Views on the News
May 15, 2010
Views on the News*
Before election, Barack Obama announced his intention to, “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” taking us from a free-market economy to a government-controlled economy, from a family-centered society to a government-centered society, and from a national philosophy founded upon the primacy of the individual to one founded upon the primacy of society’s “collective good.” President Obama’s problem is that the Constitution of the United States stands in his way. The Framers of the Constitution created this nation with the understanding that government was dangerous, and thus needed to be carefully controlled. They also understood that rights are not grants from government; they are gifts from God. So our Founding Fathers erected the Constitution as a wall blocking the road to government expansion, designed to stop any President from fundamentally transforming this country. The Constitution delineates what issues are within the power of the federal government, and expressly reserves all other matters to the states or the people through the Tenth Amendment. Within the realm of federal power, the Constitution defines the role of each of the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) and strictly limits the powers of each. Barack Obama is using a shadow government of czars to evade Congressional oversight, using international law to get around American law, and taking over key industries to make tens of millions of people dependent on the government. To survive the inevitable political backlash, he’s politicizing the Justice Department and the Census Bureau to change how elections are conducted, altering the outcomes of those elections, and attempting to turn 12 million illegal immigrants into voting citizens beholden to him. Key parts of the Obama agenda are unconstitutional. Even before Election Day even arrives, critical parts of Barack Obama’s blueprint can be stopped in court. That’s why nothing is more important than remaking the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp to uphold his agenda. President Obama seeks to stack the Supreme Court with judicial activists like Elena Kagan. These liberal judges will “reinterpret” the Constitution in light of the “evolving standards of decency in society.” President Obama is subverting the U.S. Constitution. He’s building an imperial Presidency, seizing powers far beyond those granted to him by the Constitution. The Constitution is on the side of the American people, and “We, the People” must exercise our right to vote and return America back to its original design.
(“Revealing Obama’s blueprint, and how to stop him” by Ken Klukowski dated May 13, 2010 published by The Daily Caller at http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/13/revealing-obamas-blueprint-and-how-to-stop-him/ )
The United States Supreme Court has evolved into an incestuous liberal clique of Ivy League lawyers who do not understand or represent mainstream America. The newest nominee, Elena Kagan, is being touted as a “diversity” choice because she is a woman, but her choice just reinforces a monolithic group of justices almost exclusively from the Ivy League, either Catholic or Jewish, and residing in a few northeastern states or California. None of the Justices have held an elected office that would have required an appeal to the common sense of voters. All have lived and worked in the hermetic world of elite colleges, Ivy League law schools, and the federal bench. There are fine law schools in every state of the union, many of which are highly rated even by Ivy League standards, and these schools train the leaders of their respective states, yet the graduates of such schools are nowhere represented on the Supreme Court. Kagan has no judicial experience and hardly any experience practicing law, mainly working in academia, believing that the court exists to protect the little guy against evil corporate America, and not to interpret the Constitution and the law as written. With the retirement of John Paul Stevens, there are no longer any Protestants on the Court, even though 70% of Americans are associated with Protestant churches of various kinds. If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2% of the U.S. population, will have 33% of the Supreme Court seats. Aside from childhood attachments, the vast interior of the country is unrepresented on the Court. The diversity on the Court always seems to stop at considerations of race, gender, and ethnicity. The more diverse or egalitarian we claim to be, the less diverse and representative we become in practice. The same trend that we observe on the Supreme Court is evident as well among our recent Presidents and Presidential candidates, all of whom seem to arise from common educational backgrounds among elite undergraduate institutions or Ivy League law schools. The one qualification that Elena Kagan has is that ideologically, she is a kindred spirit of Barack Obama, but she has been extraordinarily careful to hide her opinions. Obama has demonstrated very little knowledge of, or respect for, the law and particularly the Constitution, so his selection of a stealth leftist, like himself, is very predictable. In her 20’s, Kagan lamented the decline of socialism in the country as "sad" for those who still hope to "change America." In her clerking experience, she attached herself to people who saw the law as a tool for controlling the people, and expanding government power at the expense of the citizenry. As clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall, she was a longtime advocate of an activism court believing “the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was ‘defective.’” One thing you won’t hear in the Mainstream Media are the gay bloggers who are outing Elena Kagan as a closet lesbian. So our obsession with diversity and difference has at length produced a governing class of monolithic sameness whose members are increasingly out of touch with the citizens for whom they propose to legislate.
(“The Diversity Scam and the Supreme Court” by James Piereson dated May 10, 2010 published by The weekly Standard at http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/diversity-scam-and-supreme-court
“Missing: Kagan’s Record of Impartiality” by Wendy Wright dated May 12, 2010 published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36949
“Kagan The Unqualified” by Steven D. Laib dated May 13, 2010 published by Intellectual Conservative at http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/05/13/kagan-the-unqualified/ )
The European Union's (EU) trillion-dollar bailout of Greece and other troubled European welfare states is probably of little concern to Americans, but most are unaware that we can ill afford, but are nevertheless being committed to help pay for it. It might strike you as strange that the EU would take advice from a country that now runs a deficit of 10% of GDP and whose total debt is verging on 90% of GDP, both of which would disqualify it from membership in the EU. At U.S. urging, the EU has decided to ignore its own constitution to create an economic super-state to rule the continent's 450 million people and its 27 members with little, if any, democratic input. Even the European Central Bank, long the bastion of euro stability, had its arm twisted to accept a new role as purchaser of last resort for failing nations' public debt. Not only is the U.S. behind this tragic mess, we're going to pay for it too, making this EU plan smell a lot like their own TARP. Remember, the U.S. just this year approved $100 billion for the International Monetary Fund, which is helping pay for the bailout. If Europe taps its IMF credit line, we'll pony up $50 billion at least, but it doesn't end there. The Fed has made available an unspecified amount of dollars to euro borrowers at low interest rates. Social Security, Medicare and the retirement of the baby boom generation wasn't enough of a burden for the American taxpayer. We will now be paying as well for the generous pensions of Greek bureaucrats retiring in the warm Mediterranean sun at age 55, thanks to the foresighted leadership of our very own international statesman, Barack Obama. The problem is, if funding huge bailouts and creating a giant new economic government for Europe is the wrong way to go, we might see a domino effect. Greece already got $145 billion, but Spain, Portugal and Italy aren't far behind in their fiscal laxity. If one of these much larger dominoes falls, U.S. exposure to the crisis will explode, and we'll pay for it in higher interest rates, soaring taxes and slower growth. What the trillion dollar Euro bailout fund has done is to create the perverse incentives of “Too Big to Fail” for fiscally irresponsible Eurostates. Europe has taken the wrong path toward big government and an all-encompassing welfare state. Rather than give more poor advice, maybe the U.S. should listen to the causes of the EU problems. Instead of more bailouts, printed money and government coercion, the United States should return to the free-market ideals that built our rich economy in the first place.
(“Bailout Buddies” dated May 11, 2010 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=533722
“Who Will Bailout America?” by Peter Ferrara dated May 12, 2010 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/12/who-will-bail-out-america )
American conservatives tend to hold up the European Union as a model of irresponsible, big-spending economic policy, but according to E.U. rules, member countries cannot maintain budget deficits above 3% of gross domestic product; nor can their total debt rise above 60% of GDP, and unfortunately the U.S. budget deficit in 2009 was three times the E.U.’s limit, and total debt will zoom past the 60% threshold sometime this year. The President's planned fiscal excesses beyond 2010 cannot plausibly be attributed to the recession, blamed on George W. Bush or justified by economic principles, Keynesian or otherwise. The public debt will be at least an astronomical 91% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020, and the gross debt will be at least 123% of GDP (compared with 125% in Greece) and greatly in excess of the fatal "tipping point" identified by recent academic research. Right now, about 42 cents out of every dollar being spent by President Obama is borrowed and if he continues to stoke the crisis, America's Triple A bond rating will be downgraded within a few years, the Treasury's borrowing costs will skyrocket, and Washington will try to inflate its way out of debt by printing lots of cheap new dollars, thereby destroying people's savings and impairing lives and livelihoods for generations to come. States, counties, and municipalities, lacking the federal ability to print money, do not have the luxury of “beginning now to develop a credible plan” for the future, since they are flat out of money in the present. Surveying the fiscal wreckage at the end of 2009, BusinessWeek found that the 50 states had cut their combined payrolls that year by a minuscule 0.25%, and “Politicians everywhere are talking about layoffs, of course. They have been talking about eliminating jobs, often in threatening tones, since at least January. As the numbers show, for most, it’s just talk.” Governors, that are facing nearly $200 billion in budget deficits, are descending upon Washington for another round of stimulus funding. At least $4.3 trillion of this kind of additional spending for 2011-20 is buried in his budget. Furthermore, going back to 2009-10, there is another $1.2 trillion, and going forward, ObamaCare will add another $1 trillion to the accumulated deficits. Obama is using public-sector debt not only to pre-empt for his own ideological purposes the financial capacity of future generations, he also is seeking to pre-empt the prerogatives of voters and their elected representatives in Congress for the indefinite future. All tax revenues will have been pre-committed and all spending predetermined by the current Congress and President. It is already the case that mandated expenditures plus interest on debt are consuming all tax revenues and will soon greatly exceed them. Obama's next step is to commandeer the economy's capacity to pay taxes, and here again, the cleverness of his debt maneuver is apparent. Insofar as Americans' jobs and prosperity are concerned, another round of multitrillion-dollar tax increases (on top of the $1 trillion he already has in the works) will break the economy's back. As long as there’s still one greater (leftist) fool left willing to chase diminishing returns with more cash, Democrat politicians can keep putting off the day of reckoning.
(“We Are Out of Money” by Matt Welch dated June 2010 published by Reason Magazine at http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/07/we-are-out-of-money
“A choice for the condemned” by Ernest S. Christian and Gary A. Robbins dated May 10, 2010 published by The Washington Times at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/10/a-choice-for-the-condemned/ )
Both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae announced first quarter losses and requested further taxpayer funds to keep them afloat, as one of the financial world’s biggest wards of the state. Freddie Mac, already propped up with $52 billion in taxpayer funds used to rescue the company from its own mistakes, recorded a loss of $6.7 billion and said it would require an additional $10.6 billion from taxpayers to shore up its financial position. Fannie Mae likewise announced its 11th consecutive quarterly loss of $11.5 billion and asked for another $8.4 billion in taxpayer assistance. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have consumed a combined $145 billion in taxpayer cash, and the end is nowhere in sight. Both companies warned of further losses triggering more government assistance, which is now unlimited after a 2009 Treasury decision. The losses are unlimited because the companies are no longer intended to make money as a government run business, by deliberately subsidizing housing. Serious delinquencies in Freddie Mac’s single-family conventional loan portfolio, those more than 90 days late, came in at 4.13%, up from 2.41% for the period a year earlier. Delinquencies in the company’s Alt-A book, one step up from subprime loans, totaled 12.84%, while delinquencies on interest-only mortgages were 18.5%. Delinquencies on its small portfolio of option-adjustable rate loans totaled 19.8%. The company’s inventory of foreclosed properties rose from 29,145 units at the end of March 2009 to almost 54,000 units this year. Perhaps most troubling, Freddie Mac’s nonperforming assets almost doubled, rising to $115 billion from $62 billion. When Freddie Mac sells properties, either before or after foreclosure, it generates losses of 39%, on average. Freddie Mac said the main reason for its disastrous quarter was an accounting change that required it to bring back onto its books $1.5 trillion in assets and liabilities that it had been keeping off of its balance sheet. Fannie Mae also announced that most of the loans it modified in the first three quarters of 2009 had gone delinquent again within six months. NONE of the grim numbers at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac are surprising, given that they have pretty much been the only games in town of late for anyone interested in getting a mortgage. Among the reasons for this dour outlook was the substantial number of borrowers that currently owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. The biggest issue is that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are nowhere to be seen in the various financial reform efforts under discussion on Capitol Hill. A group of Republican senators led by John McCain proposed to give the housing market giants five years either to become self-sufficient or to go out of business. The proposal would also reduce the total amount of losses that taxpayers would cover to $400 billion. Rather than debate the particulars of this idea, Democrat leaders appear more interested in burying any and all such changes. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been longstanding kingpins in the housing market, buying mortgages from banks that issue them so the banks could turn around and lend even more. Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s continued mortgage-buying is yet another backdoor bailout of the nation’s banks, and could explain the government’s reluctance to include them in the reform efforts now being so hotly debated in Washington.
(“Ignoring the Elephant in the Bailout” by Gretchen Morgenson dated May 7, 2010 published by The New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/business/09gret.html?ref=business
“In bed with Fannie and Freddie” dated May 10, 2010 published by The Washington Times at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/10/in-bed-with-fannie-and-freddie/
“$145 Billion and Counting” dated May 11, 2010 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703880304575236270385307174-lMyQjAxMTAwMDEwMDExNDAyWj.html )
The Wall Street 1,000 point market plunge was a typical example of pure market manipulation by unregulated hedge fund short sellers. The same hedge fund short sellers were behind the financial crash of 2008 that paved the way for Obama's election to the Presidency. Computerized hedge fund short selling has no protection for the invested capital in the equity markets. There is no uptick rule, no circuit breakers and no trading curbs, so our market is primed for manipulation. The financial reform bill being pushed by Obama and liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill will do nothing to solve this problem and regulate the hedge fund short sellers. Representatives and apologists for the hedge fund short sellers, who operate as the Managed Funds Association (MFA), "go on TV and provide false explanations of what happened." Diamond says that the repeal of the safeguard regulations, such as the uptick rule, circuit breakers and trading curbs, and the introduction of the short ETFs (Exchange traded funds) has given the members of the MFA tremendous power and influence. Any asset class that is traded in the NYSE, CME, or EUREX exchanges "is susceptible to manipulation by the members of Managed Funds Association and their strategic partners." They can now crash the market, panic shareholders out of their stocks, buy to cover their short positions for hefty shorting profits, and then buy back in at the bottom to open long positions and then recover the whole market (indexes) to normal levels. These market manipulators, he notes, have the ability to drive prices down and then drive them back up, all within a 15 minute period. The market plunged and recovered, concealing the carnage and destruction of investor's capital, and the evil of hedge fund short selling continues unabated.
(“Manipulation, Not Error, Behind Market Plunge” by Cliff Kincaid dated May 7, 2010 published by Accuracy in Media at http://www.aim.org/aim-column/manipulation-not-error-behind-market-plunge/ )
Gas prices are marching steadily upwards deliberately as an attempt to justify the leftist fantasy of renewable energy replacing petrochemical energy. Part of the rise is seasonal in nature: demand increases going into summer to fill up those cars going on family vacations. As summer proceeds into fall, refineries start refining more heating oil from crude and less gasoline. Part of the rise can be attributed to the lack of refineries in America -- government rules and regulations have halted the building of American refineries. States have very arcane rules regarding the blends of gasoline permissible to sell and that increases cost. Demand for energy is increasing around the world as some signs of economic recovery take hold, especially in booming China. Years of governmental obstruction in tapping our offshore and onshore stores of black gold have played a role. A little-mentioned cause is the fact that our Federal Reserve and the Democrat-led government is printing so much cash that our dollar is becoming is becoming Weimar Wallpaper -- an increasingly worthless slip of paper that retains value against the Euro only because the EU is farther along, for now, into socialism than we are. Democrats are silent about the gas rise because Democrats may be blamed for bad policies that cause these bad things to happen such as the ones that led to a weak dollar, or that shut off vast areas of America to oil development and refinery building -- have created the conditions that give rise to oil prices. There is one more factor at work - Democrats really like it when gas prices rise. Democrats have long advocated higher taxes on gas to reduce demand and make "renewable energy" less foolish. Haven't we been told for years by the nattering nabobs of the nanny nation that gasoline price rises are good for us? Why are these powers-that-be also trying to shut down the development of shale gas, a clean burning domestic resource that our nation has in vast abundance? In fact, Democrats do like high gas prices because it allows them to justify the irrational and costly subsidies and tax breaks they give to their friends in the "green movement" and their cronies who benefit from the drip, drip, drip of tax dollars going from the government IVs into their bank accounts. The Democrats' dream is to finally be able to take advantage of gas price rise (that they have engineered) in order to force radical changes upon the American way of life. This is the essence of liberal fascism: Americans are too dumb, and don't know what is good for us. The only pumps the Obama team and their allies in Congress like are the ones pumping our green tax dollars to their pals and donors in the "renewable energy" racket of the jolly Green Giant with the big carbon footprint: Al Gore. We have utopian leaders with very little experience in the real world but plenty of experience in Ivy League classrooms, where high minded platitudes substitute for empiricism and pragmatism. They may try to silence Americans as they stuff policies down our windpipes-but Americans will not remain silent. Never have; never will. Liberation is coming in the form of a ballot box, so “Drill, Baby, Drill” may again be America’s strategy once the current administration is booted out.
(“Welcome to the Era of Expensive Energy” by Ed Lasky dated May 13, 2010 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/welcome_to_the_era_of_expensiv.html )
Never letting an energy crisis go to waste, “Cap and Trade” is being resurrected based on an environmental hoax, driving energy prices higher, and showering immature technologies with investments while promising inconsequential environmental impact. Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman will introduce legislation designed to inflate the cost of energy, strain family budgets, and decimate America's manufacturing sector, all in the name of supposedly “saving” the climate. Kerry and Lieberman have been revamping legislation that narrowly passed the House of Representatives on a party line vote last year. The goal of 17% reduction of greenhouse gases globally will simply not be achieved by limiting CO2 within the United States. The bill imposes oppressive limits on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and establishes a complex cap-and-trade scheme in which the federal government determines how much CO2 a business may emit. Scientific causation between CO2 emissions and environmental impact has been disproven, undermining the fundamental justification for any governmental action. CO2 has been found to be a minor component of “greenhouse gases” and proposed actions will have negligible impact on the global environment. Presently, 40% of CO2 emissions in the United States are derived from electricity generation, 35% from transportation, and 25% from business, industry, and natural gas to heat homes. President Obama has employed a classic bait and switch strategy on nuclear power: on one hand pledging to triple guarantees of $45 billion toward construction of nuclear plants, while on the other hand cutting off money for the only viable nuclear waste repository. Further straining the family budget, a new set of fees and taxes will be imposed on all sectors of the economy that produce greenhouse gases. This will include transportation, farming, livestock production, even restaurants that cook barbecued chicken and ribs over an open flame and bottling companies that sell fizzy drinks. To absorb the increased cost of doing business, companies large and small will be forced to raise their prices. Finally the Kerry-Lieberman bill is also a job-killer, since to meet the demands of the new emissions limits, the few manufacturing businesses that remain in the United States will be further shipped overseas. The bottom line is that the temperature of the earth is not warming, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and without the greenhouse effect, planet Earth would be a big ball of ice. The dirty little secret is that this “Hoax and Tax” bill is just another stealth tax that is planned to generate between roughly $1.3 trillion and $1.9 trillion of more money that government can spend between fiscal years 2012 and 2019.
(“Cap and Trade is Back” by Brian Sussman dated May 10, 2010 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/capandtrade_is_back.html )
Prior to the early twentieth century, immigrants to America were typically poor when they arrived here, and they sought no unearned handouts as they struggled to raise their standard of living and assimilate into their newly adopted society. These early immigrants achieved the life that they had worked for without violating anyone else's rights, which is how it was when America was a free country. Now, the crippling burden of our massive regulatory welfare state, along with the federal government's disregard for crimes committed against citizens by violent foreign gangs and drug cartels, has turned immigration into a problem. This problem is the result not of innocent people seeking a better life, but of an overbearing government that is too big not to fail. A century of progressive legislation culminating in the money-hemorrhaging Obama administration has resulted in a system of taxation by which approximately half of Americans pay no federal income tax, and 40% actually receive payments from their fellow citizens via the IRS. With this being the case, the majority of new immigrants from poor countries fall into the category who pay nothing and receive benefits that taxpayers are forced to provide. Because illegal immigrants qualify for fewer benefits than legal immigrants, granting them amnesty would cost American taxpayers an estimated half-trillion dollars per year. The government will spend over 10 trillion taxpayer dollars on welfare programs over the next decade. ObamaCare, which forces taxpayers to subsidize even more of their fellow citizens' health coverage, while paying higher premiums for their own health care as costs are driven higher by the new legislation. The addition of millions more citizens who are unable to support themselves will only add to this burden of rising costs, rising taxes, and government-imposed rationing of critical, life-saving health care. None of these injustices is the fault of the immigrant community; these immoral policies are the fault of an out-of-control government that is no longer limited to the protection of individual rights, and instead actively violates these rights on a daily basis. In addition to exploding the dependent population, our porous borders have allowed violent gangs and drug cartels to advance north into the American southwest. The recent passage of the new law in Arizona is a cry for help from the citizens of a state made desperate by the federal government’s shameful and flagrant dereliction of its duty to control the nation’s borders and to enforce its laws. This is manifestly a federal responsibility and the U. S. government has failed in its responsibilities to its citizens under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Even if we were to adopt the most liberal immigration policies, it is imperative to have secure borders; keeping its citizens safe is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of a government, but ours is defaulting on this responsibility for political reasons. As U.S. citizens we have a right to expect the federal government to enforce the laws regarding who may cross our borders. Border security is a question of national security, domestic safety and tranquility and the federal government fulfilling its divinely mandated responsibilities to enforce the law. A strong majority of Americans (61% of Americans and 64% of registered voters) support Arizona's controversial new immigration law and would back similar laws in their own states, a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll found. A separate Pew Research Center poll on the Arizona law released Wednesday found similar sentiments. The nonpartisan Pew survey found that 73% of Americans approve of requiring people to verify their legal status and two-thirds support police detaining people who can't. It is crucial that the nature of the present immigration conflict be identified: It is not a conflict between whites and Hispanics or between citizens and immigrants. In a free society, immigration is beneficial to all and the immigration conflict is between those who wish to live and be free and the emerging tyrannical regime that seeks to control us.
(“If America Were a Free Country, Immigration Would Not Be a Problem” by Deborah B. Sloan dated May 9, 2010 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/if_america_were_a_free_country.html
“Americans back Arizona’s illegal immigrants law” by Margaret Talev dated May 12, 2010 published by McClatchy Newspapers at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/12/94050/most-americans-approve-of-arizonas.html
“A Moral and Just Response to the Immigration Crisis” by Richard Land dated May 13, 2010 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/RichardLand/2010/05/13/a_moral_and_just_response_to_the_immigration_crisis )
There’s no better way to summarize President Obama’s approach to fighting the war against jihad than this: For the next three years, he’s betting our safety on the proposition that Islamic thugs and terrorists will prove to be more incompetent than his liberal administration. How many “isolated incidents” have to pile up before the President wakes up to the fact that there’s a pattern, one that just might have something to do with a particular fundamentalist religious outlook, and that the politically correct bunker mentality is not going to cut it? Reluctantly, Attorney General Eric Holder has conceded that it might be a good idea to adjust, not totally eliminate mind you, the law with regards to reading a terror suspect their Miranda rights, provided that it can be done within constitutional bounds, of course. The idea that we should extend constitutional protections to enemy combatants, particularly when that enemy is not in uniform, is a concept that would have perplexed any other American president in history, with the possible exception of James Earl Carter. In the aftermath of Times Square, with three enemy infiltrations onto American soil in the space of six months, Senate Homeland Security chair Joe Liebermann observed: “We were lucky. We did not prevent the attempted attack. It’s hard to stop them every time, but that has to be our goal. … So I’d say in terms of prevention, the system failed.” When you choose to go on the defensive, luck is the only thing that keeps a shell from landing in the wrong place at the wrong time and these particular shells have two legs and access to a bag of tricks. Philosophically, Bush made it clear that he would target the enemy where he lies, for as long as it took to win. On the other hand, Obama makes it increasingly obvious that he longs to disengage from the enemy, thus providing them a host of targets over here, for as long as “isolated incidents” continue to occur. In a tough, cynical world, ruthless leaders can smell weakness and this President reeks of it. A prime example is Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who said: “Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer to politics. Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience…. American officials bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn’t do a damn thing, let alone you.” George W. Bush may have been the devil to Ahmadinejad and his ilk, but one would be foolish indeed not to fear the devil. Jihad regimes consider Obama no more than an ineffectual, unimportant, low-grade, mildly demonic imp, far down on the west’s satanic organizational chart. For jihadists, Obama is annoying but not really anything to worry about, and mixing religious fanatics with weak, appeasing leadership in the west makes for a very dangerous stew.
(“Luck Is Not a Strategy” by Rich Trzupek dated May 10, 2010 published by Front Page Magazine at http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/10/luck-is-not-a-strategy/ )
* 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. No updates this week have been made to the issue sections.