I didn't quite know what to make of a President who would launch an attack on Libya as he flew off with his family to South America for some sightseeing and chats with trading partners. That seemed pretty odd. Then I found out the Secretary Of Defense, Robert Gates, was in Moscow talking to the Russians as the war broke out. Then I found out Vice President Joe Biden was in Boston doing fundraisers for the Democratic party as the war broke out…maybe it's just me, but I always thought invading a country was pretty serious stuff. I always thought our leaders would be on hand in the war room, talking to the Joint Chiefs, ready to make decisions, etc., not going about their daily routines as if destroying Libya's air force and bombing Gaddafi's compound was equivalent to weeding a garden. I guess I was wrong. I guess it goes more like this:

"If you need me, Joint Chiefs, I'll be in Rio with the fam. Good luck. I'll take a picture of the Christ The Redeemer statue for you. You got my cell digits, right ? Anyone seen my Nike ballcap ? Call me. Luv ya, bye !". Then it's off to Air Force One for a mocha cappucino and an in-flight movie as the Tomahawk missiles rain down. Class move, Mr. President.

At least VP Biden is done with his fundraisers and is on-hand for some war strategy, right ? (please excuse me for putting the words 'Biden" and "strategy' in the same sentence. I'm aware of the contradiction). Well, not exactly. After Biden finished up his fundraising activites for the Democrats, he….went to spring training with the New York Yankees yesterday.

No wonder the Obama administration didn't bother to get the approval of Congress before bombing Libya. It would have interfered with their busy social calendars. When one is an elite, who has the time to keep the little people apprised of things ? It's so tedious.

However, like Obama, Vice President Joey saw things a bit differently back in 2007, when our President was from that other political party,..you know, the one with the elephant instead of the donkey.

Ladies and gentlemen, I drafted an outline of what I think the Constitutional limits [garbled] have on the President with the War Clause. I went to five leading scholars, Constitutional scholars, and they drafted a treatise for me that is being distributed to every Senator. And I want to make it clear, and I’ll make it clear to the President: that if he takes this nation to war in Iran, without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him – Senator Joseph Biden, 2007.

There you have it. Both President Obama and Vice President Biden, by their own words, think Obama has shredded the Constitution. Biden even thinks Obama should be impeached, or at least he did when Obama was Bush, and Libya was Iran. Who am I to disagree with such eminent men as these (not that it ever stopped me before) ?

But far be it from me to portray Obama as uncaring or hypocritical. In fact, the President cares sooo much that he even cancelled his trip to some Mayan ruins in El Salvador, returning to the USA two whole hours early to focus like a laser beam on Libya. It's all about "shared sacrifice", folks, and it starts at the top, as you can clearly see. I bet those Mayan ruins were pretty cool, and Obama sacrificed them…for YOU. That's commitment, by god. That's leadership.

Today's schedule has Obama lunching with Biden at 12.45pm (ooh, I bet Biden got him a ball signed by the Yankees ! Awesome !!!), and then meeting with Treasury Secretary Geithner this afternoon at 2:15pm, so Geithner can tell Obama he has no clue what to do about the economy. And Geithner will have statistics to back that up.

As for progress in Libya, I can only relate what I've heard. Obama said we'll be out of there in a week, but he also said we're committed to removing Gaddafi from power. I'm not sure how those two goals go together. Defense Secretary Gates said there was no timeline for withdrawal. Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton announced yesterday that the humanitarian crisis in Libya has been averted, while the Washington Post at the same time was printing a story about the humanitarian crisis that was happening in Libya. The U.S. is saying Gaddafi's air force has been destroyed, but his ground troops are still moving forward against the rebels. Our leaders all seem to be operating individually, with no coordinated, coherent message. As for the overall UN/NATO effort, Der Spiegel is calling it a "coalition of the unwilling", with everyone disagreeing on the objectives of the mission and how to carry them out.

Getting back to the new United Nations standard of going to war to prevent a humanitarian crisis – guess what's happening in Syria, and might be happening soon in several other Middle Eastern countries ? You guessed it, a budding humanitarian crisis:

DAMASCUS, Syria – Residents of the southern city of Daraa held a sit-in Thursday to protest the killing of 15 people in clashes between security forces and anti-government protesters, an activist said.

The activist, who is in contact with residents of Daraa, said the situation there was still tense, with a heavy armed presence in the streets. He said dozens of people were demonstrating in the al-Mahata neighborhood near the city center.

Inspired by the wave of pro-democracy protests around the region, the uprising in Daraa and at least four nearby villages has become the biggest domestic challenge since the 1970s to the Syrian government, one of the most repressive in the Middle East. Security forces have responded with water cannon, tear gas, rubber bullets and live ammunition.

Syrian police launched a relentless assault Wednesday on a neighborhood sheltering anti-government protesters, fatally shooting at least 15 in an operation that lasted nearly 24 hours, witnesses said. The total death toll now stands at 22.

An official at the Daraa National Hospital told The Associated Press by telephone that the hospital received a large number of casualties Wednesday and was "overwhelmed" with wounded people. He declined to say how many people were dead or hurt, saying he was not authorized to give out numbers or talk to the press.

Is the UN (led by America) going to step in to stop the killing now any time there's a humanitarian need ? That's what they said with the Libyan resolution. I fear that resolve will be tested very soon.

Before initiating military strikes against Libya yesterday to implement a no-fly zone and prevent Muammar Gaddafi's air force from killing Libyan rebels, the U.S. coalition obtained the approval of the Arab League. The approval of the Arab League led to the approval of the United Nations Security Council. With those approvals (but not the approval of Congress), Obama attacked Libyan air-defense systems with stealth bombers and cruise missiles. 114 cruise missiles were fired, according to NBC. Going beyond the mere enforcement of a no-fly zone, fighter jets attacked Gaddafi's ground forces in Benghazi:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Wait a minute. I thought this was just about enforcing a no-fly zone ? That's what we were told. Now it appears it's also about taking out Gaddafi's forces, which would justify almost any military action. What does that UN resolution actually say ???:

“4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

“5. Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4; …

Under this resolution, it looks like America can bomb Gaddafi's forces forces anywhere it wishes. We could bomb Tripoli and say it was to keep civilians safe in Benghazi. The only thing we can't do is send in ground forces.

Gaddafi has called the military strikes an attack on Muslims by "crusader forces". Somebody should clue him into the fact that the Crusades ended over 800 years ago, that this isn't the Christians versus the Muslims anymore. This Medieval holy war stuff is getting very old, no pun intended.

Now that the Arab League-approved no-fly zone is being implemented via military strikes, the head of the Arab League is criticizing them:

A coordinated attack by Western forces targeting Libyan air capabilities and armor appears to have succeeded in damaging Libyan military installations and armor, but Arab support for the no-fly zone may be waning.

Arab League head Amr Moussa told reporters Sunday that the Arab league thought the use of force was excessive following an overnight bombing campaign that Libya claims killed at least 48 people.

"What we want is civilians' protection, not shelling more civilians," he was quoted saying by the Associated Press.

It sure didn't take long for Arab League support to waver. How does this Arab League guy think we can knock out Gaddafi's air defenses without killing people ? We may have smart bombs, but they aren't smart enough to distinguish a civilian from a soldier. And excuse me, Arab League and UN Security Council, but you waited until Gaddafi's men were already in Benghazi before you took action. What did you expect ?

Back home in America, even some liberal Democrats have noticed that President Obama bypassed Congress on his way to the shores of Tripoli:

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO

I'm always heartened when Democrats notice we have a Constitution. That happens far too infrequently. According to the Constitution, Congress is the body that authorizes war. The President can only take unilateral action if there is a "clear and present danger" to America. That's not the case with Libya. Here's how one Constitutional scholar put it back in 2007. I have his name here somewhere…Let's see, what did I do with it ?…ah, here it is. The Constitutional scholar's name is Barack H. Obama. Here's what he said about the constitutionality of Presidents taking unilateral military action:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Hmmm. Apparently, Obama agrees with Kucinich that Obama should be impeached for not obtaining congressional authorization. If there's a hearing, I wonder if Obama will testify against himself ?

In any case, it's worth repeating that the Libyan attack represents a new United Nations standard for engaging in military conflict. That standard now has a name:

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also said on Thursday that the justification for the use of force was based on humanitarian grounds, and referred to the principle known as Responsibility to Protect (R2P), “a new international security and human rights norm to address the international community’s failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

“Resolution 1973 affirms, clearly and unequivocally, the international community’s determination to fulfill its responsibility to protect civilians from violence perpetrated upon them by their own government,” he said.

There are many countries committing crimes against humanity on a widespread scale. If this standard is truly going to be adopted, there are going to be PLENTY of military conflicts coming down the road.

My television keeps telling me we're going to war again, this time in Libya, to stop Muammar Gaddafi from killing the Libyan rebels who have taken over most of that country.

My television keeps saying this will be our third war in the Middle East, which will really make it look like we have it in for Muslims.

My television says President Obama's Libya speech sounded eerily similar to President Bush's Iraq war speech, which it did. Although they will deny it, Obama's speechwriters plagiarized some of that Bush speech.

My television says we are moving our ships and aircraft into position for war with Libya.

My television says we can't afford any more wars. My television is sure right about that. We can't afford any more anything.

The thing is, I don't believe my television. For a variety of reasons, I don't believe there will be any big war in Libya. I believe this will actually be the end of the war in Libya. Here's why:

1) Gaddafi will back down in the face of superior firepower. All it took was Reagan firing a few missiles at him in 1986 to get him to behave and back down. Gaddafi may be a brutal thuggish dictator, but he looks out for Gaddafi's skin above all else. He's a paper tiger.

2) Gaddafi announced a cease-fire as soon as the United Nations Security Council voted to impose a Libyan no-fly zone. Gaddafi might not be adhering to his own cease-fire yet, but the no-fly zone hasn't been established yet either, so the paper tiger still has some growling left to do.

3) Gaddafi wouldn't even have taken things this far if President Obama The Weak had come out strongly against him right away and drew a line in the sand instead of pussyfooting around trying to see what the world thought before Obama The Weak decided what America thought. I have always thought the world becomes more destabilized when America projects weakness. Obama has done nothing to change my mind. His 2009 world Apologize For America tour was a huge rookie mistake.

I get the feeling that Obama wants to appear tough without actually being tough, which is why he's saying no American ground troops will be used in Libya. Obama should NEVER have said that publicly, because he is telling Gaddafi that America's commitment is limited. Even if that's true, you don't tell your enemy that. Obama's words of weakness only embolden Gaddafi. At the same time, Obama feels he must go along with the United Nations and help with the no-fly zone. If he didn't, he'd look like a complete pansy. The Pentagon doesn't want to get into a war in Libya either.

Obama and other top Democrats on foreign policy are saying our military action in Libya is for humanitarian and democratic reasons, which contradicts what those same Democrats said during the Bush years. Here's the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry (D-MA):

"The international community cannot simply watch from the sidelines as this quest for democracy is met with violence," he said. "The Arab League's call for a U.N. no-fly zone over Libya is an unprecedented signal that the old rules of impunity for autocratic leaders no longer stand… The world needs to respond immediately to avert a humanitarian disaster."

Leave it to Kerry to be impressed by what the Arab League says. The Arab League consists of many states led by the very autocratic leaders Kerry says the world will no longer stand, but even Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton said the Arab League's call for a Libyan no-fly zone was a game changer that convinced the rest of the world communities to go along.

Does this really signal that the world community will no longer tolerate brutal dictators like Muammar Gaddafi ?????? Is this the epiphany of freedom the world has been waiting for ?????

NO. Not even close. I can't speak of paper tigers without including the United Nations, which has the spine of a jellyfish. Let's see what happens if Gaddafi plays chicken long enough to shoot down some coalition aircraft or challenge the UN's resolve in other ways. That's where things could fall apart. That's what could prove me wrong and turn this into a real war.

One other thing to consider – what do the Libyan rebels want, other than Gaddafi to be ousted from power ? We know the rebels want our help with a no-fly zone, because they have no means to counter Gaddafi's airforce, but do we know what they want beyond that ? I'm asking, because I'm the first to admit I don't know. Even though Gaddafi represents pretty much all the things I hate in the world, it would be nice to know what would be replacing him.

Another poor signal sent by Obama came yesterday, when he said America's military activity would last "days, not weeks". I realize he is saying this to ease the consciences of Americans fearful of yet another war, but doesn't this President realize Gaddafi is listening too ? Obama just told Gaddafi he only has to hold on for "days". That makes the possibility of the war's extension greater, not less. I seem to recall the Bush administration saying the Iraq war wouldn't last very long either. It didn't quite turn out that way, did it ?

But I still believe Gaddafi will back down very quickly with a coalition show of force. Sure hope I'm right.

Civil rights questions: How can a President who passed a law mandating that all Americans have valid health insurance cards or be fined also believe the Arizona immigration law asking suspected illegal immigrants for their papers is "misguided" ? Do illegals now have more rights than American citizens in the President's eyes ?

Gentlemen, start your engines: Evolutionists believe life on earth started with the spontaneous conversion of inanimate matter to animate matter (they call it the "primordial soup." I call it the movie Frankenstein, which was never been duplicated in any laboratory). How do these folks have the nerve to dismiss a higher power that many call God ? Is the higher power argument somehow less believable than the evolutionists Shazaam! belief ?

Subjugation as the new feminism: The United Nations has selected Iran to a commission on women's rights. The commission is “dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women," according to it's website. Women in Iran have been struggling for basic human rights, and have made some progress, but Iran is a country where stoning is still the law, where lashings are given to women for "improper dress," and where female civil rights protesters are arrested, beaten, raped, and tortured. Assigning Iran to a women's rights commission is like assigning the Ku Klux Klan to a commission on racism. Of course, this is the crazy UN, which also put China and Saudi Arabia on it's Human Rights Commission. Here's my question – in light of this move, shouldn't the UN also find some Neo-Nazi group to resolve the Israel-Palestine issue ? This does partially explain why so many think Jon Stewart's Daily Show on Comedy Central is the real political news. It's hard to distinguish political reality from comedy these days, even though there's not much funny about the reality.

Speaking of comedy: President Obama did his brand of standup at the recent White House Correspondent's Dinner. Never one to miss a chance at gaining a partisan edge of any kind, the President took direct aim at one of his presumed presidential contenders in 2012. Here's Barack "Shecky" Obama:

“Speaking of undeserved honors, a few weeks ago, I was able to throw out the first pitch at the Nationals game….It was high and wide. FOX News reported it as the president pandering to the left wing, while MSNBC declared: “President pitches a no-hitter.”…

Of course, that’s not the only thing we’ve been accused of socialiizing this year. You might have heard we passed a healthcare bill… Some Republicans have claimed the bill includes a few secret provisions. That’s ridiculous. There aren’t a few secret provisions in the healthcare bill, there are like hundreds….such as The Bay State denial: This bill shall cover short-term memory loss with regard to healthcare reform. So good news Mitt, your condition is covered."

Pretty funny, but it does lead to an important question. How is Mitt Romney going to overcome the mandated health care reform he instituted in Massachusetts to secure the 2012 GOP nomination ? Romney has repeatedly said he is against ObamaCare, but his own record flies in the face of that. Romney won't be the first politician to run on an 'I was for it before I was against it' platform, of course. John Kerry got the 2004 Democratic nomination with that schlock, but remember, Kerry LOST the general election. The next question is, if Romney isn't going to be the 2012 nominee, who will be ? Huckabee ? Gingrich ? Pawlenty ? Palin ?…..I just can't see it.

The USA is making progress with Iran on the nuclear issue.

That's what I keep hearing, anyway. Progress in this case is defined as Iran allowing the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, to inspect it's uranium processing facility outside Qom on October 25th. IAEA head Mohammed El Baradei said the inspection is to insure Iran's nuclear plant is "for peaceful purposes." This is interesting, because the Iranians attempted to hide that "peaceful" nuclear facility from the outside world for years, and didn't acknowledge it's existence until very recently, after several Western intelligence agencies blew Iran's cover. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that the IAEA will not find nuclear weapons sitting around at the Qom facility during their inspection. I'm basing my prediction on the fact that the Iranians are not the Three Stooges. They are not THAT dumb. They just think we are.

Even more interesting is the fact that we don't know how many other secret nuclear enrichment plants Iran has. Back in january, the NY Times reported the following about a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that concluded Iran had suspended it's pursuit of nuclear weapons in 2003:

The public version [of the NIE] made only glancing reference to evidence described at great length in the 140-page classified version of the assessment: the suspicion that Iran had 10 or 15 other nuclear-related facilities, never opened to international inspectors, where enrichment activity, weapons work or the manufacturing of centrifuges might be taking place.

The Israelis didn't buy the American conclusion in 2007 that Iran had stopped working on nuclear weapons, and reportedly presented evidence to the U.S. that Iran was still pursuing nukes. Israel requested bunker-busting bombs from the U.S. in 2008, which were capable of penetrating Iran's underground nuclear facilities. Israel also requested refueling equipment that would allow Israeli aircraft to fly to Iran and back to Israel, along with the right to fly over Iran. Obviously, Israel wanted to take out Iran's nuclear sites. President Bush turned the requests down. Bush pursued further covert ops instead. Israel wasn't the only one who thought the CIA's 2007 NIE was wrong. British intelligence agreed.

So here we are in 2009, knowing for certain that Iran has engaged in deception regarding it's nuclear ambitions, and the problem has been kicked down the road to President Obama. The Iranians continue with their nuclear plans unabated, while America and the UN continue the same path as always, negotiations and threats of sanctions. In the meantime, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is meeting with Vladimir Putin to ask Russia to stop helping Iran build a nuclear bomb. I assume Russia cannot stop helping unless they have already BEEN helping.

The problem with negotiating with Iran is simple – the Iranians lie.

The problem with sanctions against Iran are mainly two – Russia and China, who have shared economic interests with Iran, namely, oil. India is also heavily interwined with Iran's oil industry, along with many other countries. The Russians and the Chinese help Iran negate the power of any sanctions. One of the sanctions being discussed against Iran now is a ban on importation of oil products to Iran. Even though Iran is an oil-rich country, a lack of oil refining facilities causes Iran to import much of it's gasoline and other petroleum products. China opposes those sanctions and has restated it's prioritization of Iranian oil. Russia said recently it will "consider" new sanctions against Iran (my translation: Russia will vote against any truly harsh sanctions, or will continue to help Iran get around them. I'd love to be wrong about this).

If negotiations are fruitless, and sanctions can be gotten around, what's left ? Military action against Iran ? Non-military regime change ? Can anyone see Obama or the UN actually taking military action against Iran ? Very doubtful, and the American people are extremely war weary already. The way I see it, Israel is the only one who'd be willing to take military action, but they'd most likely have to do it without American or UN approval, which makes that a lot more dicey, and since we don't even know how many nuclear facilities Iran has, it may not even work.

In conclusion, welcome to the dawning of a new age – an Iranian theocratic, terrorist-supporting government, with a holocaust-denying, apocalyptic President who openly states that he wants to destroy Israel, having nuclear weapons. What could possibly go wrong ? Besides everything. Various experts say Iran could have a bomb between next year and 2013, but the experts have been wrong about quite a lot in the Middle East in recent years, so who knows ?

I sure hope I'm wrong. We need your help, President Obama. This is way beyond partisanship or political ideology. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it could and probably would start an arms race throughout the Middle East. I can barely think of a less desirable outcome.

"For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." - President Barack Hussein Obama, narcissist, addressing the United Nations, September, 2009.

I'm sure glad Barry came along and fixed the character and cause of this nation after 232 years of American villainy, aren't you ? On the bright side, at least he didn't call pre-Obama America "The Great Satan." And our President spoke these words in front of an audience that included the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Moammar Gadhafi, and a slew of other human rights violators (many of whom are on the Orwellian UN Human Rights Council).
===
"Since Americans can only be prodded into doing something with money, we need to tax crappy foods that make us sick like we do with cigarettes, and alcohol." - pot-smoking comedian Bill Maher, September, 2009.

Unbelievably, Maher calls himself a Libertarian. In reality, he's just another authoritarian left-winger. Someone should familiarize Maher with the words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It's none of Bill Maher's business who smokes, drinks, or eats what, which Maher would quickly realize if someone took his weed away. Maher's "libertarianism" extends only to his desire to get high. What a hypocrite.
===
"Is capitalism a sin ?" - Leni Riefenstahl Award-winning, Castro-loving filmmaker Michael Moore, in a trailer from his forthcoming movie, Capitalism, A Love Story.

The answer from Moore's questionee is "yes," by the way, capitalism IS a sin. Hugo Chavez couldn't have said it better.
===
"President Obama didn't make much news on his round of five Sunday talk shows … with one notable exception. The President revealed a great deal about his philosophy of government and how he defines a tax increase. It turns out the President thinks a health-care tax is not a tax if he thinks the tax is for your own good. … Mr. Obama was asked by [ABC] host George Stephanopoulos about the 'individual mandate.' Under Max Baucus's Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year. Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when 'the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. … How is that not a tax?' 'Well, hold on a second, George,' Mr. Obama replied. 'Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's…' 'That may be,' Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, 'but it's still a tax increase.' (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.) Mr. Obama: 'No. That's not true, George. The — for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore…' In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy — don't call it a tax — is for your own good. … Mr. Obama complains that 'My critics say everything is a tax increase,' as if that is his political problem. His real problem is that the individual mandate really is a tax, but the President doesn't want voters to think of it that way, because taxes are unpopular." –The Wall Street Journal, September, 2009.

Yes, of course, Obama's penalty for not having health insurance is a tax, no matter what he wants to call it. Obama probably wouldn't consider his cap-and-trade proposal a tax either, but that's exactly what it is. The creative subterfuge being engaged in by Democrats these days is to pass tax increases without calling them tax increases. Instead, they are called penalties, mandates, fees, carbon allowances, etc. Does this stuff actually fool anyone ? (except for liberals, that is). I hope not. Obama isn't "helping the little guy" one bit, in case anyone hasn't noticed (and the media sure hasn't). He's only raising the little guy's expenses, through both direct and indirect means. This brings to mind Ronald Reagan's quote about the most terrifying words in the english language – "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
===
"We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations." - Barack Obama, speaking at the UN climate change conference, September, 2009.

"Responsibility to future generations," eh ? More than a tad ironic, coming from the President who is running up the debt faster than every other administration in history combined, thereby irresponsibly ruining the prospects of future generations.
===
"It doesn't smell of sulfur here anymore. It smells of something else. It smells of hope." - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, addressing the UN, September, 2009.

The "sulfur" smell was Bush, whom Chavez called "the devil" at last year's UN meeting. The "hope" smell is Obama. It's sure nice that we've won over Chavez, don't you think ? Yes, he may be a tyrannical nut who nationalizes industries, shuts down opposition media, and puts opposition political figures in jail, but that's the socialist way. Because Chavez's version of "hope" would be hope of a worldwide socialist revolution, I wonder what it is he likes so much about Obama ??? I can agree with Chavez on this much – something smells alright.

When the democratically elected Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, was removed from office by the Honduran military, President Obama immediately denounced it as an illegal military coup. Obama stated "our goal now is on restoring democratic order in Honduras." Obama was joined by a slew of others criticizing Honduras for removing Zelaya. United Nations chief Ban Ki-Moon called the Honduran actions "an unconstitutional change of power." The Organization of American States (OAS) issued an ultimatum to Honduras to either restore Zelaya within 72 hours or be suspended from the OAS. Latin Leftist leaders (dictators) are in an uproar and threatening violence. Cuba's Fidel Castro called the Zelaya coup "a suicidal error," and urged a reverse coup. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez pledged that "we will bring them [the new Honduras leaders] down," and said Venezuelan troops are on alert. Chavez, who in addition to being a Leftist strongman, is also a coked up lunatic, also blamed the USA for the coup, by saying the Honduran coup leaders "had Yankee support," though Chavez admits that Obama was against the coup (it must be that other US government that supported it). Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega called on President Obama to stand firm against the Honduran coup (pretty ironic when only a few months ago, Ortega blasted Obama with a 50-minute long diatribe railing AGAINST the USA's interference in Central America).

With all this condemnation taking place, it's easy to forget what actually happened in Honduras. What makes it even easier to forget is that our media doesn't tell us what really happened there. They gloss over the details by saying something like "the military removed Zelaya shortly before a vote about term limits." Well, that doesn't quite cover it. There's more to that story. A lot more.

First, a few words about the government of Honduras. It is a democratic constitutional republic. Honduras holds free elections. It has a Constitution (since 1982), a Congress, and a Supreme Court. A division of power.

The Constitution of Honduras sets strict term limits and bars any changes to those term limits, and that is where the current problem started. President Zelaya would have been term-limited out of office next january, and Zelaya, a Chavez wannabe, wasn't too keen on that idea. He wanted term limits repealed, and moved unilaterally to have a referendum vote on the matter, in violation of the Honduran Constitution, against the Honduran attorney general, and in violation of the Honduran Supreme Court, who ruled against him. Zelaya went ahead with his referendum anyway. When the military refused to pass out the illegal ballots, Zelaya fired the head of the military, then he had (drumroll, please) his buddy HUGO CHAVEZ print up the ballots for the illegal term limits vote. With the illegal vote only hours away, the Supreme Court ordered Zelaya be arrested. At that point, Zelaya was removed from office and kicked out of the country.

Is that a coup, or is it enforcing the constitutional rule of law against Zelaya's illegal power grab ? I think it's far more the latter than the former. It's true that Zelaya didn't get any due process according to our standards, but the Honduran standards are not our standards. Here's article 239 of the Honduran Constitution:

Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

The Constitution mandated that Zelaya be removed from office IMMEDIATELY, and that's exactly what happened. The rule of law prevailed over Zelaya's selfish interests. So, when you hear the new interim President of Honduras, Roberto Micheletti, say ""We are abiding by the Constitution of our country and that's why we have national support," he is correct. That's also why the Congress of Honduras voted to keep Zelaya out of office.

I understand why Leftist leaders around the world are condemning the so-called coup in Honduras, because they are interested in obtaining power through any means necessary, but why did President Obama join in so strongly and immediately in denouncing the removal of Zelaya ? What does Obama stand for, the constitutional rule of law, or the unilateral and illegal bullying tactics of Manuel Zelaya ? There's a question I'd love to hear the press ask our President.

In 2006, North Korea attempted a launch of a Taepodong-2 ballistic missile. The launch failed, with the missile blowing apart about 40 seconds after takeoff. In response to the North Korean launch, the United Nations issued Resolution 1718, which stated, "[We demand] that the DPRK [North Korea] not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile." The North Koreans ignored the resolution, and launched another test of the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile last week. Rogue regimes like North Korea treat UN resolutions like the toothless requests that they usually are. Saddam Hussein ignored about 14 UN resolutions regarding WMD inspections in Iraq during the 1990's. Iran hasn't cared a whit about multiple UN resolutions calling for Iran to alter it's nuclear ambitions.

So, now that North Korea has proven it will ignore UN resolutions, guess what President Obama wants in response to the Korean missile test ??? He wants ANOTHER UN resolution, of course. Here's Obama on the missile test:

We will immediately consult with our allies in the region, including Japan and the Republic of Korea, and members of the U.N. Security Council to bring this matter before the Council.

I don't mean to single out only Obama here. Things were much the same under Bush and Clinton too. If countries like North Korea and Iran were responsive to the international community, they wouldn't be considered rogue regimes in the first place. NK and Iran didn't comprise two of the three countries in Bush's "axis of evil" for nothing (notably absent from the axis of evil now is IRAQ. I wonder what happened there ?)

President Obama called an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council in response to North Korea's launch. After a three hour closed door session, the Security Council announced…..nothing. They couldn't agree on a response. Obama is urging for a strong response to North Korea, whatever that means, but Russia, China, Libya, Uganda, and Vietnam all called for restraint by the UN (is the UN ever anything OTHER than restrained ?). These countries are saying a strong UN response will endanger the Six Party Talks (that North Korea is already ignoring). Russia even laughably claimed to be "studying" whether North Korea actually violated any UN resolutions, which NK so obviously did.

Ironically, the North Koreans launched their Taepodong-2 missile on the same day Obama called for "a world without nuclear weapons." While I applaud Obama's notions to reduce strategic nuclear weapons, stop their proliferation, and secure nuclear material around the world, there will NEVER be a world without nukes. That genie is out of the bottle. There's no going back. Obama was being naive in that respect. At this point, it is the dark threat of mutually assured destruction that keeps nuclear weapons from being used. If the major powers like the U.S., Russia, and China abandoned their nuclear weapons, it would actually increase the threat that rogue regimes and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda could pose to the world if they acquired nukes. The rest of the world would be defenseless.

Obama also reversed course on European missile defense, and is attempting to use it as a bargaining chip to get Iran to stop it's nuclear program. Here's Obama again:

"Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the US, but to Iran's neighbours and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system."

I guess you could call this a kind of nuclear cap-and-trade policy, but to my way of thinking, this bargain should not be struck, even if Iran does agree to it. Iran isn't the only nuclear threat to Europe, not to mention that Iran cannot be trusted to keep their side of the bargain, any more than North Korea could be trusted to keep it's past pledges.
—
FYI – Don't forget to attend the Cleveland Tax Day Tea Party on April 15th. The event will take place from 4-6pm. The location has been moved from Public Square to Mall C. Nuclear weapons aren't the only thing proliferating. So is the government confiscation of our hard-earned money.

The Global Poverty Act (S.2433). That sounds worthwhile. We all want to reduce global poverty. This pleasant sounding bill is sponsored by none other than Senator Barack Obama (D-God), the "new kind of politician", The Man From Hope (no wait, that was Bubba Clinton, the sexual predator president), The Audacity Of Hopester, who transcends all who came before him. He's The Great And Powerful Oz-bama. Swoon at mere mention of his name, ye lowly mortals. Pay no attention to the man in the booth.

The Global Poverty Act would commit the US to paying 0.7 percent of our Gross National Product to the United Nations to meet the UN's 2000 Millenium Development goals. This amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the US already spends in foreign aid. The US gives more in aid than any other country on this planet to begin with.

If this sounds like a global tax to you, well, it does to me too, payable to one of the most corrupt organizations on earth, the United Nations (who, btw, recently had it's Human Rights Council start on a mission to find countries who are "abusing freedom of speech". I hope you heard that. The UN is looking for countries who are too free, and calling that a problem. That's what happens when the Human Rights Council is dominated by the Arab League. They start prosecuting freedom rather than human rights violators. Also, guess who the biggest human rights violator on earth is, according to the mega-corrupt UN ??? If you said "Israel", you win first prize). The UN is a complete joke, is increasingly anti-american, is anti-Israel, is becoming anti-human rights, and is anti-sanity…and Barack Obama and others want to give it a big old chunk of our money, since we have so much extra that we don't need. All you foks out there have tons of extra money laying around, don't you ? Of course you do. That's why we don't have any problems here in America. We are rich. Yahoo ! It's a non-stop party here in the USA. The streets are paved with gold.

If you ask me, we should be considering withdrawing from the UN, not surrendering our sovereignty to it through a global tax. I think the chances of the UN eradicating global poverty with our global tax dollars are slightly less than my chances of finding an armed nuclear device in my backyard this morning.

It just occurred to me that I might be, to quote Obama, "distracting us from the issues that americans truly care about" by bringing this stuff about Barack's global tax up. If so, I truly and deeply apologize, and if Obama does become president, I will report to a re-education camp immediately. Until that time, I will operate on the assumption that this is still a somewhat free country guided by a Constitution, where the notion of paying a global tax to an unfriendly group of corrupt nations not only wouldn't be considered a good idea, but would be considered treasonous. I guess that makes me old-school, out of touch with Barry O's "new kind of politics". I hope they have real orange juice at the re-education camp. It's so much better than that sugary orange drink or that Tang stuff, and I've never even tried Sunny D. Like I said, I'm old school. But I digress…

Wait a second…Could it be that the Global Poverty Act is intended to BRING poverty to the entire globe ? Now, THAT makes sense. I should have thought of that earlier. We redistribute the wealth away from the rich people (like you and I. "Rich" will be defined as "anyone with a roof over their head"), and we give it to the UN, who will then do something with it, resulting in Global Poverty. Got it. I wonder why Obama didn't explain it like that to begin with ?

The text of the Global Poverty Act purposely avoids ANY mention of the cost of the bill, instead making it sound more like a generic and compassionate commitment to reduce poverty, as follows:

"…[The legislation] requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

It's only when you get to the UN's Millenium Development Goals that you discover the 0.7% tax on US GNP. Nice trick, Mr. Obama. That trick got the House to pass the bill without discussion via a voice vote back in february 2008. It is set to come up for a Senate vote soon, and it seems nobody is raising much of an objection. It seems nobody is even mentioning it. So far, this is pure stealth legislation. I have yet to hear the issue raised in any newscast or in any debate. Tim Russert just spent an entire hour with Barack Obama on Meet The Press and didn't raise the issue. Making the US subservient to the United Nations seems like a major issue to me. I hope it is to others as well.

And incidentally (or not), the Global Poverty Act would also commit the USA to the Kyoto Protocol, which is part of the Millenium Development Goals. Funny how that works.

You can send a blast fax to president Bush and Republican congressional leaders to ask that they stop the Global Poverty Act here.