Views on the News
March 31, 2012
Views on the News*
Today America is in the midst of a revolution because America has elected a President who has vowed to fundamentally transform America, but what he meant by transformation was changing this country into something the people did not want. He promised this to his adoring supporters before his election, and he has worked tirelessly to bring it about. He is an Alinsky style community organizer who is working to organize our community by occupying the center of power and the streets at the same time. He follows the Cloward / Piven Strategy spending us into oblivion in the name of saving the economy. He has seized major portions of the economy and shoved national health insurance, a financial sector take-over, and undeclared war down the throats of a passive American public. Polls show that vast majorities do not want what he is selling but he is closing the deal anyway. Right now Obama is campaigning day and night for another term, and a term that would be without restraint for a President who has already said he can rule without Congress. He would undoubtedly appoint at least one more Supreme Court Justice and solidify America’s passage from a federal republic to a European style social democracy. Now is the time for all good citizens to come to the aid of our nation. We must stand up for our heritage. We must do battle in the marketplace of ideas, and we must engage in the struggle at the ballot box, but we must also prepare to save some seed corn in case the winter does descend. We must preserve what we can so we can begin again. So “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Keep the faith; keep the peace; use your vote wisely, and we shall overcome.
(“We Know the Problem… What’s the Answer?” by Robert R. Owens dated march 22, 2012 published by Canada Free Press at http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45446 )
It's becoming increasingly clear that Barack Obama, unable to run for re-election on a record of positive economic accomplishments during his first term, has decided to reframe the election debate as a final choice between two worldviews. The competing worldviews to be settled in the upcoming election will be between those who believe that the government's job is to "deliver economic justice" and those who believe that the government's job is to "promote economic opportunity." Interestingly, the conflict between freedom for individual wealth-creation at all economic levels and government-enforced wealth-redistribution has roiled since the earliest days of our nation's founding. The Declaration of Independence formally challenged the worldwide governing model. Its opening sentence presents a humble pronouncement that common people poorly governed are free to pledge obedience to governance under a power higher than human rule to secure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In the last sixty years, an ever-growing effort has evolved, bringing the nation closer again to governance by a crushing central government mandating a collectivist egalitarian model of wealth redistribution not unlike that which failed for the early Pilgrims. The Great Recession of 2008 has spawned a full assault by Barack Obama and his Democrat Party on the private-enterprise system and individual liberty. Their policies now threaten without apology to end the great experiment embodied in the country's founding. Clearly, spending on such a gigantic scale has hit home for many terrified Americans. They see the future for themselves, their children, and their grandchildren doomed to an era of continued low prosperity and massive corruption. Taking money by coercion from one to give to another has been historically called "theft" -- not "fairness." Will the Obama administration, by dispensing largesse on a massive scale in exchange for votes, subvert the limited central government model inherent in our Constitution? Will we revert to governance under the age-old model of strong central authority maintaining top-down power and control? Can the Republican candidates for President and Congress articulate the blessings of widespread wealth and prosperity resulting from unleashing individual liberty with individual responsibility versus powerless masses scrambling to just get a piece of the dole? Or have Democrats convinced a sufficient number of voters to let "economic justice" replace "economic opportunity"? The coming election provides voters the first real opportunity afforded by our Constitution for Americans to render their decision on which worldview they wish to adopt, since Mr. Obama has made the choice so clear.
(“The Coming Clash of Worldviews” by John McLaughlin dated March 23, 2012 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/the_coming_clash_of_worldviews.html )
Outside the Beltway, polling indicates a massacre of Senate Democrats is in the offing in the 2012 elections and not only is this shift going to doom Obama’s chances, it will engulf Democrat candidates up and down the line. Ever since the GOP victory of 2010, Obama has emulated Harry Truman in attacking the “do-nothing Congress,” a theme that underscored Truman’s 1948 reelection. In a reprise of 2008, he is trying to run against the “culture” in Washington and the “gridlock” in our system. While he hasn’t done much damage to Republicans seeking election, he has inflicted massive harm on his own party. As he excoriates Congress for not passing his “jobs” bill and complains about the toxic atmosphere in which he is forced to dwell, he is ruining his own party’s chances. Nothing else can explain fully the drop in the support Obama voters give the Democrat Senate candidates. In Obama’s reelection strategy, it appears that he plans very little defense of his own abysmal record, understandably, and will run an ad hominem campaign against Romney. His party should realize just how ineffective ad hominem negatives were in 2010. No Democrat Congressman ran on Obama’s record as each tried to savage his particular opponent. Two years ago, it seemed that Republican Congressman Paul Ryan’s Medicare reforms would give Democrats a place to stand, but Ryan’s newfound moderation, masquerading as a deal with Democrat Senator Ron Wyden undercuts that premise. The Democrats now stand accused by their own President of doing nothing, fostering a toxic atmosphere and promoting gridlock which is a great way to run for reelection.
(“Is Obama Leading Senate Dems to Slaughter?” by Dick Morris dated March 28, 2012 published by Real Clear Politics at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/03/28/is_obama_leading_senate_dems_to_slaughter_113646.html )
Both in his re-election campaign and as the core principle of his Presidency, Barack Obama asks America to cast off reliance on the free market because, in his characterization, the free market “doesn’t work,” in favor of the European model of ever-tightening, ever-regulating, ever-expanding governance. This he does, astonishingly, at the very moment of the European model’s long-predictable crisis, collapse, bankruptcy, and devolution. With his trademark certainty he proposes that we follow him over the Niagara to which his back is turned. Promiscuous endorsement of things European, inveterate in the President’s academic coterie, has long been characteristic of American snobs in suppressing and over-engineering their economies they court national bankruptcies. Just as reckless are Obama’s efforts to ameliorate economic stagnation via the all-guzzling welfare state. Shall we create more jobs by aping Europe, which since 1990 has averaged 9.16% unemployment while ours was 5.95%? Like the leaders of the bankrupt states of Europe, President Obama believes that the key to prosperity is to regulate, engineer, and direct the economy; to raise taxes; to augment the powers of government; to substitute collective largess for family cohesion; to spend money that does not exist. Because the President is apparently repelled by the principles of the American Founding and lacks an alternative other than the European model, nothing else is in his quiver as he is driven by the dread of a future absent his omnipresent intervention. The evidence is overwhelming that Europe is a model, but it’s a model of the policies to avoid, not the ones to emulate.
(“Should America Copy Europe, as Obama Believes?” by Daniel J. Mitchell dated March 28, 2012 published by Town Hall at http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2012/03/28/should_america_copy_europe_as_obama_believes )
Oil and gas production in the United States has risen every year since the President’s been in office and America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years, but it has little to do with anything done by Obama and his rabid anti-oil administration. On a federal level, Obama went out of his way to limit oil production in America. The President revealed his agenda from the start, as shown by appointment of Ken Salazar as Secretary of the interior. In 2008, then-Senator Salazar said he would not approve of any new plan even if the price of gasoline were $10 a gallon. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar “canceled land leases for energy development on 77 parcels of land in Utah. 2010 saw a 79% drop in leasing in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming from 2005. Total onshore royalties dropped 33% in just two years.” Salazar also imposed a six-month drilling moratorium on the Gulf of Mexico following BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The administration kept the ban in place, despite a judge overturning it. The Obama administration was later held in contempt of court. Even though the ban was “lifted,” so few permits have been handed out that the term “permatorium” emerged to describe the administration’s attitude towards oil exploration in the Gulf. Revenue from offshore lease sales dropped from $9.5 billion in 2008 to $36 million in 2011. Not to be left out, the EPA under Lisa Jackson withheld “critical air permits” from Shell Oil Company, forcing them to abandon their oil drilling plans in Alaska. Let’s not forget how Secretary of Energy Steven Chu looked forward to the time when gas prices in America compared with Europe (between $7 to $9 ar gallon). His choice for science adviser, John Holdren, has also discussed the need for higher gas prices to show “rising monetary costs for energy when its environmental and socio-political hazards are adequately internalized and insured against.” Today, 85% of the Outer-Continental Shelf has been placed off limits once again. Today, in the Rocky Mountains, the leasing has gone down 70% since taking office. Overall, oil and gas production on federally controlled land is down by 40% since Obama took office. While oil production is up, the increase relates almost entirely to investment and leasing decisions made before, sometimes long before, this administration came into office. The increase is also due to oil and gas development on private and state lands over which the administration has little or no control at all. New technologies are also a reason for the increase in oil supply, as is the high price of oil, making it lucrative to drill for oil in places once cost-prohibitive. So while it’s true oil production in America is up, this is clearly in spite of Team Obama’s best efforts. Hundreds of small oil companies, not “Big Oil,” as environmentalists want you to believe, are able to drill for oil on private and state land, unencumbered by the heavy hand of Obama’s anti-oil agenda. It’s disingenuous, at best, for the President to take credit for the increase, considering the work he and his administration applied to limiting it, and it’s downright dishonest for him to take credit for work that began under his predecessor, considering how much blame he has put at President Bush’s feet for his own failed policies.
(“U.S. Oil Production Increases in Spite of Team Obama’s Best efforts” by Duane Lester dated March 24, 2012 published by PJ Media at http://pjmedia.com/blog/u-s-oil-production-increases-in-spite-of-team-obamas-best-efforts/ )
Since its inception in 2009, the TEA Party movement has been working tirelessly to downsize big government and while the movement’s central theme has been bringing a semblance of fiscal sanity to government at the national and state levels, it also seeks to make the Constitution the guide for Presidential, Congressional and judicial decisions. Many of the issues the movement has focused on, including bailouts and debt, are well-known to voters. Importantly, however, the movement has also focused voters’ attention on how the lack of respect shown by both major political parties toward the nation’s founding principles has undermined our basic liberties. Now, the Georgia TEA Party has crafted a list of grievances, “The Marietta Declaration,” which outlines how the last several presidents have violated the Constitution and offers a set of guidelines for pulling ourselves out of the big-government quicksand. This document explains how our presidents have become quasi-legislatures who make policy through executive orders and signing statements, with little in the way of checks and balances, while executive branch agencies enact policies and laws through regulatory fiat, also without the approval of Congress. The Marietta Declaration calls for a return to federalism, a principle of government expressly guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment but which has been largely ignored by modern presidents, Congresses and federal judges. More specifically, the document supports abolishing “federal departments and programs that are not performing responsibilities expressly delegated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.” It also calls on the President to rescind any and all executive orders “that exceed the executive authority” expressed in the Constitution, for “czars” to be eliminated unless they are properly confirmed by the Senate and for the lawmaking process to be returned to Congress. While some in Washington may scoff at suggestions put forward by TEA Partiers, TEA Partiers proved in the 2010 midterm elections that they are too influential to ignore. The Republican Party would do well to incorporate the principles expressed in the Marietta Declaration into its platform, and the GOP’s eventual nominee could do himself a real favor by acting similarly.
(“Marietta Declaration a good blueprint for GOP” by Bob Barr dated March 25, 2012 published by The Daily Caller at http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/25/marietta-declaration-a-good-blueprint-for-gop/ )
The President of the United States is knowingly and in plain sight sabotaging this nation's defenses while many Democrat Presidential contenders before Obama had pandered to pacifists and the armies of the naïve swelling the Democratic base in order to get elected. But none of these individuals actually took proactive steps to completely remove America's nuclear triad from the list of strategic options. Obama has done what no guardian of America would do: systematically tear down the most vital of America's defenses, all while America's enemies wait with bated breath for the nation that owes trillions in debt to be left standing defenseless. Americans may be the unintended (intended?) victims of a perverse social experiment. Leaks from high-level defense sources reveal that in addition to commitments under the New START agreement, which brings the total number of deliverable U.S. warheads to 1,000 (an unacceptably low number that prevents the U.S. from being able to destroy the 3,000 priority strategic targets identified by the DoD) Obama now plans to implement an 80% force reduction that will leave America with only 300 deliverable warheads. Such a move is suicidal and is wholly insufficient to protect America from the growing list of dangerous and erratic nuclear regimes with global ambitions. Even more crucial to understanding the risk inherent in such a decision is the role of U.S. nuclear weapons stockpiles as a deterrent. Americans have only been able to live the cushy, carefree existence of the last half-century, now taken for granted by new generations of youngsters who have known only prosperity and for whom Cold War politics are moot, because the U.S. possessed a credible nuclear arsenal capable of devastating any adversary. It is because of, not in spite of, America's nuclear assets that America has survived multiple existential threats. The danger of nuclear confrontation has increased, not decreased, since the end of the Cold War. The likelihood of nuclear exchange has increased rapidly, mirroring the acquisition of nuclear weapons by small and medium-sized states, with multiple hostile nuclear powers now vying for global influence. Obama is at best gravely naïve if he is pursuing drastic and suicidal cuts to our arsenal at the present time. Obama has been busy gutting American conventional forces as well. The Army and the Marines are to be significantly downsized, even as their global commitments expand. Consequently, America can no longer simultaneously fight two major wars in two theaters of deployment, a capability deemed vital by defense insiders to ensuring America's defense against coalitions of aggressor states, and now a plausible scenario owing to the Russian military buildup in the Middle East and the increasingly belligerent actions of China on every front. The Navy thinly escaped Obama's hacksaw. Recent studies commissioned by DoD indicate that the present number of aircraft carrier battle groups is not sufficient to maintain an adequate defensive posture in the Pacific, where U.S.-Taiwanese forces are under constant threat of nuclear exchange with China. Modernization efforts have been canned, and shipbuilding will be greatly slowed, which will cause the fleet to shrink by approximately 70 ships in the 2020s. Enter and exit the U.S. Air Force. The Air Force has been forced to lose several hundred planes, even though its present number is already below the threshold admittedly needed to carry out tactical bombing campaigns. Can anyone seriously argue that the U.S. Air Force can actually manage a conflict involving multiple major powers at one time, especially if cuts of the magnitude enacted go unchallenged? America's President has done more to harm American security than our greatest foes could ever dream of doing, and he has done it with both eyes wide open, willingly, with full knowledge of the implications, which raises the obvious question: what word describes a president who will do this to his own country? Obama admittedly seeks the eradication of American superpower status and even if a case can be made for a reduced U.S. footprint worldwide or for a less interventionist foreign policy, would a loyal American knowingly seek to undermine his or her nation's greatness merely to satisfy some philosophical pretense to equality with "everybody else"?
(“What Happened to Preserve, Protect, and Defend?” by John Griffing dated March 28, 2012 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/what_happened_to_preserve_protect_and_defend.html )
* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning. Updates have been made this week to the following issue sections: