Barack Obama -- June 29, 2009

June 29, 2009

Custom Search

"Islam has always been a part of America’s story"

Barack Hussein Obama

event	description
Obama Plays Monopoly With Our Money	click image to see large version ( then click that one for a really big copy )
Obama Invites Homosexuals To Secret White House Function	Obama has invited some gays and lesbian leaders to a secret East Room reception on Monday to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, the 1969 Greenwich Village demonstrations that gave birth to the modern gay rights movement. The White House has not publicized the reception. But gay leaders from here and around the country said they had received either telephone calls from the White House or written invitations to the event, and were told Obama is expected to speak. Shin Inouye, a White House spokesman, said: "Next Monday's event is a chance for the White House to recognize the accomplishments of LGBT Americans. Invited guests include families, volunteers and activists, and community leaders. This event was long planned as a way to applaud these individuals during Pride month." One person who received the invitation said the White House was billing the event as a celebration, akin to the festive affairs the administration holds on St. Patrick's Day or Cinco de Mayo. Another said the invitation included an offer to bring a guest. "They want people to understand that their partners are welcome," said this person, speaking anonymously because the White House has not announced the event. "The accomplishments of gay leaders" -- no doubt referring to Barney Frank's single-handed destruction of the mortgage banking system.
Obama Bluffs On Defending Hawaii	The Washington Times reports that July 4 could be another day that will live in infamy. Obama seized headlines June 18 when the Defense Department stated that the United States would deploy ground- and sea-based missile-defense assets to protect Hawaii. This was a response to North Korea's threat to launch a long-range missile on July 4 toward the islands. However, new information suggests that the administration is bluffing and our defenses are inadequate to get the job done. Missile-defense expert Taylor Dinerman told us that the sea-based SM-3 missiles now deployed to "protect" Hawaii are not equipped with adequate software and communications to intercept a missile traveling from North Korea to Hawaii, which would reach a terminal velocity of Mach 23 to 25. The SM-3s are effective only against targets traveling at up to half that speed. It would take about $50 million to upgrade the software to enable a Mach 25 intercept. The Army's Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile, which also has been activated after successful tests at Barking Sands on Kauai, "doesn't come close" to being effective against this type of threat, Mr. Dinerman said. Obama is stuck in the past on missile defense, repeating worn-out arguments about unproven technologies and destabilizing effects. The Defense Department's 2010 budget proposal cut missile defense by $1.2 billion, and congressional Democrats rebuffed Republican attempts to restore the funding. Justification for the cuts was led by Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, California Democrat, who is the newly confirmed undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. Ms. Tauscher will play a major role in missile-defense policy. The cuts include scaling back the number of interceptors based at Fort Greely, Alaska, from 44 to 30. This cut is hard to justify given the proximity to North Korea and the fact that these interceptors actually could bring down one of its missiles (which may explain why Pyongyang is aiming for Hawaii). The Airborne Laser program has been downgraded to a research-and-development effort despite a recent successful test of its target-acquisition system. Taxpayers have invested about $5 billion to bring this advanced technology to the point of fruition. Obama also has cut funding for the European missile-defense shield, leaving our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic in the lurch after they took a major political risk to support the program. A February Congressional Budget Office study of the proposed European deployment concluded that "none of the alternatives considered by CBO provide as much additional defense of the United States." This retreat makes the United States appear weak before Russian bluster, which doesn't put U.S. leaders on the best footing on the eve of a July 7 Washington-Moscow summit. Missile defense should be central to the U.S. strategy to dissuade, deter and, if necessary, defeat threats. Instead, we are unilaterally disarming, which only strengthens the strategic logic for our adversaries to produce more missiles. Current policies encourage countries like North Korea, Iran and Syria to move ahead with advanced missile and weapons-of-mass-destruction programs that promise more bang for the buck than expensive conventional forces. Obama's hostility to missile defense is inexplicable. The missile threat is growing, and defensive technology is increasingly effective, yet Obama has dug in stubbornly behind a losing strategy that emboldens our enemies and places us in greater danger. No wonder Hawaiians are nervous.
Obama's Ridiculous GITMO Policy	The Provocateur reports that, on Friday evening, they received this from the administration: Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations. Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said. Now, try and put all of this into perspective. Obama signed an executive order in his second day on the job committing to closing GITMO within a year. He did this because GITMO was, in his view, a total rejection of our values and morals. Yet, now, he's on the verge of, by executive fiat, holding some folks indefinitely, without charge or trial. Now, how does that square with his view that GITMO was an aberration to everything we believe. Let's set some more context. Some folks that were in GITMO are now enjoying the beaches of Bermuda. Soon, they will open up a restaurant. Other folks in GITMO will stay incarcerated indefinitely with no charge or trial. Whatever you think of Bush's policy, he, more often than not, made decisions based on the safety and protection of the citizenry. With Obama, there's really no underlying thread to his GITMO policy. If this is all about due process and giving our enemies constitutional rights, how does that square with keeping some indefinitely with no charges? If this is about protecting the citizenry, why are some terrorists free in Bermuda?
The Rank Dishonesty Of Obama	Hot Air reports that Jim Geraghty first wrote that all of Barack Obama’s promises come with expiration dates, and broken promises from politicians are nothing new, of course. However, one usually expects politicians --- especially those running on hope and change -- to either remain true to their professed core values and the issues that fueled the most passion on the campaign trail, or at least explain their change in the daylight. Obama did neither, nor did he apologize to the man he besmirched endlessly on the campaign trail while adopting the policy that Obama most demonized as a candidate, George Bush. This goes beyond the policy, which I think returns to a rational processing of illegal combatants in wartime. We don’t release POWs until after the conclusion of hostilities, and we sure as hell shouldn’t be releasing illegal combatants any earlier, incentivizing terrorists for operating outside the rules of war. The fact that they joined an endless jihad against the US shouldn’t get them any consideration for earlier release dates; when the radical Islamists either surrender or get destroyed, then we can see about releasing them. Until then, they should stay locked up and away from the fight. Obama has essentially endorsed the detention policies of George Bush without the courtesy of apologizing for slandering him over the last two and a half years. Obama and his allies screeched endlessly about indefinite detentions, and not just in Gitmo, either. They specifically railed against the holding of terrorists without access to civil courts in military detention facilities around the world, specifically Bagram, but in general as well. Not even six months into his term of office, Obama realized that Bush had it right all along. Did he even have the grace to admit that? No. Instead, the White House took the cowardly method of a late-Friday leak to let people know that Obama had adopted the Bush policy all over again. Barack Obama just appeared at a press conference this last Tuesday to discuss Iran, energy policy, and ObamaCare, where he could have told the national press that he had changed his mind on indefinite detention. Instead, he kept his mouth shut, and had his media staff whisper it into phones to a couple of White House favorites in the press. It’s a shameful performance, and the measure of the man in charge. I guess Obama has finally conceded to Dick Cheney on national security, hasn’t he?
Obama Is Choosing To Be Weak	As he promised last year, Barack Obama has brought climate change and healthcare reform to the centre of the nation’s attention. As well as evangelizing, he is pressing Congress to act. Last week the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill to curb carbon emissions, a measure that, if enacted, would touch every part of the US economy. Both House and Senate have drafted far-reaching healthcare bills, with stunning price tags. Obama aims to keep his promises, which is admirable. Unfortunately, there is a problem. The problem is that the bills emerging from Congress are bad and Obama does not seem to mind. The cap-and-trade bill is a travesty. Its net effect on short- to medium-term carbon emissions will be small to none. This is by design: a law that really made a difference would make energy dearer, hurt consumers and force an economic restructuring that would be painful for many industries and their workers. Congress cannot contemplate those effects. So the Waxman-Markey bill, while going through the complex motions of creating a carbon abatement regime, takes care to neutralize itself. It proposes safety valves that will ease the cap if it threatens to have a noticeable effect on energy prices. It relies heavily on offsets -- theoretical carbon reductions bought from other countries or other industries -- so that big US emitters will not need to try so hard. It gives emission permits away, and tells utilities to rebate the windfall to consumers, so their electricity bills do not go up. It creates a vastly complicated apparatus, a playground for special interests and rent-seekers, a minefield of unintended consequences -- and the bottom line for all that is business as usual. If you regard universal access to health insurance as an urgent priority, as I do, the draft healthcare bills are easier to defend as at least a step in the right direction. Nonetheless, the same evasive mindset -- the appetite for change without change -- has guided their design. If you are happy with your present insurance, the bills’ designers keep telling voters, you will see no difference. The crux of the US healthcare problem is the incentives that encourage over-production and over-consumption of services. Addressing that would alter the way healthcare is paid for and delivered to all Americans. At that scary prospect, Congress looks away. Debate thus revolves around how much of an increase in coverage you can buy for $1,000bn over 10 years in subsidies and other outlays. That is a good question. But legislators aim to duck the bigger challenge: controlling long-term growth in costs per patient. On both climate change and healthcare, in other words, the US wills the end but not the means. This is where a president trusted by the electorate and unafraid to explain hard choices would be so valuable. Barack Obama, where are you? Continue reading here . . .
Obama Wants Communist Reinstated	Obama called on all actors in Honduras to respect the rule of law after military leaders there arrested President Manuel Zelaya to head off Zelaya's attempt to hold a vote on constitutional changes deemed illegal by the country's Supreme Court and Congress. Zelaya, in a move similar to his ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, had wanted to overturn the law that prohibited him from seeking another term in office. He called the arrest a "coup" and a "kidnapping." "I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of President Mel Zelaya," Obama said in a written statement. "I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference," Obama said. Two questions: One -- In their rush to drool all over themselves about "the rule of law," do Obama and Hillary realize that it’s Zelaya who was flouting the rule of law here? I know The One’s a big believer in executive power but even he’d acknowledge that defying an order from the Honduran Supreme Court crosses the line (I think). Two -- Why is Team Barry siding with Zelaya instead of simply staying out of it? The White House proved with Iran that they’re capable of maintaining very tactful silences for excruciatingly long periods of time. Yet today we’ve got not only the secretary of state but Obama himself rushing out statements. These Marxists sure do stick together. Continue reading here . . .