Publicado: 08-04-2010 10:33 PM
Whoa! New Ground Zero mosque challenge in works
‘We’re poised to file legal action … and put a stop to this project’
August 03, 2010
By Bob Unruh
Hold on with those demolition crews and construction cranes near Ground Zero.
A new challenge to the Ground Zero mosque in New York City could be filed in court as early as tomorrow, according to an organization representing a survivor of the 9/11 attacks by radical Muslims that killed nearly 3,000 Americans.
“We’re poised to file legal action on behalf of our client to challenge this flawed decision and put a stop to this project,” Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, confirmed today.
The organization said it will file an Article 78 petition in state court to challenge the plan to build a 13-story Islamic mosque at the site of a building that was struck by wreckage from the jets used as bombs by Islamic radicals in the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The claim will allege there’s been an abuse of discretion in the city procedures that approved the program.
“The actions taken by the city of New York represent a blatant disregard for the city’s own procedures, while ignoring the fact that this is a historic and hallowed site that should not be destroyed to build an Islamic mosque,” said Sekulow.
“It has been clear from the beginning that the city has engaged in a rush to push this project through – ignoring proper procedure and ignoring a growing number of New Yorkers and Americans who don’t believe this site is the place to build a mosque,” he said.
The ACLJ represents first responder Tim Brown, a decorated firefighter who survived the collapse of New York’s Twin towers in the 9/11 attacks. He lost nearly 100 friends that day.
The legal team also represents thousands of Americans who have signed on to the Committee to Stop the Ground Zero Mosque – which opposes building an Islamic mosque on a site it says should be used to honor and preserve the memory of 9/11 and its victims.
The announcement of the planned legal action followed today’s vote by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to allow the demolition of the152-year-old building on the site.
The ACLJ had given New York officials oral and written testimony urging city officials to designate the site as a landmark.
“The building links two distinct periods in American history,” the ACLJ argued. “It reflects the growth and rise of American free enterprise and stands as a symbol of America’s strength and survival in the face of brutal, sadistic terrorism.”
In its written testimony, the organization said there are thousands of buildings in New York already given landmark status, including 18 West 11th, where the “terrorist organization Weather Underground detonated a bomb.”
“The World Trade Center Site has been determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Six (6) federal and state agencies have recognized the historic significance of the area,” the group’s testimony said.
“In this matter, the building links America’s rise as an economically and free country to the current fight to maintain freedom and liberty in the face of terrorism,” the ACLJ said. “The building stands as a testament to an uninterrupted linkage of the rise of American capitalism with our current quest to preserve our freedom and democracy. The building, therefore, should stand as part of the commemorative and educational experience of our shared political, cultural and historic heritage.”
The ACLJ pointed out that the federal government’s Heritage Emergency National Task Force, designated to help libraries, museums and others archive important historical artifacts, still is “engaging in a complete inventory of historic artifacts buried or lost in the buildings surrounding the World Trade Center.”
A spokesman for the ACLJ said the legal filing was being developed today, but one of the concerns is that city officials failed to follow their own procedures and time lines in approving the mosque project.
In an earlier interview with Associated Press, New York Rep. Peter King also suggested there might need to be a further investigation of the funding of the $100 million mosque.
“It’s a house of worship, but we are at war with al-Qaida,” King said at the time. “I think the 9/11 families have a right to know where the funding comes from; I think there are significant questions.”
A spokesman for a Muslim activist organization today told Fox News there was to be no mosque, contradicting weeks of affirmations about the plans.
The project is headed by the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Institute. But the institute’s chief, Imam Faisel Abdul Rauf, has refused to reveal where the money for the building is coming from. And he once suggested in a television interview that U.S. policies were a contributing factor in the 9/11 attacks.
King said in the earlier report, “Right at this moment in history, it’s bad form to put it there. There are things you are allowed to do, but that aren’t appropriate to do.”
Obama bows to Saudi king
Greeting called ‘most unbecoming for president of the United States’
By Bob Unruh
President Obama greeted the king of Saudi Arabia with a full bow from the waist yesterday, a move one commentator described as a violation of protocol and not worthy of the office he holds.
“I am quite certain that this is not the protocol, and is most unbecoming a president of the United States,” writes Clarice Feldman in an American Thinker commentary.
The situation developed as leaders of the world attending the G20 summit in London assembled for a photograph to mark the event.
In this first image, after the king extended his hand while Obama approached, Obama bends from the waist until his head is nearly at the monarch’s waist:
Obama speaks briefly with Saudi king after bowing
Video by a television crew was posted on YouTube. The bow comes at about 50 seconds into the video:
The action appeared especially awkward since among the dozens of world leaders and their spouses, handshakes abounded, but there appeared to be no other bowing in the room.
The U.S. State Department’s office of protocol, in a statement attributed to acting chief of protocol Gladys Blouda, confirmed the type of greeting between heads of state depends on the customs of the countries, but a handshake is the most common form of greeting.
The online Travel Etiquette website for Saudi Arabia said handshakes are common greetings between members of the same SX.
“You should expect to undertake a considerable amount of small talk, and learning a few Arabic greetings would be well received. Saudis will stand closer to each other than many westerners are used to, and members of the same pposion tiwill often touch arms when postulating or emphasizing a point. You should not draw away from this as it would be considered rude and rejecting. Be aware that due to the conservative nature of Saudi Arabian society, it is not considered proper etiquette for men and women to greet each other in public,” the site advises.
“It is proper etiquette to refer to a royal as Your Highness, and any members of the government ministries as Your Excellency,” it said.
Learn about the rest of Obama’s plans for the United States, in “The Audacity of Deceit”
Many of the proper procedures for meeting royalty are set by the British monarchy, since its members carry probably the highest royal profile around the world today.
The website for the British queen advises men who are from the United Kingdom to provide a neck bow (from the head only) “whilst women do a small curtsy. Other people prefer simply to shake hands in the usual way.”
“On presentation to The Queen, the correct formal address is ‘Your Majesty’ and subsequently ‘Ma’am’,” the site advises.
ABC reported Obama and his wife, Michelle, were less formal meeting Queen Elizabeth II earlier this week, when they exchanged handshakes. The queen briefly touched Michelle Obama on the back, and she returned the contact.
Pundits were surprised, since in 1992 Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating was criticized when he put his arm around the queen in violation of a general “no-touch” rule regarding royalty.
But the traditional Miss Manners book of etiquette advises: “One does not bow or curtsy to a foreign monarch because the gesture symbolizes recognition of her power over her subjects.”
Jamie Glazov, the author of “United in Hate,” said Obama’s act actually was to be expected.
“And people don’t know what’s going on here? Are we kidding?” he said. “This is simply the continuation of fellow traveling. It’s to be totally expected. Leftists have prostrated themselves before despots throughout history – during the whole Cold War and now vis-à-vis jihadists in the terror war. ‘United in Hate’ crystallizes with precision how and why this dark process occurs.”
He cited the Obamas’ less formal interaction with the queen earlier.
“Obviously, the queen does not wield totalitarian power and does not mete out sadistic punishment – with which a believer yearns to identify. The Saudi king, meanwhile, is a tyrannical entity to which Obama can subjugate his individuality – and through which he can vicariously experience a feeling of power and purpose. This is the process of negative identification that every leftist must practice and that ‘United in Hate’ documents is at the heart of every leftist’s main driving force,” he said.
Publicado: 08-05-2010 01:23 PM
MICHELLE OBAMA IS A MODERN-DAY MARIE ANTOINETTE ON A GLITZI SPANISH VACATION
August 5th 2010,
Torres/APFirst Lady Michelle Obama smiles while she
visits Marbella, southern Spain.
Sacrifice is something that many Americans are becoming all too familiar with during this economic downturn. It was a key theme in President Obama’s inaugural address to the nation, and he’s referenced it
numerous times when lecturing the country on how to get back on its feet.
But while most of the country is pinching pennies and downsizing summer sojourns - or forgoing them altogether - the Obamas don’t seem to be heeding their own advice. While many of us are struggling, the First Lady is spending the next few days in a five-star hotel on the chic Costa del Sol in southern Spain with 40 of her “closest friends.” According to CNN, the group is expected to occupy 60 to 70 rooms, more than a third of the lodgings at
the 160-room resort. Not exactly what one would call cutting back in troubled times.
Reports are calling the lodgings of Obama’s Spanish fiesta, the Hotel Villa Padierna in Marbella, “luxurious,” “posh” and “a millionaires’ playground.” Estimated room rate per night? Up to a staggering $6,000 to $3,000 a night. Method of transportation? Air Force Two.
To be clear, what the Obamas do with their money is one thing; what they do with ours is another. Transporting and housing the estimated 70 Secret Service agents who will flank the material girl will cost the taxpayers a pretty penny.
OBAMA ESTA DE FIESTA EN FIESTA, DE VACACION EN VACACION, Y DE JUEGO DE GOLF EN JUEGO DE GOLF MIENTRAS MUEREN NUESTROS SOLDADOS Y PIDE SACRIFICIOS AL PUEBLO. BUSH, TAN PRONTO EMPEZO LA GUERRA DE IRAK Y AFGANISTAN SUSPENDIO SUS JUEGOS DE GOLF POR RESPETO AL SACRIFICIO DE NUESTROS SOLDADOS, GRAN CONTRASTE CUANDO HAY CLASE, MORAL Y PATRIOTISMO.
LOS VIAJES, LA ARROGANCIA Y LOS GASTOS EXTRAVAGANTES DE LA REINA DE SHEBA QUE OCUPA LA CASA BLANCA SUPERAN A TODAS LAS PRIMERA DAMAS AMERICANAS JUNTAS, MIENTRAS TANTO, AUMENTA LA DEPRESION CREADA POR SU CONSORTE, EL REY BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.
Publicado: 08-05-2010 06:11 PM
It’s Time For Obama To Switch To Big-Boy Pants
Posted By DrJohn On August 5, 2010 In Barack Obama, Economy, Liberal IdiHots, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, POWER GRAB!, Politics
For the last several years now, Barack Obama has been wearing the “Blame Bush” diaper and he shows no sign that he is willing to get weaned into the Big Boy pants of the Presidency. But Obama’s diaper is full and it needs changing.
Obama has repeatedly told America that looking ahead  and not back is his perspective:
I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.
Yet his current campaign strategy  is anything but that:
The White House’s mid-term election strategy is becoming clear – pit the Democrats of 2010 against the Republicans circa 2006, 2008 and 2009, including Bush.
The whining continues :
“For the better part of 10 years, folks faced stagnant incomes, skyrocketing health care costs and tuition bills, and declining economic security,” Mr. Obama said in a speech at a Kansas City, Mo., electric vehicle plant. “It was in the middle of this crisis that my administration walked through the door.”
And now he has really personalized  it:
At an Atlanta fundraiser last night, President Obama said that the Republicans who want to take back Congress “don’t have a single idea that’s different from George W. Bush’s ideas. Not one. Instead, they’re betting on amnesia.”
I have repeatedly said here that Obama is full of crap, and he is full of crap. It is worth noticing that the “last eight years” has now become the “last ten years.” Obama has been President for the last 1 1/2 years, so Obama is unwittingly blaming his own term for the problems he has allegedly inherited.
Barack Obama would have you believe that he fell from outer space directly into the Presidency. You’d never know from the lies that spew from his mouth that he was ever in the US Senate. You’d never know that he did NOTHING to try to reign in costs of government. You’d never know he voted to make every Bush budget larger and never voted to cut spending ever. And this is where Republicans shoot themselves in the collective foot. They need to remind America that Obama was part of the “last eight years” or “last ten years.” They need to remind America that Obama and his Democrat moron colleagues controlled ALL of Congress for the last three of those eight or ten years. Republicans need to remind America that the problems we suffer now are in no small part a consequence of Democrat control of Congress for the last three years.
What specifically did Obama do to improve “stagnant incomes, skyrocketing health care costs and tuition bills, and declining economic security” while he was a US Senator? What did Democrats do when they got control?
Republicans may be betting on amnesia, but so are Democrats.
Being the “Party of No” may not be the greatest platform (I actually think it’s a good one) but blaming Bush is a lousy one. Obama’s been in office for 18 months. Democrats have controlled Congress for three years.
Obama needs to change his diaper. It’s as full of sh*t as he is.
Publicado: 08-06-2010 08:24 PM
Michelle “Antoinette” Obama the First Lady the World has Been Waiting For
It was disappointing to me when More magazine decided to play politics by featuring Michelle on their cover in October one month prior to the November election. But when I received a copy of March’s Vogue on Friday and saw that Michelle was featured on the cover, my first reaction was to write, Return to Sender in black magic marker on the outside and mail it back.
However, my interest was piqued upon seeing the large white letters that said, “Michelle Obama the First Lady the World’s been Waiting For.” I just had to see what the world was expecting and to find out what I might be overlooking.
I know that Barack fancies himself a global resident, but what does it mean to be a “citizen” of the world? “Obama’s view of “global citizenship… seems to [be] trans-national obligations on such things as income distribution, education, poverty, disease and violence” (Real Clear Politics, Obama a Citizen of the World, Robert Robb, July 30, 2008).
Obviously, these are all issues that need to be addressed by the global community and will be impacted by our example as a nation giving substance to our rhetoric. Michelle expressed, when speaking about Sasha and Malia in the Talley article, that she hopes, “…all kids will have a feeling that they are citizens of the world.” I would imagine with a husband who is a global citizen and two transnational ingénue daughters, Michelle must view herself as a worldwide resident also.
There is a whole planet just waiting to be absorbed into the “collective” – and who better than Barry and Michelle to welcome them in North, South, East and West with their populist, inner-city, fist-bumping, South Side of Chicago sstyle attitude and especially attire. Who better to bring unity and parity to the world community than an approachable, commoner like Michelle Obama who has graced the pages of People magazine’s Best Dressed List, something that in India used magazine vendors can really relate to.
WP-Bible plugin – 30,000 children die each day due to poverty and they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages.” This is a far cry from the $30,000 a year Sidwell School in Washington DC, world citizens Sasha and Malia attend daily, especially because nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.
In the world that has been awaiting Michelle Obama, every second child lives in poverty and 640 million live without adequate shelter. I wonder if the world’s First Lady was thinking about that as she was waylaid in the Hay-Adams luxury hotel which, “…provides guests with exclusive Etro toiletries, custom Italian bed linens and bath towels, robes and slippers for both adults and children” all at a globally affordable $1,000.00 per night?
The Hay-Adams luxury hotel is where the Vogue down-home interview actually took place. This is where Michelle Obama sashayed over to a corner of the reception suite in her Narciso Rodriguez dress and $400.00 Jimmy Choo pumps and humbly queried Leon Talley, “…do you see our new house” while gazing through the window at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue situated across the street?
I also wonder if the First Lady who the world has been waiting for is aware that 790 million people in the developing world are chronically undernourished. However, I do know that regardless she felt it was incumbent upon her to share some intriguing tidbits about the food at the White House, which I’m sure two-thirds of the undernourished people in Asia and the Pacific would be anxious to hear about.
For instance that, “…the president loves scallops. The White House Huckleberry Cobbler is one of the First Family’s favorites. [She] is fond of a White House soup that ‘tastes creamy without being creamy’ and the creamed spinach that has no cream. The creamed spinach is ‘delicious’ but Sasha still didn’t like it.” Mrs. Obama “… added that the White House kitchen staff faces a ‘test’ because the staff has to deal with feeding youngsters…and sometimes kids are like, ‘it’s green’”? I can relate as I’m sure the rest of the world can, thank you Michelle for illuminating for us our globally shared similarities.
While 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water and over 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation, our new First Lady has more important things to consider and some very serious deliberation time to clock, “…contemplating coming up with her own china,” when she says, “ I think that’s part of the job” (Chicago Sun-Times, First Lady Michelle Obama, Desiree Rogers preview White House dinner tonight, Lynn Sweet, February 22, 2009).
Michelle and Barry both try to portray themselves as regular folks. Always highlighting the unassuming roots from whence they came. The Vogue article vacillates between chronicling a list of high end designers to underscoring that, “…she grew up in a modest house on the South Side of Chicago where her parents carved a bedroom out of the living room for her and her brother.” Michelle herself never lets an opportunity go to waste to stress the elitism of former Presidents that went before them, “We like to joke that the South Side of Chicago is our Kennebunkport.” Excuse me…does anyone remember Laura Bush’s efforts in Afghanistan addressing the issue of women’s rights, adorned in a head scarf? Didn’t the Bush girls go to public school?
This is at best is an understatement. Michelle “First Lady to the World” is a fashionista, designer name dropping, label greedy, clothes horse – Michelle Obama wearing an off-the-rack $148.00 Donna Ricco sundress on The View and using that to prove she is one of the little people, Wal-Mart shoppers, is like a racist trying to prove they are not by proudly saying, “I had a black friend once.”
Michelle pretending “You can get some good stuff online” is disingenuous especially from someone the world has been patiently waiting for to replace the late Mother Theresa. “Obama’s wardrobe…is well known to be that of high-priced, exclusive designers. Endless profiles have been written about her custom-made tailored frocks from personal designer Maria Pinto. And then there are her gazillion-dollar outfits from Moschino, Narciso Rodriguez and Azzedine Alaia” (DebbieSchlussel.com, She’s No Palin: Michelle Obama Now Lying about Gazillion Dollar Custom-Made Designer Wardrobe; Claims She Shops @ J. Crew, On Line, 10-27-08).
The catalog of high end designer clothes that Michelle “Antoinette” wears is like the Who’s Who in Forbes Magazine. Designers like Rodriguez whose runway styles cost $3,500.00 or more. Isabel Toledo, who designed the First Lady’s Swiss wool lace, backed with netting for warmth and lined in French silk Inauguration Day coat. Toledo said, “I wanted to pick a very optimistic color that had sunshine”, which I must say is very apropos for such an optimistic administration. “I wanted her to feel charmed and in that way would charm everybody” (The Caucus, About the Dress, Horyn, 1-20-09).
All I have to say is “How Charming!” Let’s not forget about Thakoon Panichgul , Jason Wu, Jimmy Choo, Zero+Maria Cornejo, Peter Soronen jackets that run about $4,000.00 a piece and Maria Pinto who designed her $1,250.00 convention dress. Excused by the fashion groupies as being, “… womanliness, grandeur and elegance and declar[ing] Obama’s ease at being a woman of modest background thrust into extraordinary circumstances” (Washington Post, All Hail the Leader of the Fashionable World, Givhan, 1-21-09). Wha…Huh?
What might be viewed as vain and self-indulgent on Michelle’s part has been vindicated by her devoted guardians in the following way, “As her husband’s administration promises more jobs and help for small-business owners, and emphasizes creativity as one of this country’s greatest assets, Obama’s choice of an iconoclastic immigrant female designer with a modest business sends a profound message of intent” (Washington Post, All Hail the Leader of the Fashionable World, Givhan, 1-21-09). “Sending a profound message of intent” that’s for sure!
Michelle’s flippant extravagance has been re-written to cover her as being concerned only with diversity and earnest egalitarian utility as her goal in making various international best dressed lists. She uses designers to stimulate the economy and to support small business, how altruistic. We have to remember that these are the same people that describe Mrs. Obama as “lithe…an uncommon figure for an American First Lady.” Am I missing something?
Though possessing a perfectly lovely and healthy body Michelle is not “lithe”, describing her as such is a red flag, which signals to me that Obama followers are deluded, enamored or just seeing something I’m just not picking up on and quite frankly, it’s a little creepy.
Michelle is the one our global commune has been waiting for, she was also the only one found floating through the Inaugural Balls like a butterfly, in a designer, custom-made gown, “…in flowing ivory silk chiffon with a single strap, embroidered with silver thread and adorned with Swarovski crystal rhinestones” (Washington Post, All Hail the Leader of the Fashionable World, Givhan, 1-21-09).
The new President and his convivial First Lady danced on the world stage while the whole planet groaned a double-entendre sigh-of-relief realizing that finally they had arrived “At Last”. Note to Citizen-in-Chieftess there are places on the planet where shoes and clothes are extravagances they would do without in place of food. Like the Congo where some of the ancestors who make up our nation’s African-American community were birthed.
The people you claim to have such a deep, “special connection” with and of whom you are a representative of by being the first African-American First Lady. Be mindful Michelle just one of your couture outfits would provide a lot of nourishment, clothes, medicine and hope to hundreds of Congolese children…but then again if you do that you can’t continue to promote yourself as a sartorial fashion icon in the mold of a 21st century Jackie O.
It’s puzzling to me how Michelle Obama and her cohort of affectionate fans can continue to compare her to Jackie O as Jacqueline Kennedy embodied the blue-blood, rich, jodhpur wearing, white upper-class that Barry and Michelle have built their entire public career on debasing in the minds of average Americans. These are the same evil people that need to be punished, but not until Michelle raids their closets?
You would think that Jackie Onassis would be the last person Michelle would want to be associated with on any level – has anyone seen the missing Reverend Wright or maybe even Bill Ayers?
Andre’ Leon Talley is under the impression that Michelle will be swinging open the doors to the White House so the great unwashed can enter into her open, welcoming, well-toned arms. “It’s been an awfully long time since strangers off the street could wander right into the presidential mansion, but Michelle Obama’s intention is to open up the White House again in a spirit of diversity and inclusion. She speaks of her future there as almost a collective experience. It’s never”me” and “mine” and “some”’ but “we” and “our” and “all”. She is like the neighbor organizing a block party; everyone is invited.”
I have to ask a few questions Mr. Talley; will this be before or after she picks out the china? Do you happen to know if she’ll be wearing her Isabel Toledo tunic and palazzo pants to the “Everyone is invited” block party? If she’s not, can you ask her if I can borrow them? And will Michelle be slinging hash and buttering our corn-on-the-cob too?
I bet in an effort to foster fairness Michelle will be reproducing the February Governor’s Dinner Menu for Washington DC’s homeless. I’m sure coming from the Maryland area the locals will just love the Chesapeake Crab Agnolottis with Roasted Sun chokes, washed down with Spottswoode Sauvignon Blanc 2007. Some I’m sure will prefer the Wagyu Beef and Nantucket Scallops with Glazed Red Carrots, Portobello Mushroom and Creamed Spinach, of course without the crème. They’ll love that, followed up by another South-side community favorite of Winter Citrus Salad with Pistachios and Lemon Honey Vinaigrette. At this big, happy, collective barbeque on the White House lawn, which all of America is invited to, Michelle will surely be in the hub of the action scooping out that Huckleberry Cobbler and topping it with homemade Caramel Ice Cream?
So what exactly is the world waiting for? Someone that we can all relate to…regardless of the circumstances we live under and wherever we dwell on the earth? According to Talley, Oprah Winfrey, the woman who has made 1.5 billion in her career, feels that more than any other this First Lady is who the world has been waiting for and is someone “…who looks and feels like a modern woman in the 21st century, allowing us to see the best of ourselves in her. [She’s] bringing a sense of connection and accessibility to that pposition that no nation has ever witnessed (emphasis mine). “
Maybe if Michelle wants to be First Lady to the world she could start by not wearing $1,250.00 dresses to afternoon events and be an international example by using that money to support forty-one impoverished indigents at Save the Children with food and clothes for a whole month.
If Obama is really serious, which I doubt, about addressing trans-national issues like income distribution (God forbid), education, poverty, disease and violence he could start by encouraging his wife to be an example of judicious behavior in a time of economic stress and not to act like a modern day Marie Antoinette. You remember Marie she was busy being fitted in custom made clothes while her country and even the world are on the verge of economic “catastrophe”, which is how Obama himself describes our present crisis.
It would be to Madame Michelle’s benefit, that while she is adjusting the ostrich plume in her hat, to remember that while it may be true that “Every true fashionista has a signature look, even when her country is on the verge of revolution” (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Losing our heads over Marie Antoinette Doomed French queen proved power of fashion, Rhone, 09-29-06) it isn’t necessarily the wisest way to conduct ourselves in times of international hardship.
History does have a habit of repeating itself so maybe while you’re wiggling your little “lithe” toes in the sand on the beaches of Saint-Tropez next summer a good book to read would be Queen of Fashion: What Marie Antoinette Wore to the Revolution, which is a biography about “…the political backlash against a monarch who played a life-long game of expensive dress-ups while her people starved” (Queen of Fashion: What Marie Antoinette Wore to the Revolution, Caroline Weber).
Andre’ Leon Talley, bless his heart, may be convinced that Michelle Obama is the First Lady that the world has been waiting for, I on the other hand have to ask, based on her in-your-face elitist, extravagant, excessive, priggish behavior; What in the world are we doing with Michelle Obama as our First Lady in the first place?
Publicado: 08-07-2010 09:59 AM
Michelle Obama's Binge in Spain: "Modern-Day Marie Antionette"
Reaganite Republican ^ | August 7, 2010
Outrage grows at the unblushing arrogance of a luxurious taxpayer-funded trip to Spain in the deepest depths of the Obama recession... Michelle Obama today faced a fresh wave of attacks over her lavish break in Spain with 40 friends which has cost U.S. taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.
The First Lady has been lambasted for her extravagance at a time when the economy is still struggling. One blogger went so far as to brand her a modern-day Marie Antoinette... The exact cost of the trip is unclear as Mrs Obama, 46, and her friends are footing personal expenses - including accommodation at Marbella's five-star Hotel Villa Padierna - themselves.
But the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab for the First Lady's 68-strong security detail, her personal staff - and the use of presidential jet Air Force Two. The cost of accommodating the secret service team runs at around £172 each a day which amounts to nearly $100,000 for the length of the summer break. Use of Air Force Two, the Air Force version of a 757, comes in at $145,900 for the round trip. This does not include time on the ground.
The American public will also cover the cost of the only official part of the holiday, a visit to the Spanish royal family on the island of Majorca. A conservative estimate puts the total amount at around $225,000.
Back in the U.S., anger was mounting - especially as it has emerged the First Lady will have enjoyed eight holidays by the end of the summer. These include a trip to Los Angeles in June, a visit to the Florida's oil-hit Gulf Coast next weekend and a ten-day trip to Martha's Vineyard later this month.
White House press secretary Robin Gibbs was asked at a briefing if there were any concerns about how the visit was being viewed by the public. 'The First Lady is on a private trip,' he said. 'She is a private citizen and is the mother of a daughter on a private trip. I think I'd leave it at that.'
Yesterday New York Daily News columnist and blogger Andrea Tantaros likened the President’s wife to French queen Marie Antoinette, who was famously extravagant with her spending. Tantaros wrote: ‘To be clear, what the Obamas do with their money is one thing; what they do with ours is another.
Transporting and housing the estimated 70 Secret Service agents who will flank the material girl will cost the taxpayers a pretty penny.’ She accused the Obamas of hypocrisy for preaching the values of sacrifice and austerity to Americans while seemingly refusing to heed their own advice. She said: ‘Instead, Michelle Obama seems more like a modern-day Marie Antoinette… than an average mother of two.’
She added: ‘I don't begrudge anyone rest and relaxation when they work hard. We all need downtime - the First Family included. ‘It's the extravagance of Michelle Obama's trip and glitzy destination contrasted with President Obama's demonisation of the rich that smacks of hypocrisy and perpetuates a disconnect between the country and its leaders'.
So Michelle Obama's having a great time screwing-around in Spain with 40 hangers-on, this immediately on the heels of her and Barack's Maine and Martha's Vineyard trips last month... and at an incremental cost to the US taxpayer of almost half-a-million dollars! Michelle Obama's crew has taken an entire floor of the 5-star Villa Padierna in Marbella... rated as one of the finest hotels in the world.
At least Jimmy Carter knew enough to stay home and put on a sweater, joining us in the malaise... as my dad would have said, these Obamas must really think they're something
Publicado: 08-07-2010 01:45 PM
By: Lev Navrozov
Karl Marx was born in 1818. After having graduated from school, he was sent by his father to a university to become a lawyer. Later he made a discovery owing to which the word “Marxism” became one of the most common words of his century and the next.
In his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844), the 26-year-old Marx drew the following conclusion: “The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces — the more his production increases in power and range.”
In Vol.1 of his Capital (published in 1867), Marx explained that the “deficient money” was paid by capitalists, who thus profited more and more from the whole process of production and sale at the expense of their victim: the worker.
Today most citizens of Western Europe recall Karl Marx as an idiot, fortunately long forgotten by many West Europeans. When Karl Marx was fashionable in Western Europe, some West Europeans considered him the greatest thinker on earth.
His utopian socialist theory was tried (e.g., in Soviet Russia) and proved to be destructive and deadly to the country: It led to the destruction of the country’s economic structure, loss of free enterprise, loss of personal freedoms, impoverishment of the people, political repressions, and eventually ended up in usurpation of power by dictatorship.
What about the United States?
Obama, we gather, espouses Marxist ideology. He was elected the U.S. president on the basis of his seemingly bold, new ideas, actually rooted in those old-fashioned, hackneyed, long discredited Marxist socialist platitudes.
I believe that Karl Marx could have enjoyed a similar triumph in the United States. A majority of those who voted for Obama might have known nothing about the future actual repercussions from the choice they were making.
Two views are possible on the successful production of goods and the sales of goods and services: These are due either to the owners’ managerial skills and entrepreneurship or to their ability to rob the workers!
During his presidential campaign, Obama passionately appealed to the Americans to remind them of how bitterly unfair their lives were. Obama promised to bring about universal opulence, change.
He excited the crowds by asking them if they could bring about change, and the resounding answer was, “Yes, we can!” I honestly hope that the voters will be better equipped intellectually in choosing their next president.
On Nov. 9, 2008, The Daily News came out with this announcement: “Obama says he’ll tax the rich, roll back Bush’s cuts for the rich, and will aid the middle class.”
Every country has citizens who are preoccupied with their private lives. There are those who are disillusioned with the way things are in general.
Some are lonely or unhappy in their personal lives. That stratum of the population was traditionally overlooked. Obama, however, demonstrated that this stratum is significantly large, cannot be ignored, and can vote for him, together with those who for one reason or another hoped he would put an end to the U.S. military involvement in Iraq, and there would be no wars.
What is the attitude of a sufficiently intelligent American? Such as my reader, a security account manager in Seattle City Hall & Justice Center. The first paragraph of his e-mail to me of May3, 2010, reads as follows:
I have been reading your columns for some time now and agree
with you on many issues, not the least of which is the intelligence
of the American electorate. I believe it was a Fox News
commentator that sent a crew to Harlem, N.Y., to ask people on
the street, what they thought of Obama’s policies. The catch to this
scenario is that they attributed John McCain’s policies to Obama,
and what do you suppose was the result? More than a few citizens
had high praise for Mr. Obama’s policies even though they were
Mr. McCain’s policies. Facts and the truth matter little to a large
portion of the American electorate.
Any conclusions? Obama was supported by a majority of voters because those voters had been hoping to obtain a better life instead of the oft cited “exploitation,” “oppression,” “racial discrimination,” and other evils of capitalism.
However, time has come for Americans to realize that Obama’s eloquent rhetoric and empty promises during his presidential campaign had only one aim: to win the election. His utopian socialist beliefs have not worked in this country of free enterprise.
He failed to create jobs; he did not stop the inflation; and his national healthcare reform turned out to be disastrous.
In short, his philosophy, according to which he would bring about the “new America,” disastrously failed and is hurting the country.
Short of his cheap, passionate rhetoric and unfulfilled promises, after having been elected and now residing in the White House, Obama certainly managed to show how frivolous the world is, how easy it is to excite and manipulate the voters by making empty promises, with the only purpose to achieve his, Obama’s, personal goal.
Obama’s love for China and the creation of the “U.S. friendship with China” are also personal.
He enjoyed his trip to China, where he rushed to see his junior brother, who had come to live there. Under Obama’s “leadership,” the United States keeps borrowing more and more money from China while dastardly ignoring the mortal danger coming from China, his dear “friend.”
Lev Navrozov can be reached at email@example.com
Publicado: 08-07-2010 03:50 PM
Michelle’s “Excellent Adventure”: Another sign Obama doesn’t really want to be President
Pajamas Media ^ | August 6, 2010 | Roger L Simon
Several weeks ago I wrote I thought Barack Obama didn’t really want to be president. The post generated a fair amount of discussion, pro and con.
Michelle’s $375,000 Spanish vacation — with the Daily Mail dubbing her a “modern-day Marie Antoinette” — is further proof of my thesis. What man who wanted to be re-elected (or see his party do well in November) would let his wife go off on such an “excellent adventure” in these economic times?
Of course no one denies the right of people to have vacations – I’m coming to the end of one myself on my beloved Bainbridge Island — but closing Mediterranean beaches while booking 60-plus rooms in a five star Marbella hotel for her entourage? It is beyond tone deaf, perhaps to the level of subconscious (or even deliberate) self-sabotage.
At the very least, something most peculiar is going on. The first lady goes off on a jaunt worthy of 18th Century aristocracy at the very moment of her husband’s birthday. Is somebody trying to tell us something? Is somebody trying to tell her spouse something? Or vice-versa? Who knows?
You won’t find out in the mainstream media — that’s for sure. They don’t even bother to check Obama’s college records. Perhaps the National Enquirer is on the case. They may be the only hope.
If I were still a member of the Democratic Party, I would be most concerned. What is going on in the White House seems to be so disconnected from the reality of our country — with some indicating real unemployment at a staggering 22% — as to be teetering on the brink of a pyschological disorder. And in this case that disorder would be a folie a deux of some sort because Barack and Michelle appear to be colluding in it in some way, whatever the state of their relationship. And that disconnect — between them and the American people — is growing.
Why is this happening?
Dr. Sam Vaknin, author of Malignant Self Love, a book on narcissism, writes the following in response to a question of the narcissist’s inappropriate affect:
Why is there no connection between the behaviour of the narcissist and his emotions?
A better way of putting it would be that there is a weak correlation between the narcissist’s behaviour and his professed or proclaimed emotions. The reason is that his emotions are merely professed or proclaimed – but not felt. The narcissist fakes feelings and their outer expression in order to impress others, to gain their sympathy or to motivate them to act in a manner benefiting the narcissist and promoting his interests.
In this — as in many other simulated behaviour patterns — the narcissist seeks to manipulate his human environment. Inside, he is barren, devoid of any inkling of true feeling, and disdainful of emotions and emotional people. He looks down upon those who succumb to the weakness of sentiment and holds them in contempt. He berates and debases them.
This is the heartless mechanism of “simulated affect”. It lies at the core of the narcissist’s inability to empathise with his fellow human beings.
To what extent does this explain this increasingly disconnected behavior of Michelle and Barack Obama? At first glance, quite a bit. But maybe it’s simpler. Maybe Michelle and Barack just assume the president is not going to be re-elected, so why bother to keep up pretenses?
Publicado: 08-09-2010 09:33 AM
ALL IN THE OBAMA'S CHICAGO FAMILY
Posted By Rich Trzupek On August 9, 2010 In FrontPage
Among the more appealing messages that Barack Obama campaigned on in 2008 was his promise to change the culture in Washington and usher in a new era of openness and honesty in government. It was the sort of message that still resonates with an increasingly cynical electorate that is, as Obama’s handlers recognized, fed up with the corruption, hidden agendas and back-room deals that characterize life within the beltway.
Voters hoped that this fresh face, so full of earnest enthusiasm and idealistic vision, could be the one to usher in a new era.
Almost two years after that historic election, more and more voters are realizing that not only didn’t get the change they had hoped for, they’re actually getting much more of business as usual than they could have ever imagined. As ethical questions continue to swirl around the people that the president has embraced one cannot help but wonder if the vaunted political acumen of the Obama administration has been vastly overrated, or if the president and his advisors simply feel that they can and should be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people at will.
The list of Obama associates and appointees who have serious ethical problems is long indeed, from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his unpaid taxes  through ex “Green Czar” Van Jones’ communist ties . Now there is a new name on that dishonor roll: the Democratic candidate for the United States Senate seat that was once held by Barack Obama: Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias.
Giannoulias’ sordid history and that of his shady associates should be enough to concern any canny politician this side of Boss Tweed, but the president has embraced Giannoulias as if he were the second coming of Obama himself. Giannoulias’s political baggage has not stopped the president from endorsing a candidate who helped run a bank into the ground, who made millions while that bank bled red ink, and who has ties to the mob and disgraced political figures.
Giannoulias was the senior lender at Broadway Bank from 2002 through 2006. Among the people that he approved for loans were one Michael “Jaws” Giorango, a fellow Giannoulias would describe as a “colorful character.” Giorango is colorful indeed, with a long police blotter that includes multiple convictions for bookmaking and for running a prostitution ring. While he was at the bank, Giannoulias approved an $11.8 million loan that Jaws applied for, although he would later claim that he wasn’t aware of Giorango’s background at the time. Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass set the record straight earlier this year:
“With the Tribune’s editorial board, Giannoulias was asked how his relationship with Giorango developed, and at what point did he learn that Giorango, whom he described as a “colorful character,” had a criminal background. “I learned of it primarily when I was running for the office of state treasurer (in 2006),” Giannoulias said. “I mean, I don’t remember the exact date, whether it was during the primary or during the general. I think it was during the primary.”
He was promptly reminded that on April 27, 2006, during his campaign for treasurer, he told Tribune reporters that he had discussed Giorango’s criminal past with him. The discussion took place as Giannoulias worked on millions of dollars’ worth of bank loans for Giorango. It was years before Giannoulias’ entry into politics.”
No matter, the president has stuck with the man that he described in 2006 in these glowing terms: “He’s one of the most outstanding young men that I could ever hope to meet. He’s somebody who cares deeply about people.” Rather than retreating from that faulty assessment, in the light of all of the damning revelations that has surfaced over the last four years, Obama doubled down during a recent Giannoulias fundraiser , declaring: “Alexi is my friend. I know his character. I know how much he loves this country. I know how committed he is to public service for all the right reasons. You can trust him. You can count on him.”
Giannoulias’ record suggests that Illinois voters can indeed “count on him,” but not in the sense that the president intended. Certainly, one can count on Giannoulias to take care of himself: he personally reaped about $10 million in “profits” from Broadway Bank, while his family as a whole extracted $70 million in dividends . Yet, the bank made so many questionable loans that the FDIC had to step in  with public funds to save depositors. Isn’t that the kind of behavior that the president has repeatedly denounced with regard to Wall Street, with much less justification?
The questionable behavior of the Democrats’ nominee for the U.S. Senate in Illinois doesn’t stop there. Giannoulias’ bank also approved a loan of $22.75 million  to Riverside District Development LLC, a company whose owners included Tony Rezko, a key advisor to and fund raiser for disgraced Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich and a fellow who also has close ties to the president himself. Rezko has been convicted of six counts of wire fraud, six counts of mail fraud, two counts of corrupt solicitation, and two counts of money laundering. Giannoulias’ brother Demetris was twice appointed  to a pposition with the Illinois Finance Authority and their father donated $10,000 to the Blagojevich campaign.
Since the 2008 election, every endorsement issued by the president has turned into the political kiss of death. The fact that Obama would stick with as troubled a candidate as Alexi Giannoulias isn’t all that troubling when we consider the now-limited effect of the president’s support, but it is disturbing when we evaluate what such blind loyalty says about this administration. If they aren’t able to comprehend that a slimy candidate like Alexi Giannoulias is political poison, are they capable of understanding that corruption matters at all?
Publicado: 08-09-2010 01:33 PM
Obama’s Happy Depression
Posted By Benjamin Shapiro On August 9, 2010 @ 12:06 am In FrontPage |
Last Tuesday morning, Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner “welcomed” us to the recovery. Seriously. “[A] review of recent data on the American economy shows that we are on a path back to growth,” he assured us. “The recession that began in late 2007 was extraordinarily severe, but the action we took at its height to stimulate the economy helped arrest the freefall, preventing an even deeper collapse and putting the economy on the road to recovery.”
This is what we call whistling through the graveyard. It’s Geithner channeling Groucho Marx circa “Duck Soup”: “Who’re you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?”
The Obama administration wants us to believe them. What evidence do they provide to the effect that they “saved” the economy? Vagaries heaped upon vagaries; meaningless phrases piled atop meaningless phrases. No hard numbers of any value.
In fact, the Second Great Depression is just beginning. And just as during the First Great Depression, economic liberals are declaring that it doesn’t exist. “The depression is over,” President Herbert Hoover told a group of clergymen in 1930. “I am convinced,” he said in 1931, “we have passed the worst and with continued effort we shall rapidly recover.” In 1930, the national unemployment rate — which was a true unemployment rate, not today’s watered down version, which doesn’t count people who have totally dropped out of the job market — was 8.7 percent. In 1931, it was 15.8 percent. Today, our real unemployment rate is somewhere near 20 percent.
Hoover was wrong and so are Obama and his lackeys. And just like Hoover, Obama will take measures that are economically feasible in a strong economy but absolutely disastrous in a weak one.
After declaring the economy on the rebound, Hoover pursued three economic measures: raising tariffs, raising spending and raising taxes. Despite his personal opposition to the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, Hoover signed it into law, stating, “With returning normal conditions, our foreign trade will continue to expand.”
He raised government spending as well; between 1929 and 1933, Hoover raised real per capita federal spending by 88 percent. He forced through the construction of the Reconstruction Finance Corp., an agency designed to lend money to banks and building and loan associations, among other businesses.
“I have been called a socialist, a Bolshevik, a communist and a lot of other terms of similar nature,” fumed Rep. Fiorello La Guardia (R-N.Y.), “but in the wildest flights of my imagination, I never thought of such a thing as putting the government into business as far as this bill would put it in.”
Even as he raised spending, Hoover hypocritically called for tamping down the deficit. His solution: raising taxes. “Nothing will contribute more to the return of prosperity than to maintain the sound fiscal pposition of the federal government,” he declared in 1931.
President Obama’s supposedly rosy view of the economy is designed to justify further intrusion into the economy. And the measures he seeks are eerily reminiscent of Hoover’s favored policies. Cap and trade, Obama’s environmentalist plan, nearly started a trade war when it was merely introduced in Congress. Like Hoover, Obama opposes a carbon tariff that would level the playing field for American businesses disadvantaged by cap and trade — and like Hoover, he has made no suggestion that he would veto cap and trade were it to include such a provision.
Obama clearly favors more spending — in all of his talk about bringing down the deficit, he has never embraced wide-ranging cuts in federal expenditures. Rather, he attempts to blame President Bush for spending that created deficits, despite the fact that in Obama’s first two years, he will have raised the national debt more than President Bush did in all eight years of his presidency.
Obama has focused, as Hoover did, on raising taxes. This week, Obama warned Republicans that he would “call them on their bluff” with regard to deficits. By that, he meant that he would push Republicans to raise taxes in order to prove their dedication to a balanced budget.
Obama justifies all of this, as Hoover did, with empty bravado about the strength of the U.S. economy. The difference between Obama and Hoover is that Obama knows that the economy remains weak. Hoover wasn’t an ideologue; he was ignorant. Obama has Hoover’s example to examine — and he’s willfully imitating it for redistributionist ideological reasons.
We’re entering the Second Great Depression. Unlike the first one, our current administration is pushing America knowingly into the pit, all the while singing, “Happy Days Are Here Again.”
Publicado: 08-12-2010 04:31 PM
Stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why his regime is in meltdown
By Nile Gardiner
LONDON TELEGRAPH August 12th, 2010
The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House.
While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.
Against this backdrop, the president’s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer, with the latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of US voters dropping to minus 22 points, the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office. While just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president’s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, strongly disapprove. According to Rasmussen, 65 per cent of voters believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents.
The RealClearPolitics average of polls now has President Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving.
Related link: The Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime
There are an array of reasons behind the stunning decline and political fall of President Obama, chief among them fears over the current state of the US economy, with widespread concern over high levels of unemployment, the unstable housing market, and above all the towering budget deficit. Americans are increasingly rejecting President Obama’s big government solutions to America’s economic woes, which many fear will lead to the United States sharing the same fate as Greece.
Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President’s aloof and imperial sstyle of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lacklustre handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire.
On the national security and foreign policy front, President Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one.
Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.
1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people
In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.
2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership
This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.
3. Obama fails to inspire
In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2006 Convention speech in Chicago which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.
4. The United States is drowning in debt
The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-sstyle financial crisis.
5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat
The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.
6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake
In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-sstyle vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”
7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.
8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration
It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.
9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security
From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.
10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness
Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.
There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.
This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.
The Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime: extravagant and out of touch with the American people
By Nile Gardiner World
August 7th, 2010
What the great French historian Alexis de Tocqueville would make of today’s Obama administration were he alive today is anyone’s guess. But I would wager that the author of L’Ancien Régime and Democracy in America would be less than impressed with the extravagance and arrogance on display among the White House elites that rule America as though they had been handed some divine right to govern with impunity.
It is the kind of impunity that has been highlighted on the world stage this week by Michelle Obama’s hugely costly trip to Spain, which has prompted a New York Post columnist Andrea Tantaros to dub the First Lady a contemporary Marie Antoinette. As The Telegraph reports, while the Obamas are covering their own vacation expenses such as accommodation, the trip may cost US taxpayers as much as $375,000 in terms of secret service security and flight costs on Air Force Two.
The timing of this lavish European vacation could not have come at a worse moment, when unemployment in America stands at 10 percent, and large numbers of Americans are fighting to survive financially in the wake of the global economic downturn. It sends a message of indifference, even contempt, for the millions of Americans who are struggling just to feed their families on a daily basis and pay the mortgage, while the size of the national debt balloons to Greek-sstyle proportions.
While the liberal-dominated US mainstream media have largely ignored the story, it is all over the blogosphere and talk radio, and will undoubtedly add to the President’s free falling poll ratings. As much as the media establishment turn a blind eye to stories like this, which are major news in the international media, the American public is increasingly turning to alternative news sources, including the British press, which has a far less deferential approach towards the White House.
The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Marbella and the complete disregard for public opinion and concerns over excessive government spending is symbolic of a far wider problem with the Obama presidency – the overarching disdain for the principles of limited government, individual liberty and free enterprise that have built the United States over the course of nearly two and a half centuries into the most powerful and free nation on earth.
It is epitomised above all by the President’s relentless drive towards big government against the will of the American people, and the dramatic increases in government spending and borrowing, which threaten to leave the US hugely in debt for generations. It is also showcased by Barack Obama’s drive towards a socialised health care system, which, as I’ve noted before, is “a thinly disguised vanity project for a president who is committed to transforming the United States from the world’s most successful large-scale free enterprise economy, to a highly interventionist society with a massive role for centralized government.”
There is however a political revolution fast approaching Washington that is driven not by mob rule but by the power of ideas and principles, based upon the ideals of the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution. It is a distinctly conservative revolution that is sweeping America and is reflected in almost every poll ahead of this November’s mid-terms. It is based on a belief in individual liberty, limited government, and above all, political accountability from the ruling elites. The Obama administration’s mantra may well be “let them eat cake”, as it continues to gorge itself on taxpayers’ money, but it will be looking nervously over its shoulder as public unease mounts.