I believe he is fascist

Julia Arciga at The Daily Beast reports on Representative Ilhan Omar’s charming statement about President Trump:

“We have said this president is a racist. We have condemned his racist remarks. I believe he is fascist. . . .”

Let’s define terms. The online Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “fascism” as

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

President Trump loves our country and individual liberty. His administration has done more for minorities than Democrat administrations. President Obama increased federal regulation; President Trump has been de-regulating. 

“Severe economic and social regimentation” is on the agenda of the Democrat-Socialist Party; think Obamacare and endlessly playing the race card (headline at the link says it all, so you don’t have to go beyond the WSJ PayWall).  President Trump is getting government out of the way and decreasing taxes, which frees up the market to grow.

“Forcible suppression of opposition?” Like the mis-named Antifa mobs that beat up reporter Andy Ngo, who was there merely to video tape Antifa’s lawlessness in Portland? Or the Antifa mobs that rioted in Berkeley, smashing windows and committing other acts of vandalism?  Antifa should be called Pro-fa; they are the ones who want to silence their critics, to intimidate conservatives from speaking out.

President Trump takes hostile questions from the media all the time. No suppression there. It’s the left-wing media and Big Tech (Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al) that deliberately suppress opposing views.

Rep. Omar is spouting propaganda. Big surprise.

PS. Some online definitions place “fascism” in the far right of the left-right continuum. But as Jonah Goldberg laid out in his bestseller Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, fascist movements were and are left-wing.

# # #

Progressive vs conservative solutions

 

A. F. Branco cartoon at legal insurrection

Ever since their Feb. 2016 issue dedicated to “Conservatives Against Trump,” I have been wary of National Review online. But historian Victor Davis Hanson recently published an essay on “The Great Experiment” at the NRO website, and he concludes:  

The true test of conservative solutions is to see how things are after four years of a strongly conservative president, with at least two years of a Republican Congress.

. . .

Antidote One, of unapologetic progressivism under Obama, did not lead to an economically robust and growing America, one safer abroad in a more secure world, and more cohesive, united, and stable at home — at least if that truly was the leftist agenda rather than the more hushed opposite goal of more equal but poorer Americans, America as just another nation among many, and a cultural revolution aimed at accentuating rather than assimilating race, class, and gender identities.

We shall see if the subsequent Antidote Two, of unregretful conservatism under Trump, will provide what conservatism has always promised: greater prosperity, security, and unity.

The engines of prosperity are already revving up, yet we still see anti-Trump foot-stamping, temper tantrums, and hysteria on display in the media (see cartoon at top), in academia, in the entertainment industry, and in groups like BLM and Antifa. No unity there. Yet. Perhaps when take-home pay increases due to the tax cuts, some of the hysteria will start to subside. Anyway, you can read the rest of Hanson’s essay here.

# # #

The cartoon that speaks for itself

Cartoon by Rick McKee at conservativetribune.com

# # #

Your tax dollars at work

at credit: www.telegraph.com.uk

From today’s Press Release from Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained records from the Department of the Air Force revealing the Obama family 2015 Christmas vacation to Honolulu, Hawaii, cost the taxpayers $3,590,313.60 in flight expenses alone. According to the Air Force records, the Obamas used both Air Force One and a Boeing C-32A, the military equivalent of a Boeing 757, which was apparently use to transport the First Lady.

Judicial Watch also has obtained records from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security revealing that President Obama’s four trips to New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Palm City, Florida in 2014 and 2015 cost taxpayers at least $286,416.64 for Secret Service travel and accommodations.  The Obama trips to New York and Los Angeles were solely for fundraising events. In Chicago, the president campaigned for Rahm Emanuel. The Palm City trip was a golf outing with no official activities.

Judicial Watch has previously reported the flight expenses of the New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and Palm City trips.

The records obtained by Judicial Watch for the Obama family’s 2015 Honolulu Christmas vacation reveal the following flight expenses totaling $3,590,313.60:

• Air Force One, at $180,118 per hour for 18.2 hours – totaling $3,278,147.60
• A Boeing C-32A, at $15,846 per hour for 19.7 hours – totaling $312,166

 More infuriating details are here.

# # #

Unresolved: eligibility to run for President

cartoon credit: Clay Bennett, Chattanooga Times Free Press

Unresolved: natural born citizenship and eligibility to run for President

The 9th GOP debate was not much fun to watch, nor did we learn anything about the eligibility of two candidates with Hispanic pedigrees (no, not Jeb!, who defined himself as “Hispanic” on his voter registration form), those two being Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

Last month, CNN declared that

Cruz was conferred American citizenship at birth because his mother is an American citizen, and legal experts have largely agreed that would qualify him for natural-born citizenship. The Texas Republican was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and also had Canadian citizenship until he renounced it in 2014.

Is that correct? If so, what’s all the fuss about?

Gateway Pundit posted a more detailed and sourced analysis of the controversy over Ted Cruz’s eligibility as a natural born citizen of the U.S.:

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. a retired colonel with 29 years of experience in the US Army Reserve, argues that Senator Ted Cruz entered the United States illegally as a child in 1974. His parents failed to file a CRBA form which is required by US law. Ted’s parents did not fill out the required form until 1986.

It would be nice if the Cruz camp cleared this up for Republican voters.

Via Family Security Matters:

Exactly how and when did Ted Cruz obtain U.S. citizenship?

The fact that it is still an open question at this stage of the Presidential campaign is a testament either to the galactic ignorance of our political-media elite or their willingness to place political expediency ahead of the Constitution and the law.

There is no third alternative.

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on December 22, 1970 and remained a Canadian citizen until he officially renounced it on May 14, 2014, eighteen months after taking the oath of office as a U.S. Senator. At the time of his birth, Cruz’s father was a citizen of Canada and his mother was a U.S. citizen.

Legally, Cruz could have obtained US citizenship through his mother consistent with Public Law 414, June 27, 1952, An Act: To revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality and for other purposes [H.R. 5678], Title III Nationality and Naturalization, Chapter 1 – Nationality at Birth and by Collective naturalization; Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; the relevant section being 301 (a) (7):

“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

In that case, Cruz’s mother should have filed a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) with the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate after the birth to document that the child was a U.S. citizen.

According to Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier, Cruz’s mother did register his birth with the U.S. consulate and Cruz received a U.S. passport in 1986 ahead of a high school trip to England.

There are two apparent contradictions regarding how and when Ted Cruz obtained US citizenship.

First, according to the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, also referred to as the “Act of 1947,”Canada did not allow dual citizenship in 1970. The parents would have had to choose at that time between U.S. and Canadian citizenship. Ted Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014. Was that the choice originally made?

Second, no CRBA has been released that would verify that Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth.

It has been reported that the then nearly four-year-old Ted Cruz flew to the U.S. from Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1974.

Ted Cruz could not have entered the U.S. legally without a CRBA or a U.S. passport, the latter of which was not obtained until 1986.

If Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth, as his spokeswoman claims, then the CRBA must be released. Otherwise, one could conclude that Cruz came to the U.S. as a Canadian citizen, perhaps on a tourist visa or, possibly, remained in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant.

It is the responsibility of the candidate for the Presidency, not ordinary citizens, to prove that he or she is eligible for the highest office in the land. Voters deserve clarification.

What about Marco Rubio? AOL summarizes: 

The issue at hand -- as Ted Cruz has learned well -- is over whether Rubio can be considered a "natural born citizen."

Rubio's lawyers are in court this week fighting claims he's not eligible because his parents weren't U.S. citizens until four years after his birth. The lawsuit claims that means he is ineligible to run under Article 2 of the Constitution.

Rubio's citizenship has been contested before, when the question popped up in the 2012 election after rumors swirled that Republican candidate Mitt Romney might tap Rubio as a potential running mate.

The argument over what a "natural born citizen" actually means has been going on for years, and the only group who could actually define it, the Supreme Court, has never done so.

The issue has been going on for years. President Obama’s eligibility was never decided in the court. Will Mr. Trump or some of his supporters force the question into court?

# # #

And They Said There is No War on Coal!

This past Tuesday President Obama, again through regulation over legislation, unveiled new tighter rules for power plants that will include a push for more restrictive green building codes and costly restrictions on household appliances.

The economy of Ohio, the state that is America’s 4^th-largest user of coal, faces a grave threat from these proposed EPA regulations that would halt coal use in existing electric power plants and prevent the building of new coal-burning plants.

That’s a dangerous move with the economy still struggling to recover, especially in Ohio where an enormous share of our power – 78 percent – is generated with coal (nationwide, the share is 43 percent).

The rules will kill many of the 27,000 Ohio jobs dependent on the coal industry. Not to mention the devastating impact on jobs and the economy in other coal producing and coal dependent states. Business and residential utility customers will certainly face greater risk of electricity price spikes as we rely for power generation more on natural gas (with its historically volatile price) and less on coal (with its historically stable, lower prices).

While it is vital to the future of our country that we use our natural resources to diversify our energy portfolio, it is only prudent to allow the technology of these other sources to grow through free market investment by the private sector – not government mandates.

Advancing technology already allows utilities to burn coal cleaner than in the past. Soon, coal-fired power plants that emit virtually no carbon dioxide will be feasible. But with President Obama & his EPA continuing their War on Coal by trying to make air cleaner than God himself ever intended, that will never be allowed to happen.

For highlights of President Obama's new plan to cut carbon, click here.  For a PDF of the complete action plan (assault), click here.

Food Stamp Give Away to Illegal Immigrants Must be Stopped!

Already not having enough money to continue funding a signature program of Obamacare, medical coverage for pre-existing conditions, President Obama's Department of Agriculture is actively promoting and funding a program for illegal immigrants to get food stamps. 

In pushing healthy American citizens to the back of the bus and forcing us to pay to feed illegal immigrants while many Americans still go hungry, President Obama also sends a message to those Americans with pre-existing medical conditions that he would rather feed illegal immigrants over treating their health issues as he promised....

From The Washington Examiner -- 

With food stamp spending in the United States skyrocketing since the beginning of the recession, the Department of Agriculture is paying to promote food stamp usage to illegal immigrants for the sake of their American children, according to documents obtained by a government watchdog.

“The promotion of the food stamp program, now known as “SNAP” (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance,” Judicial Watch announced today.

“Emphasized in bold and underlined, the statement reads, ‘You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.’”

Under President Obama's watch food stamp benefits have increased more than double each year. In addition, with the removing of a 1996 requirement that individuals receiving SNAP must have a job or be enrolled in work training and lowering the bar for SNAP eligibility - people receiving food stamps has increased to an all time high of 47.8 million people.

To find out how many people in your county are on food stamps, click here.

Senator John Thune (R-SD) and Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) have introduced a bill, "Streamlining the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SSNAP) Act" in attempts to stop this foolishness and reign in the rampant fraud, waste and abuse of an already out of control food stamp program....

The food stamp program may be cut when Congress moves to pass a farm bill this year. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., and Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., introduced a bill last week to cut $30 billion from the $760 billion the program is expected to spend over the next ten years.

“Since President Obama came into office, SNAP participation has increased at 10 times the rate of job creation, the annual spending on SNAP has doubled, and one in seven Americans now participates in SNAP,” Thune said in a statement on the bill. “This explosive growth in both the SNAP enrollment and federal cost of the program is alarming and requires lawmakers to take cost-effective legislative control measures.”

“We save taxpayers $30 billion and make sure that families in need still receive a helping hand,” Stutzman added. “This is a common-sense start for Congress’ Farm Bill discussions as we look for ways to tackle Washington’s nearly $17 trillion debt.”

This common sense bill will also protect and help assure that Americans that really do need these benefits will still receive them. 

This is important as the Obama Administration's progressive policies have clearly shown their repeated willingness to push Americans to the back of the bus. Most notably, it is the elderly, sick, less fortunate and low-income Americans - that Obama claims to protect - that most often suffer the undue hardships of these policies.

Please contact your Senator and Congressman and ask them to support Senator Thune and Rep. Stutzman's "Streamlining the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SSNAP) Act".

To read a one-page over view of the bill, click here.  

For contact info for your Senator - click here.  For contact info for your Congressman - click here.

House Starts Talks on Debt Ceiling & 2014 Budget

From Tea Party Patriots --

Next week, the House Committee on Ways & Means is having two important hearings. Below are some basic details to be aware of:

First, on Wednesday, the Subcommittee on Oversight will hold a hearing for Members of Congress who have submitted or cosponsored bills in the 112^th and 113^th Congress that address spending prioritization if the debt ceiling is breached. From the Committee’s website:

Congressman Charles W. Boustany Jr., M.D. (R-LA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced the Subcommittee will hold a hearing examining the government’s ability to prioritize its obligations and continue operations should the U.S. Treasury reach its statutory debt limit. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, April 10, 2013, in Room 1100 of the Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 10:00 A.M.

Oral testimony at this hearing will be limited to Members of Congress who have introduced or co-sponsored legislation related to the government’s ability to continue operating when the debt limit has been reached during the 112^th or 113^th Congresses. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Subcommittee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.

While it is unlikely the debt ceiling will be breached, this could be a very informative hearing to see which Members of Congress have various ideas to prioritize spending.

On Thursday, another hearing is scheduled – the annual Ways & Means hearing with the Secretary of the Treasury. With the President’s budget scheduled to arrive on April 10, the hearing is being held the next day:

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) today announced that the Committee on Ways and Means will hold a hearing on President Obama’s budget proposals for fiscal year 2014.  The hearing will take place on Thursday, April 11, 2013, in 1100 Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 10:00 A.M.

BACKGROUND:

On April 10, 2013, the President is expected to submit his fiscal year 2014 budget proposal to Congress.  The proposed budget will detail his tax proposals for the coming year as well as provide an overview of the budget for the Treasury Department and other activities of the Federal government.  The Treasury plays a key role in many areas of the Committee’s jurisdiction.

In announcing this hearing, Chairman Camp said, “The Ways and Means Committee is committed to comprehensive tax reform that eliminates tax loopholes, simplifies the code, and lowers rates.  Tax reform that accomplishes these goals can strengthen our economy, create more jobs and allow American workers to start seeing an increase in their paychecks again.  This hearing will provide both the Committee an opportunity to review the President’s tax proposals and Treasury Secretary Lew the opportunity to describe how the Administration intends to work with the Committee and Congress to pass and enact comprehensive tax reform.”

While the President’s budget is mostly a formality in general, and especially since it’s over two months late, the hearing should be very informative as to whether or not we’ll actually have normal order for the budget process in Fiscal Year 2014. (I think it’s highly unlikely, given the major differences between the House and Senate budget resolutions, but it’s always possible.)

The function of these hearings is mostly to give Members the ability to create soundbytes for constituents and the media.  However, occasionally, good things come out of these hearings – Senator Cruz’s recent hammering of Attorney General Eric Holder is one example of this. Hopefully, the two hearings will be more like the latter, and less like the former.

National Debt over $16 Trillion; Feds Spend $423,500 Studying Condom Skills

Continuing to hear how the Sequester cuts will be so devastating to our country, the negative impact it will create for the poor and less fortunate among us, and how these Sequester cuts are putting thousands of federal workers out of work, we have previously posted on how the IRS spent over $60,000 on Star Trek & Gilligan's Island training videos, over $1.2 Million for studies on Snail Sex & Duck Penises, and $250 Million for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Now, with the National Debt over $16 Trillion, and with youth unemployment rate at 16.2% and the overall unemployment rate at 11.6%, we bring you a $423,500 study with Stimulus funds creating 0 jobs on the condom skills of young heterosexual men....

From The Weekly Standard --

The details of a stimulus grant awarded to Indiana University to study condom use have now been released on a government website. The study, titled "Barriers to Correct Condom Use," is now completed, according to the website, and the university received $423,500 of stimulus funds to perform the study.

The stimulus project yielded a total of 0.00 jobs created, according to the federal government. "No jobs created/retained," the form says under "Description of Jobs Created."
              
"Sexually transmitted infections (STI), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), pose significant health risks," a synopsis of study reads. "Consistent and correct use of condoms can be a highly effective method of preventing the transmission of HIV and many STIs, yet studies show that problems with condom use are common. This project is one of the first to examine under controlled conditions the role of cognitive and affective factors and condom skills in explaining condom use problems in young, heterosexual adult men."

It just begs to be asked does a study on condom skills now need to be conducted for middle-aged and elderly heterosexual men?  And since we are all about "fairness & inclusion" will a study need to be done about the condom skills of young and old gay & transgendered him/her's?

How about making a condom to protect us from the government transmitted disease of stupid spending!

NOTE: Due to the Sequester and lack of funds, the Cleveland Air Show & White House tours are still cancelled.

Obama Urges Lenders to Finance Bad Home Loans - Again!

Even though President Obama still tries to blame George Bush for his inheriting a failed economy, mainly due to the housing market crash that was caused by Democrat meddling, manipulating and forcing housing lenders to make poor loans in the name of fairness -- President Obama now wants to do the same thing.

And as the American public was forced to pay for this first "40 Acre's & a Mule"  failure, they will entice the second round of unsuitable buyers with tax-payer backed programs....

From The Washington Post --

The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession.

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.

And as in part of the cause for the first housing market bust, lenders will be forced into lending to unsuitable buyers through veiled government coercion and veiled threats of discrimination lawsuits....

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

Officials are also encouraging lenders to use more subjective judgment in determining whether to offer a loan and are seeking to make it easier for people who owe more than their properties are worth to refinance at today’s low interest rates, among other steps.

As this forced government lending failed the first time, the American public will again be forced to bailout another "too big to fail" Obama-induced boondoggle. 

President Obama Ignores Congress with Executive Order on Gun Control

From Tea Party Patriots -- 

Just before Easter weekend, President Obama signed an Executive Order to move forward his gun control agenda, giving federal agents greater access to information on gun owners and their weapons. From The Hill:

The executive steps will give federal law enforcement officials access to more data about guns and their owners, help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and lay the groundwork for future legislative efforts.

Despite minimal publicity given to the Executive Order itself – it was signed late on a Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend – the order authorizes a million dollar ad campaign for gun safety. New York Mayor Bloomberg has expressed support for the campaign, which could mirror his own gun control ads.

The order adds to a recent announcement of a new $20 million Department of Justice program that offers grants to states that provide more mental health and criminal history information to federal databases.

As part of President Obama’s comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence, the Administration is committed to enhancing and strengthening the national criminal record system in support of stronger firearm background checks.

The order also directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – whose area of expertise has more to do with small pox than small arms – to study “causes of gun violence.” The Institute of Medicine has been awarded the contract despite the fact Congress has blocked funding allowing the CDC to conduct gun control research since 1996.

Between redirecting funds to areas specifically banned by Congress, using other funds for government-sponsored commercials, and encouraging states – with money – to share more information about their citizens, it’s not surprising President Obama did this when no one was looking.

President Obama to Return 5% of his Salary -- Big Whoop!

As a show of solidarity with federal workers being forced to take furlough's over the Democrats inability to curb their out of control spending habits and the implementation of the Sequester cuts, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and his Deputy Ashton Carter declared they would be returning part of their salary.

President Obama, not wanting to miss this "I'm a great guy" publicity freebie like he does free throws on the basketball court - immediately jumped on the bandwagon and offered to return part of his salary....

From The New York Times --

President Obama plans to return 5 percent of his salary to the Treasury in solidarity with federal workers who are going to be furloughed as part of the automatic budget cuts known as the sequester, an administration official said Wednesday.

The voluntary move would be retroactive to March 1, the official said, and apply through the rest of the fiscal year, which ends in September. The White House came up with the 5 percent figure to approximate the level of spending cuts to nondefense federal agencies that took effect that day.

“The president has decided that to share in the sacrifice being made by public servants across the federal government that are affected by the sequester, he will contribute a portion of his salary back to the Treasury,” the official said. (More...)

With a base salary of $400,000 - returning 5% would be a mere $20,000.  In 2011, President Obama & Michelle Obama claimed a combined $790,000 in gross adjusted income, $1.7 Million in 2010 and $5.5 million in 2009.

This offer of returning a pittance of $20,000, should not only be an affront to the furloughed federal workers but also to all the unemployed, under employed and low-paid working men & women that President Obama claims to be out there fighting for while he frolics in a $24,500 a week vacation home.

In reality, we see the indifference and the "Let them eat cake" attitude of President Obama & Michelle Obama towards the American public with their continued vacationing on our dime, our paying for gun-carrying government babysitter's so his children can take lavish Spring Break vacations at Paradise Island, and President Obama's #2 - Joe Biden also taking his 3rd tax payer funded vacation this year.

In further thumbing their privileged nose's at the soon to be furloughed federal workers that will be forced to eat cereal with water because they are too poor to buy milk, and in placing them behind the Muslim Brotherhood, the Obama's will host a star-studded concert at the White House to celebrate Memphis Soul music.

But not too worry! These soon to be furloughed workers can take solace that President Obama has his best people hard at work on big picture type economic studies that will create jobs for them.  

Is there an "Obama Doctrine"?

From The Washington Times --

Years from now, historians may well write that the decline or upswing in the American empire of liberty occurred during the Obama presidency. They will either write that the Obama administration’s self-fulfilling prophecy and rhetoric of decline was overcome by the overwhelming greatness of the United States or that the ultimate downfall was caused by the conditions created by this White House.

Today, the country’s expert and pundit classes are obsessed, first and foremost, with the absurd autopilot of sequestration designed to protect us from adult decision-making. As a distant second, media make some mention of the pressing national security issue of the day: The use of drones in fighting what was formerly known as the “war on terrorism.” Both issues describe this presidency writ large, highlighting the desire to avoid clear and direct decisions, mixed with an overreliance on a peculiar and unmanned technology. It is a White House on programmed reflex.

A question that I have been asked on more occasions than I care to remember is whether President Obama, in fact, has a national security doctrine. Three schools of thought exist on this matter.

The first view is, at first glance, quite glib: There is a doctrine, and it can be labeled ABB — Anything But Bush. However, before we completely dismiss this attitude, one should keep in mind that the Obama camp rejected unilateralism, pre-emption, democracy promotion, prevention and, generally, the global war on terrorism. These were the pillars of American grand strategy under President Bush and the administration has struggled mightily (often to the detriment to the country) to wrest itself from the Bush legacy. The second school of thought denies the existence of an Obama Doctrine altogether. His supporters have argued that he did not need one, so he could remain light and lethal, unconstrained by the prisons of declarations and pronouncements. The president’s detractors, meanwhile, state that mass confusion and anxiety over national security issues is evidence of absence.

The third school, and the one that seems to make the most sense, posits that an Obama Doctrine does exist, albeit in a form that is too messy and murky to detail fully. Rather, the Obama Doctrine represents a cobbled-together robot that issues platitudes and seeks penance. Like Presidents Carter and Clinton before him, Mr. Obama has exhibited a disdain or disinterest in this singularly important aspect of the presidency. The two campaigns that elected him president were ones where the media allowed national security and foreign policy to be pushed to the back burner, rearing their heads only sporadically.

There was a moment when this could have changed. Mr. Obama, comfortable with his electoral victory, could have proved the critics wrong and set the stage for real leadership in national security. This moment, of course, was the State of the Union address.

Instead, what did the American people receive? A laundry list, tacked on pro forma, made up of vague posturing: We heard that we “need” to end the war in Afghanistan by telegraphing our withdrawal worldwide. Mr. Obama blisteringly called on the totalitarians of Pyongyang to meet their international obligations. There was the continued declaration that Iran will face a serious coalition of negotiation. And finally, the strong desire to disarm our nuclear arsenal. The Anything But Bush School received a shot in the arm by the president’s inability to mention the global war on terrorism, the 60,000 Syrian dead or the aggressive moves made by China in the Pacific. If there was a grand strategy, it was the embrace of a sort of neo-isolationism. Yet this was countered by resurrecting the Bush team’s desire for more free-trade agreements, and Mr. Obama’s support of a trans-Pacific partnership.

What are we left with at the start of the president’s second term? We are where we started, with a disjointed doctrine, vague strategy and ambiguity held at high altar. Mr. Obama effectively has patched together four prior presidential doctrines to form his own. He channels Nixon to achieve his burden-sharing, colloquially known these days as “leading from behind.” He invokes Mr. Carter’s multilateralism for the sake of same, and as a counter to charges of American exceptionalism. Mr. Clinton’s vision is summoned for its risk-averse nature, its faith in globalization and its worship of technocracy over ideals.

Ironically, though, the only success that the president has had in national security and foreign policy is where he had been unable to shake the spirit of George W. Bush. The Bush years have granted the U.S. government now the breathing room to engage in greater counterterrorism operations and a chance to establish a permanent presence in the Arab world and Central Asia. But this “Bush Lite” strategy has been embraced only out of a sense of inertia and the harsh encroachment of reality.

The areas where one lets Obama be Obama demonstrate the most dangerous results for strategy. The goals seem to be tactical: more treaties, adherence to more international organizations, an emphasis on soft power and greater diplomatic “restraint.” We have seen a souring of relations with nations such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Poland and Israel, a blind eye to Russian, Chinese and Iranian aggression, obsequiousness before the United Nations, and a glossing over of the grossest human rights violations in places such as North Korea, Sudan, China and Syria. Simultaneously, Mr. Obama’s reversal of grand strategy regarding the use of nuclear forces has been nothing short of breathtaking, signaling a reluctance to use the very weapons that have kept enemies at bay.

The key to the Obama Doctrine is the need to “rebalance American commitments,” code for managing our decline. His doctrine is more about process than strategy. When he does speak on national security, the president likes to say that he would intervene if America’s vital or national interests were at stake. However, in more four years, he has never once fully articulated what he believes those to be.

If the United States is to continue to claim its exceptional place in the annals of humankind, it has no choice but to be the only sword and shield for these. A president who fails his duty here has failed not only Americans, but all mankind. The president could still turn this ship around and embrace both the pragmatic and idealist destiny of his country. It will be his choice how history reads his presidency and this crossroads in our American epic.

Lamont Colucci is senior fellow in national security affairs at the Washington, D.C.-based American Foreign Policy Council and the author of “The National Security Doctrines of the American Presidency: How they Shape our Present and Future” (Praeger Publishing, 2012).

Fed's Fund Vital Study on Snail Sex & Duck Penises - Cleveland Air Show & White House Tours still Canceled over Lack of Funds

As we face sequester cuts that have Rep. Marcia Fudge (OH-11) of Cleveland and her fellow Democrats screaming as if the world will end, the unemployed, under-employed, or low-paid American worker can still take solace in knowing some important programs & studies funded under President Obama's Stimulus and Continuous Resolution funding will remain in place.

The federally funded National Science Foundation (NSF), being described as, "good stewards of taxpayer dollars," and a future investment that plays into the big picture role of our economic success by NSF Spokesperson Debbie Wing, has recently funded and continued the funding on two of these "important" programs.....

From CNS News --

The National Science Foundation awarded a grant for $876,752 to the University of Iowa to study whether there is any benefit to sex among New Zealand mud snails and whether that explains why any organism has sex.

So far, the grant has paid out $502,357, according to NSF, and could pay out the full $880,000 between now and 2015. (More...)

And looking towards gathering crucial economic insight for future generations, Yale University has been busy at work on an important NSF funded study of their own....

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded a $384,949 grant to Yale University for a study on “Sexual Conflict, Social Behavior and the Evolution of Waterfowl Genitalia”, according to the recovery.gov website.

Many duck penises are cork-screw shaped and some scientists believe this is because of a form of evolution known as "sexual conflict". According to the NSF grant abstract the study shows that age, environment and breeding changes can impact the penis length of certain ducks.... (More...)

Unfortunately, due to the funding for important economic studies like the ones above and the belt tightening sacrifices we must make under the Sequester, White House tours and the Cleveland Air Show are still cancelled.

The Food Stamp President & The Dependency Class

The below story shows participation in the "Food Stamp" program (SNAP) has increased by 70% since President Obama has taken office.

While President Obama's failed policies that actually increased unemployment and extended the economic crisis we have faced since he took office are the cause of this increase in Food Stamps, this increase was also due to President Obama continuing the progressive agenda of the left and his fulfilling of a campaign promise to fundamentally transform us as a country.

The other part of the equation for an increase in the Food Stamp program was because President Obama, in his desire to transform our country, purposely increased the enrollment by allowing higher income earning Americans to sign up for food stamp program (SNAP) --  thus creating and increasing the new "Dependency Class" of American citizen's...

From The Washington Times -- (Emphasis Added)

Enrollment in the food stamp program — officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — has soared by 70 percent in the years since President Obama first took office, a new report finds.

The government said the recession ended in 2009, The Wall Street Journal reports, but enrollment in the food stamp program didn’t wane, as would be expected in an improving economy. Since 2008, it’s been on a steady rise, The Journal reports.

A record 47.8 million people participate in the program, as of December 2012 — a figure that translates into a 70 percent rise since 2008, The Journal says. Why?

Despite government claims, the job market is still lagging. The poverty rate is on the rise, The Journal says. And federal laws passed under former President Clinton and further under Mr. Obama are actually driving the enrollment rate higher. Those laws allow for those with higher incomes to take food stamps — the logic being that helping people before they reach crisis financial level will actually stimulate the economy, The Journal says.

The news for the future is more of the same.

Economists predict that food stamp enrollment will continue to rise in the coming year. Then, enrollment will start to drop, but slowly and only slightly, The Journal says.