Note: The President invited Iranian diplomats to the 4th of July celebrations at our Embassies around the World, was very late in his remarks about the Government of Iran attacking protestors, and now we find out that Iran is still behind attacks in Iraq. Why does this President want to talk with this dictorial Iranian Government when our Commander on the ground believes they are behind the attacks in Baghdad?
Top US Commander - Iran Still Supports Iraq Attacks
The top U.S. military commander in Iraq says that Iran still supports and trains militants who carry out attacks _ mostly with mortars and sophisticated roadside bombs _ inside Iraq.
Gen. Ray Odierno says the attacks have been reduced but are still a problem.
He spoke on Tuesday at his base outside of Baghdad, as Iraqi forces took control of security in the Iraqi capital and other urban areas.
June 30 was the deadline for American troops to pull out of Iraqi cities under a U.S.-Iraqi security pact. The pullout was completed on Monday.
Odiero says Tehran is "still supporting, funding and training surrogates inside Iraq" and that he believes "many of the attacks in Baghdad are in fact done by individuals supported by Iran."
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Experts Warn of Growing Risks to US Nuclear Deterrent
The thought of Obama going to Moscow next week should have the vast majority of Americans concerned as to what he is going to offer since his Administration is so secretive. Below is a press release from the New Deterrent Working Group along with a link to Sen Kyl's article in the Wall Street Journal calling attention to what this Administration is doing with our nuclear arsenal. Do we need another START Treaty? NO WAY because it will harm not help the United States.
Why does this President want to take our nuclear weapons to the nub while other countries are building their arsenals including the Ruassians?
Why be in such a rush to deplete our nuclear arsenal is what freedom loving Americans want toi know?
New Deterrent Working Group Press Release:
For Immediate Release
30 June 2009
Contact: Lee Cohen (202) 835-9077
ON EVE OF OBAMA’S MOSCOW SUMMIT,
EXPERTS WARN OF GROWING RISKS TO U.S. NUCLEAR DETERRENT
(Washington, D.C.): As President Obama prepares to depart for Moscow next week, few Americans have any idea that his administration is in the process of negotiating a follow-on to the START treaty framework that appears likely to leave the United States and its allies substantially less secure.
Fortunately, an alarm about this prospect was published in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal by the U.S. Senate’s top authority on the subject, SEN. JON KYL (R-AZ) and veteran national security practitioner, RICHARD PERLE. And on Wednesday, 1 July, that warning will be strongly seconded and amplified by a team of experts on nuclear weapons policy and programs.
Toward this end, members of the NEW DETERRENT WORKING GROUP – an informal team with hundreds of man-years of experience with America’s nuclear forces, doctrine, operations and arms control that is sponsored by the Center for Security Policy – have prepared for Members of Congress, the Executive Branch, the press and the public at large a comprehensive Briefing Book entitled, U.S. Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Getting It Right. This publication, with a foreword by former Clinton CIA Director R. JAMES WOOLSEY, will be released at the National Press Club at 3:00 p.m. on 1 July 2009.
Getting it Right draws on a wealth of official documents, congressional testimony and other materials to demonstrate the abiding requirement in the 21st Century for an American nuclear deterrent that is reliable, credible, and effective – especially so in the face of present dangers and emerging threats to the United States and its allies. The Briefing Book provides, among other information: (1) assessments of the nuclear policies of America’s allies and peer competitors, as well as rogue nations that have acquired, or are on the verge of acquiring, a nuclear weapons capability; (2) a review of the declining quality and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the infrastructure that supports it; and (3) a series of recommendations to ensure that both the quality and quantity of U.S. nuclear weapons remain at levels necessary to protect American national security and international stability.
In particular, the Briefing Book draws on recent and authoritative declarations made by those at the highest levels of the U.S. government with responsibility for assuring the viability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. These include: Secretary of Defense ROBERT GATES, U.S. Strategic Command Commander GEN. KEVIN P. CHILTON, National Nuclear Security Administration Administrator JAMES P. D'AGOSTINO as well as the director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory MICHAEL R. ANASTASIO. Getting it Right also excerpts and illuminates the most important findings and recommendations of such entities as the COMMISSION ON THE STRATEGIC POSTURE OF THE UNITED STATES.
Members of the NEW DETERRENT WORKING GROUP who co-authored the Briefing Book include:
Hon. HENRY F. COOPER, Former Director of the Defense Strategic Initiative (SDI); Former U.S. Representative to the Defense and Space Talks;
Hon. PAULA DeSUTTER, Former Assistant Secretary of State – Bureau of Verification, Compliance and Implementation;
FRANK J. GAFFNEY, JR., Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting);
Hon. PETER HUESSY, Former Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
Hon. SVEN F. KRAEMER, Former Director of Arms Control, National Security Council, 1981-1987;
Adm. JAMES "ACE” LYONS, JR., U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet;
Vice Adm. ROBERT MONROE, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Director, Defense Nuclear Agency; Former Director of Navy Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E);
Dr. ROBERT L. PFALTZGRAFF, JR., Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Studies, The Fletcher School, Tufts University; President, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis; and
Hon. TROY WADE, Former Director, Defense Programs, Department of Energy
Messrs. Huessy, Lyons, Monroe, and Gaffney will participate in a panel discussion of the highlights of Getting it RightMoscow and his administration’s national security and arms control agenda more generally. and take questions from the press about the ominous implications of the upcoming Obama summit in
In announcing Wednesday’s event, New Deterrent Working Group member Frank Gaffney said:
“President Obama – taking cues from the dangerously misguided “Global Zero” campaign he has embraced – is by all indications going to Moscow with the intent of drastically reducing the number of deployed U.S. nuclear weapons and making related concessions. To date, he appears to have failed to consider the potentially dire ramifications of such actions, let alone to have taken any steps to redress the woeful state of America’s nuclear arsenal or supporting infrastructure.
“At a time when so many actual or potential adversaries are improving their existing nuclear capabilities or acquiring such capabilities, the United States cannot afford to labor under the illusion that unilateral American disarmament and a lack of U.S. nuclear modernization will make the world safer, when it is clear that the opposite is true.”
To RSVP for the New Deterrent Working Group event or to receive a copy of U.S. Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Getting it Right, please contact Lee Cohen at (202) 835-9077, or at lcohen@securefreedom.org.
-30-
Why does this President want to take our nuclear weapons to the nub while other countries are building their arsenals including the Ruassians?
Why be in such a rush to deplete our nuclear arsenal is what freedom loving Americans want toi know?
New Deterrent Working Group Press Release:
For Immediate Release
30 June 2009
Contact: Lee Cohen (202) 835-9077
ON EVE OF OBAMA’S MOSCOW SUMMIT,
EXPERTS WARN OF GROWING RISKS TO U.S. NUCLEAR DETERRENT
(Washington, D.C.): As President Obama prepares to depart for Moscow next week, few Americans have any idea that his administration is in the process of negotiating a follow-on to the START treaty framework that appears likely to leave the United States and its allies substantially less secure.
Fortunately, an alarm about this prospect was published in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal by the U.S. Senate’s top authority on the subject, SEN. JON KYL (R-AZ) and veteran national security practitioner, RICHARD PERLE. And on Wednesday, 1 July, that warning will be strongly seconded and amplified by a team of experts on nuclear weapons policy and programs.
Toward this end, members of the NEW DETERRENT WORKING GROUP – an informal team with hundreds of man-years of experience with America’s nuclear forces, doctrine, operations and arms control that is sponsored by the Center for Security Policy – have prepared for Members of Congress, the Executive Branch, the press and the public at large a comprehensive Briefing Book entitled, U.S. Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Getting It Right. This publication, with a foreword by former Clinton CIA Director R. JAMES WOOLSEY, will be released at the National Press Club at 3:00 p.m. on 1 July 2009.
Getting it Right draws on a wealth of official documents, congressional testimony and other materials to demonstrate the abiding requirement in the 21st Century for an American nuclear deterrent that is reliable, credible, and effective – especially so in the face of present dangers and emerging threats to the United States and its allies. The Briefing Book provides, among other information: (1) assessments of the nuclear policies of America’s allies and peer competitors, as well as rogue nations that have acquired, or are on the verge of acquiring, a nuclear weapons capability; (2) a review of the declining quality and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the infrastructure that supports it; and (3) a series of recommendations to ensure that both the quality and quantity of U.S. nuclear weapons remain at levels necessary to protect American national security and international stability.
In particular, the Briefing Book draws on recent and authoritative declarations made by those at the highest levels of the U.S. government with responsibility for assuring the viability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. These include: Secretary of Defense ROBERT GATES, U.S. Strategic Command Commander GEN. KEVIN P. CHILTON, National Nuclear Security Administration Administrator JAMES P. D'AGOSTINO as well as the director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory MICHAEL R. ANASTASIO. Getting it Right also excerpts and illuminates the most important findings and recommendations of such entities as the COMMISSION ON THE STRATEGIC POSTURE OF THE UNITED STATES.
Members of the NEW DETERRENT WORKING GROUP who co-authored the Briefing Book include:
Hon. HENRY F. COOPER, Former Director of the Defense Strategic Initiative (SDI); Former U.S. Representative to the Defense and Space Talks;
Hon. PAULA DeSUTTER, Former Assistant Secretary of State – Bureau of Verification, Compliance and Implementation;
FRANK J. GAFFNEY, JR., Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting);
Hon. PETER HUESSY, Former Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
Hon. SVEN F. KRAEMER, Former Director of Arms Control, National Security Council, 1981-1987;
Adm. JAMES "ACE” LYONS, JR., U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet;
Vice Adm. ROBERT MONROE, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Director, Defense Nuclear Agency; Former Director of Navy Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E);
Dr. ROBERT L. PFALTZGRAFF, JR., Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Studies, The Fletcher School, Tufts University; President, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis; and
Hon. TROY WADE, Former Director, Defense Programs, Department of Energy
Messrs. Huessy, Lyons, Monroe, and Gaffney will participate in a panel discussion of the highlights of Getting it RightMoscow and his administration’s national security and arms control agenda more generally. and take questions from the press about the ominous implications of the upcoming Obama summit in
In announcing Wednesday’s event, New Deterrent Working Group member Frank Gaffney said:
“President Obama – taking cues from the dangerously misguided “Global Zero” campaign he has embraced – is by all indications going to Moscow with the intent of drastically reducing the number of deployed U.S. nuclear weapons and making related concessions. To date, he appears to have failed to consider the potentially dire ramifications of such actions, let alone to have taken any steps to redress the woeful state of America’s nuclear arsenal or supporting infrastructure.
“At a time when so many actual or potential adversaries are improving their existing nuclear capabilities or acquiring such capabilities, the United States cannot afford to labor under the illusion that unilateral American disarmament and a lack of U.S. nuclear modernization will make the world safer, when it is clear that the opposite is true.”
To RSVP for the New Deterrent Working Group event or to receive a copy of U.S. Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Getting it Right, please contact Lee Cohen at (202) 835-9077, or at lcohen@securefreedom.org.
-30-
We are Back!
We are back and gearing up for the 2010 elections. The last month has given the American people real insight into the Democrat controlled Congress and this Democrat President from who knows where.
One thing we do know is that he was never on the Mainland until he was 18 and started college in California. Where was he born? Toss a dart because he has spent over $1M, yes $1,000,000, to keep his birth certificate secret. He has had all his academic records sealed as well so we have no idea if he registered as an American student or as a foreign student as has been rumored. Was Frank Marshall Davis his mentor during his teen years and responsible for him going to Chicago? When did he meet Bill Ayers? Who were his friends in Chicago besides Ayers, Dohrn, Rev Wright, Rezko, Farrakhan? All kinds of questions that need answers, but where are the members of the mainstream media? MIA it seems.
Recently it has come out that there is proof that his first book, Dreams of My Father, was mostly ghost written by his good friend and confident, Bill Ayers. For details see Breakthrough on authorship by Jack Cashill who has spent countless hours researching to compare the book by Ayers with the book by Obama. The similarities are astounding and any thinking person will see that Ayers was the writer.
Why would Obama lie about that he wrote the book? Who wrote the second book is the new question? It was obvious from when he was elected the first black President of the Harvard Law Review that writing was not his strength as he didn't write anything of note so the chances of him writing not one but two books were slim to none. Law students vie for that position so they can get started early on their writings but not Obama. WHY? Who got him the position? Who got him into Law School? Why did Franklin Davis choose Chicago for him to land? Who got him to become a Community Organizer?
So many why's and so few answers about this man that was elected President thanks, in part, to a media that chose not to investigate his past and where he actually stood on issues preferring to give him a pass as so many of them became cheerleaders instead of reporters. He was their "Chosen One" which should have been the first clue they lost all objectivity.
Many members of the press obviously are not members of the Society of Professional Journalist (SPJ) because they certainly do not abide by the SPJ Code of Ethics. When the press becomes a cheerleader for a candidate instead of an unbiased reporter, it is time for them to find another line of work.
Recently, a White House Press Conference had the Administration plant a question with The Huffington Post Blog to ask - same Huffington Post Blog that said Pres George Bush was too cozy with the press which was laughable as they went after him with darts. How do the American people know now which questions from the WH Press Corps are legitimate and not planted by this WH press office at the request of Axelrod or Emmanual? Some of the most ridiculous softball questions have been asked of this President that it makes people with a brain want to throw up. What happened to the tough questions from our media?
If it wasn't for Major Garrett of Fox News and Jack Tapper of ABC News, very few hard questions would ever be asked. That doesn't even count the evening worshippers of this President at MSNBC. No way if you are a thinking person, would you watch MSNBC. Those shows give spin not news. Then we have Brian Williams almost bowing to the "leader" not to mention the infomercial of ABC on Obama healthcare.
This Nation was founded with Freedom of the Press in the Constitution but that doesn't mean Freedom to worship a President and hide facts from the American public. A Free Press is an independent Press not a Press that the White House Press Secretary can spin at will. Members of the Press need to get a reality check and realize their first job is not to listen to spin and report that spin from the White House Press Office, but to search out the truth and report.
Where is the media about this President's double standards when it comes to interfering in another country's business?
First he tells Israel they cannot build settlements which is none of his business. It is their land. The United States has always been a strong ally and supporter of Israel until this President took office. Fortunately, members of Congress still support Israel wholeheartedly.
Second, he doesn't want to get involved in Iran as Freedom Fighters demonstrate against the election fraud in Iran. Iranians are killed in peaceful demonstrations because they are against the current regime - shot in cold blood in some cases but our President plays golf on Father's Day (do as I say not as I do on Fathers Day) and eventually gets around to saying the Government shouldn't be doing that to their citizens. That said, he says Iranians are still welcome at our Embassies around the World to celebrate the 4th of July with eating hot dogs. What kind of diplomacy is that?
Now fast forward to this past weekend when the Hondurian Congress and then the Supreme Court gave the order to remove the current President who was going against their Constitution in declaring a referendum vote on Constitutional term limits so he could stay in power. He had no authority to call for referendum as that is not how they change their Constitution. The President who was ousted wanted Honduras to align closer to the Chavez and other Communist dictators and was moving the Country toward socialism and communism.
What does our "leader" do? We find out he has worked for several weeks to try and keep a Honduran President in power who was going against the Honduran Constitution. He is eventually removed by their Congress and Supreme Court who issues an order to the military to remove the current President. Obama strongly condemns Hondruas for their military coup when it was NO coup as the Congress and Supreme Court took the necessary steps before the Supreme Court gave the order to remove the President. Where was the fearless "leader" when this went down? He was playing golf like he did on Fathers Day after telling Fathers across America to stay home on Fathers Day.
The supposed "leader" of the free world, the American President, has sidedonce again sided with the Communist or Muslim dictators like Chavez, Noriega, and Castro. In the meantime he disses our allies Great Britain, France, Israel, Honduras, etc.
What does that tell the American people about this President? This "leader" is no friend to freedom loving people around the world. He doesn't even mouth the words freedom. His arrogance knows no bounds as he bows to the Saudi King. What American President would ever bow to a Saudi King? He cares more about the Muslim leaders then the leaders of our friends in NATO as evidenced by his looks at them when he meets with them. It has been dubbed the "Evil Eye" - judge for yourself.
In the days ahead we will take a closer look at his lack of foreign policy experience and how he is siding with Chavez, Castro, and Noriega against the legitimate government of Honduras who removed their President LEGALLY.
One thing we do know is that he was never on the Mainland until he was 18 and started college in California. Where was he born? Toss a dart because he has spent over $1M, yes $1,000,000, to keep his birth certificate secret. He has had all his academic records sealed as well so we have no idea if he registered as an American student or as a foreign student as has been rumored. Was Frank Marshall Davis his mentor during his teen years and responsible for him going to Chicago? When did he meet Bill Ayers? Who were his friends in Chicago besides Ayers, Dohrn, Rev Wright, Rezko, Farrakhan? All kinds of questions that need answers, but where are the members of the mainstream media? MIA it seems.
Recently it has come out that there is proof that his first book, Dreams of My Father, was mostly ghost written by his good friend and confident, Bill Ayers. For details see Breakthrough on authorship by Jack Cashill who has spent countless hours researching to compare the book by Ayers with the book by Obama. The similarities are astounding and any thinking person will see that Ayers was the writer.
Why would Obama lie about that he wrote the book? Who wrote the second book is the new question? It was obvious from when he was elected the first black President of the Harvard Law Review that writing was not his strength as he didn't write anything of note so the chances of him writing not one but two books were slim to none. Law students vie for that position so they can get started early on their writings but not Obama. WHY? Who got him the position? Who got him into Law School? Why did Franklin Davis choose Chicago for him to land? Who got him to become a Community Organizer?
So many why's and so few answers about this man that was elected President thanks, in part, to a media that chose not to investigate his past and where he actually stood on issues preferring to give him a pass as so many of them became cheerleaders instead of reporters. He was their "Chosen One" which should have been the first clue they lost all objectivity.
Many members of the press obviously are not members of the Society of Professional Journalist (SPJ) because they certainly do not abide by the SPJ Code of Ethics. When the press becomes a cheerleader for a candidate instead of an unbiased reporter, it is time for them to find another line of work.
Recently, a White House Press Conference had the Administration plant a question with The Huffington Post Blog to ask - same Huffington Post Blog that said Pres George Bush was too cozy with the press which was laughable as they went after him with darts. How do the American people know now which questions from the WH Press Corps are legitimate and not planted by this WH press office at the request of Axelrod or Emmanual? Some of the most ridiculous softball questions have been asked of this President that it makes people with a brain want to throw up. What happened to the tough questions from our media?
If it wasn't for Major Garrett of Fox News and Jack Tapper of ABC News, very few hard questions would ever be asked. That doesn't even count the evening worshippers of this President at MSNBC. No way if you are a thinking person, would you watch MSNBC. Those shows give spin not news. Then we have Brian Williams almost bowing to the "leader" not to mention the infomercial of ABC on Obama healthcare.
This Nation was founded with Freedom of the Press in the Constitution but that doesn't mean Freedom to worship a President and hide facts from the American public. A Free Press is an independent Press not a Press that the White House Press Secretary can spin at will. Members of the Press need to get a reality check and realize their first job is not to listen to spin and report that spin from the White House Press Office, but to search out the truth and report.
Where is the media about this President's double standards when it comes to interfering in another country's business?
First he tells Israel they cannot build settlements which is none of his business. It is their land. The United States has always been a strong ally and supporter of Israel until this President took office. Fortunately, members of Congress still support Israel wholeheartedly.
Second, he doesn't want to get involved in Iran as Freedom Fighters demonstrate against the election fraud in Iran. Iranians are killed in peaceful demonstrations because they are against the current regime - shot in cold blood in some cases but our President plays golf on Father's Day (do as I say not as I do on Fathers Day) and eventually gets around to saying the Government shouldn't be doing that to their citizens. That said, he says Iranians are still welcome at our Embassies around the World to celebrate the 4th of July with eating hot dogs. What kind of diplomacy is that?
Now fast forward to this past weekend when the Hondurian Congress and then the Supreme Court gave the order to remove the current President who was going against their Constitution in declaring a referendum vote on Constitutional term limits so he could stay in power. He had no authority to call for referendum as that is not how they change their Constitution. The President who was ousted wanted Honduras to align closer to the Chavez and other Communist dictators and was moving the Country toward socialism and communism.
What does our "leader" do? We find out he has worked for several weeks to try and keep a Honduran President in power who was going against the Honduran Constitution. He is eventually removed by their Congress and Supreme Court who issues an order to the military to remove the current President. Obama strongly condemns Hondruas for their military coup when it was NO coup as the Congress and Supreme Court took the necessary steps before the Supreme Court gave the order to remove the President. Where was the fearless "leader" when this went down? He was playing golf like he did on Fathers Day after telling Fathers across America to stay home on Fathers Day.
The supposed "leader" of the free world, the American President, has sidedonce again sided with the Communist or Muslim dictators like Chavez, Noriega, and Castro. In the meantime he disses our allies Great Britain, France, Israel, Honduras, etc.
What does that tell the American people about this President? This "leader" is no friend to freedom loving people around the world. He doesn't even mouth the words freedom. His arrogance knows no bounds as he bows to the Saudi King. What American President would ever bow to a Saudi King? He cares more about the Muslim leaders then the leaders of our friends in NATO as evidenced by his looks at them when he meets with them. It has been dubbed the "Evil Eye" - judge for yourself.
In the days ahead we will take a closer look at his lack of foreign policy experience and how he is siding with Chavez, Castro, and Noriega against the legitimate government of Honduras who removed their President LEGALLY.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Obama's Craftiness
American Thinker
August 04, 2008
Ed Lasky
Barack Obama is one crafty fellow, reaping political success out of career that got precious little done. He has accomplished very little legislatively in his entire career; his vaunted accomplishments in the Illinois Senate were more the result of the handicraft of his political ally and mentor State Democratic head Emil Jones (who tacked Obama's name on legislation to bolster his career) than his own work on the issues .
Obama has done virtually nothing at the Senate level -- he has not even seen fit to call a meeting of the Committee he heads, the Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs. Despite its name, Obama's subcommittee has some oversight over Afghanistan. While he now says on the campaign trail that Afghanistan requires more focus and attention , he overlooked his own jurisdictional responsibilities in that theatre for the entire time he has served in the US Senate. He refuses to take time off his victory tour to call his subcommittee to order to provide such oversight.
Even worse, Obama has a record of taking credit often for work he has not done -- one of the last refuges of a poseur. During his campaign against Hillary, even his fellow Democrats swatted down the presumptuousness of his ploy to gain credit for the work of others. Once he claimed credit for an immigration bill when a camera team was in the vicinity .
Now that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee, his gall often is overlooked when he claims credit for the work of others, or when he claims to have played a role in the actions of, and membership on, the Senate Banking Committee.
Obama is skilled in certain types of legislative maneuvering though. He learned in Illinois statehouse politics how to place poison pill amendments in legislation, or how to sneak regulatory requirements in otherwise innocuous-seeming legislation. While still serving in the Illinois State Senate, he proposed federal legislation that would cripple people's ability to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Obama wanted to see a federal law against licensed firearm dealers operating within five miles of a school or state park. Experts have wonder if this proposal, given the numerous parks and schools that dot our landscape, would all but foreclose the ability of gun dealers to operate, except in the most remote locations.
As a presidential candidate, however, he now claims to believe in the Second Amendment. Constitutional law lecturer or not, he certainly got the law wrong when it came to the Washington, D.C. handgun ban. And he has supported a wide variety of proposals that would all but eviscerate the practical exercise of that right . He might say he supports the right of Americans to own guns, but he has supported actions that would all but deny them that right.
Barack Obama has also proclaimed his support for nuclear energy (his campaign manager David Axelrod has had one very important client besides Obama: Exelon, a major nuclear power utility player. Axelrod planned and executed an Astroturf maneuver -- a fake, corporate sponsored ostensibly "grassroots" campaign, in this case, to compel Illinois to grant the utility the power to raise rates.
Obama has touted his environmental credentials. With global warming scare, nuclear power has become one of the formerly verboten energy sources some environmentalists have warmed to. Yet he has worked to kill the chances of nuclear power becoming an important power source for Americans. Along with the Majority Leader, Nevada Senator Harry Reid, Obama has supported all foreclosing the possibility of using Yucca Mountain (located far away from any people) as a nuclear waste repository. He even advocated the abandonment of the entire project. This despite the fact that billions have been spent developing this critically needed site. This opposition comes despite the fact that America is running out of places to store nuclear waste (right now it is done on-site). This opposition despite studies that show Yucca to be a safe way to store the relatively small amount of nuclear waste generated by our power plants.
Paul Mirengoff of Powerline caught Obama in another legislative sleight of hand . The candidate has long opposed off-shore drilling, following the views of many other liberal interest groups. Obama has now flip-flopped again and made a feint towards supporting offshore drilling. Yet Obama, according to Mirengoff, "has also led a one-man crusade to keep the American people ignorant about what is at stake in the debate over off-shore drilling".
In 2005, he voted to kill legislation that would have measured our offshore reserves. That effort failed and a preliminary inventory report was produced in February 2006. But Mirengoff writes:
Obama, though, did not give up in his efforts to keep the public ignorant. In January 2007, he proposed legislation to eliminate the authorization to conduct the inventory, as established in the 2005 law. Obama's bill is S. 115. The key provision is section 101(a)(5). It provides that "Section 357 (42 U.S.C. 15912) (relating to comprehensive inventory of OCS oil and natural gas resources)" is "repealed as of the date of enactment of this act." It's my understanding that Obama is the only sponsor of this legislation.
Ironically, Obama called his legislation "The Oil SENSE Act." How audacious a label for an act that would deprive the public of key information relevant to deciding whether off-shore drilling makes sense. As far as I know, Obama's legislation is still pending.
His effort is understandable, politically, if not in terms of the national interest. Barack Obama would face even more political problems if the vastness of our offshore energy resources became more widely known. Because there is no way to produce oil, nobody has bothered to explore the extent of the oil which might be found using modern technology. We have been pumping oil in the Gulf of Mexico for many years. California is our fourth largest oil producing state and we know that it has vast oil reserves offshore because it was producing great amounts of oil offshore until political pressure from the Santa Barbara oil spill all but killed offshore prospects. Our oil and gas technology has vastly improved since then, though Democrats prefer to remain oblivious when it comes to oil and gas technological strides. It is getting downright embarrassing that Cuba has granted offshore drilling rights to Chinese companies that abut Florida's offshore boundaries. Barack Obama knows we cannot have a serious informed debate over offshore oil reserves until we have the facts in hand, and he has worked to make these facts unavailable to fellow Americans. Barack Obama would rather keep us in the dark -- figuratively now, and perhaps literally in the years to come.
What else has he kept us in the dark about? Well, he has not been touting his "Global Poverty Act" lately (S.2433)-though earlier he promised to make passage of this bill a "priority" -- This pleasant sounding bill has provisions buried within its language that would impose many billions of dollars of foreign aid obligations on America (up to $845 billion in the next 13 years over and above what we already give in foreign aid). Some believe that this would grant the United Nations the power to bind America in a wide variety of other areas, as well. Barack Obama is a global citizen, after all.
Barack Obama's pattern of legislative behavior should concern all Americans. He has tried to have his cake and eat it, too. He may broadly "support" a wide variety of politically popular causes (the right to bear arms, nuclear power, and now offshore oil drilling) but engage in legislative sleight of hand to foreclose the chances of these goals ever being achieved. This is merely the legislative version of the double-dealing that Barack Obama has displayed over the years.
On the campaign trail, he can talk a good game about post-racial politics, but for twenty years he was an acolyte of a man who preached the absolute opposite. He can claim he supports bipartisanship but has the most liberal record in the Senate. He can pander in front of one audience and then change his position the very next day ("Undivided Jerusalem"). Outside the halls of Congress, he can support this or that proposal, but then try to kill it through smoke and mirrors within the halls of Congress.
For a man who promotes transparency, he sure has a funny way of showing it. His political principle, such as it is, may be "Do As I Say, Not as I Do". It may not sound as pleasant as "Change you can believe in," but it has a track record you can believe in.
Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_craftiness.html
August 04, 2008
Ed Lasky
Barack Obama is one crafty fellow, reaping political success out of career that got precious little done. He has accomplished very little legislatively in his entire career; his vaunted accomplishments in the Illinois Senate were more the result of the handicraft of his political ally and mentor State Democratic head Emil Jones (who tacked Obama's name on legislation to bolster his career) than his own work on the issues .
Obama has done virtually nothing at the Senate level -- he has not even seen fit to call a meeting of the Committee he heads, the Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs. Despite its name, Obama's subcommittee has some oversight over Afghanistan. While he now says on the campaign trail that Afghanistan requires more focus and attention , he overlooked his own jurisdictional responsibilities in that theatre for the entire time he has served in the US Senate. He refuses to take time off his victory tour to call his subcommittee to order to provide such oversight.
Even worse, Obama has a record of taking credit often for work he has not done -- one of the last refuges of a poseur. During his campaign against Hillary, even his fellow Democrats swatted down the presumptuousness of his ploy to gain credit for the work of others. Once he claimed credit for an immigration bill when a camera team was in the vicinity .
Now that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee, his gall often is overlooked when he claims credit for the work of others, or when he claims to have played a role in the actions of, and membership on, the Senate Banking Committee.
Obama is skilled in certain types of legislative maneuvering though. He learned in Illinois statehouse politics how to place poison pill amendments in legislation, or how to sneak regulatory requirements in otherwise innocuous-seeming legislation. While still serving in the Illinois State Senate, he proposed federal legislation that would cripple people's ability to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Obama wanted to see a federal law against licensed firearm dealers operating within five miles of a school or state park. Experts have wonder if this proposal, given the numerous parks and schools that dot our landscape, would all but foreclose the ability of gun dealers to operate, except in the most remote locations.
As a presidential candidate, however, he now claims to believe in the Second Amendment. Constitutional law lecturer or not, he certainly got the law wrong when it came to the Washington, D.C. handgun ban. And he has supported a wide variety of proposals that would all but eviscerate the practical exercise of that right . He might say he supports the right of Americans to own guns, but he has supported actions that would all but deny them that right.
Barack Obama has also proclaimed his support for nuclear energy (his campaign manager David Axelrod has had one very important client besides Obama: Exelon, a major nuclear power utility player. Axelrod planned and executed an Astroturf maneuver -- a fake, corporate sponsored ostensibly "grassroots" campaign, in this case, to compel Illinois to grant the utility the power to raise rates.
Obama has touted his environmental credentials. With global warming scare, nuclear power has become one of the formerly verboten energy sources some environmentalists have warmed to. Yet he has worked to kill the chances of nuclear power becoming an important power source for Americans. Along with the Majority Leader, Nevada Senator Harry Reid, Obama has supported all foreclosing the possibility of using Yucca Mountain (located far away from any people) as a nuclear waste repository. He even advocated the abandonment of the entire project. This despite the fact that billions have been spent developing this critically needed site. This opposition comes despite the fact that America is running out of places to store nuclear waste (right now it is done on-site). This opposition despite studies that show Yucca to be a safe way to store the relatively small amount of nuclear waste generated by our power plants.
Paul Mirengoff of Powerline caught Obama in another legislative sleight of hand . The candidate has long opposed off-shore drilling, following the views of many other liberal interest groups. Obama has now flip-flopped again and made a feint towards supporting offshore drilling. Yet Obama, according to Mirengoff, "has also led a one-man crusade to keep the American people ignorant about what is at stake in the debate over off-shore drilling".
In 2005, he voted to kill legislation that would have measured our offshore reserves. That effort failed and a preliminary inventory report was produced in February 2006. But Mirengoff writes:
Obama, though, did not give up in his efforts to keep the public ignorant. In January 2007, he proposed legislation to eliminate the authorization to conduct the inventory, as established in the 2005 law. Obama's bill is S. 115. The key provision is section 101(a)(5). It provides that "Section 357 (42 U.S.C. 15912) (relating to comprehensive inventory of OCS oil and natural gas resources)" is "repealed as of the date of enactment of this act." It's my understanding that Obama is the only sponsor of this legislation.
Ironically, Obama called his legislation "The Oil SENSE Act." How audacious a label for an act that would deprive the public of key information relevant to deciding whether off-shore drilling makes sense. As far as I know, Obama's legislation is still pending.
His effort is understandable, politically, if not in terms of the national interest. Barack Obama would face even more political problems if the vastness of our offshore energy resources became more widely known. Because there is no way to produce oil, nobody has bothered to explore the extent of the oil which might be found using modern technology. We have been pumping oil in the Gulf of Mexico for many years. California is our fourth largest oil producing state and we know that it has vast oil reserves offshore because it was producing great amounts of oil offshore until political pressure from the Santa Barbara oil spill all but killed offshore prospects. Our oil and gas technology has vastly improved since then, though Democrats prefer to remain oblivious when it comes to oil and gas technological strides. It is getting downright embarrassing that Cuba has granted offshore drilling rights to Chinese companies that abut Florida's offshore boundaries. Barack Obama knows we cannot have a serious informed debate over offshore oil reserves until we have the facts in hand, and he has worked to make these facts unavailable to fellow Americans. Barack Obama would rather keep us in the dark -- figuratively now, and perhaps literally in the years to come.
What else has he kept us in the dark about? Well, he has not been touting his "Global Poverty Act" lately (S.2433)-though earlier he promised to make passage of this bill a "priority" -- This pleasant sounding bill has provisions buried within its language that would impose many billions of dollars of foreign aid obligations on America (up to $845 billion in the next 13 years over and above what we already give in foreign aid). Some believe that this would grant the United Nations the power to bind America in a wide variety of other areas, as well. Barack Obama is a global citizen, after all.
Barack Obama's pattern of legislative behavior should concern all Americans. He has tried to have his cake and eat it, too. He may broadly "support" a wide variety of politically popular causes (the right to bear arms, nuclear power, and now offshore oil drilling) but engage in legislative sleight of hand to foreclose the chances of these goals ever being achieved. This is merely the legislative version of the double-dealing that Barack Obama has displayed over the years.
On the campaign trail, he can talk a good game about post-racial politics, but for twenty years he was an acolyte of a man who preached the absolute opposite. He can claim he supports bipartisanship but has the most liberal record in the Senate. He can pander in front of one audience and then change his position the very next day ("Undivided Jerusalem"). Outside the halls of Congress, he can support this or that proposal, but then try to kill it through smoke and mirrors within the halls of Congress.
For a man who promotes transparency, he sure has a funny way of showing it. His political principle, such as it is, may be "Do As I Say, Not as I Do". It may not sound as pleasant as "Change you can believe in," but it has a track record you can believe in.
Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_craftiness.html
Friday, August 1, 2008
Obamanomics Flunks The Test
IBD Editorials ^ August 1, 2008
Election '08: Barack Obama the lawyer-organizer could use a crash course in economics. His economic plan's assumptions, based on long-discredited Marxist theories, are wildly wrongheaded.
In arguing for a heavier mix of government, he assumes that capitalism unfairly favors the rich, almost exclusively so, and fails to spread prosperity.
"The rich in America have little to complain about," he carps. "The distribution of wealth is skewed, and levels of inequality are now higher than at any time since the Gilded Age."
Obama cites data showing a yawning gap between the income of the average worker and the wealthiest 1%. He thinks it's government's job to step in and close it — "for purposes of fairness" — by soaking the rich, among other leftist nostrums.
"Between 1971 and 2001," he complains, "while the median wage and salary income of the average worker showed literally no gain, the income of the top hundredth of a percent went up almost 500%."
But such a snapshot comparison would be meaningful only if America were a caste society, in which the people making up one income group remained static over time.
Of course that's not the case. The composition of the rich and poor in this country is in constant flux, as the income distribution changes dramatically over relatively short periods. Few are "stuck" in poverty, or have a "lock" on wealth.
(Excerpt)
Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
NOTE: Obama who lives in a home worth well over $1M gave very little to charity until he decided to run for President. His wife tells college students they need to go in nursing and teaching and not worry about going into business to make money while she had a $300,000 plus job with the University of Chicago. What is this? Take from the rich and give to poor? Why would anyone want to strive to make more money if the Dems like Obama want to take it away and give to people who don't make as much or those that don't want to work.
All you have to do is look at South Chicago which has been run by the Daley machine of which his wife was a member to see that Chicago has done NOTHING for the poor of S. Chicago except toss money occasionally at them. Where was Obama when Chicago erupted into killings earlier this year? Obama wants to tell successful people how to spend their money. Is he going to want them to take care of the rest of the world next through the UN? A vote for Obama is a vote to take from the rich to give to the poor including those that won't work in Chicago.
Visit Chicago and be approached by panhandlers who want you to give money for a meal. In fact, outside a Subway was a panhandler that all he wanted was a free sandwich because he was starving. After the sixth free sandwich which he sold to others, the person running Subway started warning people. Not to mention the fact there was a soup kitchen down the street. Some of these people make a lot off of tourist who feel sorry for them and all the money goes unreported.
Welcome to Chicago, the home of Obama where the Daley machine still exists to make sure the poor remain poor and stay committed to voting for the Dems who promise to help every time but never deliver.
Sam
Election '08: Barack Obama the lawyer-organizer could use a crash course in economics. His economic plan's assumptions, based on long-discredited Marxist theories, are wildly wrongheaded.
In arguing for a heavier mix of government, he assumes that capitalism unfairly favors the rich, almost exclusively so, and fails to spread prosperity.
"The rich in America have little to complain about," he carps. "The distribution of wealth is skewed, and levels of inequality are now higher than at any time since the Gilded Age."
Obama cites data showing a yawning gap between the income of the average worker and the wealthiest 1%. He thinks it's government's job to step in and close it — "for purposes of fairness" — by soaking the rich, among other leftist nostrums.
"Between 1971 and 2001," he complains, "while the median wage and salary income of the average worker showed literally no gain, the income of the top hundredth of a percent went up almost 500%."
But such a snapshot comparison would be meaningful only if America were a caste society, in which the people making up one income group remained static over time.
Of course that's not the case. The composition of the rich and poor in this country is in constant flux, as the income distribution changes dramatically over relatively short periods. Few are "stuck" in poverty, or have a "lock" on wealth.
(Excerpt)
Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
NOTE: Obama who lives in a home worth well over $1M gave very little to charity until he decided to run for President. His wife tells college students they need to go in nursing and teaching and not worry about going into business to make money while she had a $300,000 plus job with the University of Chicago. What is this? Take from the rich and give to poor? Why would anyone want to strive to make more money if the Dems like Obama want to take it away and give to people who don't make as much or those that don't want to work.
All you have to do is look at South Chicago which has been run by the Daley machine of which his wife was a member to see that Chicago has done NOTHING for the poor of S. Chicago except toss money occasionally at them. Where was Obama when Chicago erupted into killings earlier this year? Obama wants to tell successful people how to spend their money. Is he going to want them to take care of the rest of the world next through the UN? A vote for Obama is a vote to take from the rich to give to the poor including those that won't work in Chicago.
Visit Chicago and be approached by panhandlers who want you to give money for a meal. In fact, outside a Subway was a panhandler that all he wanted was a free sandwich because he was starving. After the sixth free sandwich which he sold to others, the person running Subway started warning people. Not to mention the fact there was a soup kitchen down the street. Some of these people make a lot off of tourist who feel sorry for them and all the money goes unreported.
Welcome to Chicago, the home of Obama where the Daley machine still exists to make sure the poor remain poor and stay committed to voting for the Dems who promise to help every time but never deliver.
Sam
Phony 'Emergency'
IBD Editorials ^ August 1, 2008
Stimulus: Barack Obama's newly unveiled "Emergency Economic Plan" is quite a document, sounding more like the rantings of an extremist fringe candidate than a serious contender for the presidency.
The six-page package is a doozy, replete with populist ideas that will wreck the economy and leave us poorer. The only real emergency we should worry about is the debacle that would follow its passage.
It's shocking that a mainstream candidate, with so many supposedly well-regarded economists advising him, would produce such a shoddy, poorly thought-out plan.
Take his proposal to send every family a check for $1,000. Don't worry, he assures us, we won't have to pay for it. "Windfall profits from Big Oil" will pick up the tab — in this case.
Sen. Obama seems to be trying to take advantage of reports that Exxon Mobil reported record second-quarter income — indeed, the highest quarterly profit for any corporation ever.
But the reality is that as Obama and his equally unknowing friends push windfall taxes, Exxon Mobil has already given the U.S. a massive windfall. As economist Mark Perry has noted, Exxon Mobil will pay more taxes this year to the U.S. Treasury than the bottom 50% of all taxpayers — combined.
In the first half, Exxon Mobil's after-tax income rose 15% to $22.6 billion. A lot of money, to be sure, until you consider that Exxon Mobil paid $61.7 billion in taxes — also a record.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
NOTE: If the marginal wells in Oklahoma and Texas were reopened (closed by Executive Order), according to Sen Inhofe there is more crude then what we import from Saudi Arabia. Drill NOW and reopen wells if you want the price to go down. No new refineries in over 30 years thanks to regulations and cost. For the first time oil companies are seeing light and the Feds are getting rich off the profits and yet the oil companies get blamed. Shame on the Dems in Congress who went home and refused to take up the drill for oil bills. Want to blame someone for high prices, blame the 'NO DRILL' Democrats!
Stimulus: Barack Obama's newly unveiled "Emergency Economic Plan" is quite a document, sounding more like the rantings of an extremist fringe candidate than a serious contender for the presidency.
The six-page package is a doozy, replete with populist ideas that will wreck the economy and leave us poorer. The only real emergency we should worry about is the debacle that would follow its passage.
It's shocking that a mainstream candidate, with so many supposedly well-regarded economists advising him, would produce such a shoddy, poorly thought-out plan.
Take his proposal to send every family a check for $1,000. Don't worry, he assures us, we won't have to pay for it. "Windfall profits from Big Oil" will pick up the tab — in this case.
Sen. Obama seems to be trying to take advantage of reports that Exxon Mobil reported record second-quarter income — indeed, the highest quarterly profit for any corporation ever.
But the reality is that as Obama and his equally unknowing friends push windfall taxes, Exxon Mobil has already given the U.S. a massive windfall. As economist Mark Perry has noted, Exxon Mobil will pay more taxes this year to the U.S. Treasury than the bottom 50% of all taxpayers — combined.
In the first half, Exxon Mobil's after-tax income rose 15% to $22.6 billion. A lot of money, to be sure, until you consider that Exxon Mobil paid $61.7 billion in taxes — also a record.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
NOTE: If the marginal wells in Oklahoma and Texas were reopened (closed by Executive Order), according to Sen Inhofe there is more crude then what we import from Saudi Arabia. Drill NOW and reopen wells if you want the price to go down. No new refineries in over 30 years thanks to regulations and cost. For the first time oil companies are seeing light and the Feds are getting rich off the profits and yet the oil companies get blamed. Shame on the Dems in Congress who went home and refused to take up the drill for oil bills. Want to blame someone for high prices, blame the 'NO DRILL' Democrats!
TV Ad: THE ONE -- MUST SEE
Must see TV ad -- hear Obama's own words:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Multimedia/Player.aspx?guid=779c7d13-7d76-47a5-a4cd-e928e8f1f1d6
This ad points at the arrogance of Obama which transcends any other politician in years or maybe ever. That he would actually say these words is stunning. The Senator with little to no experience who didn't have the time to hold hearings for his Foreign Affairs Subcomittee is unqualified to be President IMHO. Just who is behind Obama is what so many of us are asking because it is obvious off the teleprompter that he is not a fluent speaker. He is trained on the teleprompter but not on impromptu speaking!
He tried to bring up race concerning his remarks about the dollar bill and then blame it on McCain by saying he didn't mean race yesterday but today he said he did mean race.
You want someone like this to be President? No Way! Hillary had the popular vote in the primary but you hear nothing about that now. Amazing!
Sam
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Multimedia/Player.aspx?guid=779c7d13-7d76-47a5-a4cd-e928e8f1f1d6
This ad points at the arrogance of Obama which transcends any other politician in years or maybe ever. That he would actually say these words is stunning. The Senator with little to no experience who didn't have the time to hold hearings for his Foreign Affairs Subcomittee is unqualified to be President IMHO. Just who is behind Obama is what so many of us are asking because it is obvious off the teleprompter that he is not a fluent speaker. He is trained on the teleprompter but not on impromptu speaking!
He tried to bring up race concerning his remarks about the dollar bill and then blame it on McCain by saying he didn't mean race yesterday but today he said he did mean race.
You want someone like this to be President? No Way! Hillary had the popular vote in the primary but you hear nothing about that now. Amazing!
Sam
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Landstuhl Clarifies Press Rules for Aborted Obama Visit
Landstuhl Clarifies Press Rules for Aborted Obama Visit (Obama Photo-Op Was Planned
Stars and Stripes ^ Friday, August 1, 2008 Steve Mraz
LANDSTUHL, Germany – Although news outlets have reported charges that Sen. Barack Obama canceled his trip to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany because the media weren’t allowed to cover the event, U.S. European Command officials say plans were in place to allow limited press coverage.
All media, including local press and the more than 40 journalists accompanying the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee on his eight-day international trip last week, would have been able to photograph the Illinois senator entering and leaving the hospital, said Air Force Lt. Col. John Dorrian, a U.S. European Command spokesman.
Defense Department public affairs policy guidance on media coverage of candidates visiting military installations states "under no circumstances may a candidate receive approval to make a campaign or election-related statement or to respond to a campaign or election-related media query."
The guidance also states that "the candidate may appear on camera and in photographs as an official participant and may make a statement or answer questions about the official business being conducted."
Obama’s canceled July 25 visit to Landstuhl sparked a strong and lingering reaction from presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain over allegations that Obama canceled the trip because media could not cover the event. The McCain campaign has since aired a TV commercial blasting Obama for his no-show at Landstuhl.
An ongoing back-and-forth has ensued, with McCain accusing Obama of canceling the hospital trip because he wasn’t allowed to bring reporters.
Obama responded on Saturday, telling reporters he nixed the hospital visit because it would have been perceived as political since he sought to have a campaign staffer accompany him to Landstuhl, according to The Washington Post.
Defense Department policy guidance states that candidates cannot use military facilities for political campaign or election events.
Obama’s visit would have been unique because he would have been the first U.S. Congress member to visit the hospital alone this year.
In 2008, Landstuhl has hosted eight congressional delegations, and each of those delegations was composed of three to eight Congress members, Dorrian said.
McCain last visited Landstuhl on April 5, 2007, as part of a congressional delegation.
McCain’s visit was closed to the press.
Note: Thanks to Kristinn of FR for keeping after the truth on the lack of visit to the military hospital at Landstuhl, Germany, by Obama and his major general he had with him who didn't like to be excluded even though he is part of the Obama political team.
Stars and Stripes ^ Friday, August 1, 2008 Steve Mraz
LANDSTUHL, Germany – Although news outlets have reported charges that Sen. Barack Obama canceled his trip to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany because the media weren’t allowed to cover the event, U.S. European Command officials say plans were in place to allow limited press coverage.
All media, including local press and the more than 40 journalists accompanying the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee on his eight-day international trip last week, would have been able to photograph the Illinois senator entering and leaving the hospital, said Air Force Lt. Col. John Dorrian, a U.S. European Command spokesman.
Defense Department public affairs policy guidance on media coverage of candidates visiting military installations states "under no circumstances may a candidate receive approval to make a campaign or election-related statement or to respond to a campaign or election-related media query."
The guidance also states that "the candidate may appear on camera and in photographs as an official participant and may make a statement or answer questions about the official business being conducted."
Obama’s canceled July 25 visit to Landstuhl sparked a strong and lingering reaction from presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain over allegations that Obama canceled the trip because media could not cover the event. The McCain campaign has since aired a TV commercial blasting Obama for his no-show at Landstuhl.
An ongoing back-and-forth has ensued, with McCain accusing Obama of canceling the hospital trip because he wasn’t allowed to bring reporters.
Obama responded on Saturday, telling reporters he nixed the hospital visit because it would have been perceived as political since he sought to have a campaign staffer accompany him to Landstuhl, according to The Washington Post.
Defense Department policy guidance states that candidates cannot use military facilities for political campaign or election events.
Obama’s visit would have been unique because he would have been the first U.S. Congress member to visit the hospital alone this year.
In 2008, Landstuhl has hosted eight congressional delegations, and each of those delegations was composed of three to eight Congress members, Dorrian said.
McCain last visited Landstuhl on April 5, 2007, as part of a congressional delegation.
McCain’s visit was closed to the press.
Note: Thanks to Kristinn of FR for keeping after the truth on the lack of visit to the military hospital at Landstuhl, Germany, by Obama and his major general he had with him who didn't like to be excluded even though he is part of the Obama political team.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Obama: McCain’s message is that I don’t “look like the other presidents on the currency”
Obama: McCain’s message is that I don’t “look like the other presidents on the currency”
Posted at 8:40 pm on July 30, 2008 by Allahpundit
In the unlikely event that you don’t see what he’s getting at, revisit Ed’s post from last month, when Obama made this charge much more explicitly. Simply the perfect ironic counterpoint to his complaints that McCain has been unfair, culminating in an ad entitled, I kid you not, “Low Road.”
“He’s spending an awful lot of time talking about me. You notice that?” Obama asked a crowd of just over one thousand seated in a university gym. “I haven’t seen an ad yet where he talks about what he’s going to do. And the reason is because those folks know they don’t have any good answers, they know they’ve had their turn over the last eight years and made a mess of things.”
“They know that you’re not real happy with them and so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me,” Obama continued, repeating an attack from earlier in the day. “What they’re saying is ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, he’s a got a funny name.’”
Mind you, this comes on a day when not only does conventional wisdom have it that the GOP is running the same campaign they ran four years ago against the spectacularly white John Kerry, but the great boogeyman to whom Obama is being compared is … Paris Hilton. This isn’t the first time either that the left has gotten impatient with the lack of racial attacks from McCain and demagogued him anyway just to defibrillate the narrative (as they also did with Hillary), but it’s unusual to see the Messiah himself stoop to making the charge instead of outsourcing it to an aide or waiting around for one of his slimier fans to do it for him. Which leads us back, inevitably, to TNR’s piece from February on how Team Barry played the race card on the Clinton machine. Read it if you neglected to do so the previous thousand times I linked it since it’s a playbook for what’s ahead.
Exit question: Was Mark Hemingway being ironic at the Corner when he said of Josh Marshall’s latest consultation with his secret racial decoder ring, he’s “usually above this sort of thing”? Hey, Mark? Define “usually,” please.
Note: Excuse me but the reason most of us don't like or trust Obama has nothing to do with the color of his skin (50% white; 12% black, and 38% Arab) -- it has to do with his liberal policies, his lies, his dissing of American wounded soldiers, and the company he keeps from Rev Wright, to a known Communist, to Renzko the convicted felon, the rapper, for starters. If you are judged by the company you keep, Obama fails IMO. Playing the race card is not going to get him elected because Sen McCain is anything but a bigot. Guess Obama forgets about Sen McCain's adopted daughter. Don't vote for a candidate because of the color of his skin -- vote for a candidate because I agree with them philosophically. This looks like one of those Obama can attack and have his surrogates attack and Sen McCain is supposed to sit and take it. That is Bravo Sierra! Sam
Posted at 8:40 pm on July 30, 2008 by Allahpundit
In the unlikely event that you don’t see what he’s getting at, revisit Ed’s post from last month, when Obama made this charge much more explicitly. Simply the perfect ironic counterpoint to his complaints that McCain has been unfair, culminating in an ad entitled, I kid you not, “Low Road.”
“He’s spending an awful lot of time talking about me. You notice that?” Obama asked a crowd of just over one thousand seated in a university gym. “I haven’t seen an ad yet where he talks about what he’s going to do. And the reason is because those folks know they don’t have any good answers, they know they’ve had their turn over the last eight years and made a mess of things.”
“They know that you’re not real happy with them and so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me,” Obama continued, repeating an attack from earlier in the day. “What they’re saying is ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, he’s a got a funny name.’”
Mind you, this comes on a day when not only does conventional wisdom have it that the GOP is running the same campaign they ran four years ago against the spectacularly white John Kerry, but the great boogeyman to whom Obama is being compared is … Paris Hilton. This isn’t the first time either that the left has gotten impatient with the lack of racial attacks from McCain and demagogued him anyway just to defibrillate the narrative (as they also did with Hillary), but it’s unusual to see the Messiah himself stoop to making the charge instead of outsourcing it to an aide or waiting around for one of his slimier fans to do it for him. Which leads us back, inevitably, to TNR’s piece from February on how Team Barry played the race card on the Clinton machine. Read it if you neglected to do so the previous thousand times I linked it since it’s a playbook for what’s ahead.
Exit question: Was Mark Hemingway being ironic at the Corner when he said of Josh Marshall’s latest consultation with his secret racial decoder ring, he’s “usually above this sort of thing”? Hey, Mark? Define “usually,” please.
Note: Excuse me but the reason most of us don't like or trust Obama has nothing to do with the color of his skin (50% white; 12% black, and 38% Arab) -- it has to do with his liberal policies, his lies, his dissing of American wounded soldiers, and the company he keeps from Rev Wright, to a known Communist, to Renzko the convicted felon, the rapper, for starters. If you are judged by the company you keep, Obama fails IMO. Playing the race card is not going to get him elected because Sen McCain is anything but a bigot. Guess Obama forgets about Sen McCain's adopted daughter. Don't vote for a candidate because of the color of his skin -- vote for a candidate because I agree with them philosophically. This looks like one of those Obama can attack and have his surrogates attack and Sen McCain is supposed to sit and take it. That is Bravo Sierra! Sam
Special Report: Red Faces Over Obama’s Red MentorPrint This
July 29, 2008
Cliff Kincaid
In a strange development, supporters of Barack Obama’s childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, are openly debating the nature and depth of Davis’s commitment to the Communist Party and his relationship with the Democrat candidate. The debate has gotten heated.
This unusual debate, which is taking place on Obama’s official website, raises the question once again as to why Obama has not been asked by the major media about this relationship. Davis was identified as a Communist Party member by various investigative committees and acknowledged his party membership in a private letter obtained by John Edgar Tidwell, who was sympathetic to Davis and edited his books.
On one side of this debate is somebody claiming to be the son of Davis. On the other side is Alan Maki, a political activist and union organizer with a long history of involvement in left-wing causes. Indeed, Maki confirms that he has been a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and was a communist decades ago when he was in the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).
Although he doesn’t support Obama because of his ties to Big Business, Maki wrote a blog on the Obama website stating that he was grateful to Obama for bringing Davis to his attention, and that he, Maki, regarded Davis as his mentor, too. Maki announced establishment of a “Frank Marshall Davis Roundtable for Change” and invited Obama supporters to join it.
Maki did his homework, which is more than most of our own media have done, and he obtained Davis’s books. It is absolutely clear, Maki stated, that Davis was a communist.
In his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, Obama cites “Frank” as someone who gave him advice on various matters, including race, American values, and college, and read poems to him during his high-school years in Hawaii. One of Davis’s poems was a tribute to the Soviet Red Army. Another mocked the work of Christian missionaries.
New Zealand blogger Trevor Loudon was the first to alert people to the fact that “Frank” was identified as Frank Marshall Davis, a controversial black writer and poet, by Gerald Horne, a writer for a CPUSA publication. Davis’s influence over Obama could help explain why the candidate associated with communists, socialists and anti-American figures through college and his political life in Chicago.
Maki says his intention is to use Davis’s writings “to advance the unity of working people to be a voice to be reckoned with by the Obama Administration, which to me, at this point, looks like will be an overwhelming landslide victory over the Republicans.”
Communist-style Change
Into the picture comes the person claiming to be the son of Frank Marshall Davis, who posted some comments on the Obama website in which he expresses the view that Maki and I are somehow in cahoots because Maki agreed to talk to me about his views on communism and Obama.
While Maki doesn’t personally like my conservative views, he was honest and forthright about his own political beliefs. Maki posts his telephone number, is easy to reach, and doesn’t hide his political affiliation. And since I reported the results of these conversations, the person calling himself Mark Davis says Maki and I have become “strange bedfellows” and involved in some kind of alliance against Obama.
This would be amusing were it not for the fact that this Mark Davis figure seems determined to obscure the truth and tries to publish this information on various Internet sites. Mark Davis has even posted comments on the misnamed “Intellectual Conservative” website, after somebody named Bob Stapler claimed it was a “delusion” on my part to think that a communist named Frank Marshall Davis had any impact on Obama. Stapler, who claims to be a conservative, refused to correct the record after several requests and appeals for him to examine the factual evidence in the Davis matter.
Sounding authoritative, this Mark Davis character has declared that Frank Marshall Davis “was not a communist,” was not Obama’s “mentor,” and that his influence over Obama has been “exaggerated.” However, he does contend that Obama did have “respect for Davis’s social insight” and showed “good will” toward him.Coming from someone claiming to be Davis’s son, these assertions might appear to hold some weight.
It is important to note that there is no denial that “Frank” was Frank Marshall Davis. The main question, it seems, is how much influence he exerted over Obama, and how much of a card-carrying communist he actually was.
Lately, this same “Mark” has gone further, appearing to embrace suggestions that it is somehow “defamation” to accuse Davis of being a communist, even though reports from various committees and investigations identified him as such and Davis admitted it in the private letter cited by Tidwell. This is apparently a tactic to try to prevent people from delving too deeply into the Obama-Davis relationship.
More investigations must and will be done, not only in regard to Davis but also those in Hawaii and elsewhere who continue to cover up for him. Indeed, the attacks on AIM for publicizing the Obama-Davis link appear designed to protect associates of Davis from scrutiny. If this is the intention, the tactic has backfired.
AIM is vowing to publish more information about Davis and his supporters.
Tell the Truth
Clearly, there is an effort underway to sanitize or play down the Obama-Davis relationship and try to intimidate the major media into not covering it. But it is unusual, to say the least, that some of this effort is occurring on the official Obama website. The reaction, which makes the controversy even more newsworthy and significant, suggests that the truth is seeping out through other means, mostly in the alternative media, and increasing the pressure at least on Obama’s supporters to deal with the matter.
In another strange twist, Mark Davis claims some of his comments have been taken off the Obama website, but some freely remain (see comment 37) on the AIM website, which is open to a variety of views in the form of comments on posted columns. Some Davis comments were apparently deleted from the Obama website on the ground that they were “part of a racist, anti-Semitic hate campaign” against Maki. Davis insists they were not of that nature.
Eventually, if this controversy about Frank Marshall Davis continues to build, Obama could be personally forced by the media to respond, in the same way that former Democrat vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro had to hold a full-blown press conference to answer questions about her husband’s alleged Mob connections.
Maki thinks it admirable that Davis was a communist, but the odds are that few Americans would agree with him.
It is a problem not only for Obama and his campaign, but for those who associated with and covered up for Davis.
If Mark Davis is truly Davis’s son, one would think he would know the truth and have inside information about his father. His thin “profile” on the Obama website claims he is an Obama supporter but not registered to vote. It’s difficult, of course, to determine a true identity based on the limited information available about this person on the Internet. But it is Obama’s website and should be taken somewhat seriously. Maki has reported that he got a telephone call from the “real” Mark Davis, suggesting the one posting comments supposedly in defense of Davis is somebody else.
In any case, Maki is rightly perplexed by the claims that Davis was not a communist, noting that Davis’s own books frankly explore his communist views.
Remainder of article!
Cliff Kincaid
In a strange development, supporters of Barack Obama’s childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, are openly debating the nature and depth of Davis’s commitment to the Communist Party and his relationship with the Democrat candidate. The debate has gotten heated.
This unusual debate, which is taking place on Obama’s official website, raises the question once again as to why Obama has not been asked by the major media about this relationship. Davis was identified as a Communist Party member by various investigative committees and acknowledged his party membership in a private letter obtained by John Edgar Tidwell, who was sympathetic to Davis and edited his books.
On one side of this debate is somebody claiming to be the son of Davis. On the other side is Alan Maki, a political activist and union organizer with a long history of involvement in left-wing causes. Indeed, Maki confirms that he has been a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and was a communist decades ago when he was in the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).
Although he doesn’t support Obama because of his ties to Big Business, Maki wrote a blog on the Obama website stating that he was grateful to Obama for bringing Davis to his attention, and that he, Maki, regarded Davis as his mentor, too. Maki announced establishment of a “Frank Marshall Davis Roundtable for Change” and invited Obama supporters to join it.
Maki did his homework, which is more than most of our own media have done, and he obtained Davis’s books. It is absolutely clear, Maki stated, that Davis was a communist.
In his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, Obama cites “Frank” as someone who gave him advice on various matters, including race, American values, and college, and read poems to him during his high-school years in Hawaii. One of Davis’s poems was a tribute to the Soviet Red Army. Another mocked the work of Christian missionaries.
New Zealand blogger Trevor Loudon was the first to alert people to the fact that “Frank” was identified as Frank Marshall Davis, a controversial black writer and poet, by Gerald Horne, a writer for a CPUSA publication. Davis’s influence over Obama could help explain why the candidate associated with communists, socialists and anti-American figures through college and his political life in Chicago.
Maki says his intention is to use Davis’s writings “to advance the unity of working people to be a voice to be reckoned with by the Obama Administration, which to me, at this point, looks like will be an overwhelming landslide victory over the Republicans.”
Communist-style Change
Into the picture comes the person claiming to be the son of Frank Marshall Davis, who posted some comments on the Obama website in which he expresses the view that Maki and I are somehow in cahoots because Maki agreed to talk to me about his views on communism and Obama.
While Maki doesn’t personally like my conservative views, he was honest and forthright about his own political beliefs. Maki posts his telephone number, is easy to reach, and doesn’t hide his political affiliation. And since I reported the results of these conversations, the person calling himself Mark Davis says Maki and I have become “strange bedfellows” and involved in some kind of alliance against Obama.
This would be amusing were it not for the fact that this Mark Davis figure seems determined to obscure the truth and tries to publish this information on various Internet sites. Mark Davis has even posted comments on the misnamed “Intellectual Conservative” website, after somebody named Bob Stapler claimed it was a “delusion” on my part to think that a communist named Frank Marshall Davis had any impact on Obama. Stapler, who claims to be a conservative, refused to correct the record after several requests and appeals for him to examine the factual evidence in the Davis matter.
Sounding authoritative, this Mark Davis character has declared that Frank Marshall Davis “was not a communist,” was not Obama’s “mentor,” and that his influence over Obama has been “exaggerated.” However, he does contend that Obama did have “respect for Davis’s social insight” and showed “good will” toward him.Coming from someone claiming to be Davis’s son, these assertions might appear to hold some weight.
It is important to note that there is no denial that “Frank” was Frank Marshall Davis. The main question, it seems, is how much influence he exerted over Obama, and how much of a card-carrying communist he actually was.
Lately, this same “Mark” has gone further, appearing to embrace suggestions that it is somehow “defamation” to accuse Davis of being a communist, even though reports from various committees and investigations identified him as such and Davis admitted it in the private letter cited by Tidwell. This is apparently a tactic to try to prevent people from delving too deeply into the Obama-Davis relationship.
More investigations must and will be done, not only in regard to Davis but also those in Hawaii and elsewhere who continue to cover up for him. Indeed, the attacks on AIM for publicizing the Obama-Davis link appear designed to protect associates of Davis from scrutiny. If this is the intention, the tactic has backfired.
AIM is vowing to publish more information about Davis and his supporters.
Tell the Truth
Clearly, there is an effort underway to sanitize or play down the Obama-Davis relationship and try to intimidate the major media into not covering it. But it is unusual, to say the least, that some of this effort is occurring on the official Obama website. The reaction, which makes the controversy even more newsworthy and significant, suggests that the truth is seeping out through other means, mostly in the alternative media, and increasing the pressure at least on Obama’s supporters to deal with the matter.
In another strange twist, Mark Davis claims some of his comments have been taken off the Obama website, but some freely remain (see comment 37) on the AIM website, which is open to a variety of views in the form of comments on posted columns. Some Davis comments were apparently deleted from the Obama website on the ground that they were “part of a racist, anti-Semitic hate campaign” against Maki. Davis insists they were not of that nature.
Eventually, if this controversy about Frank Marshall Davis continues to build, Obama could be personally forced by the media to respond, in the same way that former Democrat vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro had to hold a full-blown press conference to answer questions about her husband’s alleged Mob connections.
Maki thinks it admirable that Davis was a communist, but the odds are that few Americans would agree with him.
It is a problem not only for Obama and his campaign, but for those who associated with and covered up for Davis.
If Mark Davis is truly Davis’s son, one would think he would know the truth and have inside information about his father. His thin “profile” on the Obama website claims he is an Obama supporter but not registered to vote. It’s difficult, of course, to determine a true identity based on the limited information available about this person on the Internet. But it is Obama’s website and should be taken somewhat seriously. Maki has reported that he got a telephone call from the “real” Mark Davis, suggesting the one posting comments supposedly in defense of Davis is somebody else.
In any case, Maki is rightly perplexed by the claims that Davis was not a communist, noting that Davis’s own books frankly explore his communist views.
Remainder of article!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
