The Patriot Post

Michael Barone

"Liberal commentators were shocked this past week when in three days of oral argument in the lawsuits challenging Obamacare, five Supreme Court justices -- a majority -- asked questions strongly suggesting they think the legislation is unconstitutional. ... [T]he justices are not the only federal officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution. So do the president and vice president, Cabinet members and other appointees, and every member of Congress. ... That means that every federal official has an obligation to act in line with the Constitution as he or she understands it. And that doesn't necessarily mean obeying Supreme Court decisions. ... Clearly the two parties are divided on the constitutionality of the Obamacare mandate. Polls have shown large majorities of voters think the provision is unconstitutional, though one can wonder whether many have given the matter much thought. But they're certainly giving it more thought after this week and will likely give it more when the decision comes down. Voters can reasonably ask candidates for Congress their views on this and other constitutional issues and call on them to vote against measures they consider beyond Congress' constitutional powers."

Read this story at patriotpost.us ...

Townhall 

David Limbaugh

You can't even casually surf the Internet on any given day without numerous reminders of just how radical [Alleged] President Obama is -- and this is during an election year, when it should be in his political interest to mask his radicalism. 

Minding my own business, I happened on an article by Jacob Laksin on FrontPageMag.com, titled "Obama's Pick for World Bank Hates Capitalism." I'd heard a bit about this before but hadn't yet studied it. I'm so used to Obama's extremism that such revelations hardly move me, much less surprise me. I know where he stands; I just wish everyone else did. 

Obama has nominated Dartmouth College President Jim Yong Kim to head the World Bank. In 2000, Kim edited a collection of studies under the title "Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor." 

The "book's radical central premise," writes Laksin, is that "capitalism and economic growth (are) bad for the poor across the world." Kim co-wrote the introduction, which includes the claim that the book shows "that the quest for growth in GDP and corporate profits has in fact worsened the lives of millions of women and men." It says that even in those instances in which free trade and free markets have led to economic growth, they've done so without benefiting "those living in 'dire poverty,' one-fourth of the world's population." Can't you just hear Obama himself in those words? 

One thing that helps the plight of the very poor, according to one chapter, is a socialized health care system, such as the one in Communist Cuba. The chapter's author touts that system because of the Cuban government's "commitment not only to health in the narrow sense but to social equality and social justice." As we opponents of Obamacare have said repeatedly, Obamacare is hardly just about making health care more affordable or more accessible, neither of which it will do in the end, but is a stealth vehicle to greatly expand governmental control over limitless aspects of our lives to enable the leftist central planners to effectuate "social equality and social justice" under the innocuous guise of providing health care. 

As with so many of its ideas, the left is wrong about the record of free markets on the poor, notes Laksin, who points to "overwhelming evidence" that economic growth raises income levels and reduces global poverty. But again, leftist ideologues aren't motivated by a desire to improve the lot of the downtrodden, domestically or globally, but by a burning passion for statism. 

This book is right out of Obama's playbook. Can you not see the common thread running through these alleged glories of the Cuban system and Obama's approach to health care and his war on oil, coal and gas, along with his corresponding commitment to green energy and his various stimulus bills, all of which increase our national deficits, debt and unemployment but greatly increase governmental control? 

Obama's nomination of Kim should be no surprise to anyone, considering his consistent record of radical associations and appointments, from Van Jones to transnationalist Harold Koh. For Obama, one's radicalism is not a deterrent to one's resume, but an enhancement. His appointment of Van Jones was not a mistake owing to the administration's failure to vet him as Obama's defenders later claimed once Jones' radicalism was exposed. Obama appointed Jones precisely because his administration was intimately familiar with Jones' views; indeed, the White House carved out a new position -- green energy czar -- specifically tailored for his worldview and then happily placed him in it. 

Tearing myself away from this uplifting article, I next encountered one detailing Obama's ongoing fulfillment of his promise to bankrupt the coal industry -- with his Environmental Protection Agency's issuance of new proposed rules on carbon emissions, which will please the goddess Gaia but won't do much for the production of energy, economic growth, jobs or the poor, for that matter. This was after watching a report on Fox News earlier that morning highlighting Obama's obstruction of oil shale production based on other dubious environmental doom-saying. 

Next, I saw John Fund's piece on National Review Online outlining Obama's background in the sordid community organizing tactics of famed leftist radical Saul Alinsky and Obama's close ties with the now fallen ACORN. According to New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor -- in her new book on Obama -- Obama still thought of himself as a community organizer when he was senator. He still does today, and, Fund warns, conservatives should be prepared for his Alinsky tactics in the 2012 campaign. 

Maybe this all wouldn't be so exasperating if Obama didn't hold himself out as a uniter, but he is the furthest thing from it, as he, if anything, is doubling down on his polarizing radicalism and his unswerving commitment to a statist agenda for America.

WorldNetDaily.com

Alan Keyes

This saps credibility from the notion that there is any starkly fateful difference between GOP Republicans and Obama-faction Democrats. They are opposite wings of the same elitist faction, flapping in unison as socialism takes flight. … (“Is Republican infighting a bad thing?”)

As I anticipated, “the elitist machinations of the sham party system are predictably moving America toward another false choice between an avowed socialist Democrat and a prevaricating socialist Republican.” Marco Rubio’s endorsement of Mitt Romney kicks off an orchestrated wavelet of “influential” endorsements, signaling an end to the sham competition that culminated in a not very credible “dramatic face-off” between Romney and one of his 2008 cheerleaders, Rick Santorum. After a brief flash of truthfulness in which Santorum admitted that the “choice” between Romney and Obama is a falsehood liable to be fatal to American liberty, the former U.S. senator has dutifully retracted it. Not only will he break out his briefly discarded Romney-for-President pompoms on cue, he manfully allows as how it would be his patriotic duty to consider serving as Romney’s VP if asked to do so.

Read this article at wnd.com ...

Provided courtesy of Tom Hoefling's 'Say NO to Socialism!'

CNS News

Terence P. Jeffrey

During oral arguments in the Supreme Court this week, Justice Stephen Breyer posed and answered the core question at issue in the controversy over the constitutionality of Obamacare’s mandate that individual Americans must buy government-approved health insurance policies: Can Congress order individuals to buy a good or service?

“Yes, of course they could,” said Breyer.

In the history of the nation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government has never done this.

But Breyer, on Tuesday, stated his belief that the basic power of Congress to do such a thing was settled by the Supreme Court as early as 1819, in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, in which the court decided Congress had the power to create a Bank of the United States.

Breyer explained his point of view after becoming impatient with the convoluted answers Solicitor General Donald Verrilli had offered up in response to questions from Justices Sam Alito and Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Alito had asked Verrilli if Congress could force young people to buy burial insurance because everyone is going to die someday. Roberts asked Verrilli if Congress could force people to buy cell phones because it would facilitate contacting emergency services in the event of an accident. And Kennedy asked Verrilli: “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it.”

“I'm somewhat uncertain about your answers to, for example, Justice Kennedy,” said Breyer. He “asked, can you, under the Commerce Clause, Congress create commerce where previously none existed.

“Well, yes,” said Breyer, “I thought the answer to that was, since McCulloch versus Maryland, when the Court said Congress could create the Bank of the United States which did not previously exist, which job was to create commerce that did not previously exist, since that time the answer has been, yes.

-----When Breyer was confirmed to the Supreme Court, only 9 Republicans in the Senate voted against him.

Read this story at cnsnews.com ...

Provided courtesy of the Peace Through Strength Institute

The Washington Examiner

This week, Americans were given a window into the way world leaders speak to one another in private. A conversation between [Alleged] President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was caught on a microphone that neither man realized was live.

"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved," Obama said. "But it's important for [incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin] to give me space ... This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."

"I understand," Medvedev responded. "I will transmit this information to Vladimir." The exchange comes two-and-a-half years after Obama scrapped Bush-era missile defense plans in Eastern Europe, bowing to pressure from the Russians.

This unfortunate hot-mic exchange will have security implications, and it will surely sour our relations with allies in that part of the world. But as much as America's allies might be angered by Obama's words, Americans should be even more so. Their president -- the man charged with conducting America's foreign policy and overseeing its defense -- told another world leader that he is willing to make concessions on an important issue once he has finally and permanently escaped accountability to them. At that point, Obama said, he will have "more flexibility," presumably to do something they might disapprove of in an election year or view as not in the nation's best interests.

Set aside the important question of missile defense -- Obama was a skeptic on that long before he ran for president. This magic microphone moment calls into question Obama's concept of government service. If he is acting in Americans' interests, why must he hide his intentions until his second term? The incident also suggests a rather dim view of American citizens -- as rabble unable to grasp the pros and cons of issues like missile defense.

Read this story at washingtonexaminer.com ...

Provided courtesy of SayNOtoSocialism!

Sultan Knish 

Daniel Greenfield

The only real lesson of the ObamaCare defense is that if you define the macro broadly enough, you are entitled to completely control every aspect of the micro. Everyone can be compelled to buy health insurance because health care is no longer a service bought from a doctor, it is a national market which everyone by definition participates in. The market is then divided between good consumers who buy health insurance and the parasites who don't. Alternative possibilities such as people who pay as you go, choose alternative health care or reject medicine entirely for religious or political reasons don't figure into a macro equation which sees people in the macro, not as individuals.

Defenders of the Mandate insist that you couldn't similarly force people to buy Broccoli or a Chevy Volt but why not? You might not be able to individually force people to buy a specific product, but once you define a transportation market or an edibles market, you can force people to participate in that market on the terms set by the government and its allied businesses.

So there wouldn't be a mandate to buy a Chevy Volt. That would be a crude abuse of power. Instead we can define a transportation market in which everyone is presumed to participate in. Since everyone at some point in their lives has to buy a car, ride in a car or take a bus or a plane somewhere, we can include everyone as a participant in the business of going places. And once everyone has been included in the transportation market, a mandate can then define the terms on which they can participate in that market.

Buy a Chevy Volt? No. Buy an electric car or alternative means of transportation which meets a target carbon footprint, or participate in a collective ride sharing system that meets the same requirements. Absolutely yes. And if rather few non-Volt vehicles meet those requirements, that's just incentive for more companies to make their own Volts. Or for you to buy a Volt.

Compel you to eat broccoli? That's easy as pie. Everyone already buys food which makes them participants in an edibles market. Since their consumption also affects their health care which now directly interacts with the government, the only way to provide them with affordable health care is to control their diet.

Here's one easy way to do it. Compel health insurance companies not to sell plans to anyone who does not commit to follow nutritional guidelines. Then fine them for not having health insurance. Allow them to buy health insurance again only after they agree to regular sessions with a nutritional counselor.

But the broccoli mandate is easy enough too. Since everyone buys food, everyone is a participant in the edibles market. To provide good affordable and nutritious food, which is now a right, to all Americans, and safeguard affordable healthcare, everyone is now mandated to participate in the Federal Annual Nutritional Purchase Program which would offer discounted produce, with a subsidy for farmers, on an installment plan that everyone would be compelled to pay into.

To deflect public criticism, the FANPP would be mandatory only for families with children under thirteen. There would be a variety of alternatives, but at the end of the day you would be compelled to buy broccoli and arugula and anything else that the brilliant busybodies decide is good for you.

Could anyone actually compel you to actually eat it? There's no need to go too 1984, but it's worth bearing in mind that there are sensors that monitor whether a homeowner has taken out their recycling the appropriate number of times, complete with fines for those who haven't, or for those whose labors haven't registered on the sensor. Within a decade it will be child's play to track every item of food in the supermarket and your refrigerator and your trash with edible RFID tags, plug all that into a database and then crunch the numbers and see if you really are eating your vegetables.

There is no limit to the controlling antics of the nanny state under the leadership of men and women who are certain that they know best and that only by taking complete control of everyone's lives will their pet projects for making the world a better place work out. It won't work of course, but that just means they will try harder.

The real message of the Mandate is that socialism interfaces closely with crony capitalism and that government solutions depend on forcibly enlisting everyone into their ranks because otherwise the program isn't even workable enough to get started.

The failures of ObamaCare will necessitate a constant campaign of scapegoating, blaming companies and ordinary Americans for not doing what needs to be done for everything to run smoothly. And that scapegoating will necessitate new solutions, new programs and new regimes. Companies will be nationalized, patients will be regimented and like the NHS, the coverage will veer from treating it as the only thing keeping us from dying in the gutter to warning that it is constantly on the edge of the abyss. There will be constant talk of reforms, whispers of privatization, and the misery will go on.

That is what the Mandate really means, the power to impose a total system on everyone. As the system becomes more dysfunctional, it will lose its vestige of private care and become a total government monopoly for its own good and ours. But of course it doesn't end there. It never does.

Read this story at sultanknish.blogspot.com ...

Provided courtesy of the Peace Through Strength Institute

The Foundry

Michaela Bendikova

After [Alleged] President Obama released his fiscal year 2013 budget, it became clear that the Administration reneged on its promise to fully fund the needs of the U.S. nuclear complex to the Senate pursuant to its advice and consent to the New Strategic Arms Control Treaty (New START). Thankfully, though, some in Congress are well aware of the value that U.S. nuclear weapons provide as the nation’s ultimate insurance policy.

Representative Mike Turner (R–OH), chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, recently introduced the Maintaining the President’s Commitment to our Nuclear Deterrent and National Security Act of 2012 (H.R. 4178). The bill addresses some of the key issues related to the funding for the nuclear weapons complex and links reductions of U.S. nuclear arsenal to proper appropriations for the nuclear weapons complex.

The Administration is reportedly moving to reduce the arsenal of operationally deployed nuclear warheads to as few as 300. Not only would these reductions be expensive—and funded from the already overstretched Department of Defense’s budget—but they are not based on a sound assessment of the international environment. The Administration is operating on the premise that if the U.S. reduces its nuclear arsenal, other countries will follow its lead. This is not going to happen, because countries have their own reasons why they acquire nuclear weapons that are not primarily derived from the number of U.S. weapons.

Turner’s bill would prevent these unilateral reductions by means of “a limitation that nuclear force reductions should be implemented in such a way as to assure Russia does not deploy nuclear force levels superior to those of the United States.”

Read this story at blog.heritage.org ...

In addition to the 15 Catholic bishops scheduled to speak at Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom locations, countless other influential speakers from all walks of life will also be addressing rallies throughout the country this Friday, March 23.

The speakers at the more than 130 Rally sites represent a wide array of backgrounds and professions, including members of Congress, physicians, college presidents, pastors, radio hosts, law professors, heads of organizations, publishers, religious sisters, pregnancy resource directors, and rabbis.

The New York City Rally will feature several big names, including Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and pastoral associate of Priests for Life; Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Msgr. Philip Reilly, and Mother Mary Agnes Donovan, Superior General of the Sisters of Life.

Continue reading ...

CNSNews.com

By Terence P. Jeffrey

All student health care plans covering female college students in the United States must include coverage for free voluntary sterilization surgery, the Department of Health and Human Services announced late Friday afternoon. Women of college age who do not attend school will also get free sterilization coverage whether they are insured through an employer, their parents, or some form of government-subsidized plan.

Read this story at cnsnews.com ...

Examiner 

Jim Kouri

The chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said on Friday that he's still waiting for Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to respond to a disturbing accusation that she and her underlings at DHS released deceptive and inaccurate information about illegal aliens sneaking across borders into the United States.  

Chairman Darrell Issa sent Napolitano a letter on March 1 saying it is investigating agency insiders’ tips that her department and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection “released false and misleading border crossing data.”  
  
“Without an accurate measurement of how many illegal entrants become ‘got-aways,’ there is no way to assess the safety and security of the southwest border,” said the Napolitano letter. 

“Got-aways” are border crossers who are not arrested or turned back when they enter the United States illegally, according to Issa. 
  
The National Border Patrol Council also says the report is misleading and that the increase in drug seizures actually means the Mexican cartels are more active and smuggling more drugs into the U.S. 
  
Apprehensions along U.S. borders were down more than 50 percent -- to about 350,000 -- since  2008. More than 87,000 of those apprehended had criminal histories. The decrease is due to a more secure border, which results in less people attempting to cross into the U.S. illegally, the Napolitano report said. 
  
However, the NBPC claims the figures used by Napolitano and her staff are deceptive and can be attributed to more and more illegal aliens being successful at evading border agents. Also, there's a movement within the Customs and Border Protection directorate to create a "kinder, gentler" border patrol force.

"During mandatory Cultural and Environmental Awareness training that all Border Patrol agents must take, we learn that illegal aliens are now referred to as "cross-border violators". We further learn that we should carry lots of garbage bags and assist the "cross-border violators" in hauling out their trash and disposing of it properly," officials stated on the NBPC blog.

Union officials point to further evidence that Border Patrol field operations have been hijacked by politically correct bureaucrats and politicians in Washington, DC.

Read this story at examiner.com ...

U.S. Clarifies Policy on Birth Control for Religious Groups

New York Times 

ROBERT PEAR 

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration took another step on Friday to enforce a federal mandate for health insurance coverage of contraceptives, announcing how the new requirement would apply to the many Roman Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies that insure themselves. 

In such cases, the administration said, female employees and students will still have access to free coverage of contraceptives. 

The coverage will be provided by the companies that review and pay claims — “third-party administrators” — or by “some other independent entity,” it said. 

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said the government would guarantee women access to contraceptives “while accommodating religious liberty interests.” 

The new proposal escalates the election-year fight over the administration’s birth control policy. 

President Obama had previously announced what he described as an “accommodation” for religiously affiliated organizations that buy commercial insurance but object, for religious reasons, to covering contraceptives and sterilization procedures. In these cases, the White House said, the insurer “will be required to provide contraception coverage to women free of charge.” 

On Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services went a step further and said it would propose a similar requirement for group health plans sponsored by religious organizations that insure themselves. 

The new proposal did not mollify Republicans in Congress. 

“It’s a Washington accounting gimmick,” Representative Jeff Fortenberry, Republican of Nebraska, said Friday in an interview. “The administration is twisting itself in all directions to expand the ‘accommodation’ for faith-based institutions. Why is it the government’s role to decide who gets an accommodation? The White House is creating an unnecessary political firestorm.” 

Mr. Fortenberry has introduced a bill to let certain employers and insurers opt out of the mandate for contraceptive coverage. More than 220 House members have signed on as co-sponsors.

Read this story at nytimes.com ...

Provided courtesy of Say NO to Socialism!

Newsmax

By Richard Wagner and Martin Gould

The gross costs of the national healthcare law rammed through Congress by [Alleged] President Barack Obama will reach an estimated $1.76 trillion over 10 years – nearly twice the amount originally projected.

The figure, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) revealed on Wednesday, is bound to cause embarrassment to the administration as it comes just as debate on “Obamacare” is starting to heat up again, two weeks before the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on whether the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.

Immediately the revelation stirred controversy among opponents of the bill.

“Both fiscally and for the sake of our health care system, Americans cannot afford the president’s healthcare law,” said Georgia Rep. Tom Price, chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

“The longer the president’s healthcare law remains on the books, the greater the threat it poses to our nation’s healthcare and our fiscal well-being,” said Price, an orthopedic surgeon.

“The CBO’s revised cost estimate indicates that this massive government intrusion into America’s health care system will be far more costly than was originally claimed. The law’s true cost to American taxpayers is part of a series of promises [Alleged] President Obama and Democrats in Congress made that will be broken,: he said.

Healthcare expert Betsy McCaughey, the former lieutenant governor of New York State, told Newsmax that the original cost projections of the plan were “a shell game” and that the new report “inches closer to the truth” about the cost of the reforms.

Read this story at newsmax.com ...

The Weekly Standard

Taken at a gas station within walking distance of the White House:

Provided courtesy of the Peace Through Strength Institute

FrontPageMag.com

Daniel Greenfield

Wars begin in a thousand ways. Some begin with lies, others with truth. Some with aggression and others with appeasement. But behind those many beginnings are some familiar qualities. Arrogance, incompetence, ignorance and cowardice.

Those qualities should be familiar because we can hardly go a day without seeing them displayed behind the teleprompter in its familiar place in Washington D.C. or on the endless road trip to the Muslim world that is the Obama Doctrine. We have seen them in Istanbul and Cairo, and we can see their consequences in Tehran and Tunis. In a world where America has kept the peace, they are swiftly leading us to war.

Bombs Away in North Korea

The words “North Korea” and “diplomacy” are a running joke even in diplomatic circles, and seeing a headline like “Clinton hails North Korea food deal” doesn’t give you enough information to determine whether you are seeing a news story from 2011 or 1994. Sadly, the answer is 2011, as the Hope and Change crew have put their faith in their own diplomacy, rather than in history or common sense.

North Korea is more than just a Communist mafia with nuclear weapons; it’s the starting point in the supply chain for any Muslim country that wants its own nuclear weapons. Its ability to blackmail the West encourages nations like Iran to push for their own nuclear programs to be able to have their own atomic blackmail card… and brings us closer to the day when a bankrupt North Korea decides that America really is a paper tiger and our soldiers find themselves fighting a second Korean War.

A Cold Day in Hell in Iran

If the world were a playground, Iran would be the school bully who has been beating us up since 1979. The United States has occasionally fought back; mostly it has tried to be the bigger man in the conflict. All that changed with this administration which has signaled loud and clear that it will not fight back no matter what.

It takes a lot to get a compliment out the Iranian leadership, which views America as the Great Satan, but Obama’s “diplomacy” did the trick when the Supreme Leader of Iran said, “Two days ago, we heard the president of America say: ‘We are not thinking of war with Iran.’ This is good. Very good. These are wise words. This is an exit from illusion.”

There are diplomats in D.C. patting themselves on the back for that achievement when they should be hanging themselves instead. These aren’t words of peace, this is the leader of a theocracy that has been at war with the United States from Day One, gloating that the Great Satan has finally accepted that it can’t defeat the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution.

The United States has been the last remaining restraint on Iran after the fall of Saddam. Now that restraint is gone and the Ayatollahs are off the leash and all that more eager for a fight now that they’re sure we can’t fight back.

In The Caliphate’s Corner

There’s a reason that Chamberlain merited eternal infamy for his pandering to Hitler, but even he didn’t actually invade Czechoslovakia to hand it over to the Nazis. Carter’s support for the Ayatollahs created a major threat but even he didn’t turn over half the Middle East to them. Obama has managed to combine the worst of both men and then some by backing a series of revolutions that have put the Muslim Brotherhood in the driver’s seat.

The Al-Nahda Party in Tunisia, which has taken power, has been quite clear that it is the new caliphate. In Egypt, the Caliphate has proven popular with Egyptian voters who came out in droves for the Salafis and the Brotherhood. And that’s just the beginning. Libya and its oil wealth are still up for grabs and the reforms and new elections in the wake of the Arab Spring will go on swinging Arab countries into the hairy arms of the Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood is not going to be any better at running those countries than their former governments were. Even Saudi money can only buy so much free food for the masses. But there’s a time honored way to distract the people from how little they have to eat—with a war.

The first target of a Caliphate that wants to dominate the region will be us. They already have our weapons and our money. When their popularity dips, they’re going to thank Obama for putting them in power in the traditional manner… with a war.

Facing the Dragon with an Empty Hand

The last time that we got into a war with a major Pacific power it was because Japan thought we were stunting its regional ambitions. This time around swap China for Japan and we are likely to be facing the same war all over again. Except China is in a better position than Japan was and Obama’s drastic cuts to the military, particularly to the navy and air force, put us in a much weaker position to play defense.

Last year Obama showily insisted that the United States is a “Pacific Power”, even while he was stripping away our ability to be one. It’s one thing to provoke the dragon, but another to do it when you don’t have the weapons to fight him.

Obama has insisted on baiting China while weakening the United States. It’s a bad combination that can only lead to disaster.

All Quiet on the Denial Front

As a “Man of Peace”, Obama has maintained his image by selectively altering reality. Wars are no longer called wars. Terrorist attacks are no longer described as terrorist attacks. But there’s a reason why we describe certain things as “Acts of War”, it’s because the enemy is meant to know that doing them to us will result in a war. That’s no longer the case.

Before WW2 came the “Phoney War”. We’re stuck in several of those right now. But denial isn’t just a river in Egypt; it’s a way to let the enemy hit us as many times as he wants while we pretend that nothing is going on. But that doesn’t keep war at bay; it just keeps us from fighting back while encouraging greater acts of war and terror. Refusing to acknowledge aggression is the surest way of inviting war. Just ask Neville.

The Hungry Bear

Russia hasn’t gone away just because Hollywood stopped featuring it as the villain in action movies and neither have its territorial ambitions. The reset button hasn’t reset anything except the brains in D.C. and the Obama Administration’s abandonment of a missile shield based out of Eastern Europe amounted to an abandonment of Eastern Europe in the eyes of Moscow. The bear is still hungry and it won’t wait forever to take back what belongs to it. When that day comes we will either have to back NATO or abandon it in the face of a war that could have been avoided with fewer reset buttons and more reality buttons.

The War at Home

It may have escaped the attention of the White House, but these days we’re fighting fewer terrorists from abroad and more terrorists who were either born in the USA or have their citizenship. The policy of the Obama Administration is not to describe terrorists like Major Nidal Hasan as such, but it doesn’t change the fact that we are moving from a war against Jihadists from abroad to the development of domestic terrorist cells by native born Muslims. That’s no longer just a war, it’s a civil war and the policy of denial makes it impossible to address. If the cells continue proliferating, then we won’t need to go to Afghanistan to find the enemy, we’ll be able to find them right here on the home front.

Giving the Green Light for Domestic Repression

The Obama Administration’s fixation on soft power would be ridiculous if it weren’t so destructive. The twilight of the Bush Administration saw the United States in a stalemate with Russia and Iran over their aggressive moves in Georgia and Iraq, and the sunrise of the Hope and Change era saw futile attempts at a reset button push with Russia and diplomatic outreach to nowhere with Iran. These efforts did not lead to peace or improved relations; they did however give those respective regimes the confidence to steal elections while ramping up their domestic repression.

A fundamental mistake of appeasers is to assume that they are contending with tyrannies only in the sphere of foreign relations. Tyrannies are first and foremost concerned with maintaining internal order and try to avoid a combination of internal and external conflicts. When soft power eases the pressure on them externally, it gives them the breathing room they need to suppress domestic dissent and once that’s done they have the freedom to engage in external conflicts.

The Syrian Solution

It’s a sad day when Hillary Clinton is the voice of reason, but in an administration that imagines Syria will be as easy as Libya, when even Libya wasn’t as easy as Libya, she is the closest thing to a reality check. But that reality check is failing and it seems as if the United States is headed to another war in which we have everything to lose and the Brotherhood has everything to gain.

The Bolivarian Dissolution

At some point in his life, Obama no doubt donned a red Che t-shirt. South of the border though they take that sort of thing more seriously and the red sweep in Latin America is more than just dangerous, it raises the prospect of a hemispheric war. Chavez may seem like a clown, but he has helped bring together a coalition of the left and tied it together with Iran and its Shiite proxies.

Obama has cheered on the return of the reds, but red and green together may mean a war, open or covert, that he is completely unprepared for.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/03/13/10-ways-obama-has-made-war-more-likely/