Obama Repeatedly Calls British Chancellor by Wrong Name at G8
Barack Obama repeatedly called Chancellor George Osborne "Jeffrey" as he was briefing G8 leaders on his plans for a crackdown on tax avoidance, media reported on Thursday.The US president three times said he agreed fully with "Jeffrey" during his presentation on the government's flagship scheme, leaving the chancellor red-faced.
Realising his mistake afterwards, Obama joked that he had mistaken Osborne for the US R&B and soul singer Jeffrey Osborne, the Sun and Financial Times reported.
"I'm sorry, man. I must have confused you with my favourite R&B singer," Obama was quoted as saying.
The chancellor, 42, bears little resemblance to Jeffrey Osborne, a 65-year-old African-American hit singer-songwriter from Rhode Island known for his 1982 classic "On the Wings of Love".
Jeffrey Osborne told Sky News on Thursday: "I was really delighted actually. I was really not aware that (Obama) was that much of a fan that he would call the Chancellor Jeffrey Osborne.
"Tell the Chancellor when I come over I will have to hook up with him and we will do a duet of 'On The Wings Of Love' or something."
The Sun quoted an onlooker at the session as saying: "Osborne looked really put out. The first time Obama did it was bad enough, but then he kept on repeating the error throughout the presentation. It got really cringe-worthy by the end."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/06/20/George-Osborne-rechristened-Jeffrey-by-Barack-Obama
Barack Obama 'Savages' Catholic Education
It's already been firmly established that if a person, group or ideology disagrees with Barack Obama, he becomes fixated on them and then, any opportunity he gets, he makes provocative comments that could be interpreted as a warning shot. The message? Barack Obama doesn't forget ideological unfaithfulness, and if he can, he'll shut you up by shutting you down.The president has imposed his bad attitude on, to name but a few: Conservatives, specifically of the tea party brand, right-leaning talk radio, Fox News, and the group the left views as the seat of pro-life advocacy, the Catholic Church.
Catholicism is a prime target because it's an autonomous, self-governing entity that continues to insist on having the freedom to exercise the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, and has defied the administration by refusing to submit to Obamacare contraceptive and abortion directives.
So while in Northern Ireland for the G8 summit, Obama didn't waste the opportunity to taunt Catholics worldwide by saying inflammatory things to schoolchildren. Despite the fact that just days prior, Vatican Prefect Archbishop Gerhard Müller told Scots that Catholic education is "a critical component of the Church," Barack Obama, speaking to an audience of about 2,000 students at Belfast's Waterfront hall, made what was described as "an alarming call for an end to Catholic education," saying:
If towns remain divided-if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can't see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden-that too encourages division and discourages cooperation.
It's hard to recall, but when the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner was in Indonesia, Cairo or Turkey, did he also suggest to Muslims that schooling children in madrassas "encourages division and discourages cooperation?"
Of course not. And while the comparison may seem extreme, Barack Obama's animosity towards Catholicism, although expressed in a more dignified manner, is eerily reminiscent of gay activist Dan Savage, founder of "It Gets Better" and Savage Love sex advisor.
In 2012, Savage was invited to give an anti-bullying speech at the National High School Journalism Conference. Instead of addressing bullying, Savage used the opportunity to make like Barack Obama and bash Christians.
Savage implied that people use the Bible as an excuse to bully gays and cited Leviticus and Romans, which both say that homosexuality is sinful. Then, the anti-bullying expert told the students to ignore all the bulls**t in the Bible. When 100 students walked out, Savage responded by heckling them and calling them "pansy-assed."
Savage might as well have been speaking to Irish students about the evils of parochial school, because the effect was the same. Although Obama exhibits a bit more finesse when he insults Christians, he insults them just the same by implying that Catholic education fosters division - defying Archbishop Müller's contention that Catholic education provides schoolchildren an exceptional setting where "intellectual training, moral discipline and religious commitment...come together."
The truth is that it's precisely the intellectual training, intrinsic morality, and commitment to faith that irritates secular progressive activists like Dan Savage and Barack Obama and drives them to exploit public appearances as platforms to vent their partisan hostility.
During his homily at St. Andrews Foundation for Catholic Teacher Education at Glasgow University, Archbishop Müller also said that Catholic education provides young people with a wonderful opportunity to "grow up with Jesus." And after all, isn't growing up with Jesus at the crux of the problem progressive ideologues, who support the gay lifestyle, facilitate premarital sex, and promote abortion, have with any kind of Christian education?
Müller stressed that Catholic schools should seek to promote "all that is good in the philosophies of societies and human culture," concepts diametrically opposed to everything Barack Obama stands for. That is why the president is driven to weave into every public address he gives the message that, just as the IRS and NSA scandals have proven, if you disagree with Barack Obama, he wants to shut you down.
The Other Court-Packing Scandal
Conservatives have recently woken up to President Obama's attempt to pack the D.C. Circuit court of appeals with liberal judges. What little attention the media has dedicated to court packing has entirely revolved around that court. While it is understandable that the media is focused on the D.C. Circuit, one of the most prestigious courts in the country, it is a mistake to ignore the President's even more outrageous attempt to pack another court with sympathetic judges.The United States Court of Federal Claims is a specialty court located just across the street from the White House. The Court serves an important function: it adjudicates claims for monetary damages, including takings claims, brought against the United States government. The first thing one notices upon entering the courthouse is President Lincoln's quote -- "It is as much the duty of Government to render prompt justice against itself in favor of citizens as it is to administer the same between private individuals" -- emblazoned on the wall. The court has often been referred to as "the conscience of the federal government" because, in some instances, it is all that stands between a citizen and unfair treatment at the hands of the government.
This court's mission is more critical than ever in light of the rapid growth in the size and intrusiveness of government power under President Obama -- and unless Senate Republicans object, its character is going to move far to the left in a few weeks.
Unlike judges on other federal courts, who serve for life, judges on the Court of Federal Claims are initially appointed for a fifteen-year term. Any judge who is not reappointed for a second term may elect to continue serving as a senior judge and to receive his full salary for the rest of his life. The one caveat to this generous rule is that the chief judge may call on any such judge to continue hearing cases until the judge meets certain criteria, based on age and years of service, that entitle him to fully retire with pay.
Eight senior judges currently sit on the Court of Federal Claims. All eight were appointed by Republican presidents.
Senior judges serve at the discretion of the chief judge. Last year, Chief Judge Emily Hewitt, a Clinton appointee who was elevated to chief by President Obama, sent a letter to the Administrative Office indicating that she would no longer require seven of the eight Republican appointed Senior Judges to hear cases. These seven judges, including the extremely well-regarded Loren Smith, do not want to retire -- they are ready and able to continue hearing cases -- but the chief judge is forcing them into retirement due to an alleged dearth of cases. These judges will continue to receive their full salaries for the rest of their lives, but they will no longer contribute any work, despite their desire to do so.
These dismissals might make sense if there truly were not enough cases for all of the judges. But President Obama recently nominated two new judges to serve on the Court of Federal Claims, and five more vacancies will be created over the next few months.
If Chief Judge Hewitt was warranted in her forcible retirements, there is no conceivable reason why the president should nominate (or the Senate should confirm) two new judges to the court. At best, this confluence of events results in needless expense as two new judges' (and their law clerks') salaries are unnecessarily added to the government's payroll. The more likely explanation is that this is a transparently political effort to forcibly retire judges in order to make room for Obama appointees, despite the fact that doing so will cost the taxpayers more money and rob the court of decades of experience and excellence.
It is admirable that people have started to pay attention to the D.C. Circuit court-packing scandal, but they should be careful not to let this additional scandal fall through the cracks. These judges have faithfully served the American people for many years and are eager to continue their service. They deserve better than to be tossed aside for political reasons.
Surprise: Obamacare Progress Report Not Looking So Hot
Who could have seen this coming? The Government Accountability Office confirms reality:
Remember, the feds have already delayed
the roll out of the the latter "marketplace," and limited
participants', er, "choices" to one plan. Obamacare is blowing through
cash. Administrators shut down
enrollment for the law's interim pre-existing conditions program when
resources were exhausted sooner than expected, and HHS has been caught
trying to scrounge up "donations"
from the industry it regulates in order to aid under-funded
implementation efforts. But even if the government mounts a miraculous
comeback and somehow gets everything up and running on time, premiums
are still rising, coverage is being dropped, workers' hours are being
cut back, deficits are rising, and tens of millions will still be uninsured. All for the low, low price of $2 trillion. No wonder Americans would eagerly accept turning back the clock
to 2009, before this unwanted behemoth became law. Meanwhile, the
administration and outside collaborators are launching their umpteenth "let's sell Obamacare" push. This latest effort alone is expected to cost millions. Sen. Mitch McConnell took to the floor yesterday to ridicule Democrats' enduring, blind insistence that the real problem is that they just need to explain the law better
New health insurance exchanges being set up by the federal government in more than 30 states under President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare overhaul could miss an October 1 deadline for open enrollment, a government report said on Wednesday. The launch of the exchanges, or marketplaces, which are expected to provide federally subsidized health coverage for 7 million people in 2014 and 22 million by 2016, could determine whether Obama's signature domestic policy achievement succeeds. The administration will operate exchanges in 34 states, while the remainder operate their own markets. The report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) said U.S. officials have missed deadlines and remain behind schedule on key parts including those that involve consumer eligibility for federal subsidies, the certification of health plans to be sold on the exchanges and the hiring and training of special "navigators" to guide people through the enrollment process.So they've missed deadlines on...virtually every significant step of proper implementation. Things aren't looking much better at the state level, and the discrete small business exchange is lagging behind schedule, too:
GAO found that states have also failed to complete many of the tasks assigned for implementation and that the administration has conducted only initial testing of the computerized system that will link the exchanges with states and federal agencies including the Internal Revenue Service. A separate GAO report found that the exchanges for small businesses that are also being created under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are behind schedule, with about 44 percent of the key activities targeted for completion by March 31.
I'll leave you with this piece from Investor's Business Daily, outlining how it's not just medium-sized and large businesses who are reducing employees' hours to avoid Obamacare's costly mandates -- local governments are doing the same. And the lowest-paid workers are hardest hit, which has become a recurring theme lately. Thanks, Obamacare."If you still don't think Americans are able to understand a law you passed more than three years ago, then there's something wrong with the law -- not with the American people."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/06/20/surprise-obamacare-progress-report-not-looking-so-hot-n1623188
Chicago teachers union chief faults ‘rich white people’ for city’s education mess
In a scathing speech on Wednesday,
the president of the Chicago Teachers Union charged that racism and
“rich white people” are to blame for the immense financial crisis facing
the Chicago Public Schools.
In her remarks to an audience at the upscale City Club of Chicago, union boss Karen Lewis strongly criticized Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. She also urged the city schools to follow the strategic blueprint of the Chicago Cubs baseball team.
“Members of the status quo — the people who are running the schools and advising the mayor on how to best run our district — know what good education looks like because they have secured it for their own children in well-resourced public and private institutions,” the Dartmouth graduate charged.
“When will there be an honest conversation about the poverty, racism and inequality that hinders the delivery of a quality education product in our school system?” Lewis also asked in the speech. “When will we address the fact that rich, white people think they know what’s in the best interest of children of African Americans and Latinos—no matter what the parent’s income or education level.”
The union leader then questioned the motives of “venture capitalists” who have expressed a desire to improve the quality of education for poor and minority students.
“There is something about these folks who love the kids but hate the parents,” Lewis inveighed. “There’s something about these folks who use little black and brown children as stage props at one press conference while announcing they want to fire, layoff or lock up their parents at another press conference.”
Lewis called for “an end to corporate subsidies and loopholes.” She demanded “progressive taxation” to close the $1 billion budget deficit currently facing the Second City and its public schools. (RELATED: It’s official: Chicago Public Schools will close 49 elementary schools for good)
Higher income tax rates on wealthy residents would generate billions in necessary revenue, the union chief suggested. She also proposed new taxes for commuters and for financial transfers.
In her closing remarks, Lewis, a self-professed Chicago White Sox fan, suggested that the Chicago Public Schools would be wise to emulate the Chicago Cubs baseball franchise.
“When the Cubs lose a game they don’t call for Wrigley Field to close down. They don’t want the entire team dismantled. Despite empty seats, the stadium
isn’t accused of being underutilized,” she said.
Lewis, who obviously spends little time listening to Chicago’s two main sports radio stations, also suggested that “no one questions” the salaries of Chicago baseball players.
Year after year — despite individual player performance, despite game losses and near wins — the fans show continue to show up. We keep cheering for our Cubbies. We know they are winners. We dream. We believe,” Lewis said.
“Do the same for our children,” she implored. “Cheer them on. Invest in them. Love them. Support their parents. Support their teachers. Support their schools. Let’s work together. Let’s win, Chicago. Let’s win.”
The Chicago Cubs famously have not won a World Series since 1908 (or a National
League pennant since 1945). The team is currently in next-to-last place
in Major League Baseball’s National League Central division — 16 games
out of first place.
In her remarks to an audience at the upscale City Club of Chicago, union boss Karen Lewis strongly criticized Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. She also urged the city schools to follow the strategic blueprint of the Chicago Cubs baseball team.
“Members of the status quo — the people who are running the schools and advising the mayor on how to best run our district — know what good education looks like because they have secured it for their own children in well-resourced public and private institutions,” the Dartmouth graduate charged.
“When will there be an honest conversation about the poverty, racism and inequality that hinders the delivery of a quality education product in our school system?” Lewis also asked in the speech. “When will we address the fact that rich, white people think they know what’s in the best interest of children of African Americans and Latinos—no matter what the parent’s income or education level.”
The union leader then questioned the motives of “venture capitalists” who have expressed a desire to improve the quality of education for poor and minority students.
“There is something about these folks who love the kids but hate the parents,” Lewis inveighed. “There’s something about these folks who use little black and brown children as stage props at one press conference while announcing they want to fire, layoff or lock up their parents at another press conference.”
Lewis called for “an end to corporate subsidies and loopholes.” She demanded “progressive taxation” to close the $1 billion budget deficit currently facing the Second City and its public schools. (RELATED: It’s official: Chicago Public Schools will close 49 elementary schools for good)
Higher income tax rates on wealthy residents would generate billions in necessary revenue, the union chief suggested. She also proposed new taxes for commuters and for financial transfers.
In her closing remarks, Lewis, a self-professed Chicago White Sox fan, suggested that the Chicago Public Schools would be wise to emulate the Chicago Cubs baseball franchise.
“When the Cubs lose a game they don’t call for Wrigley Field to close down. They don’t want the entire team dismantled. Despite empty seats, the stadium
isn’t accused of being underutilized,” she said.Lewis, who obviously spends little time listening to Chicago’s two main sports radio stations, also suggested that “no one questions” the salaries
of Chicago baseball players.Year after year — despite individual player performance, despite game losses and near wins — the fans show continue to show up. We keep cheering for our Cubbies. We know they are winners. We dream. We believe,” Lewis said.
“Do the same for our children,” she implored. “Cheer them on. Invest in them. Love them. Support their parents. Support their teachers
. Support their schools. Let’s work together. Let’s win, Chicago. Let’s win.”The Chicago Cubs famously have not won a World Series since 1908 (or a National
League pennant since 1945). The team is currently in next-to-last place
in Major League Baseball’s National League Central division — 16 games
out of first place.When Untruth Undermines Democracy
Truth is the lifeblood of democracy. Without honesty, the foundations of
consensual government crumble.
If the Internal Revenue Service acts unlawfully, our voluntary system of citizens computing their own taxes implodes.
Yet Lois Lerner, one of the IRS's top officials, would not answer simple questions about her agency's conduct during congressional testimony, instead pleading the Fifth Amendment. Any taxpayer who tried that with an IRS auditor would end up fined and in court.
Almost everything that IRS officials have reported about the agency's unlawful targeting of conservative groups has proven false. IRS malfeasance was not limited only to the Cincinnati office, as alleged, but followed directives sent from higher-ups in Washington. Lerner confessed to the scandal only through a pre-planned public query by a planted questioner, designed to pre-empt an upcoming critical inspector general's report. There is legitimate dispute over both the number and purpose of former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman's visits to the White House and nearby executive office buildings, but he did his credibility no good by snidely remarking to Congress that he might also have visited for an Easter egg roll with his kids.
Attorney General Eric Holder – who’s already been held in contempt by the House for declining to turn over internal Justice Department documents for the "Fast and Furious" scandal -- swore to Congress that he had no knowledge of any effort to go after individual reporters. But Holder had earlier done just that, signing off on a search warrant to monitor the communications of Fox reporter James Rosen. In other words, the attorney general of the United States under oath misled -- or lied to -- Congress.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was recently asked by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) whether the National Security Agency collected the phone and email records of millions of ordinary Americans. Clapper said that it did not. That, too, was an untruth. Clapper's supporters argued that Wyden should not have asked such a sensitive question in public that threatened the secrecy of the program. But Clapper did not demur or request a closed session, instead finding it easier to deceive, later dubbing his response as the "least untruthful" answer possible.
Washington reporters and spin doctors argue whether newly appointed National Security Advisor Susan Rice knowingly lied when she wove a yarn about a single video-maker being responsible for spontaneous violence that led to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. Yet no one disputes that her televised fables -- as well as those of both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- were untrue, and demonstrably so, at the time. Yet Rice was promoted, not censured, following her performance.
Last November, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked point-blank whether the administration had altered CIA-produced intelligence memos to fit the administration narrative of a spontaneous riot in Benghazi. Carney answered unequivocally that the administration had made only one stylistic change. That, too, was not accurate. In fact, there were at least 12 different drafts that reflected substantial ongoing changes by the administration of the original CIA talking points.
Former EPA Director Lisa Jackson created a fake email identity -- "Richard Windsor" -- to conduct official business off the record. But Jackson did not just stop with that ruse. She turned Richard Windsor into an entirely mythical persona, her own alter ego who supposedly took online tests and was given awards by the EPA -- a veritable Jackson doppelganger who was certified as "a scholar of ethical behavior" by no less than the agency that the unethical Jackson oversaw.
Deception is now institutionalized in the Obama administration. It infects almost every corner of the U.S. government, eroding the trust necessary for the IRS, the Department of Justice, our security agencies, and the president's official press communiqués -- sabotaging the public trust required for democracy itself.
What went wrong with the Obama administration?
There is no longer a traditional adversarial media in Washington. Spouses and siblings of executives at the major television networks are embedded within the administration. Unlike with Watergate, the media now holds back, believing that any hard-hitting reporting of ongoing scandals would only weaken Obama, whose vision of America the vast majority of reporters share. But that understood exemption only encourages more lack of candor.
There is also utopian arrogance in Washington that justifies any means necessary to achieve exalted ends of supposed fairness and egalitarianism. If one has to lie to stop the Tea Party or Fox News, then it is not quite seen by this administration as a lie.
Barack Obama swept up an entire nation in 2008 with his hope-and-change promises of a new honesty and transparency. That dream is now in shambles, destroyed by the most untruthful cast since Richard Nixon, H.R. Haldeman, Ron Ziegler and John Dean left Washington in disgrace almost 40 years ago -- after likewise subverting the very government they had pledged to serve.
http://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2013/06/20/when-untruth-undermines-democracy-n1622774/page/full
I know you're relieved to hear that. It was probably right at the top of a list of things that keep you awake at night. Unfortunately, if you work in the coal industry, you now have something else to worry about; your job.
And if you live in an area where electrical power is generated by a coal-fired power plant, you best be prepared to worry how you're going to pay your electric bill.
The Obama administration is readying a set of rules to govern carbon dioxide emission from existing power plants. There is likely to be a phase-in period but that's of precious little use when you consider the conversion costs. It's estimated that we will lose about 40 gigawatts of electricity as about 10% of all coal fired plants in the US shut down.
It's already impossible to build a new coal fired plant thanks to EPA rules governing emissions for new power plants. With new rules governing existing plants, the coal industry will cease to exist as we know it. Imagine destroying 10% of the mobile phone industry and vastly curtail future growth. How many workers would lose their jobs? How many companies would go under?
New York Times:
Yes, but it's all for us, little children - all for our own good. All the coercive, overbearing, big government moves taken by Obama have only one goal; making some people's lives better. Of course, others will suffer, but them's the breaks.
The new rules will be challenged in court, but given that SCOTUS has specifically granted the federal government the authority to treat CO2 as pollution, there doesn't appear to be anything standing in the way of this power grab.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/06/say_goodbye_to_the_coal_industry.html#ixzz2WmK19wsu
If the Internal Revenue Service acts unlawfully, our voluntary system of citizens computing their own taxes implodes.
Yet Lois Lerner, one of the IRS's top officials, would not answer simple questions about her agency's conduct during congressional testimony, instead pleading the Fifth Amendment. Any taxpayer who tried that with an IRS auditor would end up fined and in court.
Almost everything that IRS officials have reported about the agency's unlawful targeting of conservative groups has proven false. IRS malfeasance was not limited only to the Cincinnati office, as alleged, but followed directives sent from higher-ups in Washington. Lerner confessed to the scandal only through a pre-planned public query by a planted questioner, designed to pre-empt an upcoming critical inspector general's report. There is legitimate dispute over both the number and purpose of former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman's visits to the White House and nearby executive office buildings, but he did his credibility no good by snidely remarking to Congress that he might also have visited for an Easter egg roll with his kids.
Attorney General Eric Holder – who’s already been held in contempt by the House for declining to turn over internal Justice Department documents for the "Fast and Furious" scandal -- swore to Congress that he had no knowledge of any effort to go after individual reporters. But Holder had earlier done just that, signing off on a search warrant to monitor the communications of Fox reporter James Rosen. In other words, the attorney general of the United States under oath misled -- or lied to -- Congress.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was recently asked by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) whether the National Security Agency collected the phone and email records of millions of ordinary Americans. Clapper said that it did not. That, too, was an untruth. Clapper's supporters argued that Wyden should not have asked such a sensitive question in public that threatened the secrecy of the program. But Clapper did not demur or request a closed session, instead finding it easier to deceive, later dubbing his response as the "least untruthful" answer possible.
Washington reporters and spin doctors argue whether newly appointed National Security Advisor Susan Rice knowingly lied when she wove a yarn about a single video-maker being responsible for spontaneous violence that led to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. Yet no one disputes that her televised fables -- as well as those of both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- were untrue, and demonstrably so, at the time. Yet Rice was promoted, not censured, following her performance.
Last November, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked point-blank whether the administration had altered CIA-produced intelligence memos to fit the administration narrative of a spontaneous riot in Benghazi. Carney answered unequivocally that the administration had made only one stylistic change. That, too, was not accurate. In fact, there were at least 12 different drafts that reflected substantial ongoing changes by the administration of the original CIA talking points.
Former EPA Director Lisa Jackson created a fake email identity -- "Richard Windsor" -- to conduct official business off the record. But Jackson did not just stop with that ruse. She turned Richard Windsor into an entirely mythical persona, her own alter ego who supposedly took online tests and was given awards by the EPA -- a veritable Jackson doppelganger who was certified as "a scholar of ethical behavior" by no less than the agency that the unethical Jackson oversaw.
Deception is now institutionalized in the Obama administration. It infects almost every corner of the U.S. government, eroding the trust necessary for the IRS, the Department of Justice, our security agencies, and the president's official press communiqués -- sabotaging the public trust required for democracy itself.
What went wrong with the Obama administration?
There is no longer a traditional adversarial media in Washington. Spouses and siblings of executives at the major television networks are embedded within the administration. Unlike with Watergate, the media now holds back, believing that any hard-hitting reporting of ongoing scandals would only weaken Obama, whose vision of America the vast majority of reporters share. But that understood exemption only encourages more lack of candor.
There is also utopian arrogance in Washington that justifies any means necessary to achieve exalted ends of supposed fairness and egalitarianism. If one has to lie to stop the Tea Party or Fox News, then it is not quite seen by this administration as a lie.
Barack Obama swept up an entire nation in 2008 with his hope-and-change promises of a new honesty and transparency. That dream is now in shambles, destroyed by the most untruthful cast since Richard Nixon, H.R. Haldeman, Ron Ziegler and John Dean left Washington in disgrace almost 40 years ago -- after likewise subverting the very government they had pledged to serve.
http://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2013/06/20/when-untruth-undermines-democracy-n1622774/page/full
Say goodbye to the coal industry
The White House is ready to solve the global warming crisis.I know you're relieved to hear that. It was probably right at the top of a list of things that keep you awake at night. Unfortunately, if you work in the coal industry, you now have something else to worry about; your job.
And if you live in an area where electrical power is generated by a coal-fired power plant, you best be prepared to worry how you're going to pay your electric bill.
The Obama administration is readying a set of rules to govern carbon dioxide emission from existing power plants. There is likely to be a phase-in period but that's of precious little use when you consider the conversion costs. It's estimated that we will lose about 40 gigawatts of electricity as about 10% of all coal fired plants in the US shut down.
It's already impossible to build a new coal fired plant thanks to EPA rules governing emissions for new power plants. With new rules governing existing plants, the coal industry will cease to exist as we know it. Imagine destroying 10% of the mobile phone industry and vastly curtail future growth. How many workers would lose their jobs? How many companies would go under?
New York Times:
The president is preparing to move soon because rules as complex as those applying to power plants can take years to complete. Experts say that if Mr. Obama hopes to have a new set of greenhouse gas standards for utilities in place before he leaves office he needs to begin before the end of this year.
Heather Zichal, the White House coordinator for energy and climate change, said Wednesday that the president would announce climate policy initiatives in coming weeks. Another official said a presidential address outlining the new policy, which will also include new initiatives on renewable power and energy efficiency, could come as early as next week.
Ms. Zichal said none of the initiatives being considered by the administration required legislative action or new financing from Congress.
In a speech in Berlin on Wednesday, Mr. Obama echoed his assertive talk on climate policy since his re-election, talk that some climate advocates have criticized as going beyond his actions. He said the United States and the world had a moral imperative to take "bold action" to slow the warming of the planet.
"The grim alternative affects all nations -- more severe storms, more famine and floods, new waves of refugees, coastlines that vanish, oceans that rise," Mr. Obama said. "This is the global threat of our time."
He added, "We have to get to work."The president also said in his Berlin speech, "Peace with justice means refusing to condemn our children to a harsher, less hospitable planet." So where's the social "justice" in costing thousands of Americans their jobs? Or destroying an entire industry? Or forcing people to pay double for electricity than they were paying previously?
Yes, but it's all for us, little children - all for our own good. All the coercive, overbearing, big government moves taken by Obama have only one goal; making some people's lives better. Of course, others will suffer, but them's the breaks.
The new rules will be challenged in court, but given that SCOTUS has specifically granted the federal government the authority to treat CO2 as pollution, there doesn't appear to be anything standing in the way of this power grab.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/06/say_goodbye_to_the_coal_industry.html#ixzz2WmK19wsu
PK'S NOTE: For those who saw the movie 2016: Obama's America, this isn't one bit surprising.
Obama Directs New Limits on Pentagon Nuclear Weapons Use
Calls for new cut to 1,000 warheads in Berlin speech
President Barack Obama this week ordered new limits on the use of
U.S. nuclear weapons and called for sharp warhead cuts in a speech in
Berlin aimed at what he called achieving “peace with justice.”
“Peace with justice means pursuing the security of a world without nuclear weapons, no matter how distant that dream may be,” Obama said on the eastern Berlin side of the Brandenburg Gate.
“And so as president, I’ve strengthened our efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce the number and role of America’s nuclear weapons.”
Obama announced that, after reviewing U.S. nuclear doctrine, “I’ve determined that we can ensure the security of America and our allies and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third.”
It was not clear from the speech whether the president planned to cut the deployed warhead arsenal from the 2010 New START arms treaty level of 1,550 to around 1,000 unilaterally or with another arms pact with Moscow.
Obama said he intended to seek “negotiated cuts” with Russia but appeared to leave open a unilateral one-third warhead arsenal reduction by the United States.
The new strategic cuts were met with skepticism from Republicans on Capitol Hill.
“Simply wishing doesn’t make it so,” said Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Ala.), chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces.
“Despite concession after concession on our missile defenses, Russia appears no more interested in reducing its nuclear forces,” Rogers said. “Instead of focusing on unilaterally disarming, it would be far more useful to focus on the dangerous and illegal nuclear weapons program of North Korea and the rising threat of a nuclear-capable Iran.”
Committee Chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.) went further.
“The president’s desire to negotiate a new round of arms control with the Russians, while Russia is cheating on a major existing nuclear arms control treaty, strains credulity,” McKeon said.
McKeon said Obama has ignored repeated requests to take seriously Russian violations of arms accords.
The chairman noted that the House version of the fiscal 2014 defense authorization bill that passed last week prohibits further nuclear reductions “while Russia is violating—if not in material breach of—its current obligations.”
“The president must make clear to President Putin that the United States will not allow itself or its allies to be bullied by Russia or to allow that state to ignore its arms control obligations,” McKeon said.
Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the announced disarmament plan “the triumph of hope over experience.”
“Hope that a U.S. disarmament example would encourage other countries to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear arsenals; hope that negotiations with Russia would ‘reset’ relations; and hope that reducing the role of nuclear weapons would make the world a safer place,” Inhofe said in a statement.
“Instead, our experience has been that nuclear arsenals—other than ours—are on the rise, Russia defies us at almost every turn, efforts to curb the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran are failing, and our allies grow increasingly uneasy about the reliability of U.S. nuclear guarantees.”
Inhofe said he is opposed to further cuts in strategic nuclear forces and urged the president to fulfill his 2009 promise to modernize U.S. nuclear forces in exchange for New START ratification.
“A country whose conventional military strength has been weakened due to budget cuts ought not to consider further nuclear force reductions while turmoil in the world is growing,” Inhofe said.
Administration officials said Obama approved new “guidance” on Tuesday. The guidance called “nuclear weapons employment strategy” directs the Pentagon on how to plan for nuclear conflict.
The guidance says the United States will maintain a “credible” nuclear deterrent to prevent enemies from considering a nuclear attack.
It then says a U.S. nuclear attack will only be considered “in extreme circumstances” to defend the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and partners. That step was taken to allow the administration to further reduce the role of nuclear arms in U.S. security strategy, according to administration officials.
Other provisions of the guidance call for the Pentagon to emphasize non-nuclear weapons in strategic nuclear planning. It states that precision conventional strategic weapons are not a substitute for nuclear arms.
Liberal arms control advocates have advocated using precision guided conventional weapons for deterrence instead of nuclear arms. However, nuclear experts have argued that only nuclear weapons can effectively deter both established and rogue nuclear weapons states.
Additionally, the guidance also directs the Pentagon to study and reduce the role of “launch-on-attack” in strategic war planning. That step has been advocated by those arms control advocates who seek to reduce the alert status of U.S. nuclear forces.
The launch-on-warning provision is based on an assessment that a surprise nuclear attack is considered “exceedingly remote.”
Launch-on-warning capabilities will remain, but the Pentagon will instead focus on what U.S. officials said are “21st century contingencies” such as a terrorist plot to use nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, or a rogue attack from North Korea or a future nuclear armed Iran.
The president also called for working with NATO allies to “seek bold reductions in U.S. and Russian tactical weapons in Europe.”
Russia so far appears uninterested in another round of nuclear cuts. Moscow wants legal restrictions on U.S. missile defenses in Europe as a precondition for further arms cuts.
After the recent summit meeting between Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Putin told state-run press outlets: “I must say that our differences still remain, but in general I agree with President Obama that the main thing we need to do and what we can do in this direction is to increase our openness and transparency of our actions.”
Obama, in the Berlin speech, repeated the four goals of his plan to eliminate all nuclear weapons, first outlined in a 2009 speech in Prague.
It was not clear what the president meant by “peace with justice,” although it may be a counter to the conservative doctrine of President Ronald Reagan called “peace through strength.”
In the national security context, the concept likely means reducing defense and national security spending and using the funds for other programs.
“Peace with justice means refusing to condemn our children to a harsher, less hospitable planet,” Obama said, calling climate change “the global threat of our time.” Peace with justice also means promoting growth in impoverished regions of the world, he said.
The president’s nuclear agenda from Prague includes cuts to nuclear forces, a boost in nuclear non-proliferation efforts, seeking to counter nuclear terrorism and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
The guidance issued Tuesday, however, repeated the president’s past caveat that “as long as nuclear weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal that guarantees the defense of the U.S. and our allies and partners.”
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said recently he considered the president’s plan for unprecedented unilateral strategic cuts “dangerous.”
“This is not the time to embark on such a dangerous path, with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea increasing their nuclear forces,” McInerney said.
U.S. officials have said there are concerns among military planners that U.S. nuclear deterrence is being undermined by a substantial buildup of strategic nuclear forces by both Russia and China.
Russia’s buildup includes deployment of a new mobile intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) called the Yars-M; a new rail-mobile ICBM; new ballistic missile submarines and a new strategic bomber to be deployed by 2020. The new bomber will be equipped with a new Kh-102 air-launched cruise missile. Submarines will carry new Kaliber submarine-launched cruise missiles
China’s strategic nuclear buildup includes three new road-mobile ICBMs: the DF-31, DF-31A, and DF-41, and one new submarine-launched ballistic missile, the JL-2, in addition to dual nuclear- and conventional-tipped medium range and short range missiles.
http://freebeacon.com/obama-directs-new-limits-on-pentagon-nuclear-weapons-use/
Of all of Barack Obama‘s crimes against the American people this is the worst.
What Obama is doing to the U.S. military puts hundreds of millions of lives and the survival of the entire West at stake.
by Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady
http://www.trevorloudon.com/2013/06/must-read-a-helpless-military-just-what-obama-ordered/
Since 2004, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation has awarded up to four prizes of $250,000 each to innovative thinkers and practitioners whose achievements promote conservative ideals, relating to limited, competent government and a dynamic marketplace for economic, intellectual, and cultural activity. One of this year's recipients was Yuval Levin, a conservative intellectual and journalist who previously served as a congressional staffer and a member of George W. Bush's domestic policy staff.
Levin remarked in his Bradley Prize acceptance speech about the kind of vision conservatives share.
We value these things not because they are triumphant and invincible but because they are precious and vulnerable, because they weren't fated to happen, and they're not certain to survive. They need us-and our gratitude for them should move us to defend them and to build on them.
Those of us who formally or even loosely refer to ourselves as conservative ought to be moved in this way. Our actions should reflect gratitude for the liberties that have been preserved in our great nation, and for the tireless efforts expended in defending them, so that our children, and their children, can retain the same measure of freedom we enjoy.
When our liberties are infringed upon, we too should figuratively (and perhaps literally) take up our arms and defend them, knowing our motivation is not because we are angry, but because we are humble. We do not presume to do a better job than our forefathers and are slow to abandon the fruit of their labors.
It is this spirit of gratitude that has carried the conservative movement since Edmund Burke and this spirit will continue to be an important key for insuring conservatism in the future.
Not many people know about this holiday in New York but it's very important in American history.
The rolls of the federal government’s safety net for the disabled are
swelling as people turn to it for financial help in bad economic times,
welfare experts said on Wednesday afternoon at the Cato Institute.
Social policy experts from across the political spectrum, including the chief actuary from the Social Security Administration, discussed the future of Social Security Disability Insurance and provided different outlooks on its future at the event.
David Autor, a noted economics expert at MIT, praised the program’s social benefits but also highlighted several problems with it. Social Security Disability Insurance has an “outmoded definition of disability” that does not cover partial disabilities, creating a disincentive for people to work.
The program also has been very sensitive to downturns in the economy, indicating that people are seeking it when they cannot find a job, he said.
In addition, the number of people on the program’s rolls is increasing, even though the number of self-reporting people with disabilities has remained roughly the same, Autor said.
The kinds of disability claims have changed, too, he noted: the greatest number of claims once stemmed from cancer and circulatory issues, but now describe back pain and mental health problems.
The insurance program’s rolls have expanded because of an increasing looseness of the rules governing admission to the program, argued Cato senior fellow Jagadeesh Gokhale.
The program began in 1956, and in 1965 the definition of disability changed to include people with temporary disabilities. Two years later the Social Security Administration began adjudicating claims based on factors outside of pure disability, like job availability, and in 1984 the program began making allowances for subjective claims like pain and mental issues, Gokhale said.
All of these factors have given more and more people access to the program, Gokhale contended.
“The program is acting like a massive gravitational force, attracting people to itself,” he said.
Michael Tanner, the event’s moderator, noted in his introduction that the disability insurance program’s trust fund would become technically insolvent in 2016. Both Autor and Gokhale pointed out that the Social Security Administration has regularly underestimated future enrollment.
“Unfortunately, policy makers don’t seem to be exhibiting the urgency that I would expect to see,” he said.
Despite these problems, Autor praised the insurance program. “It does a lot of good—a great deal more good than harm,” he said.
Stephen Goss, the chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, pushed back on some of Autor and Gokhale’s ideas, arguing that while SSDI costs as a share of GDP have risen, much of that can be accounted for by the decline in GDP. Goss also contended that Congress would not let the insurance program actually go insolvent, if only because ending a popular government program would bode poorly at the ballot box.
Nevertheless, Goss conceded that there are problems with the program.
“Is the sky falling? We think not. Is there a problem? Yes.”
Harold Pollack, a liberal social policy expert at the University of Chicago, argued that Autor and Gokhale’s presentations were overblown. A majority of people who apply for disability insurance are rejected, he said, and those who are denied often do not participate in the job market—showing that their denial is not weighing down the economy, he argued.
“It’s not a piece of cake to get onto these programs,” he said.
Pollack admitted that the finances of the program are somewhat problematic, although he said they are not nearly as problematic as some say.
Pollack praised Autor’s policy recommendations even while disagreeing with his analysis of the program’s current state.
Autor said that giving employers some responsibility for covering the costs of disability insurance—an employer mandate of sorts—could be a possible way to reduce costs and promote employment. He said that he would like to see a state experiment with this policy in order to measure its effect.
http://freebeacon.com/disabling-disability-insurance/
There are no offices on Connecticut Avenue in Washington with signs reading "The Republican Establishment" or the "The Democratic Establishment"; rather both are an amalgam of like-minded groups with one common interest: the control of the government purse-strings and the attendant influence and ego-gratification that brings about.
These establishments are made up of the following:
1) many of the current members of Congress who have served more than two terms and as a result have become dependent on the income, perquisites and notoriety in holding elected office;
2) a vast cadre of retired national office holders whose livelihood as lobbyists and political appointees as well their narcissistic needs depends upon fealty to Party and access to government largesse;
3) the majority of the media, including pundits, editors, writers and television news personalities based in Washington and New York whose proximity to power and access is vital to their continued standard of living and social status;
4) numerous think-tanks, law firms and members thereof who are waiting to latch on to the next Republican or Democrat administration for employment and ego-gratification;
5) the reliable deep pocket political contributors, crony capitalists and political consultants whose future is irrevocably tied to the political machinery of either party.
Therefore the overriding interest of this cabal has been and continues to not only be their narcissism and wealth accumulation but the amassing of power through the control of the income, borrowing and spending by the Federal Government.
For many decades it has been tacitly understood among those in both party hierarchies the role that each play in the kabuki theatre that is the American Political Establishment. For the Democrats, it has been to be the presumptive champion of the downtrodden and disenfranchised, and for the Republicans to be the promoters of free enterprise as an unending and growing source of income for the state, while maintaining some semblance of mitigating government spending. Both actors have been content in the knowledge that each party would at some point have control of various levers of government be it the White House or one or both Houses of Congress.
For many years, as the junior partner, the Republican Establishment was satisfied in being a permanent minority in Congress as long as they could win the presidency upon occasion and join with the Democrats in feeding from the government trough. Thus, with the exception of Ronald Reagan and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999, the Republican Establishment has been content since 1952 to merely slow down the big-government policies of the Democrats while publically decrying their tax and spend policies.
This scenario was tolerated and generally ignored as long as the nation was experiencing overwhelming and seemingly endless peace and prosperity. However, the American Political Establishment's infatuation with the personal attributes of Barack Obama is threatening to undermine the incestuous relationship between the parties. Rather than examine his philosophical core and determination to transform the nation into a second class economic and societal entity, they chose to ignore it and instead viewed conservatives and the Tea Party movement as the real threat to their existence.
The APE, conditioned to believe that Obama was just another traditional Democrat president, has willingly abetted his near destruction of the economy and society. However, living among others of similar philosophical bent and income strata in the bubble that is Washington D.C., many still do not see that the earth has begun to move under their feet. They refuse to acknowledge that Obama and his radical cabal are determined to permanently destroy the Republican Party and complete the makeover of the Democratic Party into a socialist/Marxist entity bent on destroying everyone's individual liberty and standard of living.
The deliberate lies told regarding Benghazi and the willingness of the Obama regime to sacrifice four American for political expediency; the Justice Department's targeting of reporters; the egregious falsehoods about the Fast and Furious debacle; the political persecution of conservative groups by the IRS; and the potential destruction of individual privacy inherent in the massive data collected by the NSA; together with many failed economic and policy initiatives, should have sent off alarm bells among members of the Establishment. It has not; in fact they are proceeding as if it were business as usual.
The mad dash to pass an immigration bill immediately legitimizing 11 to 20 million people illegally in the country is being proposed by the APE as a means of insuring their continued existence. This would be accomplished by the increase in the voting population of those favoring an ever-expanding government while concurrently diminishing the influence of conservatives or the Tea Party movement. That the impact on the middle class or low wage workers will be devastating in an already shrinking economy with unsustainable social spending is immaterial; the Establishment believes their future will be assured. However, the reality of what this bill does is make permanent an unfettered Democratic Party machine controlled by the radical left.
The only chance this nation has of reversing its headlong dash over the cliff is to dismantle the American Political Establishment. Many conservatives and rank and file Republicans have rightly railed at the myopia of the Republican Establishment and have thus focused their attention and anger at them. However, this plays into the hands of the Obama cabal.
Rather, the attention should be shifted to first, tabling any immigration bill in Congress and second, defeating at all levels anyone running for office as a Democrat in 2014 or 2016. The Democratic Party is now fully in the thrall of Barack Obama and his fellow-travelers who control the purse-strings of the Party and thus who receives campaign funding. All those running as Democrats are, in reality, enablers in furthering the aims of the far-left to destroy this nation as founded.
While it is important who the Republicans nominate to run for office in 2014 and 2016, it is monumentally more important that the Democratic opposition be defeated. At this critical juncture in American history it is essentially immaterial who the Republican candidates are--they must be victorious. The process of weeding out those Republicans not committed to conservative principles can begin later. It will be far easier to alter the landscape in a Party whose base is overwhelmingly conservative and libertarian and where there are already a multitude of like-minded office holders.
The self-deluded fools in the American Political Establishment refuse to comprehend the long-term peril the country faces as well as the reality that the tactics of the Obama Regime are no different than those of Hitler or Mussolini in the early years of their dictatorship. That entity must be, therefore, be dismantled.
“Peace with justice means pursuing the security of a world without nuclear weapons, no matter how distant that dream may be,” Obama said on the eastern Berlin side of the Brandenburg Gate.
“And so as president, I’ve strengthened our efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce the number and role of America’s nuclear weapons.”
Obama announced that, after reviewing U.S. nuclear doctrine, “I’ve determined that we can ensure the security of America and our allies and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third.”
It was not clear from the speech whether the president planned to cut the deployed warhead arsenal from the 2010 New START arms treaty level of 1,550 to around 1,000 unilaterally or with another arms pact with Moscow.
Obama said he intended to seek “negotiated cuts” with Russia but appeared to leave open a unilateral one-third warhead arsenal reduction by the United States.
The new strategic cuts were met with skepticism from Republicans on Capitol Hill.
“Simply wishing doesn’t make it so,” said Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Ala.), chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces.
“Despite concession after concession on our missile defenses, Russia appears no more interested in reducing its nuclear forces,” Rogers said. “Instead of focusing on unilaterally disarming, it would be far more useful to focus on the dangerous and illegal nuclear weapons program of North Korea and the rising threat of a nuclear-capable Iran.”
Committee Chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.) went further.
“The president’s desire to negotiate a new round of arms control with the Russians, while Russia is cheating on a major existing nuclear arms control treaty, strains credulity,” McKeon said.
McKeon said Obama has ignored repeated requests to take seriously Russian violations of arms accords.
The chairman noted that the House version of the fiscal 2014 defense authorization bill that passed last week prohibits further nuclear reductions “while Russia is violating—if not in material breach of—its current obligations.”
“The president must make clear to President Putin that the United States will not allow itself or its allies to be bullied by Russia or to allow that state to ignore its arms control obligations,” McKeon said.
Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the announced disarmament plan “the triumph of hope over experience.”
“Hope that a U.S. disarmament example would encourage other countries to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear arsenals; hope that negotiations with Russia would ‘reset’ relations; and hope that reducing the role of nuclear weapons would make the world a safer place,” Inhofe said in a statement.
“Instead, our experience has been that nuclear arsenals—other than ours—are on the rise, Russia defies us at almost every turn, efforts to curb the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran are failing, and our allies grow increasingly uneasy about the reliability of U.S. nuclear guarantees.”
Inhofe said he is opposed to further cuts in strategic nuclear forces and urged the president to fulfill his 2009 promise to modernize U.S. nuclear forces in exchange for New START ratification.
“A country whose conventional military strength has been weakened due to budget cuts ought not to consider further nuclear force reductions while turmoil in the world is growing,” Inhofe said.
Administration officials said Obama approved new “guidance” on Tuesday. The guidance called “nuclear weapons employment strategy” directs the Pentagon on how to plan for nuclear conflict.
The guidance says the United States will maintain a “credible” nuclear deterrent to prevent enemies from considering a nuclear attack.
It then says a U.S. nuclear attack will only be considered “in extreme circumstances” to defend the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and partners. That step was taken to allow the administration to further reduce the role of nuclear arms in U.S. security strategy, according to administration officials.
Other provisions of the guidance call for the Pentagon to emphasize non-nuclear weapons in strategic nuclear planning. It states that precision conventional strategic weapons are not a substitute for nuclear arms.
Liberal arms control advocates have advocated using precision guided conventional weapons for deterrence instead of nuclear arms. However, nuclear experts have argued that only nuclear weapons can effectively deter both established and rogue nuclear weapons states.
Additionally, the guidance also directs the Pentagon to study and reduce the role of “launch-on-attack” in strategic war planning. That step has been advocated by those arms control advocates who seek to reduce the alert status of U.S. nuclear forces.
The launch-on-warning provision is based on an assessment that a surprise nuclear attack is considered “exceedingly remote.”
Launch-on-warning capabilities will remain, but the Pentagon will instead focus on what U.S. officials said are “21st century contingencies” such as a terrorist plot to use nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, or a rogue attack from North Korea or a future nuclear armed Iran.
The president also called for working with NATO allies to “seek bold reductions in U.S. and Russian tactical weapons in Europe.”
Russia so far appears uninterested in another round of nuclear cuts. Moscow wants legal restrictions on U.S. missile defenses in Europe as a precondition for further arms cuts.
After the recent summit meeting between Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Putin told state-run press outlets: “I must say that our differences still remain, but in general I agree with President Obama that the main thing we need to do and what we can do in this direction is to increase our openness and transparency of our actions.”
Obama, in the Berlin speech, repeated the four goals of his plan to eliminate all nuclear weapons, first outlined in a 2009 speech in Prague.
It was not clear what the president meant by “peace with justice,” although it may be a counter to the conservative doctrine of President Ronald Reagan called “peace through strength.”
In the national security context, the concept likely means reducing defense and national security spending and using the funds for other programs.
“Peace with justice means refusing to condemn our children to a harsher, less hospitable planet,” Obama said, calling climate change “the global threat of our time.” Peace with justice also means promoting growth in impoverished regions of the world, he said.
The president’s nuclear agenda from Prague includes cuts to nuclear forces, a boost in nuclear non-proliferation efforts, seeking to counter nuclear terrorism and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
The guidance issued Tuesday, however, repeated the president’s past caveat that “as long as nuclear weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal that guarantees the defense of the U.S. and our allies and partners.”
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said recently he considered the president’s plan for unprecedented unilateral strategic cuts “dangerous.”
“This is not the time to embark on such a dangerous path, with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea increasing their nuclear forces,” McInerney said.
U.S. officials have said there are concerns among military planners that U.S. nuclear deterrence is being undermined by a substantial buildup of strategic nuclear forces by both Russia and China.
Russia’s buildup includes deployment of a new mobile intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) called the Yars-M; a new rail-mobile ICBM; new ballistic missile submarines and a new strategic bomber to be deployed by 2020. The new bomber will be equipped with a new Kh-102 air-launched cruise missile. Submarines will carry new Kaliber submarine-launched cruise missiles
China’s strategic nuclear buildup includes three new road-mobile ICBMs: the DF-31, DF-31A, and DF-41, and one new submarine-launched ballistic missile, the JL-2, in addition to dual nuclear- and conventional-tipped medium range and short range missiles.
http://freebeacon.com/obama-directs-new-limits-on-pentagon-nuclear-weapons-use/
“A Helpless Military: Just What Obama Ordered”
Of all of Barack Obama‘s crimes against the American people this is the worst.
What Obama is doing to the U.S. military puts hundreds of millions of lives and the survival of the entire West at stake.
by Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady
As incompetence, deception, duplicity and dishonesty become the hall marks of the Obama administration, it is important that we not lose sight of the greatest danger posed beyond these serial scandals: the feminization, emasculation and dismantling of our military. The two most important elements of national survival are the media and the military; one keeps us free and the other keeps us secure. We know the media are failing – God help us if the military does also. We may be able to fix the government in 2014. Fixing the military is more problematic.
Let’s begin with Benghazi. It is incomprehensible that any commander, let alone the commander in chief, would go AWOL during a crisis such as Benghazi, but he was. In the midst of the massacre of our ambassador and three heroic Americans, President Obama was nowhere to be found. He did manage to surface, too late for the massacre, to meet a campaign commitment the next day. But, before retiring, we are told he turned the crisis over to his underlings, including the military. What we learned about our military leadership during that crisis should alarm all Americans.
The demise of our military of course begins with the commander in chief, but he can’t do it alone. He has to have willing sycophants and he has had them in the civilian and military leadership at the Department of Defense. The indifference of the people and military inexperience in Congress are contributing factors. The military disasters are a form of gradualism. Look at the changes under Mr. Obama. We cannot focus on these changes enough.
Our military is suffering unprecedented rates of suicide and PTSD. Obama’s sequestration will cut benefits to veterans as well as damage readiness. (There has been a 2000 percent increase in backlog for veteran assistance in four years!) We now have a quad-sexual military with all the health, readiness and moral issues that come with exalting sodomy. Sexual assault is at an all-time high. Women will be tasked to lead bayonet charges. As a result of the sex scandals, Congress is now looking to curtail the military’s ability to discipline, another tribute to the lack of leadership in the military and lack of military understanding in Congress.
Billions of defense dollars are unaccounted for. Christianity is under military attack, and Bibles have been burned to appease Muslims. (References to God and Jesus are forbidden at Arlington, chaplains will be forced to perform homosexual “marriages,” and Bibles and religious item are forbidden to the wounded at Walter Reed, etc.)
We have a new doctrine for crisis: “Don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.” Therefore, no Normandy or Inchon. In other words, don’t go until the crisis/massacre is over. Their default position is don’t go, period. The military leadership, after the terrorist massacre at Fort Hood, outrageously lamented the effect it would have on diversity – and equally outrageously labeled it workplace violence denying the victims and their families the benefits they deserve.
There have been unprecedented security leaks, and China is electronically in bed with us. They even lost the graves of our warriors at Arlington. I could go on, but it should be clear that all of the above is the result of a leader who knows not the difference between a corps and a corpse and is both indifferent to and unknowledgeable of military readiness. And as bad, the military leadership is complicit in these disasters. (As a further tribute to their ineptitude, they have actually considered combat-level medals for warriors not shooting and desk-bound computer operators, medals that were the laughingstock of veterans.)
But given that the president tasked the military to act in the Benghazi crisis, what did they do? Indefensibly, they did nothing, they did not even try! No obstacle, no doctrine, nothing can defend not trying, never mind the risk, to save fellow Americans. Were they under orders to sit on their a– and let their fellow Americans die? In my 34 years of military service involving many crises, I never knew of one without an after action report (AAR), in which each and every action was put under a microscope to identify those responsible for the results be they good or bad. Congress, the media, someone should demand the AAR on Benghazi. It must exist. Who ordered the stand down? Who said sit on your a–? Why no hearing on this?
Just as the way forward for America is a return to the morality and values of the past, so too must the military return to the readiness standards and common sense of the past. We can survive in a relatively valueless society – but only with a strong and ready military. Sadly the military is mirroring society – the goal of Mr. Obama and progressives – and will soon be impotent. Once the progressives have a helpless military they no longer need to explain why they didn’t go; they can say we are unable to go. Progress is not the path we are on; true progress is the path to our past. The other scandals may be more glamorous and outrageous (such as lying about Benghazi before the coffins of those massacred by terrorists, enemies’ lists and assaults on the First Amendment) but what Mr. Obama is doing to our military is more grave.Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, retired from the U.S. Army, is a recipient of the United States military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor. He is the author of “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Viet Nam The Legend of Dust Off: America’s Battlefield Angels.”
http://www.trevorloudon.com/2013/06/must-read-a-helpless-military-just-what-obama-ordered/
Conservative Gratitude
Conservatives are too often stereotyped as reactionary, narrow-minded and angry. As someone who faces these stereotypes every day, whether pointed at our clients at the Center for Religious Expression, or me personally, I was heartened to come across a speech given last week that articulates conservatism in a fresh, thoughtful way: as an expression of gratitude.Since 2004, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation has awarded up to four prizes of $250,000 each to innovative thinkers and practitioners whose achievements promote conservative ideals, relating to limited, competent government and a dynamic marketplace for economic, intellectual, and cultural activity. One of this year's recipients was Yuval Levin, a conservative intellectual and journalist who previously served as a congressional staffer and a member of George W. Bush's domestic policy staff.
Levin remarked in his Bradley Prize acceptance speech about the kind of vision conservatives share.
To my mind, conservatism is gratitude. Conservatives tend to begin from gratitude for what is good and what works in our society and then strive to build on it, while liberals tend to begin from outrage at what is bad and broken and seek to uproot it.
You need both, because some of what is good about our world is irreplaceable and has to be guarded, while some of what is bad is unacceptable and has to be changed... But we can also never forget what moves us to gratitude, and so what we stand for and defend: the extraordinary cultural inheritance we have; the amazing country built for us by others and defended by our best and bravest; America's unmatched potential for lifting the poor and the weak; the legacy of freedom-of ordered liberty-built up over centuries of hard work.
We value these things not because they are triumphant and invincible but because they are precious and vulnerable, because they weren't fated to happen, and they're not certain to survive. They need us-and our gratitude for them should move us to defend them and to build on them.
Those of us who formally or even loosely refer to ourselves as conservative ought to be moved in this way. Our actions should reflect gratitude for the liberties that have been preserved in our great nation, and for the tireless efforts expended in defending them, so that our children, and their children, can retain the same measure of freedom we enjoy.
When our liberties are infringed upon, we too should figuratively (and perhaps literally) take up our arms and defend them, knowing our motivation is not because we are angry, but because we are humble. We do not presume to do a better job than our forefathers and are slow to abandon the fruit of their labors.
It is this spirit of gratitude that has carried the conservative movement since Edmund Burke and this spirit will continue to be an important key for insuring conservatism in the future.
Freedom and Free Stuff
Corruption, the most infallible symptom of constitutional liberty.
—Edward Gibbons
I had the honor of being keynote speaker at the One Hundred Black Men ceremony for young men graduating from Eagle Academy schools. These charter schools are doing remarkable things in places people gave up on a long time ago. The graduates are all going to college and most know their majors. I hope to have the speech on our website soon, in the meantime here's an excerpt.
—Edward Gibbons
I had the honor of being keynote speaker at the One Hundred Black Men ceremony for young men graduating from Eagle Academy schools. These charter schools are doing remarkable things in places people gave up on a long time ago. The graduates are all going to college and most know their majors. I hope to have the speech on our website soon, in the meantime here's an excerpt.
Tomorrow [today] is a holiday known as Juneteenth.
Not many people know about this holiday in New York but it's very important in American history.
Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation
Proclamation on September 22, 1862 ordering an end to slavery on January
1, 1863. That of course didn't happen as Confederate States including
Texas, continued to hold onto slaves. But on June 18th, 1865 Union
General Gordon Granger and 2,000 troops rode into Galveston Texas to
take possession of the state and free the slaves. So on June 19th, 1865,
almost three years after Lincoln's most famous speech and order,
General Gordon stood on the balcony of the Ashton Villa and read
"General Order no 3."
The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired labor. The freedmen are advised to remain quietly at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts and that they will not be supported in idleness either there or elsewhere.
That's what freedom was all about back then. The right to own property, to work and earn a living and not expect the government to pay you for not working - that was being a man.
The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired labor. The freedmen are advised to remain quietly at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts and that they will not be supported in idleness either there or elsewhere.
That's what freedom was all about back then. The right to own property, to work and earn a living and not expect the government to pay you for not working - that was being a man.
America has had its share of growing pains and continues to work
towards a more perfect union. The battle shifted at the turn of the
century and the industrial revolution. Commercialism and individual
success created fortunes, and while self-made, sparked envy and anger.
There are several nations around the world going through the same
scenario these days.
Mo Money Mo Problems
What's we're seeing around the world the last couple of weeks are governments getting stung by their very own success. I've written and argued a lot about the amazing economic success being enjoyed around the world. It's not about western Europe or America or Japan anymore... what's moving the needle are economies like Indonesia, Turkey and Brazil. Yet those places have also proven to be tinderboxes ready to explode and the spark doesn't have to be much. Consider how these nations have gone up in flames:
Lowering fuel subsides
Announcement to build a museum - mall
Raising bus fare ten cents
Of course there would have to be much more than the events above to spark widespread violence in nations making major transitions into greater prosperity. Brazil was poised to have its coming out party showcasing the Confederations Cup this month, the Pope next month, then the World Cup and Olympics. Events like these cost lots of money, billions when you're building stadiums from scratch and that's got people with poor housing and public services wondering what it is all about. Protestors also complain about police brutality and government corruption.
It's that last point that seems to be the sticky, common thread around the planet. I still see anti-capitalism movements pulling lots of strings using what might otherwise be innocuous sparks by fanning the flames through social media and old media. There is no political system without corruption but democracy and capitalism are moving so swiftly in the emerging world while socialistic tendencies and polices sink the west a last stand has to happen. What it all reveals are hurdles. Growing pangs associated with rapid success that will obviously have stragglers.
It also points to problems with taking away freebies and subsidies.
An election was lost in America because of freebies and the only way Obamacare is not eventually overturned is if it becomes a giant welfare benefit ultimately seen as a birthright along with cell phones, high speed internet, food, shelter, clothing, and rights to other people's earnings. I've witnessed how free stuff can destroy wide swathes of people and communities and now we are seeing how it can derail fascinating growth and prosperity. This is how it started in Egypt last year and how it will start in other places this summer.
Mo Money Mo Problems
What's we're seeing around the world the last couple of weeks are governments getting stung by their very own success. I've written and argued a lot about the amazing economic success being enjoyed around the world. It's not about western Europe or America or Japan anymore... what's moving the needle are economies like Indonesia, Turkey and Brazil. Yet those places have also proven to be tinderboxes ready to explode and the spark doesn't have to be much. Consider how these nations have gone up in flames:
Lowering fuel subsides
Announcement to build a museum - mall
Raising bus fare ten cents
Of course there would have to be much more than the events above to spark widespread violence in nations making major transitions into greater prosperity. Brazil was poised to have its coming out party showcasing the Confederations Cup this month, the Pope next month, then the World Cup and Olympics. Events like these cost lots of money, billions when you're building stadiums from scratch and that's got people with poor housing and public services wondering what it is all about. Protestors also complain about police brutality and government corruption.
It's that last point that seems to be the sticky, common thread around the planet. I still see anti-capitalism movements pulling lots of strings using what might otherwise be innocuous sparks by fanning the flames through social media and old media. There is no political system without corruption but democracy and capitalism are moving so swiftly in the emerging world while socialistic tendencies and polices sink the west a last stand has to happen. What it all reveals are hurdles. Growing pangs associated with rapid success that will obviously have stragglers.
It also points to problems with taking away freebies and subsidies.
An election was lost in America because of freebies and the only way Obamacare is not eventually overturned is if it becomes a giant welfare benefit ultimately seen as a birthright along with cell phones, high speed internet, food, shelter, clothing, and rights to other people's earnings. I've witnessed how free stuff can destroy wide swathes of people and communities and now we are seeing how it can derail fascinating growth and prosperity. This is how it started in Egypt last year and how it will start in other places this summer.
Make no mistake, these things will not be accidents. They haven't been
accidents. They're designed to spin the world in a direction of communal
sharing and limited self-interest.
Amazingly, the world has come a long way from the notion of being free - now idleness is rewarded and success is punished.
Emerging nations are going to have to figure out better ways to allow access to success without punishing achievers and limiting potential.
Amazingly, the world has come a long way from the notion of being free - now idleness is rewarded and success is punished.
Emerging nations are going to have to figure out better ways to allow access to success without punishing achievers and limiting potential.
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/charlespayne/2013/06/20/freedom-and-free-stuff-n1623177
Disabling Disability Insurance
Social Security Disability Insurance is encouraging unemployment as its rolls swell, experts say
Social policy experts from across the political spectrum, including the chief actuary from the Social Security Administration, discussed the future of Social Security Disability Insurance and provided different outlooks on its future at the event.
David Autor, a noted economics expert at MIT, praised the program’s social benefits but also highlighted several problems with it. Social Security Disability Insurance has an “outmoded definition of disability” that does not cover partial disabilities, creating a disincentive for people to work.
The program also has been very sensitive to downturns in the economy, indicating that people are seeking it when they cannot find a job, he said.
In addition, the number of people on the program’s rolls is increasing, even though the number of self-reporting people with disabilities has remained roughly the same, Autor said.
The kinds of disability claims have changed, too, he noted: the greatest number of claims once stemmed from cancer and circulatory issues, but now describe back pain and mental health problems.
The insurance program’s rolls have expanded because of an increasing looseness of the rules governing admission to the program, argued Cato senior fellow Jagadeesh Gokhale.
The program began in 1956, and in 1965 the definition of disability changed to include people with temporary disabilities. Two years later the Social Security Administration began adjudicating claims based on factors outside of pure disability, like job availability, and in 1984 the program began making allowances for subjective claims like pain and mental issues, Gokhale said.
All of these factors have given more and more people access to the program, Gokhale contended.
“The program is acting like a massive gravitational force, attracting people to itself,” he said.
Michael Tanner, the event’s moderator, noted in his introduction that the disability insurance program’s trust fund would become technically insolvent in 2016. Both Autor and Gokhale pointed out that the Social Security Administration has regularly underestimated future enrollment.
“Unfortunately, policy makers don’t seem to be exhibiting the urgency that I would expect to see,” he said.
Despite these problems, Autor praised the insurance program. “It does a lot of good—a great deal more good than harm,” he said.
Stephen Goss, the chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, pushed back on some of Autor and Gokhale’s ideas, arguing that while SSDI costs as a share of GDP have risen, much of that can be accounted for by the decline in GDP. Goss also contended that Congress would not let the insurance program actually go insolvent, if only because ending a popular government program would bode poorly at the ballot box.
Nevertheless, Goss conceded that there are problems with the program.
“Is the sky falling? We think not. Is there a problem? Yes.”
Harold Pollack, a liberal social policy expert at the University of Chicago, argued that Autor and Gokhale’s presentations were overblown. A majority of people who apply for disability insurance are rejected, he said, and those who are denied often do not participate in the job market—showing that their denial is not weighing down the economy, he argued.
“It’s not a piece of cake to get onto these programs,” he said.
Pollack admitted that the finances of the program are somewhat problematic, although he said they are not nearly as problematic as some say.
Pollack praised Autor’s policy recommendations even while disagreeing with his analysis of the program’s current state.
Autor said that giving employers some responsibility for covering the costs of disability insurance—an employer mandate of sorts—could be a possible way to reduce costs and promote employment. He said that he would like to see a state experiment with this policy in order to measure its effect.
http://freebeacon.com/disabling-disability-insurance/
The Self-Delusion of the American Political Establishment
Washington D.C. is not just a city of monuments, museums and millions of square feet of buildings housing a preponderance of left-leaning overpaid bureaucrats complaining about how hard they work, it is also the home of the American Political Establishment (APE). This monolithic body has evolved over the past eighty years as an ever increasing amount of political power once delegated to the states and the people has been seized by the federal government. Within this entity are two branches: the senior partner -- the Democratic Establishment -- and the junior partner -- the Republican Establishment.There are no offices on Connecticut Avenue in Washington with signs reading "The Republican Establishment" or the "The Democratic Establishment"; rather both are an amalgam of like-minded groups with one common interest: the control of the government purse-strings and the attendant influence and ego-gratification that brings about.
These establishments are made up of the following:
1) many of the current members of Congress who have served more than two terms and as a result have become dependent on the income, perquisites and notoriety in holding elected office;
2) a vast cadre of retired national office holders whose livelihood as lobbyists and political appointees as well their narcissistic needs depends upon fealty to Party and access to government largesse;
3) the majority of the media, including pundits, editors, writers and television news personalities based in Washington and New York whose proximity to power and access is vital to their continued standard of living and social status;
4) numerous think-tanks, law firms and members thereof who are waiting to latch on to the next Republican or Democrat administration for employment and ego-gratification;
5) the reliable deep pocket political contributors, crony capitalists and political consultants whose future is irrevocably tied to the political machinery of either party.
Therefore the overriding interest of this cabal has been and continues to not only be their narcissism and wealth accumulation but the amassing of power through the control of the income, borrowing and spending by the Federal Government.
For many decades it has been tacitly understood among those in both party hierarchies the role that each play in the kabuki theatre that is the American Political Establishment. For the Democrats, it has been to be the presumptive champion of the downtrodden and disenfranchised, and for the Republicans to be the promoters of free enterprise as an unending and growing source of income for the state, while maintaining some semblance of mitigating government spending. Both actors have been content in the knowledge that each party would at some point have control of various levers of government be it the White House or one or both Houses of Congress.
For many years, as the junior partner, the Republican Establishment was satisfied in being a permanent minority in Congress as long as they could win the presidency upon occasion and join with the Democrats in feeding from the government trough. Thus, with the exception of Ronald Reagan and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999, the Republican Establishment has been content since 1952 to merely slow down the big-government policies of the Democrats while publically decrying their tax and spend policies.
This scenario was tolerated and generally ignored as long as the nation was experiencing overwhelming and seemingly endless peace and prosperity. However, the American Political Establishment's infatuation with the personal attributes of Barack Obama is threatening to undermine the incestuous relationship between the parties. Rather than examine his philosophical core and determination to transform the nation into a second class economic and societal entity, they chose to ignore it and instead viewed conservatives and the Tea Party movement as the real threat to their existence.
The APE, conditioned to believe that Obama was just another traditional Democrat president, has willingly abetted his near destruction of the economy and society. However, living among others of similar philosophical bent and income strata in the bubble that is Washington D.C., many still do not see that the earth has begun to move under their feet. They refuse to acknowledge that Obama and his radical cabal are determined to permanently destroy the Republican Party and complete the makeover of the Democratic Party into a socialist/Marxist entity bent on destroying everyone's individual liberty and standard of living.
The deliberate lies told regarding Benghazi and the willingness of the Obama regime to sacrifice four American for political expediency; the Justice Department's targeting of reporters; the egregious falsehoods about the Fast and Furious debacle; the political persecution of conservative groups by the IRS; and the potential destruction of individual privacy inherent in the massive data collected by the NSA; together with many failed economic and policy initiatives, should have sent off alarm bells among members of the Establishment. It has not; in fact they are proceeding as if it were business as usual.
The mad dash to pass an immigration bill immediately legitimizing 11 to 20 million people illegally in the country is being proposed by the APE as a means of insuring their continued existence. This would be accomplished by the increase in the voting population of those favoring an ever-expanding government while concurrently diminishing the influence of conservatives or the Tea Party movement. That the impact on the middle class or low wage workers will be devastating in an already shrinking economy with unsustainable social spending is immaterial; the Establishment believes their future will be assured. However, the reality of what this bill does is make permanent an unfettered Democratic Party machine controlled by the radical left.
The only chance this nation has of reversing its headlong dash over the cliff is to dismantle the American Political Establishment. Many conservatives and rank and file Republicans have rightly railed at the myopia of the Republican Establishment and have thus focused their attention and anger at them. However, this plays into the hands of the Obama cabal.
Rather, the attention should be shifted to first, tabling any immigration bill in Congress and second, defeating at all levels anyone running for office as a Democrat in 2014 or 2016. The Democratic Party is now fully in the thrall of Barack Obama and his fellow-travelers who control the purse-strings of the Party and thus who receives campaign funding. All those running as Democrats are, in reality, enablers in furthering the aims of the far-left to destroy this nation as founded.
While it is important who the Republicans nominate to run for office in 2014 and 2016, it is monumentally more important that the Democratic opposition be defeated. At this critical juncture in American history it is essentially immaterial who the Republican candidates are--they must be victorious. The process of weeding out those Republicans not committed to conservative principles can begin later. It will be far easier to alter the landscape in a Party whose base is overwhelmingly conservative and libertarian and where there are already a multitude of like-minded office holders.
The self-deluded fools in the American Political Establishment refuse to comprehend the long-term peril the country faces as well as the reality that the tactics of the Obama Regime are no different than those of Hitler or Mussolini in the early years of their dictatorship. That entity must be, therefore, be dismantled.
Anti-NSA reporter tied to Soros-funded radical left
Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald pushed for ‘weakening of America’
London Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, who broke the story
exposing the National Security Agency’s collection of the telephone
records of millions of U.S. Verizon customers, founded a progressive
activist coalition that encompasses a who’s who of the George
Soros-funded radical left.
Greenwald first revealed the NSA whistleblower to be Edward Snowden in a wide ranging interview.
The reporter has been granted near exclusive access to Snowden and has been expressing the whistleblower’s views to the news media,
On Friday, Greenwald wrote that Snowden fears his disclosures “would fail to trigger a worldwide debate because the public had already been taught to accept that they have no right to privacy in the digital age.”
Greenwald also moderated Snowden’s online question and answer session with Guardian readers and has given multiple interviews to the news media in which he explained Snowden’s motivation and hopes.
MoveOn.org, ACORN, SEIU…
In 2008, Greenwald and liberal blogger Jane Hamsher co-founded the group Accountability Now, a political action committee described by the New York Times as seeking “to push the Democratic Party further to the left.”
The press release published by the political action committee announced the members of the Accountability Now coalition: MoveOn.org, Color Of Change, SEIU, the Daily Kos blog, Howard Dean’s Democracy for America and the communist-oriented United Steelworkers of America, among others.
Soros is a primary donor to MoveOn.org as is the Soros-Funded Tides Foundation.
The Soros-funded Color Of Change was founded by Van Jones, President Obama’s former “green jobs” czar. Jones infamously resigned in 2009 after it was exposed he also founded a communist revolutionary organization.
SEIU is the longtime partner of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. A primary ACORN funder is the Soros-financed Tides Foundation.
Greenwald’s Accountability Now coalition board included Anna Burger, then-Secretary-Treasurer of the SEIU. Burger served on Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
Greenwald, meanwhile, is a longtime activist against government surveillance. In 2005, he founded a blog, later moved to Salon.com, called Unclaimed Territory. The blog focused on NSA warrantless surveillance of international telephone calls.
Greenwald’s first book, released in 2006, was also about NSA surveillance.
Titled “How Would A Patriot Act? Defending American Values From A President Run Amok,” the book was published by Working Assets, a company that gives a percentage of its profits to far-left groups.
Some of the same groups funded by Working Assets are also tied to Greenwald’s Accountability Now coalition.
Working Assets was originally founded by Drummond Pike, who also established the Tides Foundation.
Working Assets boasts that since 1985 it has raised more than $50 million for what it terms “progressive causes.”
Working Assets has funded ACORN, the American Civil Liberties Union; Media Matters for America; the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation; Natural Resources Defense Council; the Planned Parenthood Federation of America; the ACORN-affiliated Project Vote and others.
The group also funds Democracy Now!, which routinely interviews Greenwald.
Hagel ties, anti-military activism
Another group funded by Working Assets, which published Greenwald’s first book, is the Soros-funded Ploughshares Fund.
Ploughshares is also funded by the Tides Foundation.
WND previously exposed that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel sat for years on Ploughshares’ board until his nomination earlier this year.
The Ploughshares Fund has a long history of anti-war advocacy and is a partner of the Marxist-oriented Institute for Policy Studies, which has urged the defunding of the Pentagon and massive decreases in U.S. defense capabilities, including slashing the American nuclear arsenal to 292 deployed weapons.
The Poughshares Fund has also partnered with a who’s who of the radical left, including Code Pink, the pro-Palestinian J Street, United for Peace & Justice, the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and the Demos progressive group, where Van Jones serves on the board.
Pushed for ‘weakening of America’
The anti-military attitude of Ploughshares has been expressed by Greenwald himself, who has argued “the only thing that can truly strengthen America’s national security is a weakening of America.”
Those views were expressed by Greenwald in a 2011 article in the socialist publication In These Times.
Greenwald further declared the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were “very minimal in scope compared to the level of deaths that the United States has been bringing to the world for decades –from Vietnam to illegal wars in Central America.”
Those views were documented by blogger Trevor Loudon, who posted a video of Greenwald speaking at the International Socialist Organization’s Socialism 2011 conference, which was held July 1-4, 2011, in Chicago.
Greenwald also served on a conference panel titled “Revolution and imperialism in the Middle East” with Chicago based pro-Palestine activist Ali Abunimah.
Greenwald and Abinimah teamed up to defend the 2010 flotilla attempting to end Israel’s naval blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Abunimah was part of the Free Gaza Movement that helped to organize the flotilla.
Abunimah’s website, Electronic Intifada, routinely praises Greenwald’s activism.
WND broke the story that Obama spoke at fundraisers in the 1990s for Palestinians living in what the United Nations terms refugee camps.
Abunimah recalled introducing Obama at one such event, a 1999 fundraiser for the Deheisha Palestinian camp in the West Bank.
Abunimah previously described meeting with Obama at a fundraiser at the home of Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, reportedly a former PLO activist.
It was WND that first exposed Obama’s long relationship with Khalidi.
“[Obama]came with his wife. That’s where I had a chance to really talk to him,” Abunimah recalled. “It was an intimate setting. He convinced me he was very aware of the issues [and] critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs. … He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel.”
According to quotes obtained by Gulf News, Abunimah recalled a 2004 meeting in a Chicago neighborhood while Obama was running for his Senate seat. Abunimah quoted Obama telling him “warmly” he was sorry that “I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race.”
“I’m hoping when things calm down, I can be more up front,” Abunimah reportedly quoted the senator as saying.
Abunimah said Obama urged him to “keep up the good work” at the Chicago Tribune, where Abunimah contributed guest columns that were highly critical of Israel.
Abunimah serves on the board of the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a “catastrophe” and supports intense immigration reform, including providing driver’s licenses and education to illegal aliens. The AAAN was founded by Rashid Khalidi and is run by his wife, Mona.
WND reported the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit on which Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist, provided $75,000 in grants to the AAAN.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/anti-nsa-reporter-tied-to-soros-funded-radical-left/?cat_orig=politics
Well, of course the government is spying on Americans! Look at the havoc caused by American citizens engaging in terrorism.
There's "American citizen" David Coleman Headley, who conspired with Pakistani military officers to commit the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, that left more than 160 people dead.
Headley's ancestors served under Gen. George Washington -- no, I'm sorry, Headley was born "Daood Sayed Gilani" in Washington, D.C., to a Pakistani father. Like your typical American boy, he enjoyed TV's "Happy Days" and murdering innocent people in terrorist attacks.
There were the 20 "American" men from the Minneapolis area who joined a terrorist group in Somalia in 2008. I knew the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party would cause trouble one of these days!
No, wait -- wrong again. We invited these foreign terrorists to immigrate here after the collapse of Somalia's government in 1991. (And what a great deal for America that was! I'm so glad Obama's doing it again with Syrian rebels.)
These hardworking Somali immigrants produced -- in the words of The New York Times -- "the first known American suicide bomber"! Go U.S.A.! Who could have guessed that Shirwa Ahmed would be America's first suicide bomber? (My money had been on a guy named "Jim Peterson.")
In addition to the first suicide bomber, the other American citizens who joined the terrorist group included Cabdulaahi Ahmed Faarax, Abdiweli Yassin Isse and Mahamud Said Omar.
If you can't trust "American citizen" Cabdulaahi Ahmed Faarax, what Americans can you trust these days? Or to quote Sen. Bob Casey, the mentally disabled Democratic senator from Pennsylvania: "It's really disturbing -- Americans becoming radicalized."
Then there were the six "New Jersey men" who plotted a terrorist attack on the Fort Dix military base in 2007. Using rocket-propelled grenade launchers, they estimated they could kill at least 100 soldiers.
Chris Christie, then the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, said surveillance tapes showed the men watching videos of Americans being killed in Afghanistan.
"(T)hey watched the blowing off of the arm of a United States Marine and the room burst out into laughter," Christie said. "These are the types of people we are dealing with."
The New Jersey men were named Mohamad Shnewer, Serdar Tatar, Agron Abdullahu, Dritan Duka, Eljvir Duka and Shain Duka. Four were from the former Yugoslavia, one was from Turkey and one was from Jordan. All were illegal aliens.
But we needed them! As Marco Rubio's staff recently told The New Yorker, American workers "can't cut it."
If the government can spy on Cherry Hill's Mohamad Shnewer, how can we draw the line at Fox News' James Rosen and CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson?
Then there's "American citizen" Maj. Nidal Hasan, who is still collecting his handsome military salary -- up to nearly $300,000 by now -- since being accused of a terrorist attack on Fort Hood that left 13 dead and dozens wounded.
And don't forget "American citizen" Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, accused of conspiring with his brother to bomb the Boston Marathon earlier this year.
My favorite "American citizen" is Najibullah Zazi, arrested in 2009 for plotting to bomb the New York subways. Zazi was born into a tribe in eastern Afghanistan and came to America in his teens. His ticket to entry was his father, whose ticket was, in turn, a brother living in Queens.
(We have no room for Scottish bankers because we have to make room for entire villages of illiterates from Afghanistan, thanks to Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act.)
Zazi's own step-uncle described him as "a dumb kid, believe me," according to The New York Times. (Sorry, Scottish bankers -- that's our immigration law!)
He dropped out of high school and had an arranged marriage to his cousin in Pakistan. So Zazi is another big immigrant success story.
Forget the recent Muslim immigration problem. Virtually all enemies to America have been foreigners. The only known Italian traitors in U.S. history were anarchist terrorists Sacco and Vanzetti: immigrants.
Reading the amazing new book, Stalin's Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt's Governmentby M. Stanton Evans and Herb Romerstein, one can't help but notice that J. Edgar Hoover's job would have been a lot easier if our immigration service had been doing its job. A shockingly high percentage of the communist spies were immigrants. This is all the more striking considering that there weren't that many immigrants getting in at all back then.
Even the commies didn't want to overthrow the United States as such -- only to support Moscow. Otherwise, they'd have just kept voting Democrat and gotten there a little more slowly.
That's why the National Security Act of 1947, creating the CIA, expressly prohibited the agency from engaging in domestic operations. Now we have to spy on Americans because of all the imported Tsarnaevs and Zazis. We have created two huge problems where none existed before -- domestic terrorism and government spying -- all to help the Democrats win elections by changing the electorate.
Not only do our post-1965 immigration policies create an unemployment problem, not only have they massively increased the crime rate, but now all Americans are being asked to give up their civil liberties to fulfill Teddy Kennedy's dream of bringing the entire Third World to live right here in America. (And vote Democrat!)
When we're referring to "American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki" -- provoking Rand Paul to carry on for 13 hours about Obama killing an "American citizen" with a drone -- the phrase "American citizen" has lost its essential meaning. We don't have a drone problem. We don't have a spying problem. We have an immigration problem.
http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2013/06/19/avoid-the-need-for-spying-using-this-one-notsoweird-trick-n1623107/page/full
The reporter has been granted near exclusive access to Snowden and has been expressing the whistleblower’s views to the news media,
On Friday, Greenwald wrote that Snowden fears his disclosures “would fail to trigger a worldwide debate because the public had already been taught to accept that they have no right to privacy in the digital age.”
Greenwald also moderated Snowden’s online question and answer session with Guardian readers and has given multiple interviews to the news media in which he explained Snowden’s motivation and hopes.
MoveOn.org, ACORN, SEIU…
In 2008, Greenwald and liberal blogger Jane Hamsher co-founded the group Accountability Now, a political action committee described by the New York Times as seeking “to push the Democratic Party further to the left.”
The press release published by the political action committee announced the members of the Accountability Now coalition: MoveOn.org, Color Of Change, SEIU, the Daily Kos blog, Howard Dean’s Democracy for America and the communist-oriented United Steelworkers of America, among others.
Soros is a primary donor to MoveOn.org as is the Soros-Funded Tides Foundation.
The Soros-funded Color Of Change was founded by Van Jones, President Obama’s former “green jobs” czar. Jones infamously resigned in 2009 after it was exposed he also founded a communist revolutionary organization.
SEIU is the longtime partner of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. A primary ACORN funder is the Soros-financed Tides Foundation.
Greenwald’s Accountability Now coalition board included Anna Burger, then-Secretary-Treasurer of the SEIU. Burger served on Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
Greenwald, meanwhile, is a longtime activist against government surveillance. In 2005, he founded a blog, later moved to Salon.com, called Unclaimed Territory. The blog focused on NSA warrantless surveillance of international telephone calls.
Greenwald’s first book, released in 2006, was also about NSA surveillance.
Titled “How Would A Patriot Act? Defending American Values From A President Run Amok,” the book was published by Working Assets, a company that gives a percentage of its profits to far-left groups.
Some of the same groups funded by Working Assets are also tied to Greenwald’s Accountability Now coalition.
Working Assets was originally founded by Drummond Pike, who also established the Tides Foundation.
Working Assets boasts that since 1985 it has raised more than $50 million for what it terms “progressive causes.”
Working Assets has funded ACORN, the American Civil Liberties Union; Media Matters for America; the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation; Natural Resources Defense Council; the Planned Parenthood Federation of America; the ACORN-affiliated Project Vote and others.
The group also funds Democracy Now!, which routinely interviews Greenwald.
Hagel ties, anti-military activism
Another group funded by Working Assets, which published Greenwald’s first book, is the Soros-funded Ploughshares Fund.
Ploughshares is also funded by the Tides Foundation.
WND previously exposed that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel sat for years on Ploughshares’ board until his nomination earlier this year.
The Ploughshares Fund has a long history of anti-war advocacy and is a partner of the Marxist-oriented Institute for Policy Studies, which has urged the defunding of the Pentagon and massive decreases in U.S. defense capabilities, including slashing the American nuclear arsenal to 292 deployed weapons.
The Poughshares Fund has also partnered with a who’s who of the radical left, including Code Pink, the pro-Palestinian J Street, United for Peace & Justice, the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and the Demos progressive group, where Van Jones serves on the board.
Pushed for ‘weakening of America’
The anti-military attitude of Ploughshares has been expressed by Greenwald himself, who has argued “the only thing that can truly strengthen America’s national security is a weakening of America.”
Those views were expressed by Greenwald in a 2011 article in the socialist publication In These Times.
Greenwald further declared the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were “very minimal in scope compared to the level of deaths that the United States has been bringing to the world for decades –from Vietnam to illegal wars in Central America.”
Those views were documented by blogger Trevor Loudon, who posted a video of Greenwald speaking at the International Socialist Organization’s Socialism 2011 conference, which was held July 1-4, 2011, in Chicago.
Greenwald also served on a conference panel titled “Revolution and imperialism in the Middle East” with Chicago based pro-Palestine activist Ali Abunimah.
Greenwald and Abinimah teamed up to defend the 2010 flotilla attempting to end Israel’s naval blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Abunimah was part of the Free Gaza Movement that helped to organize the flotilla.
Abunimah’s website, Electronic Intifada, routinely praises Greenwald’s activism.
WND broke the story that Obama spoke at fundraisers in the 1990s for Palestinians living in what the United Nations terms refugee camps.
Abunimah recalled introducing Obama at one such event, a 1999 fundraiser for the Deheisha Palestinian camp in the West Bank.
Abunimah previously described meeting with Obama at a fundraiser at the home of Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, reportedly a former PLO activist.
It was WND that first exposed Obama’s long relationship with Khalidi.
“[Obama]came with his wife. That’s where I had a chance to really talk to him,” Abunimah recalled. “It was an intimate setting. He convinced me he was very aware of the issues [and] critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs. … He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel.”
According to quotes obtained by Gulf News, Abunimah recalled a 2004 meeting in a Chicago neighborhood while Obama was running for his Senate seat. Abunimah quoted Obama telling him “warmly” he was sorry that “I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race.”
“I’m hoping when things calm down, I can be more up front,” Abunimah reportedly quoted the senator as saying.
Abunimah said Obama urged him to “keep up the good work” at the Chicago Tribune, where Abunimah contributed guest columns that were highly critical of Israel.
Abunimah serves on the board of the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a “catastrophe” and supports intense immigration reform, including providing driver’s licenses and education to illegal aliens. The AAAN was founded by Rashid Khalidi and is run by his wife, Mona.
WND reported the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit on which Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist, provided $75,000 in grants to the AAAN.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/anti-nsa-reporter-tied-to-soros-funded-radical-left/?cat_orig=politics
Avoid the Need for Spying Using This One Not-So-Weird Trick
By Ann CoulterWell, of course the government is spying on Americans! Look at the havoc caused by American citizens engaging in terrorism.
There's "American citizen" David Coleman Headley, who conspired with Pakistani military officers to commit the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, that left more than 160 people dead.
Headley's ancestors served under Gen. George Washington -- no, I'm sorry, Headley was born "Daood Sayed Gilani" in Washington, D.C., to a Pakistani father. Like your typical American boy, he enjoyed TV's "Happy Days" and murdering innocent people in terrorist attacks.
There were the 20 "American" men from the Minneapolis area who joined a terrorist group in Somalia in 2008. I knew the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party would cause trouble one of these days!
No, wait -- wrong again. We invited these foreign terrorists to immigrate here after the collapse of Somalia's government in 1991. (And what a great deal for America that was! I'm so glad Obama's doing it again with Syrian rebels.)
These hardworking Somali immigrants produced -- in the words of The New York Times -- "the first known American suicide bomber"! Go U.S.A.! Who could have guessed that Shirwa Ahmed would be America's first suicide bomber? (My money had been on a guy named "Jim Peterson.")
In addition to the first suicide bomber, the other American citizens who joined the terrorist group included Cabdulaahi Ahmed Faarax, Abdiweli Yassin Isse and Mahamud Said Omar.
If you can't trust "American citizen" Cabdulaahi Ahmed Faarax, what Americans can you trust these days? Or to quote Sen. Bob Casey, the mentally disabled Democratic senator from Pennsylvania: "It's really disturbing -- Americans becoming radicalized."
Then there were the six "New Jersey men" who plotted a terrorist attack on the Fort Dix military base in 2007. Using rocket-propelled grenade launchers, they estimated they could kill at least 100 soldiers.
Chris Christie, then the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, said surveillance tapes showed the men watching videos of Americans being killed in Afghanistan.
"(T)hey watched the blowing off of the arm of a United States Marine and the room burst out into laughter," Christie said. "These are the types of people we are dealing with."
The New Jersey men were named Mohamad Shnewer, Serdar Tatar, Agron Abdullahu, Dritan Duka, Eljvir Duka and Shain Duka. Four were from the former Yugoslavia, one was from Turkey and one was from Jordan. All were illegal aliens.
But we needed them! As Marco Rubio's staff recently told The New Yorker, American workers "can't cut it."
If the government can spy on Cherry Hill's Mohamad Shnewer, how can we draw the line at Fox News' James Rosen and CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson?
Then there's "American citizen" Maj. Nidal Hasan, who is still collecting his handsome military salary -- up to nearly $300,000 by now -- since being accused of a terrorist attack on Fort Hood that left 13 dead and dozens wounded.
And don't forget "American citizen" Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, accused of conspiring with his brother to bomb the Boston Marathon earlier this year.
My favorite "American citizen" is Najibullah Zazi, arrested in 2009 for plotting to bomb the New York subways. Zazi was born into a tribe in eastern Afghanistan and came to America in his teens. His ticket to entry was his father, whose ticket was, in turn, a brother living in Queens.
(We have no room for Scottish bankers because we have to make room for entire villages of illiterates from Afghanistan, thanks to Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act.)
Zazi's own step-uncle described him as "a dumb kid, believe me," according to The New York Times. (Sorry, Scottish bankers -- that's our immigration law!)
He dropped out of high school and had an arranged marriage to his cousin in Pakistan. So Zazi is another big immigrant success story.
Forget the recent Muslim immigration problem. Virtually all enemies to America have been foreigners. The only known Italian traitors in U.S. history were anarchist terrorists Sacco and Vanzetti: immigrants.
Reading the amazing new book, Stalin's Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt's Governmentby M. Stanton Evans and Herb Romerstein, one can't help but notice that J. Edgar Hoover's job would have been a lot easier if our immigration service had been doing its job. A shockingly high percentage of the communist spies were immigrants. This is all the more striking considering that there weren't that many immigrants getting in at all back then.
Even the commies didn't want to overthrow the United States as such -- only to support Moscow. Otherwise, they'd have just kept voting Democrat and gotten there a little more slowly.
That's why the National Security Act of 1947, creating the CIA, expressly prohibited the agency from engaging in domestic operations. Now we have to spy on Americans because of all the imported Tsarnaevs and Zazis. We have created two huge problems where none existed before -- domestic terrorism and government spying -- all to help the Democrats win elections by changing the electorate.
Not only do our post-1965 immigration policies create an unemployment problem, not only have they massively increased the crime rate, but now all Americans are being asked to give up their civil liberties to fulfill Teddy Kennedy's dream of bringing the entire Third World to live right here in America. (And vote Democrat!)
When we're referring to "American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki" -- provoking Rand Paul to carry on for 13 hours about Obama killing an "American citizen" with a drone -- the phrase "American citizen" has lost its essential meaning. We don't have a drone problem. We don't have a spying problem. We have an immigration problem.
http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2013/06/19/avoid-the-need-for-spying-using-this-one-notsoweird-trick-n1623107/page/full
No comments:
Post a Comment