Archive for February 3rd, 2009

Obama, The Energy Hypocrite

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

Obama: “Now listen up…you mundane, average, working class clods are going to have to tighten your belts. I know it’s cold outside but you’re going to have to keep those thermostats low. Wear more clothes. If everyone wore more clothes, we won’t have to drill for more oil; we can continue to buy that overpriced stuff from overseas.

Mundane, average, working class clod: “But Mr. President, your thermostat is set to at least 80 degrees. Shouldn’t you turn yours down as well? I fell all over myself to worship you, Oh Anointed One, at your Ascension…ah, I mean inauguration. Doesn’t that stand for anything?”

Obama: “Shut-up, mundane, average, working class clod. You fool!! You know I don’t tolerate people questioning my authority. Learn your place, whelp. This is the New World Order. ‘Change You Will Believe In’, or else, has come. Deal with it!!”

President Obama lectured voters during the campaign about the need to make sacrifices for the environment. But now it’s warm and toasty in the White House — so much so that aides have likened it to a tropical hot house — and Obama is under fire for turning up the heat.

Obama made climate change a staple of his stump speech last year, calling on Americans to lower their energy use and set a model for the rest of the world in combating climate change.

During a campaign event in Oregon in May, Obama said we have to “lead by example.” “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times,” he said.

“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”

But for the first few weeks of his presidency, that’s precisely what has happened in the White House.

On the first day of his presidency, Obama allowed staffers to venture into the Oval Office without wearing coat and tie, which had been obligatory under President Bush. Fashion observers called it a new age of business casual at the White House.

Obama’s aides had a simpler explanation. Though he’s spent more than 20 years in Chicago, the president was born in Hawaii. And so he “likes it warm” in the Oval Office, said Chief of Staff David Axelrod. “You could grow orchids in there,” he told the New York Times.

But while it’s perpetual summer in the Oval Office, the rest of the country has been trudging through a tough winter. Ice storms have cut power to millions in the Midwest and South.

With few orchids growing in the heartland, critics are saying that Obama — who urged individual sacrifice in an inaugural address that called for a “new era of responsibility” — hasn’t been willing to bear the cold with the rest of the country.

“It’s stunning hypocrisy,” said Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of two books critical of global warming activists. “Obama spins the dial up, takes off his coat and seeks to mandate that we turn the dial down,” he said.

Critics say it’s time for the president to put his coat — or his cardigan — back on.

Horner said the president should follow the demands he’s made of the rest of the country and start “turning down the dial and putting on a sweater instead of [demanding] sacrifice he talks about for other people.”

But some energy experts say Obama, who made energy efficiency a cornerstone of his campaign, needs to stay on message.

“He’s got to make every American make a personal commitment” to decrease their own energy use and educate the country about the threat of climate change, he said. “The earlier the president can convey that message the better.”

Original Link.

Obama ‘Guarantees’ West Bank Withdrawal

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

Oh boy, here we go again…

JERUSALEM – The Palestinian Authority received a guarantee from President Obama’s administration that understandings reached with Israel during U.S.-backed negotiations while President Bush was in office would be utilized as starting points for current and future talks with the Jewish state, top PA officials told WND.

With new general Israeli elections scheduled for next week, the move could limit the incoming Israeli prime minister, since the PA can point to points of agreement during previous talks between Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

The PA officials, speaking on condition their names be withheld, said they were enthusiastic about the new tone of the White House and about recent meetings with Obama’s Mideast envoy, former Democratic Sen. George Mitchell. They said they believe that under Obama the Palestinians can extract from Israel concessions reaching “much further” than during talks held under the previous administration.

“Regarding all understandings achieved between the parties, the Obama administration told us they will give guarantees to carry them out,” said a top PA official.

“With Obama, the number of settlers to be removed from the West Bank will much be more important than 60,000,” said the PA official, referring to previous negotiations in which Israel expressed a willingness to withdraw from up to 94 percent of the West Bank
and move about 60,000 settlers into central settlement blocks closer to Jerusalem.

WND reported exclusively in November that then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice collected notes and documents from Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams to ensure the incoming U.S. administration would not need to start negotiations from scratch. PA sources said Rice’s notes are being used by Obama’s team as the starting points for new Israeli-Palestinian talks.

Documents noting agreements during previous Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been used in subsequent talks, sometimes as starting points. According to both Israeli and PA sources, American officials took detailed notes of talks at U.S.-brokered negotiations at Camp David in 2000 and then used points of agreement on key issues, such as borders, during recent rounds of intense Israeli-Palestinian talks.

Israeli and PA sources said Rice’s notes document agreements that would seek an eventual major West Bank withdrawal and would grant the PA permission to open official institutions in Jerusalem.

A top source said the PA requested that the Obama administration threaten sanctions against Israel for any new Jewish construction in the West Bank.

The source told WND that Obama is said to favor Israel withdrawing from nearly the entire West Bank.

Israel recaptured the West Bank in the 1967 Six Day War. The territory, in which about 200,000 Jews live, is tied to Judaism throughout the Torah and is often referred to as the biblical heartland of Israel.

Original Link.

State Cannot Afford to Continue to Subsidize Illegal Immigrants

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

An immigration reform activist in Mississippi says the state cannot afford to continue to subsidize illegal immigrants — particularly during tough economic times.

Dr. Rodney Hunt, president of the Mississippi Federation for Immigration Reform (MFIRE), says to date six bills have been introduced in the Mississippi legislature that address the problem of illegal immigration in the Magnolia State.

“Even in good times you don’t want to have your tax money going to pay for people who are here illegally,” says the immigration activist. “But especially in harder economic times, when our state is going to be way short of estimated revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars, then I think it’s ridiculous to keep paying for people who are here illegally.”

Original Link.

“Time to Beam Down to Earth” by Victor Davis Hanson

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

Last week the United States got lucky again and took out several suspected terrorists by Predator drone attacks over Pakistan. Anti-war critics prior to Jan. 20 used to decry “collateral damage” from such controversial strikes. But there was a weird silence here about the Obama administration’s successful first attack — despite the usual complaints from abroad that several civilians perished.

President Barack Obama just announced, to great applause, that he wanted to close Guantanamo right away — sort of. But in the meantime he rightly worried over the immediate consequences. So, instead, in circumspect fashion, he appointed a “task force” to prepare for such closure within a year.

We forget that a less politically adept George Bush years ago conceded that he likewise wanted Guantanamo closed at some future date. But the media then, unlike now, largely ridiculed such pedestrian worries over what to do with unlawful wartime combatants who would either have to be released or tried as criminals in U.S. courts.

A saintly Obama upon entering the presidency announced to great fanfare that he would once and for all stop revolving-door lobbyists and end shady business as usual in Washington. But during the transition and the first two weeks of governance, Obama’s team has already experienced a number of ethical problems of the sort that often plague incoming administrations.

Obama’s commerce secretary nominee, Gov. Bill Richardson, of New Mexico, has been under federal investigation and withdrew from consideration.
Attorney General designate Eric Holder, as Bill Clinton’s deputy attorney general, helped pardon a fugitive on the FBI’s most wanted list who was a big Clinton campaign donor.
Timothy Geithner, just confirmed as secretary of the Treasury, cannot adequately explain why he didn’t pay thousands of dollars in Social Security and Medicare taxes and took illegal tax deductions.

Obama’s staff already has already waived its new ethics rules for former Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn, who was nominated for deputy Defense secretary.

Such embarrassments sometimes happen in politics — but to humans, not gods — and they often create media firestorms, not a mere flicker or two.

Throughout the campaign and after the inauguration, Obama also talked grandly of bipartisanship. The fact that he once had the most partisan record in the U.S. Senate, played tough Chicago-style politics to win elections and toed a strict liberal line in the Illinois legislature caused few in the media to wonder about such promises.

Yet despite aspiring to be an Olympian president, Obama just warned Republicans not to listen to earthy Rush Limbaugh. In words more like those of George Bush than of Mahatma Gandhi, Obama privately rubbed it in with, “I won.”

Despite the near-evangelical sermons, Obama, like most savvy presidents, assumes bipartisanship is the art of persuading — and coercing — the opposition into following his polices. George Bush likewise called for an end to acrimony while he pushed his agenda. The only difference is that the media mocked the “divider” Bush’s clumsy talk of bipartisanship but so far is still hypnotized by the “uniter” Obama.

Why is Obama’s grand talk already at odds with his actions?

For one reason, he is unduly empowered by a media that too often roots for him, rather than reports critically about his actions.

Second, in the last two years, Obama and his supporters advanced two general gospels that are coming back to haunt him:

First, that George W. Bush was a terrible president, and that his toxic policies had done irreparable damage to the United States.

Second, and in contrast, that Obama was an entirely novel candidate with fresh hope-and-change ideas that would bring a renaissance to the United States and the world.

Bush’s Texas twang and occasionally tongue-tied expressions strengthened the first supposition. Obama’s youth, charm and multiracial background enhanced the second.

But we are already seeing that simplistic polarity was infantile — even if the enthralled media desperately wanted to believe in the mythology.

In truth, Bush, after the left-wing hysteria over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, governed mostly as a traditional conservative rather than a reactionary extremist. Meanwhile, newcomer candidate Obama predictably embraced old-style and well-known liberal orthodoxy.

The result is that President Obama is quickly discovering that many of those easy Bush-blew-it issues of the campaign really involved only bad and worse choices of governance. Most solutions now call for realism instead of doctrinaire leftwing bromides and catchy speechmaking.

Obama should decide quickly whether to beam back down to earth. If he doesn’t, at some point even a sympathetic media won’t be able to warn him that his all too human actions are beginning to make a mockery of his all too holy sermons.

Original Link.

“Celebrating Darwin’s Birthday” by Ron Graham

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

Charles Darwin is credited with bringing about a worldwide change in man’s thinking about the origins of life. Although Darwin wasn’t the first to espouse the idea of the theory of evolution, he certainly got most of the credit. When Charles Darwin wrote his famous book on the theory of evolution, he probably had no idea where that ugly lie would take mankind and what a major falling away from faith in God would occur.

Man has been trying to glorify Darwin and promote his theory of evolution even though there isn’t a shred of proof of any of those so-called scientific “evolutionary” facts. Man in all his diligence has never found any intermediate fossils. This means scientists have no proof of anything evolving from a lower life form into a higher life form. Man has never found or observed a gradual change in any life form in all the billions of fossils that have been dug up in all the years he has been searching. Mutations and adaptations happen, but there is no observable evidence pointing to a transition from one life form to another. That fact alone demolishes the theory of evolution. If Darwin was alive today, and being presented with the scientific facts we now have, he would not be a believer in his own theory.

Darwin wrote: “Intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].”

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species p. 323

One example we can see is the scientific evidence against the human eye evolving. This is a staggering reality; the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of our Creator God. All secular scientists have is blind speculation.

“Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown” Alfred G. Fisher, evolutionist Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia 1998, fossil section.

Side note:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and http://www.icr.org/ are two sites devoted to proclaiming the truth about God’s creation. If you like believing in the lie of evolution over what God says He did, I suggest you stay away from these two sites. The convicting truth will certainly change your mind.

What we can attribute to the theory of evolution over the past one hundred and fifty years is a systematic and calculated breakdown of morals in our world’s societies. What’s happening in the world today, as far as the coldheartedness of humankind is concerned, is a direct result of the promotion of, and adherence to, the theory of evolution. What evolution is basically saying is every living thing on the face of this planet evolved from pond scum; therefore we have no basis for truth, morals, or for scientific fact. Love only comes from God, and if there is no God then there’s no real love.

When we read about the senseless murders being perpetrated on society throughout the U.S. in our public schools, in our shopping malls, as well as in the safe haven of our very homes and churches, we can know for certain that those lost individuals who commit such crimes had no hope for anything such as life after death. If evolution were correct, mankind certainly wouldn’t be restrained by anyone else’s morals or lifestyles. All of our moral laws can be traced back to the inerrant word of God. Our forefathers were greatly influenced by the Holy Bible. God alone gives man the breath of life. The complete and total depravity you see all around this world cannot be stopped by anything other than a renewed adherence to the Word of God.

Do we now believe we can consider morality and religion optional without suffering civil and societal repercussions? John Adams, the second president of the United States and one of our Founding Fathers, stated “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”. Our Constitution is currently being spat upon by a man who believes he is above this government’s founding document of laws and precepts. His belief in Darwin’s evil theory is evident in his promotion of the wholesale murder of innocent babies in the womb, the promotion of, and the enforced acceptance of the abominable lifestyle of homosexuality.

Read the rest of the article here.

Obama Voices Concern about Freed Guantanamo Inmates

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

This is one of those “Do what…???” moments when a look of perplexity takes control of my face.
Just what did Obama think was going to happen when he promised to close Gitmo?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama said in an interview aired on Monday he worried that detainees freed from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo, Cuba, might resume attacks on the United States.

But he told NBC News that closure of the prison was a matter of upholding U.S. values and law, and that a failure to do so would ultimately make Americans less secure.

“Can we guarantee that they’re not going to try to participate in another attack? No,” Obama said. “But what I can guarantee is that if we don’t uphold our Constitution and our values, that over time that will make us less safe. And that will be a recruitment tool for organizations like al-Qaeda.”

In one of the first acts of his new administration, Obama, who was sworn in as U.S. president on January 20, signed an executive order directing that Guantanamo prison be closed within a year.

Some 250 terrorism suspects are being held at Guantanamo, many of them detained for years without charge and some subjected to interrogation that human rights groups say amounted to torture.

Obama critics note that even former President George W. Bush wanted to close Guantanamo. They say the difficult issue is deciding what to do with the inmates because they cannot be sent home for fear of torture, and other countries are unwilling to take them.

There also are fears some may return to their attacks against the United States. Several of the detainees released by the Bush administration again became active in anti-U.S. militant groups.

“Is it going to be easy?” Obama asked in the interview. “No, because we’ve got a couple hundred of hard-core militants that, unfortunately, because of … some problems that we had previously in gathering evidence, we may not be able to try in ordinary courts but we don’t want to release.”

Original Link.

Gaza Rocket Hits Israeli City, Threatening Truce

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

The Pali terrorist did exactly what I told you they would do…they started firing rockets into Israel the moment the Israeli troops were gone.

JERUSALEM — A long-range Grad rocket from Gaza landed in the Israeli city of Ashkelon on Tuesday as delegates of the militant Islamic Hamas organization met in Cairo for talks with Egyptian officials striving to mediate a long-term truce with Israel.

The rocket was the first of its kind to be fired at the city of 122,000 since informal cease-fires were declared separately by Israel and Hamas two weeks ago at the end of Israel’s bruising three-week-long offensive in Gaza.

No one was injured in Tuesday’s attack, police said.

Israel launched its “Operation Cast Lead” offensive on Dec. 27 to halt near-daily rocket fire from Gaza at Israel targets. Sporadic rocket and mortar fire from Gaza has continued, however, prompting tough warnings of reprisal from Israeli leaders.

More than a dozen rockets and mortar shells slammed into Israel on Sunday. The following day Israel fired a missile at a car in the town of Rafah, killing a Palestinian militant, and bombed the nearby Gaza-Egypt border, seeking to destroy tunnels that Hamas uses to smuggle in weapons and supplies.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni pledged to keep hitting Hamas as long as it attacks Israel and ruled out negotiations with the militant Islamic rulers of Gaza.

“Terror must be fought with force and lots of force. Therefore we will strike Hamas,” she said at a security conference Monday. “If by ending the operation we have yet to achieve deterrence, we will continue until they get the message.”

Original Link.

“Senate Must Reject Faux Stimulus” by David Limbaugh

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

Americans should contact their congressmen before it’s too late about their instinctive concerns over efforts to convert the world’s greatest engine of free market prosperity into a socialistic leviathan under the euphemistic cover of possibly successive rescue “stimulus” bills.

The stated rationale for the original Troubled Asset Relief Program “bailout” wasn’t to stimulate the economy to get it moving again, but to toss it a liquidity life raft to loosen credit markets and keep it from drowning. That is, the idea was to prevent a catastrophe, not to empower little Napoleons in government to play God with the economy.

Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s scare tactics — heartfelt or not — panicked the country into action, and TARP became a reality. Yet not much seemed to change. Politicians will always be able to say that if we hadn’t implemented TARP, America’s economy would have tanked beyond our wildest nightmares. And being without the supernatural power to prove a negative, we’ll never be able to disprove their claims.

Of all the concerns we had concerning TARP, our greatest should have been that once we opened the door to this magnitude of governmental intervention — especially under a Republican administration — we’d have even greater difficulty in resisting efforts by politicians to reopen it in the future anytime they pronounced there was a crisis.

Sure enough, Mr. Obama and his confidants view this “crisis” with eager anticipation as an opportunity to actualize their dreams for government to assume its rightful place as Master of the Universe and choreograph the economy on a super-macro level.

Even the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office has revealed Obama’s bill is largely not stimulative. It’s more accurate to describe it as a grandiose slush fund for his preferred projects, support groups and constituencies on the spending side and a massive redistribution of income on the tax side.

When the bill is stripped of its rhetorical disguise, we see it’s a license for government to shackle the invisible hand of the free market and appoint itself manager of the gross domestic product according to the superior wisdom of central planners.

Why do you think the Obamites are constantly blaming market excesses, greed and Wall Street for our financial problems, when most of the blame lies with politicians themselves? Why do you think they trash talk the economy every day, when they know that such pessimism from “on high” will cause real economic damage, considering that much of the spending downturn is related to a crisis in consumer confidence? The answer is that they need us in panic mode — the only mindset likely to divorce us from our ordinary walking-around sense and make us receptive to the big-government remedies they’re salivating to employ.

Note that President Obama doesn’t even pay lip service to making his interventionist plans short-lived. And by their terms, it’s impossible they could be. This is an effort to restructure our economy radically toward the type of command and control model that has accompanied tyrannical regimes throughout history.

Nor does Mr. Obama express the slightest concern that his plan would further expand the national debt. Indeed, Democrats have suddenly developed permanent amnesia about their professed budget concerns, whose primary usefulness (as weapons against President George W. Bush) expired along with the Bush term.

To accept that deficits and debt were high on their priority list would require us to believe they’d fundamentally changed their age-old tax-and-spend philosophy and to ignore their persistent obstruction of entitlement reform. The Clinton budgets are no rebuttal. Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming to fiscal restraint by the Gingrich Congress.

Everyone knows government doesn’t have the money — even through tax receipts — to fund this bill. Other than defense spending, which Obama unwisely plans to cut drastically in this time of war, Obama has no intention of substantially cutting other expenditures. Even if the bill as presently configured succeeds in jump-starting the economy, there will eventually be a day of reckoning over our increasingly unmanageable national debt.

If only government-planning liberals would be honest and admit they believe their ideas on how to spend the people’s money are morally superior to those of the American people as expressed through the free market. Then, instead of dealing with the smoke and mirrors of the bill’s proponents, we could point to world history to demonstrate conclusively that despite the sometimes-best intentions of social planners, command and control economies have only spread misery and never worked to produce the kind of prosperity that is only possible in a free market.

Unless this bill is dramatically overhauled, the Senate, instead of trying to massage it toward passage in allegiance to the seductive but dangerous goals of bipartisanship or just getting something done, should reject it outright.

Original Link.