PK'SNOTE: Sound familiar?
“To Caesar the art of government meant the promotion of any measure, however inconsistent with his previous or even present professions, that promised to advance the next in his plans; his only long-range objective which can be definitely identified was the enhancement of his power. For this he indulged in a lifetime of double talk, professing slogans of democracy, while debasing and destroying the powers of the electorate, and insisting on constitutional technicalities, while persistently undermining the constitution. In the end, his prescription for government turned out to be a surprisingly simple one: to reduce its mechanism to the simplest and most primitive of all institutional forms, personal absolutism, and to employ it for one of the simplest and most primitive of all purposes, foreign conquest.”
Dickinson, John. Death of a Republic: Politics and Political Thought at Rome 59-44 B.C.. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1963.
Obama's 9/11 tribute
You gotta love Obama's tribute to the victims of 9/11. It's classic Obama. Really, it is.
For Exhibit A we have the following excerpt.
Uh, methinks the threats we face are very much the same as 12 years ago, made that much worse by his presidency.
Exhibit B is pretty good, too!
Obama outdid himself. Can we officially say that he is a caricature of himself? First, he uses language that suggests to the listener that there are those who think that "force alone" builds a world. This is not unlike those who say or gesture "peace," as if any normal person wants war. Then he sneaks in that utopian thing with "the world we seek," thereby averting the world as it is. (For more on utopian visions of 9/11, see the nifty art projects folks are doing to help America's children re-write history. It's amazing how progressives can take a heinous act of war against the United States and turn it into something quite pretty.)
But, back to Obama. Exhibit C is one that might make you gag, so don't say I didn't warn you.
Is it just me, or do others find the idea of designating 9/11 as a day of service to be utterly misguided?
Disgusting, actually. September 11th should never be anything but a day of remembrance and resolve to live free and defend ourselves against those who have harmed us and those who wish to do us harm. People can volunteer to do good deeds on any other day of the year. But this is not the day to go out of one's way to work in a soup kitchen.
There's more I could comment on, but I'm trying to keep my bp within reason today if at all possible.
For Exhibit A we have the following excerpt.
Let us have the strength to face the threats that endure, different though they may be from 12 years ago...
Uh, methinks the threats we face are very much the same as 12 years ago, made that much worse by his presidency.
Exhibit B is pretty good, too!
Let us have the wisdom to know that, while force is at times necessary, force alone cannot build the world we seek...
Obama outdid himself. Can we officially say that he is a caricature of himself? First, he uses language that suggests to the listener that there are those who think that "force alone" builds a world. This is not unlike those who say or gesture "peace," as if any normal person wants war. Then he sneaks in that utopian thing with "the world we seek," thereby averting the world as it is. (For more on utopian visions of 9/11, see the nifty art projects folks are doing to help America's children re-write history. It's amazing how progressives can take a heinous act of war against the United States and turn it into something quite pretty.)
But, back to Obama. Exhibit C is one that might make you gag, so don't say I didn't warn you.
Congress has designated September 11 a day for service as well as remembrance, and the president later in the day rolled up his sleeves and donned an apron and baseball cap to help pack boxed meals for people with serious illnesses at Food & Friends, a public service organization.
Is it just me, or do others find the idea of designating 9/11 as a day of service to be utterly misguided?
Disgusting, actually. September 11th should never be anything but a day of remembrance and resolve to live free and defend ourselves against those who have harmed us and those who wish to do us harm. People can volunteer to do good deeds on any other day of the year. But this is not the day to go out of one's way to work in a soup kitchen.
There's more I could comment on, but I'm trying to keep my bp within reason today if at all possible.
Syrial Losers
By Ann CoulterAmericans unsure what to think about President Obama's plans for Syria should remember that all military action undertaken by Democrats for the last half-century has led to utter disaster. (With the possible exception of the Village People's "Y.M.C.A." video, which I say still holds up.)
Democrats are gung-ho about deploying the U.S. military provided only that it will harm the national security interests of the United States, but vehemently oppose interventions that serve American interests.
Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, the supreme commander of the Allied forces in World War II, said he could conceive of no greater tragedy than the U.S. getting heavily involved in Vietnam. He sent aid to the anti-communist forces, but no troops.
Democratic President John F. Kennedy sent troops. But in short order he was conniving to assassinate South Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem -- also known as "our ally in the middle of the war."
JFK's brother, the Democratic attorney general, actually suggested that Americans donate blood to the North Vietnamese -- or "our enemy" -- as a gesture of good will. (Secretary of State John Kerry's bold threat this week of an "unbelievably small" strike against Syria sounds positively macho by comparison.)
Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, escalated the war in Vietnam in order to prove that Democrats could be trusted with national defense. Which they cannot. As journalist David Halberstam reported, LBJ would "talk to his closest political aides about the McCarthy days, of how Truman lost China and then the Congress and the White House, and how, by God, Johnson was not going to be the president who lost Vietnam and the Congress and the White House."
LBJ sacrificed tens of thousands of American lives to try to make the Democrats look manly.
Nixon came in and honorably ended the Democrats' disastrous handling of the Vietnam War by signing the Paris Peace Accords in January 1973. In return for the lousy terms we jammed down South Vietnam's throat, America promised that, if the North attacked, the U.S. would resume bombing missions and military aid.
America hadn't been humiliated -- the left had to act fast! The media invented Watergate, Nixon was forced to resign and a crazily left-wing Congress was inaugurated. Just a month later, North Vietnam attacked the South, and the Democratic Congress turned its back on South Vietnam, betrayed an ally and trashed America's word. (For Democrats, that's a "victory.")
In 1953, President Eisenhower assisted the Shah of Iran in removing loon Mohammad Mossadegh as prime minister. Mossadegh had been elected in the confusion after the assassination of the previous prime minister, whereupon he promptly nationalized Iran's oil fields, driving out the British companies who knew how to run them, thus wiping out Iran's primary source of wealth. With British and American help, the shah's choice was installed as prime minister, and a friendly government ruled Iran.
Alas, 20 years later, Jimmy Carter became president. When Islamic fundamentalists staged a revolution in Iran, Carter refused to come to the aid of the shah, a staunch American ally. Liberals praised Ayatollah Khomeini to the skies -- Carter's U.N. ambassador Andrew Young, Princeton's Richard Falk and LBJ attorney general Ramsey Clark all assured us that life would be peachy under him. What could go wrong?
The ayatollah had barely seized power when Islamic lunatics took 52 Americans hostage in Tehran, where they remained for 444 days, until Carter was safely removed from office.
By giving Islamic fanatics their first nation-state, Carter produced the global Islamofacist movement we're still dealing with today.
For the next eight years, peace and freedom spread throughout the world as President Ronald Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union and restored America's power. Liberals wailed and stamped their feet throughout this period.
In the face of mass starvation in Somalia, President George H.W. Bush sent troops to ensure that aid could get into the country. President Clinton came in and decided to convert this simple relief effort into an exercise in "nation-building." In Somalia. Great idea.
In short order, the Muslim rebels killed some of our troops and dragged their corpses through the streets. Clinton instantly withdrew our entire military operation. (And then retired to the windowless hallway between the Oval Office and the kitchen area to contemplate and reflect.)
Years later, Osama bin Laden would laugh about America cutting and running from Somalia, noting how this show of weakness had encouraged his al-Qaida fighters.
Which led, like night into day, to ... the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In response, President George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan and wiped out the Taliban and al-Qaida strongholds in a few months. Bush left a limited force behind to prevent a return of the terrorist training camps.
Most crucially, President Bush removed a monstrous dictator from Iraq and established the only Islamic democracy in the Middle East. Iraq's Saddam Hussein had aided and sheltered terrorists, attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States, and horribly brutalized his own people, murdering a million of them, according to The New York Times -- including with chemical weapons, far worse than anything Syrian president Bashar Assad is accused of doing.
Iraq became a beacon of hope for all Muslims still living under despotic regimes.
For absolutely no reason, with no objective and no concept of "victory," Barack Obama came into office and massively escalated the number of troops in Afghanistan. When Bush left office, there had been only about 625 U.S. troop fatalities in the entire course of the Afghanistan War. Obama has quadrupled that to nearly 2,300 troop deaths today.
For no purpose whatsoever -- no purpose, that is, other than fulfilling Obama's idiotic campaign talking point about Afghanistan being a "war of necessity," contrasted with Iraq, a potty little "war of convenience." (At least Obama's "credibility" on Afghanistan is still intact!)
Then Obama threw away our victory in Iraq. By withdrawing every last troop, Obama has allowed al-Qaida and Iran to overrun this one shining example of an Arab democracy. We have American troops stationed in Germany, Japan, Belgium, Africa, Norway (a notorious al-Qaida hotbed!), Singapore, Qatar, Diego Garcia, even little Djibouti. But no troops for you, Iraq!
Obama didn't even have to do anything in Iraq! He only had to not remove all our troops.
Instead, Obama flung America's prestige into removing the pro-Western Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. Mubarak supported U.S. policy, used his military to fight Muslim extremists and recognized Israel's right to exist. Or as the left calls it: Three strikes and you're out. The Muslim Brotherhood immediately seized control of Egypt, leading to this year's military takeover. Can we bring Mubarak back?
Then Obama ordered air strikes in Libya against Moammar Gadhafi -- after having someone at the United Nations sign his permission slip. The timing couldn't have been better! Gadhafi had already agreed to give up his nuclear program after George W. Bush invaded Iraq. Seeing that, the Libyan strongman went whimpering to the British to ask if Bush was going to invade him, too.
The Iraq War turned every Middle Eastern despot into President Bush's bitch. But now Obama is their bitch.
I know you liberals care more about free birth control than geopolitics, but if you keep electing Democrats, you'll be getting fitted for burqas, not IUDs.
http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2013/09/11/syrial-losers-n1698013/page/full
A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By Vladimir PutinRECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood
against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once,
and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international
organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such
devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and
peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the
veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United
Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the
stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of
Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is
possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take
military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong
opposition from many countries and major political and religious
leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and
escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s
borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of
terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the
Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further
destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire
system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict
between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are
few champions of democracy in Syria.
But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all
stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has
designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,
fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal
conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one
of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of
militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our
deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience
acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved
on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia
has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a
compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian
government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations
Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s
complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international
relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we
must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international
law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the
Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations
Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every
reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition
forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who
would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are
preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in
foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in
America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world
increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying
solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan
“you’re either with us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling,
and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw.
Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war
continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw
an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would
want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons,
civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children,
whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law,
then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing
number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is
logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with
talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is
being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few
days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international
community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to
place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent
destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with
Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we
agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in
June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in
international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our
shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical
issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by
growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the
nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on
American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what
makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is
extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as
exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small
countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and
those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too.
We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must
not forget that God created us equal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0
Putin — Saruman Come Alive
By Victor Davis Hanson
“It was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire woke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves.”
— J. R. R. Tolkien, The Two Towers.
If it were regrettable that Vladimir Putin’s formidable diplomatic skills were wasted squashing rather than ensuring freedom inside Russia, it seems even more lamentable that his impressive prose likewise is not put to better use. Putin’s letter to us, the American people, is brilliant sophistry. The best rhetoric is always that which blends truth with half-truth and occasional fiction. In Putin’s case, he did all that—while offering the dessert of channeling Obama back to Obama.
Of course, as Putin reminds us, we fought together in WWII and should agree that such cooperation should be emulated. Russia suffered enormous losses for the Allied cause. Without such heroic sacrifices, the Anglo-American alliance may well have lost the war.
Yet Putin forgets to remind us that Russia’s war with Germany was prompted by betrayal. Russia was a de facto ally of Hitler. It kept sending him enormous amounts of material to help defeat France and attack Britain. Only Hitler’s 1941 double-cross caused the Soviets to make war with Nazi Germany.
We all, like Putin, wish the Security Council veto really had ensured the stability of international relations for decades. In fact, authoritarian regimes, like Putin’s Russia and Communist China, have consistently thwarted efforts to address human-rights violations—unless the charges are mostly false and mostly lodged against democratic Israel.
It is odd that Putin laments the demise of the League of Nations, given that the League—which the U.S. never joined—expelled Russia in 1939 for unilaterally attacking Finland. Putin points out that the U.N. might suffer the same fate “if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.” I suppose that might include the 2008 Russian use of force over Ossetia.
Many of us share Putin’s concern about bombing Syria—yet from a slightly different perspective that such preemption, as it is envisioned and to the extent that it is even seriously envisioned, will not only not advance humanitarian solutions, but will harm present U.S. interests.
Putin’s fatherly lament evokes surprise when he says that any planned American unilateral action might “undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem.” When has Putin ever considered theocratic Iran’s efforts to acquire a bomb much of a “nuclear problem”—given that Russia routinely sells the regime weapons and technology useful for proliferation, and provides it with political cover?
Putin is certainly right to point out of Syria that “this internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.” The misery, of course, is also due in large part to Putin himself, who insists on fueling the crisis by upping arms shipments to the Assad regime, many of which are used against third-party civilians. If Putin is right (and many of us think that he is) that the opposition to Assad is characterized by the inclusion of unsavory Islamists, he also must know that the Assad family regime is itself a criminal enterprise with a long history of bloodshed, from mass murder at Hama to assassinations in Lebanon.
Putin sounds so reassuring when he reminds us:
We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not.
Yet the smashing of
Grozny or Russian violence in Georgia, even in such complex situations
where Russians had understandable grievances and worries, seems to
suggest that Russia acts in its perceived national interest to preserve
its version of “law and order”—and without much worry about what the
U.N. happens to think.
In fact, there is not every reason to believe that gas was used by opposition forces. There is real confusion about who used the gas. According to the U.N., which Putin now appeals to for ultimate adjudication of international differences, the Syrian government is the more likely suspect. Putin is rightly worried about a gas attack against Israel. If it were to come, however, there is a good chance that the incoming missiles would have been sold, supplied, or manufactured by Russia, and launched by a Russian client or friend, and mostly in desperate aggressive fashion, without Israeli provocation.
Putin, like lots of Americans, questions both the efficacy and the morality of our frequent interventions abroad. He is right to remind us that they sometimes may not be in our own interests. But most often when they stall, they do so out of misguided idealism. For example, Russia never much worried about constitutional order in Afghanistan. Both nations may have proved incompetent in their respective nation-building there, but our ultimate aims were not the same as Russia’s. Putin’s U.N. never joined the Russian “nation-building” effort there as it did the American.
Just when Putin returns to the mesmerizing propaganda, and seems to be again scoring points, he jolts readers back to reality with the following: “The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”
Well, yes, but most often the violators are simultaneously proliferators, searching to enhance their outlawry, not to react to the lawlessness of others. A few of them are either de facto friends of Russia or former clients. Here one thinks of North Korea and Iran in particular, whose success in getting or almost getting a bomb, and promoting terrorism has not always earned Russian condemnation or a severance of relations. Oddly, in the long run, Russia has more to fear from its friends like a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran or North Korea than it has from U.S. allies like Germany, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan that all could easily become nuclear, but choose not to.
Russia’s oil blackmail, trade threats, artillery barrages, and tank advances, might cause the Eastern Europeans, the Chechnyans, and the Georgians to agree with Putin that, “We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.”
After calling the U.S. secretary of state a “liar” and “pathetic,” only someone as brazenly confident in his mellifluousness as Vladimir Putin could write, “My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust.”
Putin ends with another flourish in lecturing the U.S. in response to Obama’s pleas that America is always exceptional in its concern for stopping atrocities abroad:
And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too.Where have we heard something like this before?
Putin, I think, is reminding us that it was largely from Barack Obama himself. “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism,” said our president. Like Obama here, Putin too believes that everyone is about the same, both democracies and perhaps those like Syria (and Russia?), which Putin might be thinking of when he says that they too “are still finding their way to democracy.”
Putin saves the best for last. As the man who ended the Chechnyan war on rather tough terms, he now assumes the role of a campus-diversity czar: “We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”
Ask a Russian critic of Putin if there is such concern for respecting differences inside Russia.
So what to make of Putin?
He is J. R. R. Tolkien’s melodic and fatherly Saruman come alive.
A year ago the world snubbed him over his cynicism in arming Bashar Assad to the teeth. But incrementally his stature has increased, while ours has shrunk. At each moment that Obama and his associates have so loudly sermonized—about Assad having to leave, red lines over WMD that would earn U.S. responses, shots to come across the bow, unbelievably small attacks to follow, a U.S. that doesn’t do pinpricks, a Congress to be bypassed, to become the car that the dog caught, to be put off or ignored if not compliant, an Assad as “reformer” and “moderate,” especially in comparison to Qaddafi, who in contrast really did earn his Tomahawks—Putin has acted and quietly so.
He upped his arms shipments to Syria and now Iran. He quietly dispatched his vessels and did not dub them “my military.” He, the egoist, sparingly uses “I”; our president the supposed consensus builder promiscuously so. He reminded Americans of the demonstrably true fact of Islamists in the opposition and lied about the probably false fact that the Assad government is not using WMD. In general, Putin has conveyed a tougher military stance than has the far more powerful U.S., a more humanitarian image than our smart- and soft-power leadership (do we still remember Hillary’s public chortle about Qaddafi—“We came, we saw, he died”?), and a more internationalist pose than our Nobel Laureate internationalist.
Putin lecturing Obama on the sacred value of the U.N.— who’da thunk it?
If a Russian dissident wrote and had published such a cry of the heart to the Russian people, begging Vladimir Putin to stop his harassment of opposition groups, journalists, gays, and ethnic activists, and to moderate his behavior toward the former Soviet republics, he would either be jailed or disappear. That we not merely forget that fact, but are now increasingly unaware of it, is testament to Putin’s political genius that has capitalized on each embarrassing American mishap.
That we now receive sermons from Putin not just about morality, but even about U.S. self interest, and that such advice is only two-thirds fantasy is testament to our own recent ineptitude and confusion—and, yes, to this administration’s bad habit of engaging in its own fantasies and obfuscations.
Sadly Putin is now an impressive creature—but one in part of our own making. Mr. Putin, the fact that you are a more adroit Machiavellian than our own president is a Wilsonian proves only that you are the superior strategist—not the moralist you imagine yourself, and surely not more moral than the president whom you seem so easily to embarrass.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/358356/putin-saruman-come-alive-victor-davis-hanson
The Laurel and Hardy Presidency
After the Syrian slapstick, it's time to sober up U.S. foreign policy.
After writing in the London Telegraph that Monday was "the worst day for U.S. and wider Western diplomacy since records began," former British ambassador Charles Crawford asked simply: "How has this happened?"On the answer, opinions might differ. Or maybe not. A consensus assessment of the past week's events could easily form around Oliver Hardy's famous lament to the compulsive bumbler Stan Laurel: "Here's another nice mess you've gotten us into!"
In the interplay between Barack Obama and John Kerry, it's not obvious which one is Laurel and which one is Hardy. But diplomatic slapstick is not funny. No one wants to live in a Laurel and Hardy presidency. In a Laurel and Hardy presidency, red lines vanish, shots across the bow are word balloons, and a display of U.S. power with the whole world watching is going to be "unbelievably small."
The past week was a perfect storm of American malfunction. Colliding at the center of a serious foreign-policy crisis was Barack Obama's manifest skills deficit, conservative animosity toward Mr. Obama, Republican distrust of his leadership, and the reflexive opportunism of politicians from Washington to Moscow.
It is Barack Obama's impulse to make himself and whatever is in his head the center of attention. By now, we are used to it. But this week he turned himself, the presidency and the United States into a spectacle. We were alternately shocked and agog at these events. Now the sobering-up has to begin.
The world has effectively lost its nominal leader, the U.S. president. Is this going to be the new normal? If so—and it will be so if serious people don't step up—we are looking at a weakened U.S president who has a very, very long three years left on his term.
The belief by some that we can ride this out till a Reagan-like rescue comes in the 2016 election is wrong. Jimmy Carter's Iranian hostage crisis began on Nov. 4, 1979. One quick year later, the American people turned to Ronald Reagan. There will be no such chance next year or the year after that—not till November 2016.
The libertarian lurch on foreign policy among some Republicans is a dead end. Libertarians understand markets. But left alone, the global market in aggression won't clear. Like a malign, untreated tumor, it will grow. You can't program it to kill only non-Americans. The world's worst impulses run by their own logic. What's going to stop them now?
A congressional vote against that Syria resolution was never going to include a sequester for the Middle East. Iran's 16,600 uranium-enrichment centrifuges are spinning. Iran's overflights of Iraq to resupply Damascus with heavy arms and Quds forces will continue until Assad wins. Turkey and Saudi Arabia, U.S. allies, will start condominium talks with Iran, a U.S. enemy. Israel will do what it must, if it can.
On Wednesday the Russian press reported that the Putin government has sold state-of-the-art S-300 anti-aircraft missiles and batteries to Iran, a system with the capability to create a no-fly zone along the Syrian-Lebanon border. It should be running like clockwork by 2016. Europe will consider a reset with the new status quo.
There also isn't going to be a continuing resolution that defines limits for China the next 40 months. Articles now appear routinely describing how the U.S. "pivot" toward Asia is no longer believed by Asians. What if, after watching this week's Syrian spectacle, China next year lands a colony of fishermen on the Diaoyu Islands, known as the Senkakus to their Japanese claimants?
China on Tuesday warned India about setting up new military posts along their disputed 4,000-kilometer border. Is North Korea's Kim Jong Un on hold till 2016? There isn't going to be a House vote to repeal al Qaeda, which can still threaten U.S. personnel or assets around the world.
The White House, Congress and Beltway pundits are exhaling after the president of Russia took America off the hook of that frightful intervention vote by offering, in the middle of a war, to transfer Syria's chemical weapons inventory to the U.N.—a fairy tale if ever there was one. Ask any chemical-weapons disposal specialist.
Syria looks lost. The question now is whether anyone who participated in the fiasco, from left to right, will adjust to avoid a repeat when the next crisis comes.
The president himself needs somehow to look beyond his own instinct on foreign policy. It's just not enough. The administration badly needs a formal strategic vision. Notwithstanding her piece of Benghazi, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who gave a surprisingly tough speech Monday on the failure of the U.N. process and America's role now, may be the insider to start shaping a post-Syria strategy. Somebody has to do it. Conservative critics can carp for three years, which will dig the hole deeper, or contribute to a way forward.
Allowing this week to become the status quo is unthinkable. A 40-month run of Laurel and Hardy's America will endanger everyone.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323595004579069291111631648.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Obama’s Next Foreign-Policy Team
It was the most predictable speech of Barack Obama’s presidency. He spent 15 minutes pretending that he was master and commander driving Syria policy. The truth is the Oval Office has been dragged into the middle of war it desperately wanted to avoid.
But events have landed the president in a bad place. It is clear he doesn’t have the confidence of the Congress. He probably couldn’t even get a resolution through the Senate, a chamber controlled by his own party. Asking Congress to postpone the vote was a transparent, face-saving measure.
If failing to command Congress wasn’t bad enough, the president also knows he got played by the Russians, who will spin their unworkable “diplomatic” solution into an opportunity to amp up their military support for the Assad regime.
Spin aside, Mr. Obama knows he had a bad night — and he knows whom to blame.
The president’s second-term foreign policy team is very different from those in place during his first four years in the Oval Office. John Kerry, in particular, has muscularly poked his nose in places the president would have rather left alone. Kerry was the chief cheerleader for humanitarian intervention in Syria.
When Britain bailed and Obama sent his envoys to the Hill to make the case for military intervention, Kerry and crew arguably made things worse. After days of briefing Congress, the administration found it had less support than when it started.
Kerry also wound up being the source of the Kremlin’s biggest foreign-policy coup since Napoleon gave up on taking Moscow.
When all is said and done, it is hard to not see Kerry as Obama’s Al Haig.
It is also difficult to see how Kerry makes it to the end of the term. Obama doesn’t like making foreign policy on any terms other than his own. Kerry put him off his game, and Kerry is most likely to pay the price for the Syria fiasco.
Don’t be surprised if sometime in the near future the secretary decides he wants to spend more time on his yacht.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/358187/obamas-next-foreign-policy-team-james-jay-carafano
Matthews: Remember when US had a real leader, like … George W. Bush?
Looks like Chris Matthews isn’t going to get a tingle over Barack Obama’s latest pivot. On last night’s Hardball, Matthews ripped Obama for a lack of leadership and focus, complaining that the President jumps from issue to issue with no particular purpose or plan. Matthews even went so far as to suggest that he misses George W. Bush … a little, anyway (via Jen Rubin on Twitter):Chris Matthews took Obama to task on Wednesday for being too “reactive” to events and not controlling or focusing the discussion on issues he wants to talk about. Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank agreed, saying that there is a deficit of “forceful leadership” from the Obama White House.
In fact, Milbank even went so far as to credit George W. Bush for this quality sorely lacking in Obama. At least with Bush, Milbank argued, “he got stuff done, hammering away for taxes, for war… whereas Obama sort of flits and flies from topic to topic.” Matthews wished Obama would be tougher against Republicans on key issues, while HuffPo’s Sam Stein noted Obama’s pushed a little, but not quite enough.
Matthews vented a little, saying “this Mini-Me stuff has got to stop.” Milbank said Obama’s political nuance looks too much like “muddled thinking” to people, suggesting he needs to start campaigning for big issues with bumper-sticker slogans. Stein made it clear part of the lack of action in Washington is derived in part from Republican obstructionism.“Republican obstructionism”? Obama had control of Congress for the first two years of his presidency, and the only issues that concerned the White House then were a health-system overhaul that’s becoming more and more unpopular as it becomes more and more unworkable, and a stimulus bill that failed to meet its own metrics, let alone create the normal jobs boom that follows after sharp recessions. Republicans gained control of the House because of Obama’s policies, and they may well take control of the Senate in 2014. Throwing up one’s hands isn’t leadership, either.
The solution offered to this conundrum is risible on its face. Matthews and his panel want bumper-sticker slogans and campaigns for policies. Obama has been offering nothing but both for his entire presidency, while leaving the actual governance to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. When Obama tried applying that approach to foreign policy and Syria by glibly mentioning a red line, doing nothing for a year, and then attempted two weeks of sloganeering to get support for an act of war, Obama wound up with egg on his face and Vladimir Putin as the leader of Western diplomacy. Now he’s Putin’s Mini-Me, to use Matthews’ analogy.
Perhaps Obama would be better off trying a new leadership model. I’m sure George W. Bush would be happy to counsel him.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/12/matthews-remember-when-us-had-a-real-leader-like-george-w-bush/
The Big Cover Up – Why Obama Really Wants to Go to War in Syria
By Wayne Allyn Root
Let’s take an honest look at what Obama
is doing to black Americans and his own most loyal supporters. It is,
in a word…unimaginable.
It all starts with Syria. Why Syria?
Why now? Until Russia interceded, going to war in Syria seemed the most
important thing in the world to Obama and his Secretary of State John
Kerry. They seemed DESPERATE to go to war, at any costs.
But why? Syria has nothing to do with
us. They are not threatening us. Their own war is a civil war with no
“good guys.” How does America benefit from a war with Syria? Why did
Obama suddenly decide a “red line” has been crossed, when there are “red
lines” all over the world- including the killing of Christians and the
burning of 71 Christian churches in Egypt. Why is it so important to
risk American lives to defend the Syrian rebels- who are partners with
Al Qaeda, America’s sworn enemy? We didn’t go to war to avenge the
murder of our own citizens at Benghazi, so why would we go to war to
avenge Al Qaeda deaths in Syria? None of this makes any sense at all.
Until you realize it’s a massive
cover-up. Obama’s WMD- Weapon of Mass Distraction. Obama is desperate to
cover-up the facts about his dying economy and the damage he’s done to
his own most loyal voters. Obama has destroyed the lives of the very
people who consider him “the American Idol.”How bad is Obama’s economy?
Forget the 7.3 percent unemployment rate that is reported by the
government. That’s pure fraud and propaganda. That figure goes down only
because hundreds of thousands of Americans drop out of the workforce.
In other words, if you stop looking for work, and go on food stamps and
welfare, Obama says the unemployment number just got better!
The only truth about unemployment is
found in the Labor Force Participation Rate of 63 percent. That’s the
lowest in four decades. For men it’s the lowest since record-keeping
began in the 1940’s. What this means is 37 percent of the able-bodied,
working age adults in America are not only not working, they’ve given up
looking for work.
Even worse, a unimaginable percentage
of those who are employed have only part-time jobs. Seventy-seven
percent of the new jobs created since January 1st are part-time jobs.
That’s not good folks. Studies show
1-in-4 part-time workers live in poverty, while only 1-in-20 full-time
workers live in poverty. So millions of Americans under Obama who show
up as “employed” are merely working their way towards poverty. And
millions of others who have full-time jobs are working at McDonalds, or
working as waiters, or bartenders, or janitors. Those are the only jobs
left under Obama. The middle class is being slaughtered.
Here are the two most ironic points about this slow-motion train wreck called the Obama economy:
Obamacare is the number one culprit
destroying real jobs. Business owners are done. No smart business owner
in all of America will lift a finger to create a full-time, high-paying
job with benefits. It just makes no economic sense anymore. So Obama’s
signature achievement has not only created a part-time economy, but all
those people in part-time jobs don’t have health insurance. This should
be a Saturday Night Live skit. The man has created nationalized health
care so that everyone loses their jobs and no one has health care.
Insanity. Unless your goal is to create an entire nation of Americans
living in poverty, dependent on government welfare.
Secondly, here’s the really sad,
tragic, and ironic fact of the Obama economy. Obama hurts the ones he
loves. Obama’s policies are destroying the very people who elected and
believed in him. It’s almost as if Obama is out to destroy his own
voters. Let’s take a look at who is suffering the most from this Obama
Great Depression.
Obama won the 2012 election with a razor thin 51 percent of the vote. His biggest supporters were blacks (93 percent voted
for Obama), Hispanics (71 percent), single women (67 percent), young
people (60 percent), and those without a high school diploma (64
percent). This is the loyal foundation of Barack Hussein Obama. This is
who made him President, without a single qualification, except being a
community organizer.
Now let’s look at how Obama repays his
loyal fans. New research out just last week proves that since 2009
income for black heads of households dropped by 10.9 percent. For
Hispanic heads of households it dropped by 4.5 percent. For single women
head of households it dropped by 7 percent. For young people (under age
25) it dropped by 9.6 percent. For those with a high school diploma or less, income dropped by 8 percent.
In dollar terms the numbers are even
worse. Female incomes are down by $2,300 per year under Obama; black
incomes are down over $4,000 per year; Hispanic incomes are down by
$2,000 per year.
How about actual unemployment figures
for Obama’s fans? We see the same results. Reported unemployment (a
bogus figure) is 7.3 percent. But among blacks (who voted 93 percent for
Obama) it is an unimaginable 13.3 percent. Among Hispanics it’s 9.4
percent. Among black youth it’s 20.9 percent. Among teens it’s 23.7 percent.
The black middle class is being destroyed. Black homeownership has slipped to the lowest level in decades.
But perhaps the worst statistic of all is the unemployment plus under-employment rate for college graduates
under age 25: 18.3 percent. That means new college graduates (also big
supporters of Obama) not only can’t find a decent full-time job in the
Obama economy, at the same time they are saddled with the highest
student debt in history. That could be why we have the highest student
loan default rates in history.
So what does a President, who couldn’t
find a job if it hit him in the head, do to keep the masses of his own
voters from revolting and rioting in the streets? Go to war.
Create a distraction. Make people look
away from the scene of the tragedy. Create a “situation” that induces
patriotism. Make the masses rally around the President. And if that
“situation” happens to help unemployment by sending unemployed young
people and minorities off to war, BINGO- you’ve just hit the lottery!
That is the answer to the questions
“Why Syria? Why now? How does this benefit America?” Obama’s war is a
desperate attempt to keep his own most loyal supporters from noticing
that his policies have ruined their lives and set their economic
progress back decades. His policies have sent black Americans in
particular hurtling back to the days of poverty and racial inequality.
Obama is desperate to keep his own
voters from noticing he is the worst thing to happen to them in their
lifetimes. His socialist policies don’t solve poverty, they cause
poverty. And it’s no surprise. Socialism, income redistribution, big
taxes, big spending, big unions, and big government have caused poverty
in every nation they’ve ever been tried.
Obama, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Chavez. Same people. Same policies, Same results.
They always hurt the masses. They
always victimize their own voters. They always hurt the ones they claim
to love. A sick, dysfunctional death spiral.
History will not look kindly on Barack Hussein Obama. Trust me, this death spiral has only just begun.
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-big-cover-up-why-obama-really-wants-to-go-to-war-in-syria/
Why Does Capitalism Still Need Defending?
Given the evidence of the superiority of capitalism in achieving prosperity, isn't it astonishing we still debate its merits?Filmmaker Michael Moore actually made an anti-capitalism "documentary" called "Capitalism: A Love Story." Moore says: "Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people." Is it relevant that Moore's net worth is reported around $50 million, give or take a few mil, and that his accumulation of wealth occurred within the system of free markets that he trashes?
Another Hollywood leftie, Ed Asner, is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. In a tax-the-rich cartoon video narrated by Asner, an evil rich man urinates on the poor. Charming.
Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, wrote "Wealth of Nations" in 1776. How do nations prosper, he asked? The answer, Smith said, is to encourage competition between suppliers -- whether of goods or services -- to please customers. Smith wrote, "In general, if any branch of trade, or any division of labour, be advantageous to the public, the freer and more general the competition, it will always be the more so."
Abraham Lincoln was not an economist but would have been quite at home with the free-market school: "There is not, of necessity, any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. ...The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account for another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is ... the just, and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way for all -- gives hope to all, and ... improvement of condition to all. If any continue through life in the condition of the hired laborer, it is not the fault of the system, but because of either a dependent nature which prefers it, or improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune."
Booker T. Washington, a former slave, wrote "Up From Slavery" in 1901, 36 years after the Civil War: "When a Negro girl learns to cook, to wash dishes, to sew, to write a book, or a Negro boy learns to groom horses, or to grow sweet potatoes, or to produce butter, or to build a house, or to be able to practice medicine, as well or better than some one else, they will be rewarded regardless of race or colour. In the long run, the world is going to have the best, and any difference in race, religion, or previous history will not long keep the world from what it wants. ...This is a great human law which cannot be permanently nullified."
This brings us to a standard denunciation of capitalism: greed. Bill Gates, the legendary software pioneer, reportedly once denounced a business for its lack of aggressiveness. "They have finite greed," Gates sniffed. In the movie "Wall Street" Michael Douglas famously said, "Greed is good."
Greed freaks out people like talk-show host Phil Donahue. He once told Nobel laureate Milton Friedman. "When you see around the globe the maldistribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few haves and so many have-nots, when you see the greed and the concentration of power -- did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed's a good idea to run on?"
Friedman responded: "Is there some society you know that doesn't run on greed? You think Russia doesn't run on greed? You think China doesn't run on greed? What is greed? Of course, none of us are greedy; it's only the other fellow who's greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilizations have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about -- the only cases in recorded history -- are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade."
U2 frontman Bono, the rock star, agrees with Friedman.
Bono has spent three decades raising money to alleviate poverty and combat AIDS and HIV in the Third World. In a speech last year at Georgetown University, Bono talks about his epiphany: "Rock star preaches capitalism. Wow. Sometimes I hear myself and I just can't believe it! But commerce is real. ... Aid is just a stop-gap. Commerce (and) entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid. ... In dealing with poverty here and around the world, welfare and foreign aid are a Band-Aid. Free enterprise is a cure."
We end with this quote from Mark Twain: "I'm opposed to millionaires, but it would be a mistake to offer me the position."
http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2013/09/12/why-does-capitalism-still-need-defending-n1697782/page/full
Lois Lerner's Own Words
Emails undercut the official IRS story on political targeting.
Congress's investigation into the IRS targeting of conservatives has been continuing out of the Syria headlines, and it's turning up news. Emails unearthed by the House Ways and Means Committee between former Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner and her staff raise doubts about IRS claims that the targeting wasn't politically motivated and that low-level employees in Cincinnati masterminded the operation.In a February 2011 email, Ms. Lerner advised her staff—including then Exempt Organizations Technical Manager Michael Seto and then Rulings and Agreements director Holly Paz—that a Tea Party matter is "very dangerous," and is something "Counsel and [Lerner adviser] Judy Kindell need to be in on." Ms. Lerner adds, "Cincy should probably NOT have these cases."
That's a different tune than the IRS sang in May when former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller said the agency's overzealous enforcement was the work of two "rogue" employees in Cincinnati. When the story broke, Ms. Lerner suggested that her office had been unaware of the pattern of targeting until she read about it in the newspaper. "So it was pretty much we started seeing information in the press that raised questions for us, and we went back and took a look," she said in May.
Earlier this summer, IRS lawyer Carter Hull, who oversaw the review of many Tea Party cases and questionnaires, testified that his oversight began in April 2010. Tea party cases under review are "being supervised by Chip Hull at each step," Ms. Paz wrote to Ms. Lerner in a February 2011 email. "He reviews info from TPs, correspondence to TPs etc. No decisions are going out of Cincy until we go all the way through the process with the c3 and c4 cases here." TP stands for Tea Party, and she means 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups.
The emails also put the targeting in the context of the media and Congressional drumbeat over the impact of conservative campaign spending on the 2012 elections. On July 10, 2012 then Lerner-adviser Sharon Light emailed Ms. Lerner a National Public Radio story on how outside money was making it hard for Democrats to hold their Senate majority.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had complained to the Federal Election Commission that conservative groups like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity should be treated as political committees, rather than 501(c)(4)s, which are tax-exempt social welfare groups that do not have to disclose their donors.
"Perhaps the FEC will save the day," Ms. Lerner wrote back later that morning.
That response suggests Ms. Lerner's political leanings, and it also raises questions about Ms. Lerner's intentions in a separate email exchange she had when an FEC investigator inquired about the status of the conservative group the American Future Fund. The FEC and IRS don't have the authority to share that information under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. But the bigger question is why did they want to? After the FEC inquiry, the American Future Fund also got a questionnaire from the IRS.
Ms. Lerner famously invoked her right against self-incrimination rather than testify under oath to Congress. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee reported this summer that its investigation had found Ms. Lerner had sent official IRS documents to her personal email account, and many questions remain unanswered. Democrats want to pretend the IRS scandal is over, but Ms. Lerner's role deserves much more exposure.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579068914192280866.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Massive Obamacare Fraud Set to Begin October 1
Have any idea where to find a health insurance exchange? Up to speed on what a healthcare “navigator” is? Know whether you'll need a new government-issued ID card to qualify for Obamacare when it goes live on October 1?Scam artists hope you're as clueless as possible, because they're counting on widespread confusion about the Affordable Care Act to tap fresh opportunities for milking the unwary.
Scams are nothing new, but three factors make the Affordable Care Act a uniquely rich opportunity. First, the law affects nearly every American in some way, since it requires most people to have health care coverage. Second, it won’t be standardized nationwide, the way Medicare and Social Security are, since states have the freedom to administer the law in different ways. Third, the law is brutally complex, which has sown confusion even among health care experts. The result is a sweeping new law that’s shrouded in confusion and varies based on where you live, which is an invitation for abuse.
The proper response to fraudulent marketing, of course, is to hang up, delete or slam the door and then contact the FTC. But Obamacare comes with a few wrinkles that make it a bit harder to tell who’s legit and who’s bogus. The law, for instance, requires each health-insurance exchange to develop a network of “navigators” whose role is “to educate the public about qualified health plans, distribute information on enrollment and tax credits, facilitate enrollment, and provide referrals on grievances, complaints, or questions.” Among other things, navigators will make sure people know they need insurance, and help enroll them in Obamacare if necessary.Network of "Navigators" = Network of Fraud
Newman cited several instances where "navigator" had an icon for "healthcare.gov" that instead landed on a page where people could get "navigator help" for $40.
One site was shut down, two others changed the logo following complaints. But $40 is small potatoes compared to those out to steal your personal information and credit cards.
Overseas operators have already started their phone calls.
HealthCare.Gov
For those interested, here's the real link to HealthCare.Gov. Plan and cost information will be available October 1.
I went through a series of questions that I answered honestly. Here was the bottom-line result for me: Don't expect to save any money.
Specifically ...
"You may be eligible to get quality health insurance through the Health Insurance Marketplace. But based on the information you provided, you probably won’t qualify to save money on your monthly premiums or out-of-pocket costs. You'll find out for sure when you apply for coverage starting October 1, 2013."
Pre-Existing Conditions
I do not have Pre-Existing Conditions. For the purpose of this article, however, I checked a a box stating that I wanted information about them.
Here are some snips:
- Being sick doesn't keep you from getting coverage
- Starting in 2014, being sick won't keep you from getting health coverage. An insurance company can't turn you down or charge you more because of your condition.
- Once you have insurance, the plan can't refuse to cover treatment for pre-existing conditions. Coverage for your pre-existing conditions begins immediately.
- This is true even if you have been turned down or refused coverage due to a pre-existing condition in the past
Grandfathered individual health insurance plans--the kind you buy yourself, not through an employer, do not have to cover pre-existing conditions. And I suspect they won't.
ObamaMarket Insurance
People with pre-existing conditions and their own healthcare plans will be forced into "ObamaMarket Insurance" either because of rising costs or because the plans will drop people with pre-existing conditions.
ObamaMarket Open Enrollment
- You can apply for Health Insurance Marketplace insurance when open enrollment starts on October 1, 2013. Coverage starts as soon as January 1, 2014.
- Open enrollment ends on March 31, 2014. Outside of open enrollment, you can't enroll in Marketplace coverage unless you have a qualifying life event.
Qualifying Life Event
The ObamaMarket glossary defines "Qualifying Life Event" as follows:
A change in your life that can make you eligible for a Special Enrollment Period to enroll in health coverage. Examples of qualifying life events are moving to a new state, certain changes in your income, and changes in your family size (for example, if you marry, divorce, or have a baby).
Curiously, the QLE glossary says nothing about change in job status by you or a significant other, self-employment changes, massive hikes in insurance rates, or other such events.
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/mikeshedlock/2013/09/12/massive-obamacare-fraud-set-to-begin-october-1-n1698035
Stopping ObamaCare Fraud
Will Democrats vote to verify who is eligible for subsidies?
Every politician claims to hate fraud in government, and the House of Representatives will have a chance to prove it Wednesday when it votes to close a gigantic hole for potential abuse in the Affordable Care Act.
The Health and Human Services Department announced in July that it won't verify individual eligibility for the tens of billions in insurance subsidies the law will dole out. Americans are supposed to receive those subsidies based on income and only if their employer doesn't provide federally approved health benefits. But until 2015 the rule will be: Come on in, the subsidy is fine.
HHS will let applicants "self attest" that they are legally eligible. No further questions asked. The new ObamaCare exchanges will also be taking applicants' word on their projected household income. It seems that what it calls "operational barriers" continue to prevent HHS from checking applications against IRS income data.
The Administration argues that the fear of later HHS audits will keep applicants honest, though the threat of such checks has hardly prevented other fraud. The Treasury Inspector General estimates that 21% to 25% of Earned Income Tax Credits go to people who aren't eligible. An equivalent rate of fraud in ObamaCare could mean $250 billion in bad payments in a decade. And does HHS really plan to claw back overpayments from individual exchange participants?
Democrats have paid lip service to the risk of fraud, and in July the Senate Appropriations Committee included in an HHS spending bill a "sense of the Senate" provision that the Obama Administration "should verify annual household or individual income prior to making available premium tax credits" under the law. That nonbinding resolution and 50 cents will get you 50 cents. Republican Senators Tom Coburn (Oklahoma) and John Boozman (Arkansas) have introduced binding legislation, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won't let come up for a vote.
House Republicans by contrast will offer a vote that matters on Tennessee Representative Diane Black's bill to require the Administration to have a verification system in place before it hands out subsidies. Democrats have been unusually quiet in their opposition, perhaps because it is hard to justify voting in effect to give Americans subsidies they aren't legally entitled to.
Savings for taxpayers aside, the political merit of the House bill is that it puts a spotlight on a major ObamaCare failure and makes Democrats vote either to fix it or go along with that failure. It also highlights another case in which the Obama Administration is refusing to enforce black-letter law. Republicans are asking that a vast new entitlement be held to the most basic due diligence, or be prudently delayed until it can. If Democrats can't support that, voters should know.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067491137491568.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Obama Administration Missing The Energy In Energy Policy
No one expects the wheels of government to move fast. Washington’s pace can easily be compared to Beltway traffic in the morning: gridlock that is intermittently interrupted by small bursts of movement. The public may be frustrated by the lack of movement in Congress, but the Obama Administration has done its fair share of dragging its feet, particularly in regard to our nation’s energy future.Proposed energy development and infrastructure projects now take multiple years for the federal government to review and permit. Similar projects may have only taken several months to complete in past Administrations, both Democrat and Republican. These delays are not unintended. The Obama Administration has demonstrated that it can and will delay a project by extending or adding layers of unnecessary reviews. By doing so, officials within the Administration believe that they can dodge taking a public position on projects that are supported by key labor allies and opposed by key environmental allies.
Nowhere is this pattern of obstruction more clear than with Keystone XL and Atlantic offshore drilling. September 19th will mark five years since TransCanada submitted its original application to build the Keystone XL pipeline to the Department of State. Since then, the State Department has issued three draft Environmental Impact Statements (plus two supplemental drafts) and held at least five public comment periods, including more than a dozen public hearings along the pipeline route and in Washington. Despite five years of regulatory review, a decision on the project is still outstanding – and probably won’t be before 2014. Canada, on the other hand, approved its portion of Keystone XL in March 2010.
It is telling to compare this process with the permitting process for TransCanada’s originalKeystone pipeline – which runs from Hardisty, Alberta to refineries in the Midwest and to Cushing, Oklahoma and has been in operation since 2010. The 2,151 miles-long Keystone currently transports approximately 590,000 barrels per day of Canadian crude to U.S. refineries and required only 23 months for President Bush’s State Department to review and permit. Although Keystone and Keystone XL are very similar projects and should have similar review timelines, the State Department has already spent an extra 37 months reviewing Keystone XL.
A similar tale is unfolding in the quest to open the Atlantic to oil and natural gas drilling. Industry interest in developing the Atlantic is rising and public support is overwhelming. In Virginia, 80% of voters polled agreed that Virginia should open its waters to offshore drilling, and Virginia’s bipartisan delegation – including its two Democratic U.S. Senators – have introduced and supported legislation that would commence leasing.
Despite this level of public support, the Obama Administration has blocked leasing in the area until at least 2017. Taking it one step further, the Administration has prevented private companies from even executing seismic studies of the region, which would help determine the size of the oil and gas reserves under the Atlantic. Specifically, the Department of the Interior has delayed by nearly two years the finalization of an environmental assessment that would permit companies to survey the area with seismic surveying technologies. Interior initially stated in February 2010 that this environmental review would be complete by April 2012. Time passed and nothing happened. Now, the agency says the review will be done by March 2014 – over four years since Interior initiated the process. For comparison’s sake, Interior spends about two to three years developing an environmental assessment that guides offshore oil and gas drilling for all of the United States.
Why all the fuss? Environmentalists have wrongly concluded that by preventing activities associated with energy development – like building oil pipelines – they can magically stop fossil fuel production and consumption. Afraid to challenge environmental opposition groups, the Administration has apparently decided that it can delay these types of projects rather than rejectthem. Saying an unequivocal “no” to Keystone XL runs afoul of the President’s stated goals for North American energy independence and would agitate his tenuous relationship with labor and moderate Senate Democrats. The same goes for Atlantic surveying and leasing in the federal waters adjacent to Virginia, a state that was critical to the President’s reelection and where residents overwhelming support offshore drilling.
These blatantly political delays will come with far-reaching consequences. The energy industry and other private investors stand ready to sink billions of dollars into the U.S. economy to build pipelines, pursue offshore drilling and execute dozens of other projects. Regrettably, this Administration has sent a strong message to the energy industry and other private investors that investment in the United States comes with a lot of risk – if it will come at all .
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelwhatley/2013/09/12/obama-administration-missing-the-energy-in-energy-policy-n1697458/page/full
The Carbon Tax-Based Social Engineering Trojan Horse
Conservatives have long known that one of the major reasons behind a carbon tax was social engineering, as much as the statists tried to deny it. And so it is satisfying to see some of the carbon tax proponents admitting that -- in reality -- their taxation schemes would be used in large part for wealth redistribution and other social activities well outside the scope of simply reducing greenhouse gas emissions and shifting energy use to non-carbon based sources.Sustainable Prosperity -- a government-supported "national green economy think tank/do tank" based at the University of Ottawa -- has long advocated for carbon pricing. Far from just having its policy proposals limited to Canada, the group often sees favorable reporting in the international media, such as The Economist and the Washington Post -- thereby infecting a fairly broad audience (although I've debunked some of their claims previously in American Thinker). Some purported conservatives -- such as Preston Manning, former leader of Canada's federal Reform Party and currently a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute -- even sit on Sustainable Prosperity's steering committee.
In one of its reports, this organization makes the following claims:
The following uses of revenue have been proposed in various jurisdictions that are currently, or are considering, pricing carbon: ... Deficit reduction -- Generating general government revenues which can be used to reduce the deficit and borrowing needs, thereby reducing the tax burden on future generations. A number of U.S. states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) have already taken proceeds from the auctioning of emission allowances for use in general government revenues ...
Reducing Poverty: Government could also put carbon revenue towards a more significant poverty-reduction program. Poverty can exacerbate environmental issues (and vice-versa); for example, low-income groups may be more dependent on natural resources, and more prone to over-harvesting to help meet basic needs ...
Carbon revenues have the potential to provide governments with a large new source of revenue. Research has identified the 'poverty gap,' i.e. the amount of money it would take to raise the incomes of low-income groups above Statistic Canada's [sic] after-tax low-income cut-off (LICO). At least some carbon revenues can be directed towards filling the $5.7 billion poverty gap that exists in Canada ...
Poverty reduction is another worthy use of carbon revenue as significant progress can be made with a relatively small investment, and in addition to individual benefit, there are many wider societal advantages of alleviating poverty.
Well, it is nice to see carbon pricing advocates clearly explaining the real reasons behind carbon pricing -- wealth redistribution and social engineering. If putting a price on carbon were actually about the purported objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then none of these other considerations would be either relevant or desirable.
Essentially, carbon pricing is apparently being used as the socialist Trojan Horse to both justify and pay for new and/or expanded social engineering programs. Just as many of us long suspected.
Palestinians Attack Jewish Pre-Yom Kippur Prayer Service with Rocks, Bricks and Automatic Weapon
Palestinians attacked a gathering of
Jews praying at Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus early Thursday morning, throwing
stones, bricks and firing an automatic weapon, according to Israeli
media reports and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). None of the
worshipers were wounded, but a Palestinian was injured by Israeli troops
responding to the attack.
Because the Jewish holy site is located
in a large Palestinian city, Israel Defense Forces personnel were
guarding the worshipers, estimated at 1,400 by the Jerusalem Post. They were praying in advance of the Jewish Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, which begins Friday evening.
“At one point, one of the attackers
opened fire at soldiers with an automatic weapon. ”Troops and civilians
took cover” and soldiers fired back in the direction of the gunfire,
hitting the terrorist who had opened fire on them,” writes Arutz 7.
The IDF Spokesman’s office released a statement
which read in part, “The IDF identified the suspected shooter and fired
towards him in self defense. The suspect was moderately wounded and
after receiving treatment by an IDF military doctor, he was transferred
to a nearby Israeli hospital for further care.”
“The IDF ensures freedom of religion
and worship throughout the region. Last night’s incident emphasized the
challenges we have and the potential jeopardizing of religious beliefs.
The IDF will continue to facilitate the religious needs of the various
populations in the region,” said Lt. Col. Peter Lerner.
Under the Oslo Peace Accords, the
Palestinian Authority is supposed to allow Jews to pray at Joseph’s Tomb
and to provide security for the area. However, the site has a history
of bloody incidents targeting Jews. In October 2000, the shrine was
ransacked by Palestinians. In the ensuing clashes, an Israeli border
police officer was killed as were six Palestinian attackers.
Rabbi Hillel Lieberman who headed the Jewish seminary located in the tomb complex was also killed in Nablus in October 2000.
In 2011, Palestinian Authority
policemen fired on three cars carrying Jewish worshipers who had just
prayed at the site, killing an Israeli father of four.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/12/palestinians-attack-jewish-pre-yom-kippur-prayer-service-with-rocks-bricks-and-automatic-weapon/
Arizona Ranchers Say Mexican Drug Lords Rule in U.S. Border Regions: ‘We’re Living By the Law Of the Cartels’
American ranchers living along
Arizona’s southwest border are living in a war zone. They are fed up
with a federal government that has failed them and warn that the chaos
spilling from Mexico is putting U.S. national security at risk.
On Thursday night’s episode of TheBlaze TV’s For The Record (8:30
p.m. ET), Arizona’s ranchers speak out. They provided TheBlaze with
never-before-seen surveillance videos taken from their ranches: proof
that their ranches are being seized by drug traffickers and nefarious
groups that use the cover of darkness to cross into the United States.
Mary, an Arizona rancher who spoke to
TheBlaze on condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution from the
drug cartels, warned, “it’s not our country anymore.”
“We may be bound to the laws of our country,” she said. “But we’re living by the law of the cartels.”
Like Mary, many of the ranchers chose
to speak on condition that they not be named out of fear for their lives
but their stories are all similar. They say the U.S. is “borderless.”
Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels,
who works closely with the ranchers living along his county’s 83-mile
border with Mexico, told TheBlaze the increased violence along his
community’s southern border is an example that the federal government is
failing when it comes to border security.
“Border security should be a primary
issue even before we talk about immigration reform,” said Dannels, who
has spent more than 25 years in law enforcement along the border. “The
biggest change from 1984 until current is the violence on the border.”
For The Record will take
viewers into America’s most dangerous borderlands and introduce viewers
to brave Americans who battle not only the drug cartel’s who trample
through their property but a federal government that refuses to
acknowledge them.
Joe Weasel, head of the documentary
film division for TheBlaze, said “the ranchers we interviewed were fed
up with the mainstream media.”
“The networks had turned them into
race-baiters or anti-immigrant but this isn’t the case at all,” said
Weasel, who is the writer and director of the documentary. “This issue
is about smuggling, national security and that their property is being
overrun by drug cartels. We have first hand accounts and evidence.”
TheBlaze made several trips to Cochise
County, Ariz. to report on the continuing problems faced by this
American border community. On one of those trips,
Dannels pointed to the Huachuca Mountains, noting that a radio relay
station — built by the drug cartels to communicate — had been replaced
several times since his law enforcement officers dismantled the first
one.
“The citizens of Cochise County are
frustrated, living in danger and many of them have lost faith in the
federal government,” Dannels said. “This isn’t just about them, it’s
about the national security of our country. It’s about protecting
everyone from this very real threat.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/12/arizona-ranchers-say-mexican-drug-lords-rule-in-u-s-border-regions-were-living-by-the-law-of-the-cartels/
Fifty Shades of the Common Core: how much porn is too much for high schoolers?
The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a project that attempts to standardize various K-12 curricula around the country. By design, American students subject to the Common Core will experience a reading
regime that focuses heavily on nonfiction.There will be a slice of fiction here and there, though. One such slice for sophomores at Buena High School
in Sierra Vista, Ariz. is an utterly minor 1992 novel called “Dreaming in Cuban” by Cristina Garcia, reports Eagnews.org.An unidentified parent claimed in an email to Eagnews that “Dreaming in Cuban” was assigned to everyone in one of her son’s 10th-grade classes. In addition, students
read the book out loud during class.And what a book for high schoolers to read
out loud!“Hugo and Felicia stripped in their room, dissolving easilyThat steamy, erotic passage comes from page 80 of “Dreaming,” in a chapter called “The Fire Between Them.” The passage continues:
“Felicia learned what pleased him. She tied his arms above his head with their underclothing and slapped him sharply when he asked.A front-cover blurb of a New York Times book
“‘You’re my bitch,’” Hugo said, groaning.
“In the morning he left, promising to return in the summer.”
review by Pulitzer Prize-winning critic Michiko Kakutani describes the novel as “Dazzling…Remarkable.”“Dreaming in Cuban” can be found on page 152 among the many recommended texts in a very lengthy Appendix B of the “Common Core Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies
, Science, and Technical Subjects.”What “Dreaming in Cuban” is doing tucked in the midst of various classics such as Ernest Hemingway’s “A Farewell to Arms” and Thornton Wilder’s “Our Town” is perhaps a question only Jeb Bush and Arne Duncan can answer.
The Appendix also helpfully points teachers
, students and others to the official webpage hawking the novel’s author,
Cristina Garcia. There’s a huge, unavoidable advertisement for her
latest novel, “King of Cuba.” You can also find out how to book Garcia
for an or enroll in an expensive writers’ workshop taught by Garcia.
No comments:
Post a Comment