When I read about General McChrystal's impending retirement I cried. The whole fiasco was so unnecessary. Yes, he showed poor judgment. No, he should never have allowed a Rolling Stone reporter near him or near any of his staff. Yes, he should have screened the article before it was published. But above all, he never should have apologized for telling the truth.
Having said that, and knowing how McChrystal voted in the 2007 election, I guess I can rejoice that he finally saw the light. Too bad he didn’t see what was right in front of him before the election. But it’s too bad, also, that the rest of the Obama voters didn’t see it before the fact. Now we’re stuck with a thin-skinned, henpecked, incompetent who never served one second in the military, and who wouldn’t know a battle plan from a boomerang.
Cec says maybe it was the only way he (McChrystal) could get out gracefully. Personally, I didn’t think it was so bloody graceful. But everything our pres. has been involved in since that black day in January, 2008, has been pathetically bumbling. Bumbling is fine for a cartoon character; but shouldn’t the Commander-in Chief of the United States of America have some modicum of class? No, I guess not. After all, his pals are a bunch of Chicago thugs; he was dragged off the streets and whipped into something resembling a human being at the time that America was ripe for “change”. George Soros did his work well. He’s always done well when it comes to bulldozing entire countries and regimes.
Back to General McChrystal. It’s not like he can’t get a job. But he doesn’t really need one. I’ll purchase and read his book, as will thousands of other patriotic Americans. And Pres. Sorobama can go back to kicking people under the nearest bus. God help us.
This came in an email the other day. I don’t know the source but apparently Steve Kroft put some, if not all of it, together. I also don’t have a date on it, but you know how these things recycle. It’s timely because right now George Soros, better known as Obama’s Puppeteer, is getting even more wealthy, if that is possible, on the suffering of the Gulf oil victims. But that’s his MO, and Obama plays along because he’s incapable of independent thought.
"Who is behind Barak Obama. Who is pulling the strings?"
Here is what CBS' Mr. Steve Kroft's research has turned up... It's a bit of a read, but it took 4 months to put it together:
GEORGE SOROS - TEA PARTY ENEMY #1
"The main obstacle to a stable and just World Order is the United States." - George Soros
"George Soros is an evil man. He's anti-God, anti-family, anti-American, and anti-good." Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson
Is it possible to lay the global financial meltdown, the radicalizing of the Democratic Party, and America's moral decline, at the feet of one man?
YES, it is indeed possible.
If George Soros isn't the world's preeminent "malignant messianic narcissist," he'll do until Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are reincarnated.
What we have in Soros, is a multi-billionaire atheist, with skewed moral values, and a sociopath's lack of conscience. He considers himself to be an elitist world class philosopher, despises the American Way and just loves to do social engineering (change cultures). Soros is the power behind the throne of Obama. I accuse George Soros of being the PUPPET MASTER that is pulling Obama's strings.
György Schwartz, better known to the world as George Soros, was born August 12, 1930 in Hungary. Soros' father, Tivadar, was a fervent practitioner of Esperanto a language invented in 1887, and designed to be the first global language, free of any national identity.
The Schwartz's, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to Soros, in order to facilitate assimilation into the gentile population, as the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s.
When Hitler's henchman Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary, to oversee the murder of that country's Jews, George Soros ended up with a man whose job was confiscating property from the Jewish population. Soros went with him on his rounds.
Soros has repeatedly called 1944 "the best year of his life."
"70% of Mr. Soros's fellow Jews in Hungary, nearly a half-million human beings, were annihilated in that year yet he gives no sign that this put any damper on his elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect."
During an interview with Sixty Minutes' Steve Kroft, Soros was asked about his "best year:"
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from your fellow Jews, friends and neighbors.
SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
SOROS: No, not at all. Not at all, I rather enjoyed it.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
SOROS: No, only feelings of absolute power.
(I’m including a link to Snopes here due to some question about whether the above is actually accurate. Snopes leans so far left that if they admitted that something like this might possibly have some truth to it you can pretty much take it to the bank, assuming you can find one that hasn’t either gone under or been bought out.)
In his article, Muravchik describes how Soros has admitted to having "carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble."
Be that as it may, after WWII, Soros attended the London School of Economics, where he fell under the thrall of fellow atheist and Hungarian, Karl Popper, one of his professors. Popper was a mentor to Soros until Popper's death in 1994. Two of Popper's most influential teachings concerned "the open society," and Fallibilism.Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Then again, I could be wrong about that.
The "open society" basically refers to a "test and evaluate" approach to social engineering. Regarding "open society" Roy Childs writes, "Since the Second World War, most of the Western democracies have followed Popper's advice about piecemeal social engineering and democratic social reform, and it has gotten them into a grand mess."
In 1956 Soros moved to New York City, where he worked on Wall Street, and started amassing his fortune. He specialized in hedge funds and currency speculation. Soros is absolutely ruthless, amoral, and clever in his business dealings, and quickly made his fortune. By the 1980s he was well on his way to becoming the global powerhouse that he is today.
In an article Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote for "The American Thinker" she says, "Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with leveraged billions in financial bets, and became known as the man who broke the Bank of England. He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings cut drastically almost overnight."
In 1994 Soros crowed in "The New Republic" that "the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire." The Russia-gate scandal in 1999, which almost collapsed the Russian economy, was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach, then head of the House Banking Committee, to be "one of the greatest social robberies in human history." The "Soros Empire" indeed.
In 1997 Soros almost destroyed the economies of Thailand and Malaysia. At the time, Malaysia's Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, called Soros "a villain, and a moron." Thai activist Weng Tojirakarn said, "We regard George Soros as a kind of Dracula. He sucks the blood from the people."
The website Greek National Pride reports, "[Soros] was part of the full court press that dismantled Yugoslavia and caused trouble in Georgia, Ukraine and Myanmar [Burma]. Calling himself a philanthropist, Soros' role is to tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the New World Order while promoting his own financial gain. He is without conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute amorality."
France has upheld an earlier conviction against Soros, for felony insider trading. Soros was fined 2.9 million dollars.Recently, his native Hungary fined Soros 2.2 million dollars for "illegal market manipulation." Elizabeth Crum writes that "The Hungarian economy has been in a state of transition as the country seeks to become
more financially stable and westernized. [Soros'] deliberately driving down the share price of its largest bank put Hungary's economy into a wicked tailspin, one from which it is still trying to recover.
My point here is that Soros is a planetary parasite. His grasp, greed, and gluttony have a global reach.
But what about America? Soros told Australia's national newspaper "The Australian," "America, as the centre of the globalised financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world. This is now over. The game is out," he said, adding that the time has come for "a very serious adjustment" in American's consumption habits. He implied that he was the one with the power to bring this about.
Soros: "World financial crisis was 'stimulating' and in a way, the culmination of my life's work."
Obama has recently promised 10 billion of our tax dollars to Brazil, in order to give them a leg-up in expanding their offshore oil fields. Obama's largesse towards Brazil, came shortly after his financial backer George Soros invested heavily in Brazilian oil (Petrobras).
Tait Trussel writes, "The Petrobras loan may be a windfall for Soros and Brazil, but it is a bad deal for the U.S. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that oil exploration in the U.S. could create 160,000 new, well-paying jobs, as well as $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state, and local governments, all while fostering greater energy security and independence."
A blog you might want to keep an eye on is SorosWatch.com. (I tried this website but can’t get on.) Their mission: "This blog is dedicated to all. who have suffered due to the ruthless financial pursuits of. George Soros. Your stories are many and varied, but the theme is the same: the destructive power of greed without
conscience. We pledge to tirelessly watch Soros wherever he goes and to print the truth in the hope that he will one day be made to stop preying upon the world's poor; that justice will be served."
Back to America. Soros has been actively working to destroy America from the inside out for some years now. People have been warning us. Two years ago Bill O'Reilly said on "The O'Reilly Factor" that "Soros [is] an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on. This is off-the-chart dangerous..." In 1997 Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote, "Soros uses his philanthropy to change or more accurately deconstruct the moral values and attitudes of the Western world, and particularly of the American people. His "open society" is not about freedom; it is about license. His vision rejects the notion of ordered liberty, in favor of an [sic] PROGRESSIVE ideology of rights and entitlements."
Perhaps the most important of these "whistle blowers" are David Horowitz and Richard Poe. Their book "The Shadow Party" outlines in detail how Soros hijacked the Democratic Party, and now owns it lock, stock, and barrel. Soros has been packing the Democratic Party with radicals, and ousting moderate Democrats for years.
The Shadow Party became the Shadow Government, which became the Obama Administration.
DiscovertheNetworks.org (another good source) writes, "By his [Soros'] own admission, he helped engineer coups in Slovakia, Croatia, Georgia, and Yugoslavia. When Soros targets a country for "regime change," he begins by creating a shadow government... a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party he has built in America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries prior to instigating a coup."
November 2008 edition of the German magazine "Der Spiegel," in which Soros gives his opinion on what the next POTUS (President of the U.S. ) should do after taking office. "I think we need a large stimulus package." Soros thought that around 600 billion would be about right.
Soros also said that "I think Obama presents us a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The U.S. needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights."
Although Soros doesn't (yet) own the Republican Party, like he does the Democrats, make no mistake, his tentacles are spread throughout the Republican Party as well.
Soros is a partner in the Carlyle Group where he has invested more than 100 million dollars. According to an article by "The Baltimore Chronicle's" Alice Cherbonnier, the Carlye Group is run by "a veritable who's who of former Republican leaders," from CIA man Frank Carlucci, to CIA head [and ex-President] George Bush, Sr.
In late 2006, Soros bought about 2 million shares of Halliburton - Dick Cheney's old stomping grounds.
When the Democrats and Republicans held their conventions in 2000, Soros held Shadow Party conventions in the same cities, at the same time.
Soros has dirtied both sides of the aisle, trust me. And if that weren't bad enough, he has long held connections with the CIA. And I mustn't forget to mention Soros' involvement with the MSM (Main Stream
Media), the entertainment industry (e.g., he owns 2.6 million shares of Time Warner), and the various political advertising organizations he funnels millions to. In short, George Soros controls or influence most of the MSM. Little wonder they ignore the TEA PARTY, Soro's NEMESIS.
As Matthew Vadum writes, "The liberal billionaire turned philanthropist has been buying up media properties for years in order to drive home his message to the American public that they are too materialistic, too wasteful, too selfish, and too stupid to decide for themselves how to run their own lives."
Richard Poe writes, "Soros' private philanthropy, totaling nearly $5 billion, continues undermining America's traditional Western values. His giving has provided funding of abortion rights, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control, globalization, mass immigration, gay marriage and other radical experiments in social engineering."
Some of the many NGOs (Non Government Organizations) that Soros funds with his billions are: MoveOn.org, the Apollo Alliance, Media Matters for America, the Tides Foundation, the ACLU, ACORN, PDIA (Project on Death In America), La Raza, and many more. For a more complete list, with brief descriptions of the NGOs, go to DiscoverTheNetworks.org.
Poe continues, "Through his global web of Open Society Institutes and Open Society Foundations, Soros has spent 25 years recruiting, training, indoctrinating and installing a network of loyal operatives in 50 countries, placing them in positions of influence and power in media, government, finance and academia."
Without Soro's money, would the Saul Alinsky's Chicago machine still be rolling? Would SEIU, ACORN, and La Raza still be pursuing their nefarious activities? Would Big Money and lobbyists still be corrupting government? Would our college campuses still be retirement homes for 1960s radicals? Yes, yes, yes, and yes (I thought this should be No, no, no, and no.)
America stands at the brink of an abyss, and that fact is directly attributable to Soros. Soros has vigorously, cleverly, and insidiously planned the ruination of America and his puppet, Barak Obama is leading the way.
The words of Patrick Henry are apropos: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
In God We Trust/Good Day”
There you have it. Some of it may be old information but it never hurts to review and verify the course we are on. About the only plus in all this is George Soros is eighty; he can’t live forever. But you can be sure he has enough disciples to carry on his evil work for our lifetime and that of our children. Unless God intervenes.
Cecil brought this to my attention after church yesterday. You can read his post about it on Zion Beckons. I Googled “Obama lies about offshore drilling” and got 252,000 hits including this one from Free Republic:
“Another Stumble in the Gulf (Obama lies)
Powerline Blog ^
June 11, 2010
Posted on 06/13/2010 1:04:09 AM PDT by XHogPilot
The administration has decreed a six-month moratorium on exploratory drilling in the Gulf, based on a report that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar wrote for President Obama. Salazar claimed that a panel of seven experts selected by the National Academy of Engineering had peer reviewed his report. It turns out, though, that the seven experts never saw the recommendation for a moratorium, and in fact oppose it:
The seven experts who advised President Obama on how to deal with offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon explosion are accusing his administration of misrepresenting their views to make it appear that they supported a six-month drilling moratorium -- something they actually oppose.
The experts, recommended by the National Academy of Engineering, say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar modified their report last month, after they signed it, to include two paragraphs calling for the moratorium on existing drilling and new permits.
Salazar's report to Obama said a panel of seven experts "peer reviewed" his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs and an immediate halt to drilling operations.
"None of us actually reviewed the memorandum as it is in the report," oil expert Ken Arnold told Fox News. "What was in the report at the time it was reviewed was quite a bit different in its impact to what there is now. So we wanted to distance ourselves from that recommendation."
Salazar apologized to those experts Thursday.
Carol Browner tried to claim that the administration did nothing wrong, but it is hard to follow her logic:
"No one's been deceived or misrepresented," Browner told Fox News, defending the moratorium as a safety measure. "These experts gave their expert advice, and then a determination was made looking at all of the information, including what these experts provided -- that there should be a pause, and that's exactly what there is. There's a pause."
That, of course, is very different from attributing the recommendation of a moratorium to the experts, or claiming that they had "peer reviewed" it. In fact, the expert panel made cogent arguments against the administration's moratorium:
In a letter the experts sent to Salazar, they said his primary recommendation "misrepresents" their position and that halting the drilling is actually a bad idea.
The oil rig explosion occurred while the well was being shut down - a move that is much more dangerous than continuing ongoing drilling, they said.
They also said that because the floating rigs are scarce and in high demand worldwide, they will not simply sit in the Gulf idle for six months. The rigs will go to the North Sea and West Africa, possibly preventing the U.S. from being able to resume drilling for years.
They also said the best and most advanced rigs will be the first to go, leaving the U.S. with the older and potentially less safe rights operating in the nation's coastal waters.
So this looks like one more instance where the Obama administration is neither honest nor competent, and where its first instinct seems to be to pursue the course that will most damage our economy.”
If you’re not completely outraged by now go to Mike Eden’s Blog Start Thinking Right. The problem with Obama and his administration is they have no concept of truth. Whatever comes out of their mouths makes no difference. Truth, lies, whatever works for the situation and the moment. And with Obama, the liar-in-chief, we can readily recognize the lies—whenever his mouth is moving.
My question is: how many more impeachable offences will he get away with before someone says, “Enough!” Isn’t there one person in Congress with the intestinal fortitude to stop this roller coaster from hell? We talk incessantly about November. Do we even have until November? Barack Obama is destroying us, and much faster than any of us anticipated. The ride is going to get a lot rougher if something isn't done soon.
I was sitting here surfing, trying to find a story about the declaration Obama made a couple of weeks ago in regard to the oil leak and his “taking full responsibility,” when I literally stumbled on this from The American Spectator. After reading the commentary by Robin of Berkley, which is on Storm’n Norm’n’s blog, I commented that maybe Obama needs an intervention—or an exorcism. I meant it to be a little humorous and then I thought it over. Is demon possession a mental illness or is mental illness demon possession? Don’t laugh or send me a tinfoil hat (I threw mine away after the election. You know—the one held in 2008? All about change you can believe in?)
Here’s Mr. Kaminsky’s very insightful contribution. Please go to the link and read the comments. It’s half the fun.
“The Obama Watch
A Leak in the Presidency
By Ross Kaminsky on 6.11.10 @ 6:09AM
Leave it to my wife to come up with a jewelry metaphor for Barack Obama. Obama is, according to my bride, the political equivalent of cubic zirconia. Usually sold to people who love the look of diamonds but can't afford a real one or are fooled into buying an imposter, cubic zirconia is superficially pretty and appealing. But when subjected to the scrutiny of an expert or when placed under great pressure, the falseness and weakness compared to the real thing become apparent.
The pressure analogy is particularly appropriate given that the source of Barack Obama's troubles lie a mile under the ocean's surface, where pressures are about one ton per square inch. The pressure of the situation is causing Obama's vaunted reputation as "competent" to crack like the false promise it always was.
Unlike the ring that accidentally falls into the garbage disposal and gets crushed, the destruction of Barack Obama's perceived competency is almost entirely self-inflicted. On May 28, he aggressively placed his own reputation under that literal ton of pressure down at the oil-spewing well-head by saying "I ultimately take responsibility for solving this crisis…I am the president and the buck stops with me." He was reinforcing his words of a day earlier: "The American people should know that from the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort… In case you're wondering who's responsible, I take responsibility."
What kind of CEO would stake his reputation, his power, and perhaps more importantly the reputation of the organization he runs -- in Obama's case, the federal government of the United States -- on something over which he has absolutely no control? Would the president of your company "take responsibility" for the Cubs not winning the World Series? (Assuming your company doesn't own the Cubs, of course.)
As I'm writing this, I'm watching a television ad by BP CEO Tony Hayward who is taking "full responsibility for cleaning up the spill in the gulf." That makes sense; BP has the technology and the know-how to at least attempt to clean up the mess they created. They're the players on the team, even if it is a team as historically hapless or mismanaged as the Cubs or BP. They, not Obama, are the ones who can and should be on the field.
Meanwhile, as we know, Obama has decided that his own taking of responsibility means he needs to figure out "whose ass to kick." Obama's message changes daily, from anger to frustration to ass-kicking, as it must when someone takes existential risk with his political capital in a situation which a college freshman in a political science class would recognize as posing far more risk than reward, far more opportunity to look bad than to be the hero. It's remarkable that Obama has so quickly forgotten the political peril demonstrated by the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. But having taken responsibility, Obama feels he must be seen as "doing something," perhaps the most dangerous mode of operation for a politician -- especially a wounded one.
So, back to the question: What kind of CEO would take responsibility for something entirely out of his control? The same kind who would say, as Barack Obama did two years ago, that "generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children" that his ascendency to power "was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow." God-complex much, Barack?
Some discussion of Narcissistic Personality Disorder from Psychology Today seems à propos: "People with narcissistic personality disorder are frequently perfectionists and need to be the center of attention, receiving affection and admiration, and controlling the situation."
And further: "Deep desire to be at the center of things is served by extreme self-confidence, a combination that makes narcissists attractive and even charming. Buoyed by a coterie of admiring friends and associates -- protected by the armor of positive self-regard -- someone with a mild-to-moderate case of narcissism can float through life feeling pretty good about himself. Since they feel entitled to special treatment, they are easily offended, and readily harbor grudges. Yet narcissists are often very popular -- at least in the short term."
A president who was not a narcissist might have taken a very different tack on the Deepwater Horizon spill: Rather than risking his political capital and popularity by taking responsibility for the clean-up, he would emphasize that government's capacities in the situation were limited but that government was doing what it could. He would inform Gulf Coast residents whose lives and businesses have been disrupted what federal resources are available to help them rather than looking for people to fire or asses to kick. In short, a wise and non-narcissistic president would not have made the issue about himself.
The wise approach, however, has an additional problem for President Obama beyond his deeply self-absorbed personality: As a Progressive, Obama believes that government should be able to do almost anything…and should do everything it can. Obama is part of a presidential Progressive lineage going back through FDR, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson who believed that technocrats should be in charge of most aspects of American life, that private citizens are too stupid to manage their own lives so we need Progressives to do so for us. One might say that Progressivism is an inherently narcissistic philosophy.
For Obama to admit, much less aggressively argue, that government's capability to plug an oil well is limited leads down a dangerous road for those who want government to appear omnipotent. After all, it's hard for even a Progressive to argue explicitly that government should do things in which it has no competence. (The fact that they do precisely that on such a large scale is a topic for another day.) Progressive politicians must therefore aggrandize themselves and the abilities of government in order to maintain the public's sadly resilient self-destructive belief in the power of politicians to fix things. Progressives' governing philosophy and psychology thus prevent Obama from doing anything other than what he's doing. Indeed, rather than saying "I can't fix this,", Obama has suggested that the federal government should acquire the technological capability to fix future deep-water oil well leaks. Again, his personality and Progressivism allow him no other path.
One Obama apologist suggests that people are "blaming Obama for not being a god." She forgets that Obama is the one who took responsibility for stopping the oil (and explicitly claimed that his "stimulus" would keep unemployment below 8%.) The end of his façade of competency is entirely self-inflicted. With luck, Obama has weakened people's blind faith in the competency of politicians generally and presidents specifically.
I can only hope that once discovered to be what it is, the recipient of that cubic zirconia -- or its political equivalent who resides today at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -- will never again look at the semi-precious gem (once thought to be precious) with the same approval, satisfaction, or gratitude.”
Ross Kaminsky is a professional derivatives trader, a fellow at the Heartland Institute, and a frequent contributor to Human Events. He blogs at Rossputin.com.
I think I’ve figured out why Obama said he’d take full responsibility. It’s all about him. Good or bad, he has to be the center of the universe. He is incapable of capitulating to anyone, even in the face of disaster. However, he has lifted the blame game to Olympic status. Something must be done. Where are all those voters who claim to be suffering from buyer’s remorse?
Susan Estrich is not someone I read on a regular basis, because I know which way she leans and nothing she says surprises me. But the title of her latest commentary intrigued me. I spotted it on Rasmussen and clicked on it. The Value of Experience. Aha, I thought. She’s on to Obama and his disastrous presidency. Wrong guess. It was pretty much business as usual: a snotty, snarky comparison of the winners of the Tuesday election versus “career” politicians. Using William Safire’s analogy about not hiring an inexperienced plumber, she proceeded to excoriate Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman for referring to career politicians.
I fail to see the big deal or the big gaffe in that statement, especially since it’s accurate. Career politicians who have been around the block several times have a tendency to forget just where in the world they left their platform way back when. Kind of like doctors. The fresh-faced guy or gal just out of med school is still retaining what old MDs have long since forgotten.
Then there’s the matter of the “hot” mike. This one is a two-edged sword. Here’s the quote from Estrich: “On her first day as the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in California, Carly Fiorina forgot lesson No. One: Always assume the mike is hot." Fiorina mentioned Boxer’s hair being so “yesterday” over a live mike. Well, isn’t that a shock. At least she assumed it was turned off. Remember when every left-wing blogger and media source in the universe blathered about Sarah Palin’s hair as well as every other millimeter of her body in front of the whole world? Goodness, silly me, I forgot about that pesky double standard.
And speaking of experience, didn’t a certain lady, a member of the White House press corps since Estrich was still being potty trained, very recently and suddenly “retire” because all of her experience couldn’t buy her an excuse for what she said over a hot mike? Experience, huh? Granted, Helen Thomas wasn’t running for office; she was just running her mouth. But experience has very little to do with some things. Something the lft has never "gotten" is that integrity counts.
Estrich also reminds us that “winning debates, scoring points against your rival – that’s tough, but not nearly as tough as getting things done once you’re in office.” Yeah, Susan, we know all about winning debates and scoring points against your opponent. That’s what our present hapless-in-chief did, and just see where we are now. The most inexperienced at anything president we’ve ever had and you’re busy with your petty little criticisms against people with far more history and integrity than our community organizing, narcissistic, out-to-lunch president.
Maybe you’d rather have a plumber with experience, but it seems to me we’ve been victims of the Washington Roto-Rooter pretty much on a daily basis for seventeen months. Apparently our fearless leader doesn’t need experience for that.
Here’s her commentary for your perusal and/or edification.
This is from the Wall Street Journal. It’s depressing but Ms Rabinowitz gives a clear picture of what is actually going on the the minds of Mr. President and his hand-picked Socialists. What really scares me is that our enemies are watching in wonderment the hapless antics of our “fearless leaders". They must be stopped. This should be required reading for all Obama enthusiasts out there:
The distance between the president and the people is beginning to be revealed.
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.
There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn't lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.
Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.
A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.
One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.
Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.
Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America's attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judicary Committee on May 13.
Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of "Allahu Akbar!"), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. "People have different reasons" he finally answered—a response he repeated three times. He didn't want "to say anything negative about any religion."
And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."
He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan's pronouncements in that speech: That "violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces."
Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: "Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square." Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marvelled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States.
Long after Mr. Obama leaves office, it will be this parade of explicators, laboring mightily to sell each new piece of official reality revisionism—Janet Napolitano and her immortal "man-caused disasters'' among them—that will stand most memorably as the face of this administration.
It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.
It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world community—proof of Mr. Obama's moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.
It was why this administration tapped officials like Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Among his better known contributions to political discourse was a 2005 address in which he compared the treatment of Muslim-Americans in the United States after 9/11 with the plight of the Japanese-Americans interned in camps after Pearl Harbor. During a human-rights conference held in China this May, Mr. Posner cited the new Arizona immigration law by way of assuring the Chinese, those exemplary guardians of freedom, that the United States too had its problems with discrimination.
So there we were: America and China, in the same boat on human rights, two buddies struggling for reform. For this view of reality, which brought withering criticism in Congress and calls for his resignation, Mr. Posner has been roundly embraced in the State Department as a superbly effective representative.
It is no surprise that Mr. Posner—like numerous of his kind—has found a natural home in this administration. His is a sensibility and political disposition with which Mr. Obama is at home. The beliefs and attitudes that this president has internalized are to be found everywhere—in the salons of the left the world over—and, above all, in the academic establishment, stuffed with tenured radicals and their political progeny. The places where it is held as revealed truth that the United States is now, and has been throughout its history, the chief engine of injustice and oppression in the world.
They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States. Mr. Obama may not hold all, or the more extreme, of these views. But there can be no doubt by now of the influences that have shaped him. They account for his grand apology tour through the capitals of Europe and to the Muslim world, during which he decried America's moral failures—her arrogance, insensitivity. They were the words of a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his distant relation to the country he was about to lead.
The truth about that distance is now sinking in, which is all to the good. A country governed by leaders too principled to speak the name of its mortal enemy needs every infusion of reality it can get.”
Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal's editorial board.
Please share this. Thank you. And thank you, Ms Rabinowitz, for such an insightful article.
The following article by Craig Chamberlain, from The Land of the Free.net, is the most coherent analysis I have yet seen of the Israeli “attack” against the poor, defenseless flotilla transporting humanitarian supplies to Gaza. From the stories you hear in the MSM, the Israelis are a bunch of bloodthirsty goons, ready to kill and eat newborn babies at any given signal.
Unfortunately, most Americans who still listen to CNN, MSNBC, and read USA Today and The New York Times, Reuters, etc., never go beyond the propaganda spewed out by the left. But, unfortunately too, they still think the government is our friend.
In the following article, Chamberlain lays out the truth about Islam, the Middle East, and the warped mindset of America and Europe.
In the history of the world most peoples, sadly, have, in their past, a history of violence and death. Most peoples, though, have moved on from that. The Germans, no longer have concentration camps, Rwanda is working towards reconciliation after the genocide of 1994 and the U.S. fought a civil war to end slavery. Most look to such past barbarisms with a sense of shame. The Turks are an exception to that rule. Not only have they lived their entire history as bloodthirsty marauders who murdered, pillaged and raped wherever they went, they glory in their actions on the one hand, while denying any wrongdoing on their part with the other. Try getting them to confess to the Armenian genocide of 1915, and you’ll get some vague words about tragedies during that time. What they’re really saying is that, yes they did it and those Armenian dogs deserved it.
And these are the same people who have the chutzpah to criticize Israel for a “genocide” against the Palestinians. They condemn Israel for it’s “occupation” of “Palestine” and for their brutality. Ok, let’s set the record straight. The Israeli’s have never committed a genocide. Remember the “genocide” of Jenin? Yes, in April of 2002 those bloodthirsty Israelis ran wild over the city and massacred the city’s population. At least that’s what the Islamic world and their leftist allies would have you believe. In reality 53 people died when the IDF went in to deal with militants who had taken over the area. That’s a hell of a genocide.
And what about the poor suffering people of the Gaza strip? Well, the last time I checked Israel wasn’t in control of Gaza anymore. There is not one Israeli soldier, or settler, anywhere in the territory. In all truthfulness, someone is Gaza is more likely to be killed by their Hamas overlords than they are by the IDF.
The Turks, on the other hand, have turned genocide and ethnic cleansing to an art form. Aside from the Armenian genocide of 1915, they spent centuries, during the height of their empire, doing everything they could to wipe out the Christian populations of the Balkans. And what about the occupation of Cyprus? Israel has left Gaza and would leave the West Bank if they could do so safely. Turkey, on the other hand has been in control of a portion of Cyprus since 1974, drove thousands of Greek Cypriots from their homes. Where’s the outrage for that?
Why do I bring all of this up? What does this have to do with the current situation in the Middle East? It goes to credibility. The Turks don’t have any. When you spend centuries conquering, slaughtering, and wiping out anyone who stands in your way, you don’t have the right to scream genocide, or massacre, when a nation under constant attack decides to engage in an act of self defense.
The self styled “peace activists” were certainly well armed, well trained, and fully ready for the Israeli raid, and all too eager to use violence. If all they were doing were taking humanitarian supplies to the people of Gaza why were they so quick to turn violent? These “activists” were sent by the orders of Ankara and that filthy swine Erdogan. Erdogan(who I have said time and time again is nothing more than Bin Laden in a business suit) is all too eager to export his Islamist ideals and to pick a fight with Israel, which all Islamists( Erdogan included) believe has to be destroyed.
Sadly, Israel fell for the trap. The Islamic world knows that it can’t win a conventional war against Israel. It’s tried and failed. They don’t want a replay of the 1967 war. So they use terrorism, and public relations. The poor defenseless Muslims, who are struggling righteously to overthrow the cruel yoke of Israel. And typically the left in Europe, and America, have bought into that narrative. The European left is desperate to maintain good relations with the Arab world because of the large Muslim populations in their own countries, while the American left does it just because they hate Jews.
Turkey now has a causus belli to launch an attack on Israel. It’s not clear whether Erdogan will do it, yet. Israel is in the right but the world insists it is in the wrong. We see our own government side with dictatorships, terrorists, and nations that really have committed genocide, while scolding, and pushing around a democracy and a natural ally.
Peace in the Middle East will never come easy, but it will not be worth it if we throw Israel under the bus for defending itself. The U.S. and Israel are at war with the same enemy. How can we justify our attacks on Islamic militants, while condemning Israel attempts to fight the same war?
If there is any country in the Middle East that is a threat to peace in the region it is Turkey. Turkey, under that terrorist Prime Minister, has overthrown the secular republicanism of Ataturk and embraced the Islamist terrorism of Iran. Given its history of past genocides, and current occupations, it’s the unspeakable Turk that can bring about a Middle East war."