The Ramadan dinner at the White House

The Ramadan dinner at the White House

Ethel C. Fenig
President Barack Obama (D) worked very hard on his official vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, reappointing Ben Bernanke as Federal Reserve Chairman and speaking at the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s (D-MA) funeral.

So now he’s off to Camp David for an extended Labor Day week end break. OK, he deserves it. But in between his vacations he managed to sandwich in hosting a White House dinner for the Muslim month of Ramadan, when Muslims believe Muhammad received the Koran. There is a long tradition of presidential dinners acknowledging important holidays or anniversaries of the various religions and ethnicities in this country.

Speaking to the Muslims, government leaders and other invited guests at the dinner, Obama celebrated ,”how much Muslims have enriched America and its culture — in ways both large and small.”

Some excerpts.

One of those values is the freedom to practice your religion — a right that is enshrined in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Nashala Hearn, who joins us from Muskogee, Okla., took a stand for that right at an early age. When her school district told her that she couldn’t wear the hijab, she protested that it was a part of her religion.

The Department of Justice stood behind her, and she won her right to practice her faith. She even traveled to Washington to testify before Congress. Her words spoke to a tolerance that is far greater than mistrust — when she first wore her headscarf to school, she said, “I received compliments from the other kids.”

Good for the Department of Justice. However–and understandably–Obama did not mention the case of Rifqa Bary, the American teen ager born to Muslim immigrant parents who fled  her home, fearing her parents would kill  her after her conversion to Christianity.

In 150 generations in family, no one has known Jesus. I am the first — imagine the honor in killing me? There is great honor in that, because if they love Allah more than me, they have to do it. It’s in the Koran. I’m fighting for my life. You guys don’t understand. … I want to worship Jesus freely, that’s what I want. I don’t want to die.”

Yes, it is understandable that parents would be deeply pained when their beloved child rejects a deeply held philosophy, a way of life they cherish and adopts another. But to kill her for that? But honor killings are a part of the culture of Muslim countries, apparently a tradition some have imported here.

And as for freedom to practice your religion–just try being a Christian or a Bahai or a Jew or a Hindu in Saudi Arabia. Other Muslim countries allow limited religious freedom to others–as long as the practioners realize they are dhimmis, scorned, second class citizens subject to onerous restrictions.

In America, Muslims have carried out numerous attacks against Jews and their institutions.

Together, we have a responsibility to foster engagement grounded in mutual interest and mutual respect. And that’s one of my fundamental commitments as president, both at home and abroad. That is central to the new beginning that I’ve sought between the United States and Muslims around the world. And that is a commitment that we can renew once again during this holy season.

Yes, we most certainly do “have a responsibility to foster engagement grounded in mutual interest and mutual respect.” The key word though, is mutual. So far it has been one sided–the other side hasn’t reciprocated much but rejected much. Perhaps Muslims can renew this mutual interest and respect “during this holy season” for them.

So tonight, we celebrate a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress.

No comment.

But to Muslims, happy Ramadan. And enjoy your American freedoms.

hat tip: Cheryl Lewin

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/the_ramadan_dinner_at_the_whit.html at September 02, 2009 – 11:19:51 AM EDT

Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools

Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools

By STANLEY KURTZ

Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.

AP

Bill Ayers.

The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama’s first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers’s home.

The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” and “not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis.” Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I’ve recently spent days looking through them.

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago’s public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation’s other key body, the “Collaborative,” which shaped education policy.

The CAC’s basic functioning has long been known, because its annual reports, evaluations and some board minutes were public. But the Daley archive contains additional board minutes, the Collaborative minutes, and documentation on the groups that CAC funded and rejected. The Daley archives show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda.

One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation? In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama’s “recruitment” to the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham (presidents of other foundations) recruited him. Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.

The CAC’s agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers’s educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland’s ghetto.

In works like “City Kids, City Teachers” and “Teaching the Personal and the Political,” Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? “I’m a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist,” Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk’s, “Sixties Radicals,” at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.

CAC translated Mr. Ayers’s radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with “external partners,” which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Mr. Obama once conducted “leadership training” seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama’s early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC’s in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.

CAC also funded programs designed to promote “leadership” among parents. Ostensibly this was to enable parents to advocate on behalf of their children’s education. In practice, it meant funding Mr. Obama’s alma mater, the Developing Communities Project, to recruit parents to its overall political agenda. CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents “organized” by community groups might be viewed by school principals “as a political threat.” Mr. Obama arranged meetings with the Collaborative to smooth out Mr. Weber’s objections.

The Daley documents show that Mr. Ayers sat as an ex-officio member of the board Mr. Obama chaired through CAC’s first year. He also served on the board’s governance committee with Mr. Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws. Mr. Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Mr. Obama. Mr. Ayers spoke for the Collaborative before the board. Likewise, Mr. Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the Collaborative.

The Obama campaign notes that Mr. Ayers attended only six board meetings, and stresses that the Collaborative lost its “operational role” at CAC after the first year. Yet the Collaborative was demoted to a strictly advisory role largely because of ethical concerns, since the projects of Collaborative members were receiving grants. CAC’s own evaluators noted that project accountability was hampered by the board’s reluctance to break away from grant decisions made in 1995. So even after Mr. Ayers’s formal sway declined, the board largely adhered to the grant program he had put in place.

Mr. Ayers’s defenders claim that he has redeemed himself with public-spirited education work. That claim is hard to swallow if you understand that he views his education work as an effort to stoke resistance to an oppressive American system. He likes to stress that he learned of his first teaching job while in jail for a draft-board sit-in. For Mr. Ayers, teaching and his 1960s radicalism are two sides of the same coin.

Mr. Ayers is the founder of the “small schools” movement (heavily funded by CAC), in which individual schools built around specific political themes push students to “confront issues of inequity, war, and violence.” He believes teacher education programs should serve as “sites of resistance” to an oppressive system. (His teacher-training programs were also CAC funded.) The point, says Mr. Ayers in his “Teaching Toward Freedom,” is to “teach against oppression,” against America’s history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.

The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming “guilt by association.” Yet the issue here isn’t guilt by association; it’s guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

Mr. Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

 

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A29

Obama’s classroom campaign: No junior lobbyist left behind

Michelle Malkin 

Lead Story

Obama’s classroom campaign: No junior lobbyist left behind

By Michelle Malkin  •  September 2, 2009 05:02 AM


Photoshop: Leo Alberti

My syndicated column today digs a little deeper into President Obama’s September 8 speech to schoolchildren. The school guides now featured front and center on the www.ed.gov website were developed by the White House Teaching Fellows — a group which includes several activist educators as you’ll see below.

Downplaying academic achievement in favor of left-wing radical activism in the public schools is rooted in old neighborhood pal and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers’ pedagogical philosophy. It was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge way when the two served as board members of the educational foundation — and it is the Washington Obama way now.

***

Obama’s classroom campaign: No junior lobbyist left behind
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

“ABC” stands for All Barack’s Children. On September 8, young students across the country will be watching television. Yes, they’ll be parked in front of the boob tube and computer screens watching President Obama’s address on education.

Instead of practicing cursive, reviewing multiplication tables, diagramming sentences, or learning something concrete, America’s kids will be lectured about the importance of learning. And then the schoolchildren, from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade, will be exhorted to Do Something — other than sit in their seats and receive academic instruction, that is.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan dispatched letters to principals nationwide boasting that “This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation’s school children about persisting and succeeding in school.” But the goal is not merely morale-boosting. According to White House event-related guides developed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Teaching Fellows, grade-school students will be told to “listen to the speech” and “could think about the following:”

*What is the President trying to tell me?

*What is the President asking me to do?

*What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?

• Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

After the speech, teachers will ask students:

*What do you think the President wants us to do?

*Does the speech make you want to do anything?

*Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?

Obama’s White House Teaching Fellows include Chicago high school educator Xian Barrett, a fierce opponent of charter schools who founded a “Social Justice Club” and bussed students to protests and Michelle Bissonette, a Los Altos, Calif., teacher who is “focused on developing my leadership as a more culturally and racially conscious educator.”

The activist tradition of government schools using students as junior lobbyists cannot be ignored. Zealous teacher’s unions have enlisted captive schoolchildren as letter-writers in their campaigns for higher education spending. Out-of-control activists have enlisted their secondary-school charges in pro-illegal immigration protests, gay marriage ceremonies, environmental propaganda stunts, and anti-war events.

And last year’s presidential campaign saw disgraceful abuses of power by pro-Obama instructors. In New Rochelle, New York, elementary students were given an in-class assignment to color in drawings of Barack Obama – including a picture of a campaign button featuring his face and the slogan “Students for Obama 2008.”

In Cumberland County, N.C., a fifth-grade-school teacher turned a “civics” discussion into an unhinged harangue against a girl who said her family supported John McCain.

Nor can the Democrats’ strategy of using kiddie human shields to advance their legislative agenda be overlooked in the context and timing of Obama’s speech. Children have been front and center of the Left’s push for an ever-increasing government role in health care – from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s use of seventh-grader Baltimore school kid Graeme Frost to push for the massive S-CHIP entitlement expansion, to President Obama’s none-too-coincidental choice of Massachusetts 11-year-old town hall questioner Julia Hall (the daughter of a prominent Obama activist/organizer who assailed Obamacare critics’ “mean” signs), to the Kennedy family’s decision to put grandson Max Allen on center stage to pray for health care reform at his uncle’s funeral last week.

So when the Department of Education directs schools to gather children ‘round the TV monitors for Obama’s pep talk and then do this…

• Create posters of their goals. Posters could be formatted in quadrants or puzzle pieces or trails marked with the labels: personal, academic, community, country. Each area could be labeled with three steps for achieving goals in those areas. It might make sense to focus on personal and academic so community and country goals come more readily.

• Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.

…parents have every right to worry about their children being used as Political Guinea Pigs for Change.

***

Postscript: Stanley Kurtz’s invaluable investigation of the Obama/Ayers/Chicago Annenberg Challenge ties last fall is must-read. A very timely and relevant excerpt:

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago’s public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation’s other key body, the “Collaborative,” which shaped education policy.

The CAC’s basic functioning has long been known, because its annual reports, evaluations and some board minutes were public. But the Daley archive contains additional board minutes, the Collaborative minutes, and documentation on the groups that CAC funded and rejected. The Daley archives show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda.

…The CAC’s agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers’s educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland’s ghetto.

In works like “City Kids, City Teachers” and “Teaching the Personal and the Political,” Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? “I’m a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist,” Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk’s, “Sixties Radicals,” at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.

…CAC translated Mr. Ayers’s radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with “external partners,” which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Mr. Obama once conducted “leadership training” seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama’s early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC’s in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.

…Mr. Ayers is the founder of the “small schools” movement (heavily funded by CAC), in which individual schools built around specific political themes push students to “confront issues of inequity, war, and violence.” He believes teacher education programs should serve as “sites of resistance” to an oppressive system. (His teacher-training programs were also CAC funded.) The point, says Mr. Ayers in his “Teaching Toward Freedom,” is to “teach against oppression,” against America’s history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.

The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming “guilt by association.” Yet the issue here isn’t guilt by association; it’s guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

I wonder if Obama’s buddies in the media know this?

I wonder if Obama’s buddies in the media know this?

Rick Moran
Kill the messenger!

That may as well be the Obama administration’s battle cry as they have directed their “political arm” (as if it’s really separate from the White House at all) to rile the base by blaming the media for falling down on the job and not debunking GOP “lies” about health care.

Greg Sargant’s Plum Line blog has some of the details:

The email from Organizing for America, which was forwarded by a reader, is obviously not addressed to the media and explicitly focuses blames on the press for the traction that reform foes have gained. Hitting the media riles the base, and the email also asks for donations to fund OFA, because “stepping in where the media fails is a daunting challenge.”

“Our opponents will create and spread outrageous lies to try to stop President Obama from creating real change,” reads the email from OFA chief Mitch Stewart. “We just can’t count on the media to debunk them.”

The email suggests that the media’s failure has helped the “frightening smears” of reform foes seem “pretty convincing,” because “folks don’t know that they’re false.” It also quotes Obama’s recent denunciation of he-said-she-said journalism:

If somebody puts out misinformation… then the way the news report comes across is, “Today, such-and-such accused President Obama of putting forward death panels. The White House responded that that wasn’t true.” And then they go on to the next story. And what they don’t say is, “In fact, it isn’t true.”

Needless to say, this particular OFA effort has not been announced to…the media.

OFA is full of it. What they are really complaining about is that their buddies in the media aren’t editorializing enough when reporting the news about the Democrat’s health care plan; not enough praise for Obama and not enough condemnation of opponents.

I’m sure the media would protest that they are doing their fair share of supporting the president and would find such criticism mystifying. I mean, how much more does the White House expect? They’re already groveling as if they are a simple extension of the White House PR machine already.

No doubt they will swallow hard at this criticism and vow to do better.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/i_wonder_if_obamas_buddies_in.html at September 02, 2009 – 09:57:42 AM EDT

Punishing Patriots

Punishing Patriots
By: Ralph Peters / New York Post
Wednesday, September 02, 2009

 


The White House wants vengeance against the CIA.
The Obama administration’s determination to hold witch-hunt “investigations” of CIA interrogators who did their patriotic best to keep us safe endangers us all.Castrate the CIA, and Americans will die. But the Obama White House wants vengeance against those who don’t fit its ideology. Your family’s safety comes a distant second.

And let’s get real: Attorney General Eric Holder (whose top career achievement was finessing the presidential pardon of a criminal Clinton donor) is not acting independently.

Anyone who believes that Holder didn’t pre-brief the president and get the nod prior to announcing his determination to crucify high-achieving CIA agents probably believes that government-run health care will balance the federal budget.

I followed this travesty as I worked with our military at various bases last month. I could have been listening to old BBC World Service reports from the Third World. This is the sort of politicized retribution that prevails in backwater countries when regimes change.

Our wise tradition has been for new administrations to accept that their predecessors did their best, however disagreeably, and move on. Gerald Ford sacrificed himself to that end, and even Jimmy Carter understood that presidencies are not for domestic revenge.

And the lesson the left should draw from its own wretched global history is that those who stage the show trials this time may wind up in the dock themselves when the wheel turns.

But Obama’s political base wants blood. American blood. This inquisition isn’t about justice. It’s about punishing those who fought terror with all their might.

What have we come to when our attorney general frees terrorists, then threatens to prosecute patriots who treated butchers too harshly for left-wing tastes?

What Holder intends — with Obama’s blessing — isn’t about cleaning up a rogue agency, but cleaning out those who believed that protecting our country trumped all else in wartime. This ideological purge promises to do more damage to the intelligence community than even the crippling Carter-era shenanigans — whose effects are still felt today.

For his part, Obama’s trying to have it both ways: letting Holder wear the black hat to advance an extreme-left agenda, while the president poses as if he’s a disinterested party high above the fray.

But Washington doesn’t work that way. And we all know it. If the president disapproved of the Holder witch-hunt, he could fire the attorney general today.

He won’t, though. Because, in this administration’s hard-left cosmos, the CIA is evil. For that matter, America is evil. Americans need to be punished and forced to face the evil our country has done.

So terrorists are “liberated,” Gitmo will be closed, and the careers and lives of patriots will be shattered.

This matters. After serving in and around the intelligence world for decades, I can tell you that we’re far better off with intelligence operatives, from interrogators to analysts, who show too much zeal than with timid bureaucrats who dread making any slight error.

You can’t do useful intelligence work on a choke-chain. Yes, the intel community needs oversight and guidance. But it’s vile for armchair critics, safe at home, to damn the earnest efforts of those who broke the likes of arch-terrorist Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

And some hard-core terrorists do have to be broken. Patiently playing to the prisoner’s vanity works best in run-of-the-mill interrogations, but there are always exceptions. In those cases, our intelligence warriors must feel confident that our government’s behind them — and not waving an indictment.

The American people get this. The left’s obsession with the rights of terrorists finds no support among sensible citizens. But the issue’s been hijacked by the America-hating zealots who shaped our president’s worldview and by media scoundrels whose credo comes from Grace Slick’s 1960s lyric “I’d rather have my country die for me.”

For the rest of us to live in peace, patriots must stand at the edge of darkness where our enemies dwell. This is a war. And it is sometimes necessary to do evil in war to achieve a greater good. Fighting Islamist terrorism isn’t about campus theories. It’s about the fate of millions.

In this bitter struggle that has been forced upon us, the Obama administration stands for creeping surrender.


Ralph Peters is a New York Post Opinion columnist and the author of “Looking For Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World.”

Obama’s Oil Man

Obama’s Oil Man
By: Tait Trussell
Wednesday, September 02, 2009

 


The anti-drilling White House gives a generous loan to a Soros-affiliated oil company.
President Obama is adept at rewarding those who put him into office. And hard-left financier George Soros is emerging as a leader of the patronage pack.

 

A payback to Soros was due. As the chief moneyman behind left-wing political action committees like MoveOn.org, Soros, an early supporter of Obama, played an instrumental role in drumming up voter mobilization and political advertising on the novice candidate’s behalf. In no small part, Obama’s triumph in the Democratic primary over better-known rivals was a testament to Soros’s deep pockets and his political commitment.

Now it’s time for Soros to collect on his investment. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the Obama administration has committed up to $10 billion to Brazil’s state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance oil exploration off of Brazil’s coast.

Yet Obama historically has opposed expanded oil drilling. This was not only a strategic decision, aimed at pleasing the environmental Left, but also a personal choice, since Obama sincerely believes that drilling is deeply destructive to the natural environment. Thus, as a Senator, Obama voted against permitting the U.S. to drill for oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the grounds that it would be a crime to despoil such “beautiful real estate.” Similarly, during last year’s presidential campaign, he warned of the “environmental consequences” of oil drilling, and insisted that “we cannot drill our way out of the [energy] problem.”

But apparently George Soros can. The president has elected to help another nation with the same type of drilling that he opposes so vehemently for this country, and the reason seems to be Soros’s $811-millon investment in Petrobras. The company just happens to be the largest holding in Soros’s investment fund. Soros’s connection to the company is no secret; he has been investing in Petrobras since 2007. A profitable venture, Petrobras has estimated recoverable reserves for the so-called Tupi oil field of between 5 and 8 billion barrels. With his billion-dollar loan, Obama has taken patronage politics to striking new level.

 

The Petrobras loan may be a windfall for Soros and Brazil, but it is a bad deal for the US. The administration is prepared to lend up to $10 billion to a foreign company to drill off its coast, when it could bring in $1.7 trillion in government revenue, as well as create thousands of new jobs, by allowing drilling off the coast of the United States.

 

This is no empty speculation. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that oil exploration in the U.S. could create 160,000 new, well-paying jobs, as well as $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state, and local governments, all while fostering greater energy security. Federal data from the Minerals Management Service of the U.S. Department of Interior says the U.S. has enough oil and natural gas to fuel more than 65 million cars for 60 years, and enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years. In fact, the government estimates that there are 30 billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil on federal lands currently closed to development. But rather than investing in the country’s energy future, the administration seems to be offering an expensive kickback to a political ally in a time of economic recession and high unemployment.

 

The oil deal stinks for other reasons, as well. For instance, there is the rank hypocrisy of Soros – an enthusiastic proponent of global warming theory and environmental liberalism – investing in the fossil fuels whose use he otherwise condemns – and doing so in part with the aid of taxpayer funds. For years, Soros has urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would punish companies that contribute to global warming. But that didn’t prevent him from plowing money into Petrobras.

 

The cozy Soros-Obama alliance goes beyond favorable oil deals. It’s also playing a role in the health care debate. Huge demonstrations dedicated to enacting Obama’s universal health care are largely a Soros-financed operation. When tens of thousands of people rallied in the nation’s capital in support of Obama’s health care plan, the demonstrations were organized by Health Care for America Now! (HCAN), a new national grassroots movement of more than 1,000 organizations in 46 states encompassing 30 million people dedicated to winning health reform now.

 

The “grassroots” organization appears to be more like a gang of interconnected ultra-liberal pressure groups. Among the 21 members of its steering committee are such Soros-funded groups as ACORN, MoveOn.org, and the Center for American Progress (CAP), headed by Clinton former chief of staff John Podesta, who also has been a key adviser to Obama. Soros’s charity, the Open Society Institute, in 2007 gave CAP $1.75 million and approved added grants of $1.25 million.

 

Obama’s collusion with Soros and his agenda-driven squadrons is an unfortunate turn from an administration that entered office promising unprecedented transparency in the White House. Soros certainly did his share for Obama. Now, with his backing for a billion-dollar oil loan to a Brazilian company, the president has proven more generous to Soros than to the American voters who put him in office.