Garden State Patriot

With apologies to that unforgettable band of the 80’s, A Flock of Seagulls, their biggest hit song of that era is an apt description of sorts of Obama policy towards the rogue, terrorist state.

President Obama’s approach to Iran is a failure unfolding before our eyes. Despite his overtures to open up a dialogue with the Tyrants on Teheran their fists have only become more firmly and tightly clenched than ever before. Now, as their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons become ever more close to becoming reality, Obama offers the free world nothing but empty words – plenty of carrots but no stick in sight.

In fact, you know the world is turned upide down when the leader of France – France! – feels the need to scold Obama for his failure to lead on the issue.

The contempt with which the president of France regards the president of the United States was displayed in public last week.

Nicolas Sarkozy was furious with Barack Obama for his adolescent warbling about a world without nuclear weapons at a meeting Mr. Obama chaired of the United Nations Security Council last Thursday (9/24).

“We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth,” President Obama said.

What infuriated President Sarkozy was that at the time Mr. Obama said those words, Mr. Obama knew the mullahs in Iran had a secret nuclear weapons development site, and he didn’t call them on it.

‘President Obama dreams of a world without weapons…but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite,” Mr. Sarkozy said.

“Iran since 2005 has flouted five Security Council resolutions,” Mr. Sarkozy said. “North Korea has been defying Council resolutions since 1993.”

“What good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community?” he asked rhetorically. “More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe out a UN member state off the map.”

If the Security Council had imposed serious sanctions on the regimes which are flouting UN resolutions, the resolution Mr. Obama proposed about working toward nuclear disarmament wouldn’t have been so meaningless, Mr. Sarkozy implied.

“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce or own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.

The extent of President Obama’s naivete – or duplicity – was on display Friday at the G20 summit when the president, flanked by Mr. Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, revealed to the American public that Iran had a second nuclear weapons site on a military base near the holy city of Qom.

News reports indicated Mr. Obama had been briefed on the site before his inauguration. But he’s been conducting his foreign policy as if the mullahs could be trusted.

The fact that Obama has known about the secret nuclear site in Iran and has still persisted in a Neville Chamberlain-like approach to this problem is stunning - and suggests that his ego is far larger than his intelligence. It his time for him to lead before it is too late.

Let me be clear. The Iranian situation is indeed complex. The answers are not easy, nor are the consequences of using military force to stop them pretty. Iran very easily could attack Israel, either directly or throught their surrogate terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah. They could also use these terror groups to attack American interests and disrupt the world’s oil supply and, thusly, further damage an already weak world economy. All of these possibilities are indeed bleak.

Bleaker yet, though, is a world in which Iran possesses nuclear weapons. Like Pakistan and North Korea now, the free world would have no leverage over Iran. The mullahs could see fit to transfer their nuclear know-how to other terror states like Syria or, worse yet, put nuclear weapons in the hands of Hamas or Hezbollah. An arms race could spread across the Middle East. Iran would also be free to continue to foment terrorist activities across the globe, with particular aim at the state of Israel, without the fear of consequence. This second scenario would be a far worse reality than using force to stop them now and, one would hope, replacing the regime with the pro-western contingent in that country.

Despite my many other serious concerns about what this President is doing, this issue should be above party and above ideology. An American President needs to, above all, be grounded in reality. He (or she) needs to understand their role as both leader of America and the free world. The time for diplomacy is quickly running out on Iran, I fear. The President now needs to step up and be forthright about the matter at hand and let the American people know that military force may be the only solution to this crisis. This is not an issue that the United States can defer on and leave to the state of Israel.

The President has before said the time for ‘childish games is over.’ Well, the time for fecklessness, weakness and naivete now ought to be over. It’s time for Obama to step up on this issue. To do otherwise, is an abrogation of his sworn duty to protect and defend our nation. To do nothing, would be unforgiveable.

Cross-posted at Red County and Conservatives with Attitude!

Well, he already owns the banks and car companies. So, it should come as no surprise that Barack Obama alos owns Jon Corzine’s bid for re-election. From the New York Times:

TRENTON — While President Obama’s political team seeks to nudge David A. Paterson out of the New York governorship, they are fully engaged in trying to get Gov. Jon S. Corzine re-elected here.

Every TV ad that Mr. Corzine puts on the air is being screened by the president’s team. The governor’s aides are giving daily briefings to the White House. Mr. Obama’s pollsters have taken over for Mr. Corzine’s polling team, and White House operatives are on the ground for everything from internal strategy sessions to obscure pep rallies with Latino supporters.

Read the rest here.

As we all know, Social Security is heading for the proverbial iceberg. And like the Titanic before her, she is speeding up instead of slowing down and turning away.

According to new CBO numbers, Social Security will begin running deficits - not by 2030, not by 2040 or 2050 – but by 2010! Here is the story from Ed Morrissey @ HotAir.com:

Four years ago, George W. Bush attempted to reform the entitlement program Social Security, warning that the system was accelerating into collapse and would soon run deficits.  Democrats scoffed and claimed the Social Security system was solid and wouldn’t have problems for at least 50 years, as Harry Reid told PBS’ Jim Lehrer in June 2005.  Just last year, the CBO — under the direction of Peter Orszag, now budget director in the Obama administration — claimed that the first cash deficits in Social Security would not come until 2019.

Now, however, the CBO has determined that Social Security will run cash deficits next year and in 2011, and by 2016 will be more or less in permanent deficit mode.  Hot Air has exclusively obtained the summer 2009 CBO report sent to legislators on Capitol Hill but not yet made public, which shows that outgo will exceed income for the first time since the 1983 fix on an annual basis in 2010:

See Chart Here

The numbers need explaining.  The number to watch is the “Primary Surplus” number, which watches actual income and expenditures without the interest payments from the general fund.  The interest payments mask the fact that costs have begun to outstrip income on an annual basis (individual months have gone into deficit in the past).   One way to look at this, according to my sources, is to think of this as a mortgage, and in 2010-11, the income can’t make the payments, so the general fund has to cover them.  Since the interest obligation compounds, the debt grows.

As we can see, this trend reverses itself temporarily from 2012-15, but the surpluses are minimal.  By 2016, the deficits return, and begin to accelerate again.  By 2019, the primary surplus runs $63 billion in the red, almost triple the deficit in 2017, showing the rapid decline of the Social Security system.

George Bush, for all his faults, was dead on about this issue while Democrats demagogued it and obstructed, allowing an opportunity to deal with the problem to slip away. Now, while Social Security heads for disaster, Obama & Co. continue to try to ram through asocialized healthcare entitlement we simply can’t afford. To pay for these deficits, there will be no choice but to raid the general fund and bust the federal budget or pass massive tax increases. And guess who is a proponent of that?

Barack Obama thinks that Social Security’s fiscal shortfall is overblown. He opposes private accounts, benefit cuts, or an increase in the retirement age. He writes:

I believe there are a number of ways we can make Social Security solvent that do not involve placing these added burdens on our seniors. One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall.

That option would be the largest increase in marginal tax rates in decades—larger than the Bush 1990 and Clinton 1993 tax hikes combined.

Gird your loins, my friends. Gird your loins.

This week we turn to international affairs. By all accounts, Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. If the U.S., under the current administration, is unwilling to do whatever it takes to prevent this, do you think Israel will at some point attack Iran’s nuclear facilities?

[polldaddy poll="2018778"]

There is a movement afoot to toss a black politician under the proverbial bus. And it ain’t happening in the Republican Party, my friends. No, no…we need look no further than to the great state of New York where the establishment of the Democrat Party, all the way up to the White House, is pressuring David Paterson – the state’s first ever black governor – to step aside and not run in next year. With Paterson out of the way, Andrew Cuomo – oh, yes, a white guy - would likely be the nominee.

So, what say you Lib media? Bill Cosby? Maureen Dowd? JIMMY CARTER? Are the Democrats all racists for opposing David Paterson and telling him to get the heck out of the way? Or can only Republicans who oppose a black man be racist?

ALBANY, N.Y. – Gov. David Paterson isn’t scrapping his plans to run for the office he inherited 18 months ago despite growing pressure from Washington and intervention by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has contacted the governor and the White House over his concern.

A senior Democratic adviser close to Paterson said Sunday that the state’s first black governor is still planning to run and is focusing on the state’s fiscal crisis. The adviser spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak for Paterson.

The governor’s office has refused to comment since reports Saturday night revealed the Washington-based effort to persuade the governor to drop out of the 2010 race. That would pave the way for the far more popular Andrew Cuomo, the state’s first-term attorney general.

The Rev. Al Sharpton said Sunday on his radio show that he has spoken to the White House and Paterson about his concern that Democrats do what is best for the people of New York. He wouldn’t say whether he was advising Paterson to drop out.

Obama has not spoken to Paterson about the race, said a senior White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive political matter. But it’s no secret that Democrats — in New York, in Washington and at the White House — are very concerned about Paterson’s re-election bid.

The White House has not ordered Paterson to leave the race and would not do so, the official continued, saying only the governor can make the decision about what’s right for him, the party and the state. But Obama’s concern of losing the governor’s office in such a key state has been communicated to Paterson and his advisers, the White Office official said.

Another senior Democratic adviser in New York said those seeking Paterson’s withdrawal are suggesting he could land a Washington job in the administration. The adviser spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official wasn’t authorized to speak for Paterson or the New York congressional delegation.

Read the rest HERE.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

In his recent e-mail blast, pollster John Zogby offers some advice to TheBama in order to regain his lost mojo. Ordinarily, I would quickly hit ‘delete’ when coming across such tripe but Zogby’s analysis was too rich (and amusing) to ignore, especially considering this is coming from one of the more well-known public opinion researchers around.

For example, Zogby claims:

The right demonizes him and his efforts to offer conservatives an open hand have only alienated his supporters on the left. Independents see little economic progress, are confused about healthcare reform, and hear the same old partisan noise coming from Congress.

Yes, the Anointed One has really tripped over himself reaching out to Republicans. Perhaps I missed this when he ran roughshod over them when pushing for the Scheme-ulous bill. Or when the omnibus spending bill was stuffed down their throats. Or now as he attempts to trample over them to pass his socialist health care scheme (despite public outcry against it, backed by polling data I might add).

And Zogby’s contention that independents are ‘confused’ about healthcare smacks of arrogance and condescension. I’d like to see Zogby’s research to back this up.

Zogby goes on to say:

It’s safe to say that no one since Franklin D. Roosevelt has faced such daunting combined economy and diplomatic challenges. FDR was able to use his Democratic Congressional majorities to push through the New Deal, and effectively painted the Republican opposition as tools of wealthy bankers and industrialists. Being confrontational just isn’t in Obama’s makeup and today’s political climate is far different than that of the 1930s. Today, Senators see themselves as free agents and expensive campaigns still require cash from big business.

Zogby’s contention that it is ’safe to say’ Obama is facing the toughest domestic and internationals challenges since FDR is simply factually inaccurate. When Ronald Reagan took office, the U.S. economy was worse than that inherited by Obama, with the Misery Index (unemployment + inflation) at a staggering 19.72%. Upon Obama’s immaculation in January, the Misery Index was 7.29%.

Certainly, the War on Terror (which Obama has made every effort to downplay) is as serious a threat to our security as any we have faced. But for Zogby to dismiss the serious threat the nation faced from Soviet communism circa 1981 is completely disingenuous.

As for Obama being non-confrontational, how delusional can one get? Are we to believe that someone as attuned to the day-to-day activities of this White House is unware of Obama urging on his supporters in the following manner (as Gateway Pundit reported):

Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
Obama To His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”

Zogby continues with more nonsensical rantings:

As for Republicans, their opposition to all of Obama’s initiatives may have looked like good politics in August, but putting up stop signs is not an agenda that wins elections.  However, the GOP may be finding that Obama won’t fight back, and there is no greater problem for a politician than the appearance of weakness.

On what basis does Zogby claim elections can not be won purely on the basis of voter’s desire to oppose the agenda of the party in power or a particular President for that matter? Just what was the positive agenda offered by Democrats in 2006? I would submit the Democratic takeover of Congress was purely a rejection of Bush at the time, not a desire to embrace the liberal politics of Nancy Pelosi. If Zogby can refute this, let him provide some evidence.

Further, it is  comical that Zogby thinks Obama’s problem is an unwillingness to fight. What does he think Obama’s upcoming speech on healthcare is aimed to do other than try to ram through his agenda despite decisive public opposition?

And how does Zogby propose that Obama regain his footing?

Obama and his surrogates must campaign across the nation to showcase communities where the stimulus is creating jobs, or at least stopping their loss. New green jobs would be especially attractive to both liberals and moderates. Such a media campaign appears to already be in the works.

In other words, lie and then talk about BS green jobs to placate left-wing eco-zealots. I’m sure that will do wonders to woo back voters troubled by nearly double-digit unemployment.

One might say that Zogby is merely showing his true liberal colors here – and that may well be so. But as a professional pollster, you would think he would at least support his rationalizations with facts uncovered by his research. Instead, Zogby mars his own credibility here with inane conclusions devoid of any such evidence.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

First, the White House wanted people to snitch on their fellow citizens who opposed their government-run healthcare scheme. Now, we learn of the latest potential intrusion by the White House into our privacy. According to the National Legal and Policy Center, Barack Obama’s White House wants to snoop on our activities on the Internet.

NLPC has uncovered a plan by the White House New Media operation to hire a technology vendor to conduct a massive, secret effort to harvest personal information on millions of Americans from social networking websites.

The information to be captured includes comments, tag lines, emails, audio, and video. The targeted sites include Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr and others – any space where the White House “maintains a presence.”

The story goes on:

Other troubling issues include:

extremely broad secrecy terms preventing the vendor from disclosing to the public or the media what information is being captured and archived (page 7, “Restriction Against Disclosure”)

wholesale capturing of comments by non-White House staff on publicly accessible sites

capturing of content of any type (text, graphics, audio, or video)

capturing of comments by both Obama critics and supporters, with no restriction as to how the White House would use the information.

Yes, my friends. The next time you update your status on Twitter it might be used against you. Heck next thing you know playing Mafia Wars on Facebook will be considered a threat by this White House.

One has to wonder at this point, do we have a President in the Oval Office or a KGB agent? In fact, I’m beginning not to wonder at all.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Barack Obama and the Democrats are spending us into oblivion. Today, the CBO revised their figures and the numbers are downright scary.

WASHINGTON — The federal government will have to borrow $1.6 trillion this year to finance its operations, the highest single-year budget deficit in the post-World War II era, the Congressional Budget Office said in a mid-year update Tuesday.

New spending by Congress since the CBO last updated its projections in March prompted it to raise its estimate of the total deficit from 2010-19 by $2.7 trillion, the CBO said in its update. That 10-year cumulative budget deficit is now expected to reach $7.137 trillion, the CBO said.

Much of that 10-year deficit increase is accounted for by additional appropriations to finance the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. About half of the increase in the 10-year deficit is a result of lowered revenue expectations as the economy continued to struggle, and additional interest costs to finance the national debt.

The U.S. public debt will exceed 61% of gross domestic product by the end of 2010, the CBO said, with that figure rising to 68% of GDP by the end of 2019.

The $1.6 trillion deficit now projected by the CBO for 2009 is $80 billion less than it projected in its March update. That decrease is mostly due to lowered projections of how much the government will spend on its Troubled Asset Relief Program to rescue the banking sector.

The CBO’s estimates are broadly in line with new deficit figures released by the Obama administration Tuesday. The White House Office of Management and Budget also slightly reduced its deficit estimate for 2009, to $1.58 trillion. The White House estimates the 10-year deficit at $9 trillion.

And remember, if Obamacare passes you can add at least another $2 trillion to all of this.

To say this is unsustainable is an understatement. This debt is threatening the very prosperity of our nation. Obama & Co. are destroying us from within.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

In Ohio, a bunch of Obama drones descended on Ohio State where Rep. Sherrod Brown was having a ’roundtable’ discussion. Of course, the Congressman had been hiding under his desk during the recess until now, having no town hall meetings. So, in order to avoid being challenged by real Americans who are opposed to Obamacare, Brown sent an e-mail to the Obama astroturfers ‘Organization for America’ in hopes of stacking the deck. In fact, many of Brown’s constituents who found out about the meeting went to Ohio State only to be shut out from the meeting.

Outside, though, several of the Obamatons were confronted by an activist wielding a camera. She asked three of these drones what they liked about the bill. Here are their brilliant responses.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Here’s the story:

WASHINGTON – Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama’s administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama’s liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess. Obama had wanted the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation’s almost 50 million uninsured, but didn’t include it as one of his core principles of reform.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is “not the essential element” of the administration’s health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.

Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate, especially in rural states such as his own.

With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates, but independent of the government. They would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims.

Are your antennae up? Well, they should be. Here’s what Heritage had to say about co-ops in one of their recent e-mails:

According to today’s Washington Post, the Senate Finance Committee will soon produce a health care plan that rejects “a government-run health insurance plan in favor of a network of member-owned cooperatives.” More commonly referred to as “co-ops”, these organizations actually already have a long and proud tradition in many sectors of the U.S. economy, including health care. But Americans must be wary that our nation’s co-op tradition does not become a vehicle for government run health care.

To some the word “co-operative” may have a slight Bolshevik whiff to it, but actually a private co-op is nothing more than private individuals exercising their right to voluntarily self-associate. From farm bureaus to barn-raisers, private co-ops are part of American society. In the realm of health care, a group that organizes coverage provided by private insurers could be structured as a co-op. Or the health insurer itself could be a co-operative owned by its member policyholders. Those kind of insurance companies are called mutual insurers.

Understood in this manner, co-ops have far more to do with Edmund Burke and little platoons than with Leon Trotsky and manning the barricades. And they can be part of the health care solution.

But, don’t be fooled, Burkean little platoons are not what the Obama Administration and its allies in Congress have in mind In liberal Washington today, leaders such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are talking up co-ops that would be:

• Run by the government, preferably the federal government
• Funded or subsidized by the government, or
• Includes plans chosen by the government.

A co-op with any of these three features is obviously unacceptable. A real co-op is:

• Run by its members
• Funded by its members and other private sources
• Controlled by its members

Why is the left fastening to co-ops now? Because their public plan idea—a way for the government to take over health care—has run into a buzz saw of opposition among the American people. Liberals have concluded, it seems, that there’s more than one way to skin a cat. So if the public plan was a Trojan horse for a single payer (which means a complete government take over of your health care decisions), a co-op (the way liberals mean it) is a Trojan horse for a public plan.

Congress should, of course, be empowering true local, private co-ops to be a real health choice for Americans. To do that Congress needs to amend the tax laws to do two things: Allow mutual insurance companies to be the foundation of non-profit insurance companies; and give people the same tax breaks for getting insurance from a co-op as from their employer.

None of this is, however, what some leading members of Congress have in mind when the subject of co-ops comes up.

If we’ve learned nothing else from this crowd running the show in Washington it’s that they will stop at nothing to get what they want. Co-ops appear to be the latest ruse to get their foot in the door towards government-run healthcare.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!