Joe Biden said that "The Taliban is not our enemy per se,"
WHAT?!?!?!?!?! HOW IN THE HELL DOES AN IDIOT LIKE THIS SERVE AS A LEADER IN OUR GOVERNMENT?!?!
Vice President Joe Biden == NINCOMPOOP !
What a STUPID STUPID man.

“I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn’t spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation-from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I’ll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscover of our values and our common sense.“ - President Ronald Reagan ...AMEN TO THAT!!

Damn it Newt, you just lost my vote because of what you said on Illegal Immigration. Newt Gingrich has just placed me firmly in the Mitt Romney camp. Mitt Romney said the right thing: ANY type of amnesty is just a magnet for more illegals. No magnet and they don't come here, simple as that. If they are here Legally == NO PROBLEM, if they are here ILLEGALLY == BIG PROBLEM, there should be NO quarter for them. We effectively have an invasion of 15 million into our country, THIS NEEDS TO BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS. YES we can deport damn near all of them, America needs to take a VERY tough stance on ILLEGAL Immigration and stopthisinvasion of our borders ASAP.
ANY, and I mean ANY, candidate that considers the rights of an illgeal immigrant over mine (a US Citizen) should NOT be in higher office. Your solemn duty as President is to protect the AMERICAN people FIRST and FOREMOST!!!! Not some ILLEGAL THAT IS SPITTING ON OUR COUNTRY!!!
Newt won't be President, but I'd still love him for Vice President!
Mitt Romney, you can count me as +1 for you because of your stance on ILLEGAL immigrant magnets versus LEGAL immigration. I say this as a son of a legal immigrant who became a US citizen the right way.
UPDATE: Wait a Minute!!!
Newt Gingrich: ‘I Will Ask John Bolton To Be Secretary of State’ | Mediaite
Newt may have just won my vote back with his selection of John Bolton to be Sec. of State. AWESOME choice!!

Note: This communication came from our long time D.C. Insider and details previous and ongoing conflicts surrounding the decision to assassinate terrorist Osama Bin Laden. This has been reproduced here as originally communicated to us.
__________
Please get this out ASAP. Want specific people to know we know.
RE Osama Bin Laden. Significant push to take him out months ago. Senior WH staff resisted. This was cause of much strain between HC and Obama/Jarrett. HC and LP were in constant communication over matter – both attempted to convince administration to act. Administration feared failure and resulting negative impact on president. Intel disgusted over politics over national security. Staff resigned/left. Check timeline to corroborate.And:
Point of determination made FOR Obama not BY Obama. Will clarify as details become more clear. Very clear divide between Military and WH. Jarrett marginalized 100% on decision to take out OBL. She played no part. BD worked with LP and HC to form coalition to force CoC to engage.
IMPORTANT SPECIFIC: When 48 hour go order issued, CoC was told, not requested. Administration scrambled to abort. That order was overruled. This order did not originate from CoC. Repeat – this order did not originate from CoC. He complied, but did not originate.
Independent military contacts have confirmed. Stories corroborate one another. This is legit.
The killing of Osama Bin Laden was in fact a Coup within Obama WH.
The angry, "I've been marginalized" look on President Obamas' face is priceless, not to mention he is sitting in a chair in the corner with no computer screen in front of him (when everyone else important does) which would indicate that he had just arrived from somewhere else and was not part of the planning. You would think the Commander in Chief would have the best seat/chair in the place. Hell, even Vice President Joe Biden has a laptop in front of him and a better/proper seat than President Obama does.
I can only speculate so much as this information is coming from someone else, but knowing President Obama's lack of decision making over the last 2 1/2 years when it comes to military decisions, this could have been a real deal power coup inside the Obama Administration. This will be interesting to see play out in the months ahead of the 2012 Presidential Election where I'm sure more of this will come out or at the very least be challenged by more people the more this story gets out. Especially because of all the "Obama Killed Osama" victory tour President Obama has been on.


This was PRECISELY the issue with Obama back in 2007/2008 when he was running for the White House. Let me state it clearly: THEN MAN HAS ZERO EXPERIENCE IN MANAGING ANYTHING!!!! The man stands for EVERYTHING WRONG, everything that true Americans stand for, Obama stands AGAINST. It is unbelievably obvious to anyone who is not on their knees sucking at the Liberal/Progressive Kool-Aid tit.The fact that it took ten days and at least a thousand dead on the streets of Libya’s cities before President Obama finally mustered the courage to call for Muammar “mad dog” Gaddafi to step down is highly embarrassing for the world’s only superpower, and emblematic of a deer-in-the-headlights approach to world leadership. Washington seems incapable of decisive decision-making on foreign policy at the moment, a far cry from the days when it swept entire regimes from power, and defeated America’s enemies with deep-seated conviction and an unshakeable drive for victory.


"Legal Hispanics in my district are very supportive of these laws," Shortey said. "Illegal Hispanics are not, and to be quite honest, I really don't care what they think."AMEN.!!! Finally someone with some balls to start pushing back against the ILLEGAL Immigration crowd. I am the son of a LEGAL immigrant who became a US citizen. My mother, who immigrated from Guatemala LEGALLY and became a US citizen. A moment she was so very proud of, a moment that is now tarnished with the notion that 12million+ ILLEGALS have come and made that day, that ceremonious day, worked hard for and longed for, practically worthless.




Listen closely to the political debate in Washington these days, and you can hear the rumble of shifting tectonic plates. The economic policies that have dominated for the last four years are slowly being repudiated, and a new paradigm is struggling to emerge—or, more accurately, re-emerge.
That's the larger political meaning of the decision this week by House and Senate Democratic leaders to abandon a vote on the Bush-era tax rates before Election Day. Only a week ago, President Obama and his media supporters were asserting that they had Republicans caught in their class-war pincers: They'd lure the GOP into opposing an extension of lower tax rates for the middle class in order to defend lower tax rates for those making more than $200,000 a year.
In the event, the Democrats have cut and run, lest they get blamed for voting for a tax increase in a slow-growth economy. This is how legislative majorities behave when they've lost the political argument and can sense their days are numbered. They lose their ideological nerve and try to save their own individual careers.
In a pre-Labor Day editorial, we warned Democrats about this result and advised them to extend all of the 2001 and 2003 tax rates across the board ("Democratic Salvage Plan," September 1). That would have denied Republicans a campaign issue while also helping the economy. Instead, Democrats chose to follow Mr. Obama into a box canyon of their own design, and it's hard to see how they get out without dreadful losses.
Democrats will now enter the campaign's home stretch with the threat that all of the Bush-era tax rates could expire on January 1. That means the lowest tax bracket would revert to 15% from 10%, the per child tax credit would revert to $500 from $1,000, and millions of middle class families would pay thousands of dollars more in federal taxes.
Keep in mind that this is the not-so-secret desire of many on the left who think the country "can't afford" to let Americans keep so much of their own money. Peter Orszag has already admitted this since leaving his post as White House budget director. What these Democrats really mean is that they think the only way to pay for their spending plans is by soaking the middle class—because that's where the real money is.
Claiming to tax only the rich has always been more political strategy than fiscal realism. As we wrote in February 2009 ("The 2% Illusion"), IRS tax data show that you could have taken 100% of the taxable income of every American who earned more than $500,000 in the boom year of 2006 and still only have raised $1.3 trillion in revenue. That amount would not have closed the budget deficit in either of the last two fiscal years. Liberals pretend they can finance a European-style entitlement state by taxing only the rich because they know that soaking the middle class is unpopular.
Democrats promise to revisit the expiring tax rates in a lame duck Congressional session after November 2, but no one knows how that will turn out. Assuming they do well on Election Day, Republicans will be in no mood to let Democrats keep tax rates low for only some taxpayers. And if they lose their majorities, liberal Democrats may be in a spiteful enough mood to insist that all of the tax cuts expire. A stalemate is possible that kicks the issue into 2011.
We hear the White House is now floating a compromise that would extend the middle-class tax cuts for four years, and those on higher earners for only two years. We hope the GOP doesn't fall for what is a transparent scheme to make it easier to let the rates on higher earners expire the next time around. If Mr. Obama wants a deal on taxes, Republicans should demand that he cooperate on pro-growth tax cuts, or a tax reform that lowers rates in return for ending loopholes.
***
Which brings us back to those shifting political plates. When the Pelosi Democrats regained Congress in 2006, they brought with them the spend, tax and regulate policies of the 1960s and 1970s. They had learned nothing from the policy revolution and resulting boom of the Reagan years, which resumed in 1995 after George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton tried a detour and were themselves repudiated by the voters.
A tapped-out President George W. Bush bent to Mrs. Pelosi's will, and then Mr. Obama rode into town offering a hyper-Keynesian policy mix of public spending and easy money to cure recession and create jobs. Democrats thought they were perfectly positioned to ride the normal rhythms of recovery to a new political dominance.
The problem is that it hasn't worked. The policies of spend, tax and regulate have undermined the recovery, causing capital to flee to Asia or the sideline and employers to forswear or delay new hiring. The American public has listened and watched and is slowly concluding that the hope they placed in these "progressive" policies was mistaken. This political reality is slowly dawning on Democrats, which is why so many of them are now denying paternity for the policies of the last four years.
The solution is a return to the economic principles that rescued us from our last bout of malaise in the 1970s. Republicans and Democrats alike need to be re-educated about those principles. But the first step toward such a revival is repudiating the failed policies of the last four years, as many Democrats are already doing.

-By Warner Todd Huston
People often wonder what is the difference between a conservative and a liberal. The simple fact of the matter is that the major difference is that conservatives wonder first what it is they are responsible for while liberals wonder first what everyone else should be doing for them.
Here are some brief rules of thumb:
- If a conservative sees a U.S. flag, his heart swells with pride.
- If a liberal sees a U.S. flag, he feels shame.
- If a conservative doesn’t like guns, they don’t buy them.
- If a liberal doesn’t like guns, then no one else should have one either.
- If a conservative is a vegetarian, he won’t eat meat.
- If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.
- If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat it.
- If a liberal see an enemy he wonders what he can do to appease him.
- If a conservative is homosexual, he’ll quietly enjoy his life.
- If a liberal is homosexual, he’ll demand everyone get involved in his bedroom activities.
- If a successful conservative is black or Hispanic, he’ll see himself as having succeeded on his own merits.
- Successful liberal minorities still claim “racism” and want government to give them even more.
- If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to work to better his situation.
- A liberal wants someone else to take care of him.
- If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
- If a liberal doesn’t like a radio show, he demands that the station be shut down or censored.
- If a conservative is a non-believer, he just doesn’t go to church.
- Non-believing liberals demand that everyone cease believing and demands churches be censored.
- If a conservative needs health care, he shops for it, or chooses a job that provides it.
- Liberals demand that everyone else provide him with healthcare for free.
- If a conservative sees a law, he thinks long and hard before suggesting a change.
- If a liberal sees a law he assumes it is just a suggestion and does what he wants anyway.
- Conservatives feel there is a right and wrong.
- Liberals feel that nothing is really wrong… unless it is believed by a conservative.
- Conservatives believe in freedom, responsibility, tradition, and self-reliance.
- Liberals believe in license, government restrictions, upending tradition, and collectives.
____________
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as NewsBusters.org, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, StoptheACLU.com, TheRealityCheck.org, RedState.com, Human Events Magazine, AmericanDailyReview.com, and the New Media Journal, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events and is currently the co-host of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Conservatism” heard on BlogTalkRadio. Warner is also the editor of the Cook County Page for RedCounty.com.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions : EMAIL Warner Todd Huston

1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people
In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.
2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership
This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.
3. Obama fails to inspire
In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2006 Convention speech in Chicago which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.
4. The United States is drowning in debt
The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.
5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat
The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.
6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake
In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”
7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.
8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration
It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.
9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security
From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.
10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness
Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.
There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.
This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.




By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.
Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.
One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.
It is no surprise that Mr. Posner—like numerous of his kind—has found a natural home in this administration. His is a sensibility and political disposition with which Mr. Obama is at home. The beliefs and attitudes that this president has internalized are to be found everywhere—in the salons of the left the world over—and, above all, in the academic establishment, stuffed with tenured radicals and their political progeny. The places where it is held as revealed truth that the United States is now, and has been throughout its history, the chief engine of injustice and oppression in the world.
Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal's editorial board.



In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child, consummating the marriage by 9. The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.
Even though a woman is abused, she can not obtain a divorce. To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses. Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and the man does not have to say why he has beaten her. The husband is permitted to have 4 wives and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.
The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman. In the Western World (America) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.
By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.
Ripping the West in Two
Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping
Western law and liberty in two. She recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.
Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to America in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel. He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza ... When he died, he was considered a "shahid," a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.
But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing. She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.
In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping sharia law - what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.
For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual. Islamic law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.
Peace and prosperity for one's children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world. While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics - one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.
While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with God, Sharia advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism. It's hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being Muslim should be executed. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West, such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.
While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petro dollars are being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere.
In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President by themselves! Rest assured they will do so... You can look at how they have taken over several towns in the USA .. Dearborn Mich. is one... and there are others...
I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on! It is too bad that so many are disillusioned with life and Christianity to accept Muslims as peaceful.. some may be but they have an army that is willing to shed blood in the name of Islam.. they peaceful support the warriors with their finances and own kind of patriotism to their religion. While America is getting rid of Christianity from all public sites and erasing God from the lives of children the Muslims are planning a great jihad on America.

I don't see how the president's position and popularity can survive the oil spill. This is his third political disaster in his first 18 months in office. And they were all, as they say, unforced errors, meaning they were shaped by the president's political judgment and instincts.A great web Ad from the NRSC exposing Obamas' hypocrisy..."Never Again"
The president, in my view, continues to govern in a way that suggests he is chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen. This is a terrible thing to see in a political figure, and a startling thing in one who won so handily and shrewdly in 2008. But he has not, almost from the day he was inaugurated, been in sync with the center. The heart of the country is thinking each day about A, B and C, and he is thinking about X, Y and Z. They're in one reality, he's in another.






President Bush ran up a $458.6 billion deficit during his last full year in office. Obama ran up a $1.4 trillion deficit in fiscal 2009 -- that covered part of Bush's final year, but budget projections show deficits will continue to top $1 trillion for several years under Obama.If anybody with half a brain can read a chart, the above chart just shows that Obama trying to cater to the Tea Party just shows how desperate he's become now. All democrats have been doing is dismissing the Tea Party movement, degrading everyday Americans because they are rejecting the Obama agenda in a monstrous way. Obama is tanking in every major poll and Democrats are losing on ALL major topics, all because of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid liberal agenda that America HATES.

In honour of this week’s cringe-inducing nuclear summit in Washington, which represents yet another step towards American decline under the current US administration, here is a list of ten key reasons why Barack Obama qualifies as the most naïve president in US history.
Despite some strong competition from Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter, President Obama has spectacularly blown the opposition out of the water, on almost every level, from appeasing America’s enemies abroad to building the foundations of a European-style welfare state at home. The end result is an America that is weaker, more vulnerable to attack, and mired in mountains of debt. No other president in US history has done more to undermine the original vision of America’s Founding Fathers, while replacing it with a reckless and risky agenda that threatens America’s ability to lead the free world.1. Obama believes unilateral disarmament will achieve a nuclear-free world
The Obama administration may dream of a day when the world is free of nuclear weapons, but its lofty vision bears no relation to the realities of the modern world. Even the president of France believes that President Obama needs to live in the real world, not a virtual one, which is a rather damning indictment of US leadership. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Washington’s decision to cut its nuclear arsenal will encourage the likes of Iran and North Korea to disarm, and history has shown that a unilateral policy of disarmament will not prompt tyrannical regimes to change their behaviour.2. Obama thinks evil regimes can be negotiated with.
The naïve appeasement of practically every odious tyranny on the face of the earth has been a central hallmark of Barack Obama’s foreign policy. From extending the hand of friendship to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez, to turning a blind eye to horrific human rights abuses in Iran, Sudan, Zimbabwe and Burma, the Obama administration has made the art of appeasement into an art form under the guise of “smart power”. It is a morally bankrupt approach to foreign policy, epitomised by the words of Obama’s special envoy to Sudan, retired Air Force Major General J. Scott Gration, who declared: “We’ve got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries —
they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.”3. Obama doesn’t believe America is fighting a global war
Within weeks of taking office, the Obama administration dropped the phrase “Global War on Terror” in favour of “Overseas Contingency Operation”, and has gone to great lengths since then to emphasise that the United
States is not engaged in a world wide war against Islamist terrorists who seek the destruction of America. As Vice President Joe Biden put it at last year’s Munich Security Conference, the US was involved in “a shared struggle against extremism” and a fight against “a small number of violent extremists (who) are beyond the call of reason”. Can you imagine Winston Churchill or Franklin D. Roosevelt declaring in 1943 that World War Two was a mere “struggle” against a small band of fascist extremists? Al-Qaeda killed over 3,000 Americans on 9/11, and their sole aim is the destruction of the West and the establishment of an Islamist caliphate. If that’s not a declaration of war I don’t know what is.4. Obama believes increasing spending and raising taxes leads to prosperity
While even the Germans are balking at spending more taxpayers’ money to stimulate the economy or bail out failing members of the Eurozone, the Obama administration seems determined to build up ever greater levels of government debt, with vastly expanded entitlement programmes and government spending. At the same time, Paul Volcker, its chief economic adviser, is dangling the prospect of additional European-style taxes to pay for it all, the surest way to kill economic growth and stifle job creation. As the recent success of countries like Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand attest, economic growth and prosperity is directly linked to limited government intervention, low taxation, and above all, economic freedom.
5. Obama thinks government-run health care is good for America
In the face of overwhelming public opposition, Barack Obama’s health care reform legislation represents the biggest expansion of government power in over 70 years, and is a major step towards a government-run health care system. It is a hugely naïve and risky social experiment in a nation whose success has always been driven by the principle of individual freedom. As I noted before, what we have just witnessed is a massive slap in the face for limited government and the principle of individual responsibility. Its net result will be the erosion of freedom in America, and a further undermining of the country’s economic competitiveness. This may be a political victory for the president and his supporters in Congress, but it is in reality a defeat for America as a great power, and another Obama-led step towards US decline.
6. Obama doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism
President Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t think that American exceptionalism is any different to the “exceptionalism” of other countries. He also believes that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” Not only is this a staggeringly naïve position to adopt as the leader of the world’s dominant superpower, but it is also an astonishing declaration that the United States is no better than any other nation, and has no right to project its values onto other countries – which is exactly what the US successfully did in Germany and Japan in 1945, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. It is both a striking abdication of world leadership as well as an egalitarian vision of the world, and one that significantly undermines American global power.
7. Obama believes alliances don’t matter
No American president in modern times has invested less effort in maintaining US alliances than Barack Obama. Whether it is siding with Marxists in Honduras against pro-American forces, condemning Israel, throwing the Poles and Czechs under the bus, or trashing the Anglo-American Special Relationship, the Obama administration has gone out of its way to kick its allies in the teeth while kowtowing to America’s enemies. Great Britain and Israel in particular have borne the brunt of Barack Obama’s disdain, with the leaders of both countries humiliated during visits to the White House. For a president who boasted in his election campaign of restoring America’s “standing” in the world, Obama has done a spectacularly bad job of preserving friendships with Washington’s closest friends.
8. Obama trusts Russia
A central element of President Obama’s nuclear deal with Moscow is the naive belief that Russia can be trusted as a partner of the United States, and that the treaty does not impose restrictions on America’s ability to deploy missile defences. The Russians in contrast have made it abundantly clear that there is a “legally binding linkage between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons.” In other words they expect to have a veto over a US missile defense system. The Obama administration has already bowed to Moscow’s demands to scrap US plans for third site missile defences in eastern and central Europe, and will no doubt surrender again when Moscow makes further demands. At the same time, there is no sign that Russia will support significantly stronger sanctions against Iran. In effect, Washington has gained nothing at all from its “reset” strategy towards Medvedev and Putin, but merely looks like a soft touch in the eyes of the Kremlin.
9. Obama believes the UN is indispensable
President Obama’s speech before the United Nations General Assembly last September has to rank as the most embarrassing so far of his presidency, cheered to the rafters by an audience that traditionally hates what America stands for. As I wrote at the time, this was a staggeringly naïve speech by President Obama, with Woodstock-style utterances like “I will not waver in my pursuit of peace” or “the interests of peoples and nations are shared.” All that was missing was a conga of hippies dancing through the aisles with a rousing rendition of “Kumbaya”. It was a speech fitting for a president who believes the United Nations is “indispensable” to the United States, and who thinks the UN Human Rights Commission is a force for good. In reality, the UN’s elites dedicate much of their efforts at undermining American power, persecuting Israel, wasting taxpayers’ money, and shielding human rights violators.
10. Obama believes a federal Europe is good for America
The Obama administration has gone to considerable lengths to back the development of a European Union defence identity as well as a European Union foreign policy, both of which will weaken the NATO alliance as well as the broader transatlantic alliance. This is the first US administration to actively back the rise of a federal Europe, and whose key players on European issues actually believe a united Europe is good for the United States. It is an extraordinarily naïve approach which will eventually bite Washington in the back. Even the spectacularly embarrassing appointments of both Herman Van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton as President and High Representative for the European Union have not succeeded in dimming the enthusiasm of the Obama team
for the European project.


