Obama world leadership = F

It's pretty sad commentary when Americans have to look over the "big pond" for legitimate sources of news. Thank you GB media! The American People owe you one...

Telegraph Media Group Limited 2010
State of the Union: Barack Obama gets an F for world leadership

By Nile Gardiner January 28th, 2010

As expected, Barack Obama's 70 minute State of the Union address focused heavily on the economy and the domestic political agenda. This was hardly surprising in the aftermath of last week's catastrophic defeat for his party in the Massachusetts special Senate election, where the Republicans scored an historic victory. American voters are turning strongly against the president's health care reform package as well as his big government vision for the economy, which has contributed to spiraling public debt and mounting unemployment, now standing at over 10 percent.

But the scant attention paid in the State of the Union speech to US leadership was pitiful and frankly rather pathetic. The war in Afghanistan, which will soon involve a hundred thousand American troops, merited barely a paragraph. There was no mention of victory over the enemy, just a reiteration of the president's pledge to begin a withdrawal in July 2011. Needless to say there was nothing in the speech about the importance of international alliances, and no recognition whatsoever of the sacrifices made by Great Britain and other NATO allies alongside the United States on the battlefields of Afghanistan. For Barack Obama the Special Relationship means nothing, and tonight's address further confirmed this.

Significantly, the global war against al-Qaeda was hardly mentioned, and there were no measures outlined to enhance US security at a time of mounting threats from Islamist terrorists. Terrorism is a top issue for American voters, but President Obama displayed what can only be described as a stunning indifference towards the defence of the homeland.
The Iranian nuclear threat, likely to be the biggest foreign policy issue of 2010, was given just two lines in the speech, with a half-hearted warning of "growing consequences" for Tehran, with no details given at all. There were no words of support for Iranian protestors who have been murdered, tortured and beaten in large numbers by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's thuggish security forces, and no sign at all that the president cared about their plight. Nor was there any condemnation of the brutality of the Iranian regime, as well as its blatant sponsorship of terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As the example of Iran showed, the advance of freedom and liberty across the world in the face of tyranny was not even a footnote in the president's speech. I cannot think of a US president in modern times who has attached less importance to human rights issues. For the hundreds of millions of people across the world, from Burma to Sudan to Zimbabwe, clamouring to be free of oppression, there was not a shred of hope offered in Barack Obama's address.

Obama's world leadership in his first year in office has been weak-kneed and little short of disastrous. He has sacrificed the projection of American power upon the altar of political vanity, with empty speeches and groveling apologies across the world, from Strasbourg to Cairo. He has appeased some of America's worst enemies, and has extended the hand of friendship to many of the most odious regimes on the face of the earth. Judging by the State of the Union address tonight, we can expect more of the same from an American president who seems determined to lead the world's greatest power along a path of decline.

Porter County GOP finally takes a stand

After berrating meeting attendees for having the audacity to ask where the PC GOP stands on the local Regional Transit Authority referendum up for a vote in Nov, that created bigger government, removed local contol and granted taxing authority, and telling attendees that the vote was a personal choice that they should investigate for themselves, and it was one that the Porter County GOP party officials would not take a position on, either out of self-proclaimed ignorance, or because it was not a "partisan issue" (since when is higher taxes and bigger government NOT a GOP partisan issue???), on election day the Porter County GOP manned a phone bank urging voters to get to the polls and vote YES.

Yes, you read that right! The party of limited government and lower taxes LIED to life-long GOP members, who attended a party meeting in good faith and in hopes of genuine discourse with their party officials, and then like the lying, charlatans and mountebanks they have shown themselves to be, came out in support of something they proclaimed rather insultingly that they were not taking a position on - 'shame on anyone for assuming otherwise!'

It seems the St. Joseph county GOP, whose county voted on the referendum as well, had no problem understanding what role and position the GOP (the party of conservativism) should be taking on the issue. They took a stand publically and vocally against the RTA and in support of the ACTUAL principles of the Grand Old Party.

Now it would have been bad enough if the Porter County GOP had revealed their actual intentions, but at least it would have been honest. The mere fact that these officials, as represenative of the party, LIED to members, and then used resources that are ultimately provided by membership support and contributions, is INEXCUSIBLE!

I guess if there is a silver-lining to be found it would have to be that the Porter County GOP hasn't gotten any better at getting out the vote than they were in 2008 (or maybe it is that a great many ACTUAL conservatives and Republicans know that the Porter County GOP no longer represents them or the party and cannot be trusted). The referendum went down in flames in both St. Joseph and Porter County.

I love Dick Cheney!

Give me a man who isn't afraid to tell it like it is, stand on principle and take the heat come-what-may, and I'll follow him to the ends of the earth.

Ronald Reagan

Porter County GOP in shambles

The Porter County GOP's position on it's position is that it has no position...on anything, including what it means to be GOP. How's that for leadership and direction? They haven't a clue what they stand for, or against (at least that they can admit publicly) and are determined to move forward. Spectacular! Where are we headed, Captain? What, you don't know either? Well, how about what would we like to accomplish? Just another fundraiser? That is the sum total of your ambition? Seriously?!

It seems the committee wants to keep party business exclusive to committee members only and like some elitist country club have to give their collective nod if you want to join or participate. God forbid you should actually question them, not only will committee members 'object on grounds of parliamentary procedures' but some long-time serving party member (is she a committee member, too? I missed that.) will get up and berate attendees, insult their intelligence, and tell them to figure out the issues for themselves, that the PC GOP isn't interested...and then proceed in having a personal verbal brawl with another long-time party member (yes, you heard me right!) Classy ladies, classy.

So what is going on behind closed doors with our little PC GOP committee exactly? What are their actual motivations for the party and our communities? They certainly aren't going to tell you outright. But I have heard it said that the committee and Republican leadership in PC are supportive of the RDA (not the RTA) and I have to wonder why? The very premises of the RDA stands in fundamental opposition to conservative principles of limited government, lower taxes, and sustained local authority.

Well, since we don't know what the PC GOP stands for, let's take a look at the committee members. With just a show of hands, how many of them are involved in real-estate? How many of them would be/could be/might be served or benefit personally by regional "development", higher property value, and state and federal subsidies for these projects? (Here's a hint: it's more than a few)

Offensive? Perhaps...but it was just a question (not an accusation). Questions that arise when leadership is unwilling to even define what the party stands for, understand that it is their very goal to do just that (and not just shuffle a bunch of paper around) or what the committee members are laboring (according to them) for and what direction the party as a whole is supposed to be headed. The committee does not seem to realize that they are not, as individuals alone, representative of the political party, but as board members make a collective leadership that must have a message to be followed by like-minded individuals who will be members of that party.

If the PC GOP has actually become the party of expansion and development (especially as it pertains to government) it is no wonder that the party has fallen to ruin in Porter County. If that is the committee's unspoken position, they do not speak for the majority of conservatives and self-described Republicans in Porter County. (Just curious, does this have anything to do with the "back-door deals with Democrats" the one member was railing about that allegedly happened in the last election? Curious minds want to know.)