RTCS

Views on the News

April 2, 2011

Views on the News*

Obama spoke to the nation about Libya, ten days after the war began, to explain his rationale, but it was full of contradictions particularly when viewed against his criticism of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama’s intent to convince America that his decision was sound was a failure, because his words only invigorated his sycophants and mystified his skeptics. Americans have been given contradictory signals about what is at stake and what President Obama is prepared to do. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned of the challenges of a no-fly zone, only to see the President agree to impose one. It doesn’t help that Obama can’t even call a war a war, but instead prefers to pretend it is something else called a “kinetic military action” which does not inspire confidence. Candidate Obama in 2007: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Like their Democrat friends, Harry “The War is Lost” Reid and Nancy “Iraq Was a Grotesque Mistake” Pelosi, the media parroted the loyal opposition in the Bush years. It is astonishing to see the contrast between their talking points on “Cowboy” Bush vs. those on “General” Obama:

·    National Interest - President Bush explained that the United States needed to 1) enforce the multiple UN Security Council Resolutions that were passed after the first Gulf War, 2) ensure the WMDs were destroyed as required by the UN Resolutions, 3) remove the regime that supports terrorists, and 4) topple Saddam Hussein and free the Iraqi people. President Obama could not cite a vital national interest but instead cited preventing a massacre for humanitarian reasons (“Responsibility to Protect”) but the Coalition has more expansive objectives including regime change and supporting and even arming the rebels despite some belonging to al-Qaeda.

·    Goals - President Bush pledged to 1) enforce the UN Resolutions, 2) ensure WMDs were destroyed, 3) change the Iraqi government, and 4) remove Saddam Hussein. President Obama endorsed only enforcing a No-Fly Zone, but the Coalition has differing goals.

·    Military Mission – President Bush tasked the military to defeat the Iraqi military and take over the country under US leadership. President Obama asked the military to establish a No-Fly Zone under NATO leadership, but there is some question whether a No-Fly Zone alone will accomplish the Coalition goals and whether the US forces will ever disengage.

·    United Nations - President Bush negotiated an additional UN Security Council Resolution authorizing the resumption of weapons inspections and authorizing serious consequences for noncompliance. President Obama negotiated a UN Security Council Resolution to use “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians, but the Arab League first endorsed the No-Fly Zone before they de-committed after the first bombs landed.

·    International Coalition - President Bush was accused of unilateral action despite assembling 48 countries to go into Afghanistan and 40 to go into Iraq with varying levels of commitment. President Obama has a 15 member Coalition, but after only a week the level of commitment has deteriorated and is losing members.

·    American People – President Bushrushed into war” for ten months to assemble support and received a Congressional Resolution for the use of force. President Obama dithered for three weeks while conditions deteriorated in Libya, then initiated a military action while he vacationed, and ten days later he finally spoke to the American people to rationalize his actions and still has not asked for Congressional support.

·    Exit Strategy – President Bush did not have a documented exit strategy when he first went into Afghanistan or Iraq, but developed quantifiable measures of success to establish completion criteria. President Obama has no exit strategy to complement his lack of defined goals and mission, but has already committed to be done in “days not weeks.”

Presidential candidate Joe Biden in 2007 said he’d personally lead the impeachment if the President went to war with Iran without a Congressional vote. The biggest shortcoming of Obama’s speech was not defining criteria that could be applied country by country in the Middle East, as they each display many of the same characteristics as Libya. Obama has lost his credibility since he squandered it on a series of manufactured “crises” that were used to justify his leftist domestic agenda, and although he still reads a wonderful teleprompter speech, the content was weak, his message was mixed, and his leadership is suspect.

(“Obama’s case for war” dated March 28, 2011 published by Chicago Tribune at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-libya-20110328,0,5037169.story

Obama’s Libyan War” by Brent Bozell dated March 29, 2011 published by News Busters at http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2011/03/29/bozell-column-obamas-libyan-war

Born Again Leftist Hawks” by Daniel Flynn dated March 30, 2011 published by Front Page Magazine at http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/30/born-again-leftist-hawks/ )

There is a great deal of talk about the Arab Spring but it may turn out to be an ‘Islamist Springas the various countries determine their own futures, and at this crucial juncture in history, a time of unparalleled danger not just for individual countries but for western civilization, the west has not produced one single leader who possesses the insight, statesmanship and moral courage to deal with it. First of all, our current declared policy is utterly incoherent. In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood appears to be in pole position to come to power in the elections planned for later this year. The initial claim is that the aim in Libya is not regime change, yet bombing Gaddafy’s compound hardly signals their desire that he should stay alive, let alone in power. In Libya, either Gaddafy will survive, in which case the begetter of the atrocity against the west over Lockerbie will doubtless be sufficiently enraged against the west to return to anti-western terror; or, should he fall, there seems to be a more than sporting chance that the Islamists he has until now fought off will eventually come out on top. Meanwhile, hundreds of people are thought to have died in Syria’s brutal crackdown against unrest there. The rule of thumb for western ‘progressives’ is that tyrants can stay in office if they are the mortal enemies of freedom, democracy and human rights and are helping the jihad – in which case it is a ‘war crime’ to get rid of them; the only ones they want to get rid of are those who are resisting the jihad. Tumultuous changes are under way in the Arab world, and at present, it is unclear what the outcome will be. The US is currently led by a President whose lethal anti-western radicalism has rendered America an impotent giant, whose powerlessness is plain for all the enemies of the west to see. So the utterly brilliant achievement of Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama may be to help bring to power jihadis or others with interests inimical to the west,  in countries in which they had previously had been confined to their box. Instead of being reasonably helpful to us, such states would therefore become intent on doing us harm. So Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama would have made the world an infinitely more dangerous place and quite likely hugely strengthened the Islamic jihad against their own countries.

(“Humpty in Toytown and the Arab Boomerang” by Melanie Phillips dated March 29, 2011 published by The Spectator at http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6826459/humpty-in-toytown-and-the-arab-boomerang.thtml )

The current uprisings in the Middle East cry out for American leadership, but currently we are not leading and we are not protecting our economic interests. There are two reasons for this: 1) No one else is capable of leading; and 2) we have vital economic interests in that region to see that the oil flows freely. Instead we are allowing events to shape our policy rather than let our policy shape events:

·    In Libya we should remember during the crisis: 1) we should not have gotten involved in Libya, but now that we have we must have the removal of Qaddafi as our endgame. Leaving him in power, even in a crippled state, is not an option; and 2) it is in our best interests to have democratic governments in power in the region, or as democratic as we can get in the Arab world.

·    In Egypt, constitutional amendments were approved (most likely with a great deal of voter fraud) that all but guarantee that the Muslim Brotherhood will be a partner in the new government if not in outright control of it.

·    In Tunisia, the secular regime of Ben Ali will probably be replaced by something more Islamic. Not along the lines of Saudi Arabia or Iran, but it is possible that Tunisia will go down the same road that Turkey did with incremental, and gradual, Islamic policies until the rights of the individual are completely subsumed by Sharia law.

·    In Yemen, President Saleh still clings to power as of right now, but his days are certainly numbered. There is a very active Al-Qaeda movement within the country and any new regime will either find itself unable to confront, unwilling to confront it, or actively collaborating with it.

·    In Bahrain, Iran has viewed Bahrain the way the Chinese look at Taiwan, as a renegade province that needs to be brought under control. As a key American ally, the fall of Bahrain would spell trouble for our strategic interests, our military presence, and coupled with trouble in Oman could threaten shipping through the straits of Hormuz, where most oil headed to the United States is shipped through.

The U.S. clearly has no strategy, no policy, no game plan on what it should do. We cannot afford to proclaim our opposition to a ruler, then leave him in power. Secondly, we should support those Arabs (and yes they do exist) who sincerely want democratic reforms and a free society. We can’t afford to let the chips fall where they may, take our chances, and maybe we end up with half a dozen Iranian client states. President Obama must lead, and that doesn’t mean voting “present” on issues in this region, and whether he likes it or not he must commit support to factions that support our national interests.

(“We Don’t Know What Will Happen in the Middle East” by Craig Chamberlain dated March 24, 2011 published by The Land of the Free at http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conservativeopinion/2011/03/24/we-dont-know-what-will-happe-in-the-middle-east/ )

 

Conservatives have often complained about Rahm Emanuel’s now well-known maxim, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.  A serious crisis is an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.” but unfortunately the Obama administration has wasted many opportunities afforded by legitimate crises.  President Obama has spent his first two years trying to enact laws (ObamaCare, cap and trade) to address crises (health care, global warming) that most of the public not only doesn’t regard as “serious,” but doesn’t believe exist. From the turmoil in the Middle East to the federal budget, the President has been indecisive, distracted, disengaged, and derelict in the face of our country’s most serious challenges. The Obama administration deliberated for weeks about whether or not to establish a no-fly zone in Libya, and finally the administration agreed to ready plans to enforce a no-fly zone after the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution authorizing member countries to use “all necessary measures to protect civilians.” French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron both showed public frustration with Obama’s lack of leadership on Libya and his indecisiveness on the Middle East had exasperated Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who “is not happy … dealing with a President who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up.” This is not the first instance of indecision. After months of delay, Obama finally announced in late 2009 his decision to deploy 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, but then he severely undercut that decision by announcing a date for withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country. Obama has been derelict in tackling the federal deficit, punting on the budget deficit and ignoring the problem. The notion that Obama is indifferent to or indecisive about the major issues facing the country and the world is only reinforced by images of him playing golf, filling out NCAA basketball brackets, and hobnobbing with Hollywood celebrities.  The Audacity of Hope served as President Obama’s 2008 campaign manifesto, but it is ironic that it’s been Obama’s lack of audacity in executing many of the duties of the Presidency that has become one of his defining characteristics

(“Obama a Hesitant Crisis Manager” by Gary Bauer dated March 21, 2011 published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42402 )

 

Paul Krugman is a New York Times guru of Political Correctness and the epitome of a mental lockbox among "educated" liberal elite who just mouth the platitudes of the left, because he never learned to open his mind. It is pathetic that someone so intellectually gifted engages in self-censorship, because in a free marketplace of ideas Liberal ideas can't survive. Liberal bunker mentality is constantly promoted by the media and it is key to their stranglehold over our national discourse. Today China, India and Russia have thrown off their Marxist shackles and their economies are suddenly thriving, and we can still see the wonders of South Korea right next to the Stalinist nightmare of the North.  Imagine what leftists had to do to their own minds, to drown out the memory of those 100 million innocent victims of Marxism in the 20th century. Funny thing, the Europeans are finally getting it and saying so. Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron have all called for a halt to the suicidal ideology of anti-Western "multi-culturalism," which claims there is no difference between civilization and barbarism. But Paul Krugman and the rest of the die-hard liberals just don't get it. Meanwhile conservatism is thriving in the free media. The left only controls Pravda and Izvestiya, the New York Times and the Washington Post, and they are losing market share. No one with a shred of skepticism believes the so-called liberal mainstream media today. In Krugman's specialty of economics, he must be shutting out working economists in the free market tradition, a consistent build-up of evidence and theory stretching from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman. Krugmanism means cutting off half your intellect and all your knowledge of history. Facts and reasoning mean nothing, not when it comes to the blasted heath of their ideological pieties. Progressives are admired, not for their knowledge, competence or wisdom, but for how much reality they can shut out without actually bumping into glass doors or slipping on old banana skins. Our President proves it almost every day. He even explains in his two (!) autobiographies how he ended up with lifelong mind-lock: in college Obama restricted his friends and teachers to Marxists and Third World radicals, whose ignorance equaled or exceeded his own. It's a sort of self-made cult, a formula for a bunkered mind. The left doesn't need official censors because they carry their own censors in their heads. Liberals are constantly telling their obedient flocks what not to listen to, like Fox News. We stay astonished by the Mind-locked Media, to see what kind of disinformation they pump out every day. Leftist censorship often seems like a source of power for the left, but it's also a great weakness, because reality keeps finding them out.  Ever since he took office Obama has looked stunned that nothing works the way he expects, because he is a victim of the propaganda monopoly of the left. Harvard's ingrown political culture never prepared him for this. In the age of free media on the web, if conservatives lose the battle of ideas it will be their own fault.

(“Paul Krugman and the Know-Nothings” by James Lewis dated March 21, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/paul_krugman_and_the_knownothi.html )

 

Geographically, our population is moving to the south and west, and people are clearly voting with their feet what type of work environment and tax structure they desire. What's been happening is that people from the Northeast and the Midwest have been flocking to the South Atlantic states, not to retirement communities but to Tampa and Jacksonville, Atlanta and Charlotte and Raleigh, which are among the nation's fastest-growing metro areas. Coastal California, in contrast, has had a vast inflow of immigrants and a similarly vast outflow of Americans. High housing costs, exacerbated by no-growth policies and environmental restrictions, have made modest homes unaffordable to middle class families who don't want to live in Spanish-speaking neighborhoods or commute 50 miles to work. California for the first time in its history grew only microscopically faster than the nation as a whole. Metro Los Angeles and San Francisco increasingly resemble Mexico City and Sao Paulo, with a large affluent upper class, a vast proletariat and a huge income gap in between. Public policy plays an important role here, one that's especially relevant as state governments seek to cut spending and reduce the power of the public employee unions that seek to raise spending and prevent accountability. The lesson is that high taxes and strong public employee unions tend to stifle growth and produce a two-tier society like coastal California's. The eight states with no state income tax grew 18% in the last decade, while the other states (including the District of Columbia) grew just 8%. The 22 states with right-to-work laws grew 15% in the last decade, while the other states grew just 6%. The 16 states where collective bargaining with public employees is not required grew 15% in the last decade, while the other states grew 7%. The most rapid growth in 2000-10, 21 percent, was in the Rocky Mountain states and in Texas. The Rocky Mountain states tend to have low taxes, weak unions and light regulation. Texas has no state income tax, no public employee union bargaining and light regulation. Texas' economy has diversified far beyond petroleum, with booming high-tech centers, major corporate headquarters and thriving small businesses. It has attracted hundreds of thousands of Americans and immigrants, high-skill as well as low-skill. Its wide open spaces made for low housing costs, which protected it against the housing bubble and bust that has slowed growth in Phoenix and Las Vegas. Another trend that surfaced was that blacks across the North are fleeing the urban paradises of liberal legislation and high public union membership for the benighted suburbs. The black urban experience has essentially lost its appeal with blacks in America. The failure of blue social policy to create an environment which works for Blacks is the most devastating possible indictment of the 20th century liberal enterprise in the United States.  Detroit has shrunk to a level not seen since the time Henry Ford starting producing the Model T. This record of urban decay is entirely man-made and a result of this class warfare. All the social welfare bureaucracies, diversity counselors and minority set-asides can’t make up for the colossal failure of blue social policy to create sustainable lower middle class prosperity in our cities. The states are laboratories of reform and the 2010 Census tells us whose experiment worked best and states with low taxes, weak unions, and light regulation lead the rest.

(“Black and Blues 2: Blacks Flee Blue States in Droves” by Walter Russell Mead dated March 27, 2011 published by The American Interest at http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/03/27/black-and-blue-2-blacks-flee-blue-states-in-droves/

Texas Shines Big in the 2010 Census” by Michael Barone dated March 28, 2011 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/2011/03/28/texas_shines_big_in_the_2010_census

A Requiem for Detroit” by William McGurn dated March 29, 2011 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471904576229003143739080.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop )

 

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)is an ill-conceived, federally chartered corporation, established in 1974 in the wake of several business failures that left their pension funds broke. Congress set up an agency to guarantee pensions negotiated between private industry and private industry unions; the taxpayer would be the guarantor of last resort for particular private pension contracts. The PBGC is the ultimate exercise in moral hazard. It encouraged unions to demand unsustainably high pension plans, and companies to grant them, because all parties knew that the U.S. would be there no matter what. Its single-employer pension insurance covers about 33.8 million workers in some 26,000 plans. If a plan fails, the PBGC assumes both its assets and its liabilities (obligations). The fund pays the employees their pensions, up to $55,000 a year. As of last year, it was already paying out about $5.6 billion to over 800,000 retirees. Now, PBGC's official deficit (the amount it is obligated to pay out not covered by its asset base)stands at $21.6 billion, nearly the highest it has ever been. Even the PBGC estimates that its "reasonably possible" risk (i.e., the underfunded liabilities of the plans with below investment grade ratings) is more like $170 billion. That is just for the single-employer pension plans. Last year, the "reasonably possible" risk in multi-employer plans was an additional $20 billion. There are basically three options for reforming the PBGC:

·    The first option would be to give it the requisite tools to eliminate the shortfall, including the powers to change the premiums necessary to insure permanent solvency of the plans, and to set the rules plans must follow (such as a consistent amortization schedule for all plans to close the deficit); enhancing the legal power the PBGC has to compel companies to contribute to their pensions, and to desist from actions that hurt those pensions; as well as making the PBGC an independent regulatory agency.

·    The second option would be to simply eliminate the PBGC, and instead require all pension plans to carry private insurance at full market rates, which would automatically address the issue of underfunding; the insurance companies would have to enforce proper funding, or risk massive losses in the event of having to take over in the event of a pension plan failure.

·    The third option would be to require that until the federal government chooses either of the first two options, the federal government must treat the PBGC deficit as an official liability of the federal government, to be factored into federal budgets.

Without adopting either of the first two options, i.e., by keeping the status quo, the nation is drifting towards a massive bailout of a huge number of pension plans. The four-fifths of American workers who do not have defined benefit plans would be responsible to pay through their taxes the plush pensions of the one-fifth of workers who do have such plans. As long as we are as a nation liable for the future shortfalls of the PBGC, those liabilities should be honestly listed in our budgets. Of all the formidable challenges our country faces, the greatest one over the next decade will be dealing with the unfunded liabilities at both the state and federal levels. These liabilities are the cumulative consequence of 75 years of so-called progressive programs, and are exploding because of demographic changes, pushing the nation towards a fiscal cliff.

(“Another Fine Pension Mess” by Gary Jason dated March 29, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/another_fine_pension_mess.html )

 

It is clear the President is attempting to artificially inflate the price of fossil fuels to force America to adopt his vision of a “green” economy, and if he gets his way, our sputtering economy will continue to shed jobs and face a prolonged downturn. Energy is inextricably linked to economic growth. The effect of ever-creeping gas prices trickle down along the supply chain, from the suppliers to the manufacturers to the retailers, and ultimately, to the customer, who pays more for the final product. Every price increase of just a dime per gallon of gasoline at the pump extracts approximately $5 billion from the pockets of U.S. consumers over the course of a year. On top of killing family budgets, with a dollar-a-gallon jump at the pumps picking our pockets of $50 billion per year, there is on the macro level an inverse relationship between the price of oil and the overall health of the economy. Oil price hikes deliver less job growth, less demand for labor, more unemployment, more poverty, more inequality, more inflation, lower real income increases and smaller advances in the standard of living. Additionally, higher oil prices directly cause greater amounts of U.S. capital to be exported, both to pay the higher prices and to pay for the growing levels of imported oil. Nevertheless, President Obama has pushed forward with an anti-energy, anti-growth policy: no further oil exploration and drilling, a plethora of higher energy taxes, and new onerous carbon emission regulations. For the first time in two years, oil costs more than $100 a barrel. While some of the blame can be placed on worldwide occurrences outside of Obama’s hands, oil supply disruptions in the Middle East and increased demand from an improving global economy, the President’s current de facto moratorium on drilling is merely making matters worse, further decreasing the energy supply. Since the official moratorium was lifted in October, Obama’s Interior Department has slowly approved permits to allow drilling for only four rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Only one is a new permit, the other three are renewal permits for rigs that were already conducting activities before the Deepwater Horizon accident last April. Over twenty deepwater drilling permits are still pending. The Congressional Research Service has shown that there is likely 164.1 billion barrels of untapped oil in the U.S., and that doesn’t include oil shale, which has recoverable reserves of 1 trillion barrels, according to DOE. Instead of encouraging domestic production and job creation at home, the President would rather create jobs for Brazilian workers, leaving Americans unemployed in the face of skyrocketing energy prices. Tack on hundreds of billions of dollars in proposed energy taxes and new carbon regulations, and economic conditions will only worsen. President Obama’s regulatory push is especially egregious considering that he is moving to bypass Congress and implement his failed attempt at cap and trade. By manipulating the 1970 Clean Air Act, Obama is effectively imposing new laws without Congressional approval. Once phased in, the EPA rules would regulate almost every aspect of American life: schools, hospitals, churches, and even large single-family homes. All would be subject to federal permitting requirements and regulations.  The agency would also mandate complete redesigns and operational changes to everything from cars, trucks and tractors to airplanes, trains and even lawn mowers. President Obama’s anti-energy proposals are preventing the market from working its magic to bring more affordable, efficient energy to Americans. The high price of oil is signaling energy producers to find and harness reserves, but Obama’s plan to force the U.S. into the “green” economy is thwarting this process — all at the expense of American jobs and wallets.

(“Obama’s energy plan: less supply, more regulations, higher prices” by Joseph Moser dated March 23, 2011 published by The Daily Caller at http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/23/obamas-energy-plan-less-supply-more-regulations-higher-prices/

Dependency, Redistribution and the Rising Price of Gas” by Ralph R. Reiland dated March 28, 2011 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/567311/201103281759/Dependency-Redistribution-And-The-Rising-Price-Of-Gas.htm )

 

There is perhaps no greater example of ironic doublespeak than inclusion of the phrase "civil liberties" within the inapt designation: "American Civil Liberties Union."   Few leftist organizations in existence today can compete with the ACLU in terms of demonstrated hostility toward what the Declaration of Independence describes as "certain unalienable rights" with which Americans are "endowed by their Creator." Consider the doublespeak inherent throughout the "progressive" Goliath's flowery self-representation: “The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.” Now contrast that depiction with ACLU founder Roger Baldwin's candid vision: “I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal,” and so much for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." By combining straightforward segments from each ACLU rendering we arrive with an accurate portrayal, one that cuts through the doublespeak: “The ACLU is...working daily in courts, legislatures and communities. Communism is the goal.” To be sure, the "main function of the ACLU" is entirely counter-constitutional. A shared objective between both Communism generally, and the ACLU specifically is the suppression of religious liberty; principally, the free exercise of Christianity. The country has come a long way past the original intent of our Founding Fathers. The ACLU is largely responsible for creating the gulf between the Constitution's original construction and its modern misapplication. The ACLU remains one of America's most powerful secular-socialist political pressure groups. Progressives are consistent, because as they gain confidence, they invariably rush across that bridge too far and engage in wild-eyed efforts to "fundamentally transform America" to reflect their own secular-socialist self-image in pursuit of their distinctly un-American creed: "Communism is the goal."        

(“ACLU vs. Religious Liberty” by J. Matt Barber dated March 24, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/aclu_v_religious_liberty.html )

 

Islamic law (sharia) contradicts the notion that all human beings are entitled to be treated with equal dignity and have inalienable rights, and in this worldview, religious tolerance is a one-way street. Islamic law separates believers from nonbelievers, sanctioning inferior status, if not outright death, for the latter. Women in Islam are degraded to submissiveness under misogynist laws. Children are taught to hate. Critical thought that questions official Islamic doctrines is regarded as the crime of defamation of Islam, punishable by death. The Obama administration has joined the chorus of apologists and “makeover artists” who insist that only extremist fundamentalists practice Islam this that they are no different from fundamentalists of every religion. Genuine Islam is gentle and peaceful, they say. Although there are many Muslims who truly believe their religion can embrace reason and modern-day humanistic values, they are not the ones who are the most outspoken and influential in defining Islamic ideology today.  In far greater numbers than just those belonging to the most violent Islamic terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, it is the ideologues who belong to or sympathize with popular movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates who regard Islam as a universalistic, supremacist socioeconomic, and political ideology. They relentlessly seek to transform existing global institutions, including international law, so they comply with sharia. The Obama White House is unable or unwilling to distinguish between true reformers and the phonies who operate by stealth, deception and lies (known as taqiyya). Through his words and actions, Obama is helping to sugarcoat an evil ideology and amplify the Islamists’ taqiyya, which may well be largely the product of Barack Obama’s Islamist associations and their influence over him for many years.

(“7 Ways the Obama Administration Is Helping to Advance the Islamist Agenda” by Joseph Klein dated March 26, 2011 published by Canada Free Press at http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34864 )

 

* 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:

·  Bibliography at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/welcome/bibliography.php

·  Politics at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/intro/politics.php

·  Homeland Security at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/homelandsecurity.php

·  Immigration at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/immigration.php

 

David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY

www.ReturnToCommonSensesite.com