Monday, January 31, 2011

Florida Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional. Mentions Boston Tea Party and Romneycare

Posted by: cubachi | January 31, 2011 

Florida’s U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, a Reagan appointee, ruled that the Obama administration’s health care overhaul is unconstitutional. He said that the new law violates people’s rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.
Attorneys for the administration had argued that the states did not have standing to challenge the law and that the case should be dismissed. Vinson said otherwise. In his ruling, Vinson mentioned that Congress has no authority, under the commerce clause to regulate inactivity.
“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications…
If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce…we would have a Constitution in name only.”
He even cited the contradiction of an American government that originally formed out of opposition to a British mandate of taxing tea, and now we have our own American government mandating Americans to buy health insurance (Page 42).
It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power”
Vinson also cited on page 76, Romneycare leaving the state of Massachusetts “worse off.” Oh my! This comes after Axelrod cited Romneycare as influencing Obamacare.
In fact, he pointed to the similar individual mandate in Massachusetts — which was imposed under the state’s police power, a power the federal government does not have — and opined that the mandate there left some residents “worse off” than they had been before.
Bravo to the judge for recognizing the unconstitutionality of Obamacare, as well as to those 26 states and attorney generals for pushing this case. As we all know, this case will likely be taken up by the Supreme Court sometime in the near future.


Obama Loses the Middle East

January 30, 2011
By Daniel Greenfield

It's no coincidence that major revolutions against Western backed governments have occurred under weak American presidents. The Iranian revolution against the Shah happened on Jimmy Carter's watch. The current violence in Tunisia and Egypt is taking place under Obama. And the timing is quite interesting. Revolts which coincided with a new opposition congress almost suggest that they were scheduled for a time when Obama would be at his politically weakest.

Additionally the 2010 defeats would have indicated to the Iranian regime that they might only have a 2 year window in which to act before Obama is replaced by an unknown, but probably more conservative politician. A "Now or Never" moment. The Iranian Revolution might never have happened under Reagan. But Carter's weakness, left wing politics and contempt for the very notion of defending American interests made it possible. Similarly despite attempts by some Bush advisers to take credit for Tunisia and Egypt, it is unlikely that they would have taken place on Bush's watch. Not because the Bush administration was so omnipotent, but because it had regional credibility. The general perception was that the Bush Administration was on alert and supportive of allies. That is not at all the regional perception of the Obama Administration which doesn't seem to know what an ally is.

Obama's mistreatment of the UK, Israel and Honduras, the alienation of Karzai and continuing humiliation at the hands of China and Russia through diplomatic insults, showed weakness and stupidity. The Iranian takeover of the region is premised on that incompetence. Lebanon was a test. The next step was Tunisia. Then Egypt.

Iran has three major obstacles to regional dominance. Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Of these three, Egypt with its radicalized population, great poverty and limited influence in Washington D.C. was the most vulnerable. Any overthrow of Mubarak will move the Muslim Brotherhood closer to taking power. But for Iran the priority is to take Egypt out of the game. Whatever happens in Egypt, it will weaken the country. And what weakens Egypt, only strengthens Iran.

Turkey and Syria are part of Iran's regional coalition. Jordan appears to be leaning that way. Lebanon has been taken over. Iraq is set to fall when America leaves. If Egypt falls, that just leaves Saudi Arabia and Israel in the way. The Saudis will face domestic unrest, possibly from that alliance with Al-Qaeda that Bin Laden originally rejected. And there's a nuke with Israel's name on it somewhere in Iran. All this has happened because the Obama Administration has been too weak, confused and incompetent to stand for anything.

Iran is showing us its cards now, knowing that there's very little we will do about it. Its plans are moving forward. Ours are not only going nowhere, but actually helping the enemy.

Why did the Second Iranian revolution fail, while the revolts in Tunis and even Egypt seem to be gaining some traction? One element is foreign backing. No one outside the country provided support to the Iranian protesters. But the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt have not only Iranian backing, but also Western support. We provided training and political support to the "liberal" Egyptian pawns of the Islamists like El Baradei. And even now we're on the verge of endorsing a provisional government under a man who is allied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Iran's backers in Russia and China did not in any way indicate a loss of support during the protests in its cities. But Obama has made it muddily clear that he doesn't really support Mubarak, certainly not Ben Ali. Rather than endorsing one side or the other, he tried to play both sides. A non-committal statement that communicates that we will support whoever wins. Which means that unlike Russia and China, we don't support the current regime. That withdrawal of support from our allies, translates into a win for the opposition. It's a tacit boost to efforts to overthrow the government.

The key determinant of whether a revolution will succeed in ousting a government is its staying power. The key players who make or break a revolution rarely go out into the street waving banners, at least not until they have an armed escort and the foreign photographers who conveniently snap photos of their best side. Those key players are the power brokers, tribal leaders, heads of the army and the intelligence services and leaders of various influential associations who don't choose sides until they have a pretty good idea which side will prevail.

The game of revolution is really about two sides trying to tote up how much support they each have. One side is the government, the other side is usually a coalition of factions who are pooling their resources in order to overthrow it. That leads to odd alliances and strange marriages between leftists and Islamists. Once the government is out, then the process will begin again with the coalition members playing the same game against each other.

The game takes place on several levels. Violent street protests are a show of force. Their purpose is to demonstrate that the government is weak and cannot control or subdue their protests. The riot police display dominance by trying to drive them away. These displays are common enough in the primate kingdom, but here they are dressed up in self-righteous rhetoric and riot gear. Whoever wins scores dominance points. If the riot police succeed, then they show that the government retains control over the cities. If they fail, then the protesters show that the government has lost control.

It doesn't matter how ruthless the government crackdown is. Brutality may create more enemies in the long run, but if it succeeds in controlling the cities, then the revolution cannot move forward. The politicians associated with the protests (and they're always there) become impotent and irrelevant. Men and women who gambled on a revolt and lost. They may become martyrs or they may find a way back into the government, depending on their own principles and whether the government is willing to have them. But brutality is also a sign of weakness. A last resort to maintain control. But it is also a sign of strength. A government that unleashes total violence on its own people demonstrates that it has staying power.

If the riots continue, the next step in this chess game is to call for the restoration of order. The politicians attached to the protest movements will claim to be the only ones who can calm the public's anger and restore order. The government will step up enforcement to show that it is perfectly capable of restoring order. Foreign diplomats will counsel the government to negotiate with the politicians representing the protesters. This is usually the last step in the dismantling of the government.

A government with staying power will refuse to negotiate and play the waiting game. A revolution runs off the energy of ongoing protests and street violence. But that energy is not a perpetual motion machine. Even with new government outrages, keeping the protests going takes dedication and resources. Eventually the casual looters and bored teenagers who fuel such protests go home. The working class men go back to work in order to feed their families. This leaves the protest core of middle-class and wealthy students exposed. They are the educated core of the protest movements, the ones who actually seem to know what they want. But they are also much easier to scatter and break than their poorer compatriots. Occasional protests will still go on, inspired by the events of that month, they may in time succeed in toppling the government, but only if it weakens significantly.

That means Mubarak might still survive, but our influence won't. The endorsement of Suleiman means that we won't see a dynasty of Mubaraks, which is probably a good thing, but also means that Egypt's secret police will call the shots in the future. The Cedar revolution has been swallowed up by Hezbollah. Lebanon will almost inevitably see another civil war, along with ethnic cleansing and possibly genocide. Jordan is falling under the Iranian umbrella. The days of the Hashemite kingdom are numbered. Imagine a Gaza four times the size of Israel. That's what we're on track for now.

Once Israel is bracketed in by enemies, an Islamist Turkey, a Muslim Brotherhood run Egypt and a Palestinian Jordan, and Iranian dominated Syria and Lebanon-- the game will move into its final stages. Iran needs to destroy Israel in order to prove its right to rule the region, but Israel is also one of the few points of agreement between Sunnis and Shiites. Iran's real foe is Saudi Arabia, but it can't act directly against it without bringing America into the game. If Iran can take Mecca, its leaders become the supreme authorities of Islam. Shiite control over Mecca might trigger a global Muslim civil war. Or a global accommodation.

If Iran can checkmate America in an armed conflict, it may have a chance. So it will try to initiate a limited conflict on its terms, once it has a nuclear deterrent to prevent the United States from escalating the conflict. A likely scenario is a regional version of the Korean War in a divided Iraq or Afghanistan, in which Iran plays the China role, overwhelming an undermanned US presence with a show of force and then negotiating an armistice. The goal will be for Iran to inflict enough damage on the United States to gain credibility as the ultimate Muslim superpower. And that would lead to some of the bloodiest battles since the Tet Offensive, with a courageous showing by American forces acting under severely restricted rules of engagement fighting a war that their government has already decided it can't win. Even if Obama is not in office by then, whoever is would be faced with a choice or prolonging a conflict against the Taliban/Mahdi Army to reclaim territory that the United States has already withdrawn from. It's not an enviable decision.

That is the path that Iran's leadership is following. We are being maneuvered into a tighter and tighter corner, with fewer and fewer allies left. The Middle East is being lost. And it's happening on Obama's watch.

Sultan Knish

Obama's 3 AM Moment

January 31, 2011
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. It isn't 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 40 minute briefing on the situation. Phew!

After the U.S. markets tanked Friday, a full 4 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 2 years, the crisis could have been averted. He then went on to make a bold statement about human rights, "...and 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.

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 US has voluntarily ceded its authority as the world's super power. 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 RightBias.comShe lives in South Carolina.

American Thinker

NOW Goes Shark Jumping

January 31, 2011
By Betsy M. Galliher

It is both peculiar and fitting that President Obama would use his State of the Union address to evoke what many consider a rather humiliating moment in our history; our "Sputnik moment." 

The Russian Sputnik satellite ultimately served as a catalyst for our space dominance, from which remarkable innovation, scientific advance, and technology was born.  But before that, Russia's ‘win' was America's shame.  In today's world, the US would be accepting the self-esteem award for the pitied team sent home without a trophy, to chants of -- "we're no. 2!  We're no. 2!"

Following the President's lead, the National Organization for Women called for its "own Sputnik moment for women."  Which we can now surmise was, apparently, not when NOW called Teddy Kennedy a ‘champion of women's rights' in 2009.  In a press release from NOW's, Terry O'Neill, "As the president reaches for the stars, the National Organization for Women will be working to ensure that the women of this nation are lifted up as well."

It seems odd American women still debate the confines of their equality, especially to those of us who have quite successfully behaved as equals for some time now. 

The women of NOW share a palpable disdain for certain women, but particularly those who refuse to accept the narrative of their inequity -- most notably, Sarah Palin.  In an August 2008 press release, PAC Chair, Kim Gandy, stated, "we recognize the importance of having women's rights supporters at every level but, like Sarah Palin, not every woman supports women's rights."  Or, in the words of University of Chicago professor, Wendy Doniger, Palin's "greatest hypocrisy is in the pretense that she is a woman."

Touché.  Meet the feminists of today, or, Women In Name Only. 

Meghan McCain, who holds the dubious honor of being both a RINO AND WINO, recently declared Michelle Bachmann the "poor man's Sarah Palin."  WINOs disparaging the women they claim to champion is nothing new.  But McCain managing to spit on the poor, Bachmann, and Palin all in one fell swoop, is a new low for a WINO, even a young elitist who makes a living feeding the progressive fires of the Left.

Palin is used to vitriol in the extreme.  She makes the Dan Quayle media attacks of old look like a toddler's sandbox scuffle.  She's been called a "turncoat b****, Uncle Women, a whore in f****** cheap glasses with her hair up, a f******* hyper conservative, a Christian Stepford wife, Alaskan hillbilly, Caribou Barbie, a pig with lipstick, yammering, an idiotic c***, whore, a f******monster," and endured ‘jokes' about the rape of her teenage "whore" daughter.

And those are only the accusations from other women.

In 1966 NOW endorsed "continuing efforts to recruit and advance women according to their individual abilities."  Flash forward and the same organization which also claimed to "hold itself independent of any political party," had this to say following Obama's SOTU address:

President Obama spoke about creating jobs through building our country's physical infrastructure, investing in research and development, and reinventing our energy industry.  Worthy objectives - but currently those fields are dominated by men.  Much work remains to be done to bring women into parity in these vocations, known as STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math).

...Next month, I will take part in the 55th session of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, which will focus on the access and participation of women and girls in STEM.  However, until we make significant progress in this area, if we want to talk about creating jobs for women, we have to talk about rebuilding our human infrastructure - including teaching, nursing, and social work. These positions not only employ women but they serve some of the most vulnerable people in our country, those the President promised to safeguard. (Terry O'Neil, President, NOW)

It wasn't long ago WINOs were calling for women to leave the ‘typical' female vocations of teaching, nursing, and social work, and enter more male-dominated fields.  Women have made gains in STEM-based vocations, to everyone's betterment, but the discussion still begs the never-asked-never-answered question: do women really lack opportunity, or do they make career choices based on innate ability, or relative to combining work and family

Of course, should WINOs care to note, one rather familiar face has extensive experience in infrastructure, research and development, and the energy industry; and her name is not Tina Fey.  Leftists don't dare research Palin's actual accomplishments, for the same reason they neglect to investigate Barack Obama's past -- they're afraid of what they might actually find.

While Obama went from community organizer, to voting "present" in the Senate, to President in only a few short years, Palin was working for all Alaskan men and women as a mayor, a governor, and: 

President of Alaska Conference of Mayors,

Vice Chair of the National Association Natural Resource Committee,

Chairman of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission,

Opening drilling for oil and natural gas at Pt. Thompson after thirty years of corporate stalling,

Creating Alaska's Petroleum Integrity Office to oversee all aspects of energy development,

Signing Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES) bill into law, ensuring the Alaskan people receive a clear and equitable share of oil profits,

And opening up competitive contracting for the implementation of a 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline providing natural gas from Alaska's North Slope, to the 48 lower states, and Canada; the largest infrastructure project in the history of North America (to be completed by 2019).

And all this (to highlight only a small portion of her resume) while she fought corruption in her own party, overhauled state ethics laws, cut pork, slashed bloated budgets, ensured Alaskans' security and financial solvency, brought more transparency to government, safeguarded environmental protections, and embraced private sector solutions.  Palin only reluctantly retired from the Governor's Office after exponential increases in FOIA requests and frivolous ethics' complaints flooded her office as part of a liberal attack strategy. The manpower required would have cost Alaskan taxpayers millions were it not for Palin's return to the private sector.

Sarah Palin's real crime isn't in her resume, her refusal to trumpet abortion, or kowtow to liberal elites; it's her refusal to be miserable.  It's in her ability to embrace the bumps in life; an unexpected pregnancy with a special needs child, a teenage daughter's early parenthood, and an all-out assault from a media hell-bent on her destruction.  Her resilience in adversity, and unfettered optimism, simply don't support the Left's misery narrative.

Women like Sarah Palin deny miss-ogynists their self-loathing due, and elevate all women in the process.  There's no doubt American women owe the generations before an enormous debt for the opportunities wide open to women today.  But there comes a time to honor those who came before by safeguarding, not savaging.

If only modern feminists took to heart the words of Betty Friedan in NOW's original 1966 Statement of Purpose:

IN THE INTEREST OF THE HUMAN DIGNITY OF WOMEN, we will protest, and endeavor to change, the false image of women now prevalent in the mass media, and in the texts, ceremonies, laws, and practices of our major social institutions.  Such images perpetuate contempt for women by society and by women for themselves.  We are similarly opposed to all policies and practices - in church, state, college, factory, or office - which, in the guise of protectiveness, not only deny opportunities but also foster in women self-denigration, dependence, and evasion of responsibility, undermine their confidence in their own abilities and foster contempt for women.

The context may have changed, but the narrative never will.

NOW is really no different than any other Leftist organization that inevitably descends into cannibalism.   Again and again, Leftists prove their goal is no longer liberation, but victimization.  There's simply no other way to perpetuate the narrative.

So naturally, there's no worse affront to women -- no greater path to subjugation according to WINO's- than Sarah Palin.  When in reality, the enemy is - the Left's favorite tour de force - Statism. 

I can confirm with all the gratitude of a happy, liberated, free, American woman -- Sputnik is launched.  Catch up if you can.

Laughing your head off in Liberal Land

January 31, 2011
The new tone of civility the liberals are pursuing apparently includes wishing violent death on Sarah Palin. Recently in Missoula, Montana, an otherwise high quality performance of Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado by the Missoula Children's Theater had the script altered with the approval of the MCT director Curt Olds to call for the beheading of Sarah Palin in the tune "As some Day it May Happen (I've Got a Little List)" and thus singing about her "not being missed," as the Wall St. Journal informs us.

The source of this news was an attendee at the play named Rory Page who poignantly states in a letter to the theater director:

"As a professional you should be ashamed of yourself, the audience should be ashamed of themselves and I am ashamed of myself for not standing up and leaving at that very moment. I would like to see an apology from you not because I want to hinder free-speech but for the hypocrisy this so clearly shows."

Apparently this is what our Bill Ayers-influenced children's educators now believe is the proper subject to teach youngsters to sing along to, not the contemplation of the beheading of some  nineteenth century caricatures, but a very real twenty-first century conservative politician.  Until Mr. Page took offense, the performance evidently was acceptable in the liberal enclave of Missoula. All this days after the Tucson massacre and not that long after the Virginia Tech shootings -- or the Columbine shootings, for that matter.

I'm sure the wife and family of the late Daniel Pearl, whose death was dramatized in the movie "A Mighty Heart" would also fail to see the humor in this joking about beheading Sarah Palin. And in what way did this performance differ from the Palestinian television show with a Mickey Mouse-like figure urging children to kill Jews for jihad (here  and here)?  

Any rationalized explanation of the difference between Palestinian television and this Montana Children's Theater performance of the Mikado would be, in fact, an attempt to explain away hatred in the same vein, but with a lower body count used as the spin to convince us that this Mikado was something much more benign.  In fact, the Mikado performance in Montana was an early stage cancerous growth and not a benign one.

There is, in fact, a line in that "Little List" song that makes reference to a type of person who we have seen much of recently in liberal circles. The song complains about:

"Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,

All centuries but this, and every country but his own"

I could think of a number of people who fit that description, starting with Rep. Jim Moran who went overseas to attack American voters as racists on an Arab television station.    As the song, in discussing "apologetic statesmen" in the vaguest of mock names, it concludes with:

"The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you."

The toned down mischievousness of the original wording allows people of all political persuasions to invoke in their minds the name of their opponents in a light, general manner and not turn a musical performance into a call for a specific person's blood in front of an audience which often includes children and perhaps some adults of weak mind.  Thus, the original song avoids a resemblance to a tyrant's staged call for assassination(s).

John Edwards was right. There really are two Americas, but not in the way he meant it. As liberals call for divisiveness of the most bloody kind in a children's theater performance (no, it wasn't mere "fun" but a teaching of what is now socially acceptable in that community), it is necessary to shine "the sun, whose rays are all ablaze," to borrow a line from a different song in the Mikado, on this vile biliousness in order to make its influence wane.

The Media, Reagan and Obama

January 31, 2011
By Ed Lasky

As we approach the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, he has been in the news once again. 

One way he has been used is to boost the image of Barack Obama.

Some presidents have been used to degrade the image of others. Herbert Hoover was a convenient whipping boy to tar various Republicans through the years. Nixon was the epitome of evil in the White House.  The fate of Ronald Reagan has been a curious one. The punditry that savaged him before, during, and after his years in office are now trying to burnish Barack Obama's image by comparing the two Presidents.

This is just the latest gambit to try to boost the appeal of Barack Obama. He has gone through  many image makeovers over the last couple of years.  He has been Lincolnesque (an image he  stoked by making his presidential announcement in Springfield); then TIME Magazine morphed his image into the image of Franklin Deland Roosevelt; now the latest incarnation in a sense compares him with Ronald Reagan. They are pai red together with a friendly Ronald Reagan placing his hand on the shoulder of Barack Obama.

The comparison alone is a none too subtle way to enhance Obama's appeal. The man has gone through as many shape shifts as has the man in the new Old Spice campaign.

How did the pundits treat the man they now pair with Barack Obama?

Let's take a trip down memory lane.

Clark Clifford, advisor to a string of Democratic Presidents and a major league elite, called Reagan "an amiable dunce."

The Chicago Tribune called Reagan ignorant and said his "air-headed rhetoric on the issues of foreign policy and arms control have reached the limits of tolerance and have become an embarrassment to the U.S. and a danger to world peace."

Washington Post columnist David Broder (still on the beat and front and center in the Obama cheering section) said the job of Reagan's staff is to water ‘the desert between Ronald Reagan's ears".

Henry Kissinger said when you meet Reagan you wonder :how did it ever occur to anyone that he should be governor, much less President?'

Jimmy Breslin, the columnist said Reagan was senile and then insulted his supporters by saying they were proof that senility was a communicable disease. For good measure, he called Reagan "shockingly dumb".

Newsweek columnist Eleanor Clift said that "greed in this country is associated with Ronald Reagan". Along this common slur was USA Today's White House reporter Sarah McClendon that "it will take a hundred years to get the government back into place after Ronald Reagan. He hurt people: the disabled, women, nursing mothers, the homeless."

Lesley Stahl of CBS News (and now 60 Minutes) said " I predict historians are going to be totally baffled by how the American people fell in love with this man."

Hollywood director John Huston (not a pundit as such, but illustrative of a mindset in Hollywood-a major source of Democratic donors) said Reagan was a "bore" with a "low order of intelligence" who is "egotistical."

Tip O' Neill (the powerful Speaker of the House) said Reagan's mind was ‘an absolute and total disgrace" and that it was "sinful that this man is President of the United States". Steven Hayward reminds us in his recent "Reagan Reclaimed"  column that O'Neill said "the evil is on the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He's cold. He's mean. He's got ice water for blood."

John Osborne in the New Republic magazine wrote that "Ronald Reagan is an ignoramus."

After his election, columnist William Greider said. "my God, they've elected this guy who nine months ago we thought was a hopeless clown."

The Nation warned "he is the most dangerous person ever to come this close to the presidency" and that "[H]e is a menace to the human race."

When, in his first term, the country faced some economic weakness and Reagan's poll numbers turned down, pundits were celebrating as they wrote his political obituary. Kevin Phillips, political pundit, wrote that "it didn't take a genius to predict on Inauguration Day that Reagan would unravel" and that it was foolish to think that Reagan could solve the nation's economic problems with policies based on "maxims out of McGuffey's Reader and Calvin Coolidge."

The New York Times joined in, "the stench of failure hangs over Ronald Reagan's White House."

When Reagan delivered his famous "evil empire" speech (that , by the way, was also was critical of America's own historical failings), the New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis was apoplectic, deriding it as "simplistic", "sectarian", "terribly dangerous", "outrageous" and in conclusion "primitive...the only word for it" (then why did he use all the other words one might ask-a little overkill goes a long way).

I could go  on with more examples of the invective and personal insults hurled at Reagan by the chattering classes and opinion makers over the years. Even when he died after a long struggle with Alzheimer's the derogation continued; he could not escape the obloquy even in death

Reagan brushed it off with aplomb and good cheer. He was known as The Teflon President for the best of reasons. He did not stoop to the level of his critics but stood above them.

He did not let them divert him from what he saw his role: restore our sense of pride and spirit after Jimmy Carter ground them down and to  boost the economy (despite some waves, he stayed the course and allowed "supply side" economics to work its "magic").

But he did more, much more.

For years, he felt sorrow and anger that hundreds of millions of people suffered under Communism. While experts counseled détente and working with the Soviets, Reagan saw the immorality of accepting the "status quo" that deprived those enslaved by communism  of their freedoms and liberty.  He thought it was shameful that such an abominable  system persisted. Many were content with the Cold War. Reagan was not. He told  Richard Allen, his National Security Advisor,  "Here's my strategy on the Cold War: we win, they lose. What do you think of that?  I suppose the likes of Anthony Lewis might characterize that goal as simplistic or primitive. 

But after decades of Soviet slavery and expansionism, he not only contained the Soviet Union but brought it to its knees -- giving the Russian people themselves the opportunity to deliver the coup de grace. He beseeched Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall but all the walls crumbled. Those revisionists who refuse to give Reagan his due and credit Mikhail Gorbachev with the mercy killing of communism are wrong. They would do well -- as would we all -- to read about the detailed and multi-faceted strategy Reagan designed and promoted to implode the Soviet Union; a story superbly told in Paul Kengor's "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism."  Reagan was a hero to the people being smothered by the Iron Curtain, to Russians such as Natan Sharansky, imprisoned because he wanted freedom, to Polish laborers who tore his black and white photo out of a newspaper and used it to rally protesters. He earned a Nobel Prize for Peace -- and of course, was denied one.

Despite all he accomplished, the pundits and media mavens slandered and insulted him-time and time again.

And now the pundits have the temerity to resurrect him to help Barack Obama's political future?

Haven't they spend the last 3 years (plus) extolling Barack Obama-from the "sort of God" comment by Newsweek's Evan Thomas to the "tingle up the leg" thrill he gave MSNBC's Chris Matthews  to the New York Times columnist David Brooks who succumbed to the Obama cult and wrote of Obama that  "I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant and I'm thinking a) he's going to be president and b) he'll be a very good president."  I could go on and on regarding how often he has been described as an intellectual giant with God-given talents, so brilliant he is bored by the rest of us yahoos. Obama even joked that all of the White House correspondents voted for him. They were his cheerleaders. They had  "the vapors" for Barack Obama.

The media has been biased in favor of Barack Obama for years. He got rock star treatment as a candidate (the obsequiousness  was even satirized on Saturday Night Live) and has had them fawning and fainting in the newsroom for most of his term.

However, he has not been completely immune from some criticism. The economy is still weak with millions unemployed. His poll numbers started falling in 2009 and took a nosedive in 2010. The Democrats took a shellacking in November that some pundits pin on Obama and his policies.

How does Obama deal with criticism? Does he have the character and strength of Ronald Reagan and let it roll off him? Need one ask?  He takes it personally.

Reagan had Teflon coating; Obama has thin skin.

Reagan laughed off criticism -- it came with the job. Eugene McCarthy, a liberal icon whose 1968 run for the Presidency was eclipsed when Robert Kennedy jumped into the race, endorsed Ronald Reagan for the Presidency. When he was asked why, he answered, "It's because he is the only man since Harry Truman who won't confuse the job with the man"

Reagan wasn't focused on himself but on the rest of America -- and the world. That was the "rest of him" and it mattered far more than the abuse heaped on him.

Does Obama respond with the same graceful equanimity? Or is he more focused on himself and his ego? (he is addicted to the word, "I"; said he has a "gift" when it comes to oratory; said he would make a better political director than his political director, and on and on).

Barack Obama whines about "talked about like a dog" (whatever that means) . His peevishness towards the press and the punditry has emerged as one of his least attractive qualities. He won't listen to criticism and does not want us to hear it.

He has counseled us to all but ignore Fox News and internet, has cast unjustified and blatantly false aspersions regarding foreign money and the Chamber of Commerce political ads that took him to task for his policies and performance, and called for less incendiary language in political discourse (this from the guy who can't take it but can sure dish it out -- as in "get in their face," "bring a gun to a knife fight," "fat cats," "sit in the back," "punish our enemies and reward our friends," --  that is some heated rhetoric for a Nobel Peace Prize winner).

The media spin job that Barack Obama is the second coming of Ronald Reagan, that Ron and Barack would be pals, that Barack Obama can hold a candle to Ronald Reagan, not only misses the mark but willfully ignores how unfairly and disgracefully the media treated Ronald Reagan when he was alive. To use him when he is dead compounds the insult.

Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker

American Thinker

The American Left’s Role in Leading Mid-East Regime Change

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

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

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

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

The Role of Unions in the Tunisian Revolution.
Last month, a riotous and deadly revolution began in the North African nation of Tunisia, which led to the ouster of long-time ruler President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. According to a Huffington Post report:
After 23 years of iron-fisted rule, the president of Tunisia was driven from power Friday by violent protests over soaring unemployment and corruption. Virtually unprecedented in modern Arab history, the populist uprising sent an ominous message to authoritarian governments that dominate the region.
U.S. President Barack Obama said he applauded the courage and dignity of protesting Tunisians, and urged all parties to keep calm and avoid violence.
Although there have been numerous articles regarding the role of unions in the Tunisian “revolution,” perhaps none have been so clear as this one in the Huffington Post:
Though the movement appears to be a mix of grassroots spontaneity and targeted direct actions, it has achieved political valence through the savvy of organized labor activists. In the days leading up to the uprising, unions were feeding the foment of the demonstrators by calling strikes nationwide, including an 8,000 strong lawyer strike that paralyzed the courts.
As Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst commented:
Unlike the short-lived uprising in neighbouring Algeria or recent socio-economic protests in other Arab countries, the popular Tunisian uprising was immediately supported by all the opposition groups, from the Islamists to the Communists, as well as by the labour unions, which helped it spread to all major parts of the country, including the influential north.
While the General Tunisian Workers’ Union (UGTT) was initially involved in helping to set up a transitional government, its leadership has since pulled out due to a popular uprising from the rank-and-file workers. Nevertheless, the AFL-CIO announced on its blog that:
The global union movement is reaffirming its strong support for the General Tunisian Workers’ Union (UGTT) and the Tunisian people in their courageous struggle for equality, social justice, political freedom and democracy.
In a statement, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which includes the AFL-CIO, said it welcomes the fall of the dictatorship in Tunisia and fully supports UGTT ’s call for an end to corruption and nepotism and a genuine transition toward a true democracy.
As the Tunisian fires still burned with political confusion and turmoil, almost spontaneously, an explosion of unrest has thrown Egypt into chaos as well.  However, as the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin notes, the two events cannot be viewed separately:
Stephen McInerney of the Project for Middle East Democracy says that the events in Tunisia are anything but unique to that country. To the contrary, the massive protests in Egypt were “inspired by and a direct result of” recent events in Tunisia. Despite Feltman’s dim view of the trans-national nature of democratic movements, McInerney says, “I was in Cairo the day Ben Ali stepped down. Immediately the conversation was, ‘How do we translate this to Egypt?’”
In fact, the mass political protests in Egypt would not, he says, have been possible and would not have been so successful if not for Tunisia. A mass movement, run almost entirely by secular groups and directed solely at Egypt’s political system is “unprecedented,” he explains. The Muslim Brotherhood allowed its members to participate, but did not organize or populate the street demonstrations, he says. “Egyptians are watching very carefully what happens in Tunisia ” he reports. It sends a “powerful message” to Egyptians, Algerians and throughout the region that secular democracy can be theirs as well.
As the AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center, which works with other union around the globe, has been supporting Egyptian unions for quite some time, it is not surprising that it posted on its website support for the Egyptian protests as well: The Center for Trade Union and Workers’ Services has issued a statement supporting the popular uprising in Egypt and calling on President Hosni Mubarak to respond to the people’s demands.

Is the State Department & New Media Companies Driving a Coup in the Middle East?
On Friday, the Egyptian government shut down access to the internet in an effort to keep protesters from communicating virally. This drew a sharp rebuke from the Obama Administration, including from President Obama himself:
President Obama called on Egypt to bring back the Internet and access to social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter that have been suspended this week by the government there.
“The people of Egypt have rights that are universal,” Obama said. “That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech and the ability to determine their own destiny. These are human rights and the United States will stand up for them everywhere.
“I also call upon the Egyptian government to reverse the actions that they’ve taken to interfere with access to the Internet, with cellphone service and to social networks that do so much to connect people in the 21st century.”
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs also wrote on Twitter, from his @PressSec account, on Friday “Very concerned about violence in Egypt — government must respect the rights of the Egyptian people & turn on social networking and internet.”
For an administration that seems to be trying to walk a fine line between supporting an ally and “respecting the rights of the Egyptian people,” a call to turn the internet back on seemed rather odd. However, it’s really not when the pieces of the puzzle are put into place.

One of the Wikileaks linked in the Telegraph article makes mention of this interesting passage:
On December 23, April 6 activist xxxxxxxxxxxx expressed satisfaction with his participation in the December 3-5 \”Alliance of Youth Movements Summit,\” and with his subsequent meetings with USG officials, on Capitol Hill, and with think tanks. He described how State Security (SSIS) detained him at the Cairo airport upon his return and confiscated his notes for his summit presentation calling for democratic change in Egypt, and his schedule for his Congressional meetings. xxxxxxxxxxxx contended that the GOE will never undertake significant reform, and therefore, Egyptians need to replace the current regime with a parliamentary democracy. He alleged that several opposition parties and movements have accepted an unwritten plan for democratic transition by 2011…
The Alliance of Youth Movements Summit referenced in the Wikileak was a summit held on December 3-5, 2008 and took place at the Columbia Law School in New York one month after Barack Obama was elected President.

According to the Summit’s press release:
From December 3 to 5, leaders of pioneering youth movements will launch a global network that seeks to empower young people to mobilize against violence and oppression. Brought together by Howcast, Facebook, Google, YouTube, MTV, the U.S. Department of State, Columbia Law School and Access 360 Media, leaders of the organizations will travel to New York City with the mission of crafting a field manual on how to effect social change using online tools.
Among the panelists that spoke at the 2008 summit were Sam Graham-Felson, Director of Blogging and Blog Outreach for 2008 Obama Campaign, Scott Goodstein, External Online Director for Obama for America, Joe Rospars, New Media Director Barack Obama 2008 Presidential Campaign, as well as Jared Cohen, Policy Planning Staff, Office of the Secretary of State (now with Google).

Since 2008, the Alliance For Youth Movements appears to have shortened its name to, although its facebook page still uses both and stating:
AYM identifies, connects, and supports youth activists from around the world who use technology to organize for social change. is non-profit 501(c)(3) organization comprised of individuals from technology companies, media, the NGO community and digital activists from around the world. We provide a global network that aims to support and sustain campaigns for nonviolent social change that harness 21st century tools to safeguard human rights, promote good governance and foster civic engagement.
On it’s homepage and blog, this weekend, it has a post entitled 5 THINGS YOU CAN DO TO SUPPORT EGYPTIANS FROM ANYWHERE
It’s the weekend! And a possible revolution steams forward in Egypt. The stakes are incredibly high - a point underlined by the news that activists targeted for their involvement in the failed 2009 uprising in Iran were hung yesterday - so it makes sense that international onlookers are looking for any way that they might be able to help. Here are some ways to get involved if you’re not in Egypt but want to do something.
Note that a lot of these are for the more technically inclined. If that’s not you, one thing you can do is spread these tips who may be.
In other words, is a 21st Century private and public-sector partnership for regime change. This is an organization that has the biggest internet players, as well as the U.S. State Department involved and is openly working to support uprisings.

According to’s website, its list of private and public sponsors include Google, YouTube, Facebook, MTV, CBS News, MSNBC, as well as the Columbia Law School and the U.S. State Department.

As Jeffrey Carr notes on a Forbes post:
A powerful engine of change is rolling through Tunisia and Egypt, overthrowing the old ways of governing as well as those who govern. However, to call these history-making movements “Twitter revolutions” or anything similar does a huge disservice to the people involved.
Twitter, Facebook, and various instant messaging platforms (SMS, Skype, Google Chat, etc.) act as force-multipliers for revolutionary movements because they enable the entire world to bear witness and express support for the revolutionaries’ courageous acts.
Given the State Department’s involvement with a group committed to using the internet for “social change,” which calls into question both the President’s as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s call to restore the internet, it appears the world may be witnessing the first internet-led attempts at “regime change,” orchestrated by President Obama and his allies on the Left.

Photo credit: Freestylee
[Emphasis added throughout.]
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776


Sunday, January 30, 2011

7 reasons America needs Sarah Palin in 2012

January 29, 2011
By Michael Bresciani

 At the writing of this piece Sarah Palin has not yet announced to the nation that she is going to run for President in the 2012 election. When or if she does, her name will not be alone on the republican ticket, in fact a lot of names will be on the ticket, some very worthy names.

The names of Mike Huckabee, Michelle Bachman may very likely be on the top of the bill and others will be in the offing if their supporters have anything to say about it. Names like Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Haley Barbour, Newt Gingrich, Mitch Daniels, John Thune and Rick Santorum will round out the larger list.

On a personal level my first choice for a presidential candidate in 2012 would be Michelle Bachman. I must admit my bias for her is based on her strong moral stand and her willingness to be vociferous in quoting verses of the scripture. In my book, she is the perfect candidate, a veritable female Lincoln and if Palin does not run she will be my first choice; but for those who are afraid of the encroachment of religion or Biblical tenants' into politics this may become a negative factor.

Mitt Romney would be good for the nation because of his business acumen and may be able to get a grip on the nations economic condition better than most. The latest controversy about the porn in the Marriot Hotel chain is not likely to go away soon and the Dem's are not going to let that little gem lose its luster any time in the near future. He carries a great deal of political baggage into his bid for various reasons. Those reasons would keep whole blocks of voters away from pulling the lever in his favor.

Romney's involvement in getting same sex marriages OK'd in Massachusetts, flip flops on abortion and the fact that he is a Mormon will all work hard against him. Main stream Evangelicals' and Pentecostals and a good number of Catholics are not likely to cast their vote for a Mormon.

Marco Rubio who has hesitated to allow the Tea Party to include him in their caucus, even though they were instrumental in getting him elected has declared that he will not run in 2012. That doesn't count for much in politics because he may be pressed hard by insiders who like his stand and the infusion of new blood he obviously represents for the GOP. He is a powerful man but is nevertheless only one of the new kids on the block.

Chris Christie represents a powerful possibility for the GOP in 2012 because he holds the conservative line almost to the letter. Having found little to put down Christie with, the left has put forth the notion that his being a bit overweight would put voters on the fence. But with millions of Americans battling with their own weight problems wouldn't that be a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Are Americans that shallow, sorry to say that between the antics of American Idol and the pervasive Hollywood mentality that prevails in today's youth the answer is probably, yes!

To be fair and to keep this article from breaking out into an anthology I will have to leave the list of other very worthy hopefuls and possibilities to other pundits, analysts and political campaign strategists.

As an afterthought it must never be forgotten that, unbeknownst to the political class is the often overlooked but supremely important fact, that there exists a gargantuan gap between political science and political savvy among the American people.

To keep what should be only a footnote from becoming a full treatise on the subject I will defer to some common sense, which even a politician might understand.

To start with consider just why, and more importantly what the Obama re-election campaign is going to use the projected one billion dollars of campaign cash for in 2012. Make no mistake, the money will not be used to educate the public in honest practical politics and what is best for the country. If that were true Obama's chances for re-election would be zero.

Most of the money will be used to intrude into the daily lives of Americans who are far too busy and distracted to know too much about politics, much less understand the complexities, the history and the tenants of political science. The intrusions will be public addresses, advertisements, anecdotal stories and clips of how great the President has been doing mixed with promises of more to come. Like the infomercials of late night TV, only the positive anecdotal stories are allowed. Nothing negative including the results of studies, polls or testimonies from those who hate the product will be allowed. Facts will be stretched, denied and abused on a daily basis.

I am not saying Americans are stupid but they are completely distracted by making a living, raising families, entertainment, sports attractions and personal pursuits of pleasure, to be on top of the complexities of partisan politics. The 2012 campaigns will be like one big ad campaign for about 18 months.

Those who follow politics daily or at least regularly are like the handful of handicappers who are always found at a horse race. The rank and file American is like the rest of the crowd just guessing on the best horse while they're having a grand old time at the fairgrounds.

The handicappers have a much better chance of picking the right horse but the entire crowd has to live with the final result of the race. The only reason the larger crowd might call to disqualify a horse is if they had been cheated or there was some hanky-panky in the race. Unknown to the rank and file in the 2012 race is; just how much is at stake. In fact; choose the wrong horse in this race, and it may be the last race anyone ever attends and could result in closing down of the racetrack for good.

But those with political savvy know that if the ads are unique, colorful, glowing and obnoxiously repetitive that some of the fluff will get through and take root. Noble deeds and good intentions will be offered as the alternative to the splashy ads but they take time to ingest, digest, assimilate and only those who are accustomed to taking the time to discern the difference will see the difference.

With this in mind we can start a general perusal of why Sarah Palin is the best possible candidate to become President of these United States in 2012.

1. The simplest howbeit most important reason Sarah Palin is the best choice for President in 2012 is because she is not Barack Obama.

2. The second reason is because she has the most exposure of all the candidates. While Obama may attempt to raise a billion bucks for his campaign treasury Sarah has been climbing into the view and the hearts of millions of Americans though her work with the Tea Party, the mid-terms and her TV series on Alaska not to mention her two books, both well received throughout the nation. She would be the most well known candidate of all, right out of the gate.

3. Although it could easily be misconstrued on the most fundamental level Sarah will make a good candidate on her appearance. She is a lovely person that for many typifies the classic beauty of the American Woman. In a world where appearance counts for much she has it all. She is beautiful, well poised and dignified at all times. She would be a credit to the nation in the company of other world leaders and would certainly be respected for her manner, graceful charm and personality.

4. Sarah has faith in God. It would make some people more comfortable if this fact appeared at the end of the list or as an appendage to this piece but we must never forget that Christians still make up a majority of people here in the U.S. The apostasy and the creeping liberal influences of the day notwithstanding, two out of three people say they have faith in God and his Son Jesus Christ.

Anyone can make such a claim and it is only when compared to other nations that we can see that the most Christians do reside in America and it is singularly the only successful nation on earth that was founded on the principles of the Bible and the Christian faith. She is unashamed to speak of her faith but that is not enough. She is also ready to apply the principles of that faith and foster the morality it creates for her into her decision making.

Such an approach has existed and flourished in this land for over two centuries and there is little reason to think it will fail now. She is not likely to be found quoting Bible verses everyday in her public life but to silence the complainers and please the true believers we only need to see her live out what she believes not play the role of the preacher.

5. Sarah Palin is well endowed with what we know as character and integrity. It is that stuff that Americans used to be satisfied with in our leaders even if they weren't the sharpest tool in the shed. The most beloved President in our history, Abraham Lincoln had almost no education at all but no one has yet come near to the amazing Presidency, life and legacy he left to posterity. We have heard the pompous declare that Sarah may not be intelligent enough to hold up the Presidency to a high standard. The best answer to that is Barack Obama. Here we have a superbly educated man that has led the nation to the brink of bankruptcy, the highest jobless rate and earned the title of being the head of the most corrupt administration in U.S. History. So much for intelligence!

Anyone with a nickels worth of intelligence knows that our Presidents don't run the office alone. The cabinet and staff are a major part of any single President's success. Palin can be trusted to surround herself with the very best and that is the best we can hope for. In case you're one of the few who have not read Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People," let me reiterate one of the most important examples in that great book.

When Henry Ford, the founder of the Ford Motor Company was dragged before the courts to relieve him of his position as CEO over one of the nation's biggest corporations it was his lack of education or intelligence that was the primary charge leveled against him. When Ford was asked dozens of questions in common math problems, science, history and literature he could answer almost none of them. Then he asked the question to the court of why he should have to know those things when he had a desk full of buttons that could summon experts in every field; the case was instantly thrown out of court.

I along with millions of American would be willing to bet our last dollar that Sarah Palin will be surrounded with the cream of the crop, the best of the best and when she needs to grasp a situation, will be advised by the tops in any field of polity and policy; that's intelligence.

6. Sarah's background and upbringing in one of the most rugged states in the country along with her desire to make America less dependent on foreign oil will no doubt serve to guide her decisions around the environmental lobbyists, excessive EPA regulations and do what is right for the nation. The average American is left scratching their heads when it comes to Obama's energy policies. How can a nation that is sitting on vast reserves of natural resources look to the ever tumultuous Arab nations to supply their needs. Should a Muslim succeed to the Presidency of the EU (predicted by some) with one simple executive order that leader could plunge the American system of transportation and industry into disarray and bring it to a screeching halt.

7. The seventh reason I believe Sarah would be the best choice in 2012 is because she is affording America a real chance to make history. She would become our first female President. Obama made history as our first black President; unfortunately he is not a homeboy. He is not one of our very own up thru the ghetto or emerging from the civil rights movement kind of African American.

In fact a large contingent of Americans are still not satisfied that he was even born in America. He is still running on a lot of pop culture energy with the young and the clueless who don't care much about roots and history but that's not where Middle America comes from and this election will be a call to such people. If the call they answered in the mid-term elections is any indicator; Sarah has come to a very propitious moment in time to seize the day.

She has been a wonderful mother, a good Governor and a great rallying force in America since she was cast on the scene by John McCain in the 2008 race. She can be the very best choice in 2012 for all of the above reasons and a long list of others too numerous to cover in one article.

In summary I would be remiss if I did not add that no President of these United States can make up for the decisions of its people if they have decided to plunge into immorality and Godlessness. President Johnson often began his addresses with the phrase "it is with a sad heart." I must borrow his phraseology in saying that "It is with a sad heart I must declare that Americans have taken a deep slide into immorality."

The deaths of 53 million unborn innocents have cried from the grave. The attacks on marriage between one man and one woman, the drive toward licentiousness in Hollywood and media and the disturbing lack of truth and integrity found in modern academia, politics and the everyday lives of many Americans have all testified against us.

It is also a very sad thing to say that scripture promises that when a nation slips into such a state that God not only allows, but even engineers the rise of immoral, unscrupulous and wicked leaders. It is a sort of; you get what you asked for kind of response and is always a signal that a nation is in a serious fall.

If, however, a people see the path they are on is wrong and do everything they can to make corrections the difference can be amazing and God will help with leaders who can restore and lead by example and with God given wisdom. God can and does restore whole nations: why not us?

God will give us what we ask for by our very behavior; to wit:

"This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." (Daniel 4: 17)

© Michael Bresciani

Renew America

The EPA's Mess with Texas

January 30, 2011
By Ben Voth

As part of Obama's new political initiative to bypass a Congress that rejected his leadership in 2009 and 2010, he has announced executive orders to allow the federal government to restrict economic activity to fit legislative goals he apparently no longer believes he can win in political debate.  One of the most important new targets in this new post-congressional agenda is Texas.  The EPA is messing with Texas in ways that threaten to disrupt the biggest jobs-producer in the United States.

The EPA is moving to restrict Texas' ability to continue as the largest production base for natural gas in the nation.  As the largest consumer and producer of natural gas, Texas provides an important alternative in energy production to the conventional fossil fuels of coal and oil.  Those fuels have fallen into dire regulatory restrictions that Vice President Biden suggested should eventually lead to the end of coal production in the United States.  Natural gas has emerged as an important transitional fuel to the green economy.  Despite this, the Obama administration is moving to limit this component of Texas' economic boom. 

A secret weapon in the battle over Texas is EPA regulator Dr. Al Armendariz.  Armendariz was tapped by the Obama administration to limit natural gas production in Texas.  In his seminal article on natural gas production from the Barnett shale in North Texas, Armendariz argues that gas production contributes more to global warming than automotive traffic in Dallas:

For comparison, 2009 emission inventories recently used by state and federal regulators estimated smog- forming emissions from all airports in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area to be 16 tpd. In addition, these same inventories had emission estimates for on-road motor vehicles (cars, trucks, etc.) in the 9- county Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area of 273 tpd. The portion of on-road motor vehicle emissions from the 5-counties in the D-FW metropolitan area with significant oil and gas production was 121 tpd, indicating that the oil and gas sector likely has greater emissions than motor vehicles in these counties.

The research relies on "personal conversations" Armendariz had with natural gas-producers in the Dallas area.  This is not generally an acceptable standard for research, but it is laying the foundation for intensely regulating the last major fossil fuel that Texas and the United States can turn to in the 21st century.  The promotion of the activist/expert to the EPA bodes ill for energy use in the United States.  The EPA plans to designate Dallas air as "serious" with regard to ozone pollution based on 1997 standards.  Though Dallas has economically boomed and had a population increase of more than 25% since 1997, the city has reduced ozone levels from 102 parts per billion to 86 parts per billion.  This impressive feat draws no acceptance from the EPA, and the 2 ppb will be enough to designate Dallas as having some of the dirtiest air in the nation.  Dallas air is getting cleaner and will likely soon meet the 1997 standard despite rapid economic growth, but the EPA is eager to dim the star of Lone Star success.

The broader war on CO2 is also important.  The potential ramifications for natural gas-producers are huge since CO2 regulation is authorized by a 2007 Supreme Court decision that allows the EPA to regulate such emissions.  The messing with Texas is compounded by ideological documentaries such as Gasland which try to deceive the public into believing that natural gas extraction contaminates water supplies.  Though gas is extracted nearly a mile below the water supply, ideologues show homeowners dependent on well water setting fire to their water taps from gases presumably introduced by gas drilling.  Though the causation is purely speculative and can definitely happen without the presence of gas drilling, the scare tactics are having the same effect they had on nuclear power with "China Syndrome" and an array of fear-mongering tactics designed to destroy practical access to energy sources inside the United States.

The consequence of this long-running fear-mongering over domestic energy is that the United States pays billions of dollars to dangerous governments around the world to extract the same energy without meaningful regulation.  This means that the world is more polluted than it would be from American sources and that Americans fund jobs elsewhere, drive up oil prices, fund an array of overseas activity -- including terrorism.  The specific effort to mess with Texas energy production reduces one of our nation's most productive internal economies.  Americans are flocking to the state, as shown by the 2010 census, and departing from states holding the EPA's view of greenhouse gases. 

We would do well to expand the impact statement approach to environmental policies like this one.  What will be the global impact of reducing Texas' ability to produce energy?  Why is allowing a nation such as Mexico unbridled access to Gulf drilling or other forms of fossil fuel extraction superior to Texas' approach?  If the EPA knows that energy consumption is not going to be reduced by regulation, do they bear a burden in increasing global pollution through the executive orders signed by the president?  These are all more than fair questions going forward.