Frankly, the alliance of the communist left and radical Islam gives me nightmares. I first became aware of this frightening trend years ago when my husband and  I noticed a definite anti-Israel bias in LA Times articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.   Always, always, these biased articles were penned by liberals, supposedly the tolerant, peace loving defenders of human rights. What do jihadists and the left have in common? Hatred of Judeo-Christian civilization, and an agenda for power,  their prime targets being the United States and Israel, who stand as twin pillars of freedom and democracy, entrusted as protectors of mankind's inalienable rights, granted only by God.

Remember, just months before the terrorist attacks of 9-11, in May 2001, Fidel Castro told a cheering crowd of Muslim students at the University of Tehran, "Together we will bring America to its knees,"  he wasn't joking.   The war following the attacks provided a perfect opportunity for this enemy to go on the offense.  With ally Obama in the White House, their operations became overt, the so-called Arab Spring, and the rise of Muslim Brotherhood their first victory. Who carries the saber for these destructive radicals bent on war and destruction?  The left dominated and Soros funded MSM, thats who.   CNN, long dubbed the Castro News Network, can now also be called the Crescent News Network.

From Jean-Patrick Grumberg for www.Dreuz.info, via Atlas Shrugged:

Breaking News: CNN Israel fired all Jewish Journalists

The media scandal that you are about to read was revealed to us by a totally reliable source.

It is likely to provoke a wave of shock and indignation within the North American media industry, and it certainly will not calm down the controversy over the pro-palestinian CNN treatment of the conflict.

We learned today that the Israeli branch of CNN, located in Jerusalem, is downsizing to cope with reduced income from less advertising.

What goes beyond good management is that CNN has fired four Israeli Jewish journalists (out of a crew of 8), and has retained only Arab journalists. Where, until now, CNN always sent a Jewish and an Arab journalist to cover information, now there will be only an Arab journalist. The local chief editor of the News Chanel is now Arabic.

This is a conflict where information is central to public opinion, and it weighs a lot on diplomatic decisions. Furthermore, it is no secret that Arab journalists cannot freely publish what they want without risking for their own lives when traveling to Gaza, East Jerusalem, and Judea Samaria. Thus, CNN decision to fire all Jewish journalists from its Jerusalem office is of particular concern, because the general public is unaware that they will be receiving biased information.

Update at 8:30 PST: we just received the names of the four journalists that were fired:

Moshe Cohen, editor, fired on january 30, 10 years with CNN.

Izi Landberg, Producer, about 25 years with CNN, fired on January 30.

Avi Kaner cameraman fired on january 30, 10 years with CNN.

Michal Zippori desk producer, situation still unclear.

I came across this comment in response to Peggy Noonan's article, The Divider vs. The Thinker, in the WSJ.  It perfectly coalesces into words the reason for the unease, fear and anger I think many of us feel about the direction our country has taken.

Justin Harp wrote:

The battle of the next century for America will not be fought abroad. However it will be fought domestically in the now varying world views that the demographics that are being pitted against one another hold as Truth. When the Pilgrims came to America they were seeking religious freedom. Their trust in the God of the Bible was the common thread that held them together. For the first 200 years of the US there was a common moral compass that guided the actions of our citizens in politics, education, healthcare, business and in family. God has now been removed from each of these systems and the government has been enthroned as the guiding force. Now we have a society that battles constantly over diametrically opposed World Views. The desire is always to find common ground, the problem is there is no common ground. The same word used from either side has different meanings (ie tolerance. To one it means to coexist peacefully with an agreement to disagree. To the other it means to embrace at the cost of contradiction and hypocrisy, to not embrace is bigoted or discriminatory). Now we try to legislate morality. Isn't that what Occupy Wall St. is about? Wanting fairness through redistribution of wealth, regulation to impede greed and excess? There was a time when the system worked because the guiding principles in men's hearts compelled them to act in a "fair" manor because of their believed accountability to a higher power. Now the higher power has been excused from the room and the hope is that a depraved individual will behave as a moral one because of regulation or law. Morality is not introduced to the system from external forces; rather it is emanated outwardly by the participants. It finds its way into the players from the teachings of parents who clearly define right and wrong based upon a clear understanding of "TRUTH". Today the family is completely broken. Children are seen an anchor to parents financial aspirations. In today's world 50% or greater of Americans don't believe in truth. With this type of disparity in thinking how can we expect common ground? How can the sides come close enough together for any glue to hold us together. So the new way to political power is to determine which side is greater in number and pander to their current wishes for what they define as "justice". In the new America it will get you 4 years in the oval office. For Americans it will lead to waking up in 15 years not trusting your neighbor.

Excellent commentary in American Thinker titled "Obama and the 3 curses" that gets to the nub of the issue...

Recently, I came across something spooky. Composing a political comment to share with friends, I referenced the putative ancient Chinese curse may you live in interesting times. It's an old saw of unknown provenance and authenticity, but one that has gained enduring currency in the English language and seemed to capture the bitter lesson Americans have learned since falling for Barack Obama's frothy promises of hope and change.

After all, what could be more interesting than watching a young and inexperienced President set out to transform America, empowered by electoral mandate and his party's control of Congress? And President Obama did not disappoint. He boldly borrowed $5 trillion dollars to spend on bailouts and stimulus and government programs on a scale unseen before. He took over health care, auto companies and student loans. He used the power of the purse and an army of regulators flamboyantly, to recast the United States as a socialist country. How exciting to live in these most interesting of times!

And, of course, the promise turned into a curse. We have worse than nothing to show for record government spending and debt. Unemployment is stuck above 9% and we lose jobs "unexpectedly" with monotonous regularity. Gas and food prices are skyrocketing. We've extended jobless benefits into another welfare entitlement and 46 million people are on food stamps, another record. The economy has stalled and teeters on the brink of a disastrous backslide into a recession we never really escaped. And let's not forget America's historic credit downgrade and the waves of foreclosures. In Washington they talk of economic "uncertainty," but across the land there is the unmistakable stench of fear in the air.

Satisfied with my commentary, I decided to look up the Chinese quote to make sure I got the wording right. It turned out that there is no known Chinese language version of the quote, nor a definitive Western source. But what stopped me in my tracks was that this is the first of three apocryphal quotes of increasing severity, like the circles of hell. Whether genuine or not, all three contain nuggets of rueful truth that explain their enduring currency. And to read them today is to experience a shock of recognition - they are the three horsemen of the Barackalypse. [...]

Read on.

Remember this, the promise from President Obama March 09?

"Let me say this as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired just like always," Obama said in a speech. "Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been. Because starting today, the United States will stand behind your warranty."

Then there's the reality:

New GM said not responsible to fix Impala made by old GM* Suspension problem said to cause excessive tire wear

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK, Aug 19 (Reuters) - General Motors Co (GM.N) is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit over a suspension problem on more than 400,000 Chevrolet Impalas from the 2007 and 2008 model years, saying it should not be responsible for repairs because the flaw predated its bankruptcy.

The lawsuit, filed on June 29 by Donna Trusky of Blakely, Pennsylvania, contended that her Impala suffered from faulty rear spindle rods, causing her rear tires to wear out after just 6,000 miles. [ID:nN1E7650CT]

Seeking class-action status and alleging breach of warranty, the lawsuit demands that GM fix the rods, saying that it had done so on Impala police vehicles.

But in a recent filing with the U.S. District Court in Detroit, GM noted that the cars were made by its predecessor General Motors Corp, now called Motors Liquidation Co or "Old GM," before its 2009 bankruptcy and federal bailout.

The current company, called "New GM," said it did not assume responsibility under the reorganization to fix the Impala problem, but only to make repairs "subject to conditions and limitations" in express written warranties. In essence, the automaker said, Trusky sued the wrong entity.

"New GM's warranty obligations for vehicles sold by Old GM are limited to the express terms and conditions in the Old GM written warranties on a going-forward basis," wrote Benjamin Jeffers, a lawyer for GM. "New GM did not assume responsibility for Old GM's design choices, conduct, or alleged breaches of liability under the warranty."

By voting against this misnamed piece of legislation, these Senators voted for our future, and an end to business as usual in Washington. Remember them come election day.

These are the Senators with enough backbone to do what's right for our country.  As for the rest, throw the incompetent bums out!

The Republican Nay votes on S. 395 - An act to provide for budget control.

Ayotte (R-NH)

Chambliss (R-GA)

Coats (R-IN)

Coburn (R-OK)

DeMint (R-SC)

Graham (R-SC)

Grassley (R-IA)

Hatch (R-UT)

Heller (R-NV)

Inhofe (R-OK)

Johnson (R-WI)

Lee (R-UT)

Moran (R-KS)

Paul (R-KY)

Rubio (R-FL)

Sessions (R-AL)

Shelby (R-AL)

Toomey (R-PA)

Vitter (R-LA)

The only energy Obama is willing to tap into is the massive reserve of deception he uses on this country everyday.

In May, as the summer travel season opened to at or above $4/gallon gasoline, unemployment was rising, not falling, and Obama's poll numbers were falling . He used his weekly address to the nation to claim he was opening 'new' drilling ... in areas that actually were drilling (or waiting to drill) that his administration had slammed shut after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and even in Alaska. In May he presented the drilling plan in May as if it was something absolutely new, and all his idea. The fact is, in the year following the Gulf disaster and this administration's refusal to return to common sense energy exploration and production, many very smart people were making the case for re-opening drilling and allowing permits in the Gulf and Alaska. Oddly, what he said in his weekly address in May could have been grabbed from various blogs and statements of such people. Not to be forgotten or discounted in all of this were the multiple losses the administration had taken from Federal Judges ruling against them and their drilling roadblocks.

(May 14, 2011)

(LA Times) — President Obama will open Alaska’s national petroleum reserve to new drilling, as part of a broad plan aimed at blunting criticism that he is not doing enough to address rising energy prices.

The plan, unveiled in Obama’s weekly radio address Saturday, also would fast-track environmental assessment of petroleum exploration in some portions of the Atlantic and extend the leases of oil companies whose work in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic Ocean was interrupted by the drilling moratorium after last year’s BP oil spill.

The measures come as high gasoline prices and the resulting popular anger threaten the fragile economic recovery and, possibly, the president’s reelection chances in 2012. Congressional Republicans and some Democrats have been clamoring for increased domestic production in response to the rising prices, which economists say vary with global demand.

Obama also took on rising anger over the record profits of energy companies and stood by his demand to end subsidies for oil and gas companies, a proposal discussed in the Senate this week, according to a transcript of the address released Friday by the White House.

“There was more detail here than I’ve seen him do in two years,” said Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who backs the steps to increase production. “They’ve got to deal with this on multiple fronts: You have to deal with price; you’ve got to produce more. You need an aggressive, comprehensive, long-term policy, and the president is trying to reach down that path now because he realizes the pressure is on.”. . .

Flash forward to a little over a month later, and a report buried in the NY Times. NOT addressed publicly by Obama in a weekly address to the economically-strapped American people ...

(June 16, 2011)

(NY Times) - The Obama administration today said a proposal from House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) to expedite oil and gas leasing and energy infrastructure permitting in an Alaska reserve could force federal regulators to flout environmental laws and includes a costly, redundant resource assessment.

Mike Pool, deputy director of the Bureau of Land Management, also announced the agency will hold lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve, known as NPR-A, in December 2011 and each year after, making good on the administration’s mid-May promise to expedite development in the 23-million-acre reserve.

But he emphasized that his agency, which oversees 191 lease tracts covering 1.6 million acres, has all the tools it needs to facilitate development of oil in the reserve while balancing protections for wildlife habitat and subsistence users.

He said the bill’s requirement to hold lease sales in the areas most likely to produce commercial oil and gas and set permitting deadlines could undermine the agency’s public land management process, including the National Environmental Policy Act.

“Systematically over time we have been responsible to conduct and make available leasing in NPR-A,” Pool said, adding that his agency has no pending backlog of rights of ways or other projects. “There’s no delay in permitting and processing as it involves BLM responsibilities in NPR-A.”

Another Interior official testified that there is no reason to reassess or update the U.S. Geological Survey’s most recent assessment of oil and gas resources in the reserve, as called for by Hastings’ bill. The most recent survey found about half a billion barrels of economically recoverable oil at prices near current levels.

More. . .

Exactly where is this nation's watchdog MSM to call this administration on this hypocrisy? Oh, that's right ... They are too busy sifting through Sarah Palin's emails. But the MSM did uncover something important in her emails ... The Alaska Governor's concern with energy prices, and Palin's seriousness and direct involvement in responsible decisions and plans to run an independent energy policy for the state of Alaska and keep big oil companies accountable . They also show how Palin was willing to listen to then Sen. Obama's energy ideas (and as usual with the guy, is based on some speech he had given ... not what he had done). But the MSM wrongly presents this. It actually shows how the man deceived everyone early on. It is in very stark contrast to what this administration has been saying and doing for over two years (most especially the last year), as the American people watch their dwindling household budgets going more and more to their gas tanks, and in increased prices on everything they purchase in the store.

In exchanging with my oil industry buddy in the New Orleans area late last night about this new development he responded:

Do you expect anything else? Just need to hang on for a little over a year and a half when it will all change.

From his typing fingers to God's ear ...

Cross-posted @ CW

We here at Babalú have been denouncing the Hollywood left for years. We've written hundreds of posts about the useful idiots in Hollywood.  If you're new here, please click this link to read and learn. 

Lionel Chetwynd, perhaps best known for "The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz," issued an open letter of resignation to the Caucus for Producers, Writers and Directors. 

It is scathing; from Big Hollywood:
 

 

Specifically, I refer to remarks attributed to Vin in the recent publication “Prime Time Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How The Left Took Over Your TV” by Ben Shapiro. I do not defend the book, having yet to read it; I address only the matters raised by its research content.

June 2, 2011

(AN OPEN LETTER)
Dennis Doty, Chair The Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors

Dear Dennis,

Herewith, I tender my resignation as both Co-Chair of the Steering Committee of The Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors, and also my general membership. The proximate cause are comments by our friend and Caucus leader Vin Di Bona; but the true reason lies in how those comments make clear that views held dearly and passionately by me, and my sense of the American story, render me unsuitable for continued membership. So while this is not about our friend, the talented and decent Vin Di Bona, it does begin at his side.

Specifically, I refer to remarks attributed to Vin in the recent publication “Prime Time Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How The Left Took Over Your TV” by Ben Shapiro. I do not defend the book, having yet to read it; I address only the matters raised by its research content.

In preparing his book, Mr. Shapiro interviewed a large number of our Hollywood notables on the subject of diversity – not the sacrosanct mélange of race, religion, gender orientation and the like, but a more challenging diversity: that of opinion and policy. The vast majority felt quite comfortable endorsing discrimination against those whose political philosophy was not rooted in the reflexive Leftism of Hollywood. Vin’s contribution, when asked to address this alleged anti-conservative bias, was that it “ … (is) probably accurate and I’m happy about it, actually. … If the accusation is there, I’m okay with it”. In a subsequent statement, he endorsed the content of the quote, saying he “stood by it”. He was not alone; indeed many of those interviewed held the opinion that discriminating against conservatives was a simple virtue – i.e., one all could/should accept. Vin’s comment was mild compared to some. Many called for wider efforts at shutting out voices with which they happen to disagree. But, what if we substitute for “conservative”, words like African-American, or Gay, or Jew, or Muslim, — or, God forbid, Leftists, Communists, or Liberals?

While Mr. Shapiro’s revelations are appalling, and cause enough for any person such as myself to choose to sever ties, it becomes mandatory when the comments made are later affirmed rather than mitigated. (Vin and I have now spoken, and I reference that conversation below.)

In my years as a member of the Caucus, I worked tirelessly to promote fidelity to our First Amendment rights. You well know, for example, the Bipartisan Political Panels I organized, my pieces for the Caucus Journal, and – now to my embarrassment – my involvement in bringing to the Caucus such speakers as Eric Cantor, Tom Ridge, John Thune and others. I knew most of my fellow members looked upon the political positions of these people as distasteful; what I now understand is the disgust was not for their views, but for their very person. Such people, Mr. Shapiro’s sources make clear, must be silenced and it is therefore proper to make them suffer discrimination. Shame on all of them. Their sickness is an infection that belongs in Europe of the 1930s. It does not belong in America. It is especially evil that it be found in our community, where America’s popular culture is born, where we create the images explaining who and what America is to our fellow countrymen, and more, to the world. Next Monday will mark 67 years since young Americans from across our country – and that includes Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, all the “fly-overs” – willingly gave their lives on Norman beaches to bring freedom to the subjugated peoples of Europe, people about whom those brave young heroes knew little or nothing.

And is this how today’s beneficiaries use the freedom won by the blood and sacrifice of men and women surely better than we?

Lest I seem like Claude Raines, I am not protesting, “shocked, shocked!” for I always knew the truth; indeed, as I believe you’re aware, I experienced overt Blacklisting for my views as a conservative – at the very hands of those who piously deplore the Blacklisting of Communists in a former day. As 1950s Blacklist victim Carl Foreman warned me when I told him I was moving to Hollywood: “Beware the fearless defenders of the safely contentious.” He was right: Rhetoric is easy, principle is hard. Certainly, then, I have always known and understood the Leftward prejudice of Hollywood. Yet, until now, I have remained relatively passive and simply rolled with the blows. So what has changed?

Three things:

The first is personal: I realize, now, the enormous special obstacles put in my path by my supposed colleagues, obstacles that over the years made earning a living or a quiet pursuit of my trade so unusually onerous, were not a matter of political difference; they were a declaration of my unworthiness to be one of them. The rejection was not of my ideas, but of my person. The pain inflicted was deliberate.

The next is my immediate community: Until now, the Hollywood culture kept mean-spirited and odious persecution carefully discussed out-of-earshot of we lepers; now, however, there appears to be no problem in openly admitting to cheap and easy prejudice. Few cancers are more lethal to a civil society than ideological bigotry. And no one can spread disease better than our industry. – The last, and by far, far, the most important, is our beloved America: This is a time of inflamed political confrontation, evoking Bleeding Kansas of the 1850’s or even the Civil War itself. And as Dante taught, “there is a special place reserved in hell for he, who in the face of moral crisis, does nothing.” So if the Hollywood Left has no compunction in publicly proclaiming its creed, then for the sake of those Americans who have a different vision for our country, someone must shout, “Stop! This is not what America’s about! The American people deserve better!” In my own awkward way, I am trying to meet that challenge. We, privileged to work in the entertainment industry and enjoy the bounty our chosen career bestows on success, should never imagine ourselves the arbiters of what is permissible in the public square. We do not own the dream factory, but are merely its custodians, stewards at best. Rome won its empire at the edge of the sword. The British built theirs with commerce, sending out grocers. But America? We dispatched Humphrey Bogart and Bette Davis and Elvis Presley, Writers, Producers, Directors, DPs, all our talent. The jewel of our national patrimony – our popular culture – has been a beacon to the world in spreading the message of freedom and tolerance. The success of this enterprise when in the hands of prior generations makes the miserable failure of our current crop to even listen to voices other than their own all the more painful.

Since beginning this letter, I have had the opportunity to speak to Vin, and I assure you both, I believe his distress at what has been said, his explanation of how the words came to be spoken, and accepted his personal apology. But this issue now goes beyond my personal trust, having migrated to the very nature of our community and its mainstream organizations – amongst which The Caucus holds a particular pride-of-place. It is for that very reason I no longer belong in your midst. I shall miss you all.

I wish you and all my former fellow members the rewards freedom, hard work, and talent, enable.

With best wishes and great sincerity
Lionel Chetwynd

H/T:  Doris Wise Montrose, Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors

Here's a fine example of an overpaid, under-brained union goon caught on tape at yesterday's Madison, WI Labor Union protest.

Via Breitbart:

James Lewis cuts right through all the garbage being spewed about Egyptians ridding themselves of a dictator.  Really, as a friend and I were discussing last night, do you really think the unarmed protestors overthrew the government of Egypt?  Mubarak was forced out, by forces very undemocratic,  unless of course you dismiss all the warnings about Obama's true agenda posted here these past few years.    IMO, we're about to experience the mother of all crisis, one surely the Obama team won't let it go to waste.  What do you think will happen if Israel's attacked by almost all her neighbors? 

 Something to think about from American Thinker:

B.H. Obama: Shameless Imperialist
By James Lewis

We’ve just watched Obama commit an act of imperialistic aggression against a peaceful sovereign state. Mubarak’s Egypt threatened no one. It was the great pillar of stability in the Middle East for thirty years. Its government was far more civilized than Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and fifty other corrupt and tyrannical members of the United Nations.

Obama’s whole spiel to the Left has been that he is an anti-colonial socialist; that’s why he wrote Dreams from My Father. Obama Sr. was a big anti-colonialist. Obama has claimed (at various times) to be the new Nelson Mandela, as well as the new Abe Lincoln, and most recently, the new Ronald Reagan.

But Reagan worked to liberate the oppressed peoples of Eastern Europe from Soviet tyranny. Barack Obama has now pushed, and pushed, and pushed to overthrow the government of a sovereign Muslim nation, the only Arab power to ever sign a peace treaty with Israel.

According to the lickspittles of the New York Times, this must be a great victory for democracy. They have failed to explain why that must be; instead, they’ve been chasing headlines, along with the other idiot media.  But there hasn’t even been an election in Egypt. Obama didn’t demand an election, and when Mubarak promised free and fair elections he was contemptuously turned down -- not by the people of Egypt, but by Washington, D.C.

The Tahrir Square mob was coordinated by a 30 year old Arabic-speaking Google executive. The Mu-Bros will now get a big vote -- like Hitler and the Turkish Muslim Brothers -- because Egyptians have been taught to believe all of the Mu-Bros fondest fascist beliefs. Egypt’s Muslim Brothers have already called for war with Israel.

Egypt is now a carbon copy of the way in Turkey, Gaza and Iran were taken over by the Muslim totalitarians. Turkey had excellent relations with Israel and Europe before the Brotherhood took over. Today it is an Islamofascist ally of Iran against the civilized world.

When Communists like Lenin committed aggression they re-defined the word “imperialism.” According to Lenin, Marxist tyrannies could never be imperialistic, no matter how many Ukrainians, Czechs, and Poles they murdered. That is why the Soviet Empire was never allowed to be called what it was: An Empire. Its abject colonial subjects in Eastern Europe are still afraid today of another Russian imperial assault.

Communists can’t be imperialistic, no matter how much they act like Nazi Germany. That is how the Communists conquered China, Cambodia, South Vietnam, and all the rest with no criticism in the West. You see, Communist imperialism was good imperialism.

Enter Obama. What Obama just did was encourage a twittered revolt against Mubarak, and then publicly, brutally, in the most humiliating way, order him to resign. Joe Stalin would have been proud. So would Mao Zedong. This is what the Soviets tried to do all around the world.

Obama has now turned the United States into a Leftist Imperialist power.

What’s his purpose? It can only be one. Obama believes the nonsense that all the problems of the Middle East would be solved if only Israel compromises enough with its deadliest enemies. Obama does not care about the fascist regime in Iran. When peaceful protesters were thronging the streets of Tehran last year he did nothing. It’s not a popular government that he cares about.

Rather, Obama and the radical Left are forging another Communist-Fascist alliance, exactly like the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1938, which split up Poland and started World War Two. The new Red-Black alliance links the Radical Left with the Muslim radicals who attacked us on 9/11.

While the media are covering up this reality, we can see it all over the place: In the Ground Zero mosque, in the insane Congressional testimony by our DNI Clapper, that the Mu-Bros are “secular,” and in any number of other media-supported lies that serve only Muslim fascists and hard Leftists around the world.

In politics the question is always “Cui Bono?” -- Whom does it serve? And when you look at Obama’s brutal imperialistic push to get rid of Mubarak over the last several weeks, you know exactly whom it serves.

It serves radical Islam, because the Muslim Brothers now have a clear path to power in Egypt. They already control Turkey, Gaza, and soon, the West Bank of the Jordan River. Jordan has played a moderating role in the Middle East for generations; it is now threatened by a radical Muslim revolt.

This is Obama’s route to imperial power. It is consistent with all his actions in the last two years, and particularly with today’s public humiliation of the strongest Arab power in the world.

Obama’s ego is Napoleonic. He needs to expand his power without limits. That’s the nature of malignant narcissism.

Civilized and democratic peoples suffer when Napoleonic characters take power. We can’t see the end game yet. This might or might not end in a major war or worse. But we have a riverboat gambler running the ship of state, and he loves to play with the power of “audacity.”

That was Napoleon’s motto: “L’audace, l’audace, toujours l’laudace.” Which worked fine for Napoleon’s field marshals, but not so well for all the defeated peoples of Europe and the Middle East. And in the end, Napoleon’s audacity died in the snows of the Russian winter.

With the radical Obama administration, the United States has now embarked on a perilous course. Instead of keeping the dominoes from toppling, Obama is malignantly pushing them into the arms of Islamic radicals. That kind of gamble has never before worked to the betterment of humanity.

On the contrary: It has always led to disaster before.
Whether Obama the magic trickster can now pull it off in the nuclearizing Middle East is very doubtful, and therefore very dangerous.

Just in from Agustin Blazquez:  AB Independent Productions' new release is videotaped testimony of Anita MonCrief, a former employee of ACORN.  She shares an insiders view of ACORN's manipulation of the 2008 Presidential Election at the National Capital Tea Party meeting on 2/8/2011.  It is a riveting and chilling explanation of the specific techniques used by ACORN and other organizations to control the outcome of the election to ensure Obama would be the winner.  

In three parts, watch part 1 below, and the rest at YouTube.

Someone who has a Facebook account.

Someone who fears the full exercise of freedom.

Someone who fears free speech.

Someone who fears the power of Marco Rubio's message and his potential influence on the future of U.S. and perhaps... (duh you think???) U.S. - Cuba policy?

What kind of sissy coward complains about a photo someone posts on their Facebook page?  I was checking my photos, and found that someone had reported a photo of  Marco Rubio as abusive,  and now it is blocked.  I'm posting this just for the record, as I there is no doubt in my mind that the  "complaint" was not lodged by one who believes in the principles of freedom and democracy. 

Message to Facebook management, do you believe in and support the right of free speech?  Just wondering, because you obviously believe in the right of censorship.

Aren't you glad Bill Nelson is up for reelection in 2012?

At first I thought that the outrageous thing that Bill Nelson had said in this interview with Rick Klein of ABC News was that the Senator wasn’t sure whether or not ObamaCare was unconstitutional (good safety tip for legislators: if you don’t know whether or not a law violates the Constitution, don’t vote for it). But what Nelson was actually saying was that he considers ObamaCare Constitutional, but that the courts might disagree. That’s fine. He’s wrong for thinking that it’s Constitutional, but it is consistent with his vote.

But then Senator Nelson said this:

“But there is at the end of it what is called a severability clause, that says if parts are stuck down, that doesn’t strike down the whole law.”

Wait. What?

How do I put this: NO, THERE IS NO SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AT THE END. There was one in the first draft; it was later removed; the version that you voted for, Senator Nelson, had no severability clause; and the government used as part of its argument for keeping the individual mandate that the mandate could not be separated out from the rest of Obamacare. All of which is immediately obvious to anybody who took the time to read Judge Vinson’s decision in the first place… which apparently does not include Senator Bill Nelson.

Although, to be fair: Bill Nelson obviously didn’t read the original bill, either. In that, at least, this indicates a certain consistency.

This salient issue -- the lack of a severability clause in the law -- has eluded the brain-trust (ahem) of the libs who have excoriated Judge Vinson's brilliant decision. We all know, of course, that when faced with reality, libs pull out their blankies, start sucking on it and repeat, "Look mommie, unicorns!" to make them feel better about the mean old world.

Ugh.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.’ 

The Obama administration's use of regulation to govern against the will of the people is tyranny; it doesn’t matter if the regulations are well intended or a deliberate step to gain absolute power, if allowed, further oppression will follow, and the USA, the world’s only guarantor of freedom for mankind will be lost.

Andrew Breitbart's Big Government has an excellent article by Robert Allen Bonelli, Using Regulation Against The Will Of The People, here's an excerpt:

The New York Times and Fox News, an unlikely combination, recently reported that the Obama Administration is taking advantage of a rule in the final version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“Obamacare”) that authorizes Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations.  The new rule says Medicare will cover voluntary advance care planning to discuss end-of-life treatment as part of an annual visit.  The mandate for end-of-life planning, commonly referred to as death panels, was specifically legislated out of Obamacare because of the uproar by the majority of Americans.  Most recent polls show 60% or more of the electorate wants Obamacare repealed, but this particular mandate was rejected by the people before the law was passed.

Using this embedded rule, one of the hundreds of Obamacare surprises that will be revealed over time, the Obama administration is able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process.  In this case, doctors will be encouraged to provide information on how to prepare an advance directive, stating how aggressively patients wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.  Regardless of the merits, this is not what the people want.  If this seemingly harmless step is allowed to be taken, what else can be written into regulations that will further circumvent the will of the people?

 Early this month, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) voted to regulate the Internet for the first time. This scheme, known as Net Neutrality that forbids Internet service providers from impeding access to legal web content, may seem minor but it raises larger free speech issues and the threat of more intrusive regulation.  Even Congress has been sensitive to the First Amendment implications of any legislation regulating the Internet and has been careful in taking any action to date.

The people want debate by their elected representatives on this issue, not the imposition of new regulation at the whim of a president who believes he knows better than the citizenry.  This move, along party lines by the appointed commissioners of the FCC and publically welcomed by Mr. Obama, is nothing more than a power grab in defiance of the will of the people.

Perhaps the most dangerous use of regulatory power hanging over the American people is the judicially extended powers of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to regulate specific greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, as pollutants under the forty year old Clean Air Act.  The Clean Air Act was originally written to regulate air pollutants, not something that is ever present in the air – and certainly not something that is part of life itself!

The Supreme Court made the ruling in April of 2007 in the case The State of Massachusetts v. the Environmental Protection Agency but little has been done since.  However, with the support of the Obama administration, the EPA is now ready to regulate carbon dioxide.  The Clean Air Act, as it is now written, requires that any source that emits more than 250 tons of carbon dioxide per year be required to capture those emissions.  That threshold is so low that not only would it impose higher costs on power plants and refineries, but also farms, rural schools and hospitals.

If the EPA is allowed to follow through on using the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide, Washington D.C. bureaucrats will have more control over the lives of citizens and their businesses than the citizens themselves.

These three examples clearly prove how the Obama administration is poised to use the regulation-writing process to advance its own agenda regardless of what the American people want.  The administration is also acting in open defiance to our form of representative government.  Regardless of where anyone stands on these three particular issues, it is the dictatorial action implied by this process that should be rejected.  The 112^th Congress can use its power to review any regulation to strike down this power grab.  The American people need to demand that this new Congress act swiftly to send the president notice that our liberty will not be taken from us by the stroke of a pen.

Robert Allen Bonelli is the author of “Liberty Rising,” an accomplished business executive, public speaker and involved citizen.

Read it here, and Nice Deb has more on the "T" word at NewsReal Blog.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of my family’s arrival into the United States of America as exiles from Cuba. When the collapse of the Batista regime and the imminent castro victory became a certainty, they began making arrangements to come to the United States. My entire family, save two, chose exile in a foreign land rather than living under communist rule. Most of us arrived in 1960 and the couple of years that followed. At one time there were four generations of my extended family here. We were, and have been, very lucky.

That choice, gut-wrenching as it was for the older generation in their fifties, sixties, and seventies, all of them facing the prospect of losing everything they had worked for their entire lives, was arrived at with relative ease. We were going to the most prosperous country on Earth, a country founded on a set of timeless principles that empower the individual with the liberty to use his or her God-given rights to succeed at anything. The United States had been part of the fabric of Cuban history from before the birth of the Republic in 1902, sometimes for good and others for bad. It was the ideal country of exile for a group of people seeking freedom and the way to provide for their families. There was no question in the minds of my family that America was the best hope, where we would flee to escape the hard tyranny that would turn Cuba into the symphony of ruin it is today.

Our lives here over the last five decades have been productive and generally happy. Thanks to the genius of its founders and our Constitution, we’ve been allowed to thrive and to live our lives, free men and women, as we see fit. The generation of my parents, still wounded from their exile so many decades ago, have adapted and assimilated; my generation, too young to remember Cuba, and those born and educated here, are Americans, through and through. We love this country, not just for the liberty it’s given us, but also for what it truly represents.

Since becoming an American citizen in 1983 I’ve exercised my precious right to vote in just about every election. Yes, I’ve made the occasional error in judgment about candidates I’ve voted for, as we all have. But the one thing I know with absolute certitude is this: I will not sacrifice my conservative principles, the principles of the founders, at the altar of compromise, convenience or expedience again. Ever.

When the last presidential election cycle was in full swing, this blog, and hundreds of others, as well as the real conservative alternative media, rang the warning bells about who Barack Obama was, and what he and the Democrats would do once in power. My then seventy-six year old mother, and others of her generation who came in the first and second Cuban Diasporas, also knew what would happen if the Democrats took control; you see, they'd heard this leftist baloney 48 years before. Even with the overwhelming amount of evidence about Obama, his associations, and his agenda for America that was exposed and written about during the course of the campaign, the “moderates” and the faux conservatives competed with each other to drool and fawn over this “post-partisan,” “post-racial” candidate -- the “great unifier” of our troubled nation and the first Black President, to boot! How hip and cool was that? They called us, the li’l ole conservative base, every name in the book for opposing him, his agenda, his philosophy, and his party. We're all “racists,” don’t ya know.

But it was never about race; it was always about policy.

All the alarm bells at full volume weren’t enough to warn the electorate of the socialist tsunami that would overtake us on November 4, 2008. Obama's small margin of victory was gleefully ensured by Goebbels-inspired media manipulation and mendacity. The marketing of his "brand," complete with a logo, combined with sickeningly sycophantic "news" stories in the mainstream media, were just too slick and polished for the easily manipulated, the gullible, the ignorant, and the stupid, to ignore. The voters happily drank the Kool-Aid in big, sloppy gulps, elected Obama by a relatively small margin, and gave the Democrats large majorities in both Houses of Congress.

Mark Levin, in his book Liberty and Tyranny, published in March of 2009, but written before the 2008 campaign, sounded the clearest clarion call about how the statists, collectivists, socialists, progressives, and liberals, would accelerate what he termed a “soft” tyranny, by use of executive orders, directives, legislation, regulation, economic policy, tax policy, etc. This is the war the “progressives” have been waging since the second decade of the Twentieth Century: they are hell-bent on destroying this country, its values, and its founding principles. What all of us predicted would happen, and then some, has come true. The Democrats, and their socialist and marxist allies, have demonstrated they are exactly what we said they were.

It’s been a very long two years.

Unlike the occasional chaos of parliamentary democracies, our republican form of government, devised by a small group of genius revolutionaries over two centuries ago, allows us the attempt to fix things every two years. I can say without any hyperbole that since I voted for the first time many years ago, there has never been a mid-term election as defining and as crucial as the one tomorrow. There have been important choices in the past, to be certain; but tomorrow we will be voting for the very survival of our Republic. WE THE PEOPLE, the tens of millions of us who have had enough, will not be silent any longer.

The choice my family made in those dreadful years of 1958 and 1959 were different than the ones we have before us tomorrow. But don’t be deceived: November 2, 2010 is just as important for the future of this country. Tomorrow’s election may go down in history as one of the greatest expressions of power in a representative republic in the history of the world. WE THE PEOPLE have a choice tomorrow, as Rush Limbaugh said back in late September. That choice is either Obama and the Democrats, or America.

This nation is still the last, best hope of the world, but there’s no exile from here. This is it. Tomorrow morning I will choose America.

The votes you cast in this year's election will determine the future of our republic.  Do you believe in the rights of self-determination as bequeathed to us by our founding fathers and defended with generations of American blood, or do you want the state dictating your choices and actions in life.  Do you want to be free of government tyranny or live under its boot heel?

You may not like the positions of the Republican candidates on your ballot, but be clear that a vote for a Republican candidate is the only choice to stand against ever expanding government, higher taxes and fewer freedoms.  A vote for a Republican candidate is a vote against the hateful racist atheist doctrine of  Black Liberation Theology, as practiced by the Obama's, whose preacher, the  Rev. Wright, cozied up to the Cuban DGI, Cuba’s secret police, founded and mentored by the KGB and East German STASI while visiting Cuba with Jesse Jackson in 1984.  A vote for a Republican candidate is a vote against anti-American Marxist radicals inspired by Fidel Castro (check the background  on anyone of the left, and you find Castro) who are bent on ruining America as Castro has ruined Cuba.

Heed the words of those exiled from Cuba and other totalitarian states; they recognize from life experience the increasing subjugation of our freedom.

The United States of America, in spite of her faults, has been since her founding, the world's beacon for freedom.  The November 2 election is a referendum on that principle.  Will we the people ensure our freedom or will we live under tyranny?  The choice is yours.

In her Washington Examiner column, Linda Chavez blasts Obama's admission that a core premise of his economic package was false:

Obama has no clue about entrepreneurship

President Obama has finally admitted that a core premise of his nearly trillion-dollar stimulus package was false. In an interview this week with The New York Times' Peter Baker, the president acknowledged that "there's no such thing as shovel-ready projects," despite the president's near-constant invocation of the term over a two-year period to explain how government spending was going to create jobs.

The president's admission is no minor matter; it goes to the heart of why his economic policies have been such a failure. Not since President Jimmy Carter's confession in 1980 that it took the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan for him to fully understand "what the Soviets' ultimate goals are" has a sitting president so fully exposed his ignorance.

Obama's admission might be refreshing if it meant he would rethink his economic assumptions, but the Baker interview gives no such indication. Instead, the president seems to think his biggest problem has been his failure to communicate his policies effectively.

"There is probably a perverse pride in my administration -- and I take responsibility for this; this was blowing from the top -- that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular," he said. "And I think anybody who's occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can't be neglecting of marketing and P.R. and public opinion."

The statements are both stunningly arrogant and misleading. The president of the United States is not a philosopher king. In a democracy, the president doesn't determine what "the right thing" is and let the people who put him in office be damned.

Nor did the president and his team neglect the "marketing and P.R." of his policies. The "shovel-ready" comments were all salesmanship and no substance.

In his first year in office, the president gave 411 speeches, sat for 158 press interviews, conducted 42 news conferences, and visited 30 states, according to a compilation by CBS News. Failing to communicate was not the issue.

The president's problem is that he has neither experience in, nor understanding of, the private economy. He has worked exclusively in the nonprofit and government sector.

He has an unlimited faith in government and limited trust in private industry. And the president surrounds himself with people who share his myopia.

When the president visited plants from Buffalo to San Francisco on his much-touted jobs tours during the spring and summer, he was there to tell workers that government saved or created their jobs.

But that is not how it's done. Job creation happens when individuals take personal risks: A man notices that all his friends and neighbors have garages stuffed with junk they don't want and starts a new business with $700 in startup capital and an old beat-up truck. A few years later, Brian Scudamore's 1-800-GOT-JUNK has 100 franchises across the country.

A young woman decides her chocolate chip cookies deserve to be enjoyed beyond her family. Debbi Fields borrows money, opens a small storefront, and within seven years, her company, Mrs. Fields Cookies, had revenues of more than $45 million.

A college student spends his time in his dorm room building personal computers for his friends and selling them for less than the name brands. He drops out of school, but by the time he's 27, Michael Dell is the youngest CEO on the Fortune 500 list of largest companies in America.

These individuals created great wealth for themselves, but they also created thousands of jobs for other people. The fallacy in Obama's thinking is the assumption we'd be better off taxing rich people more and having government spend the money directly.

But government can never be as efficient as the market. Scudamore, Fields, and Dell might just as well have failed as succeeded.

When entrepreneurs fail, they've lost their own money and that of investors who have freely chosen to take the risk.

Government programs, however, play with other people's money -- since government has no money of its own. When government programs fail, the consequences aren't born by the people making the decisions but by the taxpayers.

So when Obama finally realizes there's no such thing as a shovel-ready project, he's admitting he's wasted our money -- billions of dollars -- not his own. But his only answer is to raise taxes so he can spend yet more. It's the kind of thinking that dooms his presidency and our economy.

Can we say clueless?  At a Boston area fund raiser covered by Politico, Obama once again proves that he just doesn't understand the American people.  He said fear and frustration are driving voters.    No Mr. Obama, we're not afraid to stand up for our rights, and we're not  frustrated, we're angry.

And you should be considering Acorn, the Al Franken election, and the Democrat's Plan.  Not to mention problems with voting machines that remain unsecure:

The District of Columbia is conducting a pilot project to allow overseas and military voters to download and return absentee ballots over the Internet. Before opening the system to real voters, D.C. has been holding a test period in which they’ve invited the public to evaluate the system’s security and usability.

This is exactly the kind of open, public testing that many of us in the e-voting security community — including me — have been encouraging vendors and municipalities to conduct. So I was glad to participate, even though the test was launched with only three days’ notice. I assembled a team from the University of Michigan, including my PhD students, Eric Wustrow and Scott Wolchok, and Dawn Isabel, a member of the University of Michigan technical staff.

Within 36 hours of the system going live, our team had found and exploited a vulnerability that gave us almost total control of the server software, including the ability to change votes and reveal voters’ secret ballots.

Read Professor Hacks D.C.'s Internet Voting Machine Pilot System at Patterico's Pontifications.

On September 26, I attended a forum sponsored by the Jewish Policy Center (JPC), sister organization to the Republican Jewish Coalition.  The JPC is unabashedly conservative, pro-American, and pro-Israel.

 The forum, Securing America’s Future, featured Michael Medved moderating panelists Cliff May, Mona Charen, and David Horowitz.  

 Living in Los Angeles is a daily assault on one’s conservative senses, so this excellent forum was not only informative and entertaining, but  inspiring as well.  

The JPC just posted a video of the event that I believe you will enjoy.  Please watch it here:

Alexandria, VA – Brent Bozell and the Media Research Center (MRC) have "declared war on the liberal media" with a new $2.1 million campaign to demand they stop lying and "Tell The Truth!" about Obama, the damage his radical policies have caused, and to cease immediately the character assassinations launched against the Tea Parties.

The national campaign will reach millions of people each week through end of 2010 and includes:

•    National television advertisements –3 different 15-second ads about ObamaCare, the Ground Zero mosque and illegal immigration; all issues the liberal media are out of sync with majorities of Americans

•    National radio advertisements – 60-second radio ads cut by Mark Levin, nationally syndicated talk radio host

•    Mobile billboard and delivery trucks – dozens of trucks circling New York and Washington bureaus of ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post   

•    Billboards – stationed for 4 weeks in 9 cities: Dallas, Seattle, Las Vegas, Orlando, Little Rock, Lexington, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Milwaukee

If you like this, visit them here.

The left got by with  Al Franken's fraudulent votes, and few seem to care that the Department of Justice   refuses to prosecute radicals violating voting laws. 

The polls predict a GOP sweep come November, but if the party in power doesn't care about upholding the Constitution, doesn't care about the willl of the people and protecting our rights, how can they be trusted not to steal an election? 

They've got their enforcement team in place, via Michele Malkin; excerpt from "Labor joins One Nation coalition to reorder nation’s priorities." (my emphasis)

The labor, civil rights, environmental, faith and other organizations that have formed the new coalition intend to replace unemployment and economic crisis faced by the country's majority with "nothing less than a future of shared prosperity for all our people," the AFL-CIO said in a statement after it voted to join One Nation.

"None of us alone have been able to achieve our priorities," said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO.

One Nation's first official act as a coalition will be a march on Washington on Oct. 2, which unions say will energize an army of tens of thousands who will return to their neighborhoods, churches, schools and voting booths to prevent a Republican takeover of Congress in November and begin building a new permanent coalition to fight for a progressive agenda. 

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." -James Madison