Obama, the military: moral dilemma

''Interestingly, Hawaiian residents born the day after him in 1961, at the same hospital – and who were his school classmates – have had their full birth certificates publicly revealed. Hawaii government officials have verified the president's birth but cannot release his documents for reasons of privacy. Yet Hawaii state personal records are easily and legally acquired by civilian lawyers and military recruiters on behalf of others quite frequently.''
If President Obama wants any credibility among our warfighters, he must perform an "about face" and show himself as an example to follow.
Why was there noticeable awkwardness and silence when the president addressed our future officers at the United States Military Academy? Maybe our warriors are looking for a commander who is on the same leadership journey they are, but, the best that they try, they can't make the connection – because he doesn't share their experience or understand the character of their calling.
Today, all American citizens and legal immigrants volunteering to serve in our Armed Forces must first present their original birth certificate, naturalization certificate or alien registration card along with other required marriage, medical and education documents when applying. Next, they complete, in transparent detail, their personal history in a National Security Questionnaire. Finally, they sign both general and medical release of information authority over to the military. These volunteers are vulnerable to the scrutiny of police record checks and further security investigations. Lying, to include nondisclosure, is a felony. Military recruiters then set off to gather any and every necessary document to qualify our youth to serve in their elected branch of our armed services.
After joining and completing initial training, many new service members deploy to war; some don't return. Very few others, but some, will be discharged for lying on enlistment records. Others will be denied security clearances or have them revoked for reasons of false or misleading information or criminal conduct. Military commanders address these types of offenses within their command authority and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Whether a three-year enlistment or 30-year career, service members live under military authority and law their entire time in service.
Moments of self-inflicted discomfort preside when President Obama is around those in the military. The reason: Many in uniform look up and honestly ask how their commander in chief passed muster to serve at the head of their ranks by averting reliable disclosure of very basic entry-level documentation and screening.
Check out WND's full line of eligibility products – bumper stickers, post cards, DVDs and more!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117857

The people aren't buying it, Obama

''People are not buying the media spin, and they are rejecting the propaganda. More people are getting off their sofas and getting informed, involved and engaged in fighting against how the liberals in Washington are trying to change this country with propaganda and ineffective policy.'' There's an old saying about a glass being half empty or half full. The optimist will view it as half full, while the pessimist will say it is half empty.
But when the glass is nearly empty and it's called "nearly full," or a big success, that's pure political propaganda. The danger with political propaganda is that it borders on just plain lies, exaggerations or intended deceptions.
President Obama and the Democrats told the public in February that they needed to pass the $787 billion stimulus bill to keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent. The rate has increased in an almost vertical fashion every month since then, and the Labor Department reported Friday that October's rate hit 10.2 percent.
President Obama's response to the report was, "I will not rest until all Americans who want work can find work." With all due respect, Mr. President, you will not get any rest for a long time because spending and debt do not create jobs.
I know it's a long shot, and your people may not show it to you, but I suggested a plan that would make you look like an economic hero.
President Obama also said he would not sign a health-care bill that adds one dime to the deficit. In order for the House Democrats to pretend to get to "not one dime," they low-balled the cost at $894 billion by shifting some items elsewhere, disguising the tax increases and assuming unrealistic cuts in Medicare. The real cost is $1.5 trillion at least, and no government social program
in history has ever hit "at least."
Speaker Pelosi recently echoed President Obama's remark that "health-care reform is entitlement reform, which is essential to lowering the deficit." Wow! Really!
They are proposing to spend $1.5 trillion over 10 years on a new social program that looks like Medicare's ugly twin sister, containing more than 50 new layers of bureaucracy, and somehow it is going to magically reform Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and reduce the deficit at the same time. Right! And I can fly. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115392

The Truth Hurts: Updated Idioms

 

 

'Skin color has been
very, very good to me'

''Growing up in a white family in the least black state of America without "Dakota" in its name, he contributed less "blackness" to the cultural stew than I would have growing up in Newark. Still, Obama looked sort of black, even as he lived white, and that proved enough for the easily satisfied. "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," said the inimitable Joe Biden.''

That the Nobel Committee awarded Barack Obama its Peace Prize after nine months of frequent-flier dithering – and that Obama accepted the prize – shocked no one who has followed the wondrous career of this presidential prodigy.
There is a sentence in "Dreams From My Father," the 1995 memoir penned for Obama after five years of well compensated dithering, that captures the essence of his preposterously lofty expectations.
The year is 1988. Obama is a community organizer in Chicago. He tells us he is making $13,000 a year. Although Iran guards its nuclear secrets less zealously than the Obama camp guards their man's grades and LSAT scores, we do know that Obama did not graduate with honors from Columbia University
.
That much said, he tells his street friend "Johnnie" that he has decided to go to law school: "The minute I told him the schools to which I'd applied – Harvard, Yale, Stanford – he had grinned and slapped me on the back."
Harvard, Yale, Stanford? Oh, to be Obama! After graduating from college with honors, I had contemplated going to law school myself.
What can we learn about our new president by analyzing his personality quirks? Find out what the experts say in Whistleblower magazine's "Narcissist in Chief" edition
Although I did not take the LSATs, I had done sufficiently well on my GREs that at least a few friends asked me to take their LSATs for them. I'd have done OK.
And yet when I contemplated my law schools choices, they came down to Albany Law School, Seton Hall and Newark Rutgers. For all of the obvious glamour and prestige of these choices, I was not sure I could afford any of them.
True, I had not gone to Columbia as Obama had, but I had at least thought of going to Princeton. If, however, thinking about peace could win Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, thinking about Princeton did not get me admitted.
In fact, when I told the guidance counselor at my all-scholarship New York City high school about going to Princeton, he actually laughed. "How are you going to afford that?"
Michelle Obama did go to Princeton. "Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren't good enough for an Ivy League school," writes Christopher Andersen in "Barack and Michelle," "Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway." Oh, to be an Obama!

 

	CAIR: A dirty institution

 

Elitist arrogance, unbridled narcissism

The Truth Hurts: Updated Idioms

When it rains in Maine it Snowes

Zoom Zits from Left Field

Health-care – getting less for more

The dangers of smartphones

Coming: More illegal immigration

Protecting your kids = book-banning

CAIR: A dirty institution

Elitist arrogance, unbridled narcissism

'Skin color has been very good to me'

'It's the ACORN sting on steroids'

Does al-Qaida have key to unlock Pakistan nukes?

Vitamin D to curb spread of Swine Flu?

A New Dark Ages

The New Liberalism and the end of American ascenda...

Why I hate Obama's America

 

 

Obama wows gay rights activists

''"My expectation is when you look back on these years, you will see a time when we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians, whether in the office or on the battlefield. You’ll see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men and two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman," Obama said as applause thundered to a crescendo.'' President Barack Obama wowed a crowd of gay rights activists Saturday night with an impassioned defense of equality for gays and lesbians, but he offered no new commitments to assuage concerns that he has given a low priority to issues critical to the gay and lesbian community.
Obama received a series of rousing ovations from the more than 2,000 attendees at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual dinner in Washington as he insisted he is fully committed to their cause.
"I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight," Obama declared.
The president was quick to acknowledge the impatience many gay activists have expressed about his failure to carry through on campaign promises regarding gays in the military and other issues. http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/Obama_wows_gay_rights_activists-63946042.html

Obama, like any good radical, knows better than you

''Obama has been groomed for and anticipated this moment for decades and will not abandon his ambitions – no matter how much resistance he encounters from the American people – because in the end, he believes, like all radicals, that he knows better than the people what is in their best interests.''

While I couldn't bring myself to watch President Barack Obama's 1,000th-1,004th health-care propaganda spiels on the Sunday shows, I did read some transcripts and watch a few video highlights. What is it about this guy's personality that compels him to keep beating his head against the wall?
Why does he keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result?
The more Obama stumps for socialized medicine the less popular it becomes. Yet Obama keeps going back to the well, apparently believing that if he just explains it one more time – or maybe 10 more times – to the ignorant masses, his wards will finally come around to his way of thinking.
On the one hand, it seems that Obama truly believes that the majority of people are as sick as he is of America and reject many of its founding principles. After all, during his formative years and beyond, he was always surrounded by those – family and mentors – who had bones to pick with America and its "exploitive" capitalistic economy. To say that most of his role models were outright Marxists is hardly inflammatory hyperbole.
When it was time for him to make his own associational choices, he opted to continue the pattern in which he'd been raised – from the church he chose to the angry, activist, anti-establishment street agitation he embraced in Chicago.
So he very well might believe that his attitude favoring fundamental change for America is the norm and that the only ones who want to preserve the nation's "outmoded" founding principles are selfish, moneyed elites and those they control. Indeed, on the campaign trail, he was explicit about his intention to pursue fundamental change. Those paying close attention and not blinded by the Utopian slogans of hope and change were fearful Obama was quite serious about his plan to push America's reset button.
Let the world know your solution to tyranny and socialism in America with the magnetic bumper sticker: "IMPEACH OBAMA!"
On the other hand, Obama had to be aware that many Americans, even if he mistakenly thought they were the minority, did not share his jaundiced view of America. Otherwise, why did he have to organize the Chicago streets? Why did he have to train ACORN in its corrupt practices – corrupt practices I'm sure Obama justifies under an ends-and-means rationale? And how could Ronald Reagan or the Bushes ever have been elected if everyone thinks like Obama? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110535

‘They Live’ Predicted Obama Presidency

''You could forget about the math and the swing states, because the outcome of the 2008 election was predicted in 1988 by John Carpenter’s film They Live.''
The movie is a cult classic today–regarded as one of Carpenter’s best films, parodied on South Park, and ensuring that “Rowdy” Roddy Piper would forever be immortalized on the pages of the Internet Movie Database long after his wrestling career was a distant memory. Unlike many cult movies, however, They Live does not exist as a memoir to its time. Instead, it portrays an America that eerily resembles 2008.
Piper plays Nada, a man who ekes out a living bouncing between construction sites. He overtly states that he believes in the American way, and that he plays by the rules. He is confident success will find him if he just keeps working hard.
He meets up with Frank (Keith David). Frank has moved to a new city to find work, leaving his wife and family behind. “The steel mills were laying people off left and right,” he explains to Nada, “They finally went under. We gave the steel companies a break when they needed it. You know what they gave themselves? Raises.”
The film is abundantly populated with drifters like Nada and Frank–people willing to work, but either unable to find a job, or unable to live off the wages when they do.
One night Frank and Nada are watching television and a man breaks into the broadcast. He’s referred to as a “hacker,” and he is trying to get a message to the American people. He says “we are sleeping while they live.” He talks about the police state that has our country under its jack boot. And he bemoans the economic inequities that have befallen our nation.
“They are dismantling the sleeping middle class,” he says, “More and more people are becoming poor.”
The television viewers dismiss him as a crank, an unwelcome interruption to their regularly scheduled programming. Nada is inclined to agree.
But before long, Nada acquires a pair of special sunglasses. They reveal a world hidden beneath the visible reality. Billboards advertising exotic vacation destinations are exposed as subterfuge for Orwellian slogans: Obey. Conform. Consume. Marry and Reproduce. No Independent Thought. Paper currency bears the slogan, “This is Your God.” But most terrifying of all, members of the upper class, with their coiffed hairstyles and $1,000.00 suits, are revealed to be horrible, bug-eyed aliens. These aliens have infiltrated law enforcement and the highest tiers of government.
The rest of the film follows Nada as he attempts to evade the evil aliens that have taken over the world, and convince anyone who will listen that something is very, very wrong. The latter is no easy task. When Nada tries to get Frank to put on the glasses, Frank is so adamantly opposed to the idea a fist fight ensues. A very long fist fight. A long, punishing, bone-cracking, pile-driving, body-slamming fist fight. (It’s the most famous scene in the movie, and it’s a wonderful piece of camp.)
Rewatching They Live over the weekend, it struck me that John Carpenter wasn’t commenting on the America that existed in 1988. At that time, our country was still in the heady days following the economic boom of the Reagan Administration, making the movie an anachronism. Somehow, John Carpenter envisioned an America almost indistinguishable from the one left behind by the Bush Administration. Just like Nada, we are experiencing a time where the rich get richer while the middle class shrinks, and working class Americans are increasingly unable to afford even the barest of necessities.
The entire film is steeped in metaphor, but the aforementioned alley fight scene transcends metaphor and becomes a sort of self-contained social satire. It illustrates how difficult it is to make everyday U.S. citizens see that the American Dream has been subverted by a long stream of self-serving politicians, and the attitude that what’s good for big business is good for America. As the events of the past two months have illustrated vividly, this is not the case. Big business, left unchecked, will seek only to become bigger and more monolithic, stamping out competition, and reducing economic opportunity for the middle class (formerly known as “the backbone of America”).
Meanwhile, the oversized financial entities created by unchecked capitalism receive billions in tax savings, while the middle class, now bearing the largest portion of the country’s tax burden proportionately, gets insulting stipends by way of “economic stimulus payments.” The tragic irony comes when the monolithic entities fail and it falls to the middle class to bail them out with their tax dollars.
Still, many working and middle class Americans believe fervently that Republicans have their best economic interests at heart, even though most of them have seen their quality of life decline over the last eight years. Furthermore, a great number of them believe that all politicians are corrupt, and there’s not much anyone can do about it. And that’s a reality that They Live reflects so well as art. After his awakening to the truth, Nada hardly even seems surprised. Watching a skull-faced politician on the television, he says, “Ha! I figured it’d be something like this!”
Nada proceeds to fight against the aliens. But the hardest-won battle he has to overcome is with Frank, who is not an alien, and just as oppressed as anyone else. Frank watches T.V., reads his magazines, and spends his money oblivious to the reality revealed by the sunglasses because he has been made docile. Facing the truth requires action, because the truth reveals a situation that is utterly untenable. Frank does not want to face this. He is so determined to remain docile, he’ll body slam a mother *ucker to stay that way.
But putting the metaphors, and my personal political views aside, They Live could be reshot today without changing a word in the original script and it would probably connect far better with audiences than it did twenty years ago. That bodes ill for John McCain. And he can keep repeating his “redistribution of wealth” buzzwords all he wants. He cannot deny that the past eight years have wreaked havoc on the middle class, redistributing their opportunities to create their own wealth. I don’t think John McCain is the guy to correct that. And I don’t think mine is the minority view.
I could be wrong. Despite my wordy punditry, my purpose here is merely to suggest that everyone forget about watching the election eve news coverage. Tuesday, after you vote, go out and rent They Live. If you’re an Obama supporter, you’ll have a great time. If you’re a McCain supporter…
Well, it’s still a great movie.

“Brother, life’s a bi*ch. And she’s back in heat.” http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/they-live-predicts-obama-presidency.php

Obama, above the rabble, needs no proof

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay pulled no punches on Chris Matthews' "Hardball" show on MSNBC when asked if he is a "birther."
What planet is Chris Matthews living on?
The document I thought for years was my California birth certificate was actually a "certificate of live birth" and was not good enough to obtain a passport from the U.S. State Department. I needed to produce the official version with the raised seal, etc.
My wife was born to American citizens living in Germany and has a German birth certificate. She had to obtain a form FS-545 Certificate of Birth Abroad issued by the Department of State in order to get a Social Security card, and when we went to the county courthouse to obtain a marriage license, the clerk asked to see her visa, then thought she was in the country illegally because she didn't have one.
I had to produce my passport to satisfy the I-9 requirement before I could work at my current job, even though I am a natural born U.S. citizen!
More recently, I had to show proof that I was married and that my two children were really mine before my wife and children could continue to receive medical benefits from my employer's health plan. Again, my employer wanted official certified copies of the relevant documents.
At no time did anyone take me at my word for my birth, my marriage or for fathering my children. They wanted proof. Is it so unreasonable for Barack Obama to show proof that he occupies the office legally? Didn't he fill out an I-9 for his job as president? Can he produce a birth certificate or not? Or are our rulers above the law?
Are elitists like Chris Matthews so out of touch that they neither know nor care what we commoners are expected to put up with on a regular basis? And why would he be scornful of people who raise legitimate questions?
Robert Gemignani

Obama, Congress to decide when you die?

I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover's FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama's desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) – as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill – decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It's already in the stimulus bill signed into law.
The members of that ultimate federal board will themselves not have examined or seen the patient in question. For another example of the growing, tumultuous resistance to "Dr. Obama," particularly among seniors, there is a July 29 Washington Times editorial citing a line from a report written by a key adviser to Obama on cost-efficient health care, prominent bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel).
Emanuel writes about rationing health care for older Americans that "allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination" (The Lancet, January 2009). He calls this form of rationing – which is fundamental to Obamacare goals – "the complete lives system." You see, at 65 or older, you've had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks.
No matter what Congress does when it returns from its recess, rationing is a basic part of Obama's eventual master health care plan. Here is what Obama said in an April 28 New York Times interview (quoted in a Washington Times July 9 editorial) in which he describes a government end-of-life services guide for the citizenry as we get to a certain age, or are in a certain grave condition. Our government will undertake, he says, a "very difficult democratic conversation" about how "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care" costs.
Don't miss the most recent edition of Whistleblower magazine: "Medical Murder: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers"
This end-of-life consultation has been stripped from the Senate Finance Committee bill because of democracy-in-action town-hall outcries but remains in three House bills.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107334

Obama, Gates and black guilt

''Here is Gates on racial profiling in New York magazine from 1997: "Blacks – in particular, black men – swap their experiences of police encounters like war stories, and there are few who don't have more than one story to tell … There's a moving violation that many African-Americans know as DWB: Driving while black."''

The situation in Cambridge, Mass., surrounding professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s arrest has been analyzed and reanalyzed from nearly every angle. The character of police Sgt. James Crowley has been dragged through the mud, then polished, then dragged through the mud again.
But Gates has, for the most part, escaped scrutiny. At worst, he has been described as a racialist, a man who sees every aspect of American life through the lens of ethnicity. At best, he has been described (by racialist and full-fledged polysyllable-babbling idiot Michael Eric Dyson) as the "Rosa Parks of racial profiling."
But Gates is more than that. He is a faux moderate who, underneath it all, is convinced that American society is deeply and irreparably racist. He is an opportunist and a defender and purveyor of the "dominant white racism" myth that continues to plague American society.
He is, underneath it all, Barack Obama.
Which is why President Obama came to Gates' defense without knowing the facts and without knowing Sgt. Crowley. He and Gates are on the same wavelength
: The police are, by and large, a bunch of discriminatory brutes. Whites can never quite do enough to atone for the sins of their ancestors. And blacks, short of openly violent conduct, can never do anything that would justify arrest.

Déjà vu, Carter, Jimmy

As I gazed onto a parade route sprinkled with red, white and-blue everything on July 4, I thought about what patriots past and present have sacrificed for our freedom. I also thought about the people in Iran fighting for azadi, the Persian word for freedom.

The White House has offered what amounts to diplomatic dribble in response to their plight for liberty. I'm not saying our president should send militia to muscle the mullahs, but shouldn't he at least show stronger solidarity for the protesters? Isn't it time his actions superseded his rhetoric?

Is it just me or is anyone else experiencing a Carter déjà vu?

Carter didn't do enough to support an Iranian popular revolt. Carter's foreign policy was ridiculously idealistic. Carter believed that he could negotiate his way out of anything. Carter tried to pacify every party. Carter believed international thugs and terrorists could be swayed from extremism by simply presenting them what he thought was a better way.

Negotiating with extremists has never worked. Trying to reform them only morphs them into different monsters. And who can prove that more in the 20th century than President Jimmy Carter?

Carter is a major reason that we are in our Middle Eastern dilemma with Iran today because, while allegedly fighting for human rights, he set the stage for the rise of two of the worst human rights violators in history – the Ayatollah Khomeini and ultimately his modern successor, the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

As many recall, during the early 1970s, democratic-flavored reforms flourished in Iran because of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, from economic and educational reforms, to increased rights for women, religious minorities, etc. And the Nixon and Ford administrations applauded and rewarded these reforms.

With Carter's induction as president and push for human rights in international affairs, the Shah's popularity declined, because of accusations that he tortured thousands of prisoners. Carter demanded the Shah release political prisoners, break up military trials, permit free assemblies, among other requests – all of which only fostered political and social unrest.

Carter's push for social reform in the name of human rights prompted the further uprising of extremists and anti-government   rallies. And, by the fall of 1977, anti-Shah Shiite clergy and university students conducted well-organized resistances. Carter's connection and influence over the Shah prompted this pro-western leader's backlash in Iran and around the world. Even while visiting the White House in November 1977, the Shah and his empress were met by thousands of protesters.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103144

Order Chuck's brand new book, "Black Belt Patriotism" – available autographed ONLY at WND!

American Vision's Worldview Super Conference III

If the term "conservative" means to conserve society the way it is, then don't call the Worldview Super Conference III a gathering of conservatives, because these people are out to rock the world.

The conference's theme, "The Great Reversal: How Christians Will Change the Future," reflects the mission of the organization planning the event, American Vision, which states its purpose is to "restore America to its biblical foundation."

"Most conferences that deal with worldview issues concentrate on how bad things are. It's time we had conferences that outline what people can do," said American Vision President Gary Damar. "We have spent too much time whining about what's wrong when there are tens of millions of us who could make a difference overnight."

DeMar told WND he expects roughly 1,000 people to attend the conference, American Vision's third such event focusing on practical ways of winning the culture war. "The Great Reversal" conference will be held on the campus of Midway Presbyterian Church in Powder Springs 

One of the speakers at the conference will be WND's founder, Joseph Farah.

"American Christians need to get serious about saving their country," Farah told WND. "There are some very practical steps that need to be taken to do this. I addressed them in depth in my book 'Taking America Back.' I'm looking forward to doing the same at this conference – this time, with an eye specifically toward the media, a subject I know best.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102971

Tricky Dicky Obamanoid Carterite

What prior administration does the Obama administration most resemble? In its early days, there is a surprising contender: that of Richard Nixon.
Helen Thomas sounded the theme in an interview with CNS News that followed a Robert Gibbs press conference:
The Following a testy exchange during Wednesday's briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

"Nixon didn't try to do that," Thomas said. "They couldn't control (the media). They didn't try.

"What the hell do they think we are, puppets?" Thomas said.

I think the answer to that question is Yes, actually.

The Nixonian note was sounded again in the Obama administration's response to Republicans who are pressing for information on the firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin. It appears that Obama's firing of Walpin was both illegal and politically motivated, and his aides are circling the wagons, hoping the issue will go away without their having to provide information to Congress. Once again, Byron York has the story:
All in all, the "extensive review" appeared more of a sham review -- an exercise designed to support a decision that had already been made. Nor has the White House been open about it. "Information provided to my staff by Mr. Eisen has been incomplete and misleading," Republican Rep. Darrell Issa wrote in a July 1 letter to White House counsel Gregory Craig.
For its part, the White House is hinting broadly that it might invoke executive privilege to keep documents from Congress. "Your questions seek information about the White House's internal decision-making process," Craig wrote to Sen. Charles Grassley on June 30. "These questions implicate core executive branch confidentiality interests." At another point, Craig pledged to cooperate "to the fullest extent possible consistent with constitutional and statutory obligations."
The message, apparently, is for GOP investigators to back off.
Ah, executive privilege! The very words are redolent of the 1970s. (Although, of course, all administrations invoke executive privilege on occasion, sometimes properly, sometimes not.) Barack Obama is often compared to Jimmy Carter; the resemblances are obvious. But there may be a streak of Nixon in Obama, as well.

Obama: Wrong again

It took the Obama administration eight days to figure out whether Iranians being gunned down for protesting a fraudulent election and demanding basic civil liberties deserved to be acknowledged by the president of the United States. It took the O-Team less than eight hours to side with Cuba's Fidel Castro, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega over the ouster of Manuel Zelaya in Honduras.

As we now have come to expect, Mr. Obama got it wrong again, but this time, nobody noticed. The U.S. news media, preoccupied with the sudden demise of Michael Jackson  

Manuel Zelaya, a wealthy rancher and agribusiness executive and a self-described "poor farmer," won a four-year term as Honduran president in November 2005, with 49.8 percent of the vote. Article 374 of the Honduran Constitution bars the nation's chief executive from serving consecutive terms. Apparently, one term wasn't enough for Zelaya, a protégé of Venezuela's strongman, Hugo Chavez and Nicaragua's phobic anti-American leader, Daniel Ortega.

Late last year, as the Honduran economy tanked and unemployment grew to nearly 28 percent, Zelaya forced Elvin Santos, the country's elected vice president, to resign and began holding conversations with Chavez and Ortega on how to hold on to power. In lengthy Chavez-like populist speeches, he denounced the U.S. and wealthy landowners and linked himself with leftists in the Honduran labor movement. On March 23, he issued an executive decree directing a national referendum on a Venezuela-style constituent assembly to rewrite the country's constitution in time for presidential and legislative elections in November. The Obama-Clinton State Department was mute about all of this.

Trapped in Castro's gulag and lived to tell about it – check out Armando Valladares' story of 20 years under dictator's thumb: "Against All Hope"

Unfortunately for Zelaya's aspirations, the Honduran Constitution requires that amendments be passed by a two-thirds vote of the country's unicameral Congress during two consecutive sessions. By late May, the Honduran Congress, the Honduran Supreme Court, the commissioner for human rights and the Honduran electoral tribunal all had overwhelmingly declared the referendum unconstitutional. Zelaya ignored the people's representatives, had ballots printed in Venezuela, and announced that the vote would take place June 28. Again, the O-Team was silent.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102909

Hands off Honduras!
Pat Buchanan drubs Obama for siding with 'the international left' in power transfer

Obama Says Foes of Homosexuality Hold to ‘Worn Arguments and Old Attitudes’

‘Worn Arguments, Old Attitudes’: That’s how President Obama describes the thinking of millions upon millions of Americans who oppose homosexual behavior [watch his elitist “gay pride” speech HERE.] At a recent Oval Office ceremony, President Obama shakes the hand of Frank Kameny — a hero to homosexual activists but a bigoted extremist to pro-family activists on the receiving end of his intemperate letters. Kameny smears Christian conservatives as “Christianofascists” and says “gay is godly,” even though he’s an atheist. (Kameny also wrote AFTAH that bestiality is OK “as long as the animal doesn’t mind.”) Christians, Jews, Muslims, and all moral-minded Americans must resist Obama’s use of the bully pulpit to undermine timeless truths by advancing the “gay” agenda of turning aberrant and unhealthy sex and gender confusion into “civil rights.”  Click on White House photo to enlarge.

_________________________

So (President) Barack Obama is going to teach us (and by extension, God) a few things about the supposed morality of homosexual relationships? “Audacity” suddenly seems like too small a word for Mr. Obama. A few years ago this fellow was a back-bencher in Springfield, Illinois, unable to summon up the strength of character to vote for a bill designed to protect babies “born alive” through botched abortions. Now he’s President of the greatest and most blessed nation on earth and is so sure of his moral rectitude (or, conversely, cynical of divine absolutes) that he dismisses those “worn arguments and old attitudes” against homosexual behavior — you know, the ones rooted in Genesis in the Old Testament and Romans in the New.

Go HERE to watch the president’s elitist slap at faith-motivated Americans; start watching at the 1:00 minute mark of the speech to homosexual activists celebrating “gay pride month.” A transcript of the speech accompanies the Youtube video.

Who can quantify the arrogance of politicians, whose gargantuan egos lead them to make moral pronouncements that are, theologically and philosophically speaking, way “beyond their pay grade” (to paraphrase the strategically humble Obama)? This is not the first time Obama has played God: in the Democratic primary both he and Hillary Clinton — faced with the comment by Gen. Peter Pace that homosexual acts are immoral and incompatible with miliary service — simply declared that Gen. Pace was wrong because homosexuality is not immoral. Who knew that overturning five millennia of Judeo-Christian teachings was so simple?

http://americansfortruth.com/news/obama-says-foes-of-homosexuality-hold-to-worn-arguments-and-old-attitudes.html