OVAL OFFICE WATCH: FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS

Posted By on December 10th, 2009

Exclusive: Oval Office Watch – Thursday, December 10

Oval Office Watch

 

What Barack Obama Really Thinks Of The White House Press – HERE.
 
A Government-Media complex without conscience – CLICK HERE.
 
Tiger, Barack, and the Law of Transitivity
Lisa Schiffren, American Thinker.com
 
If I were watching the public disgust with the newly revealed Tiger Woods from an office in the West Wing, I’d be concerned. Because Barack Obama is about as completely manufactured a political character as this nation has seen. His meteoric rise, without the inconvenience of a public record, or accomplishments, and the public’s willing suspension of critical evaluation of his resumé allowed his handlers and the media to project what they wanted to on his unfurrowed brow.
 
Ironically, the parallels have nothing to do with race. The Obama campaign did explicitly attempt to borrow the from the then-universal Tiger Woods appeal to allay any discomfort voters might have had with a mixed-race politician, as they constructed a persona that would make the American electorate comfortable with a barely known, first term Senator, with a left wing voting record, a deliberately obscured personal and professional past, and no traditional qualifications for high office.
 
After a year in the spotlight, Barack Obama, hailed as a brilliant man, and a creature of destiny who would heal us all, is himself falling rapidly to earth. (Thankfully, his family life remains above suspicion.) The flaws that were airbrushed out of the candidate photos are becoming glaringly obvious under day to day scrutiny of his public performance in the White House.
 
And while it doesn’t matter if another athlete is an adulterer, it matters a lot if the president is revealed to be an inexperienced, excessively ideological, weak man, who is naïve about the world and uncomfortable exercising American power, during a time of war. It matters if nothing in his training would have equipped the president to understand what it takes to stimulate job growth, or ameliorate a recession, or to end an overseas conflict successfully. It matters that he is uninterested in the science behind global warming — and wishes to use the issue to amass power and re-order society. It matters that he has no interest in the construction of policy.
 
Ultimately, Woods is an exceptional golfer, with a character problem. Barack Obama, by contrast, is not an exceptional, or even particularly competent, leader. But because so many politicians, interest groups and factions have an interest in his continued presence, no one is ready to reveal the man behind the curtain just yet.
 
But many voters who believed in the Obama magic — both from the center and from the far left, are increasingly dismayed watching the human god fall to earth. This is a major problem because, as Shafer notes, the impulse of the betrayed is to tear their fallen deities to shreds. Read article.
 
Democrat Wars
W. James Antle, Spectator.org
 
“I figured it up the other day,” Bob Dole memorably snarled during the 1976 vice presidential debate. “If we added up the killed and wounded in Democrat wars in this century, it would be about 1.6 million Americans — enough to fill the city of Detroit.” It wasn’t Dole’s finest moment as an orator, but it should be a cautionary tale for a Democratic president seeking bipartisan support for a “surge” in Afghanistan.
 
President Barack Obama’s long-awaited decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan — arrived at after much handwringing and more than a little celebration of the commander-in-chief’s King Solomon-like wisdom — did not win universal acclaim.
 
Antiwar Democrats in Congress panned the president’s plan. Appearing on CNN’s “The Situation Room,” Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) asked, “Why does it make sense to have a huge ground presence in Afghanistan to deal with a small al Qaeda contingent, when we don’t do that in so many other countries where we’re actually having some success without invading the country and attacking those that are part of al Qaeda?”
 
Feingold’s host, Wolf Blitzer, asked point-blank, “Will you vote against funding for this new escalation in Afghanistan?” The senator was unequivocal: “Absolutely.” While he isn’t likely to have many fellow travelers in the Senate, many liberal Democrats in the House feel similarly. Read article.
 
30,000 More Troops—With One Hand Tied Behind their Backs?
David Forsmark, NewsRealBlog.com
 
The consensus, Left and Right, seems to be that President Obama’s speech was less than stirring. On Fox News’s excellent news hour, Special Report with Bret Baier, Charles Krauthammer paraphrased Winston Churchill’s famed battle cry to sum it up this way
 
“We will fight them in air, we’ll fight them on the beaches, we’ll fight them on the field for 18 months and then we start to pack.”
 
But as the court-martial of 3 Navy SEALs for giving a brutal terrorist “a bloody lip” goes forward, under an Administration that may prosecute the CIA for what were legal interrogation methods, the question is: Will these 30,000 troops be allowed to fight effectively?
 
A few weeks ago, the Washington Times compiled a list of Rules of Engagement that soldiers in various interviews had related to Times reporters. It is not encouraging. Included in the list are:
 
• U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.
 
• U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.
 
Great, our forces are targets first, and we are encouraging the use of human shields. And don’t get me started on the restrictions the NATO troops are under, who are supposedly “making up the gap” between what General McChrystal asked for, and what Obama is parsimoniously granting him. Read article.
 
Loyal Opposition Must Give Obama Cover to Reverse Afghan Exit
Jonathan Tobin, CommentaryMagazine.com
 
While conservative critics of President Obama are right to point out the flaws in his Afghanistan plan, the fact that he has committed himself to fighting there renders our misgivings secondary considerations.
 
The purpose of a loyal opposition is not merely to oppose the faction in power but also to support it when it does the right thing. So long as Barack Obama is prepared to fight Islamists in Afghanistan — or anywhere else — he deserves the backing of conservatives on this point. That is especially true when so much of the president’s own party is either opposed or lukewarm about America’s duty to prevent the Taliban from returning to power.
 
Though we may be rightly worried about the impact of Obama’s statement that U.S. troops will begin to leave Afghanistan in 18 months, the proper response to this blunder is to begin to advocate strongly that Obama use his discretion as commander in chief to keep our forces in the field as long as the enemy poses a threat to the Afghan government.
 
The push to give him the political cover to back off his imprudent promise of withdrawal cannot start too soon. His speech seemed at times more concerned with mollifying his critics on the Left than sounding a clarion call to battle against evil. Indeed, the refusal to use the word victory as a goal even once was troubling. But now that Obama “owns” this war, the facts on the ground may well leave him no choice but to ignore his deadline rather than face the humiliation of a collapse. Read article.
 
Wait And Hurry Up
IBD Editorials.com
 
The West Point setting gave goose bumps to the millions watching, but the president’s claims Tuesday night that he’s dispatching the cavalry just in the nick of time aren’t so. We’re waving goodbye.
 
When the president asserted in his long-awaited speech announcing a strategy for Afghanistan that he had set a goal of “disrupting, dismantling and defeating al-Qaida and its extremist allies,” he should have added “until July of 2011.”
 
When he promised that “we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum,” he again should have followed it with “until July of 2011.” Read article.
 
Obamacare May Take Decades
Don Surber, DailyMail.com
 
Not one year. Not two years. Not 10 years, but it will take our Ivy League-educated, morally superior betters decades to improve the health care system, White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters.
 
So why are we rushing it through?
 
Because, sweetie, this is not about saving money or saving lives.
 
This is about power.
 
They want to tell you what to eat, when to eat it and how much to eat.
Because it is all science.
 
You know. Like global warming.
 
Our Founding Fathers would have tossed these bureaucrats overboard with the tea. Read article.
 
New White House Counsel Was Defender of ACORN, Waged Legal Battle on Negative Ads
Fred Lucas, CNS News.com
 
The incoming White House counsel will carry a reputation for hardball tactics into his new job.
 
As President Barack Obama’s election attorney, Robert Bauer staunchly defended ACORN against political attacks, sought investigations of political opponents and pressed TV and radio stations to stop running ads critical of the Democratic nominee.
 
Bauer, also former counsel for the Democratic National Committee as well as other liberal interest groups, will become the new White House counsel by the end of the year. His announced entry to the White House counsel’s post came shortly after his wife resigned (on Nov. 10) as White House communications director.
 
Bauer’s wife, Anita Dunn, had been openly critical of the Fox News Channel, dismissing the network as the “communication arm of the Republican Party.” Her resignation came less than a month after video surfaced of a speech she gave at a May 2009 high school commencement, where she referred to the former communist dictator of China Mao Tse Tung as one of her favorite political philosophers.
 
Bauer is replacing White House counsel Greg Craig. The latter had also served in the White House counsel’s office during the Clinton administration, and is leaving the Obama administration reportedly because the White House was not pleased with his management of the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects. Read article.
 
Groupthink and the Global Warming Industry
Jonah Goldberg, Townhall.com
 
By now you might have heard something about the scandal rocking the climate change industry, though you can be forgiven if you haven’t, since it hasn’t gotten nearly the coverage it should. Computer hackers broke into the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and downloaded thousands of e-mails and other documents. The CRU is one of the world’s leading global warming data hubs, providing much of the number-crunching to global policymakers on climate change. And, boy, can they crunch numbers.
 
In a long string of embarrassing e-mail exchanges, CRU scientists discuss with friendly outside colleagues, including Penn State University’s Michael Mann, how to manipulate the data they want to show the world, and how to hide the often flawed data they don’t. In one exchange, they discuss the “trick” of how to “hide the decline” in global temperatures since the 1960s. Again and again, the researchers don’t object to just inconvenient truths but also inconvenient truth-tellers. They contemplate and orchestrate efforts to purge scientists and journals who won’t sing the same global warming hymnal. Read article.
 
The Legacy of Fraud
The Laurie Roth Show.com
 
Isn’t it precious? Even though thousands of scientists, facts and evidence have said loud and clear for years that Global warming is a hoax, our President and world climate gurus ignored the rather hot mountain of evidence betraying their calls for international taxation and cap and trade type treaties. They continued to believe and follow like orphaned lap dogs their heroes at the UN and Al Gore…..you know, the Internet inspiratioNow, the International tower of lies and deceit is falling into the very cool sea. 
 
Even Inhofe has asked Senator Boxer to probe the potential of a scientific conspiracy.   In the news this week was the shocking announcement that all the original data from the global warming scientist geniuses was destroyed or lost. All they had were summaries. Of course that is all our country needs is a ‘summary’ to be taxed to the point of total ruin. Why confuse everyone with something like the facts and truth?
 
So, how is the Obama legacy going so far? Let’s see, Cap and Trade and any global warming legislation is swirling down the drain in Willy Wonkas factory….except its not a lake of chocolate. It is smelly sewage. Australia’s Parliament defeats a global warming bill and the world is waking up quickly to this HUGE fraud against the people and freedom.
 
Let’s see, Cap and Trade and any global warming legislation is swirling down the drain in Willy Wonkas factory….except its not a lake of chocolate. It is smelly sewage. Australia’s Parliament defeats a global warming bill and the world is waking up quickly to this HUGE fraud against the people and freedom. Read article.
 
 
Categorized under: BOOKS.
Tagged with: no tags.

Comments are closed.