Video: Gov. Brewer says Obama giving Mexico double the money that is gives to Arizona for Nat. Guard protection

Video: Gov. Brewer says Obama giving Mexico double the money that is gives to Arizona for Nat. Guard protection

June 29th, 2010

The Obama administration is suing Arizona over their recent immigration law, which is an attempt to slow the many illegal immigrants pouring into Arizona.

Now the Obama administration is giving more money to Mexico than they are to Arizona, according to a recent meeting Gov. Jan Brewer had with administration officials.

Get Informed! Read some more articles about this situation
Obama courting Latinos by suing Arizona  

Obama administration boycotting Arizona.  

Mexican government joining lawsuit against Arizona.

Watch the lawsuit being revealed for the first time by Hillary Clinton on Ecuadorean TV   

All of these articles show a developing dangerous rift between the Obama administration and the state of Arizona. Why is Obama so desperately trying to put down the right of Arizona to protect itself and courting with foreigners to do this?

The perfect society: A land without wealth?

The perfect society: A land without wealth?

Anthony W. Hager

Utopia! It’s the holy grail of egalitarian busybodies far and wide. If only outcomes were equal, as defined by the egalitarians themselves, the world would become a place of balanced chi and seamless harmony. These societal engineers have long believed in their unique intellects and superlative abilities, which qualify them to distribute wealth and contentment to a longing world. Sadly, there’s no shortage of these do-gooders.

A New York State Assemblyman envisions an increased millionaire tax. If passed, high income earners–who already bear a disproportionate share of New York’s tax burden–will pitch in an additional 11-percent. The broken record known as Hillary Clinton still laments how “the rich” don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes. Oregon, too, has joined the chorus.

Earlier this year Oregon voters passed Measures 66 and 67, raising taxes on individuals and businesses that wealth redistributors, in their profundity, have deemed excessive winners in life’s lottery. Typical class envy tactics preceded that electoral outcome. Proponents argued that education, public safety and health would suffer if the initiatives failed. The poor, naturally, would take it on the chin.

The entire premise of a perceived “fair share” is ambiguous at best. Would the egalitarian consider taxation equitable if the “rich” surrender, say, 75-percent of their income to government? Hillary Clinton, Oregon voters and New York assemblymen might think so. But anyone with a toehold on reality understands that productive people shoulder the tax burden now. The top one-percent of earners pays 28-percent of federal income taxes. Additionally, over the last 30 years the taxation on incomes above $75,000 has steadily increased while declining on incomes below that threshold.

Arguing that wealthier Americans pay little or no taxes is misleading. No, make that an outright lie. And that’s not the only mischaracterization offered by the “soak the rich” crowd.

In promoting Measures 66 and 67 the Oregon Center for Public Policy claimed that “asking” Oregonians to “contribute” more in taxes would improve the state’s fiscal structure. Certainly some taxation is necessary for governments to execute legitimate functions. But referring to tax increases as “asking” people to “contribute” is unadulterated spin, sufficient to strain even the strongest gastronomical constitution. And it’s so typical of the egalitarian social engineer.

Charitable organizations solicit contributions, and contributors alone determine their level of participation. No such choice exists with taxation. Tax levies aren’t a request on government’s part, and taxes aren’t contributed sans duress. Taxes are compulsory and their collection is ultimately a matter of force.
Sadly, there’s little to be achieved in arguing taxation with egalitarians. Redistributionists are so devoted to equalizing all incomes and imposing their Marxist vision on society that debate has become futile. Equally futile are the protests of the productive, whose incomes are sacrificed upon the perverse altar of egalitarianism. The producer’s right to their production will never match the needs of the oppressed when it comes to conjuring empathy. Therefore the “rich” are safely marginalized, demonized and dismissed.

What would happen if busybodies like Hillary Clinton, New York legislators and Oregon voters fulfill their collectivist dreams? If there were no private wealth the economy would become void of capital investment. Innovation and production would decelerate, with a corresponding decline in employment and living standards. The resulting misery would create greater demand on government, which puts the do-gooders in position to distribute the remaining wealth as they so determine. They will achieve their socialist dreams, but only for a season.

Such idealism has no foundation upon which to build. Since government produces little, and that which is produced is a case study in inefficiency, the egalitarian society is doomed to failure. Only the most influential busybodies will benefit from their societal and economic transformation. The rank and file do-gooder will be destined to impoverished servitude alongside their once-wealthy neighbors, whose property they helped confiscate.

So goes the nation without private wealth. Utopia? I think not.

Anthony W. Hager has authored more than 200 published articles for various newspapers, periodicals and websites. He can be reached through his website,

Obama Enlists Radical Groups, SEIU, Labor Unions to Push for Amnesty

Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, June 28, 2010, 8:18 PM

Barack Obama just enlisted his radical leftist groups, the SEIU and labor unions to push for amnesty this year.
The AP reported:

President Barack Obama is enlisting activists and labor leaders in a push for comprehensive immigration legislation that will showcase Republican opposition and include a speech by the president.

The strategy was discussed during a meeting Monday by a range of prominent labor leaders and activist groups. Participants said Obama reiterated his support for immigration legislation but noted the political realities that have stalled it in Congress.

Latino leaders say they will work in coming months to pressure Republicans to give way and support an immigration bill — and make opponents pay at the ballot box if they don’t.

“We’re going to make absolutely crystal clear who’s at fault here,” said Eliseo Medina, a leader of the Service Employees International Union.

Prospects for passage of comprehensive immigration legislation look bleak this election year, and even many Democrats are wary of wading into the hot-button issue. But Obama, who pledged as a candidate to make immigration reform a top priority during his first year in office, faces pressure from the Hispanic community to act — or at least to try.

Sarah Palin: Another Victory for the Second Amendment

Sarah Palin: Another Victory for the Second Amendment

Another Victory for the Second Amendment
 Yesterday at 10:46am
The Supreme Court handed down an important ruling today stating what should be obvious: that the Second Amendment, in the words of Justice Alito writing for the court, “applies equally to the federal government and the states.” Today’s decision in McDonald vs. City of Chicago, in conjunction with the landmark Heller case two years ago, should leave little doubt that our individual right to keep and bear arms applies everywhere and is a right for everyone.

For an interesting perspective on the significance of today’s ruling, take a look at David Rittgers’ article in National Review here.

– Sarah Palin

Morning Bell: The Dodd-Frank Assault on Economic Recovery

Morning Bell: The Dodd-Frank Assault on Economic Recovery

Posted By Conn Carroll On June 29, 2010 @ 9:16 am In Enterprise and Free Markets | No Comments

Following the release of the 2,000-page Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill last Friday, fixed-income portfolio manager Christine McConnell told Businessweek [1]: “Clarity is good. [Once financial institutions] understand the rules of the road they’ll be able to accommodate their business models.” There is only one problem: passage of the Dodd-Frank bill doesn’t provide any clarity. In fact, it does the exact opposite. The New York Times [2] explains: “The bill, completed early Friday and expected to come up for a final vote this week, is basically a 2,000-page missive to federal agencies, instructing regulators to address subjects ranging from derivatives trading to document retention. But it is notably short on specifics, giving regulators significant power to determine its impact.”

In other words, this law is going to be continually rewritten by federal bureaucrats for years to come. And the continued uncertainty it will create is just the beginning of its faults [3]:

Permanent Bailout Authority: The Dodd-Frank bill creates an “orderly liquidation” process by which regulators are empowered to seize financial institutions that they believe are in danger of failing and liquidate them. While the lack of a broadly accepted process for closing down large financial institutions helped lead to the massive bailouts of 2008 and 2009, this liquidation process is problematic. Federal regulators are granted broad powers to seize private firms they feel are in danger of default, and these powers are subject to insufficient judicial review. Such governmental discretion to seize private property is constitutionally troubling.

Trusting the Same Regulators that Failed Last Time: The legislation establishes a new 10-member Financial Stability Oversight Council composed of regulators that would be responsible for monitoring and addressing system-wide risks to the financial system. This council would also have nearly unlimited powers to draft financial firms into the regulatory system and even force them to sell off or close pieces of themselves. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to detect systemic risk before a crisis has occurred, and the council would serve mainly as a group to blame for failing at an almost impossible task. On the other hand, its huge powers are much more likely to destabilize the financial system by stifling innovative products while failing to detect dangers posed by existing ones.

Brand New Innovation Killing Regulators: The bill also creates a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection with broad powers to regulate the financial products and services that can be offered to consumers. The new agency would nominally be part of the Federal Reserve System, but it would have extraordinary autonomy. This autonomy would impede the efforts of existing regulators to ensure the safety and soundness of financial firms, as rules imposed by the new agency would conflict with that goal. For many consumers, this would make credit more expensive and harder to get.

Micromanaging the Market: The conference committee also added a form of the “Volcker rule” which would largely prohibit any bank or other institution with FDIC-insured deposits from undertaking proprietary trading or from owning or sponsoring hedge funds or private equity funds. While the legislation does reject the near-total ban on such investments, the difference between legitimate and traditional activities and those the Volcker rule seeks to ban would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine. Attempting to do so would require an intrusive, expensive regulatory compliance system that by its nature would micromanage day-to-day activities.

Fannie and Freddie Forever: Despite much rhetoric about ending bailouts, the bill does nothing to address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two of the largest recipients of federal bailout money. These two government-sponsored enterprises, now in federal receivership, helped fuel the housing bubble. When it popped, taxpayers found themselves on the hook for some $150 billion in bailout money. The failure to address their future is a serious error and shows just how hollow are claims that this agreement will prevent future crises.

These are just some of the major flaws in a bill that is just one House and Senate vote away from President Barack Obama’s desk (a fuller list can be found here [3]). But final passage is not as sure today as it looked Friday. The passing of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) [4] leaves the majority one vote short of the 60 needed to move for a final vote. In addition, the insertion of an estimated $20 billion in new taxes [5] has Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) reconsidering his original vote in favor of the measure. Scott released a statement [6] explaining: “My fear is that these costs would be passed onto consumers in the form of higher bank, ATM and credit card fees and put a strain on lending at the worst possible time for our economy. I’ve said repeatedly that I cannot support any bill that raises taxes.”

Explaining that the Dodd-Frank bill would force banks to either take on more risk to recoup earnings diminished by reform or behave too conservatively in order to avoid losses, financial analyst Chris Mutascio summarized [1] the ultimate effect of the legislation: “Pick your poison—neither tastes good to us and we believe neither is particularly good for the economy and job growth.”

Quick Hits:

  • This morning, the Missile Defense Agency and U.S. Army soldiers of the 6th Air Defense Artillery Brigade successfully conducted a successful intercept test [7] for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense element of the nation’s Ballistic Missile Defense System.
  • Shallow water drillers tell CNN that President Obama’s deep water oil drilling ban has become a stealth ban on all Gulf drilling [8] forcing hundreds of layoffs with many more on the way.
  • House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) is trying to insert a provision into the war supplemental funding bill [9] that would compel volunteer firefighters to join unions, threatening the survival of America’s nearly 26,000 volunteer fire departments.
  • The lead attorney in the victorious Chicago Second Amendment case promises [10]: “There will be future cases, I will be bringing cases in the days and weeks to come.”
  • President Obama’s political director Patrick Gaspard failed to disclose [11] that he was slated to receive a nearly $40,000 payout from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) while he was working in the White House.

Social Insecurity

Social Insecurity

Posted By Tait Trussell On June 29, 2010 @ 12:05 am In FrontPage | 4 Comments

Only 11 percent of workers and 8 percent of retirees feel any “confidence” in the federal government, a new national poll discovered. It also found a huge majority of working Americans don’t believe [1] Social Security and Medicare will be there for them when they retire. These findings can be seen as a dramatic and seminal judgment of the policies and operations of the Obama administration and the Congress.

In addition, these attitudes, expressed in a poll of a representative sample of Americans, are a significant socioeconomic development in the life of the tried and supposedly true programs of Social Security and Medicare. Since its birth in 1935, [2] the Social Security System has been fondly called America’s most popular program [3]. For nearly one-third of recipients, it has provided their entire income. And Medicare, the health-care program for the aging since 1965, not only has won the confidence of the elderly it has helped to keep many chronically ill seniors alive. But now most retirees, as well, are doubtful about the future benefits promised by Social Security and Medicare, the new poll revealed.

These upsetting attitudes toward the federal government and its major long-standing programs were discovered in the 2010 Retirement Confidence Survey, [2] a representative national sample of 1,153 adults conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) and Mathew Greenwald & Associates, a public opinion company. This was the 20th annual survey of EBRI, a non-partisan Washington-based organization. It is engaged in original public policy research and education on economic security and employee benefits and attitudes. It is supported by 30 large, well-known American companies and private individuals.

When those working Americans were asked by EBRI “if the Social Security System will continue to provide benefits of at least equal value to the benefits received by retirees today” only 6 percent of the men and 7 percent of the women were confident that this would be the case. When the sample of the nation’s working adults were asked “if the Medicare system will continue to provide benefits received by retirees today,” even lower percentages showed any confidence. Only 5 percent of men and 4 percent of women responded they were sure this medical-care benefit would be available for them.

Even among current retirees, only 11 percent expressed confidence that Social Security benefits will continue to pay current benefits to them. Seventeen percent said they were “not at all” sure. When asked about Medicare, only 7 percent are confident it will serve them in the future. But 17 percent of the retirees answered that they were “not at all” confident about Medicare’s future. This, despite a strong pitch from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius about Medicare sent by first class postage in a slick brochure to all 44 million households with Medicare recipients.

The principal purpose of the Retirement Confidence Survey, of course, was to measure workers and retirees plans and attitudes concerning retirement. But the EBRI study said Americans “are most likely to express confidence in private employers (23 percent of workers and 27 percent of retirees very confident).” They also said they were very confident about banks and insurance companies, but “least likely to feel confidence in the federal government.”

President Obama’s favorability rating has dropped [4] significantly in the past six months according to a Pew Research poll. Obama’s competence has been questioned in dealing with the massive Gulf oil spill, the faint economic crawl-back, the gigantic national debt, his unpopular health care law, and troubles abroad. According to a CBS/New York Times poll on June 16, the approval rating of Congress was only 19 percent, [5] while 70 percent disapproved of the performance of our legislative branch. Citizens have watched fearfully as Congress made deep cuts in Medicare, doubled the national debt, threatened growth-killing taxes, and passed authoritarian energy policies. In early March, CNN said, summarizing the results of its CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, that the majority of Americans say “the government poses an immediate threat [6] to individual rights and freedoms.”

Even the liberal Huffington Post [7] in a June 18 article on pending financial reform in the Senate sounded a pained chord: “Is this the Democratic Party I know and support? Is this the Black Caucus? The Hispanic Caucus? The Progressive Caucus? The Obama Administration? Where is the fairness in this amendment?”

Even Germany joined the critics [8] of deficit spending June 2, rebuking the Obama Administration over its red ink policies, the Washington Times reported, indicating a looming fight over deficits as global leaders headed for a summit of the Group of Eight industrial powers.

Obama in April appointed a bipartisan debt panel [9] to struggle with how to shrink the government’s red ink. At its first meeting, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-White House Budget Director Peter Orszag pointed to the potential for our national debt to precipitate an economic crisis. Bloomberg Businessweek reported: “The challenge facing the panel is devising a plan proposing hundreds of billions in tax increases and spending cuts that can get backing from at least 14 of 18 members of the panel.” The federal debt, it noted, is “projected to reach 90 percent of the U.S. economy by 2020. Interest rates are forecast to quadruple to more than $900 billion annually by that year.” The panel’s recommendations are not due until December 1. Panel co-chairman former Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo) described the difficulty of reaching a recommendation as “like giving dry birth to a porcupine.”

House majority Leader Steny Hoyer, in a speech [10] June 22 said that Democrats can take care of the country’s debt problems. He said everything from defense spending to raising the retirement age for Social Security is on the table when taking on the nation’s fiscal problems:

On the spending side, we could and should consider a higher retirement age, or one pegged to lifespan, more progressive Social Security and Medicare benefits, and a stronger safety net for the Americans who need it most. It isn’t possible to debate and pass a realistic and long-term budget until we’ve considered the bipartisan commission’s deficit reduction plan…

The top six most important problems [11] facing the nation according to a June 17 Gallup Poll are the “economy in general,” “Unemployment/Jobs,” “Natural disaster response/Relief,” “Dissatisfaction with government,” “Healthcare,” and “Federal budget deficit.” All are testing the competence of President Obama. Meanwhile, it seems, America is expected to play a waiting game.

Abetting Terrorism = “Free Speech”?

Abetting Terrorism = “Free Speech”?

Posted By John Perazzo On June 29, 2010 @ 12:27 am In FrontPage | 5 Comments

In a 6 to 3 decision last week, the Supreme Court upheld [1] a federal law that makes it a crime for Americans to provide “material support” of any kind – be it in the form of cash, weaponry, training, personnel, services, or “expert advice or assistance” – to a foreign terrorist organization, even if that support is for ostensibly peaceful purposes. At issue in the case, known as Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, was the question of whether this restriction violates Americans’ First Amendment rights of free speech and association. Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said that “even seemingly benign support” for such an entity “bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization”; “frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends”; “helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups”; and strains “the United States’ relationships with its allies.” As to the specific issue of free speech, Roberts pointed out that people “may say anything they wish on any topic”; that they “may speak and write freely about” any organization of their choice; and that they are even free to become members of whatever group they wish to join. Roberts was backed in his decision by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and the soon-to-be-retiring John Paul Stevens. Dissenting from the majority decision were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor, who saw the “material support” restriction as a violation of the First Amendment.

A lead plaintiff in the case was the longtime civil-rights attorney Ralph Fertig [2], whose professed desire is to help the Turkey-based Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) find peaceful ways of advancing its goal: the creation of an independent Kurdish state in southeast Turkey, northern Iraq, and parts of Iran and Syria. Because PKK’s history is replete with bombings, kidnappings, and a violent insurgency responsible for some 22,000 deaths, the U.S. government has designated it as a terrorist organization. Notwithstanding this bloody track record, Fertig and his fellow plaintiffs maintained that with a proper blend of persuasion and education, PKK could be convinced to renounce its violent tactics and to work, instead, within the framework of “various representative bodies such as the United Nations for relief.” By Fertig’s reckoning, the ban against giving aid to PKK and other terrorist groups is “more dangerous than McCarthyism” ever was. After the Court announced its decision last week, a dejected Fertig said: “This is a very dark day in the history of the human rights struggle to assist groups overseas that are being oppressed.”

A look at Fertig’s background and affiliations will help place his disappointment in proper perspective. First and foremost, Fertig is president of the Humanitarian Law Project [3] (HLP), an organization created by Los Angeles real estate magnate Aris Anagnos [4], who since the early 1970s has bankrolled Marxist causes around the globe — including the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, the Marxist rebels in Chiapas, and the regime of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro [5]. Over the years, HLP has consistently sided with America’s Marxist adversaries in international disputes; has accused the U.S. of committing “atrocities” in both Iraq wars; has called for the United States to be prosecuted for its alleged war crimes by the World Court; and has identified American disarmament as a chief prerequisite for peace around the world.

Fertig also serves as a supporting member of the Campaign Against Criminalizing Communities [6] (CACC), which complains [7] that the war on terror was concocted by warmongering conservatives to “promot[e] a racist culture of suspicion towards migrant and Muslim communities”; to “generat[e] and manipulat[e] public fears [that will] justify a perpetual state of war”; to plac[e] entire communities under suspicion of associating with such ‘terrorism’”; to “us[e] ‘intelligence’ obtained by torturing detainees abroad”; and to “wag[e] psychological warfare through disinformation and mass-media scares about ‘al [8] [8]Qaeda [8] cells.’” (All scare quotes were in CACC’s original literature.)

Fertig also endorsed World Can’t Wait [9] (WCW), a project of the Revolutionary Communist Party [10] – a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist group calling for the overthrow of the U.S. government and its replacement with a Communist dictatorship. WCW sought [11] to “halt” the Bush administration’s alleged pursuit of “endless wars,” its routine use of “torture,” its indifference to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and its quest to transform the United States into a Christian “theocracy.”

In 2000, Fertig made a monetary contribution [12] to anti-war activist Medea Benjamin [13]’s unsuccessful run as the Green Party [14] candidate for U.S. Senate in California. Benjamin, who co-founded both Global Exchange [15] and Code Pink [16], aligns her politics closely with those of Fidel Castro [5]. She was a principal architect [17] of the violent 1999 protests in Seattle, where rampaging anti-globalization activists burned cars, smashed windows, and caused millions of dollars in property damage. She spearheaded a 2004 effort to donate $600,000 in medical supplies and cash to the families of the terrorist insurgents who were fighting American troops in Fallujah, Iraq. And in 2006, she and Cindy Sheehan [18]together traveled [19] to South Korea to publicly condemn a U.S. plan for expanding an American military base near Seoul. According to Ms. Benjamin [20], the “innovative” economic policies of Venezuela’s communist president Hugo Chavez have placed his country at “the center of a new, progressive model of socioeconomic development that is shaping Latin America’s future.”

It should be noted that Fertig’s support for far leftists and Marxists does not end with Benjamin, Castro, and Chavez. In 2008 he donated money [21] to Barack Obama [22]’s presidential campaign and was, for awhile, in contention to be selected [23] as a delegate for Obama in California’s 30th Congressional District.

Representing Fertig and his fellow plaintiffs in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project was David Cole [24], a staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights [25] (CCR). In Cole’s estimation, the Court’s ruling “basically says the First Amendment allows making peacemaking and human rights advocacy a crime.” Since 9/11, Cole and CCR have focused their efforts heavily on derailing the U.S. government’s newly implemented anti-terrorism measures, which the Center depicts as having “seriously undermined civil liberties, the checks and balances that are essential to the structure of our democratic government, and indeed, democracy itself.” In December 2006, CCR and the Humanitarian Law Project jointly petitioned [26] a federal judge to dismiss charges that had been brought against the Hamas [27]-linked Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development [28], which in 2001 was shut down by the U.S. government because of its terrorist ties.

In 2002 Cole wrote, “It appears that the greatest threat to our freedoms is posed not by the terrorists themselves but by our own government’s response” to 9/11. That same year, Cole was a signatory to a “Statement of Conscience [29]” drafted by Not In Our Name [30] (NION), a self-described “peace movement” initiated by C. Clark Kissinger [31] of the Revolutionary Communist Party. The NION Statement condemned not only the Bush administration’s “stark new measures of repression,” but also its “unjust, immoral, illegitimate, [and] openly imperial policy towards the world.” According to NION, it was the American government – and not that of any other nation – that posed the most “grave dangers to the people of the world.”

Also in 2002, Cole came to the defense of Sami Al-Arian [32], the University of San Francisco professor arrested for his involvement with the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad [33]. “People cannot be punished for advocating criminal activity unless the Supreme Court has said their speech is intended and likely to incite imminent lawless actions,” Cole maintained. That said, he claimed that Al-Arian’s infamous remark wishing “Death to Israel” was protected speech.

Cole and CCR garnered considerable media coverage in 2005 when representing the self-described radical attorney Lynne Stewart [34] during her trial for having abetted the terrorist ambitions of Islamic Group [35] leader Omar Abdel Rahman [36], mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. When Stewart was found guilty in February of 2005, Cole lamented that “this case illustrates how out-of-hand things have gotten in the ‘war on terrorism’” (scare quotes in original).

In the calculus of leftists like Ralph Fertig and David Cole, there is nary a pro-terrorist word or act that cannot ultimately be defended under the rubric of “free speech.” Thus continues the Left’s quest to interpret the United States Constitution as a national suicide pact.

Obama’s Wonderland Is No Fairy Tale

Obama’s Wonderland Is No Fairy Tale

By Eileen F. Toplansky

As we continue to tumble down the road to economic ruin, security vulnerability, and reduced health care benefits, things become “curiouser and curiouser.” While President Obama speedily demands that General McChrystal zoom home to be dismissed from his post, the frustrated Gulf residents still cannot get all the equipment and assistance that they need to hold back the oil that is wrecking their homes and their livelihoods. Thus, one wonders as Alice in Wonderland did, “Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?” 
“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat. And herein is the American people’s conundrum. Where do we want to go as this president continues to severely damage our country and her interests?
Even Europe understands the economic catastrophe that is upon us and wonders if “we’re all mad here” as Obama and team continue to obfuscate the truth. Actor Jon Voight has publicly stated that Obama is lying to the American people. But of course, when Obama speaks, “it means just what [he] chooses it to mean — neither more nor less.” 
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” 
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.” 
And so, in the new Patients’ Bill of Rights, Obama, “speaking ominously,” has warned the health care insurance providers that the government will “be watching [them] closely.”  Ultimately, our soft tyrannical government will be the sole arbiter of our health needs and costs. Though Obama promised otherwise, it is becoming patently obvious that eventually Americans won’t be able to keep their own insurance, since Obama has created a no-win situation for the private health insurance sector, which cannot remain financially solvent. Queues and denial of health care benefits are around the corner. Furthermore, the latest massive bill about financial reform is being pushed through Congress; Senator Dodd has said that it “is about as important as it gets, because it deals with every single aspect of our lives.” Uh-oh!
Furthermore, infatuated with himself, Obama, believed by many to be the messiah, has hurt the very people who pinned such high hopes on him. Already, accounts reveal that minorities and women — those very groups who were part of the affirmative action programs imposed by the federal government — are being adversely affected. Obama promised them pie in the sky but neglected to tell them that a house built upon financially shaky foundations will eventually fold. Moreover, Barney Frank blocks Republicans from offering amendments to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — the source of so much of the current economic downfall — and so the charade continues, with American taxpayers propping up a defunct system. Obama pointedly dislikes the exceptional nature of America and seeks to destroy it, but are all the congressional Democrats so hateful of the country they swore to serve?
People are slowly allowing themselves to be psychologically enslaved as one group is pitted against the other. When questioned by senators about the massive expansion in hate crimes enforcement, Attorney General Holder responded that hate crimes legislation “would not necessarily cover” instances where whites, Christians, or military members were assaulted. Preferential treatment for blacks at the expense of whites and Asians was part of Obama’s tenure during his time as senator. Double standards and obvious favoritism now reign supreme. Most egregious is Holder’s dismissal of the case where New Black Panther Party members intimidated white voters. Does this portend things to come in November?
How else could Arizona now be a pariah in the Obama administration? Hypocritically, he thinks he will obtain the Hispanic vote while he undermines the rule of law. If I were of Hispanic heritage, I would be incensed at the covert discrimination this represents. It implies that Hispanic people are unlawful and irresponsible! How could other states arrogantly dismiss the genuine legal concerns of Arizonans and start boycotting this besieged state? Government does not want to actually repair the holes in our immigration program. Furthermore, Obama offends those immigrants who have obeyed the law and are adding their talents to the American tapestry. Quite unbelievably, because Obama and Holder will file lawsuits against Arizona, our Mexican neighbors are coming on board and have formally joined a lawsuit challenging Arizona’s new immigration law! 
The Mexican government is merely taking its cue from the deliberate “reeling and writhing, of course, to begin with, and then the different branches of arithmetic — ambition, distraction, uglification, and derision” that Obama employs so well. First, there is his overweening ambition with no true leadership experience; then our 44th president constantly distracts with his pseudo-anger and coarse words. When that trick loses its appeal, he derides and humiliates the banks, the car companies, the BP executives, the people of Arizona, the country, the value system of America, and our allies. This is an autocrat who clearly echoes the Queen when she said, “Now I must give you fair warning: ‘either you or your head.'” There is a genuine fear in this country as people understand that to disagree with Obama and company is to invite “the boot” on their necks, so reminiscent of dictatorial governments as Obama and cronies doth “sentence first — verdict afterwards.” 
Surely, “it would be so nice if something made sense for a change,” said Alice, but in Obamaworld, if one wants to deliberately undermine this country, everything he does leans in that direction. As the Duchess exclaimed, “the moral of that is — the more there is of mine, the less there is of yours.” The next generation of Americans is already burdened with the financial debacle of a $15-trillion debt with no end in sight as the federal government becomes as bloated as Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Obama’s economic plan has not improved the country, but when “four times five is twelve, and four times six is thirteen,” math takes on a wholly new and original meaning as this president confiscates money without “due process of law.”
Knowing full well that his programs could do nothing but fail because they are not sustainable, Obama sets the stage for frustration and anger. He pits groups against each other rather than open up a truly free-market economy where people would have a chance to succeed. Rile up the crowd — distract them from the issues and engage in constant polemic. Sales on new homes in May plunged 33%, but all is well in Obama Wonderland!
Indeed, after forty years of federal entitlement, there are too many Americans who may have vaguely remembered ideals like responsibility and individual initiative, who used to “know who [they were] when [they] got up this morning, but … must have been changed several times since then.” Segments of Americans have lost their fundamental moorings or were never taught about the greatness of America and are now mesmerized by the empty slogans and the articulate nonsense of this president and the congress.
Jean-Francois Revel in his book How Democracies Perish wonders how “the citizens of democratic societies [will] find reasons to resist the enemy outside if they are persuaded from childhood that their civilization is merely an accumulation of failures and a monstrous imposture. … And that attack, which is being waged with unexampled vigor [and] scope … is catching the democracies in a state of intellectual impotence and political indolence” (10).
Our history books censure the dangers of totalitarianism and falsify and embellish history, and there is no reprobation. Obama stands by as America is demeaned, and all the while the adoring crowds still believe the emperor is wearing clothes. Their gullibility or lack of facts is mind-boggling. Thus, Obama has learned well the advice of the Queen: “Be what you would seem to be — [or] if you’d like it put more simply –‘Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.'”
Will democracy “turn out to be have been a historical accident,” as Jean Francois Revel wrote?
 “Oh my ears and whiskers, how late it’s getting,” said Rabbit!
Active in the 1970s writing campaign to free Russian Jewish refuseniks, Eileen continues to speak out against tyranny. She can be reached at

SCOTUS theater: Kagan kabuki

Lead Story

SCOTUS theater: Kagan kabuki

By Michelle Malkin  •  June 28, 2010 04:12 AM

Places, places everyone.

Today, the curtain officially opens on the Senate “battle” over Obama Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. “Battle” gets ghost quotes because all the poohbahs on Capitol Hill are already treating her confirmation as a “foregone conclusion.”

Beltway Republicans will put up just enough of a fight to placate grass-roots conservative activists on Kagan’s radical social views, while the nutroots will pout (but not too loudly) that Kagan isn’t enough of a liberal activist for them. And GOP Sen. Lindsay Graham, after several minutes of obligatory grandstanding mixed with obsequious suck-uppage, will cast his vote with Kagan and Obama — as he did with Sonia Sotomayor (whom he praised as “bold” and edgy”).

Here’s one MSM list of the “5 things to watch out for” during Kagan Kabuki.

I would add:

Will Kagan impersonate Goodwin Liu? Confronted with his radical writings and speeches, Obama’s far Left 9th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee cut and ran from his long-held political beliefs on everything from the welfare state to racial quotas to the role of the judiciary.

Will Kagan impersonate Joe Biden? Kagan’s hostility to the 2nd amendment is certain to be raised by Republicans. When faced with criticism from gun-owners regarding his boss’s views, Biden turned into a gun-slinging cowboy — and attempted to assuage self-defense activists by bragging about his own shotguns and Berretta.

(Speaking of guns, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down a ruling today in the gun rights McDonald v. Chicago case.

How many times will we hear the Kagan=”everyday people/compelling personal story” meme before the hearings are through? Hey, it worked for Sonia Sotomayor

– How quickly will left-wing WaPo fashion writer Robin Givhan (who bashed Bush-nominated Supreme Court Justice John Roberts’ children’s clothes) crank out a piece praising Kagan’s sensible, down-to-earth, common people style?

– How many times will we hear Democrat Senators vouch for Kagan’s commitment to social-engineering “diversity” at Harvard?

How many Senators have actually read through the 44,000-plus pages of Kagan-authored legal memos, analysis and other documents during the Clinton era just released less than two weeks ago. Answer: ZERO.

Americans United for Life has a Kagan backgrounder and questions for the nominee has a rundown of today’s events:

Lee Ross at

Monday’s kickoff will be the most scripted day of the confirmation hearing that is expected to last all week. The day is dedicated to opening statements from the 19 Senate Judiciary Committee members (12 Democrats and seven Republicans) and the nominee. Kagan will be presented to the committee by Massachusetts Senators John Kerry (D) and Scott Brown (R). In between her work in the Clinton and Obama Administrations, Kagan was a professor at Harvard Law School outside Boston. It is customary for nominees to be presented to the committee by their home state senators, though Kagan was born and raised in New York City and once taught at the University of Chicago Law School.

Kagan’s statement to the committee will not come until late in the afternoon and will end the hearing’s first day. It will mark the first substantive remarks from her since the May 10 nomination announcement at the White House. In the weeks since, Kagan has met with 62 senators and more recently has spent several hours each day preparing her answers to questions she expects to hear.

Here’s a brief summation of conservative concerns about Kagan from Utah GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch. I know. I know. It’s Senator Open Borders Hatch. But at least he’s right about this:

“Judges who bend the Constitution to their own values and who use the Constitution to pursue their own vision for society take this right away from the people and undermine liberty itself.”