Act forces Congress’ return to limited government Legislator to colleagues: ‘Your laws not authorized by Constitution’

Barack Obama: President Pantywaist – new surrender monkey on the block

Barack Obama: President Pantywaist – new surrender monkey on the block

Posted By: Gerald Warner at Apr 10, 2009 at 10:20:05 [General]


President Barack Obama has recently completed the most successful foreign policy tour since Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow. You name it, he blew it. What was his big deal economic programme that he was determined to drive through the G20 summit? Another massive stimulus package, globally funded and co-ordinated. Did he achieve it? Not so as you’d notice.

Barack Obama in Prague 
Barack Obama in Prague on his astonishingly successful tour

Barack is not the first New World ingenue to discover that European leaders will load him with praise, struggle sycophantically to be photographed with him and outdo him in Utopian rhetoric. But when it comes to the critical moment of opening their wallets – suddenly it is flag-day in Aberdeen. Okay, put the G20 down to inexperience, beginner’s nerves, what you will.

On to Nato and the next big objective: to persuade the same European evasion experts that America, Britain and Canada should no longer bear the brunt of the Afghan struggle virtually unassisted. The Old World sucked through its teeth, said that was asking a lot – but, seeing it was Barack, to whom they could refuse nothing, they would graciously accede to his wishes.

So The One retired triumphant, having secured a massive contribution of 5,000 extra troops – all of them non-combatant, of course – which must really have put the wind up the Taliban, at the prospect of 5,000 more infidel cooks and bottle-washers swarming into the less hazardous regions of Afghanistan.

Then came the dramatic bit, the authentic West Wing script, with the President wakened in the middle of the night in Prague to be told that Kim Jong-il had just launched a Taepodong-2 missile. America had Aegis destroyers tracking the missile and could have shot it down. But Uncle Sam had a sterner reprisal in store for l’il ole Kim (as Dame Edna might call him): a multi-megaton strike of Obama hot air.

“Rules must be binding,” declared Obama, referring to the fact that Kim had just breached UN Resolutions 1695 and 1718. “Violations must be punished.” (Sounds ominous.) “Words must mean something.” (Why, Barack? They never did before, for you – as a cursory glance at your many speeches will show.)

President Pantywaist is hopping mad and he has a strategy to cut Kim down to size: he is going to slice $1.4bn off America’s missile defence programme, presumably on the calculation that Kim would feel it unsporting to hit a sitting duck, so that will spoil his fun.

Watch out, France and Co, there is a new surrender monkey on the block and, over the next four years, he will spectacularly sell out the interests of the West with every kind of liberal-delusionist initiative on nuclear disarmament and sitting down to negotiate with any power freak who wants to buy time to get a good ICBM fix on San Francisco, or wherever. If you thought the world was a tad unsafe with Dubya around, just wait until President Pantywaist gets into his stride.

A Fool And Your Money

A Fool And Your Money

By J.C. Arenas

The Obama Administration has led a faux populist charge against Wall Street, and their newest proposed method to allow them to con you out of more of your money confirms it.

The New York Times reports that the administration is encouraging the creation of new investment vehicles known as “bailout funds”:


The idea is that these investments, akin to mutual funds that buy stocks and bonds, would give ordinary Americans a chance to profit from the bailouts that are being financed by their tax dollars.


Treasury Secretary Geithner has clearly run out of ideas.


He can not get the big money to play along unless he creates avoidance from strict impositions from Congress for banking institutions participating in government programs and guarantees that their investments in these toxic assets are risk free.


The Congressional Oversight Panel recently reported that the economic crisis is “far from over”.


Trillions of dollars have been pumped into financial institutions here and abroad, borrowed from our sworn enemies, and printed by the Fed, and we are still not out of the woods?


How are “ordinary Americans” going to make money from bailouts that have not worked?


Once again we have stubborn liberals who refuse to admit that their strategy is wrong and will not work, and instead not only give credence to their agenda with this scheme, but do so under the guise of “fairness”.


Massachusetts Democrats recently advocated voting rights for illegal immigrants because it is an issue of “fairness”.


President Obama aims to change the social fabric of this country because as is the system lacks “fairness”.


Now they want people to sacrifice more of their hard earned money, not only playing on people’s levels of greed, but asserting that they, the philanthropists they are, want you to be able to make money because this “vast profit” should not just go to the rich.




The Treasury Department continues to conceal details about TARP and TALF, and they have decided to withhold the results of the bank stress tests, which were recently called a “Potemkin model” by University of Missouri-Kansas City Economics and Law Professor William K. Black.


Bernie Madoff’s crime does not compare to the felony being perpetrated by the Federal Reserve, U.S. government, and large financial institutions.


Even if this proposal were legit, how can anyone make an informed decision when all the information is being kept away from them?


The less you know, the better — for them.


It is the government; you can trust them, they’re looking out for you, your money, and your best interests.


They always have, and once this nation becomes the largest nanny state in the history of the world, they always will.

Page Printed from: at April 10, 2009 – 04:05:06 PM EDT

Turkey’s Dangerous Shift

Turkey’s Dangerous Shift

By Ariel Cohen
Washington Times | 4/10/2009

After attending three summits – of the Group of 20 richest countries, NATO and the European Union – President Obama ended his European trip in Turkey. His messages there highlight the importance Washington attaches to this regional player bridging Europe and Asia, a veteran NATO ally, and an influential Muslim country.

In his speeches, Mr. Obama emphasized that Turkey is a Muslim nation that respects democracy, the rule of law and is founded on a set of modern principles. In view of the Islamist Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) stranglehold on power, this may be an overstretch.

Mr. Obama also voiced support for Turkey’s membership in the EU. This did not endear him to many Europeans, especially French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who rebuked the idea. Absent from these speeches was any mention of recent trends that have raised legitimate questions over Turkish leadership’s commitment to secular democracy, as well as its trajectory toward the West in general and NATO in particular.

Until the AKP rose to power in 2002, a secular Turkey founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire after World War I was considered a reliable U.S. partner that aspired for EU membership. Today, however, the AKP appears to be moving Turkey away from its pro-Western and pro-American orientation to a more Middle Eastern and Islamist one.

Turkish secular elites are worried about their country’s direction. They argue that the AKP promotes a creeping Islamic agenda – one close to Muslim Brotherhood’s fundamentalism.

While the AKP has enjoyed popular support since it came to power, for the first time since 2002 it lost support in the local elections. The global economic crisis is in part responsible, but voters are disappointed that AKP has strayed from its promises of a more liberal Turkey in the EU. Prominent supporters of democracy are concerned that the right of dissent, tolerance and government accountability are being eroded.

In foreign policy, there are important signs that Turkey is drifting away from the West. In 2006, Turkey became the first NATO member to host the leader of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal. Turkey also enthusiastically hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, whose government has been accused of genocide. Turkey’s geography justifies its relations with Iran, but not with Hamas or Sudan; only Islamist solidarity and anti-Western sentiment can explain these ties.

Although Turkey has been trying to facilitate an Arab-Israeli rapprochement by sponsoring Syrian-Israeli proximity talks and several other initiatives, it is losing its impartiality and, therefore, credibility.

This was evident when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke about Israel’s operation in Gaza and attacked the dovish Israeli President Shimon Peres before he stormed out of a panel at the recent Davos World Economic Forum – only to get a hero’s welcome back home. AKP and other Islamists also sponsored a flood of anti-Israel demonstrations, billboards and anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Turkey could potentially play a role in U.S.-Iranian negotiations. However, Mr. Erdogan’s judgment has been called into question after he said last year that “those who ask Iran not to produce nuclear weapons should themselves give up their nuclear weapons first.”

Developments in Turkey’s Black Sea and Caucasus policies have also been worrisome. During the August 2008 Russia-Georgia war, Turkey proposed the “Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform,” a condominium of Russia and Turkey, together with the three South Caucasus countries, but initially omitted the United States and EU as well as Iran.

Turkey also temporarily blocked the transit of U.S. warships delivering humanitarian aid to Georgia. And it prioritized rapprochement with Russian ally Armenia over the ties with the secular, pro-Western Azerbaijan. These developments underscore Turkey’s cozying up to Russia, as Moscow provides nearly two-thirds of its gas supplies.

Turkey is critical to Europe’s efforts to reduce its dependence on Russian energy, including the proposed Nabucco gas pipeline that would bring Caspian Basin gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. However, Turkey is currently stalling a critical intergovernmental agreement on the Nabucco pipeline. Thus, Turkey is throwing away a decade of progress on the East-West energy corridor.

According to Mr. Erdogan, Turkey is open to providing assistance for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq through Turkey. This statement was borderline offensive in view of Turkey’s refusal to allow U.S. troops to cross its territory into Iraq in 2003. Yet the planned withdrawal of troops from Iraq raises the importance of the Incirlik U.S. Air Force Base through which 70 percent of supplies to Iraq move. Beyond this, Turkey has long-standing ties to Afghanistan and Pakistan and continues to play a positive role in both countries.

Mr. Obama attended a meeting between Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers, signaling U.S. support to the rapprochement between the two old foes. Mr. Obama avoided alienating a key ally by not by using the “G” word (genocide) when talking about Turkish-Armenian relations. He may face a domestic political blowback for this. Yet a strong U.S. endorsement for the enhanced Turkish-Azerbaijani cooperation is also necessary, and hopefully forthcoming.

Despite Turkey’s movement away from the West, the country continues to play a key role in NATO and the region. Washington should devote more attention to U.S.-Turkish relations. Strong bilateral security relations are particularly important for cooperation on the Iraq withdrawal, Afghanistan, dealing with Iran, and addressing a resurgent Russia. The administration should stress that it is in Turkey’s long-term interests to remain politically oriented toward the West.

Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Security at the Sarah and Douglas Allison Center of the Davis Institute for International Studies at the Heritage Foundation

Castro as the Second Coming

Castro as the Second Coming

By Jamie Glazov | 4/10/2009

Earlier his week, Congressional Black Caucus members visited Cuba and, expectedly, found heaven on earth, It was no surprise, of course, since all fellow travelers find paradise when they arrive at their totalitarian destinations.

The trip occurred amid talk that the Obama administration is considering a shift in relations with Cuba, perhaps entailing an end to certain restrictions placed on the communist tyranny for the past five decades.


Several members of the caucus, in typical fellow traveler fashion, prostrated themselves before Cuban President Raul Castro and the dictator himself at his home. At a following press conference, the cacucus members lavished veneration on the cruel and sadistic despotism. “He looked directly into my eyes!” boasted Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Ca.) after her meeting with Fidel. “He’s one of the most amazing human beings I’ve ever met!” exclaimed Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo) about Fidel.


Castro’s brother received some praise as well of course: “Raul Castro was a very engaging, down-to-earth and kind man,” gushed Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) “someone who I would favor as a neighbor. It was almost like visiting an old friend.”


Caucus Chairwoman Barbara Lee emerged from her meeting with Fidel as though she had just witnessed the Second Coming. Beaming with an apparent new purpose in life, she announced: “It was quite a moment to behold. Former President Fidel Castro is very engaging, very energetic. Our conclusion is, given the new direction in our foreign policy, that it’s time to look at a new direction in our policy toward Cuba. The 50-year embargo just hasn’t worked.”

Castro is indeed very energetic; he was always energetic. He was so energetic, in fact, that he succeeded in constructing one of the most evil and barbaric regimes that ever prevailed on the planet — a fact documented well by Humberto Fontova’s Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant.

But the Black Caucus political pilgrims weren’t too interested in this particular detail. Instead, they simply just called out for an end to the U.S. trade embargo and other diplomatic restrictions placed on Cuba. They didn’t call out for the release of the hundreds of political prisoners in Cuba. Nor did they say anything about any of the atrocious human rights abuses perpertated by the communist regime. And while Lee encouraged a “new direction” in U.S. policy, nowhere in her statements did she hint at the need for the Castro despots to start a “new direction” from their personal road of totalitarian terror.

And so nowhere was there even a hint that maybe the Castros would first have to turn a page from executing and torturing tens of thousands of their own people, or start releasing prisoners of conscience, or have at least even some semblance of free speech or free elections or freedom of religion, before any benefits started being showered on the regime.


This behavior of the Congressional Black Caucus is nothing new of course. It’s just another chapter in the long tradtion of the Left’s love affair with Castro’s Cuba. Ever since Castro seized power on January 1, 1959 and established his Stalinist regime, the Left has been ever grateful.


The horrifying experience of Armando Valladares, a Cuban poet who endured twenty-two years of torture and imprisonment for merely raising the issue of freedom, is a testament to the regime’s barbarity. Valladares’s memoir, Against All Hope, serves as Cuba’s version of Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago. Valladares recounts how prisoners were beaten with bayonets, electric cables, and truncheons. He tells how he and other prisoners were forced to take “baths” in human feces and urine.

With this barbaric nature of Castro’s regime in mind, it is completely understandable why the Left initiated a romance with Castro and his slave camp, just as it did with Lenin’s and Stalin’s Gulag. Jerry Rubin set the tone for the Black Caucus political pilgrims more than four decades ago during his trip to Cuba in 1964, during which he paid special homage to Castro’s chief executioner, Che Guevara. Rubin proudly recalls:

“We were 84 Amerikan students visiting Cuba illegally in 1964. We had to travel 14,000 miles, via Czechoslovakia, to reach Cuba. . . . As Che rapped on for four hours, we fantasized taking up rifles. Growing beards. Going into the hills as guerrillas. Joining Che to create revolutions throughout Latin America. None of us looked forward to returning home to the political bullshit in the United States.”


Five years later, in1969, American leftists formed the Venceremos Brigade, a coalition whose members traveled to work in Cuba to show their solidarity with the Communist revolution. These fellow travelers participated mostly in sugar harvests in the first pilgrimages, while later brigade members engaged in various types of agricultural and construction work. High-profile Western leftists, meanwhile, including Susan Sontag, Jean-Paul Sartre, Norman Mailer, and Abbie Hoffman, also made pilgrimages to Cuba.

Berkeley activist Todd Gitlin traveled to Cuba with an SDS delegation to a Cultural Congress in 1967. In the belly of the totalitarian beast, where he was well aware that dissidents were rotting in jail and being tortured beyond imagination, Gitlin too experienced the intoxication of venerating tyranny. Leaving Cuba proved quite painful for him. He recalls:

“What was palpable was the pain of re-entry to my homeland. . . . At the
Mexico City airport, having a drink with Dave Dellinger and Robert Scheer, I looked out the window and saw a billboard advertising Cutty Sark. I had to change seats: after twenty-three days where public space was turned to revolutionary use, capitalist propaganda disgusted me.”

What disgusted him, of course, were the withdrawal symptoms he was experiencing—analogous to a drug addict coming off his fix. For twenty-three days he had experienced his euphoria of shedding his inner self and submerging himself within the totalitarian whole. In Cuba he had found a home where even the slightest dissent would be crushed instantly and the concept of the individual was non-existent. The advertisement he saw, therefore, was a horror to him, since it symbolized a free society where individuals could use their free will to pursue their own tastes and desires. This reality is anathema to any leftist.

As Gitlin so well revealed, Western leftist intellectuals were greatly inspired by the persecution of intellectuals in Cuba, just as the earlier generation had been by the persecution of intellectuals in Stalin’s Soviet Union. Charmed by the notion of a society in which their own talent—as well as their entire being—would be extinguished, they continued the practice of labeling the totalitarian monstrosity the opposite of what it was.

As the Black Caucus members exemplified, Western leftists have continued to shower adulation on Castro to this day. Here is just a brief portion of Humberto Fontova’s documented compilation of leftist praise for the death-cult leader:

Cuba’s own Elvis!”—that’s how Dan Rather once described his friend Fidel Castro. Oliver Stone, another friend, describes Fidel as “very selfless and moral” and “one of the world’s wisest men.” “A genius!” agreed Jack Nicholson. Naomi Campbell said meeting Castro was “a dream come true!” According to Norman Mailer, Castro is “the first and greatest hero to appear in the world since the Second World War.” Jean-Paul Sartre said, “Castro is at the same time the island, the men, the cattle, and the earth. He is the whole island.” . . . Actress Gina Lollobrigida cooed, “Castro is an extraordinary man. He is warm and understanding and seems extremely humane.” Francis Coppola simply noted, “Fidel, I love you. We both have the same initials. We both have beards. We both have power and want to use it for good purposes.” Harry Belafonte added: “If you believe in freedom, if you believe in justice, if you believe in democracy, you have no choice but to support Fidel Castro!”

Steven Spielberg visited the father-god in Havana in the fall of 2002. He called the meeting with Castro “the most important eight hours of my life.”


Barbara Lee and her Congressional Black Caucus colleagues now definitely have something to talk about.

Get the whole story of the Left’s love affair with Castro in Jamie Glazov’s new book, “United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror.”

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine’s editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union and is the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. His new book is United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at

We have drifted into a desert of godlessness (and a happy Easter to all): Pope gives Good Friday address

We have drifted into a desert of godlessness (and a happy Easter to all): Pope gives Good Friday address