Oh Lord, deliver us! Here we go again:

 

The Washington Times reported CIA Director Leon Panetta had argued behind the scenes- insisting that the administration not REOPEN cases of suspected torture by CIA officers. But Mr. Panetta lost out to Attorney General Eric (the Quiet Man) Holder.

 

Evidently, the two had battled it out with flyswatters in the Dept of Justice basement; but 'peacemaker' Obama intervened, giving Holder the green light to "re-visit" with CIA agents about past actions. 

 

Such drivel. Why didn't control-freak Obama call off Holder in the first place?

 

Obama now chooses - under the guise of Holder's contrived outrage- to drive another liberal stake into the heart of our fabled spy agency, who has been indispensible to our nation's security ever since the end of World War II.

 

In 1953, the CIA played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh--the pro-Soviet leader who had nationalized Iran’s oil industry, and decided the West would no longer influence the price of Iranian oil.  

 

In  "Operation Ajax," the CIA argued (correctly) that Mossadegh was soft on Communism, and that the Tudeh (the pro-Soviet Communist party) might soon control Iran.

 

In a CIA-executed coup, Mossadegh was ousted; and the Shah - Mohammed Reza Pahlavi -assumed power, who then kicked out the Tudeh Party once and for all - thanks to our CIA.

 

In retrospect, it was a turning point in modern Iranian history: It consolidated the power of the Shah, who ruled Iran for 26 more years; all under the watchful eye of the CIA. 

 

But in 1953, what if a liberal had been president...say Adlai Stevenson (instead of Dwight Eisenhower)?

 

Stevenson would've told the CIA ..."Now boys... no rough-stuff in Iran. We have plenty of our own oil; it's their country; we have to respect their human rights; Mr. Mossadegh is their duly-elected leader; and if the Communists take over, its none of our business. They're a sovereign country"...etcetera - ad nauseum. 

 

Sound familiar? That's they way ALL liberal presidents see the CIA; not as an intelligence agency, but as agents who violate the "human rights" of others - who just happen to be our sworn enemies!

 

Indeed, it's these chickenhawk liberals ( Holder, Obama, Biden, etc.) who need to be put on trial. After all, who's a bigger threat to U.S. security? Them.. or the CIA?

 

But why get all worked up? That's what these naive, treasonous liberal presidents have been doing to our country for the last 30 years; and with all these idio-moronic voters who now go to the polls, you can expect it to go on for probably at least another generation - or even longer.

 

But a hundred years may go by before another fool president could do the damage of someone like Jimmy Carter, who in the first month of office, made his "10-trillion dollar" appointment to the directorship of the CIA.

 

Carter (like all liberals) was obsessed with being "fair". So what did Carter see as the first place to single out for reforming? Of course-- it was those nasty, dastardly, secret-service  brigands at the CIA.

 

In January 1977, Carter made one of the most ill-conceived presidential appointments of all time: For CIA director he chose Stansfield Turner, Carter's college roommate at the Naval Academy-- who had no agency or intelligence experience of any kind. 

 

After eight months of Congressional hearings (concerning CIA "domestic spying") Turner (with Carter's blessing) circulated a photocopied memo, informing 800 astonished CIA staffers of their dismissal. Most of these were highly-seasoned agents, who spoke Arabic, Farsi, and were fluent in many other languages.

 

To the joy and disbelief of our enemies, word spread that the U.S. had decided to delegate its intelligence priorities to only "non-human means" - satellite observations and listening posts.

 

The damage to the United States became apparent almost immediately. In 1978, the CIA had no idea that the pro-American Shah of Iran was beginning to lose all his support to the followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, and was toppled by militants in 1979.

 

Using Iranian petro-dollars, Khomeini immediately got his revenge- the funding of terrorist attacks against all American interests - largely because of the "downfall" of the CIA. Overnight, America had been blinded to everything going on in the Middle East - thanks to peanut farmer Carter, and his "ten trillion dollar man"...Stansfield Turner.

 

Our next intelligence fiasco quickly flared up in winter of 1980, with the surprise Soviet invasion of Afghanistan . Leonid Brezhnev had sensed that Carter was naive. And with the start of the Russo-Afghan conflict, herein lies the actual origin of Al-Qaida.

 

Young Wahabi Muslims fighters were sent from Saudi Arabia against the Soviets. One of these was Osama Bin Laden. Hence, Al Qaida was born in the hiding places of the Mujahideen caves of  Afghanistan, where Bin Laden hides out to this very day.

 

After running out the Soviets from Afghanistan , the Afghan Mujahideen (freedom fighters) eventually became the Taliban. Bin Laden - a Mujahideen war hero - returned to Saudi Arabia, to later found Al-Qaida. 

 

Today, we have NO agents inside any of these radical Islamic dictatorships. There are a paltry number of Americans (for intelligence service) who can speak Farsi, Arabic, or any other of the Middle Eastern dialects.

 

This is why we blundered into Bush's second war in Iraq: if we had even a reasonable modicum of intelligence on the ground, we would have KNOWN for sure if Saddam Hussein had nukes, or was just huffing and puffing.

 

And this is also why we remain thoroughly confused about the Taliban in Afghanistan:

 

Of what strength are the enemy? Is the Taliban working with Bin Ladin, or are they just another 7th century Muslim cult, going around chopping off digits and heads - enforcing their medieval Islamic sharia laws?

 

Who knows? Certainly not the CIA, whom we continue to demoralize at our own foolish peril. 

 

Hence, we are as blind today as we were back in the late 70's, as to what our enemies in the Middle East may be planning next. The CIA will probably never recover from Carter's profoundly idiotic blunder.

 

These self-inflicted wounds also contributed to serious U.S. reverses in Angola, and Ethiopia. But to this day, the surviving members of the Carter White House stubbornly refuse to take the blame for these disastrous setbacks, and the astounding dollar cost to the U.S. economy when taken as a whole:

 

1979--the pro-USA Shah of Iran is deposed- The price of oil doubles- costing the US economy approximately 1 trillion dollars from 1979 to 1982, when oil prices reverse.

 

1979-The hostage crisis- the origin of the radical Islam/worldwide Muslim terrorist movement. Price to the U.S. economy? Unknown.

 

1982- The Marine barracks at Lebanon is destroyed by a truck bomb. Price to the U.S. economy? Unknown.

 

1991-Saddam invades Kuwait- a total surprise to America. Price to the U.S. economy for Desert Storm: Approximately 50 billion dollars.

 

1993- the World Trade Center bombing. Price to the U.S. economy: Approximately 1 billion dollars.

 

2000- the destroyer Cole is attacked & nearly sunk; Price to the U.S. economy; less than 50 million dollars

 

2001- September 11; Price to the U.S. economy (including real estate; stock market declines, and economic downturn): 8 trillion dollars.

 

2003- faulty intelligence leads to Iraq invasion- Cost of the second Iraqi war to the U.S. economy: approx. 1 trillion dollars.

 

Total cost of all U.S. intelligence failures since 1978: Approx. TEN trillion dollars!

Would any of these have happened if Carter had not dismantled the CIA?

 

And finally, add in the cost of the ongoing war in Afghanistan, plus building and maintaining Gitmo, etc., and we now have reached a grand total of 11 trillion dollars- exactly EQUAL to our national debt- plus the unsustainable amount of interest we pay on it every year.

So it looks like our "evil" CIA may have turned out to be the biggest bargain ever before 1978.

 

 

 

 www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Besides Sept.11 and Dec. 7, 1941, the "Halloween Massacre of 1977" may yet turn out to the most damaging day in modern U.S. foreign policy history-- but only time will tell.

 

When the Japanese pulled off their incredibly successful Pearl Harbor sneak attack on Dec. 7, 1941, the finger-pointing began immediately. Ultimately, after all the accusations, it was decided that the 4-star Admiral, Husband E. Kimmel --Chief  Naval Commander of the Pacific fleet-- was the man responsible.

 

But history has shown that Kimmel only served as a convenient scapegoat for the nation's anger. The Pearl harbor attack succeeded largely because of the judicious spying of the Japanese, who-- at that time-- had hundreds of Hawiian agents on the ground in the months leading up to the start of the war.

 

 

During and after World War II, the U.S. intelligence forces (O.S.S.- CIA) had done their jobs well. The CIA had succeeded in stalemating the KGB during the early Cold War years. The agency had been led by highly capable men such as Allen Dulles during the Eisenhower years, and John McCone during the Kennedy administration. 

 

In 1953, the CIA played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular pro-communist Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh-- the democratically-elected leader who had nationalized Iran’s oil industry.  

 

In  "Operation Ajax," the CIA had argued (correctly) that Mossadegh was soft on communism, and that the Tudeh (the pro-Soviet Communist party) might soon control Iran.

 

Mossadegh was ousted, and the Shah-- Mohammed Reza Pahlavi-- assumed power.

 

Throughout the next 25 years-- under the watchful eyes of the CIA (and its well trained agents)-- U.S. interests were well-protected in  the Middle East.

 

But in 1976 came the election of Jimmie Carter, and his disastrous dismantling of a once-proud, highly-motivated intelligence organization.

 

Carter (like all liberals) was obsessed with being "fair". So what did Carter see as the first place to single out for reforming? Of course-- it was those nasty, dastardly, secretive, immoral CIA brigands.

 

After all, hadn't the CIA taken part in the overthrowing of "sovereign" governments? Had they not taken part in assassinations, deception, blackmail, torture, and other knavish misdeeds?

 

In January 1977, Carter made one of the most ill-conceived presidential appointments of all time: For his CIA director he chose Stansfield Turner-- Carter's college roommate at the Naval Academy-- who had no agency or intelligence experience of any kind. 

 

Carter probably would have done just as well to appoint Mr. Magoo, because Turner-- like his liberal president-- was blind to the fact that indeed, America had many implacable enemies, ESPECIALLY in the Middle East.

 

On October 31, 1977 Turner (with Carter's blessing) circulated a photocopied memo informing 800 astonished CIA staffers (mostly Republicans) of their dismissal. Most of these were highly seasoned agents, going all the way back to the OSS spy agency of World War II. A lot of them spoke Arabic, Farsi, and were fluent in other foreign languages.

 

To the joy and disbelief of our enemies, word spread that the U.S. had decided to delegate its intelligence priorities to only "non-human means"...satellite observations and listening posts. Carter had unilaterally chosen to disarm America from the spy wars-- a decision that to this day, resulted in the single worst intelligence debacle in US history. 

 

Now link all this with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served between 1977-81 as Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, and the disastrous advice he gave to Carter about Iran: 

 

In 1978, our "crippled" CIA had no idea that the pro-American Shah of Iran was in grave danger of being overthrown. Once the situation became apparent, Brzezinski--after considering military intervention (which Carter feared)-- recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah and gave the green light to the fundamentalist Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini.

 

Russian threats...Soviet aggression ... Soviet invasion of yet another Muslim state; Brzezinski assured Carter that if the Shah were deposed, Khomeini's fundamentalist Islam would thwart any further Russian "adventurism" in the Mideast, and the US military could then turn its attention elsewhere.

 

But in December, 1979, the Soviet Union went ahead and invaded Afghanistan; and Khomeini's fanatics instead had turned their wrath on the Great Satan America, remembering that a generation ago, the CIA had undermined their revered Prime Minister (Mossadegh), and it had not been forgotten -a grievous miscalculation by Brzezinski.

 

But would this fiasco have occurred if the CIA had not been castrated by Carter only two years earlier?

 

Without actionable intelligence, Carter was easily pressured into withdrawing American support for the Shah. 

 

Without actionable intelligence, it had been  Brzezinski's foolish notion that all the "Muslim peoples" would rise up against regional Soviet power.

 

And without actionable intelligence, the U.S. had not realized what Ayatollah Khomeini was all about, and the colossal series of errors that let him seize power in Iran, with its tremendously negative long-term effects for American foreign policy.

 

In retrospect, we see that the Brzezinski mind was incapable of thinking clearly about Islam. He was a child of the Cold War, possessing a "fixation" on the USSR-- resulting in his delusion that Muslim extremism could be transformed into a geopolitical weapon in FAVOR of the United States.

 

Despite what any liberal may profess, it was tha CIA that had kept Communism in check; it was the CIA that kept the Cold War from boiling over; and it was the CIA that had enabled the U.S. to know what was actually taking place on the ground in Asia and the Middle East.

 

In 1979 when the Shah was finally overthrown,  the United States lost its chief ally and all its outposts along the Russo-Iranian border regions-- as well as our military installations-- including all of our electronic monitoring stations that were aimed at the Soviet Union.

 

And exactly thirty years later, we have the greatest of ironies-- we have gone full circle:

 

St. Patrick's day, March 17-- America's favorite traditional, non-official holiday.

And going back to March 17,1976, it was a St. Patrick's day to remember for all investors, when on that day the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 13.78 to 1009.21, and actually closed ABOVE 1,000 for the first time.

Yes laddies, the green beer on Wall Street was flowing in abundance on that storied St. Patrick's day. It touched off a wild wave of optimism: Brokerage houses across America, whose staffs had been withered down unrelentingly in a grinding 3-year bear market, were now beginning to hire again.

Spring 1976 was indeed a time for optimism in America:

The Alaskan pipeline was well underway, and was creating a new frontier of jobs above the Arctic circle. In the lower 48, large industrial companies were gearing up for new production, as orders for capital goods came pouring in.

GM was only 3 months away from introducing its brand new, beautifully designed "B- Body" line of cars that auto pundits predicted would be a huge success . The classified ad pages were expanding. It seemed as though everyone at once was starting to hire.

College grads and Phd's--who were working as gas station attendants and waiters-- now were getting replies to their resumes, as jobs offers in their fields of study actually began appearing in their maiboxes.

For the U.S., it was good times ahead after a terrible, frightening 3-year recession, that had seemed like it would NEVER end.

But then in November, 1976 came the election of James Earl Carter; and like a plane with a unconscious pilot at the controls, America's economy began another downward spiral to yet another teeth-clenching, gut-wrenching recession.

On the day after New Years, January 2, 1980, the Dow Jones had closed at a pathetic 824.57. In early 1979, inflation had reached a startling 11.3%, and by March,1980, it had soared to 13.5%. And interest rates dealt the final coup de' gras to Carter's economy, rising from an abysmal 11% in 1979, to an agonizing, staggering 19% by Jan 1981.

It was the first time in history that all three indicators simultaneously had been in such distress, and a new term emerged to define the debacle --stagflation.

But although Carter's ineptness ruined the economy, let give him at least SOME credit-- he had done it passively (unintentionally). And he did possess SOME business management expertise, because our beloved 39th president actually had spent much of his life running the family peanut farm in Plains, Georgia.

But now, we are under the wonderful economic tutelage of Barack Obama, our know-it-all, supremely confident anti-president, who professes to have all the answers to revive our grievously wounded economy.

But unlike Jimmy Carter, Mr. Obama has never run anything in the private sector, not even a Koolaid stand as a child in Indonesia, or even so much as a paper route during his adolescence in Hawaii.

Attention Wall Street... look out below!

Yes, Mr. Barack H. Obama-- the Harvard-educated lawyer--he's got all the answers... all the spiffy retorts...and all the solutions. Got a foreign policy problem? Blame Bush. Got a problem with high deficits? It's not his fault-- that too started with the "Boosh" administration.

Yes, Barack's an expert at blaming everyone but himself. He's just so smart; so prestigious, and "too cool for school." Plus the leftist media will support the his infallibility "to the bitter end"-- and it may get here sooner (2012) rather than later (2016).

Just you wait there a-while, Mr. Obama.

Our radical leftist 44th president may be facing a little surprise ahead, and it's the one thing he hadn't figured into his Machiavellian plan for ensnaring our fragile economy within his mega-government web of Socialism.

Mr. Obama can seize the auto industry, ransack the banking industry, tax the energy industry to oblivion, control the health care industry, plus whatever else the congress is willing to cede to this insatiable fascist.

But the one thing that our anti-president didn't figure on, is something immune to his politics, immune to his personality, immune to the slanted liberal media--even immune to congressional legislation:

The one economic indicator that cannot be fudged, manipulated. spinned (spun), or misinterpreted, can be found on Wall Street -the NYSE--the "home" of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

(music)"Oh give me a home... where Obama can't roam..."

Right now Wall Street "experts" (propagandists) claim the Dow is on a roll--recently closing above 8000-- up over a thousand points from just a few weeks ago.

But in the parlance of the insiders (who really influence market direction), it's nothing more than a "sucker rally"-- the result of tens of thousands of solicitations by individual brokers trying to earn a living, "jaw-boning" hapless small investors to..."Hurry up, now is the time to get in before the next big move up."

The next big move up? Somewhere out there Gordon Gekko must be smiling.

But is now the time for greed on Wall Street---or fear?

With all those stellar economic events lurking on the horizon, the real insiders (the "smart money") knows that the market has nowhere to go but down--way down--possibly to 4900 in the next 18 months.

And no wonder. Wall Street and the market ALWAYS looks out ahead 18-24 months; that's why the insiders make the money that small investors unwittingly yield to them, as they buy high in unrealistic optimism, and sell low in panic.

It's always been that way on Wall Street...except for now.

As we look out ahead for the next year or two, it may be a long time coming before ANYONE (either a smart-money insider, or average Joe investor) ever sees these levels in the market for another 20--30 years.

But why?

The American economy has never before experienced what's on the horizon-- the intentional destruction of our free markets-- courtesy of our know-it-all (except for Wall Street) anti-president, Barack Obama.

Let's take a quick economic inventory of what's in store for Wall Street (and Main Street) in the next 2 years:

-higher income taxes--less disposable income for consumer spending
-higher business taxes for both small and large companies
-more government regulations for both large and small companies
-higher energy costs
-dollar inflation from rampant deficit spending
-cap 'n trade carbon taxes on energy
-card check (forced unionism) which will drive up business costs for everyone
-high unemployment--the result of clean air regulations on heavy industry
-higher energy costs for electricity- i.e. clean air penalties for coal-generated power
--higher corporate taxes for American companies doing business overseas
--more IRS audits driving U.S. capital offshore-- less domestic business investment

The Obama administration (regime) has a 5-year plan--it's all been figured out. Tax all fossil fuel energy. De-industrialize the Midwest and the South, where they burn coal. Force the auto industry to make cars nobody will buy. Force the banks to accept unnecessary bail-out capital, and then decide to whom they may lend it.

So expect a rapid transformation for private business from the free market to a government-planned economy, where you'll still own it-- but Big Brother now runs it!

And how do you think Wall Street will react to this? The same way it did from 1933 to 1945-- the last time a socialist president assumed total control, where the government can introduce itself any time, anywhere, into the private decision-making apparati, and levy restrictions on what private enterprises will be able to do within their own boardrooms.

EXAMPLE: Recently King Obama "summoned" all the credit card companies to Washington to tell them..."you can no longer 'overcharge' your customers." So just where in the Constitution is the president allocated the power for that? And where was the outcry from the private sector against it?

Now an emboldened Obama will soon be telling banks what interest rate they can charge, what private companies can produce, what type of workers (union) they can hire, how much they can produce--and at what price.

Is this a free market...or economic fascism?

So the Dow-Jones to 4900? Why not, as Obama's economic fascism takes hold and begins to strangle everyone's bottom line.

What effect will it have on the heavy industrial companies and energy companies? And what will happen to the transportation industry, the small business community, and the individual taxpayers themselves?

It's all so very simple: As government controls and regulations go up, everyone's bottom line will go down-- way down-- and taking down the stock market, our economy, our 401K's, and dashing the hopes and dreams of everyone who had the outlandish notion that they could some day become financially independent.

And now, it's all about to be dashed upon the rocks of Obammunism.


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Remember seeing the old black and white film clip of President Franklin Roosevelt's declaration of war on Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor? Mr. Roosevelt spoke in righteous indignation (quote)..."December 7, 1941-- a day that will live in infamy."

Now flash forward to August 18, 1976; a day-- as time progresses-- that will live forever in infamy, for both the Republican party and America. Hardcore political junkies can never forget it.

On that fateful day, one of the most electrifying floor fights in political history took place in Kansas City, Missouri, where Gerald Ford and  Ronald Reagan were virtually deadlocked in the delegate count going into the final vote for the presidential nomination.

Although Ford had won more primary delegates than Reagan, he lacked the amount necessary to secure victory. The convention had opened with both candidates pulling out "all the stops" to win.

But then Reagan committed his biggest career political blunder-- he alienated his core conservative support:

In a bid to attract liberals and centrists, Mr. Reagan nominated Richard Schweiker for his V.P-- the Arlen Specter of his day. The move immediately backfired, infuriating conservatives who despised the liberal Pennsylvania Senator.  Many of the crucial uncommitted delegates who were leaning to Reagan, now fled over to the Ford camp.

This would be Reagan's day of infamy, and it would indeed, have consequences...great consequences.

Had he gone with his first choice --conservative New York Senator, James L. Buckley-- political historians agree the nomination would have swung over to Mr. Reagan; but the blunder allowed Ford to gain the momentum he needed to win the nomination.

But yet, the final balloting for president was electrifying. As the first states began to declare, the drama and suspense were palpable in the air. Ford won the nomination with 1187 votes to 1080 votes for Reagan; and despite his blunder, it was that close...107 votes .

Reagan endorsed Ford at the close of the convention, and delivered a truly inspirational and magnanimous declaration of "party unity", an eloquent stirring speech that far overshadowed Ford's own acceptance address.

In an ironic quote from a story in the August 20, 1976 edition of the "Kansas City Star," it read..."Some delegates left the convention wondering if they had voted for the wrong candidate".

SOME DELAGATES? All the delegates!

Anyone on that convention floor who had heard Reagan's reconciliation speech, immediately realized they had made a grievous mistake in picking Ford; and thus we ended up with Jimmy Carter- the smiling peanut farmer-- a disastrous 1-term president whose damage to America is still resounding to this very day.

Yes, the delegates had left the convention "wondering" (knowing) if they had voted for the wrong man.

And how 'bout 1996? The Republicans nominated Bob Dole. What chance did a meandering, plodding speaker like Dole have against slick Willie Clinton?

But despite the obvious mismatch, the Republican delegates again had voted for the wrong man, nominating Mr. Dole on the basis that "it was his turn," and because of his staunch loyalty to the party, he "deserved to be nominated."

Predictably, NBC's "Saturday Night Live" (as they had done to Ford) ridiculed the dignified Dole to no end, portraying him as an ancient, senile, clumsy, and bumbling dolt, who could not even maintain his balance on a stage.

After the liberal media had sliced and diced Dole to pieces, Clinton won in a landslide.

So as before, the Republicans--in their vain attempt to "be fair" to a party loyalist-- we again harken back to that quote..."wondering if they had nominated the wrong man."

Ever since the untimely death of the political genius, Lee Atwater in 1991, the Republicans inexplicably have lost their ability to survive media attacks from the left, and it has cost them dearly.

Atwater was George H.W. Bush's media guru, who crafted the controversial Willie Horton campaign ad, and suggested that a video clip of Michael Dukakis--looking foolish riding atop a tank-- be incorporated in to a second negative campaign ad, that almost overnight saw the liberal Dukakis give up a nine-point September lead in the polls, to a turn-around where Bush won in a November landslide.

But if it hadn't been for Atwater, again it would have been a case where the Republicans would've nominated the wrong man, and the weak, meek Dukakis would have been in the Whitehouse, and in plenty of time to appease the blustery Saddam Hussein, and his 1991 takeover of Kuwait may have gone unanswered.

But what if Reagan had won in 1976? There would have been no Jimmy Carter's destruction of the CIA; no disastrous Community Reinvestment Act; no stagflation; no gas lines;  no Iranian hostage crisis; no Russian invasion of Afghanistan; and probably, no rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

Other than that, Carter would have been a legendary president.

But consider if the Gipper had won:

Reagan would have strengthened the military, shored up the economy; and unlike Carter, would have been no naive whipping boy, genuflecting before our Mideast enemies.

But it was not meant to be. If only it were not for those misguided 107 votes on August 19 of 1976, how different would our nation be today?

Even as late as spring, 2008, the litany of Republican political stupidity has continued on unabated.

Last year, in the initial primary days, the Republicans were on the verge of nominating Mitt Romney--an honest, experienced, self-made, super rich businessman-- who had an actual plan to re-invent America's economy using traditional means: fiscal responsibility, tax cuts to stimulate private investment in new plants, and create new industry.

But despite him being perhaps the most accomplished man to ever run for president, Romney was lampooned unrelentingly by the other Republican candidates for his religion, his 1994 "flip-flop" on abortion; and his stellar economic and political achievements were marginalized by a carping, jealous, liberal media.

Romney was shamefully victimized by his own party, and the very man the GOP needed most to shore up a sinking economy, had himself been sunk by sheer Republican folly, who got just what they deserved: death by stupidity-- political party suicide-- the nomination of  the boring, stodgy, John McCain, who had practically zero chance against the youthful magnetism of Barack Obama.

And if that were not enough, the shining charisma of Sarah Palin, who's brilliant acceptance speech for VP had won her legions of both partisan and non-partisan support, was mishandled so badly (stupidly), that within 4 weeks, she had been annihilated politically, with the public led to believing that she was little more than a female Homer Simpson: a dismayed, chuckle-headed, moose-hunting housewife, who just somehow happened to win the governor's seat of Alaska.

Of course, once again it was all courtesy of a jealous liberal media, borne of Republican political stupidity.

But only if Lee Atwater had been around for the last 20 years... who knows? This late, brilliant media strategist may have gone on to guide the Republicans to victories in 92, 96, and 2008; but the former architect of George Bush's victory in 1988, died of a brain tumor at the age of 40-- the peak of his political success and power.

Atwater-- considered the Republican Party's best political tactician of the last century-- was feared for his readiness to skewer democratic opponents, and his skill in carrying out those attacks.

But ever since his passing, the Republicans have done just the opposite -- played fair 'n square, and have been the party of the nice guys-- a surefire way to lose every election.

If the Republicans insist on being nice guys, they've gotta be smart; innovative; win on ingenuity-- try something different-- start the 2012 nomination for president right now.

That’s right...start now! It would capture the political spotlight; it would force the liberal media to see the Republican stars in action, firing away at the inexperienced arrogance of Barack Obama, and professing smart political and economic solutions of their own.

Imagine Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney on a national speaking tour: Palin for her expertise in energy, and Romney for his brilliant ideas to revive the economy.

Imagine Michelle Bachmann and Eric Cantor speaking together-- another dynamic duo, who now serve in the House of Representatives. Cantor for his brilliance on budgets and numbers, and Bachmann for her fiery patriotism, both denouncing the treasonous liberals in the Obama administration.

All four of these Republican stars, given a national forum, could outshine the false, "tele-prompted" popularity of Barack Obama, and expose him for what he is-- a shameless, supercilious liberal, who has but one agenda-- tax and spend America into socialist oblivion.

Picture a touring Republican cavalcade of stars-- a premature primary campaign-- warning America that the media is out to subvert all conservatives, and every voter must trust their own instincts, because there is no truth anywhere in American politics; only lies; only traitors (Arlen Specter), with liberal democrats strictly out for themselves.

Or it could be known as "the Republican Truth Squad of the Stars," revitalizing the party, re-energizing the nation; and demonstrating that there is hope--yes hope-- for the United States to once more be great; or as Reagan so artfully professed..."morning in America again."
 
Who-- besides the lying liberal media--says the Republicans don't have any ideas, and lack any true leaders? Let them be seen!

Stop the defeatist myth that there is no one who can defeat Obama in 2012. Stop it dead in its tracks! The democrats are behind it all--joined at the hip with the leftist media-- and the Republicans must put an end to their lies, or they will once again be victimized by their own naive stupidity.

Elections do matter; and not the best candidate, but the smartest political party, invariably wins; and not always to the benefit of the country as a whole.

The Republican fairness and "decency" doctrine continues to yield disastrous results in the form of 3 liberal presidents, who have appeased our enemies, and supported calamitous socio-economic policies, where America's long term survival as a great nation may actually be in doubt.

Lee Atwater--wherever you are-- what would you do?


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

QUOTE: "A liberal is one who believes in using a non-violent, tolerant and democratic way to direct the forces of education, publicity, politics, economics, business, law and religion, which will bring peace and the maximum of well-being to the greatest number of human beings...Henry Wallace (circa 1953).

Henry Wallace? Does anyone even recall who this ultra-liberal was...or what he did?

Wallace was Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of Agriculture from 1933 to 1940, and Vice President from 1941 to 1944, and is basically regarded as little more than a blip on the timeline of American history.

But he is best known as being FDR's most liberal lieutenant-- a man whose determination to "fashion a better world" made him (in the words of John Kenneth Galbraith), "second only to Roosevelt as the most important figure of the New Deal."

As you would expect of any idealistic liberal, Wallace bravely championed big-government programs--the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Soil Conservation Service, the Farm Credit Administration-- and founded the New Deal's version of food stamp and school lunch programs.

Wallace was the Ted Kennedy of his time, and of course, he would have been a shoe-in to become one of Obama's right-hand cronies were he alive today.

During the1930's, Walllace's growing stature as a broad-based liberal caught the eye of FDR, and in the summer of 1940 (after making the decision to run for an unprecedented third term), Roosevelt selected Wallace for the vice-presidency.

But in the summer of 1944, the fate of America took a turn which would affect history down to its very foundations, and altered the course of time in a seminal (and most fortunate) way:

At the '44 democratic convention, bitter wounds remained from the aftermath of Wallace's 1940 nomination, and when it came time for FDR to choose a running mate, he discovered Wallace faced fierce opposition among the democratic party leadership.

Exhausted by war (and not up for a floor fight) Roosevelt offered Wallace only a limited endorsement to the convention, saying that..."he would be glad to run with Senator Harry S. Truman, or Justice William O. Douglas, should they be selected." Wallace's support quickly dissolved, and the VP nomination went to Truman.

In retrospect, we can look back and see it was good ole American regional politics that saved the day for our country, and the Supreme Being had intervened. In April, 1945, Roosevelt collapsed from a cerebral hemorrhage, and Truman became his successor in the Oval office.

Then on August 6, 1945, the B-29 crew of the "Enola Gay" dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. But it took a second Nagasaki bomb, otherwise the obstinate Japanese would not have stopped the conflict. It was their militaristic culture that would have prevailed over the futility of continuing a hopeless war.

If you were an American serviceman slated to invade Japan in late 1945, the Bomb was the greatest thing on earth. It stopped the Japanese from fighting. It saved countless lives on both sides.

But what if Truman had also been a liberal, and as Wallace put it..."one who believes in using a non-violent, tolerant and democratic way to direct the forces of democracy."  What would have been the fate of all those World War II soldiers and sailors back then?

After the bloody capture of Okinawa, the U.S. military began preparations for the greatest invasion that NEVER was-- thank God and President Harry Truman.

Plans for “Operation Downfall" --the invasion of Japan-- called for two massive military operations. The first invasion was code-named “Operation Olympic,” and scheduled for Nov. 1, 1945, to hit the island of Kyushu. The second invasion was scheduled for March 1, 1946, code-named “Operation Coronet,” and would be an attack on the main island of Honshu.

Historians estimate that if the invasion of the Japanese homeland had actually occurred, one million Americans would not have returned back home to mom after the war.

To this day, conservative arguments defending President Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb are still raging, as liberals decry the brutality of incinerating over 100,000 Japanese.

EXAMPLE: In Obama's G-20 trip to Europe, he all but went out of his way to apologize for Truman's use of the bomb. And if Truman were alive today, Eric Holder would undoubtedly be threatening hearings for "crimes against humanity."

In the research room collection of published materials in the Harry S. Truman Library, one of the stories in 1995 was titled: “Sailor Had No Qualms About Use of Bomb." In a quote from that sailor, we can see just how fortunate it was that Truman had acted decisively..."To the many thousands of us who were spared, Harry Truman was our savior, and made the right decision."

But what would Henry Wallace have done, if it had been HE that succeeded Roosevelt as president, instead of Truman?

One can only conclude Wallace would have nixed the Bomb as "being unfair" and "in-humane," and the invasion of Japan's homeland would have gone forth, and perhaps cost America more casualties than ALL of our other previous wars combined--and possibly the war would not have ended until 1947.

Even 20 years later, holdout Japanese soldiers were still being discovered on remote Pacific islands, so fanatical was their resistance to their American enemies, and their dedication and willingness to fight to the end.

And in the early 1950's, were it not for the ultra-rightist Wisconsin senator, Joe McCarthy,  who knows how many more Communist sympathizers could have been organized into a leftist faction, and possibly seized control of the democratic party back then, just as the liberals in Congress have done today.

If it hadn’t been for McCarthy, there may have been no president Kennedy, but instead, a democratic liberal candidate opposing Richard Nixon in the election of 1960.  And had a democratic liberal been in the Whitehouse back then, what would have been the outcome in the Cold War's greatest showdown, the Cuban missile crisis?

What would a weak foreign policy liberal have done against the blustering Soviet bully, Nikita Khruschev, back in Fall of 1962? Would he have sold out America for "peace in our time" (ala Neville Chamberlain)?

Imagine how different American history would have gone if Cuba had become an armed nuclear camp-- 90 miles off the coast of Florida-- were it not for the heroic, iron-willed decisiveness of John F. Kennedy. How would events have gone for America if the Russians had installed nuclear missiles, that were aimed directly down our throats?

In the 70's, ultra-liberal Jimmie Carter may have been a nuclear engineer in the Navy, but the appointment of his college roommate, Stansfield Turner-- who literally destroyed the CIA in 1977-- has had repercussions to this very day, and could trigger the next nuclear attack, possibly in the Mideast.

Also during the 1970's, the U.S. Senate held highly politicized, public hearings on CIA operations. The Senate investigating committee was chaired by Idaho's Frank Church, a liberal Democrat who craved the presidency.

Now lets play what if: What if Church had defeated Carter for the democratic nomination in 1980, and had gone onto defeat Ronald Reagan? What would have been the course for America in the1980's?

Would Church have ordered the bombing of Libya, which removed another possible Muslim terrorist dictator (Moammar Khadaffi) from the world stage? Would Church have ordered the buildup to a 600-ship ocean Navy? Would the Soviets have detected another spineless, treasonous, lily liberal in the Whitehouse like Carter, and chose to escalate--rather than end-- the Cold War?

And what about now, with Mr. Appeaser himself-- Barack O'Carter Obama-- calling our foreign policy shots?

So far, Mr. Obama has a nearly spotless record.

As a polar opposite of John Kennedy, Obama chose to back down to the threat of another Communist dictator-- Kim Jong IL-- in the recent North Korean missile crisis.

All Mr. Obama would need to have done is show a little spine, and simply had Jong's missile blown up on the launch pad. The result? Right along with his missile, Kim Jong's blustery dictatorship may have toppled, and perhaps a less repressive "administration" would've taken over, and ceased the mindless funding of North Korea's military in lieu of feeding the famished population.

Kim Jong has literally starved his hapless country to death-- there are no small animals or birds left in North Korea, because the people have hunted them to virtual extinction, so desperate are they for food.

But our great liberal humanitarian, Barack Obama, chose the Carter-esque, non-confrontational way out, and opted for a strongly-worded UN resolution, to which Kim has reacted by thumbing his nose at America.

Now-- having successfully tested his missile to the third stage-- Kim Jong will be able to sell them to the Iranians, the Syrians, and possibly even Chavez and Raul Castro in the Western hemisphere, and could eventually precipitate yet
ANOTHER Cuban missile crisis.

You can always count on liberals to bring upon war, in the name of championing peace. It's called "brinkmanship"-- the same thing Hitler did in Czechoslovakia in the late 1930's, Stalin did in Berlin in the late 1940's, and what Krushchev did in the early 60's in Cuba.

All of these events changed the course of world history as a result of either a liberal backing down (i.e. Neville Chamberlain), or a forceful leader standing firm (Truman & Kennedy).

And now, for his next liberal trick, Barack O'Carter will appease the Iranians, who will be thrilled to talk about "peaceful uses" for their nuclear program-- grateful for the opportunity  to keep increasing the number of centrifuges they buy from the Russians-- and will howl behind Obama's back as he grants them the one critical facet to facilitate their nuclear weapon program to completion--TIME.

By "talking" to the Iranians, does our anti-president even realiize he's giving them time? Does Obama understand that Vladimir Putin is the one behind the push for a nuclear Iran, as the Russian economy has collapsed along with the price of oil?

Mr. Putin would be thrilled to witness the outbreak of yet another Mideast war, where Iran launches a missile strike at Israel, and blocks the Strait of Hormuz-- and the price of oil skyrockets as Mideast oil imports cease.

And would Obama then hide in the Whitehouse, as he did recently during the Somali piracy incident? Would he retaliate with a "strongly-worded resolution" against Iran from the UN, and wait for the world "to come together" to stop the fanatical Mamoud Akmidinejad?

Meanwhile, the fate of Israel would hang in the balance; the Russian economy would be 'stimulated' with a wartime price of $200/ barrel oil; the US would be caught flat-footed, and our strategic petroleum reserve would be quickly bled dry.

Now lacking oil, our military would not even be able to sustain itself in the event war was unavoidable.

Throughout history-- whenever liberalism meets fanaticism--- fanaticism wins, and people suffer grievously as a result.

Be it war or any political confrontation, the liberal doctrine (as defined by Henry Wallace) that believes in a non-violent, tolerant and democratic way, ALWAYS invites that very conflict which the liberals seek to avoid.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Has Barack Obama ever read an American history book, or was he too pre-occupied in school with memorizing the communist manifesto?

Throughout American history, when another country commits an act of war, the president must respond. The primary job of the President is to make important decisions...sometimes ones where the lives and fortunes of many people are at stake.

Barack Obama is articulate. He's intelligent. He is a calm and level-headed fellow. But the one thing he excels at is his INDECISION: he's expert at taking both sides-- or no side.

This gets you by in a political campaign--it's great for the pollsters-- but NOT in the Oval office!

Presently Obama will now be forced to make a really important decision...one that could involve the life of a very brave and daring American freighter captain.

Recall How president Gerald Ford reacted to the 1975 attack on the American ship Mayaguez, sailing off the strait of Cambodia.

Cambodia had fallen in late April, and the Kymer Rouge (a terrorist faction--not a cosmetics company) were in control. The crew of the SS Mayaguez-- now sailing into the area-- had received no warning about these events before Khmer Rouge naval forces boarded the ship on May 13 and seized the crew--a provocation of war.

President Gerald Ford denounced the seizure as an "act of piracy" and demanded immediate release of the ship. Overnight diplomatic efforts proved fruitless; so on May 14, 1975, Mr. Ford ordered military action. A Marine Corps detachment at Subic Bay stormed the ship, but were surprised to find it empty-- but the Khymer Rouge realized America meant business, and released the crew to go free.

Now contrast this with the tepid response of Lyndon Johnson when the USS Pueblo was seized by the North Koreans in January of 1968.

North Korean naval vessels surrounded the ship, captured the crew, and charged them with spying and violating North Korean territorial waters. NEGOTIATIONS to free the 83-man crew of the U.S. ship dragged on for nearly a year, forever besmirching the credibility and confidence in the foreign policy of President Lyndon B. Johnson's administration.

It was Johnson's indecision that caused the crew to suffer a long, tortured, miserable captivity for a year, and it served to humiliate America beneath the heel of a far less powerful country.

History bears witness that the two least effective presidents of the 20th century were men of indecision-- Herbert Hoover, and Jimmie Carter-- although Hoover was never forced into a situation where a crucial foreign policy decision had to be made.

And in contrast, it's no wonder that the two most effective presidents were men of decisiveness-- Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy. When an act of war or piracy is committed against the country, the buck stops abruptly at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

You can't leave a voice mail to the nation that says..."just call me if you need me."

When a reporter confronted the President on the recent Somali piracy incident, Mr. Obama  demurred, replying that he wanted to.. ."remain focused on housing".

Now there's a real answer during a crisis-- for sure the pirates are now planning their next hijacking, as they see the living re-incarnation of yet another spineless appeaser, Barack O'Carter.

And then we have Hillary rotten Clinton, a joke for a Secretary of State, literally cackling with her odious horse-laugh about an act of war upon the U.S. Then she 'misspeaks' about how "the world came together 200 years ago to fight piracy back in Morocco" (it was Libya).

Clinton is yet another liberal rattleskull, who has no knowledge (or respect) for America's proud military history.

The casual flippance of her mood gives an indication of her ability to function should a more critical situation arise, which is almost a certainty, given the appalling peacenik attitude of the two Obama/Clinton twin appeasers.

Captain Richard Phillips is being held by terrorists, Mr. Obama refuses to talk, and our laughing hyena Secretary of State is lamely calling out for the world "to come together to help solve this".
 
We're asking for it-- REALLY asking for it.

Both seem driven furiously to inaction.

It's almost as if the two were in a contest to see who could outdo each other to be the next Jimmie Carter, another liberal lily who refused to stand up for America's honor in the 444 day 1979 Iranian hostage crisis-- perhaps the most embarrassing, humiliating period for this country throughout the ENTIRE 20th century.

Recall your schooldays-- if a playground bully pushes you around and you shrink away, what happens? He provokes and humiliates you even further. But if you were to respond by slugging him in the nose, what would he do then?

On Nov 4, 1979, a crowd of Iranian "students" (terrorists) seized the US embassy and took 52 Americans hostage.

At once, the intrepid, fearless Jimmie Carter sprung into action, and immediately decided that the most feasible strategy to achieve his goal was to negotiate.

Iran refused to negotiate.

Carter boldly responds & severs diplomatic relations with Iran and imposes economic sanctions.

Iran counters by marching the hostages in front of the cameras blindfolded and humiliates America before the eyes of the world.

President Carter--after nights of anguish and handwringing-- then decides on negotiating through the UN Security Council AND the International Court of Justice, at The Hague.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini states that Iran's parliament would decide the fate of the American embassy hostages.

President Carter and the administration were bullied by a country we could have easily intimidated into a quick resolution. But passivity equals appeasement, and appeasement always results in escalation-- and total humiliation--the classic playground bully response.

According to Carter, the most feasible tactic to achieve his goal was to negotiate. But his foolish, flabby strategy of negotiation failed from the very beginning, as it ALWAYS does with terrorists-- who only understand one thing... force.

You must fight fire with fire.

The moral of the story? Never expect an appeaser to act when a spine is needed. Barack Obama are you listening?

What if President John Kennedy had dawdled back 'n forth during the Cuban missile crisis? What if he had called for negotiations? What if he had requested a UN Security Council resolution against the bully Nikita Khruschev of the Soviet Union?

There would have been nuclear-tipped Russian missiles in Cuba, and the entire place would have been turned overnight into an armed fortress island 90 miles away-- a lethal Soviet dagger pointed directly at the US.

How would history have gone for America after that?

Barack Obama's hesitation is dangerously provocative -it's an ominous window into the future. A man who's never been faced with a crisis has now chosen to hide in the Whitehouse, and stay "apprised" of the situation.

Come out from your hiding place Mr. Obama- you're the chief commander-- you can't vote "PRESENT" on this one. An American life is at stake, and the proud honor of our country is on the line. There's a time for negotiation, and there's a time for decision.

A president must always be ready to answer that zero-hour, 3 AM call, for either decisive action-- or inaction.
 
There is a  proverb that originates from the "Poem to Cato" (1713) by English essayist and poet, Joseph Addison...."He who hesitates, is lost".

Addison wrote... "Swift and resolute action leads to success; self-doubt is a prelude to disaster.

This poem is obviously unknown to Mr. Obama.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Thomas Jefferson- third President of the United States, sage philosopher, and brilliant author of the Declaration of Independence. A strong believer in individual rights, free speech, freedom of religion, as well as a free press.

However, what was indeed most noteworthy about President Jefferson is that he did NOT believe that the federal government should carry a large national debt.

Jefferson had long witnessed the narrow thread upon which the Revolutionary War dangled for all those perilous months, until Ben Franklin was able to persuade King Louie XIV that the colonies were indeed credit-worthy following their "shocking upset" victory at Saratoga-- which convinced the French (and the world) that the Americans were not just a bunch of rebellious upstarts.

As a result, by the end of the Revolutionary war in 1783, America was already in hock for 72 million dollars, which in those days, was a sum that threatened to derail the very establishment of our republic-- a nation that has mostly flourished for its entire 235 years.

So during his term in office, President Jefferson made a concerted effort at reducing the national debt, and repealed many federal taxes that had been put in by his predecessors.

Jefferson was the original Ronald Reagan.

While he is credited with the Louisiana Purchase, it may never have happened had the French not been so cash-strapped because of their ongoing contemporary war with England. Hence Jefferson was able to barter down the French all the way to the astounding desperation price of 3 million dollars, in return for doubling the size of America.

Jefferson, like Hamilton and Franklin, was one of our many Founders that "had a way" with money.

Back in the mid-1700's, writing in "Poor Richard's Almanac," Benjamin Franklin always encouraged the virtues of industry, thrift, and above all, staying OUT of debt. Franklin's  well known motto was, "neither a borrower nor a lender be."

A skilled horseman, Franklin wrote..."Prosperity, well mounted, when she let go of the bridle, would soon come tumbling out of the saddle" (i.e. prosperity is easily lost unless safeguards exist to prevent excessive debt).

Even 260 years ago as a young printer, he was a supporter and firm believer in free enterprise, for without it, Franklin understood there would be nothing to motivate one to make life better.

Franklin's insight also reveals that he deeply understood that without rules and regulations, it would only take a few to spoil things for everyone, and cause economic anarchy, writing: "Whither it bespeaks of commerce or sport, without rules there is chaos."

The Dutch Pennsylvanians living in Philadelphia influenced Franklin. They lived by the credo..." always pay cash for everything."

Throughout all time, the greatest leaders and philosophers of the world understood the importance of fiscal prudence. Hammurabi, Plato, Charlemagne, Dante, and both Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth of England-- all condemned the perils of being in debt.

Now contrast all the above to another infamous and well known "monetarist", Vladimir Lenin, who believed in a rather different approach to economics..."The best way to destroy the capitalist system is DEBAUCH the currency".

Lenin continues:
 
"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, SECRETLY and UNOBSERVED, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually ENRICHES some."
 
This is a shocking revelation into the mind of a marxist-- a stealthy covert approach to not only wealth re-distribution, but ruination of a nation!

Inflation is theft cloaked in monetary terminology. By eroding the value of a currency, inflation punishes producers, undermines investors and savers, and connives creditors slowly into ruin -- but all the while, rewarding debtors.

And where the U.S. is concerned-- inflation, high unemployment, and stagflation-- all are soon to become re-incarnated from the ghosts of a presidency past (circa 1980--Jimmy Carter).

In just the last five months there has been an explosion in M1, (the basic money supply) which is cash, total demand and government deposits with commercial banks, and money in all the federal reserve banks.

And to end our recession, Bernard Bernanke is busily printing money in the ole fed basement; thus we may about to be running an even greater risk than what Carter put us through-- hyper-inflation.

Hyperinflation can destroy a nation literally overnight, such as 1920's Germany, who's currency had collapsed tenfold after the end of World War I.

And with Barack Obama it may take awhile, but never fear, he'll see to it that we get there. After all, with a monetary marxist in charge, why should we even be concerned?

And what's to worry about? A measly projected 16 trillion dollar national debt by 2012? That's no big deal to Obama and his congressional komrades. Da! The more the merrier! Just keep Bernacke cranking away on his trusty printing press.

Money may not grow on trees, but to Obama & company it's the next best thing.

At the beginning of the year, we were paying approximately $450 billion a year on the national debt. But that total will probably rise up to near 650 billion by the end of our anti-president's first term. This is just the interest.

So our creditors will act just as any good credit card company would do. The more you owe, the less credit-worthy you become, and the higher interest rate you'll pay.

Obama's projections (just with his budget plan) will spend 23 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. 23 TRILLION!  And that's without adding in the "stimulus", or the "throw us all under the Omnibus bill," nor adding in the1 trillion dollars secretly sent into the economy  by Bernacke from his latest monopoly-money batch of fresh greenbacks.

At these withering monetary heights, even Vlad Lenin himself might have gotten the willies. The U.S. government is printing money to loan to itself. So that means, we take a trillion from our left pocket, write an IOU in place of it, and put that money in our right pocket.

Earth to Bernacke...You can't climb out of a hole by digging deeper! You cannot spend down debts with more debt. Even Herbert Hoover would blanche at trying that.

Yes indeed, Mr. Obama sure took that scalpel to government spending like he promised in his campaign. But isn't it funny how Obama supporters attempt to justify his outrageous spending proposals by pointing out that President Bush ran up the deficit as well?

Now that's a sure way to solve the problem. And to what end will these Obammunists spend?

Recently, Obama said he was... "scouring every corner of the budget to produce two trillion dollars in deficit reductions over the next decade"...and arguing that... "My economic proposals offer a long-term solution to America’s structural problems, and are not “a wish list of priorities that I picked out of thin air."

Yes Mr. Obama, we believe in you. We sure do.

All the initiatives over the last 6 weeks that were meant to "stimulate our economy" are pure political paybacks to the unions, the environmental fruitcakes, the pro-illegal immigrants lobby, and the "let's apologize to all the other countries of the world so they'll start to like us again" crowd.

Obama obviously believes in transferring wealth Lenin's way-- invisibly--via inflation, and by the establishment of his "world economic initiative."

And what about those wealth-destroying taxes on the people who--in Obama's mind-- have "more than they need".

Maybe it's time to re-introduce the words of Vladimir Lenin, who summed it up best...."By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, SECRETLY and UNOBSERVED, an important part of the wealth of their citizens."

These have really been the root of Obama's goals and achievements. He and his socialist admirers in the Congress are either so utterly stupid, or they have a grand plot to bankrupt the country, marching all together to the tune of Lenin & Marx-- the two "beatles" who wrote the tenets of communism.

And Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner in which... "not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

Obama's loathsome budget will bury the United States with his covert goal--a looming, pre-manufactured deliberate crisis-- where  the only way to NOT to have a total financial collapse will be for the government to seize control of every aspect of business.

Sound familiar?

This will result in having the United States turn from capitalism to complete socialism, which is the only thing that will come from Obama's budget-- a 21st century economy where our children are dependent on liberal government handouts forever.

There is no other reason for describing why Obama is doing what he is doing.

And either way, the free market republic our Founders fought so hard to establish, will not survive.


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Nuremberg Germany--1936: Hitler's 8th Party Congress "Rally of Honor" (Reichsparteitag der Ehre) celebrating the invasion of the demilitarized Rhineland, which back then, constituted the restoration of Germany's lost World War I military honor.

Today, everyone is familiar with that frenzied scene from the incorporated footage made at that Nuremburg rally, where Hitler spoke to the masses positioned in front of three towering columns-- emblazoned with 3 huge swatstikas as the backdrop:
 
"Seig-heil...seig heil..seig heil", shouted the frenzied crowd, as Hitler would pause after delivering one of his classic motivational one liners, as he sought to infuse his fellow Germans with the basis of Nazi fanatacism-- absolute unquestionable allegiance to "Mein Feuhrer!"
 
And late last summer in Denver-- as if a Rocky Mountain coronation were not lofty enough-- Barack Obama, in his best imitation of the rally at Nuremberg, seemed to aim for Mount Olympus when he stood  atop a podium in front of an enormous, Greek-columned stage, to accept his party's nomination for president of the U.S.

But just like Herr Hitler, Obama brazenly told his BIG LIE..."We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country". And then, came forth the biggie.... "I will never hesitate to defend this nation."

But don't hold your breath waiting.

Since taking office, Mr. Obama has announced plans to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, to halt military trials of suspected terrorists there, and to make CIA officers follow the Army field manual’s rules on interrogations .

And by his mixed messages on all foreign policy fronts, he puts America in jeopardy for another Sept.11- clearly illustrating he's yet another flaming democratic liberal appeaser.
 
During his campaign, Obama purported to expand the size of the Army (false) and repeatedly suggested that he would launch unilateral military strikes into Pakistan in an effort to kill bin Laden. But that tough talk has now been toned down, and "unilateral" has been changed to "only after consultation" with the Pakistani government.

Barack talked Reagan-esque bold during his acceptance speech, but predictably, has shown Carter-esque appeasement in his first months as our anti-president.

Obama sees the world as though the enemy is just  like us. But they view his administration as an opportune time to time to extract apologies, build up their nuclear and conventional forces, and are secure in the knowledge that they'll be no consequences to aggression.

Meanwhile, to show his "toughness", Mr. Obama has pledged to send additional troops into Afghanistan to push back against the Taliban insurgency. But to what end? Unlike the Bush doctrine to eliminate al Quida and establish democracy in Iraq, there has been no definition of winning in the Afghan theater, because Afghanistan has been determined by most experts to be...the "unwinnable" war.
 
In his first fifty days, Obama sent out peace feelers to Iran, and offered a compromise to the Taliban. And now, he's proposing huge new aid to Pakistan (the same failed policy of the past three administrations).

Is Obama the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter-- or worse...Neville Chamberlain?

With his new, "get-nice-to-our-enemies" policy, he might as well have mailed engraved invitations to Bin Laden and al Qaida, to let them know it was open season on Americans again.
 
Appeasement is a formulation for disaster. It goes against our long-held foreign policy that the United States, as the world’s preeminent power, can only be secure if it reinforces its strength throughout the globe, and with no exceptions!

Throughout history, America's strongest presidents achieved greatness only through their projection of absolute military power--not through weakness by being some lily flower:

-Bush I rolled Saddam out of Kuwait
-Reagan bombed Libya and ended Moammar Khadaffi's international terrorist party
-Kennedy caused Khruschev to blink and then to withdraw Soviet missiles from Cuba
-Truman rolled back Stalin and the Communists, immediately after taking over for FDR
-Teddy Roosevelt walked with a big stick
-James Monroe in1825, said "keep out-- don't dare come into our western hemisphere!"

But as of now, we've returned to the Carter era of the late 70's, projecting nice-ness, and turning the other cheek.
 
And what if ruthless Islamic radicals test Obama? They tested President Carter and he failed-- and the cost of his failure was calamitous-- the radicalization of Iran, the rise of violent Islamist movements, the loss of a strategic ally, and the emboldening of America's adversaries worldwide (i.e. Osama bin Ladin), which culminated in 9-11.
 
Then after a "post-Carter' pause, Islamic radicals tested the next nice guy--Bill Clinton.

They tested Clinton in Somalia and he failed; they tested him in Tanzania and he failed; they tested him in New York City in 1993 and he failed. Finally, they tested him in Yemen in October of 2000 by ramming an explosive-filled boat into the USS Cole, killing 17 Americans and nearly sinking that ship.

Clinton failed his tests, confirming to Osama Bin Laden his view that America was a paper tiger-- prompting Sept.11.

And now we have Barack H. Obama, and his aversion to the use of force is written on his sleeve.

During the campaign, candidate Obama promised to hold non-conditional talks with America's foes-- making his bold statement that if elected..." he would open dialog with the enemies of this nation"

Then he "misspoke" about the "tiny" country of Iran, and about preemptively invading Pakistan, illustrating his shocking ineptitude in the realm of foreign policy and basic geography. And for sure, none of his statements (or his gaffe-prone political posturing) escaped the notice of America's enemies.

Even Joe Biden mused about the prospects of... “An international crisis.. a generated crisis...to test the mettle of this guy.”
 
So with cowboy-six gunner Bush long gone, and Mr. nicey-nice Obama on board, could our Muslim extremist friends be racing each other to "test" the mettle of our anti-president?

You can count on it.

Appeasement is always is provocative. It’s like waving a red cape in front of a bull-- a sign beckoning… "here we are, come 'n get it!"

And in yet another genuflection to our enemies abroad, Obama took another step for political correctness (and to please his radical Code Pink and ACLU supporters) by ending the classification of “enemy combatants." Then in a memo to the Pentagon, he changed the verbage from "war on terror" to..."overseas contingency operation".

How sweet! Imagine how our enemies in the Middle East must have interpreted it:

"Oh that Barack Obama, he's such a nice guy! We'll have to be nice in return. We'll just forget about all the Great Satan nonsense and let bygones be bygones-- and forget our Muslim extremism. And oh, that Obama has such a way with words! We just love his desire for a new America before the eyes of the world."

Obviously, Mr. Obama thinks he can use his speech abilities to entice Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea, etc., into falling in love with him and becoming a fan, just as he's always managed to do with all his other "fans" around the world.

And of course, in the eyes of the Obama administration, Ahkmadinejad, Putin, Bin Laden, Kim Jong II, Hamas, and Hezbollah, are all very obviously such nice guys themselves, and honest, forthright, open minded leaders; so we best trust them to behave as good world citizens.

Meanwhile, Obama can't turn away fast enough from the Bush policy of an aggressive war on terror:

First, he appointed an inexperienced lily to run the CIA, Leon Panetta, who has zilcho familiarity with espionage. Then he sends a letter to Iran expressing his willingness to open dialogue with that rogue nation.

And in an "outreach" to our enemies, he recently mailed a sweet letter-candy gram to the so-called moderate factions of the Taliban, proposing to end the Afghan insurgency. But it's blatantly obvious that it's the inflexible EXTREMIST Taliban leaders who are orchestrating the war-- not the moderates.

Maybe he can win over al Quida if he called Rocky Mosele of the international star registry, and named a heavenly body after Bin laden. Wouldn't that be nice?
 
But whatever, Obama believes that America is ALWAYS the bad guy, and that we should rehabilitate ourselves through following the wisdom of all liberals-- being nice and giving the other side a chance to "love" America.
 
So as his liberal supporters urge, let's all be patient and give Obama a chance:
 
-a chance to invite a domestic attack
 -a chance to reduce our military by 25%
 -a chance to be viewed by the world as a contrite nation, rather than carrying a BIG STICK
-a chance for Iran to complete its nuclear program to fruition
-a chance to leave our borders wide open, and for al-Qaida to sneak piece-by-piece an atomic weapon through  Mexico,  assemble it some mosque basement, then detonate in Times Square
-and a chance to blunder us into a flash war in the Middle East

And so far, all the nicey-niceness has worked just as we'd expect:

Iran has recently declared itself to be a space and nuclear power; North Korea is testing its ballistic missiles; and Russia is now using bases in Cuba as well as Venezuela.

America is a Christian country that values life-- while our terrorist enemies live to DIE for their beliefs. So we cannot ever let our guard down, because that can only have one eventual outcome--we will be attacked again, even with a nicey-smiley Obama in office.
 
Our enemies see Mr. Obama for what he really is-- a callow, accommodating, wildly inexperienced and weak foe. Unfriendly regimes and networks-- like oil-rich dictators (Hugo Chavez) and radical Islamist countries-- will always seek to exploit a tepid American foreign policy.
 
Will Russia take the opportunity to gobble up Ukraine? Will al-Qaeda now “pull out all the stops” to kill Americans? Will Lebanon “disintegrate"? And will Iranian President Mahmoud Ahkmadinejad  attack Israel and possibly sink ships at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, and cut off our Mideast oil supply?

So what would Mr. Smiley Obama do then... call the UN? Go on a "diplomatic  rampage" and send a strongly worded message?
 
Can you be a world class appeaser without being, at the same time, the enemy?
 
And worse, the effect of the recession now gives Obama a chance to weaken the entire infrastructure and personnel of the US military. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said, "The spigot of defense spending that opened on 9/11 is closing."

Obama promised, "I will cut tens of billion of dollars in wasteful spending." Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, thinks we can cut 25 percent from military spending WITHOUT impacting national security.
 
Once again, like the Carter--Clinton days, we'll have yet another attempt made to wreck our military by the liberal lunatics within the Democrat Party, who are not democrats, but are more aptly described as Communists in bureaucratic clothing.
 
If President Obama "brings the troops home" and dismantles much of our military to save money to help the poor masses, it will be an open invitation for Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China to attack us, and attempt to wipe us out once and for all.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

William Joyce, the infamous British traitor, was the German counterpart to Tokyo Rose during World War II.
 
He was nick-named Lord Haw-Haw by the English press; and from Oct 1939 to April 1945, his nightly broadcasts (originating from Hamburg) would rail against Winston Churchill, and supplied England with a endless line of propangandized stories of Nazi superiority, and the sheer futility of Allied efforts to defeat them.
 
So it wasn't long before Lord Haw-Haw (originally from Ireland) became a figure of fascination and hate during the long six years of the war.

Through his nightly broadcasts, Lord Haw-Haw attempted to discourage and demoralize American troops and the British population within radio listening range. Many found the broadcasts so absurd (hence the name Lord Haw-Haw) that they were seen as a way of relieving the tedium of life in Britain during the war.

Stories by Joyce sought to unnerve the British public. He often revealed information which was censored, and could only have been known via Germany's spy machine in Britain. As a result, Allied troops and British civilians listened to Lord Haw-Haw's broadcasts with great curiosity in spite of the infuriating content and grievous exaggerations.

Lord Haw Haw had a widespread audience (estimated at a peak 9 million) even if the majority of what he said was nonsense. Joyce was also occasionally credited with broadcasts that would alter Allied battle strategy-- such was his reputation at the time.

Finally, at the end of the war, he was arrested by British Military Police, taken to London and found guilty of treason, then hanged in 1946.

But now, the Lord Haw Haw of the Whitehouse, Barack Obama, and his "straight man",  Tim Geithner (Treasury Secretary) are now broadcasting a new battle strategy in their war on capitalism: they’ve decided to use their cover from the AIG furor and 'morph' the tempest into a juicier target--executive pay--a cancer upon socialism.

And like any cancer, Dr. Obam-o & staff will be treating the executive pay "problem" with a large dose of Marxism.

Executive pay is definitely not the reason for the world's economic mess-- and Obama knows it; but his Politburo (crisis management team) senses a huge opportunity and they're certainly not given to passing it up.

A recent New York Times press release revealed how the Obama "attack plan" on executive pay would work: (quote)..."The new rules will cover ALL financial institutions, including those not now getting federal bailout money, and could also be applied "more broadly" to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the SEC"…"A central aspect of the plan would give the government greater authority to take over and resolve problems at large ‘troubled’ companies that are unregulated by Washington."

Translation: We’ve had a minimum wage law for years. Now the Obama administration senses an opening -- a MAXIMUM wage law.

Da! Is good policy for Amerika , eh Komrades?

So after placing salary restrictions on any remaining banks, Wall Street firms, and other major corporations, who’s next? Those remaining who "make too much" and "have more than they need", such as anyone with an income greater than 250K? Da!

And what would stop the DC marxist monsters from changing the rules, and going after pre-existing 401 K's, and rescinding the tax-free, after age-59 cash distributions? This new regulatory threat will put a chilling effect on small business SEP investments, and will slash the number of Americans who open Roth IRA's, because of fear of double taxation.

Yes indeed, Lord Haw Haw Obama will laugh away as he assaults working Americans from all sides-- a relentless barrage upon the wealth of upper income people-- as he merrily tranfers it to the leeches of society who will vote him a second term.

But now-now America, let’s not complain too much. Just remember last fall. Mr. Obama campaigned as a moderate, and told America... "My lack of executive experience doesn't matter."

And when it comes to lacking experience, Barack Obama leaps forward with shining credentials-- he’s never managed anything in the private sector-- not so much as even a paper route.

And no one in Obama cabinet, nor in his circle of advisors (or any of his czars) has any business experience in the private sector.  They're all ex-bureaucrats, lawyers, teachers & ex-politicians of similar ilk, all of whom share his marxist disdain for capitalism and free markets.

The result? None of them –not one--have a clue about what to do about the banking crisis, let alone the economy in general.

So Obama is basically 'winging it', incapable of coming up with any ideas, and going from one crisis to the next relying on his political instincts, his teleprompter, and of course...his sense of "gallows humor."

Hardy har everyone--especially for all those 52.7 % who voted for the anti-president.

And while Obama bashes away at the private sector, he reacts to crises by simply keeping up his poll numbers--his surefire way to solve things.

So he goes on ESPN to draw up his NCAA brackets--a grave priority of national concern. He goes on the "Tonite Show" and cracks sarcastic jokes. He goes to Camp David to shoot some hoops; he goes on "60 Minutes" and laughs off questions about the crisis of the economy.

Obama visits elementary schools; he travels back ‘n forth to Chicago; he parties every Wednesday night in the Whitehouse with the stars.  He flies around on Air Force One, acting like a college freshmen away from home for the first time-- the big man on the DC campus with national credit card in hand.

Meanwhile, he’s spending the nation towards catastrophe and yuks it up--calling it necessary to “fight the economic missteps of the past 8 years.”

But all the while, he tells people…”I HAVE JUDGMENT.”

Examples of Obama's sound presidential judgment abound:

Example #1: barely two weeks ago, he was telling everyone "it was the worst crisis since the Depression." But now, seeing his poll numbers drop, Obama claims "the economy is FUN-damentally sound". Um-hmm. Very sound indeed.

Example #2:  Barack's recent proposal for taxing Americans' workplace health benefits,
only to do an about-face after the virulent wave of unpopularity that quickly ensued.

Example #3: Closing Gitmo and releasing the prisoners, echoing the foolish Carter Marielito debacle of 1980, where thousands of violent murderers were unleashed upon the U.S.

Example #4: deficit spending trillions, similar to paying off one credit card with a new higher interest credit card-- and calling it "sound economic policy".

The new Congressional Budget Office predicts Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion WORSE than the administration predicted in its budget just last month.

Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy-- figures that are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product-- a dangerously high level--involving wild federal spending programs, and trillions of dollars of debt that will be placed on our families for generations to come.

Example #5: no new domestic drilling, while we'll send OPEC an estimated $3/4 trillion in badly needed U.S. capital this year, perhaps the most insanely ludicrous energy policy of any nation on earth!

And instead of tax cuts for those who create jobs, our anti-president will tax them more onerously, further dragging down the economy. Obama's plan is to increase taxes by more than $1 trillion in the middle of an economic crisis.

And how much more of Obama's hilariously sound judgment can we take? It's only a matter of time before it all blows up into a protracted recession, hyperinflation, or a second depression, or worse-- he blunders us into a flash Mideast war.

But the best part of Obama's judgment? He never takes the blame for anything; always some excuse, but always an explanation.

As Abe Lincoln once said... "you can't fool all the people all of the time". But Mr. Lincoln never figured that some day, there'd be an Obama to come upon the American political horizon, a man who absolutely, positively, is the most clever American politician EVER.

And the Great Distractor's judgement is absolutely bulletproof when it comes to mastering marxist tactic number one--creating a common enemy.

Last fall, Obama had America literally frothing at the mouth with President Bush. And now, the new Obama strawmen are the AIG executives.

And no matter how dire his circumstance, Lord Obama always miraculuosly escapes, and gets the last laugh on the voters, who always are eager to swallow his political bait.
 
And here's a cool "for instance"-- ACORN is behind all the ‘protests’ at the AIG homes! How's that for a shocker? And who else besides the Great Distractor could have come up with such an ingenious scheme of having ACORN operatives call all the talk shows, and mass e-mail their congress people about how "OUTRAGED" they were at the AIG bonuses.

And it worked. Even the congressional Republicans fell for the ruse. And the media ran with it.

So think about it; what average American would take the time to fabricate "homemade" signs and march downtown in protest against AIG? Or who would actually pay their hard earned money (plus time) to go on bus tours in posh Connecticut suburbs to sight-see and rail against the AIG executives' lavish homes?

What do people expect... that AIG execs prefer public housing? Maybe after Congress & Obama get done with them, they'll be eligible to apply for section 8.
 
Liberal democrats always take satisfaction in punishing achievers and rewarding the leeches, as if making rich people poorer will spark the economy.

Yup...we swallowed the bait again. Obama is laughing, ACORN is flourishing, and democracy is languishing, as we continue to march in lockstep with a leftist Congress, and follow our anti-president into his utopia of marxist oblivion.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

It was in 1980 that the Haitians increased their desperate attempts in rowboats to make it to south Florida-- then disappear into the immigrant underground-- thus setting the precedent for the uncontrolled immigration that plagues our southern borders today.

1980 was also the year of the infamous Miami "Liberty City" riot, stoked by the exoneration of four white policemen who had killed a black insurance man riding a motorcycle. When President Carter visited the riot-torn area a few weeks later, the residents angrily booed him and threw rocks and bottles at his motorcade.

But mainly, 1980 was the year of Fidel Castro's great revenge on America:

After a bus carrying Cuban citizens intentionally crashed into the gates of the Peruvian Embassy in Havana, the passengers claimed asylum. Within days, 11,000 Cubans sought refuge at the Peruvian Embassy. President Carter announced that the U.S. would accept 3,500 refugees if they were first processed in Costa Rica.

Not to be outdone, Castro announced that any Cuban who wanted to leave could do so by boat through Mariel harbor.

Carter, feeling empowered, foolishly proclaimed: "We welcome the Cubans with an open heart and open arms!" The result? It was the 'Mariel Boatlift,' that eventually brought 150,000 "happy-go-lucky" Cubans to Florida, most of them the dregs of society.

Unbeknownst to the naive Carter, his open arms-open borders policy proved disastrous (and to this day its effects are being felt).

It provided the Cubans a welcome relief valve for all their prisons, insane asylums and the wandering homeless, as Castro opened the doors to his most desperate criminals and lethal felons, bidding them..."adios" -"see ya"--"don't forget to write!"

Then the "law of inintended consequences" (the result of Carter's naive liberalism) took hold.

By the reckoning of Lieutenant Mike Gonzalez, who back then was the head of  Miami Police's homicide bureau, ''In that one year (1980), we got 50,000 additional killers and thieves.''

The effect of the so called "Mariel invasion" can be told in the statistics. In the first half of 1980, Miami had 75 murders. Then in the last seven months, there were 269 murders. In 1980-81, Miami had the highest murder rate of any city in the world! So many bodies piled up in the morgue that the Dade county coroner had to rent a refrigerator van to handle the overflow.

The Marielitos had indeed made quite a splash.

Of course back then, Carter "doggedly" chose to stick to his liberal dogma of equality and human rights, which had already led to the overthrow of the Shah, and cascaded into 444 humiliating days of America's bowing to Iran during the hostage crisis.

But liberals never learn; they always put idealism ahead of patriotism... and sanity itself.

And Carter's record was unblemished...he batted "1,000". Throughout his presidency, he was liberal putty in the hands of Torrios from Panama, Khomeni from Iran, Breshnev from Russia, and finally Castro--always giving our enemies the benefit of the doubt-- and receiving a foreign policy black eye in return for the favor.

And the icing on the cake was unleashing the Marielitos upon an unsuspecting America, who wreaked their murderous havoc upon every city where their nationwide migratory path descended.

And who was it that said history repeats? Now 3 decades later, the parallels are eerie, almost uncanny in resemblance. And once again the problem concerns Cuba.

Barack Obama now faces many of the same sort of radical Islamist problems that Carter did, but has thus far demonstrated no concrete capacity to govern within the best interests of the nation, because it's that same liberal compulsion-- to be fair-- that's paramount in his mind.

And like Carter, will he unleash another callous group of unscrupulous killers upon us--who's sworn objective is their jihadistic exhortation: "Death to Satan America?" 

But according to a spokesmen in the Obama administration: "Promptly determining the appropriate disposition of those detained at Guantanamo Bay is a high priority for the president." 

Attorney General Eric Holder has submitted a legal declaration outlining President Barack Obama's efforts to close Guantanamo Bay within a year, and "determine" where to place the 240 people held there.

Translation: "We think releasing these "freedom fighters" will look good before the eyes of the world".

In his brief, Holder maintains... "It is still unlawful to hold people indefinitely without charge. The men who have been held for more than seven years by our government must be charged or released."

Translation: We're gonna let these terrorists slide, because to hold them "without charge" would be a violation of their human rights.

Obama (in his best Carter imitation ) seems to be saying, "So we welcome to America all you terrorists with open arms; what can we do to make you more comfortable?"

And as Carter disastrously once beckoned the Marielitos, Obama, in closing a facility harboring some of the most murderous psychopaths on the planet--without first knowing what he's going to do with them-- seems to be courting déjà vu.

Is Obama inviting another Marielito-style debacle? In an obvious bowing to the left, it was his decision to close Guantanamo in the first place.

And while we're at, let’s do it "right", and go way-way far left! Why not invite the head honcho--Osama bin Ladin himself --to the White House in an "outreach to the enemy" gesture? Put down new prayer rugs in the East Room. Invite him to stay overnight in the Lincoln bedroom.

And in a "further outreach", why not also invite all the soon-to-be freed Gitmo "ex combatants" to the White House, like a victorious world champion sports team? After all, according to anti-President Obama, these were the people who were captured and victimized by our racist, imperialist, and oppressive invading American soldiers, and who were unjustly captured and held against their will, and had to suffer everyday in Gitmo with three square meals, library, exercise courts, and endure the warm, breezy, subtropical climate-- and were provided the freedom to practice their Muslim religion--and secretly plot the demise of the USA (in their cold-blooded minds) upon release. 

So Obama is giving them their wish and will have his attorney general grant them all hearings. And the ACLU will defend them in court.

Yes we can! We will turn the other cheek.

And what this all (in effect) amounts to is a tacit "declaration of abandonment" of our own soldiers, who's buddies were those attacked and killed by these same people, and who heroically risked their lives to capture and imprison these Islamist desperados in the first place.

So it's high time we apologized and "made up for it", and hope the rest of the world gets the "Everybody is supposed to love us now" memo.

And ironically, bolstered by a supremely stupid decision by our leftist-leaning Supreme Court, this whole filthy mess could have been avoided were it not for a 5-4 decision by the treasonous judicists who voted for the legal rights of these radicals. Maybe now they'll help them to get jobs in the Obama administration.

 Yes-- it's all in the name of "detente" with the Muslim world, as we eliminate the term, "war on terror", and replace it with a Carter-esque policy of appeasement.

Like they say: "Carter' was so devoted to peace, that he risked a big war." And Obama seems to be following the script.

And by inviting bin Ladin into the Whitehouse, maybe Obama could bypass the war with the Taliban, withdraw from Afghanistan, and resolve the nuke problem with Iran. And who knows? Maybe Hamas might switch to launching peace feelers instead of rockets at the Israelis!

Who are our major enemies in the Middle East? Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. What are we doing about it? Be nice!  And by making nice to our enemies now as Carter once attempted to do, surely all the nice Muslims will return the favor.

And now let us all "outreach" to the enemy and close with the Obama creed:

as I uproot the Constitution, and reinterpret what it means.

The National Debt Clock in New York City has run out of digits to record the growing figure. The economy continues to get worse. The housing glut endures. Fearful consumers are turning from the yellow of caution to the red alert of panic. Retail stores are doing all but giving away merchandise to avoid going dark next year.  Banks and other financial institutions continue to suffer more losses.

Other than that, the out come for the U.S. economy looks stellar, especially now that the new era of Baracko-nomics is about to get underway! Hi ho and its off to the unemployment line we go!

And to what great economic heights will the Chosen One lead us in his first four years in the new Camelot of Obama?

On his recent "60 Minutes" interview, Barack was asked rather bluntly by CBS"s Steve Kroft: "Is there a point where just going to the Treasury Department and printing more money ceases to be an option?"

Obama : "We shouldn't worry about the deficit next year or even the year after...The most important thing is that we avoid a deepening recession, and we have the tools," the president-elect said .

Atta boy Barack-o! Don't back down! Show everyone that the naysayers were wrong when they accused you of having no working knowledge of either business or economic principles. We know you'll show 'em all when you break out the old reliable democratic tool for any economic problem.. the old reliable printing press in the basement at the Fed.

The primary originator of the printing press as an economic tool, was good ole LBJ. In the late 60's, the Vietnam war costs were spiraling out of control. Johnson was sinking in political quicksand, trying to pay for an unpopular and unexplained war without raising taxes, but yet without cutting all the political promises he made about his Great Society social programs. Congress bitterly opposed his idea of a 6% tax hike, and  all the while, the pentagon's budget was exploding with the war's spiraling costs.

Inflation was bubbling up. The dollar was sinking. Every time president Johnson appeared on TV to announce another troop escalation, he looked as if he'd aged another ten years. Poor LBJ!.."oh woe is me...what can I do?"

So Mr. Johnson decided to set a economic democratic precedent that has flourished to this very day... he would deal with the problem using his new C& P program...Conceal the problem...and keep it Painless-- unleash a new federal reserve strategy-- run the printing presses!

In all its previous wars, the U.S. had paid for them by tax hikes, or selling what the old timers refer to as "war bonds". But Johnson had the fed crank out approximately 200 billion in paper currency to avoid a tax hike, and keep his Great Society ship of state afloat. But by march of1968, the wolf was at the Whitehouse door.

Back in those days, the dollar's role was to act as the world's reserve currency. But the dollar suffered its first black eye when the U.S. began defaulting on that role by allowing its short term liabilities in the form of dollars held by foreigners, to FAR exceed its short term assets in the form of readily available gold. Inflation began to worsen and the dollar began to sink even lower.

Then Richard Nixon attempted to sit on the country's inflationary suitcase, when he went off the gold standard and instituted rent and price controls in 1971. Naturally the suitcase burst open in 1973 when inflation rocketed to 7%. So tricky Dicky Nixon devalued the dollar to juice the U.S. trade balance, and it boomed the economy from the export side of the ledger; and for awhile, the economy thrived for the first part of that year.

But in late 1973, oil prices quadrupled during the Yom Kippur war ,and the U.S. economy  went into an OPEC-stimulated tailspin. But the irreparable damage to the U.S. dollar had been done; never again would it be pegged to the price of gold; it would float up or down in relation to the other currencies of the world.

And then there were those oh so happy days of Jimmie Carter, (the next democratic-economic prodigy), bringing his stellar financial expertise to Washington as a peanut farmer. Carter created the "misery" index-- double digit unemployment, double digit inflation; and double digit interest rates-- a triple header of legendary disaster ! New terms such as "stagflation" were added to our lexicon during the Carter era . He indeed had succeeded in making peanuts out of the economy.

The only thing that saved the country from an economic calamity was the opening of the Alasakan oil pipeline, which saw the price of gas drop precipitously in1977, and gave a huge economic boost because of the big increase it brought to the people's disposable incomes back then.

Clinton, the next democrat, was widely depicted as having balanced the budget, putting everyone back to work, and reducing welfare. But Clinton may have been the luckiest president of the 20th century, largely as a function of  being in the right place at the right time.

Had not Ross Perot siphoned 7% of the vote from incumbent George Bush senior, Clinton would probably be serving out his life term back in Arkansas as its most popular governor since Orville Faubus.

"I will focus on the economy like a laser beam" said Mr. Cinton in 1992! But about all he did was get even luckier as his time in the Oval office progressed.  Deep down Clinton was just another tax & spend liberal vote-buyer, who had to raise taxes (against his campaign promises) to cash all the political chits he owed from the various support groups who got him elected. His luxury tax fiasco (10% on yachts and large boats) illustrated his shallow understanding of economic principles-- taxing the rich puts the middle classes out of work everytime. Boat builders laid off 8,800 workers; and as a result, the unemployment benefits paid out far exceeded the miniscule tax revenues brought in.

When the Republicans won an overwhelming sweep in the Congressional '94 midterms, Newt Gingrich as much as threatened Clinton that..."nothing further would pass unless he reigned in spending and cut welfare into workfare". Its all part of the Clinton book of mythology.

Myth: Clinton put everyone back to work.
Reality: the introduction of personal computer of the 80's had percolated through the economy by the 90's, replacing the paper age with the digital office age. Productivity soared nationwide . Now couple this with the dot-com boom, and concomitant job explosion, and Clinton, who was a largely a bystander to it all, graciously accepted credit as the president of "job creation".

Myth: Clinton balanced the budget.
Reality: this has about as much validity as giving Gore credit for inventing the internet! Ronald Reagan, in conjunction with Tip O'Neil, actually did accomplish making social security solvent by instituting  the original lockbox in the 1980's.

But if the average American of today, worried about his (her) retirement, could just call Mr Clinton onto the carpet now, there are a plethora of questions to be axed.

"Yes Mr Clinton: What was the relationship of the Social Security Trust Fund to the U.S.’s national debt during your 2 terms as president? Was the federal budget actually balanced during this time as every one has been led to believe?  Explain what happened when you were accused of "raiding the Social Security Trust Fund”. Would the Social Security System face financial crisis today if Congress simply didn’t rob the Trust Fund to pay for its expenditures during those years? Is this what Congress did back then? Explain in full detail, please."

The liberal press has led us to believe that the Clinton years were like the days of wine and roses; but just like any myth, the bubble burst in 2001 just as the abominable George Bush entered the Whitehouse. The internet's "unlimited expansion" proved to be quite limited . Clinton's strong promotion of China as "most favored trading nation" began to create the giant offshore sucking sound of America's manufacturing jobs. And  China was the great vacuum cleaner; and Clinton was the one that plugged them in to the world's economy.

Now, add on NAFTA to all that, and history may go on to prove (in due time) that the Clinton years of "prosperity" were those that greased the skids for the U.S. economy to careen downward into its 2nd Great Depression in 100 years.


How about today? Of course the democrats are willing to spend their way to prosperity using the old Lyndon Johnson c-p method of economics. Conceal the problem, and keep it Painless, Yes, those good ole democratic sound  principles-- print our way to prosperity--  then make the problem disappear by saddling the future generations with unbearable debt, because the future generation has no relevance... the only thing that counts is the next election.

Hooray! Lets all cheer for the new era of the Congress with learning disabilities! Barney Frank talks glowingly of tax increases on the wealthy, and breaking out the national charge card... (quote) "I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending, and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat'.

Is this the way the Obama-energizd tax & spend 111th Congress intends to manage our financial crisis? Joe Biden, during his campaign said..." paying more taxes was patriotic, denying the obvious precedent of Herbert Hoover, who proved that tax hikes during downturns are IDIOTIC. Will they ever learn?

Enter Barack Obama..."Tax hikes on the wealthy are about being fair and achieving balance"...yet more evidence of a learning disabled democrat!

And now, after all this planned runaway deficit spending, we have the bail-out banquet running at full throttle! Congress has voted to increase the national debt to a measly 11 trillion now, with probably another trill or two during the next 2 to 4 years. And what's to stop this leaning-disabled Congress from printing the country into insolvency?

Certainly not the media, who speak nor decry of the reckless financial trends on Capitol Hill. Certainly not all those who are getting in the entitlement line for all the juicy campaign  promises of Obama.

Alexander Hamilton, our first treasury secretary, insisted that the United States pay its debts and practice fiscal prudence. He persuaded Congress to establish a national coinage, a national banking system, and a revenue program to provide for the repayment of the national debt. That then-controversial proposal gave our new nation a chance to grow into the powerhouse it is today.

But what would be the fate of Alexander Hamilton if he were in Washington in this day in time? The media would attack his personal life as a lawyer. Nancy Pelosi would label him a "member of the radical right wingers", with no legislative experience. Barack Obama  would condemn him to the dreaded republican status as "being out of touch" with main street.

So, for how much longer do we sit by silently and watch the democrats print more currency? How much longer can we go down this path toward economic oblivion? How much longer will we borrow until the interest on the national debt (currently 500 billion annually) sinks the ship of state into the ocean of insolvency? How much longer will we reach the point where the dollar is destroyed, and we become the next 1920's era Germany? Will history not repeat itself? Could we expect any different result?

These reckless, treasonous democrats are setting the scene for unprecedented disaster! We are inviting the worst of all economic worlds --a hyperinflationary depression! The democrats are against mining our own energy, and FOR sending our money abroad for OPEC oil. The democrats want to tax our employers, who will then downsize us from OUR jobs. Barack Obama wants to tax big oil with a windfall profits tax, and increase the corporate and capital gains tax, all because its fair? Fair to who?

These disastrous tax policies have already created the current Wall Street slow motion crash; and the housing disaster of declining real estate values. And with Obama in the Whitehouse, and the radical left in control of congress, it'll be gasoline on the fire!

These events have led us up to the current economic crises. And now that we have been  backed into this fiscal corner, the country has two choices.... we either take control of these events, or these events will take control of us,  in either this generation, or the next.

But no matter what the consequences of these corrupt Congressional criminals, once the disaster is upon us, they will be filthy rich and long gone.