Arizona and the Faithless Obama

Arizona and the Faithless Obama

Lance Fairchok

faithless Pronunciation: ˈfāth-ləs Function: adjective Date: 14th century
1 : not true to allegiance or duty : treacherous, disloyal <a faithless servant>
2 : not to be relied on : untrustworthy
Watching President Obama’s news conference with Mexican President Calderon today was an infuriating experience.  I expected the pandering and insincere promises and I even expected some indirect criticism of Arizona’s new illegal immigration legislation.  What I did not expect was Obama to be so ideologically blinded that he would make the political blunder of criticizing an American state and its lawfully elected legislative body at a press conference in lock step with a foreign head of state.  I should have known better.
Obama sided with a foreign power that sees the US as a cash cow and entitled to our money and our jobs.  The billions of dollars from illegals working in the states keeps the failed government of Mexico afloat.  The ruling elite in Mexico know that without the US absorbing the energies of millions of young Mexicans, their country would collapse into revolution.  We are the pressure vent for the discontent that would rightly fuel that revolution.  Corruption defines Mexico; drugs are a symptom of a criminal pathology that has infected the very bones of the country.  Rather than fully address that, it is easier to cast aspersions at the US, especially now that we are emasculated by a leftist administration.
Mexican President Calderon’s criticism of Arizona is thoroughly hypocritical and opportunistic.  Like Obama, he’s pandering to his radical fringe who view the US as stolen territory, the La Raza racists and Reconquista cultural insurgents.  Mexico’s official policy is to treat the border problems as something we created, as if our success is something for which we should apologize.  Obama agrees.  “We are not defined by our borders,” our post-modern socialist President told the assembled news people and Mexican dignitaries.  Whatever utopian claptrap inspired that nonsensical comment will not resonate with the American people who are sick and tired of apologies to every foreign despot and fool. 
Obama’s behavior is nothing less than a betrayal of the United States and our system of government, a slap in the face of law abiding citizens who believe in states’ rights and the Constitution.  Obama just acted like what he is, a perpetually adolescent ideologue from the fever swamps of leftist academia.  He is faithless, neither patriot nor revolutionary, an opportunist at the beck and call of special interests and radicals without an original idea of his own.  He will happily sell this country down the river, a “post-American” President with no love or affinity for the people he supposedly leads. 
Obama is congenitally incapable of understanding that the President of America has a duty and responsibility to all Americans, not just black Americans or Hispanic Americans or poor Americans or transgender lesbian cross-dressing Americans.  He hears only the minority and the radical.  We want “our” borders secured, illegals sent home and the federal government to do its job instead of trying control our lives.  With unemployment above ten percent, we can use the jobs done by immigration lawbreakers.  I can make my own burritos, thank you very much.

Congress about to limit political speech of bloggers?

Congress about to limit political speech of bloggers?

posted at 3:35 pm on May 19, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The same sloppy legislative writing that created so many unintended consequences in ObamaCare also plagues the DISCLOSE Act, the effort in Congress to tighten spending rules in the wake of the Citizens United decision — and that’s the generous take on the situation.  Reason’s Bradley Smith and Jeff Patch warn that the perhaps-unintended consequences of legislative language will allow the FEC to regulate political speech online.  The fact that media entities like the New York Times have specific exemptions built into the bill makes the intent, or lack thereof, rather murky:

Last week, a congressional hearing exposed an effort to give another agency—the Federal Election Commission—unprecedented power to regulate political speech online. At a House Administration Committee hearing last Tuesday, Patton Boggs attorney William McGinley explained that the sloppy statutory language in the “DISCLOSE Act” would extend the FEC’s control over broadcast communications to all “covered communications,” including the blogosphere.

The DISCLOSE Act’s purpose, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Chris Van Hollen and other “reformers,” is simply to require disclosure of corporate and union political speech after the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that the government could not ban political expenditures by companies, nonprofit groups, and labor unions.

The bill, however, would radically redefine how the FEC regulates political commentary. A section of the DISCLOSE Act would exempt traditional media outlets from coordination regulations, but the exemption does not include bloggers, only “a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication…”

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected disparate treatment of media corporations and other corporations (including nonprofit groups) in campaign finance law. “Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment,” Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

No legitimate justification exists for excluding media corporations from regulations on political speech applicable to other corporations, unless the goal is to gain the support of editorial boards funded by the New York Times Co.

The response to this criticism has been both predictable and instructive.  Instead of actually discussing how Reason got the argument wrong in its initial reporting on the subject, a Public Citizen lobbyist (which supports the legislation) called it a death-panel argument.  Another group attempted to defend Congress by assuring us that the FEC would “most likely … stand by the 2006 Internet rules” and not investigate political bloggers.

Most likely? Color me comforted.  If the Democrats in Congress wanted to ensure that the FEC would not investigate political speech by bloggers, they would have written their exemptions to include bloggers instead of just traditional media outlets.  The purposeful lack of exemption for bloggers looks ominous indeed — and could be used to harass smaller, unfunded bloggers out of the realm of political debate.

Even if bloggers were included in the exemption, why should the law discriminate between two similar corporations producing similar intellectual property simply on the basis of product when it comes to free speech?   As Reason points out, the Supreme Court stated that such discrimination violates the First Amendment, and probably the 14th as well. What about NBC, owned (at the moment) by GE, which produces a myriad of products and services unrelated to speech.  Should their media subsidiaries get that exemption, and if so, why?  Surely NBC has a much more obvious incentive to bolster GE and avoid reporting on its problems, and the politics that impact them, than a blog has in backing a candidate or a bill in Congress.

This isn’t about “good government” or clean elections.  It’s an attempt by Congress to step around the First Amendment and regulate political speech that threatens incumbents, just as McCain-Feingold attempted.

Palin: All border states should have Arizona’s immigration law;

Palin: All border states should have Arizona’s immigration law;

go here for artecale and video

An Obvious but Muzzled Truth: Islamist Terrorism

An Obvious but Muzzled Truth: Islamist Terrorism

The Meaning of Miss Muslim USA

The Meaning of Miss Muslim USA

Posted By Christine Williams On May 20, 2010 @ 12:03 am In FrontPage | 16 Comments

The explosion in the blogosphere about the crowning of a Muslim Miss USA comes at a time when Americans have been tested to the limit, at least for the many patriots who recognize the threats to the American way of life since the declaration of the War on Terror.

Some pressing issues: Questions about Barack Obama [1]’s Muslim sympathies are still unresolved, complicated by his pitiful bowing to American enemies and plans to build a mosque on ground zero, a site of grief and trauma for New Yorkers and fellow empathizers.  So now with the crowning of a Muslim Miss America, it should come as no surprise that questions will be raised.   Rima Fakih has become more than a beauty queen.  She has become the battle ground between those critical of her crown (branded as racists) and politically correct appeasers.

From the moment he took office, Obama’s posture has served to divide America, racially and otherwise:  he took to insulting long-standing American allies while apologizing for America’s sins among the country’s worst enemies.  Obama snubbed British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on a visit to the White House right after he took office.  More recently his deplorable treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has left Israel aghast.  Then there was his reading of the riot act to Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, and his promise to unveil a detailed strategy on nuclear nonproliferation in the middle of a War on Terror. To top it off, the Obama administration’s support for illegal immigration at the expense of hard-working American citizens and the president bowing to foreign tyrants [2]:

President Obama has disgraced the United States – again. During this week’s nuclear summit in Washington, he bowed when greeting Chinese President Hu Jintao.

The act was not only shocking but revealing. Mr. Obama has come under intense criticism for bowing to leaders in the past – the king of Saudi Arabia, the emperor of Japan. But never before has America’s commander in chief prostrated himself to a foreign tyrant on U.S. soil.

By bowing, Mr. Obama degraded and cheapened the office of the presidency; as commander in chief, he represents every American when meeting with other heads of state. He is supposed to embody the dignity of the Oval Office, reflecting our collective heritage as a self-governing, constitutional republic.

Sadly, the crowning of Rima Fakih as Miss America comes at a bad time and has raised questions among the political Right.  Among them, conservative scholar Daniel Pipes who asserted in his blog that this and five other recent Muslim beauty pageant winners in the West indicate “an odd form of affirmative action [3].” 

For even posing this question, Pipes was branded a racist [4]:

That rate of wins is enough to send Daniel Pipes to the moon. This is a perfect example of how some people are brainwashed to think one person who’s white and female should be a beauty standard, and someone of color like Rima Fakih could only win a contest due to affirmative action. His view is so sick it makes me sick.

And let’s not forget, this not the first time that politics has run rough shod over the Miss USA pageant.  Carrie Prejean—despite the scandal surrounding her that followed—faced a grilling by openly gay blogger Perez Hilton about her conservative views regarding gay marriage.  Did the left come to her rescue?  No, she was then taken to the woodshed [5].

Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells that he was “saddened” by Prejean’s statement. Associated Press.

So could it be true that Rima Fakih’s win represented affirmative action in action?  She is undeniably beautiful and the countdown of any beauty pageant is a close one, so who could prove either way?  At least we can still entertain discourse in our superior way of life:  democracy.

There is a win-win to this for all those who support freedom:  Rima Fakih is an icon of a liberated Muslim. [6] She would be brutally murdered under strict Shariah law—yes under those inferior cultures—for not wearing a head covering, let alone baring skin for a swimsuit competition.  Leftists can meditate on that as they contemplate how to berate America — and make excuses for Islamic gender apartheid — the next time around.

A superpower — and a president — with declining clout

A superpower — and a president — with declining clout

May 20th, 2010

By Richard Cohen, Washington Post

 Obama is taking America on a downward slide

Early this month Barack Obama went down to Louisiana to eyeball the possible damage from BP’s exploded oil rig, keep the cleanup crews on their toes — no version of “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job” from him — and show the Gulf Coast states and the rest of the nation his concern. On May 3 , The Post’s Web site played the story precisely where it belonged — entombed in the middle of the page. In its placement, it said the president of the United States did not, in this case, matter all that much.

Everyone knew that Obama was merely showing that he was not George W. Bush. He was not going to ignore a calamity, especially one affecting New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. On the other hand, we all knew that he could not reverse the winds or cork the spill. In fact, he could do precious little except show that he cared.

This was a symbolic moment — the tide, menacing the coast with oil, moving its own way, just as events across the globe seem to be. We are accustomed to American presidents being supremely important if for no other reason than that they command the world’s mightiest military. But we ought to appreciate also that presidential importance, in terms of being able to influence events, is slipping.

In the Middle East, nothing Obama has done has made much of a difference. In Europe, the euro teeters. As critical as this currency is, it is far less important than the concept of European integration upon which it is based. We tend to forget that Europe is the home office of awful wars — twice in the last century we got involved — and if you include Russia as part of Europe, as some Russians insist, then we have to count the Cold War, too. As for Russia, it shrugs off American complaints and moves progressively backward — not a European democracy, just something else.

Read More:

Obama’s Border Corner

Obama’s Border Corner

James Devere

In a masterful display of backing himself into a foreign policy corner, President Obama has taken his stubborn insistence upon misrepresenting Arizona’s law to the international stage. Considering that the Arizona immigration law is based on federal law, Obama’s stance seems to be that there is no illegal immigration, just misguided racism.  President Obama recently stood shoulder to shoulder with Mexico’s Philippe Calderon and declared that immigration law is misguided and misdirected.  Calderon, for his part, called US immigration law discriminatory.  Obama seemed to agree. 

The President has put himself into the untenable position of declaring the enforcement of current immigration laws as “potentially” racist.  To follow the President’s logic, any law written and enforced in the United States will carry the potential for profiling.  The American people are not capable, under Obama’s point of view, of enforcing any law as it pertains to immigration.  The result can be nothing short of an open border.
Obama commented yesterday addressing employers as if the Arizona law is directed solely at the supply side of the issue.  Arizona, maybe unbeknownst to the President, has one of the country’s most stringent laws against employing illegal workers.  The implications of the President’s comments are that illegal immigration is a result of American employers’ desire to dodge labor laws and nothing else.  There is no culpability for coyotes, or the conditions that exist in these people’s home countries.  The inability of a corrupt Mexican Government to provide for its population is, according to Obama and Calderon, a burden that the US must shoulder.
Obama has announced plans to create a comprehensive (read international) immigration policy.  Bodies such as the Mexican Government and UN will be involved in setting our immigration policy.  Not since the days of Nicholas Trist has the Arizona border been in such dispute.  Unfortunately, the President has already shown that he will not stand up for the integrity of our national border.  To our current Administration, America exists not with physical boundaries called borders.  No, America is just an idea on paper, and that paper is under attack by Washington.
Obama is the first president to actively campaign overseas.  Under his leadership, bailouts know no international borders.  Under his leadership, drug crime and immigration know no borders.  Obama has proven that he is not interested in an American solution to problems, deferring instead to an era of internationalism in the formation of American Policy.  That policy, however, has gone too far when the Administration begging to collaborate rather than cooperate with a foreign government.  Arizona has been vilified and made a scapegoat for the failure of either political party to solve the illegal immigration problem.  The difference now is that the highest office in America is siding with a foreign power against one of its own 50 states.  The current Administration has decided to no longer represent Arizona or the 60% of the population that agrees with her.

“Obama’s continuing solicitude toward the faith of Muhammad is inexplicable, and as these acts of denial continue, it is becoming dangerous”

“Obama’s continuing solicitude toward the faith of Muhammad is inexplicable, and as these acts of denial continue, it is becoming dangerous”

“Radical Islam” is a flawed term, as those who use it tend to assume the existence of a form of Islam that does not teach warfare against unbelievers and their subjugation under Islamic law, but otherwise this unsigned editorial is spot-on.

Find out the roots of Obama’s denial and obfuscation in The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America. Pre-order here.

“EDITORIAL: Obama’s invisible Islam: Democrats refuse to admit who the jihadist enemy is,” from the Washington Times, May 17 (thanks to all who sent this in):

[…] The Obama administration seems to have issued an internal gag order that forbids any official statements that might cast even the most extreme interpretations of the Islamic religion in a negative light. The “force protection review” of the Fort Hood massacre omitted any mention of shooter Nidal Malik Hasan’s openly radical Islamic worldview or the fact that he made the jihadist war cry “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire. Initially, the Obama administration refused to even call the massacre an act of terrorism, much less radical Islamic terrorism.Last year, the Department of Homeland Security Domestic Extremist Lexicon, which was pulled out of circulation in the wake of controversy with other department publications, listed Jewish extremism and various forms of Christian extremism as threats but made no mention of any form of Muslim extremism. The Feb. 1, 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review discusses terrorism and violent extremism but does not mention radical Islam as a motivator, or in any context. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review likewise avoids any terminology related to Islam.

The Obama administration may not like to think of being at war with radical Islam, but the jihadists are definitely at war with the United States. Rather than running from the expression “radical Islam,” the administration should be openly discussing the ideological motives of the terrorists and finding ways to delegitimize them. Instead of hedging, obfuscating and ignoring, these Democrats should confront the challenge frankly, openly and honestly. Pretending that a radical, violent strain of Islam does not exist will not make it go away. To the contrary, it will make the situation much worse.

President Obama’s continuing solicitude toward the faith of Muhammad is inexplicable, and as these acts of denial continue, it is becoming dangerous. The United States will not defeat an enemy it is afraid to identify.

Another Very Bad Night for Obama, Democrats, and the Media

Another Very Bad Night for Obama, Democrats, and the Media

By C. Edmund Wright

The U.S. dollar and good news for Democrats have a lot in common these days. No matter how much of either liberals print, the absolute value keeps declining.
To be fair, the Jurassic media is actually half-right in their groupthink analysis that yesterday’s elections were more evidence that the prevailing mood in the country is simply anti-Washington. But the half they get wrong is very wrong indeed. As such, they were losers yesterday.
The biggest winners were Rand Paul’s campaign and the Tea Party movement/philosophy. The biggest losers were Barack Obama and the current far-left Democrat Congress and their notion of a large and intrusive government. Other losers include the political thinking of George W. Bush, Karl Rove, John McCain, and Bill Clinton.
As for the major parties, consider that the continued rebuke of “reach across the aisle” and “new tone” Republicanism is good news for a GOP that is rather rapidly finding its way.
Conversely, the rebuke of a sitting president and Congress — not to mention the entire governing philosophy of the Democrats — is potentially catastrophic for them. It was an awful night for liberals.
Anti-Washington, you say?
It is true that there is fierce anti-Washington fervor. But pundits are dead wrong in claiming that this means both parties are affected equally. Washington is a liberal Democrat city — and not only by the standards of the current makeup of the administration and the Congress, though that is very true.
It goes deeper. The very notion of Washington as a control center and hub of intellectual power and great solutions is by definition a liberal ideal. Washington is Mecca to the Democrat liberal base. By contrast, the city and all it represents are anathema to progress and prosperity for the Republican base voters…you know, the tea party types. Yesterday was another sound rebuke of Washington as defined by liberals and thus another big day for the mindset of the tea party movement.
Best Name of 2010: Rand’s a Winner in Kentucky
Liberal pundits like Mort Kondracke and David Goodstein have said that Rand Paul’s primary win is more evidence that the Republican Party is imploding. They could not be more wrong. Paul — armed with perhaps the perfect first name for a politician in 2010 — is the quintessential Tea Party candidate. A fierce defender of limited government, the younger Paul and many of his supporters seem unburdened by some of his dad’s most unconventional thoughts, yet he was able to tap into some of the Ron Paul cult support system.
More importantly, opponent Trey Grayson was a McCain-type candidate. He seems to have borrowed the worn-out phrases from Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s tired campaign in Texas. Grayson’s ads touted his ability to “get things done” in Washington by “working with people.” I think Grayson would have lost to a blank space with such a tone-deaf campaign. 
No, Mr. Kondracke, the party is not imploding. It is healing, and this means getting rid of cancers like Grayson (and Bennett and Crist). Rand Paul will win the general election, as will Marco Rubio in Florida and a Republican in Utah.
Specter’s Spectacular Loss
Arlen Specter’s final chapters as a senator are object lessons in what is wrong with Washington generally and what is wrong with moderate Republicans as a concept. The most devastating turn in this campaign was the release of an ad featuring kind words from Bush 41 from days when Specter was a Republican. 
Ironically, this would have been as devastating in a GOP primary as it was in this one. Bush’s endorsement of Specter was a centerpiece in Rove’s philosophically vacant “permanent majority” strategy. The era of Arlen Specter — and of the “new tone” — is over.
Now Pennsylvania will get a choice. Liberal Joe Sestak will run against Conservative Republican Pat Toomey in November. And yes, there is indeed more “than a dime’s worth of difference” between those two.
Rush Limbaugh Democrat Wins Murtha Seat
You know it’s bad night when a win is actually a loss. Perhaps the worst news of the night for Team Obama was the Democrat win in the special election in Pennsylvania for Jack Murtha’s seat. 
Huh? Yep, Mark Critz is a “Rush Limbaugh Democrat” who campaigned against almost everything Obama and Murtha support. Frankly, he was more conservative than the McCain campaign of 2008 and more apt to criticize Obama than is, say, Lindsay Graham. Republican Tim Burns had no one to run against, and the district is heavily Democrat by registration. This was hardly a race that can be celebrated by the Democrat leadership today. Critz is the type of Democrat that Nancy Pelosi was hoping to lose in November.
Lincoln Troubles Symbolic
There is no clearer symbol of the trouble Obama is in than Blanche Lincoln. She is a sitting U.S. senator and has the strong endorsement of the two most popular Democrats in a century — Obama and Bill Clinton — and she is barely hanging on in her struggle to win a primary.
Lincoln is about 1% ahead of Bill Halter (as of this writing) and will face a runoff challenge. For an incumbent to be rejected by 60 percent of her party’s voters is startling. This is a net loss for Obama and for the Clintons as well, not to mention an entire party that would readily admit that those are the biggest names in their arsenal. 
The Takeaway
If it was embarrassing — and instructive — for George W. Bush’s machine in Texas to get wiped out in their campaign for Hutchinson, it is even more so for Teams Obama-Clinton yesterday in Arkansas. Once-powerful national machines are now losing intramural contests on their home fields. 
So what does this mean? Does it mean that people are simply fed up with Washington and all elected officials? Not exactly, though there is an element of truth in that analysis.
The real meaning is that people are fed up with this president, this Congress, their party, and the attempt to destroy a country and an economic system that have done more for freedom and good than any other country or economic system in world history.
Moreover, people are also fed up with any kind of namby-pamby opposition party that is little more than a low-calorie version of the statist Democrats. And this is not new. This wave has been building since Rick Santelli had his tea party rant over mortgages in February of 2009. It built through the tea party rallies in the spring of 2009 and into the town hall meetings of the summer of 2009.
The wave rolled in the fall through stunning elections of ’09 in Virginia and New Jersey, and then later in Massachusetts with Scott Brown. It rolled after the health care debacle, and it rolls today, fueled by brave conservative leaders like Chris Christie and Jan Brewer.
A lot can happen between now and November’s general elections, but make no mistake: Yesterday’s elections were definitely an extension of  the conservative ascendancy that is taking hold in this country. As such, it was yet another bad day for liberal America and  a good day for tea party-supporters.
And it matters not that the pundits do not understand it. The truth does not require validation on the “Morning Joe” program or in the New York Times.