Archive for the ‘Barack Obama’ Category

Blackwater founder Erik Prince made a statement recently that was roundly critical of Obama administration policies, calling Obama out for having destroyed his company that could otherwise have solved the ISIS “boots on the ground” issue.

“It’s a shame the [Obama] administration crushed my old business, because as a private organization, we could’ve solved the boots-on-the-ground issue, we could have had contracts from people that want to go there as contractors; you don’t have the argument of U.S. active duty going back in there,” Prince said in an on-stage discussion featuring retired four-star Gen. James Conway. “[They could have] gone in there and done it, and be done, and not have a long, protracted political mess that I predict will ensue.”

Pretty much.

The left already thinks of US troops as mercenaries (Washington Post writer Bill “American troops are baby-killing mercenary scum who need to shut up and do what I tell them” Arkin is infamous for it) and uses it as an epithet.  And they generally tend to hold Tim Robbin’s opinion on business (that aren’t their own) as well:

The solution to dealing with ISIS might actually be to just agree with the left and actually let corporations go in with mercenary forces to clean up the mess.

If corporations actually had fought a blood war for oil in Iraq (as per the leftist fantasy), then there would be corporate entities with an interest in the final outcome of the conflict.  If Exxon/Shell/BP/Texaco were all invested in the nation as part of their bottom line, they’d be interested in building the place up.

Historically, US companies have built infrastructure in other nations.  The first example that comes to mind is Creole Petroleum Corporation, which built up Venezuela’s oil business (which Venezuela took over by nationalization in 1976).  MST3K riffed one of their short films back in the mid-late 90s.

-

I started writing this whole post a few days ago, then life got in the way, and now returning to it, I see it still holds quite true.  The world has started asking questions about this shaky coalition of the unwilling, Iraqi civilians who haven’t fled are left between the Scylla of American airstrikes with no ground support and the Charybdis of ISIS which still controls their lives.

President Obama has declared “war upon war so we can have peace upon peace” which sounds like Woodrow Wilson’s lying promises of noninterventionism coupled with his propaganda that dragged us into WWI now married to Neville Chamberlain’s naivete when it comes to dealing with aggressors.

-

Ultimately, a mercenary force on the ground would solve the political quandary of putting American forces into active combat (even though we have troops on the ground… and they are wearing boots, no matter how many times the lie of “no boots on the ground” is repeated).  If Iraq as a nation were run by anyone who cared about the nation – whether decent Iraqis or foreign business interests, they’d have hired mercenaries on their own by now.  If Iraq’s war were privatized and subject to market forces, it would be won and stabilized already.

-

The problems of the Iraq war, both under Bush and Obama, are representative of their respective ideologies.  Bush believed in spreading freedom and democracy to people whose capacity to immediately accept freedom and democracy even the Founders would’ve been skeptical of.  Bush’s domestic policy in the US ignored the US borders and ignored sovereignty for domestic business interests, so thinking of the border as something that should be sealed didn’t really occur to him or those around him – hence the foreign fighters who were swarming across in the 2004-2006 timeframe.  The HET team I got to work with briefly near Fallujah in 2005 explained that the entire problem in Iraq stemmed from foreign terrorists that the locals could clearly identify, but who kept coming in because borders were porous.  But Bush’s failures were contrasted with successes, though – the surges worked.  It was a fix to a problem that could’ve been prevented, but it still was a fix.

Obama’s ideology when it comes to problems is to talk about them just enough to say they aren’t important (or to blame Republican partisanship for them while claiming to be nonpartisan), and then handwaving them away.  His problem-solving methods are limited to rhetoric and using the bully pulpit to be dismissive of all criticism, and enjoying a press that willingly obliges his every whim.  His answer to Iraq is that it’s Bush’s fault because of the status-of-forces agreement of 2008, one which Obama did not seek to change with Iraq because he accepted the will of the Iraqi government as being every bit as important as America’s.  The US isn’t exceptional to him, and all countries are equal.

This led the US-Iraq relationship to become one that may as well have been a Maury Povich show with “out of control” children telling their parents off, and the parents sighing that they just can’t do anything about it.  Iraq needed to be leaned on until they accepted.  Obama was unwilling to lean on Iraq and tell them they had to accept in order to prevent a predictable result like ISIS, because Obama didn’t want to be involved.  He’s the absentee parent who doesn’t want the kid, so he lets the kid run wild – and/or blames the kid’s other parent for the problems while absolving himself of responsiblity and saying he never wanted kids in the first place.  None of that solves the problem and all of it contributes to it.

Nonetheless, he uses the 2008 status of forces agreement as an excuse.  When ISIS threatens everyone in the world, he responds with “I will not be intimidated” and some more words.  Now, pushed hard by his staff, he’s barely on board with half-measures that will accomplish little besides aiding Assad against ISIS and give ISIS a rallying cry for more terrorists to join them.  A declaration of “I will put no American boots on the ground” (technically already a lie, but the intent to avoid conflict is clear) is a declaration that thoroughly emboldens the enemy as much as a retreat date in Afghanistan did there, and that declaration of timidity reminds our other geopolitical foes like Russia that we aren’t going to do anything to save the Ukraine.

Senator Jeff Sessions called out the White House and rich internationalist billionaires and businessmen like Mark “Like Open Borders on Facebook” Zuckerberg for demanding open borders for you, while they spend millions to keep people out.

It’s very much worth it to listen to Sessions – he gets rolling pretty quick, hammering home the point that Zuckerberg has gone to Mexico and called American immigration policy “unfit for today’s world”, and spends millions in pushing for amnesty as well as millions on his own home for “privacy”.  He calls out Zuckerberg, who’s using his billionaire wealth and influence to push for more illegals in the country while US citizens are left high and dry despite having the skills that Zuckerberg would need for his company.

Basically, Zuckerberg wants cheap labor for computers at the expense of American workers, but cloaks his hypocritical greed in social justice rhetoric.

Meanwhile, it appears President Obama isn’t fond of fence jumpers when they’re at his house.

We were told over and over again that Obamacare wasn’t a tax.  Then it passed SCOTUS and the weak-willed Roberts as a tax.  And now the IRS has gone ahead and included it on the 1040 as a tax.

From Americans for Tax Reform:

On Thursday the IRS released a slew of draft 2014 tax forms. The new draft Form 1040 shows a new surtax line has been created for the payment of the individual mandate surtax – see line 61 of the 1040:

IRS 1040 obamacare tax via americans for tax reformFamously, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that the individual mandate surtax is in fact a tax. However, that does not compel conservatives to agree that Obamacare’s individual mandate is Constitutional. The same decision declared the individual mandate unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Conservatives can accept that this surtax is a tax increase without accepting the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

The Obamacare individual mandate non-compliance surtax is one of at least seven Obamacare taxes that violate the President’s “firm pledge” not to raise any tax on any American making less than $250,000 per year. Thorough documentation of Obama’s promise can be found here.

A lot of people have already been hit by tax hikes and rate increases from Obamacare, as well as losing doctors they need.  And now more than thinking about it in just the theoretical, we can see that the IRS will be running it.

From John Fund at National Review:

… George Ciampa, the most vibrant and spry 89-year-old I have ever met. In 1944, he landed in Normandy as a soldier assigned to the 84th Graves Registration Unit. “I spent the next few years going from France to Germany helping to bury people,” he told me. He was involved in setting up the temporary military cemeteries in Normandy that have now become stirring memorials to our fallen dead. …

This week, George received a call from the White House, who said they knew he would be over in France during D-Day, and wondered if he would attend a private meeting the White House was arranging for veterans with President Obama.

George thought about it for awhile and concluded he just couldn’t. “I have so many issues with the president’s policies, including the most recent ones,” he told me ruefully.  “I just couldn’t convince myself to do it.”

He is not alone. The recent Bergdahl prisoner swap in which five hardened Taliban terrorists were released from prison is rubbing a lot of the military veterans attending D-Day events the wrong way.  “It’s not that we don’t want to respect the commander-in-chief,” one told me sadly. “It’s just that he makes it so hard to do so.”

Wonder if he’ll be called a partisan psychopath?

Longer version here.  Remember, this is the guy who actively said he will bankrupt the coal industry.

Now, here comes a mandate for 30% cuts in emissions, which are already low.

From WSJ:

WASHINGTON—The Environmental Protection Agency will propose a draft rule on Monday seeking a 30% reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2030 from existing power plants based on emission levels from 2005, according to two people who have been briefed on the rule, setting in motion the main piece of President Barack Obama‘s climate-change agenda.

The rule, scheduled to be completed one year from now, will give flexibility to the states, which must implement the rules and submit compliance plans to EPA by June 2016. States can decide how to meet the reductions, including joining or creating new cap-and-trade programs, deploying more renewable energy or ramping up energy-efficiency technologies.

Either buy carbon indulgencies from Global Warming High Priest Al Gore or throw money at Solyndra or go out of business.  And soon the American people will be experiencing brownouts and blackouts and power loss that will be blamed on the greedy power companies.  There will always be kulaks or counterrevolutionaries or people who are not significantly revolutionary enough who are the cause of misery, never the actual tyrants who engineered it.

The Obama administration is already claiming credit for everything that was done by Bush 10 years ago and that is coming to fruition now.  The Chamber of Commerce (though reprehensible on amnesty) has already come forth warning that the new regulations will cost upwards of $50,000,000,000 for energy producers.  Watching the second Obama video above, he outright states “the companies will pass those costs onto their customers” – you will foot the bill for this.  The EPA is already setting up a legal bulwark to prevent anyone from assailing their new regulations – they’re spending your money to raise your power rates and cut your access to energy and now they’re spending your money on their lawyers to crush anyone who would oppose them.

As usual.

regulations grow freedom dies

From HotAir, a bit about Obama’s transition team knowing about VA issues in 2008.

Great news for the White House, no? Sure, it shows they knowingly left sick and injured vets to languish in a Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare. In a sane world, that would be the last straw in sending Shinseki packing. But it also lets O share blame with the Bush administration, one of his favorite methods of damage control. …

Veterans Affairs officials warned the Obama-Biden transition team in the weeks after the 2008 presidential election that the department shouldn’t trust the wait times that its facilities were reporting.

“This is not only a data integrity issue in which [Veterans Health Administration] reports unreliable performance data; it affects quality of care by delaying — and potentially denying — deserving veterans timely care,” the officials wrote…

The thing is, Obama didn’t care then, like he doesn’t care now.  Remember, in 2008-2009, one of his first moves was a push to get veterans to pay for their war wounds with private insurance:

WASHINGTON (CNN)Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

None of what’s going on at the Obama VA is any surprise to veterans who’ve been paying attention.

Of course he doesn’t care.  He didn’t care then, he doesn’t care now.  He equates registering with the selective service to actually being in the military, neither he nor anyone on his staff knows what a corpsman is or even how to say the word, and his first move was to make vets pay for their war wounds with their own insurance.  He and the people he surrounds himself with loathe the military and the virtues it stands for.

This isn’t really a surprise.

There have been a lot of stories about this in the last couple of weeks.  Frankly, it’s disgusting and traitorous to the citizenry who care about the nation.

First you have the suicidally stupid GOP senators saying they’ll pass amnesty if they get back the senate (via HotAir):

no matter how much the GOP blathers about border enforcement and security, what they’re really interested in — both for political reasons and to please their masters in the business lobby — is legalization.

“I certainly think we can make progress on immigration particularly on topics like modernizing our legal immigration system, improving our mechanisms for enforcing the law and I think if you did those things you could actually make some progress on addressing those who are illegally,” Rubio said Wednesday evening of the prospects of passing immigration reform in 2015.

Yeah, they’ll import some more Democrats, and cheap labor for their cronies, and alienate every conservative and American who actually cares about their citizenship and nation.

Speaking of their business cronies, the head of the Chamber of Commerce demands importing more illegal aliens or else! (also via HotAir)

This guy’s only saying what the entire Republican leadership thinks.

Maybe the “joke” is that he’s pretending to care about the political implications of amnesty and the fate of the GOP when all he really wants is cheap labor.

“If the Republicans don’t do it, they shouldn’t bother to run a candidate in 2016,” Donohue joked at an event on infrastructure investment in D.C. “Think about that. Think about who the voters are. I just did that to get everybody’s attention.”…

“You think Congress can get immigration reform done this year, in an election year?” moderator Eamon Javers asked Donohue.

“Yes, yes,” Donohue replied.

National Association of Manufacturers President Jay Timmons said he also thought immigration reform could pass this year, perhaps in a lame-duck session.

Of course they’ll do it in a lame-duck session, when there are no electoral consequences.  Besides, there never will be electoral consequences since the Democrats will be elected in perpetuity.

The shortsighted greedy clowns in the Chamber of Commerce will be strangled by regulations and taxation to pay for the social welfare costs of an imported underclass of “cheap” labor – except for the biggest of big business cronies, of course.  Speaking of biggest of big business cronies, internet multibillionaires are already celebrating the importation of cheap labor for their own enterprises:

The immigration reform advocacy group co-founded by Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg notched a win in Tuesday night’s GOP primary in North Carolina.

Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), who has backed “earned legal work status” for people who came to the country illegally, beat off a primary challenge from former Wall Street trader Frank Roche, in a race seen as an early indication of the role immigration would play in this year’s GOP primaries.

Ellmers, elected to Congress amid the Tea Party wave in 2010, was the favorite in the race for the 2nd District, but had drawn opposition for her stance on immigration reform.

“Despite being attacked by those opposed to commonsense immigration reform, Congresswoman Ellmers consistently articulated a solution to fix our broken immigration system, and tonight her constituents made clear their support for her leadership by overwhelmingly voting for her over her anti-immigrant primary opponent,” FWD.us president Joe Green said in a statement.

“Congresswoman Ellmers’ commanding primary victory makes clear: the time is now for House Republicans to bring immigration reform legislation to a vote.”

The FWD.us affiliate supporting conservatives, Americans for a Conservative Direction, had backed Ellmers with a $200,000 TV ad calling her a “conservative fighter for North Carolina” earlier this year. The ad outlined her efforts to fight the federal deficit, support for North Carolina military bases and “fix our broken immigration system once and for all” while still offering “no amnesty, period.”

Yes, the leftist globalist corporatist group called “forward” has a puppet called “Americans for a Conservative Direction”, and even throws hundreds of thousands of dollars out to say how conservative she is and how she’ll never pass amnesty, she’ll just pass comprehensive “common sense” immigration reform… so the child multibillionaire can have his way at your expense.

>Lame Duck "Immigration Reform" - Amnesty

And then of course, there’s White House chief-of-staff puppetmaster Valerie Jarrett saying that Boehner will pass amnesty (via Breitbart):

“I think we have a window this summer, between now and August, to get something done,” Jarrett said, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “We have a commitment from Speaker Boehner, who’s very frustrated with his caucus.”

Addressing attendees at an event described as conference where “investors and elite political donors” along with “hedge fund managers, political and business leaders and celebrities” can “speak freely,” Jarrett said that the Senate’s bill would pass in the House if Republicans brought it to the floor.

Translation: “The super-rich who are insulated from society will do this to you.”  This is the kind of thing that goes on in oligarchies around the world, not in a representative republic.

-

And as a couple more notes, the Obama administration has told US schools to accept illegal alien children regardless of documentation or lack thereof, and of course there’s this bit that Mark Krikorian at National Review discovered:

More interesting, though was this bit from the article:

The administration is also reportedly looking at shortening the time an immigrant is considered new, and therefore a removal priority. A recent immigrant would go from someone who entered in the last three years, to someone who entered in the last two weeks.

Although I disagree as a matter of policy, the idea that an illegal has put down roots here after three years, and thus shouldn’t be deported, at least makes a certain kind of sense. But to exempt an illegal alien from deportation simply because he snuck in at least 15 days ago is surreal. Or, more accurately, it’s proof that the Left has no intention whatsoever of enforcing future immigration laws, even if all the illegals here today get amnesty.

The goal of “comprehensive immigration reform” isn’t the fixing of any particular aspect of immigration law. It’s the abolition of immigration law.

Of course.

And the idea that someone has broken into your house and chosen to squat… does not make it theirs.  It makes them an intruder.