Report: Sarkozy calls Netanyahu ‘liar’ Microphones accidently left on after G20 meeting pick up private conversation between US, French presidents. Sarkozy admits he ‘can’t stand’ Israeli premier. Obama: You’re fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!

Report: Sarkozy calls Netanyahu ‘liar’

YNet
Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Microphones accidently left on after G20 meeting pick up private conversation between US, French presidents. Sarkozy admits he ‘can’t stand’ Israeli premier. Obama: You’re fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!

French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly told US President Barack Obama that he could not “stand” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that he thinks the Israeli premier “is a liar.”

According to a Monday report in the French website “Arret sur Images,” after facing reporters for a G20 press conference on Thursday, the two presidents retired to a private room, to further discuss the matters of the day.

The conversation apparently began with President Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington’s strong objection to the move.

General Fuller’s Career-Ending Message for Americans

By
Fred
J. Eckert

One of America’s top generals in Afghanistan was fired
last Friday for making “inappropriate public remarks.”

Major General Peter Fuller’s career-destroying offense
was to publicly criticize Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai for saying during
an October 22^nd interview with Pakistani news media that that if the
U.S. and Pakistan got into a war, he and Afghanistan would side with Pakistan in
fighting against the United States.  The general’s critical comments were made
during an interview Thursday with the left-leaning news website
Politico.

“Why don’t you just poke me in the eye with a needle?
You’ve got to be kidding me. … I’m sorry, we just gave you $11.6 billion, and
now you’re telling me, ‘I don’t really care?’ ” Fuller
said.

General Fuller also referred to Karzai’s being
“erratic,” expressed hope that Afghanistan’s next leader will be more
“articulate,” said he thought Afghan government leaders are “isolated from
reality” in their expectations of what America should expend in that country,
and said those Afghan leaders “don’t appreciate” the sacrifice that the United
States is making in “blood and treasure” for the people of their
country.

The general could have — but didn’t — mention that
Karzai is forever demanding apologies from us; that he has referred to the U.S.
and other foreign soldiers protecting him and  his country as “occupiers;” that
he has publicly threatened to join the Taliban; that he now and then demands our
“immediate” withdrawal; that his is a highly corrupt operation; that he is
scheming to dismantle his country’s constitution to perpetuate himself in power;
that when an October 29^th Taliban suicide bombing attack against a
NATO bus in Kabul resulted in the deaths of some thirteen persons, most of them
Americans, Karzai again insulted us by expressed condolences only for the four
who were Afghans; and that it took our leaning on him to extract belated
inclusion of the Americans and others.

The elite media is treating as a fairly big story
General Fuller’s being fired for saying what he said in public.  Fair enough.
But what the elite media have been missing and continue to miss — and likely
will keep right on missing — is the bigger story of the bigger picture
here.

Everything General Fuller said that got him fired is
true and needs to be understood by the public and by the media.  Bear in mind
that General Fuller, a man who has served our country as a U.S. Army officer for
more than 30 years, was the deputy commander charged with turning Afghan’s
military into an effective fighting force.  Knowing this, there is something
lacking in anyone’s sense of patriotism who does not understand and share the
general’s annoyance and frustration about Karzai’s revealing that he would have
no qualms about ordering Afghan soldiers trained by Americans to fight and kill
Americans.

And yet…it is not the place of General
Fuller to presume without authorization to make and conduct U.S. foreign policy.
Clearly he crossed the line.  Thus, it is beside the point and matters not one
bit that what he said in public is true and very likely echoes what the superior
officer who fired him and just about every other American military official in
Afghanistan says in private.

We can expect that most of the debate about the firing
of General Fuller will center on the point just made and answered.  Big
mistake.

The firing of General Fuller raises a much larger
unanswered question, the question that should have been raised and discussed in
the media all along from the very moment that Hamid Karzai publicly made his
inappropriate, insulting remarks at which General Fuller and every other clear
thinking American rightly takes great offense: what should U.S. leaders say and
do when a foreign leader who owes his country’s freedom, and perhaps even his
own life, to American goodness acts towards America as one would act towards an
enemy?

This bigger question remains unanswered in the public
mind — because the media does not discuss it, does not bother to put the
question to those who should be made to answer it.

What did the president of the United States say or do
about Karzai’s volunteering a promise to fight against us?  No one seems to have
any idea.  A good guess is that Barack Obama either went golfing or went
fundraising, but that’s only a guess.  Did Obama issue a statement expressing
his displeasure and calling upon Karzai to apologize and retract?  No.  Did the
media ask him why not?  No.

What did the Obama administration’s secretary of state
say or do?  Hillary Clinton says she promptly called the U.S. ambassador to
Afghanistan and asked him to “go in and figure out what it means,” “it” being
these words uttered by Karzai on Pakistani media: “If fighting starts between
Pakistan and the U.S., we are beside Pakistan.”

Now, most people would take Karzai’s statement as
unequivocally declaring which side he would take in a war between America and
Pakistan — and that it would be against us.  Pakistan’s double-dealing
government understood it — and loved it.

But when the president of the United States is so
weak, apparently his secretary of state felt that the best course was to try to
protect him from embarrassing himself yet another time.  So Secretary Clinton
covered for Karzai, claiming that his remarks were “taken out of context and
misunderstood.”  She gets it that what nowadays passes for journalism is not
likely to run interference against a Democratic administration’s attempt to
hoodwink the American people.

What never got properly reported — because the media
never pressed the matter — is that the Obama State Department contends that
Karzai was merely making the observation that Afghanistan and Pakistan are
nextdoor neighbors, and thus, anyone fleeing Pakistan during a war with the U.S.
would not have to travel far to find welcome refuge.  This is not a joke.  This
is Obama administration foreign policy in action. Try to imagine how the media
would have played this had Condoleezza Rice resorted to such a cockamamie claim
to spare George W. Bush from having to act in the face of such an affront to
American honor.

Did Karzai ever issue a clarification explaining just
why it is a “misunderstanding” to think he said what he said, that he would side
with Pakistan against us in a war?  No.  Did the U.S. government demand it of
him?  No.  Why don’t the U.S. media ask?  Can’t they figure how to track down
the ambassador of Afghanistan in Washington?  Do you think the Pakistanis
believe that Karzai didn’t mean it when he said he’d side with them against us?
Shouldn’t the elite media ask?

When NATO and American commander in Afghanistan, Gen.
John
R. Allen,
explained that he was firing General Peter Fuller because of “inappropriate
public comments,” he may not have caught the irony.  General Fuller’s
“inappropriate public comments” were a reaction to Karzai’s wildly
“inappropriate public comments” that insulted our country and are an affront to
any and every American who has aided the people of
Afghanistan.

General Allen also used the word “unfortunate” in his
statement announcing the firing of General Fuller.  It is indeed unfortunate for
us all that it was General Fuller rather than President Obama who took Hamid
Karzai to task for insulting America.

A president worthy of respect would have been man
enough to take Karzai to task himself and not permit this sad spectacle of a
long-serving soldier ruining his career for defending American honor when the
president should have but didn’t.

Barack Obama should have picked up the phone and told
Hamid Karzai something like this: “I am alerting you that your life is
suddenly in much greater danger and I urge you to take prompt action to lessen
this increased danger. I expect you to appear on television and radio at the
earliest possible opportunity and announce to the world that not only would you
never side against America in a war but, rather, you would stand with us. Until
you have done this, I have ordered the complete withholding of all personal
safety protection provided by US military that you, your family and your
colleagues have relied upon to keep you alive.  The other affected parties are
being informed of this in private.  As soon as I learn that you have taken this
step necessary to correct your insult to my country I will restore protection —
but not one moment sooner. If you do not act swiftly, I shall begin working on
drafting eulogy remarks.  Have a nice day.”

I wonder — don’t you? — which, if any, of the
Republican candidates for president would handle things in such a firm and
highly persuasive manner.

Don’t you wish that someone in the media — hey, it
could certainly be one of the conservative outlets — would approach Barack
Obama or at least his press secretary plus each of the Republican presidential
contenders, point to the firing of General Fuller, and then raise the big
question this whole issue needs discussed and answered?
Namely:

What should U.S. leaders say and do when a foreign
leader who owes his country’s freedom and perhaps even his own life to American
goodness acts towards America as one would act towards an
enemy?

It would be foolish of the media and the rest of us to
now only focus on whether General Fuller should have taken it upon himself to be
the one to publicly confront Harmed Karzai over his reprehensible insult to
America (already asked and answered).

It’s time to demand that the current president of the
United States and anyone who might be president come 20 January 2013 be asked —
and forced to answer — how they would deal with such an affront to American
honor.

Fred J. Eckert is a former
conservative Republican congressman from New York and twice served as a U.S.
ambassador (to the U.N. and to Fiji) under President Reagan, who called him “a
good friend and valuable advisor.”  He’s retired and lives with his wife in
Raleigh, NC.

The Worst President Since Before the Civil War

By Steve
McCann

Three years ago, the people of the United States
elected someone who has turned out to be the worst president since the pre-Civil
War era.  Barack Obama, whether in economic matters, domestic affairs or
international relations, has been an abject failure and has severely jeopardized
the future of the American people.

This must be the focus and message of those seeking
the Republican presidential nomination, who must not allow themselves to be
focused on demeaning each other and sidetracked by falling for the usual tactics
of the Democrat and media smear machines (epitomized by the latest specious
attack on Herman Cain).

A cursory examination of Obama’s overall record
compared with other presidents reveals someone driven purely by statist
ideology, whose narcissism renders him incapable of change regardless of the
long-term consequences.  He does not seem to care what happens to the American
people.

Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt faced far worse
economic conditions when they came into office than were in play when Barack
Obama was elected president.  Yet with one a fiscal conservative (Ronald Reagan)
and the other (Franklin Roosevelt) a liberal Democrat, even though they pursued
differing solutions to the dilemmas at hand, neither put the nation squarely and
inexorably on the road to bankruptcy and second-class status.

Barack Obama and his apologists continuously claim
that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression and that if it
were not for his policies presently in place, matters would be far worse.  The
reality is that he did not inherit the worst economy since the 1930s, and his
policies have diminished the standard of living for the majority of
Americans.

The actual factors in play for Barack Obama, Ronald
Reagan, and Franklin Roosevelt when they assumed office were as
follows:

	Annual GDP Growth	Unemployment Rate	Inflation
Barack Obama	1.1%	6.7%	1.0%
Ronald Reagan	.1	7.6	12.6
Franklin Roosevelt	-13.0	24.0	-10.0

For the average American, the employment numbers are
the most critical.  The following chart is a side by side comparison of the
employment situation for Barack Obama as of Election Day 2008 versus the present
day after three years of his failed policies:

	November 2008	October 2011	Difference
Unemployment Rate	6.7%	9.1%	+35.8%
Total Employment	144.25 million	140.07 million	-4.18 million
Employment-Goods Producing sector	20.9 million	18.1 million	-2.8 million
Part-time Workers (Only Jobs Available)	1.57 million	2.9 million	+84.7%
Unemployed 27 Weeks or more	2.2 million	6.3 million	+4.1 million
Avg. Weekly Wage (inflation adjusted)	$654.03	$655.87	+.2%

(http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm#current)

How does Barack Obama compare to some of his
predecessors, who inherited far more severe financial crises?  As a further
comparison, while he did not inherit a financial crisis, Jimmy Carter is
included, as he is considered by many the worst president in the post-World War
II era, and many of his policies triggered the massive recession and inflation
inherited by Ronald Reagan.

(Note: The Bureau of Labor Statistics changed its
method of calculating the unemployment rate in 1994.  Therefore, in order to
make this a more valid comparison, those workers the BLS considers discouraged
and marginally attached to the labor force and therefore not part of the
unemployment rate calculation have been added below.)

	Unemployment Rate as of Election Day	Unemployment Rate Three years later	Difference
Barack Obama	7.9%	10.75%	-36%
Ronald Reagan	7.6	8.3	–  9
Jimmy Carter	7.8	5.9	+24
Franklin Roosevelt	24.1	20.1	+17

Barack Obama has chosen uncontrolled and unbridled
government spending, much of it directed to his cronies and fellow ideologues,
as his solution to restarting the economy.  This has created an enormous amount
of new debt for the nation with nothing to show for it.  One of his
predecessors, Franklin Roosevelt, also chose that route as part of his plan to
rescue the American economy.  However, he never took it to the extreme that
Obama has done, with the aid of his allies in the Democratic Party.  During
Obama’s tenure, he has added over $4,000 billion ($4 trillion) to the national
debt.

Using the historical actual deficits as a percentage
of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) applied to today’s GDP, the comparison would
be as follows (Herbert Hoover has been added, as he faced the actual massive
collapse of the economy in 1929, the first year of his term.)

	Average Deficit as % of GDP First Three Years of Term	(2011 Dollars) Additional National Debt
Barack Obama	9.23%	$4,005 Billion
Ronald Reagan	4.08	1,800
Franklin Roosevelt	3.50	1,531
Jimmy Carter	2.27	986
Herbert Hoover	.01	15

(http://www.usgovernmentspending.com)

The ultimate measure of the success or failure of a
president’s economic policies is the growth of the nation’s Gross Domestic
Product while facing economic headwinds.  Here, too, Barack Obama cannot measure
up to those who faced enormous challenges, as his policies and regulatory
obsession have shown him to be an anti-capitalist ideologue with more in common
with the Occupy Wall Street Movement than with the American
people.

	Barack Obama	Ronald Reagan	Franklin Roosevelt
Actual inflation adjusted GDP Growth First Three Years	.3%	13.7%	23.4%

It should be noted that Franklin Roosevelt, after
re-election in 1936, began to pursue more statist policies including demonizing
the rich, higher taxes, passing union-friendly legislation, and additional
government spending, so that by the third year of his second term, the GDP had
contracted by 6.5% and unemployment rose to 19.0% from a low of 14.0% in 1937.
Yet the annual budget deficit as a percent of GDP averaged 3.85% for Roosevelt’s
first two terms as compared to Obama’s 9.23% to date.  (http://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/statistics.html)

By any measure, Barack Obama is not only a failure in
his economic policies, but he is, in the aggregate, the worst steward of the
American economy since economic measurements began to be
recorded.

It is little wonder that his re-election strategy is
centered on demonizing his potential opponents and deliberately appealing to the
base nature of the human race — greed and envy — as manifested in his class
warfare rhetoric.  This is a record that cannot be defended under any
circumstances, and one the Republicans must focus upon and unceasingly bring it
before the American people.

Texas Gun Instructor Refuses to Teach Muslims How to Handle Firearms

A customer watches an assault rifle equipped with a high capacity drum magazine and grenade launcher at a gun expo in El Paso, Texas, on March 13, 2011. (credit: STR/AFP/Getty Images)

Filed under

News, Politics

Related tags

Crockett Keller, guns, Muslims, president obama, Texas

MASON, Texas (AP) — On a YouTube clip that has gone viral, brash Texas handgun instructor Crockett Keller defiantly tells Muslims and non-Christian Arabs he won’t teach them how to handle a firearm.

State officials see the ad as possible discrimination, and may revoke Keller’s instructor license.

Tens of thousands of YouTube viewers have watched the $175 ad for Keller’s business in the small community of Mason, which has won him a handful of admirers but that embarrassed locals say misrepresents their community. Muslim groups dismissed the 65-year-old as a bigot.

Among the couple of thousand residents in the Central Texas town, Keller has other reputations.

“He’s a character and likes attention,” said Diane Eames, a jeweler with a downtown shop in Mason’s quaint town square.

Keller has received plenty of attention since his radio spot on a rural country music station in Mason County, about 100 miles east of Austin, went viral on the Internet. Keller said he whipped up the script on his iPad in 10 minutes. The ad quit airing last week.

“If you are a socialist liberal and/or voted for the current campaigner-in-chief, please do not take this class,” Keller says in the ad’s closing seconds, also taking a swipe at President Barack Obama. “You’ve already proven that you cannot make a knowledgeable and prudent decision as required under the law. Also, if you are a non-Christian Arab or Muslim, I will not teach you this class. Once again, with no shame, I am Crockett Keller.”

The Texas Council on American-Islamic Relations called the ad ugly rhetoric undeserving of media attention. Others have called Keller’s phone number from the ad to personally tell him worse, including alleged death threats.

The Texas Department of Public Safety is now investigating whether to revoke or suspend Keller’s license to teach concealed handgun courses.

“Conduct by an instructor that denied service to individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion would place that instructor’s certification by the Department at risk of suspension or revocation,” the department said in a statement.

Inside a remote highway cabin on the edge of the Llano River, where a draped, full-size cannon is parked across from his desk, Keller said he was inspired to make the ad after being “flabbergasted” by a couple neighbors who left the state to campaign for Obama. As for refusing to teach Muslims, Keller described that as an afterthought tacked onto the spot, which he couldn’t remember but said was likely generated from something in the news.

“I got to thinking, ‘Hmm, I’m arming the enemy,’” Keller said.

Of course, even Keller knows that Muslims were unlikely to show up at his door asking to take his $100 course.

Mason County, as Eames described it, is “white bread” — the population was 93 percent Caucasian in the latest census, and all Republican statewide candidates won with at least 70 percent of the vote in 2010. Keller said he wasn’t aware of any Muslims in Mason County, nor could a handful of locals name one.

Eames and Joyce Arnold, a real estate agent, said they worried about the radio spot embarrassing the city. Eames ran what she described as a successful sex-toy business in Mason before opening the jewelry store, and Scott Haupert, co-owner of the Sandstone Cellars Winery, said Mason is more tolerant than Keller’s comments would suggest.

“I voted for Obama and I’ll vote for Obama again,” said Haupert, an avowed Democrat. “If I signed up to take his gun control class, he would not reject me.”

But Keller has also won over some fans. As he spoke with a reporter in his cabin, rancher Clyde McCarley knocked on his door and asked about signing up for a class.

“It’s mighty dadgum interesting to me that some people can say anything they want, and you make a statement and they bring down the house on you,” McCarley said.

Mustafaa Carroll, executive director of the Texas Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the group is watching how the state responds to Keller’s ad and whether the agency revokes his instructor license.

“We try not to give too much credibility to some of these people who do outlandish things,” Carroll said. “But there are some issues that we do have to address.”

 

Barack Obama ‘Acting Stupidly’

Jeannie
DeAngelis

Without saying anything, Barack Obama’s silence speaks
louder than all his empty words. The President who likes to define himself as a
champion of racial equality and promoter of civility has thus far stood by in
silence as liberals attempt to lower the stature of Herman Cain by portraying
him as a conservative version of Stepin Fetchit.

By failing to address the prejudicial remarks directed
at Herman Cain, the President of the United States is revealing a side of
himself that reeks of a form of discriminatory selectiveness that should further
discredit his claim to be the purveyor of civility and racial
justice.

Who can forget the President’s response to the
supposed prejudice leveled against Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates?
Without the benefit of all the information surrounding the incident, Barack
Obama rushed before the cameras to publicly condemn Cambridge, Massachusetts
police officer Joseph Crowley and insinuated that, due to the color of his skin,
Gates was the target of racial profiling and victimized by ‘stupidity’ on the
part of law enforcement.

Recently the President spoke at the dedication of the
Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial.  It was there that he
described Dr.
King as “a black preacher with no official rank or title who somehow gave voice
to our deepest dreams and our most lasting ideals, a man who stirred our
conscience and thereby helped make our union more perfect.”

Yet, while Herman Cain, a man who fits a similar
description, is whacked by MSNBC analyst Karen Finney with a verbal billy club
and drenched with a fire hose of mean-spirited rhetoric that described him as
merely a “Black man who knows his place” – Barack Obama has remained
silent.

Where is the President’s usual predictable
indignation?  Why no public correction or call for mutual
respect?

At the Martin Luther King Memorial dedication, in an
attempt to portray himself as a great black leader, Obama didn’t hesitate to put
a self-referential spin on the narrative of Dr. King’s life, saying:
“Even after rising to prominence, even after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr.
King was vilified by many, denounced as a rabble rouser and an agitator, a
communist and a radical.”

Barack Obama had the temerity to place himself on the
same level as Martin Luther King Jr. and yet, soon after, he stood by while
left-wing pundits with zero content of character made racially humiliating
comments about Herman Cain that were based solely on the color of his
skin.

Thus far, Obama hasn’t said a word.  He has neither
corrected, condemned, nor cited mentor Saul Alinsky, whom he
quoted at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial dedication
when he said, “We can’t be discouraged by what is. We’ve got to keep pushing for
what ought to be.”

Maybe the President also believes that if a black
American such as Herman Cain is a conservative,  he should know his place and
that, especially in politics, they are nothing more than a stereotype, a
caricature.

When not diminishing the memory of Dr. King by
pretending to be much like him, Barack spends some of his off time making the
rounds collecting campaign contributions in Hollywood.  In the meantime, liberal
comedian David Letterman is on a mission to replace GW Bush with
Herman Cain as
the newest late-night-created Republican stammering idiot.

If any of the Letterman “Top
Ten Signs Herman Cain’s Campaign is in Trouble” were
applied to Barack Obama, the left would be picketing the Ed Sullivan Theatre and
demanding an Imus-style resignation.  If the butt of Dave’s jokes had been named
Henry (as in Professor Henry Gates), Obama would never have stood for Letterman
implying that Henry was “less fun-crazy and more crazy-crazy.”

It doesn’t end there either.  In the name of fairness
and economic equity the President, who insulted Tea Party activists by referring
to them as
racists and by using the vulgar sexual slang term
“tea
baggers” to describe American citizens, has yet to condemn
the behavior taking place within the ‘Occupy’ movement.

So far, Obama has not disassociated himself from a
protest infiltrated by prostitution,
public masturbation,
filth, violence,
and people fighting over money, blankets and food, nor has he called for
civility from a nationwide movement presently populated by ingrates that scream
police brutality after defecating on the bumpers of squad
cars.

Which brings us back to Obama’s disingenuous attempt
to convince people that he possesses a measure of righteousness that sets him
apart from mere mortals.

When it benefited him politically and he wanted to
paint the right as impolite, he hosted a civility conference in Tucson Arizona,
quoted Scripture, and called for a measure of tolerance he demands for himself
but is unwilling to extend to anyone else.

If Hollywood liberals promise to put cash in Obama’s
2012 campaign coffers, he casually overlooks demeaning comments directed toward
Herman Cain by asinine comedians because what would otherwise be viewed as
racially-tinged humor may instead help advance his cause.

If a group of deadbeat derelicts squat in public parks
and proceed to behave like savages, if the signs they carry support “sharing the
wealth” and condemn the wealthy, and in time for the next election hold the
promise of swaying the general public toward liberal policies, then by saying
nothing the President, America’s self-proclaimed purveyor of non-discrimination
and equal rights, is condoning rape, racism,
and barefaced anti-Semitism.

By exhibiting selective indignation and failing to
address the negative racial remarks directed at potential presidential
opponents, supporting the nationwide disgrace that is the ‘Occupy’ movement, and
choosing to associate with liberal comedians who make Herman Cain the butt of
racial jokes, President Barack Obama is proving he doesn’t understand the
responsibilities of his role, or understand his place as a
leader.

Author’s content: www.jeannie-ology.com

Obama Chooses American Defeat

James G.
Wiles

In April, 2007, at the height of
American casualties during the Surge in Iraq, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D. Nev.) famously announced
“the war is lost.” His remark attracted national headlines – and a big push-back
from Republicans, who, in the wake of the 2006 elections, controlled neither
House of Congress.

An American President – George W.
Bush of Texas – had refused to accept defeat. He changed his military leaders,
launched the Surge and victory followed. And, even though, the Republicans had
lost control of Congress, President Bush’s control of the Executive branch and
the American people’s refusal to accept defeat prevailed over leading Democrats’
desire for American defeat.. It enabled the forces of the Sunni Awakening,
General Petraeus and the coalition’s troops to crush the Iraq
insurgency.

Over a thousand American soldiers died  in
Iraq after Leader Reid’s remarkable press conference.

Democrats, like Reid, who’d predicted
defeat, never changed their views.  Now, President Barack Obama has just
guaranteed that Senator Reid’s remark will come true. Iraq is not Vietnam and
the Middle East is not Southeast Asia. Yet, the parallels – 36 years after a
Democratic Congress cut off U.S. funding for South Vietnam – are
unsettling.

Once again, a leader of the
Democratic Party has opted for American defeat – after a splendid American field
army has achieved military victory. Former New York Times Baghdad
bureau chief John Burns predicted  disaster as a result of Mr. Obama’s decision
on Hugh
Hewitt on October 24.  “We’ll see” was the most optimism Pulitzer-Prize
winner Dexter
Filkins could muster  on his New Yorker blog.

These guys aren’t
conservatives. But, with Michael Yon, these famous war correspondents are
not hopeful about whether America’s sacrifice in Iraq will be
redeemed..

How can Democrats ever be trusted
with America’s national security again?

It’s a simple as
that.

Read Fred and Kimberly Kagan’s
excellent piece this weekend in the new issue of the  Weekly
Standard for the post-mortem. The Kagans were part of the intellectual
brain trust behind the Surge – the Surge which President Obama has just thrown
away.

 

Morning Bell: Should America Carry the U.N.?

Morning Bell: Should America Carry the U.N.?

Posted By Ericka Andersen On October 28, 2011 @ 9:46 am In American Leadership | 5 Comments

The 39-story United Nations headquarters stands on the banks of the East River in Manhattan. But now the U.N. is planning the construction of a new building next door, with a price tag pegged at $400 million — and it could soar even higher ^[1]. And since U.S. taxpayers pay 22 percent of the U.N. budget, the costs for that new building will come right out of your pocket, leading to a very serious question: Just how far should the United States go in supporting the U.N. and international organizations like it?

The issue of a new building in New York isn’t the only U.N. story to make the headlines this year. Take the issue of Palestine, which over the summer formally requested U.N. membership. If Palestine were to succeed in its unilateral efforts, it would be detrimental to U.S. interests in the region, isolate Israel, and deal a major setback to Israeli-Palestinian peace prospects. And all of that would come at the hands of an international organization over which the United States can exert strong influence but cannot control.  If Palestine is granted member status at the U.N., American interests–along with those of its allies–will be seriously harmed, requiring an even greater vigilance and financial commitment to maintain leverage for U.S. priorities.  Again, the question is posed: When does our commitment to an international organization become a problem?

In the latest installment of Heritage’s “Understanding America” series, Brett Schaefer addresses America’s role as a member of international organizations. He explains that conflicting interests will nearly always hinder forward movement on issues of peace, security, and human rights — but that doesn’t negate the benefit of having a platform for achieving U.S. interests. Schaefer further explains the risks ^[2] of participation in these bodies:

Supporting international organizations is not without consequence. It is a burden, albeit sometimes a burden worth bearing. But refusing to recognize the limitations of international organizations and their potential to cause harm does a disservice to the American people.

Joining with friendly nations for a mutual benefit or avenue to problem solving can prove to be valuable for the United States, but America’s leaders must never sacrifice the greater American interest for the sake of compromise. When does our commitment to an international organization become a problem? That’s a question U.S. leaders must continually ask themselves. Schaefer ^[2] explains how the United States must seek to strike that balance:

If the United States is not to undermine its interests, it must abandon its default position of supporting and engaging with international organizations regardless of their performance. Instead, the U.S. must assess honestly whether each organization works, whether its mission is focused and attainable and not dependent on “good faith” that does not exist, and whether it advances U.S. interests.

International organizations are a tool to attain a goal, not an end in themselves. They are one way for the U.S. to defend its interests and to seek to address problems in concert with other nations. But they are not the only option, and their strengths and weaknesses should be clearly understood.

America played a key role in the founding of the U.N., so our stake in its success is important. But there are always risks in working with other nations — and each international organization relies at least in part on the good faith of those involved. However, each country’s own priorities come first, which is why American leadership must be eternally vigilant in assessing the record and actions of participating countries.

That is true when it comes to issues such as America’s financial commitment to the U.N., particularly as the organization considers constructing a costly new complex in Manhattan. And that vigilance is even more imperative on issues of international security and the promotion of ideals at odds with America’s interests abroad, as is the case with Palestine’s bid for recognition in the U.N.

In a 1985 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, President Ronald Reagan addressed the U.N.’s role head on–and the need for America to remain vigilant, noting, “The vision of the U.N. Charter–to spare succeeding generations this scourge of war–remains real. It still stirs our soul and warms our hearts, but it also demands of us a realism that is rock hard, clear-eyed, steady, and sure–a realism that understands the nations of the United Nations are not united.” Those words hold true today and should guide America’s understanding of its commitment to international organizations but also the realities and limitations of its engagement.

Is the POTUS Stirring Up a Revolution?

By Mercer
Tyson

Obama was hailed as a healing president, promising
peace and harmony.  What we have seen, however, is a president distinctively
divisive on racial issues, and instigating class warfare.  His actions are a
prescription for a violent revolution.

During his campaign Obama gave the highly acclaimed
speech on race (excerpt):

“Throughout the first year of this campaign, against
all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for
this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a
purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the
whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate
Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white
Americans.”

My, how things have changed; and it didn’t take long.
Shortly after Obama took office there was Obama’s reaction to the
incident
involving Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the Cambridge Police
Department: “President Obama said that police in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
‘acted stupidly’ in arresting a prominent black Harvard professor last week
after a confrontation at the man’s home.”  He never should have stuck his nose
into this.  And if he were going to say something, he should have understood the
situation prior to butting in.  Instead, he routinely took the professor’s side,
showing his real and sincere bias, and managing to anger folks on both sides of
the debate.

More recently the POTUS told a
group of Hispanics, “And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying,
we’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends…”  Punish?
Enemies?  Not exactly harmonious, peace-inspiring words.

Then in his speech
before the Congressional Black Caucus he said, “I expect all of you to march
with me and press on. Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching
shoes.”

And let’s not forget the work of Eric Holder when his
Justice Department went easy in a Philadelphia voting rights case against
members of the New Black Panther Party because they are African
American.

This is our post-racial president.

And then there’s the class warfare.

In 2008, then-candidate Obama’s remarks in his
interview
with Charles Gibson should have been a clue.  When Gibson pointed out that
recently when tax rates were increased government revenues decreased and when
tax rates decreased revenues increased, Obama replied “Well, Charlie, what I’ve
said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of
fairness.”  He has accusingly said ad nauseam that wealthy Americans should
pay their “fair share,” which means that no matter how much they are paying,
they should pay more.

Mr. Obama’s repetitive attacks on the wealthy have led
to growing divisions between them and the less fortunate, such as the current
Occupy Wall Street protestors who
“want to see the rich pay a fair share of their profits in wages, wealth and
income in taxes…”  When asked about the protestors, Obama replied: “”I think
it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel.”

Usage of words such as greed, selfish, and mean, while
always a part of the liberal description of Republicans, has escalated more in
recent years.

While most pundits seem to think of this as just
another chapter in American politics, albeit somewhat intense, I’m less blasé
about it.  I see this as a potential beginning of serious violence in our
streets and neighborhoods.  At worst, problems could escalate to a point
requiring national action — possibly a declaration of a state of emergency with
military involvement.  Is it possible we could have martial law imposed on us
around next November, and, coincidentally, have the elections postponed?  Not
likely, but possible.

More certain, however, is the extended racial and
class tension that will exist for decades.  While I never expected racism to go
away completely, racial harmony in this country has been gaining momentum and
is, essentially, more of a problem to the left-wing media and certain
race-baiting politicos than to folks on the ground.  I’m afraid the actions of
this administration may reverse the positive course that people of all races
have worked so hard to establish.  Barack Obama has done his best to delay
racial harmony.

And class warfare?  The vociferous screams from the
left have prompted normally silent, tax-paying Americans to denigrate those who
don’t pay taxes: adding their voices to the argument and elevating
hostilities.

I don’t generally subscribe to conspiracy theories,
and I’m not postulating such right now.  However, you have to wonder, given Rahm
Emanuel’s remarks at
the beginning of Obama’s administration: “You never want a serious crisis to go
to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you
could not do before.”  Do what? Fully implement socialism?  Create a
fascist-left country?  Simply elevate the problems with our economy and
instigate tension between the people, and you have the perfect storm for such a
scenario.  Even if this isn’t being done by design, it could happen
anyway.

This is one reason why so many on the right believe it
is absolutely critical that we remove Mr. Obama from office in 2012.   A GOP
president will certainly stir up anxiety on the left, and the cries of foul play
that existed during George Bush’s administration will resume.

Certainly a Republican will not be able to do much to
mend recent wounds.  But the GOP is never as hostile in its criticism of the
left, and the dissention will slow down and possibly stop.  Maybe after a few
years and if the economy improves progress in this area will again move
forward.

And yes, while there are not many high-profile,
moderate Dems, a more moderate and sensible Democrat could lessen the problem as
well.  However, it is highly unlikely that any Democrat (even Hillary) will
challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination.  And if one did, of course,
additional hostilities would generate from that.

Thanks to Barack Obama (with help from the media and
left-wing pundits) hostility in America is a high as I can recall, and close to
a breaking point.  With regard to this situation, the 2012 election represent a
break even or lose situation.  If Obama wins, we lose.  If any Republican wins,
we break even.

Obama ‘Can’t Wait’ for the Rule of Law

By Mark
J. Fitzgibbons

President Obama’s proclamation on Monday that he
“can’t wait” for congressional action to help underwater homeowners raises two
questions.

If he already had the legal authority to take action,
then why did he wait?

Some may frame the second question this way: does
Obama’s plan exceed his constitutional authority?  Perhaps the better way to ask
the second question is whether the Obama plan is unlawful.

Either way, I can’t wait for Congress to conduct some
oversight hearings before the plan kicks in.  This isn’t just a figurative slap
in the face to both Congress and the rule of law; this is a kick in the
groin.

Ignoring the Constitution is so liberating for Mr.
Obama that he intends to do it on a “regular basis.”
The subtitle to Emily Miller’s piece at The Washington
Times
following the announcement of Obama’s “can’t wait” plan is “President unveils
lawless scheme to bypass Congress with executive orders.”

The term “lawless” is sometimes used in common
parlance the same way we use “unlawful,” but its real meaning is “not subject
to, or controlled by, the law.”

If we were to deem the president’s actions as not
subject to, nor controlled by, the law, then we are partly to blame.  If we fail
to even recognize government lawbreaking when and where it occurs, we get what
we deserve.

If, however, we were to take the view that the
president’s actions are in fact supposed to be governed and restricted by the
law, and that Mr. Obama’s actions not consistent with the law are therefore
unlawful, then we have a chance of preserving liberty.  The rule of law protects
liberty; abuse of the rule of law erodes liberty.

President Obama and his administration have engaged in
years of lawbreaking.  Mr. Obama unlawfully used TARP money so that the
government obtained ownership interests in Chrysler and General Motors.  He
ignored the War Powers Act in deploying the military machine to Libya.  When
Congress refused to pass the DREAM Act, he implemented portions of it via
executive order.

His contempt for the rule of law has had a
trickle-down effect into federal administrative bureaucracies such as the
Environmental Protection Agency and the National Labor Relations Board.  Even
his Department of Justice has shown contempt for the rule of
law.

Democratic representatives Jim Moran and Jesse
Jackson, Jr. recently urged — on camera, in fact — that President Obama
implement portions of the Obama jobs bill that never made it through
Congress.

These are members of Congress advocating for more
lawbreaking because they know they have a president who is willing to break —
indeed, has broken — the law governing his office and limiting its powers.  So
much for our system of checks and balances.

They also know that the patsy liberal media don’t care
about these things unless the unconstitutional lawbreaking is done by
Republicans.

The Constitution is broad in its sweep, but is
specific about certain functions of government.  Congress makes the laws.  When
Congress doesn’t pass a law, the president can’t pick up his bat and ball like
an angry juvenile.

We are hearing more and more from the left that the
president must do administratively what Congress refuses to do legislatively.
These are not mere words of frustration.  They are words of an ideology that is
dangerously inconsistent with American ideals.

The calls from the left to violate the Constitution
are protected by the First Amendment.  It is when they are implemented by the
president that they become lawbreaking.  The Constitution, you see, governs
government.

Mark Levin on his radio show Monday night played clips
of the Obama “can’t wait” speech and asked listeners to envision a foreign
dictator speaking in English.  That was quite an effective way to make the point
that in America we don’t do the sort of things Obama said he “can’t wait” to
do.

America will not lapse into a dictatorship; we won’t
let that happen.  But the dictatorial aspects of the Obama administration must
be called out for what they are: lawbreaking.

Harry Truman onced claimed that there were emergency
circumstances during the Korean War to use his commander-in-chief powers to
unilaterally stop a steel union strike.  His effort, though, was defeated in the
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer case.

Justice Robert Jackson, writing a concurring opinion in
the case, said this about claims of unrestricted executive power: “Such power
either has no beginning or it has no end.  If it exists, it need submit to no
legal restraint.  I am not alarmed that it would plunge us straightway into
dictatorship, but it is at least a step in that wrong
direction.”

Obama’s “can’t wait” plan is another example of how
the Constitution does not run on automatic pilot.  It must be enforced
on government.

If Congress responds weakly or passively to this kick
in the groin, then they are as much the problem as Mr. Obama.

Mark Fitzgibbons is co-author
with Richard Viguerie of the e-pamphlet “The Law That Governs Government:
Reclaiming The Constitution From Usurpers And Society’s Biggest
Lawbreaker.”

Federal stimulus money for Oregon jobs hired foreign workers

Published: Thursday, October 20, 2011, 6:47 PM Updated: Friday, October 21, 2011,  5:47 AM

By Charles Pope, The OregonianThe Oregonian

Brian Feulner/The OregonianTimber jobs were once a mainstay of the Oregon economy.

WASHINGTON — At least $7 million in federal stimulus money intended to provide jobs to unemployed Oregonians instead paid wages to 254 foreign workers, federal investigators have concluded.

The money was for forest clean-up jobs in central Oregon where thousands of experienced workers were idle. When the contracts were announced in 2009, Oregon had the third-highest unemployment rate in the nation at 11.1 percent, with rates in the state’s rural forest counties nearly 15 percent and higher.

Even so, the contractors told federal regulators they could not find enough local workers for the jobs.

That came as a surprise to local officials, who said they often got hundreds of responses to every job opening.

“This is a timber area and we hadn’t been cutting trees for years,” said state Sen. Chris Telfer, R-Bend. “It really ticked off a lot of people here.”

In a report on the investigation this week, the Department of Labor’s Inspector General found that contractors who brought in foreign workers violated no laws or regulations, but used legal loopholes to hire foreign workers.

While legal, the hiring practices appear to violate the spirit and purpose of the $840 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the stimulus, which was designed to create jobs that would jumpstart the country out of recession.

“The goal of the stimulus bill was to put Americans back to work, not foreign nationals,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who asked for the investigation in September 2010.

“It is obscene that U.S. companies were rewarded for abusing our American workers and immigration laws to undercut competition and squeeze more profits out of contracts,” DeFazio said. “Oregonians have been logging for over a century, our workforce is one of the best in the world, and these contracts should have been awarded to companies that hire Oregon loggers.”

The federal investigation looked at 14 contracts to clear federal forests in central Oregon. The contracts were controlled by four Oregon companies: Medford Cutting Edge Forestry, Summitt Forestry, Ponderosa Reforestations, and G.E. Forestry. All hired foreign workers, according to the report, though they didn’t all handle hiring in the same way.

The contractors applied for H-2B visas allowing them to hire workers for seasonal jobs, according to the report. In order to get clearance, contractors must prove the jobs can’t be filled with local residents and that pay won’t dilute local prevailing wages.

But there is a loophole. Under federal rules, notice of the job openings must be made where the job “originates.” And while the bulk of the work took place in Oregon, smaller jobs originated in other states.

According to reports by The Bend Bulletin, which revealed the foreign hires in a series of stories last year that triggered DeFazio’s call for an investigation, contractors advertised the jobs in tiny newspapers in California and Washington state for several days.

“Employers were not required to recruit U.S. workers in Oregon, and we were provided no evidence that they did,” federal investigators said. “Workers in Oregon were likely unaware that these job opportunities were available.”

In fact, although 146 U.S. workers were contacted for possible employment, investigators found that none was hired.

Contractors used another regulation to dampen response from Oregon residents, the report said. The visa regulations allowed the contractors to do all their hiring four months before work started. That made unemployed workers who needed jobs immediately reluctant to commit to temporary jobs four months later.

Despite the barriers, 29 U.S. workers learned of the jobs and asked about employment. The report did not say if they were from Oregon.

“We verified with the employers that none of these workers actually began employment with them,” the report says.

The reason?

“We spoke with two workers who reported that the employer used discouraging language, such as references to age and inquiries about speaking another language, which are not valid conditions of employment,” the report says.

The report does not address the nationality of the workers who were hired.

As required, the employers also notified state workforce agencies of the openings. But just as with obscure newspaper ads, the state postings were far-afield, with the notices sent to Arizona, California, Idaho, Washington and Wyoming.

The Labor Department did not respond to a request for comment, but agency officials have announced plans to revise regulations dealing with H-2B visas.

Congress is likely to act, too. Aides to DeFazio said he is closely monitoring the Labor Department’s proposals for fixing the problems and is not ruling out other action. And in the Senate, Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden said he is watching as well.

“Right now there are 14 million job seekers in the U.S. and three million job openings.” Wyden said. “Given those numbers, there is absolutely no reason why hard-working Oregonians should be passed over en masse for Oregon jobs in favor of foreign workers.”

— Charles Pope