Tag Archives: Weekly Standard

The Secretary Of State In A Second Term Of Obama

Posted on by

The Weekly Standard posted a story on Monday about the choice of Secretary of State if President Obama wins a second term. Evidently, the conventional wisdom is that Hillary Clinton will step down in order to run for President in 2016. Senator John Kerry is the expected replacement.

An editorial in the Globe and Mail by Yossi Klein Halevi related the following story:

Last year, I was part of a group of Israelis who met in Jerusalem with Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Mr. Kerry had just come from Damascus with excellent news: Bashar al-Assad was ready for peace with Israel. When one of the participants mentioned that demonstrations had begun to challenge Mr. Assad’s legitimacy, Mr. Kerry’s response was: All the more reason to negotiate while he’s still in power. In other words: Israel had the golden opportunity to give up the strategic Golan Heights to a dictator who might be deposed by a popular revolution, which might or might not recognize whatever peace agreement he signed.

That kind of wishful thinking has resulted in Western policy toward the Middle East that is strategically incoherent.

A second term of President Obama would be a nightmare both domestically and internationally. Keep this in mind when you vote.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Does This Mean I Can Leave My Shoes On ?

Posted on by

Yesterday the Weekly Standard posted an article about a rather amazing statement made by senior official in the State Department.

The article reports:

“The war on terror is over,” a senior official in the State Department official tells the National Journal. “Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.” 

Evidently, the theory behind the statement is the belief that the Arab Spring has changed things. The Obama Administration sees the need to cultivate positive relationships with the Muslim Brotherhood and other ‘moderate’ Muslim groups. That’s a really interesting idea considering that the stated goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is a worldwide caliphate achieved by overthrowing western governments either by force or subversion. (google: Holy Land Foundation Case documents)

I understand that the State Department wants to make friends with everyone. That is an admirable goal, but how wise is it to attempt to cuddle a rattlesnake? The war on terror is not over. Unfortunately, those who seek to do us harm are still out there planning. Are we planning defense?

The article concludes:

This new outlook is radically different than what was expressed under President George W. Bush immediately after September 11, 2001. “Over time it’s going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity,” Bush said on November 6, 2001. “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.“

For President Barack Obama, it would seem, one can be both with us and against us–or not with us, but not quite against us. 

We shouldn’t forget the need to protect our country. I’m not sure that President Obama understands that concept.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Running The White House By Chicago Rules

Posted on by

At the risk of sounding totally disrespectful, I fully believe that in 2008 we elected a Chicago thug to the White House. The list of reasons why I believe this is long–it includes disregard for the Constitution (attacking the Supreme Court), trying to undermine the right to bear arms (Fast and Furious), and just general tackiness (which I guess is not a serious crime, but sometimes it ought to be!).

As we approach the 2012 election, the press, possibly in an effort to regain some semblance of credibility before they begin to act as Obama campaign workers, are beginning to report things that we all knew, but they weren’t reporting.

The Weekly Standard posted an article today citing a rather lengthy New York Times article (is there any other kind?) entitled, “White House Opens Door to Big Donors, and Lobbyists Slip In.” Are we supposed to be surprised?

The article at the Weekly Standard reports:

Patrick J. Kennedy, the former representative from Rhode Island, who donated $35,800 to an Obama re-election fund last fall while seeking administration support for a nonprofit venture, said contributions were simply a part of “how this business works.”

“If you want to call it ‘quid pro quo,’ fine,” he said. “At the end of the day, I want to make sure I do my part.”

It seems to me that that shouldn’t be “simply a part of how this business works.” It really is time to clean house in Washington–and the house cleaning has to be the President, the Congress, and the bureaucrats who continue to spend taxpayer money recklessly–whether they are staffers or government employees. The taxpayers of America need to take our country back.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Role Of Internet News Sites

Posted on by

 

English: Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florid...

Image via Wikipedia

The Weekly Standard posted an article yesterday about the role of an Internet blogger in bringing to light the errors in a very negative Reuters story about Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Matt Lewis, a blogger for the Daily Caller, pointed out the errors in the story, forcing Reuters to correct five of the items listed in the story. Reuters has admitted that the story is regrettable.

The article at The Weekly Standard reports:

It was so bad, in fact, that the editors and writer involved have been asked not to talk about it. (I reached out to editors David Lindsey and Eric Walsh, but have not heard back.)

The article, by David Adams, had intended to detail why Rubio was an unlikely pick for Vice President: “Rubio may not be as coveted as Gingrich or Romney would have it appear as they press for votes in Florida, where more than 450,000 Hispanics identify themselves as Republicans,” Reuters David Adams wrote. “Despite his reputation as a watchdog over federal spending, Rubio, 40, has had significant financial problems that could keep him from passing any vetting process as a potential vice presidential choice, Republican and Democratic strategists say.”

But after pressure from the Rubio staff, Reuters was forced to issue corrections that quickly became a larger talking point than the article itself.

Without the work of Matt Lewis, this story would have been allowed to go unchallenged, and a good man would have been smeared in the press. That is the reason why we need the Internet and Internet news sources!

Enhanced by Zemanta

It’s Time To Repeal Obamacare

Posted on by

Remember the words “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” Well, it hasn’t exactly worked out that way. Obamacare is not yet fully in effect, and yet it is already having a major negative impact on the average working American’s health insurance.

The Weekly Standard reported yesterday:

Now, Gallup reports that from the first quarter of 2010 (when Obama signed Obamacare into law) to the third quarter of this year, 2 percent of American adults lost their employer sponsored health insurance. In other words, about 4.5 million Americans lost their employer-sponsored insurance over a span of just 18 months. 

This is not a good thing. The article further reports:

Rather, the CBO had predicted that Obamacare would increase the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance by now.  It had predicted that, under Obamacare, 6 million more Americans would have employer-sponsored insurance in 2011 than in 2010 (see table 4, which shows the CBO’s projected increase of 3 million under (pre-Obamacare) current law and an additional 3 million under Obamacare). So the CBO’s rosy projections for Obamacare (and even these paint a frightening picture) are already proving false.  

This is one of many problems with Obamacare. I reported on September 23 (rightwinggranny) that the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act portion of Obamacare has been abandoned because its cost would spiral out of control. Unfortunately, the CLASS portion of Obamacare was the part that was supposed to make Obamacare reduce the deficit in its early years (that was done by forcing people who wanted to participate in the CLASS program to contribute to it for a number of years before actually receiving benefits). Eventually, those initial contributions would be used up and the expenses of the program would quickly spiral out of control.

How many promises does Obamacare have to break before it is repealed?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is The Race Card Getting Old ?

Posted on by
Herman Cain

Image via Wikipedia

Herman Cain is black. You might have noticed, but in case you didn’t, I would like to bring that to your attention. Now that you know, we can get back to things that are important. In a nutshell, I think that is how most Republicans (and probably Independents, and maybe some Democrats) feel about the fact that Herman Cain is black–it is obvious, but not particularly important.

However, there seems to be an element of the liberal media that is seriously hung up on the fact that not only is Herman Cain black–he is a Republican! Goodness gracious!

Yesterday the Weekly Standard posted a story about some comments made on MSNBC about Herman Cain. The article reports:

“One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy,” (Karen) Finney said. “I think he giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he’s a black man who knows his place. I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me.”

“Thank you for spelling that out,” Bashir responded. 

The article further reports:

Liberal comedienne Janeane Garafalo told Current TV host Keith Olbermann earlier this month that Cain is popular with Republicans because it “hides the racist element” of the party. Watch that video here.

This is simply out of bounds. I probably won’t vote for Herman Cain in the Republican primary. (Actually, because I live in Massachusetts, the whole thing will probably be decided before I get to vote!) This is his first run for the presidency, and I think he needs a little more practice before he gets the nomination. He is a businessman–not experienced in the nuances of politics, and I believe that is a problem for his campaign. That said, if he gets the nomination, I will vote for him because I feel that he is quite capable of putting together an awesome group of people to run the country.

While I am ranting, I would like to say that I feel that the series of Republican debates is a mistake. It has devolved into a tag-team wrestling event that has lost its focus. If the candidates continue to pick a person of the week to target, all they will succeed in doing is provide campaign commercials for the Obama campaign. Remember, the Obama campaign is not known for its uprightness–we have to win this election by a lot so that illegal votes don’t count. It is possible that Mickey Mouse may again vote in Orlando.

Enhanced by Zemanta