffords is in a similar struggle. For her part, Giffords learned much earlier than Mitchell that her constituents were not as infatuated with President Obama as she was. After voting in favor of the President’s $800 billion so-called “economic stimulus bill,” Giffords was met with outcries of “government waste” and quickly issued press statements assuring constituents that she was in Washington to serve them, and not merely to “rubber stamp” the President’s agenda.
Yet Giffords is still being damaged by the President’s thrashing of Arizona, as well as the behavior of her fellow Southern Arizona Democrat, Congressman Raul Grijalva. While Giffords’ appears very vulnerable in her re-election bid, Grijalva’s seat is believed to be “safe,” so Grijalva has been encouraging the President to sue Arizona, while he encourages businesses around the world to boycott (note the caliber of congressional leadership that has emerged in the era of Obama – we’re talking here about a sitting U.S. Congressman who is openly encouraging people to economically damage his community).
In Central Arizona, Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick is also paying the price for playing “follow the leader.” Hopelessly enamored with President Obama’s every thought, Ms. Kirkpatrick was the first member of Congress to issue press releases claiming that she personally wanted to enroll in the proposed “Obamacare health plan,” rather than continue with the exclusive, more lavish health plan granted to members of Congress.
But today it’s a different, as Kirkpatrick has joined Mitchell and Giffords in chastising their community-organizer-in-chief. She has also adopted the long-standing cry of Republicans to “secure the border first,” telling the President that “the time for talk is over, and the time for action is here.”
So, what happened? What has changed in the past eighteen months to force these Obama partisans to now disagree with him? And how could these elected members of the United States Congress have so horribly miscalculated the true sentiments of their constituents?
Their biggest problem is that they – along with the majority of the Congress itself – made the horrible mistake of finding their hopes and aspirations in the embodiment of one man, one personality, one persona. As constitutionally and historically illiterate as many members of Congress may be, there are still millions of us who understand that the United States is a nation resting on the foundation of specific principles and ideals, and not on the whims and charm of any individual personality.
Congressional Democrats are now in the painful process of discovering that Barack Obama’s agenda was never about them, never about “the party,” and never about the United States. They have been slavishly empowering a man who is committed to his own raw pursuit of power, and they are now finding themselves to be victims of his agenda.
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
40l(k)/IRA Nationalization Or Stealing Your Retirement!
Prior to the election of our “lord-god” Obama, this blog posted several articles that warned, “The Liberals were coming after your retirement funds”!
The Obama regime has now begun to do just that!
According to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, the U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask, maybe as early as next week, for public comment on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA) into annuities or other steady payment streams. They want people to invest their 401k's and IRA's into annuities, like U.S. T-Bonds.
Why? Because they need to sell $2 Trillion Dollars in bonds this year!
China doesn't want them and other foreign purchasers have also expressed that they have no interest in buying our debt.
The powers which are pushing for this takeover are, the White House, Congressional activists, the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.
They ultimately plan to force all Americans to convert their 40l(k)s and IRAs into government-directed retirement accounts.
The 40l(k)/IRA de-privatization plan is the creation of Teresa Ghilarducci (Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis - SCEPA), who is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.
If you don’t think that Obama can pull this off, think again! Many of you didn’t think that they could pass Obamacare either. They will use the same ‘extreme’ tactics to enact the “40l(k)/IRA de-privatization Plan”
The monies in your retirement account(s) are desperately needed to cover-up the massive deficit that is being created by Obamacare, Medicare/Medicaid, etc…etc.
As the New York Times reported, "This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, this important threshold was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
Today’s deficit is relatively small. But in couple of years, the deficit will become too massive to handle as 78 million Baby Boomers move from paying into the system to drawing from the system.
In the March 9 edition of Business Week, it was stated, new federal regulations designed to "promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams" would drive cash into government-controlled entities, such as American International Group (AIG).
The 40l(k)/IRA de-privatization plan will guarantee that all Americans have the same risk of retiring with NO savings at all.
How's that for the redistribution misery?
They are going to steal your retirement!!
Welcome to Obama Socialism!
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: Watch Dog
.
The Obama regime has now begun to do just that!
According to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, the U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask, maybe as early as next week, for public comment on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA) into annuities or other steady payment streams. They want people to invest their 401k's and IRA's into annuities, like U.S. T-Bonds.
Why? Because they need to sell $2 Trillion Dollars in bonds this year!
China doesn't want them and other foreign purchasers have also expressed that they have no interest in buying our debt.
The powers which are pushing for this takeover are, the White House, Congressional activists, the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.
They ultimately plan to force all Americans to convert their 40l(k)s and IRAs into government-directed retirement accounts.
The 40l(k)/IRA de-privatization plan is the creation of Teresa Ghilarducci (Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis - SCEPA), who is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.
If you don’t think that Obama can pull this off, think again! Many of you didn’t think that they could pass Obamacare either. They will use the same ‘extreme’ tactics to enact the “40l(k)/IRA de-privatization Plan”
The monies in your retirement account(s) are desperately needed to cover-up the massive deficit that is being created by Obamacare, Medicare/Medicaid, etc…etc.
As the New York Times reported, "This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, this important threshold was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
Today’s deficit is relatively small. But in couple of years, the deficit will become too massive to handle as 78 million Baby Boomers move from paying into the system to drawing from the system.
In the March 9 edition of Business Week, it was stated, new federal regulations designed to "promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams" would drive cash into government-controlled entities, such as American International Group (AIG).
The 40l(k)/IRA de-privatization plan will guarantee that all Americans have the same risk of retiring with NO savings at all.
How's that for the redistribution misery?
They are going to steal your retirement!!
Welcome to Obama Socialism!
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: Watch Dog
.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Stopping Obamacare, Or “Gay Marriage?” That Is The Question
By Austin Hil
Think the “gay marriage” issue is off the table right now?
Think again.
Closing arguments wrapped-up last week over a lawsuit seeking to overturn California’s “Proposition 8,” a ballot initiative passed overwhelmingly in November 2008 amending the state constitution so as to define marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Plaintiff’s Attorneys David Boies –a former legal advisor to the Al Gore for President campaign – and Ted Olson, former White House Attorney to President George W. Bush, have both expressed confidence that the judge will side with them, yet also acknowledge that regardless of the judge’s decision, the case will be appealed.
Suffice it to say that the issue of “gay marriage” may be back in the headlines again soon. Specifically, the “prop 8” case could be headed to the Supreme Court. This, in turn, will likely cause at least some socially conservative Americans to demand that the Republican Party jump- start its previous “gay marriage ban” efforts.
And this will impact the November 2010 elections.
Just when a majority of the American electorate has finally begun to wake up and realize the tyranny that it is under – a government that has spent future generations of wealth on the selfish, short-term political objectives of the “ruling party;” a President who, after spending a trillion dollars on so-called “stimulus” programs is now pressuring Congress for another $50 billion to “bail-out” states that are bankrupt and facing public employee layoffs; and an Administration whose remedy for an oil spill disaster is to press for tax increases on energy purchases – the nation could be and should be about ready to become “more Republican” this fall. And the best hope for the Republican Party – indeed, the best thing the party can provide the United States right now – is a cohesive, rational explanation for why the Obama economic oppression is dangerous, and an understandable free-market alternative.
Yet, if a large portion of the Republican Party “base” is distracted from the realities of the present-day subjugation, and chooses instead to focus on something that may or may not happen in the courts (an upholding or an overturning of a “marriage law”), the opportunity to stave-off America’s march toward serfdom could be severely hindered, or crippled altogether.
So what’s the strategy? How does the Republican Party maintain its current momentum in the current political climate? The first step is for conservative Americans to begin understanding economics, itself, as a “moral issue.”
Social conservatives have for decades been focused on “moral issues” like abortion, and the definition of marriage. But what do they have to say about the immorality of a government that is drowning our nation in debt?
For nearly four decades, American politics and public policy have been impacted by the influence of faith-based voters and organizations. Consisting of a majority of American Evangelical Christians, a majority of American Mormons, substantial portions of the American Catholic population, and many orthodox Jews, the population of faith-based voters has swung national elections in one direction or the other, either by predominantly siding with one political party or another, by not uniting and thereby “splitting” their collective impact between the two parties, or by simply not voting at all.
This impact was arguably first experienced in the landslide re-election of President Richard Nixon in 1972. In the midst of a war in Viet Nam, and cultural chaos at home, faith-based Americans were un-nerved by the direction of the country, and drawn towards Nixon’s appeal to law-and-order, and articulation of “traditional American values.” In 1976, faith-based Americans were distraught by the scandals that had engulfed Nixon, and were persuaded to the left by Jimmy Carter.
In 1980 Ronald Reagan swung faith-based Americans back to the Republican side of the aisle where they would remain for the bigger part of twelve years. Faith-based Americans then “split” their votes(or in some cases began the bad habit of “not voting”) during the Clinton years, only to return to the Republican fold with the elections of President George W. Bush.
But faith-based voters “split” again in 2008. While many still remained in the Republican camp, still casting votes according to their concerns over the “moral issues” of abortion and marriage, still others were drawn by Barack Obama’s ability to articulate “universal healthcare” in “moral” terms.
Yet it would appear by now that many faith-based Americans have woken up to a cold reality-Obamacare is not about compassion, but about a self-serving politician creating dependency on himself, and using other people’s resources (tax payer’s dollars) for his own political gain. Likewise, agendas such as “Obamacare” and “stimulus” and “bailout” programs have spent the wealth of future generations, on immediate, short-term political ambitions.
Worse still, Obamanomics is dangerously similar to the economic models that are sinking Greece right before our eyes, and that threaten Spain, Germany, and the U.K. Does the “faith” of faith-based Americans have anything to say about the immorality of such fiscal recklessness?
Courts and judges will do what they are going to do with “gay marriage” in the coming months. Americans must focus on stopping the economic ruin of President Obama and his party’s “leaders” in Congress – before it is too late.
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: Watch Dog
.
Think the “gay marriage” issue is off the table right now?
Think again.
Closing arguments wrapped-up last week over a lawsuit seeking to overturn California’s “Proposition 8,” a ballot initiative passed overwhelmingly in November 2008 amending the state constitution so as to define marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Plaintiff’s Attorneys David Boies –a former legal advisor to the Al Gore for President campaign – and Ted Olson, former White House Attorney to President George W. Bush, have both expressed confidence that the judge will side with them, yet also acknowledge that regardless of the judge’s decision, the case will be appealed.
Suffice it to say that the issue of “gay marriage” may be back in the headlines again soon. Specifically, the “prop 8” case could be headed to the Supreme Court. This, in turn, will likely cause at least some socially conservative Americans to demand that the Republican Party jump- start its previous “gay marriage ban” efforts.
And this will impact the November 2010 elections.
Just when a majority of the American electorate has finally begun to wake up and realize the tyranny that it is under – a government that has spent future generations of wealth on the selfish, short-term political objectives of the “ruling party;” a President who, after spending a trillion dollars on so-called “stimulus” programs is now pressuring Congress for another $50 billion to “bail-out” states that are bankrupt and facing public employee layoffs; and an Administration whose remedy for an oil spill disaster is to press for tax increases on energy purchases – the nation could be and should be about ready to become “more Republican” this fall. And the best hope for the Republican Party – indeed, the best thing the party can provide the United States right now – is a cohesive, rational explanation for why the Obama economic oppression is dangerous, and an understandable free-market alternative.
Yet, if a large portion of the Republican Party “base” is distracted from the realities of the present-day subjugation, and chooses instead to focus on something that may or may not happen in the courts (an upholding or an overturning of a “marriage law”), the opportunity to stave-off America’s march toward serfdom could be severely hindered, or crippled altogether.
So what’s the strategy? How does the Republican Party maintain its current momentum in the current political climate? The first step is for conservative Americans to begin understanding economics, itself, as a “moral issue.”
Social conservatives have for decades been focused on “moral issues” like abortion, and the definition of marriage. But what do they have to say about the immorality of a government that is drowning our nation in debt?
For nearly four decades, American politics and public policy have been impacted by the influence of faith-based voters and organizations. Consisting of a majority of American Evangelical Christians, a majority of American Mormons, substantial portions of the American Catholic population, and many orthodox Jews, the population of faith-based voters has swung national elections in one direction or the other, either by predominantly siding with one political party or another, by not uniting and thereby “splitting” their collective impact between the two parties, or by simply not voting at all.
This impact was arguably first experienced in the landslide re-election of President Richard Nixon in 1972. In the midst of a war in Viet Nam, and cultural chaos at home, faith-based Americans were un-nerved by the direction of the country, and drawn towards Nixon’s appeal to law-and-order, and articulation of “traditional American values.” In 1976, faith-based Americans were distraught by the scandals that had engulfed Nixon, and were persuaded to the left by Jimmy Carter.
In 1980 Ronald Reagan swung faith-based Americans back to the Republican side of the aisle where they would remain for the bigger part of twelve years. Faith-based Americans then “split” their votes(or in some cases began the bad habit of “not voting”) during the Clinton years, only to return to the Republican fold with the elections of President George W. Bush.
But faith-based voters “split” again in 2008. While many still remained in the Republican camp, still casting votes according to their concerns over the “moral issues” of abortion and marriage, still others were drawn by Barack Obama’s ability to articulate “universal healthcare” in “moral” terms.
Yet it would appear by now that many faith-based Americans have woken up to a cold reality-Obamacare is not about compassion, but about a self-serving politician creating dependency on himself, and using other people’s resources (tax payer’s dollars) for his own political gain. Likewise, agendas such as “Obamacare” and “stimulus” and “bailout” programs have spent the wealth of future generations, on immediate, short-term political ambitions.
Worse still, Obamanomics is dangerously similar to the economic models that are sinking Greece right before our eyes, and that threaten Spain, Germany, and the U.K. Does the “faith” of faith-based Americans have anything to say about the immorality of such fiscal recklessness?
Courts and judges will do what they are going to do with “gay marriage” in the coming months. Americans must focus on stopping the economic ruin of President Obama and his party’s “leaders” in Congress – before it is too late.
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: Watch Dog
.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Obama Has A "Boot On The Throat" Of The Global Economy
By Austin Hill
The devastation of our coastline is the worst part of it.
But, oh, the painful lessons of the Gulf oil spill.
Let’s start with the “lessons” to which President Obama is currently being subjected. Hopefully Mr. Obama now understands that it is an “art” (and clearly not a “science”) for a President to know how, and when, and in what circumstances to intervene, and what stance to take with the challenges at hand.
Herbert Hoover and Franklin D Roosevelt responded inadequately to the “Great Depression.” John F. Kennedy mishandled the “Bay of Pigs” incident. Jimmy Carter bungled the Iranian Hostage crisis. And, even by President Obama’s own observations, his predecessor George W. Bush displayed “unconscionable ineptitude” in his response to Hurricane Katrina.
Of course, in order to know these things President Obama would need to have been at least somewhat of a student of American history, and I’m uncertain as to what his interest level is with that subject. But we can hope that over the past fifty-five days or so, somebody has told Mr. Obama about some of the struggles of his predecessors.
We can also hope that our President better understands his inability to simply “speak things into existence.” Powerful as he is, things aren’t always as President Obama clams them to be.
It was about a year ago that Mr. Obama delivered his famous address in Cairo, wherein he stipulated that American values and Muslim values are not in conflict with one another, but rather, are complimentary. Since then, the U.S. has sustained three terrorist incidents on domestic soil (the mass murders at Fort Hood Army base last November, the Christmas Day in-flight “underwear bomber” case over the skies of Detroit, and the plot to blow up Times Square a few weeks ago), all of which entailed adherents of one form or another of “radical Islam.”
Just because President Obama makes a moral equivalency of American culture and the culture of the Islamic world, doesn’t mean that such an equivalency exists. And just because the President and members of his Administration insist that “the system worked” or that they were “ready on day one” in the face of a national crisis, doesn’t mean that a crisis is being managed.
Yet, another lesson – for President Obama, and all the rest of us – is that our President’s disposition towards economic matters is, to put it simply, very destructive. President Obama seems to naively assume that wealth creation is essentially a guaranteed thing, and the big question surrounding the economy is how wealth will be distributed, and to whom. President Obama also seems to presume that, just as is the case with Islamic terrorism and oil spill clean-ups, he need only stipulate that something is true, and it will be so.
Consider, for example, President Obama’s proclamation on May 27th that he would seek a “ban” on all off-shore oil drilling. It is understandable why he felt the political need to say such a thing, given that the initial explosion that touched-off the “spill” had happened several weeks prior on April 20th. The President had a political need to do something decisive, so as to look like he was “taking charge” and “handling things.”
Yet the President fulfilling his political need could cost tens of thousands of jobs in the oil, and related industries, and could cost the U.S. economy – especially in the Gulf Coast states – hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues. Barack Obama’s attempt to “speak into existence” a solution to the oil spill crisis could end up exacerbating yet another looming crisis – unemployment and a sluggish economy – while doing nothing to contain the spill itself.
Similarly, President Obama seems either to be uncaring about the economic and diplomatic tensions he has created because of his, and his Administration’s disposition towards the British Petroleum Corporation. On May 3rd of this year, President Obama’s Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced in his now-famous Press Conference that Washington had a “boot on the throat” of B.P. This, apparently, was yet another attempt by the Obama Administration to appear as though they were “in control,” and “handling things.”
But as of last Thursday, June 10th, the left-wing MSNBC network had estimated that shares of B .P. had lost some $71 billion in value, in no small part because of the U.S. federal government’s threats on the corporation. This, in turn, has engendered a backlash against Obama in the U.K., especially from those whose retirement pensions are invested in B.P. stock.
This illustrates one of the greatest tragedies of the Obama presidency: our President’s harshest, most angry, most aggressive words are usually aimed at free enterprise. It’s difficult to imagine our President ever claiming to have a “boot on the throat” of Islamic terrorists, or Iran, or North Korea. Yet even dating back to his earliest days on the presidential campaign trail, he has often spoken words of vitriol towards American businesses, including pharmaceutical companies, car manufacturers, and – yes – oil companies.
The world is learning a very painful lesson – a lesson about Barack Obama.
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: Watch Dog
.
The devastation of our coastline is the worst part of it.
But, oh, the painful lessons of the Gulf oil spill.
Let’s start with the “lessons” to which President Obama is currently being subjected. Hopefully Mr. Obama now understands that it is an “art” (and clearly not a “science”) for a President to know how, and when, and in what circumstances to intervene, and what stance to take with the challenges at hand.
Herbert Hoover and Franklin D Roosevelt responded inadequately to the “Great Depression.” John F. Kennedy mishandled the “Bay of Pigs” incident. Jimmy Carter bungled the Iranian Hostage crisis. And, even by President Obama’s own observations, his predecessor George W. Bush displayed “unconscionable ineptitude” in his response to Hurricane Katrina.
Of course, in order to know these things President Obama would need to have been at least somewhat of a student of American history, and I’m uncertain as to what his interest level is with that subject. But we can hope that over the past fifty-five days or so, somebody has told Mr. Obama about some of the struggles of his predecessors.
We can also hope that our President better understands his inability to simply “speak things into existence.” Powerful as he is, things aren’t always as President Obama clams them to be.
It was about a year ago that Mr. Obama delivered his famous address in Cairo, wherein he stipulated that American values and Muslim values are not in conflict with one another, but rather, are complimentary. Since then, the U.S. has sustained three terrorist incidents on domestic soil (the mass murders at Fort Hood Army base last November, the Christmas Day in-flight “underwear bomber” case over the skies of Detroit, and the plot to blow up Times Square a few weeks ago), all of which entailed adherents of one form or another of “radical Islam.”
Just because President Obama makes a moral equivalency of American culture and the culture of the Islamic world, doesn’t mean that such an equivalency exists. And just because the President and members of his Administration insist that “the system worked” or that they were “ready on day one” in the face of a national crisis, doesn’t mean that a crisis is being managed.
Yet, another lesson – for President Obama, and all the rest of us – is that our President’s disposition towards economic matters is, to put it simply, very destructive. President Obama seems to naively assume that wealth creation is essentially a guaranteed thing, and the big question surrounding the economy is how wealth will be distributed, and to whom. President Obama also seems to presume that, just as is the case with Islamic terrorism and oil spill clean-ups, he need only stipulate that something is true, and it will be so.
Consider, for example, President Obama’s proclamation on May 27th that he would seek a “ban” on all off-shore oil drilling. It is understandable why he felt the political need to say such a thing, given that the initial explosion that touched-off the “spill” had happened several weeks prior on April 20th. The President had a political need to do something decisive, so as to look like he was “taking charge” and “handling things.”
Yet the President fulfilling his political need could cost tens of thousands of jobs in the oil, and related industries, and could cost the U.S. economy – especially in the Gulf Coast states – hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues. Barack Obama’s attempt to “speak into existence” a solution to the oil spill crisis could end up exacerbating yet another looming crisis – unemployment and a sluggish economy – while doing nothing to contain the spill itself.
Similarly, President Obama seems either to be uncaring about the economic and diplomatic tensions he has created because of his, and his Administration’s disposition towards the British Petroleum Corporation. On May 3rd of this year, President Obama’s Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced in his now-famous Press Conference that Washington had a “boot on the throat” of B.P. This, apparently, was yet another attempt by the Obama Administration to appear as though they were “in control,” and “handling things.”
But as of last Thursday, June 10th, the left-wing MSNBC network had estimated that shares of B .P. had lost some $71 billion in value, in no small part because of the U.S. federal government’s threats on the corporation. This, in turn, has engendered a backlash against Obama in the U.K., especially from those whose retirement pensions are invested in B.P. stock.
This illustrates one of the greatest tragedies of the Obama presidency: our President’s harshest, most angry, most aggressive words are usually aimed at free enterprise. It’s difficult to imagine our President ever claiming to have a “boot on the throat” of Islamic terrorists, or Iran, or North Korea. Yet even dating back to his earliest days on the presidential campaign trail, he has often spoken words of vitriol towards American businesses, including pharmaceutical companies, car manufacturers, and – yes – oil companies.
The world is learning a very painful lesson – a lesson about Barack Obama.
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: Watch Dog
.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Anti-Establishment? Anti-Obama? Yes And Yes
by Austin Hill
They were seemingly the best of times, but they ended up looking like the worst of times.
That is, things have turned out pretty badly for one particular congressional candidate and the party that endorsed him.
Much has been said and written about the current and ever-growing backlash against Washington . Is it an “anti-incumbent thing?” Or is it an “anti-Democrat, anti-Obama thing?” Is the momentum moving against the Democrats and in favor of the Republicans, or is it more about ideals and principals and less about political parties?
The short answer to these questions is “yes.” It’s all of these things, and more. And to better understand what I mean, consider what just happened in the state of Idaho .
Vaughn Ward was the perfect Republican congressional candidate. A native of Idaho who was raised in humble beginnings by his mother, Ward grew up to serve in the Iraq War, to work as a CIA Operations Officer, and continues to serve today as a Major in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve.
Involving himself in Republican politics, he worked his way up to an assignment in the last presidential election. And despite the failure of the McCain-Palin ticket, Ward emerged from the rubble with some prime assets: big-time endorsements, and big-time cash, for his own congressional run back home in Idaho .
The value of these “assets” can’t be underestimated. Endorsements from both John McCain, AND Sarah Palin. The official “seal of approval” from the Republican National Congressional Committee. And perhaps most importantly, all the fund-raising mechanisms a congressional candidate could hope for.
By July of 2009 Vaughn Ward was the “heir apparent” with a clear lead in fundraising and name recognition, as he sought the opportunity to run against incumbent Democrat Congressman Walt Minnick. And along with the endorsements of nationally prominent figures like Palin, powerful Republicans in Idaho had coalesced around Ward, including current Governor Butch Otter, Idaho Superintendent of Education Tom Luna, and former Governor (and former U.S. Secretary of the Interior) Dirk Kempthorne. Indeed, these were “the best of times” for the Ward campaign.
But then – to quote an old “classic” Phil Collins song – “something happened on the way to heaven,” and as the calendar moved into the year 2010 the cracks in the veneer began to show.
For one, it was discovered that Ward’s wife was the family bread winner, working as a salaried employee of Fannie Mae. Of course there’s nothing inherently wrong with being an employee of the federal government. But being reliant on a federal salary raised questions about Ward’s authenticity as he railed against the ever-expansive Obama government.
The “Fannie Mae matter” was one thing. But it was quite a different thing when, in late April of this year, Major Ward received a rebuke from the Pentagon, and the U.S. Marine Corps itself. Images of Ward in military gear had been used in campaign web advertisements, and this, the Pentagon noted, violated the policy of the U.S. Military that it remain a-political, and that military imagery not be used to endorse political agendas.
From there the remaining few weeks of the “Ward For Congress” campaign were tragic. A journalist in Spokane , Washington discovered that Ward had lifted huge sections of “policy positions” content from other Republican congressional campaign websites (in some cases duplicating entire paragraphs, line-for-line), and placed them on his own campaign website.
Rather than trying to argue that Ward was in agreement with the various other congressional candidates that he was “emulating,” the campaign instead responded to the news in a very guilty, embarrassed fashion, firing a campaign spokesperson, shutting off the policy pages on the website, and insisting that it was all a mistake committed by the web designer.
Then Ward embarrassed himself in a debate against his severely underfunded grass roots Republican challenger Raul Labrador, by claiming that he opposed congressional representation for the “country” of Puerto Rico (Labrador, who grew up in Puerto Rico , was quick to pounce on Ward’s factual error about the U.S. Territory). And hours before primary election day, an embarrassing (albeit severely edited and “doctored”) video of Ward using words and phrases from an Obama speech popped-up on Youtube, a video that was so stunning that Jay Leno used it for comedic content on his show.
On primary election day in Idaho , grass roots Republican Raul Labrador defeated the “establishment” Republican Vaughn Ward by nearly ten percentage points. Ward had the entire national Republican machine on his side, and a campaign visit from Sarah Palin to boot. Labrador had few endorsements, and very little cash, but he had achieved something incredibly important - he had earned the trust of the people of Idaho , including those of the local tea party movement.
Ward is an honorable man who has served our country valiantly. Yet he showed himself to be “not ready for primetime” in his congressional campaign, and the Republican Party establishment showed itself to have not done its homework.
The current backlash against Washington is anti-Obama, yes. But it’s also about a return to principals, and about Americans scrutinizing those who want to represent us in Washington .
Is the Republican Party listening?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: Watch Dog
.
They were seemingly the best of times, but they ended up looking like the worst of times.
That is, things have turned out pretty badly for one particular congressional candidate and the party that endorsed him.
Much has been said and written about the current and ever-growing backlash against Washington . Is it an “anti-incumbent thing?” Or is it an “anti-Democrat, anti-Obama thing?” Is the momentum moving against the Democrats and in favor of the Republicans, or is it more about ideals and principals and less about political parties?
The short answer to these questions is “yes.” It’s all of these things, and more. And to better understand what I mean, consider what just happened in the state of Idaho .
Vaughn Ward was the perfect Republican congressional candidate. A native of Idaho who was raised in humble beginnings by his mother, Ward grew up to serve in the Iraq War, to work as a CIA Operations Officer, and continues to serve today as a Major in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve.
Involving himself in Republican politics, he worked his way up to an assignment in the last presidential election. And despite the failure of the McCain-Palin ticket, Ward emerged from the rubble with some prime assets: big-time endorsements, and big-time cash, for his own congressional run back home in Idaho .
The value of these “assets” can’t be underestimated. Endorsements from both John McCain, AND Sarah Palin. The official “seal of approval” from the Republican National Congressional Committee. And perhaps most importantly, all the fund-raising mechanisms a congressional candidate could hope for.
By July of 2009 Vaughn Ward was the “heir apparent” with a clear lead in fundraising and name recognition, as he sought the opportunity to run against incumbent Democrat Congressman Walt Minnick. And along with the endorsements of nationally prominent figures like Palin, powerful Republicans in Idaho had coalesced around Ward, including current Governor Butch Otter, Idaho Superintendent of Education Tom Luna, and former Governor (and former U.S. Secretary of the Interior) Dirk Kempthorne. Indeed, these were “the best of times” for the Ward campaign.
But then – to quote an old “classic” Phil Collins song – “something happened on the way to heaven,” and as the calendar moved into the year 2010 the cracks in the veneer began to show.
For one, it was discovered that Ward’s wife was the family bread winner, working as a salaried employee of Fannie Mae. Of course there’s nothing inherently wrong with being an employee of the federal government. But being reliant on a federal salary raised questions about Ward’s authenticity as he railed against the ever-expansive Obama government.
The “Fannie Mae matter” was one thing. But it was quite a different thing when, in late April of this year, Major Ward received a rebuke from the Pentagon, and the U.S. Marine Corps itself. Images of Ward in military gear had been used in campaign web advertisements, and this, the Pentagon noted, violated the policy of the U.S. Military that it remain a-political, and that military imagery not be used to endorse political agendas.
From there the remaining few weeks of the “Ward For Congress” campaign were tragic. A journalist in Spokane , Washington discovered that Ward had lifted huge sections of “policy positions” content from other Republican congressional campaign websites (in some cases duplicating entire paragraphs, line-for-line), and placed them on his own campaign website.
Rather than trying to argue that Ward was in agreement with the various other congressional candidates that he was “emulating,” the campaign instead responded to the news in a very guilty, embarrassed fashion, firing a campaign spokesperson, shutting off the policy pages on the website, and insisting that it was all a mistake committed by the web designer.
Then Ward embarrassed himself in a debate against his severely underfunded grass roots Republican challenger Raul Labrador, by claiming that he opposed congressional representation for the “country” of Puerto Rico (Labrador, who grew up in Puerto Rico , was quick to pounce on Ward’s factual error about the U.S. Territory). And hours before primary election day, an embarrassing (albeit severely edited and “doctored”) video of Ward using words and phrases from an Obama speech popped-up on Youtube, a video that was so stunning that Jay Leno used it for comedic content on his show.
On primary election day in Idaho , grass roots Republican Raul Labrador defeated the “establishment” Republican Vaughn Ward by nearly ten percentage points. Ward had the entire national Republican machine on his side, and a campaign visit from Sarah Palin to boot. Labrador had few endorsements, and very little cash, but he had achieved something incredibly important - he had earned the trust of the people of Idaho , including those of the local tea party movement.
Ward is an honorable man who has served our country valiantly. Yet he showed himself to be “not ready for primetime” in his congressional campaign, and the Republican Party establishment showed itself to have not done its homework.
The current backlash against Washington is anti-Obama, yes. But it’s also about a return to principals, and about Americans scrutinizing those who want to represent us in Washington .
Is the Republican Party listening?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: Watch Dog
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
