Dictators and (Obama's) Double Standards

Dictators and (Obama's) Double Standards

When it came to the rigged election in Iran, Barack Obama played it cool in his public statements, earning the tacit approval of the Times. But when the Honduran military toppled that country's corrupt president, the Times embraced Obama for speaking out against the "coup" -- the same kind of internal "meddling" he refused to do for the people of Iran.

When it came to the rigged election in Iran, Barack Obama played it cool in his public statements, exercising realpolitik even as the regime cracked down on protestors, an attitude that won the approval of Henry Kissinger and earned the tacit approval of the Times, which downplayed the president's hesitation in embracing the pro-democracy protests.

But when the Honduran military toppled that country's corrupt president in an action supported by the country's congress and highest court, the Times embraced Obama for speaking out strongly against the "coup" -- in other words, for doing the same kind of internal "meddling" he refused to do for the people of Iran. Two front-page news stories failed to address Obama's apparent double standard.

Leftist Honduran President and Hugo Chavez ally Manuel Zelaya was forced out of the country in his pajamas by the army on Sunday in response to his extra-legal efforts to lift presidential term limits. The Honduran Supreme Court and Congress declared his actions unconstitutional. When the army refused to organize the vote, Zelaya fired the commander of the armed forces, Gen. Romeo Vasquez. (The Supreme Court reinstated him.)

Tuesday's front-page story by Helene Cooper and Marc Lacey, "In Honduras Coup, Ghosts of Past U.S. Policies," gave no hint of a contradiction between Obama strongly supporting a power-abusing left-wing president in Honduras, yet barely emitting a word of criticism for days against the Iranian regime, which rigged an election and then issued a violent and deadly crackdown on protestors.

In fact, the only comparison the Times made was one that redounded in Obama's favor. Times reporters preferred Obama's strong position against the "coup" in Honduras versus former president George W. Bush's tacit endorsement of an abortive coup against Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez:

President Obama on Monday strongly condemned the ouster of Honduras’s president as an illegal coup that set a “terrible precedent” for the region, as the country’s new government defied international calls to return the toppled president to power and clashed with thousands of protesters.

“We do not want to go back to a dark past,” Mr. Obama said, in which military coups override elections. “We always want to stand with democracy,” he added.

Except in Iran?

The crisis in Honduras, where members of the country’s military abruptly awakened President Manuel Zelaya on Sunday and forced him out of the country in his bedclothes, is pitting Mr. Obama against the ghosts of past American foreign policy in Latin America.

The United States has a history of backing rival political factions and instigating coups in the region, and administration officials have found themselves on the defensive in recent days, dismissing repeated allegations by President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela that the C.I.A. may have had a hand in the president’s removal.

Obama administration officials said that they were surprised by the coup on Sunday. But they also said that they had been working for several weeks to try to head off a political crisis in Honduras as the confrontation between Mr. Zelaya and the military over his efforts to lift presidential term limits escalated.

The United States has long had strong ties to the Honduras military and helps train Honduran military forces. Those close ties have put the Obama administration in a difficult position, opening it up to accusations that it may have turned a blind eye to the pending coup. Administration officials strongly deny the charges, and Mr. Obama’s quick response to the Honduran president’s removal has differed sharply from the actions of the Bush administration, which in 2002 offered a rapid, tacit endorsement of a short-lived coup against Mr. Chávez.

It took Cooper 17 paragraphs for Cooper and Lacey to explain the army's rationale, which was also the rationale of the Honduran congress and the Supreme Court, both also allied against Zelaya (though the Times only mentioned the Supreme Court once and the congress not at all).

In the face of criticism from across the hemisphere, the new government hunkered down in Mr. Zelaya’s old office, ringed by soldiers and defending its actions as a bid to save the country’s democracy, not undermine it.

Roberto Micheletti, the veteran congressional leader who was sworn in by his fellow lawmakers on Sunday to replace Mr. Zelaya, seemed to plead with the world to understand that Mr. Zelaya’s arrest by the army had been under an official arrest warrant based on his flouting of the Constitution.

In Monday's initial off-lead story the day after the coup, Elisabeth Malkin gave President Obama credit for speaking out:

President Obama said he was deeply concerned and in a statement called on Honduran officials “to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic charter.

“Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference,” he said. His quick condemnation offered a sharp contrast with the actions of the Bush administration, which in 2002 offered a rapid, tacit endorsement of a short-lived coup against Mr. Chávez.

For some less sympathetic background on Zelaya, one had to read Francisco Toro in the liberal New Republic magazine:

Sunday's coup in Honduras has been portrayed as a throwback to the bad old days when Latin American armies got drafted in as the ultimate umpires of political conflict. But in arresting president Manuel Zelaya in his pajamas and putting him on the first plane out of the country, Honduras's generals were acting out of fear of a genuine and growing threat to Latin Democracy: the looming prospect of unchecked, hyper-empowered executive power held for life by a single, charismatic individual.

Seen in context, Sunday's military powerplay was different in important ways from the traditional Latin American putsch. The generals move came at the unanimous--yes unanimous--behest of a congress outraged by Zelaya's not-particularly-subtle attempts to extend his hold on power indefinitely. It followed a series of clearly unconstitutional moves on Zelaya's part, including his attempt to unilaterally remove the chief of the army, which, according to Honduras's Constitution, can only be done by a congressional super-majority.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air cleanly delineated the Obama double standard, even if the Times couldn't.

Why did Obama decide to intervene on behalf of a “president” obviously abusing his power and to prevent the military from removing him once he started acting like a dictator? He didn’t put nearly that much effort into assisting Iranians who have gone into the streets and died to protest the mullahcracy that oppresses them.

Glater Still Cheerleading for Liberal Student Loan Programs

Glater Still Cheerleading for Liberal Student Loan Programs

Reporter Jonathan Glater issues a virtual press release in favor of a liberalized (in both senses) student loan repayment program praised by Naderites.


Reporter Jonathan Glater continued to cheerlead for student loans in a story in Tuesday's A-section, "College Loan Payments Will Be Linked to Income." Glater laid out the Obama administration's liberal (in both senses) lending plan for student loans as if he was the one issuing the press release, and left off any signs of dissent from the idea of lending out tax money at sub-market rates:

For the first time in years, there is good news for college students who borrow to pay for their education.

Starting Wednesday, the federal Education Department will begin offering a repayment plan that lets graduates reduce their loan payments, based on their income.



Glater only talked to supporters of the liberalized repayment plan: Unlabeled liberal Congressman George Miller of California and U.S. Pirg, an unidentified Ralph Nader-affiliated left-wing interest group, which Glater identified only as a "consumer advocacy group"):

“These benefits are guaranteed, no matter what happens in our economy, and are kicking in at exactly the right time for millions of Americans,” said Representative George Miller, Democrat of California and chairman of the House education committee.

....

The extended payment program, called “income-based repayment,” limits what borrowers have to pay to 15 percent of the difference between their gross income and 150 percent of federal poverty guidelines. After borrowers make payments on loans for 25 years, the balance is forgiven. (The Education Department already offered an “income-contingent” repayment plan, which was similar, but less generous.)

“These programs are such an enormous victory,” said Christine Lindstrom, director of the higher-education access program at U.S. PIRG, the consumer advocacy group.

Last month Glater was part of the four-person team who wrote a front-page Business section story on a federal school loan forgiveness program that read a whole lot like a populist-liberal opinion piece, with leading lines like:


But if education is a fundamental right, then it's hard to argue against public policies that try to make sure there are enough teachers to provide that education.

CNSNews.com - ‘Not Bad for Six Months,’ Obama Says of His Presidency

CNSNews.com - ‘Not Bad for Six Months,’ Obama Says of His Presidency

A quick review...

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as “proof” of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of tho usands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.


Washington (AP) - President Barack Obama is vowing to sign climate change legislation and overhauls in health care and financial regulations this year and is dismissing his critics as naysayers.


Obama warned more than 400 of the Democratic Party's top fundraisers Monday evening that winning policy fights will become more difficult.

Obama ran through a list of successful administration initiatives, including a $787 billion economic stimulus, a budget resolution, a fair-pay bill and a reversal on a ban on federal funding of stem cell research.

The president told the group, in his words, "It's not bad for six months."

The event was billed as a thank you from Obama and the Democratic National Committee to members of his presidential campaign's national finance committee and the DNC's National Advisory Board.

CNSNews.com - EPA Did Not Release Internal Report That Dissented from Conclusion That Carbon Emissions Cause Global Warming

CNSNews.com - EPA Did Not Release Internal Report That Dissented from Conclusion That Carbon Emissions Cause Global Warming

(CNSNews.com) - The EPA did not publicly release a March report that raised questions about the validity of the agency's conclusions that carbon emissions are a cause of global warming and a danger to human health--primary assumptions behind the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House on Friday.



Critics--including eight congressmen--say the document was suppressed in spite of an Obama administration pledge to bring greater transparency to government.

The report was an evaluation of the EPA’s current Technical Support Document (TSD), analyzing the endangerment of human health caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite the unpublished report's argument that the TSD was not conclusive in its findings, the EPA told the White House that carbon emissions did indeed endanger the health and welfare of Americans.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute obtained and released a draft of the dissenting document last week, along with internal correspondence CEI says proves the report “was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the Administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.”

The authors of the report, which was conducted by the National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), a branch of the EPA, said: “We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming.”

“EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups,” the report said, “without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation.”

According to the document, these were some of the factual concerns the EPA had not addressed in the TSD:

--The TSD glosses over long-term cyclical variations in ocean temperature, similar to El Nino, which “are by far the best single explanation for global temperature fluctuations,” says the report.

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation are such variations, and occur in roughly 60-year cycles, as opposed to the 3-5 year El Nino cycle. Their role is “not really explained in the draft TSD,” the report says. “(A)t the very least, there needs to be an explanation as to why (EPA) believes that these evident cycles do not exist or why they are much more unimportant than we believe them to be.”

--The TSD neglects to explore the “strong association between solar sunspots/irradiance and global temperature fluctuations.” It dismissed solar variations based on data obtained by a U.N. climate panel, but the veracity of that data has since been called into question. New research “suggests that solar variability could account for up to 68 percent of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures.”

-- The TSD’s assumption that greenhouse gases have triggered global warming is hard to verify, because “changes in (greenhouse gas) concentrations appear to have so little effect that it is difficult to find any effect in the satellite temperature record, which started in 1978.”

--Global temperatures have declined for 11 straight years, and at the same time, “atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to increase and CO2 emissions have accelerated.” The TSD does not reconcile these findings.

--The TSD finds that there is endangerment to Americans’ health and welfare due to greenhouse gas emissions, but the dissenting report says there is an “obvious logical problem posed by steadily increasing U.S. health and welfare measures.”

The report calls for a thorough internal review of the science used in the EPA’s guidance on global warming: “We believe that this review should start immediately and be a continuing effort as long as there is a serious possibility that EPA may be called upon to implement regulations designed to reduce global warming.”

The document, however, was never released by the EPA and the House of Representatives voted last Friday to approve the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would curb greenhouse gas emissions if enacted.

The dissenting report's primary author, Alan Carlin, a career professional at NCEE, was told by the center’s director, Al McGartlin, not to share his findings.

In an e-mail dated March 12, McGartlin purportedly told Carlin, “please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of NCEE on (greenhouse gas) endangerment.”

More pointedly, McGartlin said on March 17, “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round.”

“The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment,” the director continued, “and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

Carlin told CNSNews.com that the way his analysis was treated was not business as usual for the EPA.

“Normally, before a decision of this magnitude is made, there’s a careful review of the science inside the EPA,” he said. “I’m not sure that was done in this case.”

Carlin said it was his view that the House’s rushed vote on the cap-and-trade bill was done “without key information.”

He pointed to the report, where he wrote: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030) there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

Eight House Republicans held a press conference about the dissenting document last Thursday, the day before the cap-and-trade bill passed the House. Led by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the Republicans highlighted the Obama administration’s “promise of openness and transparency and full disclosure and a new change in government.”

Barton suggested that the EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and the White House did not want to entertain findings that contradicted their carbon-curbing agenda.

“(EPA) Administrator Jackson and the Obama administration evidently were not interested (in) professional warnings that the agency was making a costly mistake (on carbon endangerment),” Barton said.

“By all indications to date, the administration had reached a politically viable judgment on endangerment,” Barton continued, “and preferred to suppress dissent from within the ranks of its professional staff rather than take the time to consider (their) views.”

In a memorandum dated March 9, the same month Carlin’s report was completed, the White House told the heads of all executive departments and agencies: “The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions.”

Similarly, in an April 27 speech at the National Academy of Sciences, Obama pledged to make scientific research transparent.

“Under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over,” he said. “Our progress as a nation--and our values as a nation--is rooted in free and open inquiry.

To undermine scientific integrity,” Obama added, “is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life.”

The EPA Spokesperson Adora Andy responded to CNSNews.com in an e-mailed statement.

“Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false,” Andy wrote. “This administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making.”

Andy added that Carlin’s viewpoint has not been suppressed.

“(H)is manager has allowed his general view on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar.”

CNSNews.com - Democrats and Media Inflate 46 Million Uninsured (Including Foreigners) to 'Almost 50 Million'

CNSNews.com - Democrats and Media Inflate 46 Million Uninsured (Including Foreigners) to 'Almost 50 Million'
(CNSNews.com) – Democrats in Congress and media reports have been claiming that "almost" 50 million Americans lack health insurance. But the latest figures from the U.S. Census Bureau say there are in fact 45.65 million uninsured people in this country and that 9.7 million of those are not U.S. citizens.

Thus, the number of Americans who for one reason or another lack health insurance, is actually 35.9 million--or "almost" 36 million--not the "almost" 50 million being repeatedly cited.



According to “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States,” a Census Bureau report published in August 2008, there were 45.65 million people in the United States who did not have health insurance in 2007, the latest year for which figures are available--and 9.7 million of those uninsured persons were not U.S. citizens.

The report on health insurance coverage also says that both the percentage and number of people without health insurance decreased in 2007. The percentage without health insurance was 15.3 percent in 2007, down from 15.8 percent in 2006, and the number of uninsured was 45.65 million, down from 46.99 million.

It also showed that the number of people with health insurance increased to 253.4 million in 2007 (up from 249.8 million in 2006). The number of people covered by private health insurance (202.0 million) in 2007 was not statistically different from 2006, while the number of people covered by government health insurance increased to 83.0 million, up from 80.3 million in 2006.

A search of the Nexis news database shows that both elected officials who support the national health-care plan now under consideration in Congress and members of the news media have inflated the number of uninsured Americans by rounding it up to "almost 50 million," "roughly 50 million" and similar constructions.

On June 21, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) cited the “50 million” number when George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” asked him about Sen. Edward Kennedy’s (D-Mass.) plan, which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would only cover one-third, or 16 million, uninsured people and cost at least $1 trillion.

“Well, George, we’re not done with this at all,” Dodd said. “If this were easy, it would have been done decades ago. Sixty years, the efforts have been made to have a national health care program in this country.”

“There’s almost 50 million uninsured,” Dodd said. “And those who are insured, paying prices they can’t afford, and going to escalate every day.”



On the same day, David Gregory, hosting NBC’s “Meet the Press,” interviewed former Sens. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and Sam Nunn (R-Ga.) about the Kennedy plan.

Said Gregory: “Okay, but then the sticker shock in Washington this week, when you got some of the price tag of at least a preliminary Senate plan. This is The Post Friday: ‘In a high-level meeting at the White House Thursday, the president conveyed his concern over early pronouncements by the Congressional Budget Office that a bill drafted by the Senate Health Committee would cost just--cover just 16 million additional people--we’ve got roughly 50 million uninsured--at a cost of $1 trillion.”

News reports also routinely use terms such as "nearly 50 million" and "roughly 50 million" to describe the 45.65 million uninsured (including foreign nationals) calculated by the Census Bureau.

On June 25, Associated Press ran a piece about Obama’s June 24 “town hall” meeting on health care broadcast by ABC from the White House.

“Obama also fielded a pointed personal question during the ABC News town hall at the White House on Wednesday,” the AP reported. “The prime-time program was the latest in a string of events designed to build public support for his plan to slow the rise in health care costs and expand coverage to the nearly 50 million uninsured.”

50 million is 9.6 percent more than the 45.65 million who are actually uninsured.

A June 25 report in the McClatchy Newspapers used the "roughly 50 million" figure.

“On Capitol Hill, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told the House Energy and Commerce Committee that revamping the health care system to contain costs and cover roughly 50 million uninsured Americans is our most important domestic priority,” McClatchy reported.

NBC "Meet the Press" anchor David Gregory

Other highlights of the 2007 U.S. Census Bureau report on health insurance include the following:

The percentage of people covered by private health insurance was 67.5 percent, down from 67.9 percent in 2006. The percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance decreased to 59.3 in 2007 from 59.7 percent in 2006. The number of people covered by employment-based health insurance, 177.4 million, was not statistically different from 2006.

The percentage of people covered by government health insurance programs increased to 27.8 percent in 2007, from 27.0 percent in 2006. The percentage and number of people covered by Medicaid increased, respectively, to 13.2 percent and 39.6 million in 2007, up from 12.9 percent and 38.3 million in 2006.

In 2007, the percentage and number of children under 18 years old without health insurance were 11.0 percent and 8.1 million, lower than they were in 200 -- 11.7 percent and 8.7 million. Although the uninsured rate for children in poverty decreased to 17.6 percent in 2007, from 19.3 percent in 2006, children in poverty were more likely to be uninsured than all children. (The number of uninsured children in poverty in 2007 was not statistically different from the number in 2006.)

The uninsured rate and number of uninsured for non-Hispanic Whites decreased in 2007 to 10.4 percent and 20.5 million (from 10.8 percent and 21.2 million in 2006). The uninsured rate for Blacks decreased to 19.5 percent in 2007 from 20.5 percent in 2006. The number of uninsured Blacks in 2007 was not statistically different from 2006, at 7.4 million.

The percentage and the number of uninsured Hispanics were 32.1 percent and 14.8 million in 2007, lower than 34.1 percent and 15.3 million in 2006.

The propensity to inflate the number of lacking health uninsurance has a long history.

On May 4, 1995. Sen. Kennedy said in a congressional hearing: “Between 1992 and 1993, one million more individuals, most of them children, lost their insurance coverage. … The total number of uninsured is now 41 million Americans. Current projections estimate that there will be 50 million uninsured by the year 2000.”

As of 2007, of course, and the Census Bureau's official tally of uninsured stood at 45.65.

YouTube - FOX Reports on Dems' National Energy Tax That Even "Green Groups" are Opposing

YouTube - FOX Reports on Dems' National Energy Tax That Even "Green Groups" are Opposing

Cap and Trade .. what is in it ...

Video 2:27

RED ALERT: The Total Takeover Of America Enters Its Final Phase « Pak Alert Press

RED ALERT: The Total Takeover Of America Enters Its Final Phase « Pak Alert Press

Full frontal assault on every aspect of freedom kicks into high gear as the elite twist the knife into the rotting carcass of the United States

The wholesale looting of America and the transfer of wealth and power over to a private banking elite who are setting up a world government, along with the complete obliteration of any remaining freedom to protest, resist, or even speak out against this agenda, is now entering its final phase as numerous different pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fall into place and portray a clear picture of tyranny.

We are about to sound the death knell for the United States if every one of the following attacks on our liberty, free speech, sovereignty, and right to not be ruled over by an unelected banking dictatorship is not fiercely opposed and crushed.

RED ALERT 1

The passage of the “Climate Bill” by the House and its likely approval by the Senate represents the entrée for the complete and total subjugation of any freedoms we had left and the beginning of nightmare regulation and suffocating control over every aspect of our personal lives by millions of green stasi tasked with enforcing impossible to attain goals of 80% carbon dioxide reduction – all based on the manufactured threat of global warming.

This bill will also sink the economy and create a new great depression, effectively obliterating America’s first world status. It represents a transfer of power and wealth from both the U.S. government and the American taxpayer over to the system of world government and global regulation now being erected by means of the climate change hoax.

This is far worse than just a “new tax” as Republicans are complaining – this is the total takeover of the American economy by private banking interests through the carbon trading system.

As we have attempted to warn, the major beneficiaries of the climate bill will be the elitists who own the carbon trading systems that will be used to handle the ‘cap and trade’ program, namely Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering.

We must rally now to lobby members of Congress who voted for the legislation and demand they change their vote before July 2nd. Failing that, we must demand that the Senate does not rubber stamp this nightmare legislation. Failing that, we must support and organize to craft more legislation based on the example of Arizona, who recently passed state Senate legislation refusing to comply with insane climate laws coming from the federal level.

RED ALERT 2

The seemingly endless economic “bailouts” represent the wholesale looting of the American taxpayer and the grand theft of trillions of dollars by private banking interests who refuse to even disclose where the money went.

Not satisfied with stealing tens of trillions, under the Obama administration’s new regulatory reform plan, the Federal Reserve is now trying to enrich itself with dictator powers that will give it complete control over the U.S. economy, handing them the authority to “regulate” and shut down any company whose activity it believes could threaten the economy and the markets.

We must rally now and lobby more members of Congress to support Ron Paul’s H.R. 1207 bill to audit the Federal Reserve and highlight the fact that Bernanke is spewing financial terrorism when he threatens an economic collapse should the Fed be opened up to scrutiny.

RED ALERT 3

Federal hate crimes legislation, which in reality would criminalize “thought crimes,” has cleared the House and now faces the Senate as S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act).

S.909 is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It allows the federal government to prosecute people involved in “hate speech” transmitted over television, radio, and the internet. The House version of the bill states:

“Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)”

In other words, if a talk show host engages in “hostile” speech against a person or persons of the above mentioned federally protected group that talk show host will face federal prosecution and the prospect of a two year prison term.

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would similarly criminalize free speech on the Internet if it can be deemed in any way to have been “harmful” to an individual. This represents the end of political blogging and free speech on the world wide web.

If both bills are not opposed and thrown out then the First Amendment will become nothing more than a relic of a bygone age.

RED ALERT 4

The Senate bill S.787, otherwise known as the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA), would replace language in the regulatory act currently using “navigable waters” with “waters of the United States.”

What this means is that “the government would essentially be able to regulate everything from standing water in floodplains to creeks that run behind business and residences,” according to an Environmental Leader report.

This represents a complete takeover of private land and waterways by the federal government, a total assault on private property rights and a complete federalization of America’s land and water.

“In a letter to Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer and ranking member James Inhofe, the American Farm Bureau Federation said that the proposed law would “extend to all water — anywhere from farm ponds, to storm water retention basins, to roadside ditches, to desert washes, to streets and gutters, even to a puddle of rainwater,” stated the letter. “For the first time in the 36-year history of the act, activities that have no impact on actual rivers and lakes would be subject to full federal regulation.”

If this bill becomes law, it will empower the federal government to seize private property on a whim, using similar powers that Communist China employed during Chairman Mao’s “great leap forward,” where landowners had their property violently confiscated and stolen by the government.

If this bill passes the Senate, private property rights in the United States are effectively null and void and the federal government would legally have the power to bulldoze families from their homes as routinely happens in Communist China.

RED ALERT 5

Amongst the myriad of assaults on the Second Amendment rights of American citizens undertaken by the Obama administration during the course of its first year in office, the one that stands out as the most alarming is the attempt to ban people who appear on the terrorist watch list from buying guns.

But isn’t stopping terrorists from buying guns surely a sensible measure to take? The problem is that the terrorist watch list, sometimes called the no fly list, is not a list of likely terrorists, it is a sprawling database of of innocent people that contains the names of over one million Americans. This is a rise of 32% since 2007 alone.

Members of Congress, nuns, war heroes, reverends, the former assistant attorney general, toddlers and children, the ACLU administrator, people with difficult names and all American names like Robert Johnson and Gary Smith, have become caught in the vast tentacle of this list, documents the ACLU.

Moreover, once a person is included on the terrorist watch list it is virtually impossible to get off it.

The terrorist watch list is an ever-expanding tool with which to deny Americans basic rights as well as to strip them completely of the Fourth Amendment.

Now it is being used to prevent law-abiding citizens from purchasing firearms. Legislation sponsored by the The Government Accountability Office seeks to “close the gap” and prevent victims of the terrorist watch list from being able to purchase firearms.

This represents a new end run around the Second Amendment and a concerted effort on behalf of the federal government to classify millions of innocent Americans as potential terrorists, thus stripping them of their Constitutional right to own firearms.

RED ALERT 6

Our right to protest against any of the egregious assaults on the Constitution that are listed above is itself being removed by new law enforcement and Pentagon training manuals and guidelines that define protesting as domestic terrorism.

Current Department of Defense anti-terrorism training course material states that the exercise of First Amendment rights in the U.S. constitutes terrorist activity.

Over the last few years we have documented countless examples of security assessment reports from the likes of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, as well as police training manuals, which state that anti-war protesters, gun owners, veterans, Ron Paul supporters and those who merely cite the Constitution should be equated with extremists and domestic terrorists.

The fact that the government is now treating people who merely criticize its conduct as domestic terrorists is the clearest signal possible that the United States has entered a period in history similar to Germany in the early 1930’s and that it can only be a matter of time before the right “emergency” provides the justification for dissidents to be targeted for round-ups and mass imprisonment.

No one can claim now that this is merely a paranoid delusion – the government itself is training its law enforcement and military arms that protesters and people who use their First Amendment rights are domestic terrorists. The last time this happened was under King George shortly before the American Revolution.

ONE MINUTE TO MIDNIGHT

If we don’t stand up in unison and exercise our right to protest and free speech now more than ever before, while pointing out that the real terrorists are those who would seek to destroy the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, then we may find ourselves doing our protesting behind the barbed wires and the concrete blocks of an internment camp.

The hour is late, the clock stands at one minute to midnight, and the federal government, through all the examples documented above, is on the verge of implementing nothing less than a total environmental, financial and societal dictatorship and killing what once was the United States of America.

Almost identical programs of total enslavement are also being pushed through in almost every other major western country at the same time.

If we don’t stop obsessing about the minutia of life and actually concentrate on the imminent destruction of the very principles of our livelihoods, the bedrock freedoms that allow us to operate in relative comfort on a daily basis and be reasonably secure in our own homes, being able to pay our bills, put food on the table, earn money, and air our grievances when government threatens to impinge on those basic freedoms, then there will be nothing left but a rotten hollow carcass and a memory of what America once strived to be – land of the free, home of the brave – not land of the thief, home of the slave.

Also See:

Obamageddon – 2012

The New World Order Wants the New World Order to Fail: Order Out of Attacking the New World Order

The American Empire Is Bankrupt

A Must Read: The Crash Of ‘09 – The Collapse Of ‘10

The world rejoices USrael’s end is imminent

A warning bell: California is going to default!

US Bases Around The World: How Long Can The Empire last?

A warning bell: California is going to default!

Paul Craig Roberts: Fear Rules

Video: US Policy Influenced By Zionist Media And Neocon Agenda

Video: Who Runs the US Media?

Is Obama campaign cash quashing eligibility suits?

Is Obama campaign cash quashing eligibility suits?

Who pays a million dollars to hide what they say is real, that can be produced with one letter?
Obama does.

President Obama may be using campaign funds to stomp out eligibility lawsuits brought by Americans, as his campaign has paid more than $1 million to his top lawyer since the election.

According to Federal Election Commission records, Obama For America paid $688,316.42 to international law firm Perkins Coie between January and March 2009.

The campaign also compensated Perkins Coie for legal services between Oct. 16, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2008 – to the tune of $378,375.52.

Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie – top lawyer for Obama, Obama's presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama's Organizing for America – is the same Washington, D.C., lawyer defending President Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.

As WND reported earlier, Bauer sent a letter to plaintiff Gregory Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, of Hollister v. Soetoro, threatening sanctions if he doesn't withdraw his appeal of the eligibility case that earlier was tossed by a district judge because the issue already had been "twittered."

Bauer's warning was dated April 3 and delivered via letter to the plaintiff's attorney, John D. Hemenway. It is not the first such warning issued. Lawyers trying to kill a similar California lawsuit filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes also said they would seek sanctions against the plaintiff's attorneys in that case unless they left the issue of the president's eligibility alone.

"For the reasons stated in Judge Robertson's ruling, the suit is frivolous and should not be pursued," Bauer's letter warned. "Should you decline to withdraw this frivolous appeal, please be informed that we intend to pursue sanctions, including costs, expenses and attorneys' fees, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and D.C. Circuit Rule 38."

Bauer also represented Obama and the DNC in Philip Berg's eligibility lawsuit and various other legal challenges. He and the White House have not responded to WND's request for comment.

Perkins Coie serves high-profile clients such as Microsoft, Amazon and Starbucks. In 2006, the firm also represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's alleged bodyguard and driver.

The FEC allows elected officials to use campaign funds to pay legal fees only if the action/investigations arise as a result of their tenure in office or campaigns, according to Politico.

The FEC report also reveals Obama For America has spent nearly $9.5 million in the first three months of this year – of which $6,365 in legal fees paid by Obama For America also went to Oldaker, Biden & Belair, a firm founded by Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden.

Investors.com - The Jihad Cash Spigot

Investors.com - The Jihad Cash Spigot

Homeland Security: Recognizing that money is the mother's milk of terrorism, the U.S. cracked down on charitable fronts after 9/11. The new administration thinks it went too far.



In fact, it's hinting at loosening restrictions, a move that threatens to reopen the financial pipeline between several Muslim charities and overseas terrorists that Treasury shut off after 9/11. Left-wing activists, meanwhile, are helping convince the public the charities deserve a second chance.

On the heels of President Obama's Cairo speech, in which he suggested relaxing Treasury anti-terror "rules," the ACLU published a well-timed report slamming those very rules.

It makes a point of noting throughout the thick report that Treasury policies "developed under the Bush administration" are undercutting Obama's mission to reach out to Muslim countries. What's more, they're denying American Muslims the "right" to make donations to Islamic charities.

"U.S. terrorism financing laws and policies developed under the Bush administration are inhibiting American Muslims' ability to freely and fully practice their religion," the ACLU says, noting that "zakat," or Muslim charitable giving, is a pillar of Islam.

The New York Times gave the report currency with a sympathetic story: "ACLU Report Says Anti-Terror Fight Undercuts Liberty of Muslim Donors." It highlighted Obama's pledge in Cairo to work "with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat."

"In the United States," the president explained, "rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligations."

First, there are no "rules" barring Muslims from giving to charity, as he suggests. There are laws against giving material support to terrorists, and those laws were first enacted under the Clinton administration. They've also made it harder for jihadists to fulfill their own perverted religious obligation to murder Westerners. If it weren't for Treasury's crackdown on charitable fronts, they'd still be siphoning off donations for terrorist attacks.

Material-support laws have become a sore subject for Muslim groups and their allies like the ACLU because the vast majority of terror is carried out by Muslim groups — with Muslim money.

Second, the president and the ACLU imply that the right to give donations in the name of zakat is absolute. It's not. And nothing is stopping Muslims from giving donations to legitimate charities — Muslim or non-Muslim — or through their mosques to fulfill their religious obligation.

The ACLU whines that its choices are limited now that nine major U.S. Muslim charities have been shut down. In each case, however, evidence that the charities funneled money to al-Qaida, Hamas and other terrorist groups was overwhelming.

The ACLU argues that "only one" was actually convicted. True, but it was the largest Muslim charity in America, and it funneled more than $12 million to terrorists. The Holy Land Foundation and its leaders were convicted on all 108 counts. Top leaders recently got life sentences.

Never mind that. The ACLU demands Treasury unfreeze all the Muslim charity assets it's frozen, including Holy Land's assets. It also wants the Justice Department to expunge the names of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Muslim front groups from its unindicted co-conspirator list. ACLU says CAIR was "smeared," ignoring the dozens of court exhibits linking CAIR to the radical Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

The ACLU's real agenda is revealed in the section of the 165-page report where it recommends "reforms." Turns out it also wants to deny the government key anti-terror tools, such as blacklisting individuals and groups as "specially designated global terrorists."

Other goals: purging the FBI terror watch list; passing the End Racial Profiling Act drafted by Rep. John Conyers, a Detroit Democrat, with help from CAIR; demanding an end to FBI raids of charities and undercover operations at mosques.

The ACLU, moreover, proposes giving charities advance notice of investigations to provide them "the opportunity to cure any issues." Or shred documents, as Holy Land executives did. They also stored incriminating papers at off-site locations and swept their offices for FBI bugs.

The real purpose of the ACLU and its report is to dismantle, piece by piece, the terror-fighting infrastructure erected after 9/11 to protect the nation. It's no coincidence that the flow of terrorism slowed after we choked off the flow of money and other activities.

Reopening the spigot now may win points with Muslim leaders like CAIR and placate the civil-liberties crowd.

But it's a suicide wish.

The Coldsteel Caucus Report IF ISLAM IS SO PEACEFUL, WHY DO THEY HAVE TO KEEP REMINDING US?

The Coldsteel Caucus Report Today is: Wednesday, 1st July, 2009 - 12:10:09 p.m

IF ISLAM IS SO PEACEFUL, WHY DO THEY HAVE TO KEEP REMINDING US?



“Last week, four Southern Baptists were arrested for plotting to blow up St Patrick’s Cathedral. The men, who became born-again Christians in prison, wanted to kill and terrorize Catholics.”



If that was the opening paragraph in a newspaper story you were reading, your gut reaction would be – huh? Baptists don’t do things like that in the name of their faith. Neither do Catholics, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists or Mormons.



But when we read the headline in a May 21st New York Times’ story -- “4 Accused of Bombing Plot at Bronx Synagogues” -- it was ho-hum stuff.



It wasn’t exactly a revelation when The Times informed us, in the 9th paragraph, “They are all Muslims, a law enforcement official said” – just in case you thought the conspiracy involved Episcopalians, Rotarians or the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks.



If you hear about a hijacking, suicide bombing, sniper attack or the beheading of a hostage anywhere in the world, your first reaction is: a Muslim did it. Why? Because 9 times out of 10 a Muslim did do it.



In the case of The Newburgh Four, here’s what we know:



* Their names are David “Daoud” Williams, James “Abdul Rahman” Cromitie, Onta “Hamza” Williams and Laguerre “Amin” Payen. At least two were prison-converts to the Big Peaceful.
* They planned to blow up two synagogues with what they thought was C-4 explosives, supplied by the FBI.
* They wanted to obtain Stinger missiles to shoot down military aircraft.
* As Assistant US Attorney Eric Snyder stated when the defendants were arraigned in federal court, “These are people who were eager to bring death to Jews and the Jewish community.”
* According to an informant, Cromitie said of the Jewish people: “I hate those motherf-----s, those f---ing Jewish bastards. I would like to get a synagogue.” Also, while scoping out a Jewish community center as a potential target, Cromitie is alleged to have said of nearby pedestrians that if he had a gun at the time, he would “shoot each one in the head.”



If Islam is such a “religion of peace,” why do they have to keep reminding us? Nobody’s running around saying “Christianity is a religion of peace” or “Judaism is a religion of peace” – because neither proposition is in doubt.



Yet, George W. Bush felt compelled to regularly reassure us (especially after 9/11) that Islam was about as peaceful as a religion can get.



Speaking at a 2005 dinner marking the end of Ramadan, Bush’s Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said Mohammedanism was “the religion of love and peace.” For Condi, being peaceful wasn’t enough. Islam had to be warm and cuddly too. “We in America know the benevolence that is at the heart of Islam,” Rice absurdly remarked. “We’ve seen it in many ways” --including in glorious Technicolor, in the video of the decapitation of Daniel Pearl.



President Obama boasts of his Muslim relations and his upbringing in Jakarta. In a speech to the Turkish parliament during his first trip abroad as president, Barack Hussein Obama assured the Muslin world that America “will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country.”



When was the last time a U.S. president conveyed deep appreciation for the Christian faith?



So, Islam is a religion of peace and love, as well as a benefactor of humanity. If this is intuitively obvious, why do they have to keep saying it? Perhaps because the vision of a compassionate Islam is so often obscured by explosions, flying body parts, collapsing skyscrapers, rolling heads, and rabid imams preaching hate the Jews, hate the Christians, hate America, hate the West, etc.



If Islam is so gentle and kindly, why does it have such appeal for the most savage and sadistic element in our society – those filled with resentment and rage, who like to hurt people (a lot)?



Question: Under what circumstances is an infidel most likely to convert to Islam: 1. While volunteering at a hospice or homeless shelter? 2. While working at a day-care center? 3.While planting flowers and singing Kumbaya at a peace rally? or 4. While incarcerated at a state or federal prison? What’s that? Someone told you, didn’t they?



Conversions behind bars are so common that Mitch Silber, chief NYPD intelligence analyst, says cops have a name for it “Prislam.” Chuck Colson of The Prison Fellowship Ministries was warning us of the coming jailhouse jihad almost a decade ago.



More than 2 million are imprisoned in the United States, of which an estimated 6% are members of the religion of rest-in-peace. Sometimes their real-world experience at hurting people (a lot) is put to good use as newly-minted Muslims.



Have you ever noticed how converts to a faith, or those with a newfound commitment to the religion of their birth, tend to be, well – nicer. Born-again Christians – including those who come from dysfunctional backgrounds – often exemplify the New Testament admonition to be “salt and light,” likewise committed Catholics and those who’ve moved from a secular Jewish identity to orthodoxy.



Islam is the exception.



By all accounts, John Walker Lindh, born into an upper-middle class family, was as normal as a child of broken home in Marin County, California can get. Then, at age 16, he converted to Islam and began calling himself Suleyman al-Faris.



In 1998, at age 17, John/Suleyman traveled to Yemen, to study Arabic so he could read the Koran in its original language. From there, the religion-of-peacenik went to Pakistan to study at a madrassa. The spring of 2001 found him at an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan.



When captured by U.S. forces in November 2001, Lindh was fighting for the blissful rule of the Taliban. Now, he’s serving a 20-year sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana, and probably proselytizing the other inmates, when he isn’t studying his peace-manual.



Other converts to Islam, unlikely to be mistaken for Mister Rogers, include:



* John Muhammad – Born John Allen Williams, he converted to Islam in 1987. Mr. Prophet was a member of the Nation of Islam for a time and reportedly provided security for Farrakhan’s 1995 “Million Man March.” Along with his boy companion, Lee Boyd Malvo, Muhammad shot and killed 16 people in 7 states in the fall of 2002. In custody, Muhammad told authorities that he was following in the footsteps of his idol, Osama bin Laden. He’s currently on death row in Virginia.



* Jose Padilla (AKA: Abdullah Al Muhajir) – Joining a Puerto Rican street gang as a teen, Padilla compiled an impressive juvenile and adult rap sheet, including attempted theft, aggravated assault and unlawful weapons possession. In 1998, Padilla became a jihadi tourist, traveling to Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan in search of the peace only Islam can bring. Padilla was trained at the camp of an al Qaeda affiliate in Afghanistan in 2000. Bin Laden deputy Abu Zubaydah sent Padilla back to the United States with $20,000 and an elaborate scheme to set off a radioactive “dirty bomb.” Apprehended, he’s now serving the remainder of a 17-year sentence.



* Richard Reid (Aka: Abdul Raheem, AKA: the Thom McAnn of terrorists) – Born in London the son of a Jamaican immigrant, he spent time in a number of British prisons, where he converted to the ROP. As a member of al Qaeda, Reid was assigned to blow up American Airlines Flight 63, en route from Paris to Miami, by igniting explosives hidden in his shoes. In this religious duty, Reid/Raheem failed, and is now serving a life sentence in the U.S.



* Sgt. Hasan Akbar – While stationed at Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait (preparing to deploy to Iraq), on March 23, 2003, Akbar attacked other soldiers with grenades and a rifle, killing two officers and wounding 14 servicemen. His diary revealed a man of all-consuming hatred. (“Destroying America is my greatest goal.”) Prior to the murders, Akbar confessed in his journal “I will have to decide to kill my Muslim brothers fighting for Saddam Hussein or my battle buddies.” It didn’t take much thought. A military court convicted Akbar of the murders and sentenced him to death. He temporarily resides at Ft. Leavenworth, on his way to a rendezvous with 72 virgins.



The apologists for Islam (Crescent-kissers) respond that these ex-cons and psychos are no more representative of Islam than Bernie Madoff is of Jewish financiers or Ted Haggard (former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, who had a relationship with a gay hooker) is of Christian leaders.



This is a plausible argument, at first blush. But if the Johnny jihadists, snipers, and homicidal anti-Semites got Islam wrong, who gets it right?



How about the Muslim-American groups which, in a rare show of empathy, rushed to condemn the Newburgh Four, including the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of North America and the Council on American –Islamic Relations?



Putting aside the fact that each of these groups has questionable connections, other than paying lip-service, what are they actually doing to fight terrorism?



Robert Spencer, the editor of Jihad Watch, muses: “One might wonder why Muslim groups don’t become more proactive, and institute programs in mosques and Islamic schools in the West (as well as in the Islamic world) to teach Muslims why the views of Osama bin Laden et al are wrong, and how true Islam eschews violence against and hatred of unbelievers. Yet CAIR, ISNA, MPAC and the rest have never instituted or even called for such a program. They are ready with the condemnations after arrests or explosions, but why wait passively? Why not head off jihadist activity by Muslims”? This is a rhetorical question.



Who gets Islam right? How about a Palestinian religious figure who took the bold move of attending the Second Congress of Imams and Rabbis for Peace in 2008? Attendees vowed to “condemn any negative representation” of each others religions.



For Zaid Abu Alhaj that pledge lasted about a year. On April 3, 2009, he gave a sermon on Al-Aqsa TV which included the following prediction: “The time will come, by Allah’s will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of the earth.”



Oh, fine, this crazy Palestinian cleric probably also doesn’t understand the religion he’s practiced his entire life either. How about Sheikh Abdul Rahman Al Sudais, who – as imam of Mecca’s Grand Mosque -- holds the most prestigious Moslem pulpit in the world?



In a 2003 sermon, Al Sudais prayed that Allah would “terminate” the Jews, who he called “the scum of humanity, the rats of the world, prophet killers … pigs and monkeys,” also “evil,” “tyrannical,” ‘treacherous,” and part of a “continuum of deceit.”



Cairo’s Al-Azhar University is the Vatican of the Muslim world. Is it reasonable to suppose that Sheik Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, grand imam of Al-Azhar since 1996, knows a thing or two about Islam?



The Shriek tells us the Koran condemns Jews for “their own particular degenerate characteristics” including “corrupting” the words of Allah, “consuming the people’s wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics, caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness.” But, there is hope. “All Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims, the bad ones do not.”



You’d think the Muslim chaplain at Harvard could put a happy face on his faith.



According to the April 14 Harvard Crimson, in an e-mail response to a query from a Muslim student, Taha Abdul-Basser wrote that there was “great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment (for apostates)) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand.” Thankfully, the Islamic world isn’t troubled by that darned hegemonic modern human rights discourse.



Harvard’s official chaplain later explained that he was merely expressing a position that “I do not hold … personally” -- but which contains “great wisdom” and which “one should not dismiss out of hand.”



What is the West’s response to the Rampaging Religion of Peace?



As Obama-appointed Director of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano doesn’t have time to watch the jailhouse jihadists. She’s too busy staking out pro-life demonstrations, NRA conventions and American Legion meetings. This is where the real danger to our national security lies, Nepalitano informed us in the DHS report “Rightwing Extremism: Radicalization and Recruitment,” issued on April 7.



Nepalitano’s counterpart in the United Kingdom, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, focuses on fighting evil Islamaphobes – witness her decision to ban the likes of Dutch parliamentarian and “Fitna” producer Geert Wilders and talk-show host Michael Savage from the shores of Albion.



So PC is she that Smith wants British officials to begin referring to Islamic terrorism as “anti-Islamic activity.” Not only are terrorists’ acts no reflection on Islam, they’re giving the religion of peace a bad name!



Smith knows Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. How? Muslims told her so. “As so many Muslims in the U.K. and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting terror, pain and grief.” If I was a used-car salesman, I’d pray Smith would wander onto my lot.



In the U.K. each bombing and kill-the-infidels sermon becomes an indoctrination moment to assure the credulous that to call attention to slaughter committed in the name of Islam and condoned by the words of Islam (contained in the Koran), slanders Islam. Oh for the days when Labor governments only wanted to destroy Britain’s economy, not the nation itself.



Nepalitano prefers the designation “man-made disasters” to terrorism.



Obama is too busy fighting a war on capitalism and trying to close down Guantanamo (and mainstream the jihadists into the U.S. prison population) to pay much attention to an ideology backed by guns and bombs and bent on world domination.



The day is approaching when TV and radio broadcasts will be interrupted every 15 minutes with the message “Islam is – you betcha – a religion of peace.” Otherwise, we’re bound to forget.

YouTube - Charles Krauthammer on Honduras: Obama is Wrong

YouTube - Charles Krauthammer on Honduras: Obama is Wrong

Short and to the point

Charles Krauthammer on Honduras: Obama is Wrong

Video 1:41

The Troop Drawdown Could Be Costly for Iraq - WSJ.com

The Troop Drawdown Could Be Costly for Iraq - WSJ.com

Today is a milestone in Iraq. Under the terms of the Strategic Framework Agreement, U.S. troops will withdraw from Iraqi cities. In retrospect, however, June 30 will likely mark another milestone: the end of the surge and the relative peace it brought to Iraq. In the past week, bombings in Baghdad, Mosul and near Kirkuk have killed almost 200 people. The worst is yet to come.



While the Strategic Framework Agreement was negotiated in the twilight of the Bush administration, President Barack Obama shaped the final deal. He campaigned on a time line to withdraw combat troops from Iraq, and his words impacted the negotiation.

Iraq has shown us time and again that military strength is the key to influence in other matters. Just look at the behavior of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric.

Under Saddam, Mr. Sistani was an independent religious mind, but he was hardly a bold voice. Like so many other Iraqis, he stayed alive by remaining silent. Only after Saddam's fall did he speak up. Though he is today a world-famous figure, the New York Times made its first mention of the ayatollah on April 4, 2003, five days before the fall of Baghdad.

Mr. Sistani is as much of a threat to Iran as he was to Saddam. In November 2003, he contradicted Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei when asked what night the holy month of Ramadan would end, a determination made by sighting the moon. Mr. Sistani said Tuesday, Mr. Khamenei said Wednesday.

To the West, this might be trivial, but it sent shock waves through Iran. How could the supreme leader claim ultimate political and religious authority over not only the Islamic Republic but all Shiites and be contradicted?

Perhaps this is why Iran bolstered its support for militias. When I visited Najaf in January 2004, I saw dark-clad militiamen on the streets outside Mr. Sistani's house. Mr. Sistani quieted until the following year, when U.S. forces retook the city.

Militias are not simply reactions to sectarian violence, nor are they spontaneous creations. They are tools used by political leaders to impose through force what is not in hearts and minds.

Because of both ham-fisted postwar reconstruction and neighboring state interference, militia and insurgent violence soared from 2004 through 2006. The fight became as much psychological as military.

Iranian and insurgent media declared the United States to be a paper tiger lacking staying power. The Baker-Hamilton Commission report underscored such perceptions. Al-Jazeera broadcast congressional lamentations of defeat throughout the region. Iranian intelligence told Iraqi officials that they might like the Americans better, but Iran would always be their neighbor and they best make an accommodation. Al Qaeda sounded similar themes in al-Anbar.

Then came President Bush's announcement that he would augment the U.S. presence. The surge was as much a psychological strategy as it was a military one. It proved our adversaries' propaganda wrong. Violence dropped. Iraq received a new chance to emerge as a stable, secure democracy.

By telegraphing a desire to leave, Mr. Obama reverses the dynamic. In effect, his strategy is an anti-surge. Troop numbers are not the issue. It is the projection of weakness. Not only Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki but Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani have also reached out to the Islamic Republic in recent weeks.

In Cairo, Mr. Obama said the U.S. had no permanent designs on Iraq and declared, "We will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron." Indeed. But until the Iraqi government is strong enough to monopolize independently the use of force, a vacuum will exist and the most violent factions will fill it.

Power and prestige matter. Withdrawal from Iraq's cities is good politics in Washington, but when premature and done under fire it may very well condemn Iraqis to repeat their past.

Obama's Obsolete Iran Policy - WSJ.com

Obama's Obsolete Iran Policy - WSJ.com

President Obama's Iran policy is incoherent and obsolete. Maybe David Axelrod should take note.

On Sunday, Mr. Obama's consigliere was asked about Iran by ABC's George Stephanopoulos and NBC's David Gregory. Mr. Gregory asked whether there "should be consequences" for the regime's violent suppression of peaceful demonstrations. "The consequences, I think, will unfold over time in Iran," answered Mr. Axelrod.



Mr. Stephanopoulos quoted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying that "this time, the Iranian nation's reply will be harsh and more decisive to make the West regret its meddlesome stance." Said Mr. Axelrod, "I'm not going to entertain his bloviations that are politically motivated." As for whether the administration wasn't selling short the demonstrators, Mr. Axelrod could only say that "the president's sense of solicitude with those young people has been very, very clear."
[Commentary] Associated Press

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Bottom line from Mr. Axelrod, and presumably Mr. Obama, too: "We are going to continue to work through . . . the multilateral group of nations that are engaging Iran, and they have to make a decision, George, whether they want to further isolate themselves in every way from the community of nations, or whether they are going to embrace that."

Translation: People of Iran -- best of luck!

For a president who came into office literally selling the Audacity of Hope -- not just for Americans but for all mankind -- his Iran policy can so far be summed up as the timidity of "realism." That's realism as a theory of international relations that prescribes a foreign policy based on ostensibly rational calculations of the national interest and assumes that other nations act in similarly rational fashion.

On this reasoning, it remains the American interest to reach a negotiated settlement with Tehran over its nuclear program, whether or not Ahmadinejad was fairly elected. Likewise, it is in Tehran's best interests to settle, assuming the benefits for doing so are sufficiently large.

If this view ever had its moment, it was in the months immediately after Mr. Obama's inauguration. The administration came to town thinking that America's problems with Iran were largely self-inflicted -- a combination of "Axis of Evil" and "regime change" rhetoric, an invasion that gave Iran a reasonable motive for wanting to arm itself with nuclear weapons, and an unwillingness to try to settle differences in face-to-face talks.

In other words, Mr. Obama seems to have thought that a considerable part of America's Iran problem was simply an America problem, to be addressed by various forms of conciliation: Mr. Obama's New Year's greetings to "the Islamic Republic of Iran"; the disavowal of regime change as a U.S. objective; the offer of direct talks without preconditions; withdrawal from Iraq; the insistence, following the election, that the U.S. would neither presume to judge the outcome nor otherwise "meddle" in an internal Iranian affair.

What did all this achieve? Iran's nuclear programs are accelerating. It is testing ballistic missiles of increasing range and sophistication. Its support for terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah is unabated. Ahmadinejad stole an election in broad daylight. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei blessed the result. British Embassy staff are under siege. A campaign of mass arrests and intimidation is underway and a young woman named Neda Soltan was shot in the heart simply for choosing none of the above.

Oh, and Iran still accuses the U.S. of "meddling."

Now Mr. Obama is promising more of the same, plus the equivalent of a group hug for the demonstrators. Is this supposed to be "realism"?

A more common sense form of realism would reach different conclusions. One is that the "bloviations" of Ahmadinejad are not just politically motivated, but are also expressions of contempt for Mr. Obama. That contempt springs from a keen nose for weakness, honed by the habits of dictatorship and based on an estimate -- so far unrefuted -- of Mr. Obama's mettle.

Second, as long as Tehran can murder its own people, scoff at a U.S. president and flout U.N. resolutions without consequence, it will continue to do so.

Third is that the Achilles Heel of the Iranian regime isn't its "isolation." (What kind of isolation is it when Ahmadinejad's "election" was instantly ratified by Russian President Dimitry Medvedev?) Nor is it its vulnerability to a gasoline embargo, vulnerable though it is. Its real weakness is its own domestic unpopularity, which has at last found expression in a massive opposition movement.

The fourth is that Iran's nuclear programs have now reached the stage where they can only be stopped through military strikes -- probably Israeli -- or an internal political decision to abandon them. The prospect of another Mideast war can't exactly please the administration. So how about trying to achieve the same result by leveraging point No. 3?

Maybe ordinary Iranians welcome Mr. Obama's solicitude. What they need is Mr. Obama's spine. If that means "democracy promotion" and tough talk about "regime change," well, it wouldn't be the first time this president has made his predecessor's policy his own.

Waxman Bill Forces Environmental Inspection to Sell Your Own Home

Waxman Bill Forces Environmental Inspection to Sell Your Own Home

RUSH: You've gotta hear this sound bite from Henry Waxman this afternoon with Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, on MSNBC. She said, "Republican leader John Boehner, in explaining why he was reading the bill on the floor," meaning the cap-and-trade fiasco, "told The Hill newspaper, 'People deserve to know what's in this pile of [expletive.]' Does that indicate what kind of relationship has now developed between the Democrat majority and the Republican opposition right now?"

WAXMAN: Since Obama has become president, the Republicans have said no to an economic stimulus bill, are saying no to the global warming bill, they're saying no to health care reform. They're rooting against the country. And I think in this case, they're even rooting against the world because the world needs to get it's act together to stop global warming. I wish they were playing a more constructive role. Some Republicans doubt the whole science of global warming even though the consensus is overwhelming. They don't want to believe it; they don't want to do anything about it. And, meanwhile, the evidence is mounting faster and faster that we're suffering already from carbon emissions. RUSH: I am apoplectic. He could not be more wrong. The consensus has fallen apart. Nations that adopted it at one time and started implementing some of these economic changes have pulled the plug. Australia, Japan, it doesn't work, it only depletes their private sector, it doesn't fix anything, even this bill wouldn't reduce emissions more than two-tenths of a percent did I see, something like that? Henry Waxman is just -- I better be careful. This is just dangerous. It's the Republicans that made the damn thing pass, for crying out loud, Waxman. Eight Republicans -- only four were needed. Eight voted for it, cap and trade. Republicans rooting against Obama, the country, and the world. What do you think he's talking about? They're rooting against socialism. Congressman Waxman, the Republicans are rooting for the country. Republicans are rooting for the world. It is your party, Congressman, that's setting out to destroy what made America exceptional, and in the process, you're going to wreak more damage on the rest of the world than you could possibly imagine. You're an idiot. You are a dangerous idiot. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Here is Pat in Chicago. I'm glad you waited. You're next on the EIB Network. Hello. CALLER: Oh, thank you, Rush. It's a pleasure. RUSH: Thank you. CALLER: You're making me crazy all over again. I watched Congressman Boehner on Friday -- RUSH: Oh, you're going to disappoint me. I thought you meant crazy in another way. CALLER: No, no, no, no. I was crazy because I was sitting here listening to him say all these things and reading their words I'm going, oh, my God, oh, my God, oh, my God, and after an hour of this, I'm like, how can anybody vote for this? And this was just the amendment. This created a whole new bureaucracy. RUSH: Boehner did do a great job on Friday, you are absolutely right. I don't know how many people had a chance to hear it, but you ask how can these people vote for it? There's an answer to that question. It depends on whether people want to face it squarely. CALLER: I understand that but, you know, he did what the Republican Party has to do. Not modernize, not socialize, educate, read their own words. RUSH: Amen! CALLER: Don't sit there and say it's gonna do this, it's going to do that -- RUSH: Amen. CALLER: -- that's objective, people say that's objective. RUSH: You're making me crazy here.

CALLER: Use their own words because I've been telling people about what he read and people are like, "That can't happen. I didn't hear about that." Talk about going to sell your house. You can't put your house on the market unless it's rated by who? It's gotta be rated. You've gotta have all new windows, all new doors. RUSH: Have you heard about this, folks? When you sell your house, environmental experts have to come in and do a survey to find out if you've got leaky windows, if all the environmental systems are correct, if you have relatively new appliances, and until you modernize in the way they say, you can't sell -- that's in the bill. I'm not kidding, Brian. See, you can't believe it. You can't. It's in the bill. It was in this amendment that Boehner read. CALLER: I said that's not even half of it. I mean he went page by page by page and you're like, oh, my God. This was what's written. This isn't him saying, "Well, this is what they're going to do, this is what's going to happen," this is what they are doing. And they're doing it over and over and over and over again. It makes me nuts. And this is not going to be a country as we know it in the four years it takes him to get outta here. RUSH: Yeah. CALLER: He gets no support, the congressman and the Republicans get no support from anybody. It was nowhere on the news, it was nowhere. It was their own words. RUSH: Well, now, look. I know that they got no support in the news, but you shouldn't expect that to happen. I'm not trying to depress you. We gotta face reality and we're dealing with an Obama State-Run Media here. Of course they're not going to give Boehner any support or even any coverage or any publicity. But she's right, sell your house, before you can do that, you have to pass an environmental test that some government person is going to come in and make sure you have proper storm windows and if you live in a hurricane area the inspection is even more Draconian. You have to have modern appliances, a kitchen and that sort of thing, energy efficient TVs and this sort of stuff and until you replace all that stuff you can't sell it. Now, normally that would be up to seller and buyer. If the buyer wants to accept some old TVs and a kitchen that's not stainless steel, fine, you negotiate that on price. But now it's not going to be a matter of negotiation. Before you can be approved in selling your house, some government regulator is to come in and give you an examination. Now, just to illustrate how this is going to work, once again I have a piece of property that would pass inspection, right now if this were the law. But do you think some government regulator coming into my house is going to pass me if it's the Obama administration or if it's some Democrat-run bureaucracy? No way. Everything is going to be political and this is how they are going to get people to switch party to become Democrat so that they're not harassed. Folks, consequences are dire here. And all this is happening under this umbrella of this kind soft-spoken very smart president who only wants to save our lightbulbs and save the White House and save the world and who, of course, can be against that, who's for dirty air, who's for dirty water, nobody's for that when that's not at all what any of this is about. Pat, I appreciate the phone call.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...

• CBS: EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming • The Hill: Boehner: Dem Policies Will Cost Millions of Jobs • HotAir: Boehner Slaps Down Waxman, Filibusters Cap and Trade • CNSNews: CBO Ignores Economic Impact of Democrats' Climate Bill • Michelle Malkin: EPA Plays Hide and Seek; Suppressed Report Revealed • Heritage Foundation: The Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill

RealClearPolitics - Alice in Medical Care

RealClearPolitics - Alice in Medical Care

Most political and media discussions of medical care have an air of unreality reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland. There is an abundance of catch-phrases but remarkably few coherent arguments.



Let's start at square one. Why is there alarm about American medical care? The most usual reason given is because its cost is high and rising.

That is certainly true. We were not spending nearly as much on high-tech medical procedures in the past because there were not nearly as many of them, and we were not spending anything at all on some of the new pharmaceutical drugs because they didn't exist.

This general pattern is not peculiar to medical care. Cars didn't cost nearly as much in the past, when they didn't have air-conditioning, power steering and high-tech safety features. Homes were cheaper when they were smaller, had fewer bathrooms and lacked such conveniences as built-in microwave ovens.

We would like to have all these things without the rising costs that come with them. But only with medical care is such wishful thinking taken seriously, with government regarded as a sort of fairy godmother who will give us the benefits without the costs.

A cynic is said to be someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. If so, then it is political cynicism to point to other countries that spend less on medical care, including some countries where there is "universal health care" provided "free" by their governments.

Just as medical care, houses and cars were all cheaper when they lacked things that they have today, so medical care in other countries is cheaper when they lack many things that are more readily available in the United States.

There are more than four times as many Magnetic Resonance Imaging units (MRIs) per capita in the United States as in Britain or Canada, where there are government-run medical systems. There are more than twice as many CT scanners per capita in the United States as in Canada and more than four times as many per capita as in Britain.

Is it surprising that such things cost money?

The cost of developing a new pharmaceutical drug is now about a billion dollars. Neither political rhetoric nor government bureaucracies will make those costs go away.

We can, of course, refuse to pay these and other medical costs, just as we can refuse to buy air-conditioned homes with built-in microwave ovens. But that just means we pay attention only to prices and not to the value of what we get for those prices.

We can even refuse to pay for so many doctors. But that just means that we will have to wait longer to see a doctor-- as people do in countries with government-run medical systems.

In Canada, 27 percent of the people who have surgery wait four months or more. In Britain, 38 percent wait that long. But only 5 percent of Americans wait that long for surgery.

Surgery may well cost less in countries with government-run medical systems-- if you count only the money cost, and not the time the patients have to endure the ailments that require surgery, or the fact that some conditions become worse, or even fatal, while waiting.

A recent report from the Fraser Institute in Canada shows that patients there wait an average of ten weeks to get an MRI, just to find out what is wrong with them. A lot of bad things can happen in 10 weeks, ranging from suffering to death.

Politicians may talk about "bringing down the cost of medical care," but they seldom even attempt to bring down the costs. What they bring down is the price-- which is to say, they refuse to pay the costs.

Anybody can refuse to pay any cost. But don't be surprised if you get less when you pay less. None of this is rocket science. But it does require us to stop and think before jumping on a bandwagon.

The great haste with which the latest government expansion into medical care is being rushed through Congress suggests that the politicians don't want us to stop and think. That makes sense, from their point of view, but not from ours.