RUTHFULLY YOURS

Bill O’Reilly ‘Obama Is No Hypocrite’ Jessica Rubin

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/bill_oreilly_obama_is_no_hypocrite.html at January 07, 2012 – 05:14:30 AM CST

O’REILLY IS AN ARROGANT AND POMPOUS PINHEAD WITH AN OUTSIZE EGO AND PINSIZED TALENT….RSK

Last night, in his Talking Points segment, Bill O’Reilley proclaimed that “Obama is no hypocrite.” According to O’Reilley this is the case because “Obama does what he thinks is right.”

Does what he thinks is right? That makes Obama a straight shooter? How about doing one thing and saying another? How about doing the opposite of what you promise? Maybe O’Reilly buys into the progressive motto that hypocrisy for the sake of social justice is no vice.

Here area a few of Obama’s abject hypocrisies:

http://bigpeace.com/stzu/2012/01/06/state-dept-official-tells-arab-media-we-want-to-reach-out-to-the-islamist-parties/
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5977.htm

MEMRI reports that U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman published an op-ed in the English version of Al-Hayat last week, pledging the Obama administration’s commitment to reach out to Islamist political parties coming to power in the wake of the Arab Spring:

The U.S. recognizes that, in a region where public opinion matters more than ever before, we need to increase our efforts to reach out beyond the traditional government and business elites not only to articulate clearly our own goals but to listen to a wide spectrum of views. This includes reaching out to Islamist parties, who now play an important role in the political transformation of many countries in the region. We are less concerned what a political party or organization calls itself than what it does in practice, and we will reach out to those who act according to democratic principles, respect their fellow citizens’ rights, and do not use force or violence to impose their views.

The Obama administration’s new outreach Islamists is a reversal of decades of American policy. In part, the effort is a recognition of new political realities–yet it also reflects an effort that predates the Arab Spring, in which President Barack Obama cast himself as a mediator between the west and the Islamic world.
HERE IS MEMRI’S REPORT

http://israeltheviewfromhere.blogspot.com/2012/01/tale-of-palestinian-nonsense-by-barry.html
A Tale of Palestinian Nonsense by Barry Shaw.

Mahmoud Zahar, the ugly Hamas Spokesman, he’s the bearded idiot with a wart on the end of his nose, opened the new year of 2012 with the nonsense that Palestinians in Gaza are prevented from protesting peacefully because there are no Jews in Gaza to demonstrate against. That is why, he explained, they have no choice but to resort to violence. This is true. You couldn’t make this up. Not surprisingly, to those of us who follow the Palestinian narrative, this insanity is perceived as a logical and reasonable argument to Palestinians and their supporters. It appeals to Israel haters who can use this excuse to accuse Israel of human rights abuses inflicted on Palestinians for occupying Gaza from the outside, rather than the inside. Don’t even try to figure it out. You’ll only tie yourself up in A Gordian knot of maddening illogicality.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=252446
Into the Fray: It is time to have a clear-headed, hard look at reality: The two state solution is dead.
The maximum any Israeli government can offer is less than the minimum any Palestinian leader can accept. The real gap between both sides is much greater than perceived, and that gap is growing – Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, former head of the National Security Council, 2009

The land-for-peace idea has now collapsed. We have to find another way, and a new concept is urgently needed – Maj.-Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan, former head of the National Security Council, 2007

It is time to have a clear-headed, hard look at reality: The two state solution is dead. Where do we go from here? – Prof. Carlo Strenger, columnist for Haaretz, 2011

It doesn’t get much clearer than that. Even if one strongly disagrees with his ideological predilections, Jerusalem Post columnist Gershon Baskin was nonetheless correct in assessing the magnitude and urgency of the emerging danger when he recently stated, “We have a very short period of time remaining before we come to the conclusion that there is no longer any resolution to this conflict that enables us to have a Jewish nationstate in the Land of Israel. If this happens, it will be the end of the Zionist dream that so many have worked so hard for so long to create and sustain.”

Approaching crossroads

The Jewish people is rapidly approaching a crucial juncture. It will soon have to decide whether or not it is willing to maintain its nation-state; whether it is willing to forgo over a century of unparalleled sacrifice, effort and achievement to satisfy the cynical and hypocritical dictates of political correctness; whether it is prepared to surrender substance for form; to forsake real national freedoms for the artificial facade of feigned individual equality.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/30/lying-with-numbers-green-energy-edition/

Lying With Numbers: Green Energy Edition

A nice little report out telling us that going green isn’t in fact going to cost us anything. Which is indeed nice as just about everyone else would just love to clean up the planet, reduce pollution and not boil Gaia but we have this sneaking suspicion that the costs of doing so are going to be greater than the benefits. So to hear that it won’t cost anything is just glorious: miraculous in fact.

And of course we can and do trust all of the numbers that are given to us by a government department. Would be terribly cynical not to, undemocratic even:

Every person in Britain will need to pay about £5,000 a year between now and 2050 on rebuilding and using the nation’s entire energy system, according to government figures. But the cost of developing clean and sustainable electricity, heating and transport will be very similar to replacing today’s ageing and polluting power stations, the analysis finds.

The forecasts come from a unique open-source analysis package, called the 2050 pathways calculator, which was created by Professor David MacKay, chief scientific adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100127634/ha-ha-warmist-losers-for-you-the-war-is-over/

One of my resolutions this year is to write as little as possible about global warming. Not only will it make my wife much happier but it will also free me up to talk about more important things such as monetary collapse, hyperinflation and the imminent end of Western civilisation. Oh and also there’s hardly much need for my input on climate change any more. That’s because, basically, my side has won.

Here’s how The Financial Times recently put it:

To the relief of many of the country’s biggest manufacturers and industries, there has been a distinct shift in the government’s tone on green issues. Even Steve Hilton, Mr Cameron’s chief policy adviser, and the man credited with coining the phrase “vote blue, go green”, appears to have had some serious second thoughts. “There is a clear disintegration of the green consensus,” says Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a critic of many climate policies. “We’re still at the stage of rhetoric rather than really strong rollback of policies, but it normally starts with the rhetoric before you start with policies.”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100126734/barack-obama-the-most-arrogant-us-president-in-decades/

December Barack Obama vainly declared himself the fourth best president in American history, up there with the likes of Abraham Lincoln and FDR, just three years into his first term. In an interview with 60 Minutes on CBS he observed:

The issue here is not gonna be a list of accomplishments. As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president – with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln – just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history. But, you know, but when it comes to the economy, we’ve got a lot more work to do. And we’re gonna keep on at it.

Perhaps this display of self-importance is not surprising, coming from a president who enthusiastically accepted the Nobel Peace Prize after just a few months in the job, and even campaigned thousands of miles across the Atlantic in Berlin while running for office. This is a leader who thinks nothing of taking a $4 million, taxpayer-subsidised vacation in Hawaii – nearly 100 times the average annual salary of an American worker, which currently stands at $41,673.

http://nsroundtable.org/as-we-see-it/top-threat-of-2012/

The one thing we wholeheartedly agree with here (see below) is the following statement by former CIA Director Michael Hayden:

“This [Iranian] government and its decision-making processes are incredibly opaque. And here we are, as a government trying to get them to change their mind, change their mind in a process that it is very difficult for us to identify where are the leverage points.”

Our ability or inability to understand the Iranian mindset, or for that matter the mindset of the Islamic world, will be the key factor in determining who emerges victorious from this clash of civilizations we’re engaged in today.

Yet we are so resistant to the idea that other cultures think differently or value different things. It never occurs to us, for example, that Islamic culture values death over life, or that a Muslim mother would be proud of a son who blows himself and innocent civilians to smithereens. In fact, to us, statements like these are judgmental or intolerant.

Well, news flash, people, not everyone thinks as we do. In that part of the world, hesitation (or lack of resolve) is perceived as weakness, and nothing invites more aggression than weakness.

At a news conference yesterday, our President announced the gutting of our military, while our Joint Chiefs of Staff stood behind him like bobbleheads acquiescing to every ignorant word he uttered.

A spectacle some of us will never forget, and in stark contrast to the brave men and women who’ve fought valiantly and given their lives to defending this country. So that intellectually-bankrupt folks like Mr. Obama could stand behind a podium and gut our defenses with nary a cut to out-of-control spending in Washington DC for pet projects, while the Joint Chiefs of Staff look on silently?

History has shown that deep defense cuts made after wars, when the country is war-weary, create a perception of weakness and lead to MORE wars. We’re facing today the people who invented the game of chess.That’s the game they’re playing, as we engage in hopey-dopey-changey talk and focus ad nauseum on things like the Iowa caucuses.

Much of the blame here is on us, i.e., the folks who elect such “leaders” or tolerate such nonsense, out of ignorance/apathy or because we have more important things to follow like American Idol or “reality” shows like the Jersey Shore.

Well, here’s a dose of reality, folks: Western civilization is standing on the precipice of its demise, and chances are history will wonder what we all were doing then…

For more information and to schedule an interview, contact
Travis Korson tkorson@securefreedom.org (202)-719-2421 or
David Reaboi dreaboi@securefreedom.org (202) 431-1948

Center for Security Policy Calls for a Return to ‘Peace through Strength,’ Rejection of Obama’s Defeatist ‘Strategy’

Washington, DC January 6, 2012: The Center for Security Policy calls on the American people and their elected representatives – and those who seek to represent them – categorically to reject the plan for unilateral U.S. disarmament espoused yesterday by President Obama.

Mr. Obama’s so-called “revised defense strategy” is a formula for disaster. If even the defense reductions, downsizing and disengagement that it envisions come to pass – let alone those in prospect if the cuts associated with the pending sequestration legislation are imposed – the United States will not simply expose its people, allies and vital interests to attack. It will invite such an attack.

While the details of the Obama unilateral disarmament program remain to be fully fleshed out, the broad outlines are bad enough:

* Our military will be cut sharply in size.

* It will be denied vital modernization programs – the absence of which ensures the remaining force will be ill-equipped to contend with present dangers, let alone those in the offing.

* The retrofitting of existing equipment, much of it badly degraded in the course of a decade of war, will be stretched out or abandoned altogether. This will exacerbate the risks associated with the Obama failure to modernize the armed forces’ kit.

* The United States will no longer be present in the places and/or numbers necessary to safeguard our interests around the world.
Coming as such disengagement does – at the very moment that dangers to those interests in regions from the Middle East to North Africa to Central, South and East Asia to the Western hemisphere, the administration must be held accountable for creating (whether intentionally or simply as a practical matter) dangerous vacuums of power. These predictably will be filled as such “peace dividend”-induced vacuums have in the past: at our expense and to our detriment.

* The administration risks breaking faith with the men and women in uniform by reneging on commitments made in the way of health care, pensions and other benefits. When combined with other assaults on the culture of the military, pursued in furtherance of the administration’s domestic political agenda (and without regard for the impact on readiness, recruitment or retention), these changes may make a continued reliance on an all-volunteer force unsustainable.

* The nation’s nuclear forces will be allowed to atrophy further through: a failure to modernize, test and properly maintain them and further cuts in their numbers – including in all likelihood the elimination of an entire “leg” of the Strategic Triad. The result will be not the President’s stated goal, namely of “ridding the world of nuclear weapons.” Rather, it will simply be to rid the United States of its deterrent forces at a time when they are likely to be more needed than ever.

* This potentially disastrous aspect of the Obama program for unilateral disarmament is being compounded by the President’s continuing hostility towards missile defenses that might mitigate, at least somewhat, the danger posed by ballistic missiles now proliferating among states and even terrorist groups like Hezbollah that are virulently hostile to this country and our friends. Worse yet, the administration is reportedly determined to flout a statute governing the sharing of missile defense-related information and technology with the Russians. In the process, Team Obama will almost surely compromise what little there is of our capabilities to provide defenses against missiles delivering electro-magnetic and other weapons of mass destruction.

Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., who formerly acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan – who, as president, was an exemplary practitioner of the philosophy he called “peace through strength” – said:

“Here we go again. Having basically written off the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr. Obama is falling prey to a temptation several of his predecessors found irresistible: Cut defense expenditures. Shrink the military. And hope the rest of the world will neither notice nor take advantage of our weakness.

“We shouldn’t kid ourselves. We can walk away from conflicts, but that doesn’t mean they are over. We can hollow out our military but that doesn’t mean that others won’t see it as an invitation to pursue their interests — at our expense.

“In the past, our so-called “peace dividends” have proven illusory. And we paid not just in national treasure but lives. We literally can’t afford to do that again.”

Mr. Gaffney also responded to the proposed military cuts in his nationally syndicated Secure Freedom Minute. The audio is located here.

This document can be found online at: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18904.xml

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org.

The Center for Security Policy sponsors the Coalition for the Common Defense, an alliance of like-minded individuals and organizations who believe that without provision for the “common defense,” as articulated by the Founders, the freedom that has allowed unprecedented opportunity and prosperity to flourish in this country would soon be imperiled. In this new age of budgetary cuts, the Coalition rejects the false choice between military strength and economic health contending that economic prosperity depends on a strong national defense. Through a series of events and strategic partnerships, the coalition is calling on elected officials, candidates for office and others who share our commitment to the common defense to uphold these principles. We must return the United States to sensible fiscal principles without sacrificing our national security.

A full statement of principles can be located here. The Coalition of the Common Defense can be found online at www.forthecommondefense.org.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48605 JASON MATERA

In a scathing letter sent to Barack Obama this morning, Senator Marco Rubio said that under the President’s first term in office, “more and more people have come to believe that America is becoming a deadbeat nation.”

Rubio went on to pledge that he would challenge any further increase in the debt ceiling, arguing that “we [Congress] need to make it routine to actually spend no more than we take in.” In the letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, the Florida Senator said that President Obama’s upcoming request to increase the debt ceiling by a whopping $1.2 trillion will cause the nation’s public debt to surpass the $16 trillion mark.

“I will oppose your request to continue borrowing and spending recklessly.”

President Obama is expected to request the new borrowing power from Congress once the Senate and House return from their holiday recess.

The president must notify Congress when the debt closes within $100 billion of the ceiling, according to the Budget Control Act passed in August. This triggers for Congress their only available option to block an increase, in this case $1.2 trillion, by passing legislation. However, even if the House and Senate do that, the president can still veto their objections. In short, there is very little Republicans can do in a Democratic-controlled Senate to block an increase.

If President Obama led the charge to reduce the country’s unsustainable debt in mid 2011 rather than punt the enterprise to a “Super Committee,” asserted Rubio, we’d already be on a pathway toward economic growth and prosperity. “Unfortunately, the first three years of your presidency have been a profile in leadership failure.”

The letter concludes: “America deserves leaders who will stand front and center, level with the American people about our challenges and offer real solutions to solve them. Instead of simply asking for another debt ceiling increase, I urge you to come forward with a real plan to tackle our debt in 2012.”

This is the latest salvo in the debt ceiling debate in Washington.