Sanity Sentinel

Benjamin Netanyahu

Something happened in America on Friday, May 20th, something historic. It is something that in saner times would have made the average American angry; the head of a foreign state came to our shores and slapped our President silly, albeit figuratively, in the house of the people. Equally noteworthy, however, is that saner times would have made such an event entirely unnecessary. Today’s event was needed desperately.

Lest we forget, it was almost a year ago to the day that Mexican President Felipe Calderon stood on the floor of the U.S. Congress and trashed our laws regarding his people invading our country while our elected Democrat representatives stood and applauded him. So while I understand the ire of some who revere the Office of the President and are offended at Netanyahu’s schooling of our top man, I was more offended at Calderon’s attack on our country.

On Thursday, President Barack Hussein Obama went — once again — to the Middle East and delivered a speech aimed at appeasing the Muslim world, while he has yet to visit our long-time friend and ally, Israel, while in office. He visited as then-candidate Obama in 2008, but only to garner more support among the Jews here at home. (After over two years in office, domestic Jews seem not to have noticed that their man is no friend of Israel).

On this latest visit to the heart of Arab country, Obama grabbed the tiny country of Israel by the collar and belt, tossed it under the bus, and stepped on the gas. Claiming to be the present steward of Jimmy Carter’s dream of Middle East peace, Obama reiterated the absurd notion that Israel could achieve that peace by giving up the land it now owns.

Despite the fact that Israel in the past has given back the entire Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and, briefly, the Golan Heights, and has been repeatedly attacked for its efforts, Obama now seems to believe that Israel’s giving back all captured lands would finally bring harmony to the region. What Obama’s demand of Israel would accomplish, however, would be to reduce the width of Israel at its center to eight miles, down from its current forty-five.

What Obama Wants?

Obama was, of course, referring to the pre-1967 borders of Israel, before the famous “6 Day War” in which the state of Israel, virtually alone, took out its antagonists surrounding them with threats of annihilation, in just six days. So decisive was the Israeli military superiority in the region that the United Nations was forced to negotiate a cease fire between Israel and its Arab enemies before the Soviet Union entered the battle. That deal stipulated that Israel would stop its advancing forces and settle on the land already conquered, to which the Jewish State promptly agreed.

Since then, and to this day, efforts have been made to get Israel to give up land to secure peace. Yet each time Israel gives, it gets…missiles from Hamas, missiles from Hezbollah, and scorn from the UN when they retaliate. They get riots from the ungrateful Palestinians who enjoy the benevolence of the only host that will have them. And now they get this blindside attack from the president of their once closest friend.

How the brilliant mind that is our President Barack Hussein Obama could be so ignorant of this history eludes even the dullest of minds. As a result, the more astute must wonder if Obama is actually as ignorant as he seems, or whether more sinister than comfort would allow. Neither prospect is acceptable when applied to the leader of the Free World.

So while I am a bit saddened that the president of my great country was the recipient of a scolding here in our house by a foreigner, I am only outraged at the reason it came to be. Eventually, sanity must prevail.



The Antithesis to John M. Keynes

 The more I learn about Herman Cain, the more I love his history and policy, and while I would love to see him take the reins of leadership in America, I’m still not convinced that he’d garner enough of the vote. It’s not because I doubt his appeal or ability, but because I doubt the fortitude of my fellow citizens behind the secrecy of the voting booth.

There are still some who wouldn’t vote for the man if he had a patented, copyrighted cure for America’s ills posted online. That is sad, but not enough to preclude him from winning the Big Chair. No, that obstacle would be placed by well-meaning people who are not concerned about Herman’s color, but rather about the potential of wasting their votes on someone who historically has little chance of winning with virtually no prior political experience.

Considering that only four U.S. Presidents have ever been elected directly from the Senate with no demonstrated executive track records, the idea of a virtual outsider winning the White House seems less likely than porcine aviators. While Herman Cain certainly has demonstrated an economic acumen , his is an expertise in dealing with a board of directors rather than two houses of Congress. This could have a severe potential to reduce his electoral viability.

Thumbs Up to a Perry Run

There is news just breaking, however, that could portend to be the vehicle to get Cain his insider credentials even while he helps to turn this giant fiscal ship away from the waterfall. Real Clear Politics is reporting that Texas Governor Rick Perry may be inching toward the 2012 race. For Perry’s part — and that of his inner circle — the report “comes as a surprise” as they all deny any plans for the Governor to toss his hat in the ring.

This exercise is, therefore, mere wishful thinking and speculation, a great big “what if”. So let’s examine the possibilities…indeed, what if?

Rick Perry succeeded George W. Bush as Governor of Texas and has been a strong leader of that state ever since, having become the first ever to win three consecutive four-year terms. Perry’s platform, in a nutshell, is one of a strong defense (especially on the border), fiscal restraint and personal liberty. Critics will complain that he’s espoused some conflicting positions, but I would challenge them to produce a single candidate who has not at some point in his or her career.

If Perry actually decides to run for President, based on what we already know, he would be nearly invulnerable in the primaries, although it is still much too early to determine since the field is as yet unformed. What of his chances in the general election, though? That may be a much taller order to fill, and one that could possibly be bolstered by a running mate such as Herman Cain.

Herman Cain, like Governor Perry, has a tremendous following among the Tea Party, and as such is considering his own run at Pennsylvania Avenue but, as noted above, he faces a steep uphill battle. What if Cain was tapped as a running mate, however, by Rick Perry should the latter win the nomination? The two together would prove to be a most formidable duo against Obama in the general election regardless of who Obama settles on for a running mate (assuming that Joe Biden will be replaced at some point).

If a Perry/Cain administration could extricate the nation from the maelstrom its now swirling in, it is not inconceivable that Cain would enjoy eight years of first-hand experience in the White House. And if given a prominent role in shaping the fiscal policies of a President Perry, could ultimately end up being the first black president to actually help America. That would not only be a welcome respite from the misery we have endured of late, but would repair the damage wreaked by Obama to future candidates of color.

Here’s hoping that the old axiom — “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” — is true, and that Perry is seriously considering a run. If that does happen, it would be incumbent upon us to strongly suggest Herman Cain as a running mate.

Keep your fingers crossed, America.

This time, a Clinton took the shot.

For a week now we’ve been watching the End Zone Dance Tour of Barack Obama traipsing around the country thumping his chest about the events of last weekend, when U.S. military Special Forces killed the number one enemy of America; Osama bin Laden. (I use the word “traipsing” facetiously for it would have been a lot cheaper on the taxpayer had Obama literally traipsed).

It’s becoming abundantly clear that the President is using this auspicious occasion as a campaign tool for his reelection ambitions for 2012. So, if Obama and his media epigones want to make an event that made millions of Americans happy into something all about him, lets take a closer look into how we got to this place. Then, perhaps, Obama will wish the spotlight would turn away and seek another subject.

We were aware of Osama bin Laden and his role in terrorism way back in the Bill Clinton presidency. The story goes that Richard Clarke, Clinton’s counter-terrorism coordinator for the National Security Council, urged President Clinton to “take out” bin Laden when given the chance. When they had who they strongly suspected was bin Laden on a satellite image, Clinton refused to give the hit order. Osama thus lived to fight another day.

After the attacks on September 11th, 2001, facilitated by the man Clinton had spared, much focus was given to an August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) delivered to President Bush. That briefing — subsequently used by George W. Bush’s critics to bludgeon him — was a warning that al Qaeda planned to “fly planes into buildings”. The wispy vagueness of that alert mattered not to those who insisted that Bush knew of the attacks and did nothing.

For example, there was no way to know which buildings would be targets or what type of planes would be used. Short of halting all air traffic over such a threat just to play it safe, what could Bush have done? The damage done by such a drastic protective measure may have been almost as devastating as the actual attacks, both financially and in the cost to human life, considering the people who would have been scheduled for life-saving treatments in distant cities or organ transports for critical operations. The costs to the airline industry and any other business heavily dependent on the rapid conveyance of goods and personnel would have been catastrophic.

Thus it fell on the afterthought of reaction, and the Bush administration handled it well, setting into motion a massive operation that eliminated some bad guys and captured countless others that proved to be treasure troves of intelligence. That intelligence begot others with even more intelligence, and so on, and while bin Laden managed to elude his ultimate fate during Bush’s two terms, the intel gathered during that hunt proved to be the terrorist’s final undoing.

Last Sunday, May 1st, nearly a full decade after the attacks of 9/11, came the word that Osama bin Laden was finally dead. Naturally the country rejoiced, and Barack Obama was an instant hit, but as details of the assault conducted by the Navy SEALS Team 6 began to emerge — and as the media ran with whatever they were fed — things got murkier. Accounts began to conflict in rapid succession; there was a firefight/bin Laden was unarmed, he used his wife as a human shield/he didn’t do any such thing. That wasn’t the worst of it, however.

Obama and Senior Advisor Jarrett

As reporting of the lead-up the operation was spun by an adoring press to make Obama appear as a strong Commander-in-Chief, the truth always seems to have a way of seeping out. One account was that the military wanted to bomb the compound, obliterating bin Laden and anyone else in his vicinity but Obama, the brilliant tactician, said no. He wanted to put boots on the ground in order that proof could be offered of bin Laden’s demise. While the story is loosely based on fact — Obama did order no bombing — his reason for such an order was nothing more than a delay tactic.

There is an account of the events that led up to the assault on bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan that details a rather stunning chain of events, and casts Obama in a light quite contrary to the bright beams shone by the media. The full account — while as yet unsubstantiated and anonymous — can be seen here. What it suggests, however, is a victory that was won not because of Barack Obama, but in spite of him.

There was a group of high profile people who had been pushing for weeks or months to raid the compound. This group was comprised of, among others, CIA chief Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and General David Petraeus.  The biggest obstacle to their plan was Senior Advisor to Obama, Valerie Jarrett, and an absentee Obama himself. Jarrett fretted that should the mission fail, it would reflect poorly on Obama and thus, damage his chances at reelection. For his part, Obama was too busy playing golf and campaigning, and he left the heavy lifting to Jarrett.

As it turned out, Clinton and Panetta, who was Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff, may have wanted to atone for the failure of their own administration in getting bin Laden, for they were furious over the delaying tactics of Jarrett. It was Jarrett who convinced Obama to insist against the bombing, believing that it would take weeks to develop a plan to get up close and personal with bin Laden. Unbeknownst to Obama and Jarrett was that Panetta had already developed just such a plan and was ready to roll it out.

Cleverly securing Obama’s blessing to proceed when the plan was ready, they had their green light. Astonishingly, as the mission was begun, Barack Obama was, not surprisingly, on the golf course. The alleged eye witness account of the events of that night indicates that Obama was dragged off the golf course and into the Situation Room when the actual assault was about to happen.

The Situation Room Viewing

Looking at the photo to the left, that account certainly rings true. It appears that the Leader of the Free World has been relegated to “that kid in the corner”, and looks like the last person to enter the room. He also looks quite irritated, perhaps at being dragged off the golf course, maybe at learning of the assault as it was happening, or both. In any event, Obama most certainly does not appear to be the commander of anything, but rather a mere spectator.

If one wonders why there weren’t repercussions after the fact, it is not much of a stretch to believe that whatever anger the President may have felt was easily assuaged by the promise of glory. And Obama has definitely wallowed in it, soaking up the accolades he seems to demand. In the week since, however, many questions have been raised about Obama’s handling of events and the retelling of them, his motivation behind them, and the veracity of his multiple versions.

That we will examine in the next article.

Richter Should Have Made a Gall Scale

Just when it seems that the Left couldn’t possibly best their own record for chutzpah, they reach down deep and go for the gold. In the latest news cycle it is being reported that “Progressives” are disrupting town hall meetings being conducted by Republicans such as Paul Ryan, the architect of a budget bill that has MoveOn.org, among others, in a lather.

FoxNews.com is reporting on an email sent to members from MoveOn titled “payback time” in which the Liberal group encourages its members to disrupt town hall meetings while remaining “civil”. What is particularly ironic is both the Republicans’ reference to the action as “astroturfing”, and the Left’s visceral reaction to the charge.

Much of the outrage from the Left is directed at the House-passed version of Ryan’s budget proposal, but the reasoning of Leftist groups is nothing short of astounding. While the Left may be sincere in their collective loathing of any attempt to reduce the role of government as nanny to all, their indignation at the astroturf label is comical in light of Nancy Pelosi’s charge against the Tea Party, which has since been proven false. (No news organization has been able to pinpoint any particular group as guiding the genuine ire of ordinary Americans).

When made aware of the charges that there was a carefully orchestrated effort by her side, Lauren Weiner, a spokesman for Americans United for Change perfectly illustrated that if hypocrisy could be measured on a seismic level, Richter’s scale would prove tragically inadequate. “I think that’s ridiculous”, she claimed, punctuating her point with ”the anger is real.”

The theoretical Hypocrisy Scale would have shattered on the following point made by Ms. Weiner, however. Complaining that the House of Representatives — now controlled by Republicans — passed the Ryan budget two weeks ago while the details were still a mystery to many people, she uttered the following:

“We think the anger is going to grow. The more they learn about it, the angrier they’re going to get.”

Did Ms. Weiner sleep through the week that the Democrat-controlled House rolled the American people like a mugger might a suburban father of three in an urban alley?  Did she somehow manage to miss then-Speaker Pelosi uttering the infamous “We have to pass the bill so that you can, uh, find out what is in it.”? And is there any chance in this Hell in which we now reside that anyone in the media will notice this glaring hypocrisy, or that if they do, will actually mention it?

Highly unlikely would be the correct answer, but one must marvel at the brazen machinations of the Progressive operatives who now feel that they can abandon their “black ops” brand and move freely in the sunlight with impunity. The reason that evil often fails is that its proclivity is to jump the gun through over-confidence.

Independents are who got Obama elected, and it is the Indy group that has swung so dramatically away from not only Obama, but the entire Democratic agenda. The Democrats had their day in the sun. The Progressive movement had a brief share in that day and they squandered it, foolishly thinking that the fruit was ripe for picking. Now they will either pay the price at the ballot box and go away, or throw off the last cloak of civility and make their final lunge at dictatorship.

Perhaps the Left will go so far as to attempt a perverted version of a theocracy, reminiscent of Iran, with the entrenched Democrat officials serving as a sort of store-front parliament while the controlling mullahs are represented by outfits like MoveOn.org. Nothing would offer the pungent scent of hypocrisy and the bitter taste of irony any better.

Time to Expose the Myth

Terrified of the coming storm of the Conservative Renaissance — most likely in part because of the evidence exhibited in the mid-term melt down of the Democrat Party — Liberals are preemptively rushing to the forefront of 2012 with charges of racism at the ready.

As President Barack Hussein Obama feverishly chips away at the foundation of this country, and the electorate becomes ever increasingly alarmed, the prospect of a one term presidency becomes more apparent. And Liberals are desperate to maintain power. Meanwhile, the race is on as to whether America survives the onslaught, and the outcome of that race hinges on the rhetorical success of lying Liberals.

Ed Schultz of MSNBC fame recently castigated Donald Trump over his audacity in questioning Obama’s legitimacy for office and his academic achievements. Fair enough if that was as far as it went, but Schultz wasn’t happy with a mere chance at the high ground; he had to punctuate the attack with the charge of racism.  True to Liberal form, when your argument is weak, bolster it with emotion and — as is often the case with Leftists — lies to remove all doubt.

Likewise, Whoopi Goldberg said yesterday on  The View , that she was “playing the damn [race] card now”. Howard Dean continues to portray the Republican Party as a racist institution, and Democrats in general use the notion like a leash to retain the minority voting base. In fact, the Joseph Goebbels-like propagation of the right wing racism myth has effortlessly made the Tea Party an automatic target of the Left’s ire, and the only way to refute the charge is to have a member of a minority actually attend a rally.

One such person is Carmen Guillermo of Amercan Thinker, who recently wrote of her personal revelation in an article titled  My Journey to Conservatism. Guillermo, of Mexican descent, is a reformed Liberal who shook off the chains of misinformation; a woman once certain that Conservatives hated black people, brown people, yellow people, and generally anyone who wasn’t white. She learned the truth first hand by visiting a local Tea Party rally, and became enlightened in the process, now wondering how she could have been so wrong. I wonder the same thing.

The Democrat Party was formed with White supremacy as its philosophy, while the Republican Party was devoted to the abolition of slavery. It was Republicans who fought valiantly to ultimately overcome the Democrats repeated filibusters to adopt the 14th Amendment and 15th Amendment, which sought to give Blacks the rights to due process and to vote.

In fact, in the mid 1800′s, the Democrats identified themselves as “the white man’s party” and criticized the Republican Party as being “Negro dominated”. Ironically, the south was controlled by Democrats who fought to maintain slavery, and they used every tactic imaginable to retain power. According to a PBS series titled  The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow* :

Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats “redeemed” state after state — sometimes peacefully,other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.

It seems some things never change. The Democrats are not only still cheating, they are still slave owners. The only difference between then and now is that the slaves do not realize that they are captives because these days the Democrats use the velvet shackles of false compassion. It is only when these minorities manage to wander off the plantation and personally witness the splendor they have been convinced does not exist that they are freed.

Just ask Carmen Guillermo.

*http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_democratic.html
*http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_republican.html

How much would you pay to save him?

Perhaps the most obvious answer to the title question would be, “because he hadn’t yet received taxpayer money to safely traverse it underneath”.

As our country grapples with a severe debt, the in-your-face debate revolves around the question of where to cut spending. Politicians and pundits hand-wring while claiming to understand the angst of the American people in general, and the Tea Party in particular, pretending to understand that concern but not quite grasping the concept.

The Liberal reaction to our demands of less spending is to demagogue and vilify. “Why do you hate children?” and “Why do you want to kill seniors?” are common taunts, when any sane person realizes that they are ridiculous accusations. Yet, the easily shamed are quickly tamed, and acquiesce to the demands of more spending without question. And they are soeasily fooled.

For example, it is common for politicians to claim a reduced increase in spending is a “cut”. It doesn’t matter to the average Joe – who garners all of his knowledge from thirty second sound bites on television – that spending of his hard earned taxes is still going up. If it involves a “cause” he’s been conditioned to endorse, he’ll only “know” that the bad guys “slashed” funding for it.

One must wonder if that same person would feel like he’s getting a bargain if he had to pay more for a product he frequently purchases if the price increase was suddenly 50% less than the purveyor intended. For example, let’s say that “Joe” buys a widget every week, and it’s always been a dollar. One day he walks in and it’s three dollars, but the store is having a half-off sale. Will he realize that since last week, the price tripled, or will he be happy that with the “sale”, he’s only paying 50% more?

Likewise, when talk of eliminating actual spending amounts to a paltry “few million” dollars, politicians dismiss the notion as meaningless, a drop in the bucket. But leave a bucket under a dripping gutter and see how fast it fills up. The leak responsible for that drip needs to be repaired, just as tax dollars spent on turtle tunnels and the like need to stop immediately. If someone has that much passion for the plight of turtles, they can raise the money on their own and dig the damn tunnels by hand. (The money would be needed for permits to dig on federal property, after all).

Earmarks, the “pet projects” of Congress people, continue for the very reason that politicians dismiss their impact on the overall debt and deficit. Each to its own, they seem insignificant, but add drops to that bucket that soon overflows. And they are wasteful, albeit very nice gestures for a genuine philanthropist. To steer precious public funding (confiscated earnings) toward them must end.

A little spending here, a little there…

Case in point: in 2007, amid debates in Congress over desperately needed infrastructure repairs on highways and bridges that were crumbling, Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California secured $550,000 of transportation money to build a boat in Los Angeles that would never sail. In fact, it would never touch water. Known as “Noah’s Ark”,  it was part of a project called the Skirball Cultural Center, a private charity in Los Angeles. The charity’s director, Uri Herscher, reportedly went to Waxman, and Waxman directed the funds in the form of an earmark.

No big deal, Waxman later countered, it was small change. “The amount of money that the Skirball got for this project was very, very small. It was $550,000,” Waxman said. True, but Waxman is only one of 435 members of the House, and it is unknown how many other “small” projects like this he “gave” to through the unknowing generosity of the American taxpayer.

With all of that in mind, let’s examine the actuality of the $38 billion in FY2011 spending cuts that Speaker Boehner is touting today. Shortly after the vote, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculated the true savings at $350million, with an “m”. That’s right, million…small change in the eyes of Congress when it refers to spending rather than cutting.

Most of the cuts the CBO projects are from monies that were previously allocated but unspent, and relegated to remain that way. And the total savings do not take place in the remaining six months, but rather in the next five years, stretching out to 2016. FY2012 is only six months away. If Boehner and his members can’t do better in the next round of budget negotiations, we are in serious trouble, and so is the Republican party.

I feel like the proverbial turtle crossing the road. Why do I do it? To get to the Tea Party.

As Barack Sulks

By now, we must all have grown weary of the trend in television commercials that portray children as the cool brains behind the family at the expense of Mom and Dad. Oh come on, you’ve seen them…youngster strapped into the car seat in the back of the vehicle, hawking products that Mom up there (driver’s seat) is too dense to appreciate.

It seems that denigrating the wisdom of age has become fashionable, and the inherent restraint of that wisdom archaic. It’s almost like advocating for Junior to spend at will upon finding his parents’ checkbook full of signed, blank checks. While the thought of adults actually pre-signing blank checks – which can easily fall into the wrong hands – is unconscionable, the temptation on Junior’s part is equally understandable, albeit impossible to condone. Yet we have basically done that very thing with President Obama.

The country elected a man directly from the U.S. Senate, a rarity in and of itself, and did so rather convincingly. The fact that he had not even completed a full year in the Senate before deciding to run for the White House seemed not to matter to an electorate decidedly ill informed. There was “history” to be made, after all, and as is usually the case in any rush to make the record books, this bid for the books may rank higher than Obama’s youth at taking office, but only in the bad-results category.

Obama may have been the fifth youngest president to inhabit the White House – falling behind only Grant, Clinton, Kennedy and Teddy Roosevelt – but his qualifications for leadership pale in comparison to those of these four younger men. Grant was a United States Army General, Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas for eight years, Kennedy commanded two torpedo boats in the South Pacific in World War II  before serving 13 years in the Senate, as well as six years in the House, and Teddy Roosevelt was the Police Commissioner of New York City, Governor of New York, and Vice President under William McKinley.

Big Shoes to Fill

Barack Hussein Obama was a community organizer, Illinois State Senator, and briefly a U.S. Senator. He’s never commanded combat troops, he’s never run a state budget, he’s never been in a position to actually run anything or decide anything. In fact, it might be safe to say, the only thing Obama has ever commanded is attention.

This is the man who is calling on the 112th session of Congress to “act like grownups”. Democrats can try as they might to blame our current fiscal mess on the previous administration, but the numbers don’t lie. Bush 43, despite the challenges that strained our nation in his two terms, enjoyed a comparatively robust economy until the Democrats regained both chambers of Congress.

Obama’s election during his own parties control of Congress is analogous to a young boy finding those signed checks while being egged on by the neighborhood teens seeking a good time. And now that Mom and Dad have decided to put a halt to it, the “kid” says they should grow up?

Speaker Boehner is leading the Republican charge to hold fast for deep budget cuts. With the prospect of a government “shutdown” looming on Friday, Obama says that this is no ”time for trying to score political points and maneuvering… Not on this.” Considering that a government shutdown is largely symbolic – police will still patrol, traffic lights will still function, etc. – and 86% of the people favor a shutdown over a compromise on spending cuts, now is the perfect time for political points.

Now is the perfect time to stop the insane spending of our government, and return to fiscal sanity.