Obama’s Enablers in the Senate Democratic-Party Loyalists Have Enabled the Worst President Since the Civil War. By Quin Hillyer

Barack Obama isn’t running merely the worst American presidency since James Buchanan’s, but the worst imaginable presidency in this day and age. And every single Senate Democrat is thoroughly complicit in Obama’s horrendous record.

Is there a single Obama initiative that has actually worked as advertised, or even one that has improved the lives of most Americans or improved the U.S.’s standing in the world? Surely there must be a small success or two, somewhere, but everywhere we look, we see failure and calamity. And in almost every case, the disaster has been aided and abetted by Senate Democrats such as Tom Udall, Kay Hagan, Jeanne Shaheen, Mary Landrieu, Mark Udall, Mark Warner, Mark Begich, and Mark Pryor. (One might say Senate Democrats have been “off their Marks.”)

For the so-called stimulus act of 2009, Obama promised hundreds of thousands of “shovel-ready jobs.” There were instead, approximately . . . none. The president later tried to turn his own prior promise into a punch line, quipping, at a meeting of his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, that “shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” Hilarious. What’s not so funny is that every Democratic senator voted for the bill. It blew deficits and the debt through the roof, gave oodles of taxpayer dollars to favored insiders who produced nothing for it, and did nothing to stop (and possibly worsened) the rise in unemployment from 8.3 percent to 10 percent. It took three full years before unemployment dipped below what it was when Obama took office.

Obamacare, famously enacted with the vote of every Democratic senator, has limited patient choices (including taking away the chosen insurance plans of as many as 5 million Americans, who saw their policies canceled as a direct result of Obamacare); jacked up premium prices by an average of 202 percent; imposed more than a trillion dollars in new taxes, including on medical-device companies, that have resulted in many thousands of job losses and a slowdown in medical innovation; trampled on religious liberty and the rights of conscience; driven people crazy with a bollixed website; added potentially $6.2 trillion to federal deficits; and destroyed as many as 2 million jobs.

Obama’s jihad against fossil fuels resulted in the rapid doubling of gasoline prices (and they stayed that high until a minor recent abatement). Its Consumer Products Safety Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, National Labor Relations Board, and other astonishingly interventionist regulators have put a wet blanket on jobs, inconvenienced consumers, and even interfered with yard sales and tried to outlaw outdoor Christmas lights. (Ever the Grinch, Obama also is taxing Christmas trees.)

Ron Klain and Solyndra:The Administration’s Point Man on a Solar Fraud is Now in Charge of Ebola (!!!???) by Andrew McCarthy

Ron Klain is a sharp-elbowed Democratic political operative with no medical expertise. Tapping him as “Ebola czar” may not be the president’s best move when, as it is, no one can believe a word the Obama administration says. And that’s not just because Mr. Klain is yet another lobbyist recruited despite Mr. Obama’s vow that his administration would shun lobbyists.

Klain was also a central player in the president’s Solyndra fraud, which soaked taxpayers for over half a billion dollars for the benefit of Obama cronies.

In Faithless Execution, I recount the Solyndra fraud. It never got the attention it deserved — involving, as it did, potential felony fraud violations of federal law. Even for people who did give it attention at the time, Solyndra is so many Obama scandals ago that its unseemly details are tough to recall. The story is thus worth retelling. As our nerves fray over the Ebola crisis, it is a valuable window into the administration’s priorities and an indicator of the level of trust we can put in the new czar’s assurances.

Solyndra was a solar-energy company backed by the family foundation of George Kaiser, an Oklahoma oil magnate and major Obama fundraiser. Prior to Obama’s coming to power, Solyndra had sought government funding under the economically absurd 2005 Energy Policy Act. That law lets the government play venture capitalist, investing taxpayer money in private “green energy” boondoggles that cannot attract adequate market financing.

Notwithstanding the Bush administration’s zeal to hop on this politically correct bandwagon, it declined Solyndra’s application. As one private analyst later put it, the company was “an absolute complete disaster,” with operating expenses, including supply costs, nearly doubling its revenue — and that’s without factoring in high capital and other costs in an industry with low profit margins. Given that solar-panel competitors backed by China were producing energy at drastically lower prices, the chance that Solyndra would ever become profitable was practically nonexistent.

But in 2008, Americans elected as president a devotee of renewable-energy experiments who had enjoyed major support from Kaiser. Obviously, Solyndra backers were thrilled. The Department of Energy (DOE) continued to stiff-arm the company in the days just before Obama’s inauguration, citing unresolved concerns. Yet, within just a week of the new president’s taking office, a DOE staffer noted in an e-mail, “We are approaching the beginning of the approval process for Solyndra again.”

What The “Two State Solution” Has to Do with the Rise of Islamic Extremism: Zero by Khaled Abu Toameh

The “Arab Spring” did not erupt as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rather, it was the outcome of decades of tyranny and corruption in the Arab world. The Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans and Yemenis who removed their dictators from power did not do so because of the lack of a “two-state solution.” This is the last thing they had in mind.

The thousands of Muslims who are volunteering to join the Islamic State [IS] are not doing so because they are frustrated with the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

The only solution the Islamic State believes in is a Sunni Islamic Caliphate where the surviving non-Muslims who are not massacred would be subject to sharia law.

What Kerry perhaps does not know is that the Islamic State is not interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all. Unlike Kerry, Sunni scholars fully understand that the Islamic State has more to do with Islam and terrorism than with any other conflict.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s claim that the lack of a “two-state solution” has fueled the rise of the Islamic State [IS] terrorist group reinforces how clueless the U.S. Administration is about what is happening in the Arab and Islamic countries.

Speaking at a State Department ceremony marking the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, Kerry said that the resumption of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians was vital in the fight against Islamic extremism, including Islamic State.

Election 2014: Latest Polling Tilts Redder By Rich Baehr

Scroll down the RealClearPolitics poll summary for the last few days, and you see a lot more red than blue in the latest surveys [1] released for Senate, House and governor’s races. Many races are very close in all three categories, but over the past two weeks the GOP position — particularly in House and Senate races — has generally improved.

Governor’s races are the biggest crapshoot. RealClearPolitics counts 14 races as tossups: Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Wisconsin, Illinois, Colorado, Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, and Michigan. Since eight of the 14 are currently in Republican hands, this may be the biggest opportunity for gains for Democrats. There is little chance Democrats will gain seats in either house of Congress.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is now focusing on only 25 races, and 18 of them are seats currently held by Democrats. If the Democrats won all 25, they would still be 10 seats short of the 218 seats needed to take control of the House. A more likely result at this point, given that Democrats are on defense in most of the competitive races, is for the GOP to hit 240 or more, maybe even to hit a number higher than the party has achieved at any time in the past 65 years.

The RCP House summary [2], as well as those of Larry Sabato [3]and Stuart Rothenberg [4], suggests that more Democratic-held seats are likely to shift than Republican-held seats, since more of the tossup races are for Democratic-held seats. As an example, today there are no Republicans in the U.S. House from any of the six New England states — but Republicans are competitive in both New Hampshire districts, Maine 2, and Massachusetts 6, the last two being open seats. The GOP also has excellent pickup opportunities in Illinois 10 and 12, and has a decent chance in Iowa 1 and 2, two seats thought safe for Democrats a few months back. These are districts in states where Republicans have underperformed in recent cycles. With unhappiness with Congress expressed quite strongly in every poll, the few dozen House districts that are competitive after the last post-census redistricting (which was performed skillfully by both parties where they had the opportunity) could well see a lot of turnover.

Republican Populism—or Republican Destruction Posted By Victor Davis Hanson

Nothing much the Republicans have done explains why they are on the verge of taking back the Senate and making gains in the House.

Not since the summer of 1974 [1] or October 1980 have we see a presidency in a total meltdown [2]. Abroad, ISIS, Putin, and the bullying Chinese have revealed that the Obama administration is either clueless or has subordinated foreign policy decisions to rank politics — or both. At home we have Ebola. Meanwhile, the list of corrupt, incompetent or politically rogue federal agencies keeps growing — the VA, ICE, the NSA, the IRS, the Secret Service … even the Patent and Trademark Office. Each day we learn yet another story about how corrupt Eric Holder’s Justice Department is — the latest a vendetta against a California timber company [3].

Allowing flights to Monrovia, Liberia, follows the same sort of script that told us Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration caused by a right-wing video maker. Susan Rice still goes on Sunday television shows and tells whoppers. Another partisan czar, Ron Klain, knows little [4] about what he is supposed to salvage other than to finesse the politics of disaster — reminding us of Rahm Emanuel’s “never let a serious crisis go to waste.” When Obama’s starts out with “make no mistake about it,” we know something along the lines of the Obamacare falsehoods inevitably follows.

Those not working are at all-time highs [5]. Zero-percent interest rates have impoverished the middle class and enriched the Wall Street elite. Our youth, saddled with $1 trillion in student debt, will have to pay back much of the $18 trillion national debt, more than a third of it piled up by this administration. Unsustainable entitlements will strangle the futures of anyone under thirty.

In reaction, Democratic congressional and Senate candidates choose to orphan themselves from Obama. Even Jimmy Carter finds Obama wanting [6]. Two former Obama secretaries of defense describe him as vacillating, predicating foreign policy decisions on politics.

Given such a disastrous Democratic landscape, it may be penny-wise for Republicans to eek out a midterm victory to win back the Senate by being against anything Obama is for. But it is a pound-foolish strategy that won’t do anything to stop Hillary Clinton or a Democratic resurgence in 2016.

Why Do Democrats Oppose Voter ID? By J. Christian Adams

(Editor’s note: J. Christian Adams’ Crimes Against the Republic is available free for a limited time only, exclusively through the PJ Store.)

Lots of folks think Democrats oppose voter ID laws because they want to cheat and such laws interfere with their plans. That’s an attractive explanation, but it ignores the far more complex architecture of voter ID opposition. Here’s the real reasons Democrats oppose voter ID. Understanding these three reasons will help you decode the whole narrative behind voter ID.

1. Opposition to Voter ID Is a Base-Mobilization Tool.

Simply, Democrats and civil rights groups spend millions of dollars opposing voter ID because they are trying to scare minority voters into thinking that Jim Crow is back. If Jim Crow is back, then they better go vote in November. This was made starkly clear to me when I learned that a 3rd grade teacher in a government-run school was telling her students that Republicans were trying to take away the right to vote for black people, so they better get their parents to vote against Republicans. (Yes, that’s another story for another day, and yes I know her name and the school where she still teaches.)

Fear mobilizes people to vote better than does logic. If you can scare minorities falsely into thinking that they may lose their right to vote if they don’t vote for Democrats, they will vote for Democrats.

2. Voter ID Opponents Have the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations.


In yet another controversial decision, the Goldsmiths College Students’ Union has rejected, by a margin of around 60 to 1, a motion to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day and all victims of genocide.

Education officer Sarah El-Alfy urged students to vote against the proposal, rejecting it as “Eurocentric” and “colonialist”.

One unnamed student added that, “The motion would force people to remember things they may not want to remember,” whilst another added argued that as the Union was “anti-Zionist” she couldn’t commemorate the Holocaust.

This follows news that the NUS voted against a motion condemning ISIS and supporting the Kurdish resistance as to do so would be Islamophobic.

The Tab reports that Goldsmiths Student Union President Howard Littler responded by saying, “Someone brought up Israel-Palestine out of the blue but I made a point of information and said I didn’t want to conflate the two,” further commenting that the controversy was just a “storm in a teacup.”

The motion called on the Union to recognise the “unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust, of the other genocides, of totalitarianism and racial hatred,” adding that, “commemorating the victims of genocide, racial hatred and totalitarianism, and promoting public awareness of these crimes against humanity, is essential to sustaining and defending democratic culture and civil society, especially in the face of a resurgence of neo-fascism, racial hatred and neo-Stalinism across Europe.”

Jed Babbin: The Pentagon’s War on the Global Climate

Obama’s foolish green agenda interferes with the military’s core mission

The Pentagon’s “2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap,” published last week, demonstrates how thoroughly and deeply liberal “climate change” ideology is being embedded in our military establishment. To undo the damage will require a determined effort by our next president.

We’ve already seen how the climate change ideology has wasted scarce defense dollars, such as Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus’ decision to spend $26 a gallon for 450,000 gallons of biofuel — about $11.7 million — when $5 a gallon diesel fuel would have met the same need. That, of course, came at a time when the Navy fleet was shrinking to the smallest size since the end of World War I.

The new roadmap implements two of President Obama’s executive orders, which direct all federal agencies to integrate climate change considerations in all their operations, planning and mission objectives. On the first page, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel writes that the Pentagon is very busy determining things such as the effect of climate change on Mr. Obama’s military “shift” to the Pacific and how it should be included in war games. He adds, “Politics or ideology must not get in the way of sound planning,” but that’s exactly what the mandates he describes will accomplish.

The report accepts as fact all the hyperbole of climate change and on that basis mandates that every aspect of Pentagon operations and planning should be adapted to consider those “facts.” It claims that climate change is a “force multiplier,” so great a national security risk that it may cause disease, trigger instability in and among nations and foster terrorism.

Muslims Demand Breakaway Islamic Nation in Norway or Another 9/11 Threatened-Timothy Whiteman

“We do not wish to live together with dirty beasts like you…”

The Norwegian news portal VG Nett is reporting that a Muslim terrorist group, Ansar al-Sunna’, is threatening that if a section of the nation’s capitol isn’t transformed into a sharia-complaint Muslim nation, an attack rivaling 9/11 will be launched upon the Scandinavian nation.

VG Nett has stated that the Norwegian Police Security Service (Politiets sikkerhetstjeneste – PST) is already familiar with many members of this particular terror group.

As translated by Michael Laudahn,

“If norwegian soldiers can take planes to Afghanistan, then Osama and Mohammed can also take planes to Norway, inshaAllah.

Now, the government must wake up and assume responsibility, before this war spreads to Norway. Before the counterpart reacts. Before moslems take the step necessary.

Do not confuse the moslems’ silence with weakness. Do not profit from the moslems’ patience. Do not force us to do something that can be avoided. This is not a threat, only the words of truth. The words of justice.

A warning that the consequences can be fatal. A warning about a 9/11 on norwegian ground, or larger attacks than the one carried out on 22 july. This is for your own good and in your own best interest.’

We do not want to be a part of norwegian society. And we do not consider it necessary either to move away from Norway, because we were born and grew up here. And Allah’s earth belongs to everybody.

But let Grønland become ours. Bar this city quarter and let us control it the way we wish to do it. This is the best for both parts.

We do not wish to live together with dirty beasts like you.”

Sol Sanders: Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Ebola

Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Ebola

When all the debris is cleared away from the present controversies concerning the possibility of an outbreak of the deadly virus Ebola in the U.S., an important geopolitical marker will be registered.

Epidemics have invaded U.S. shores before of course. There was the notable worldwide influenza epidemic [“Spanish ‘flu”] of 1918 which claimed 50 million lives worldwide. As World War I was ending, it laid low almost half of the then mobilized American soldiers, killing more than died in combat. In an era of poorer sanitation, long before antibiotics and the sulfa drugs and some of today’s routine emergency medical procedures, more than 375,000 died in the U.S. But it was also the world of steamships not of vast international air traffic.

Today on an annual basis the highly mutable influenza virus, often sweeping out of south China, claims an average of 200,000 victims in the U.S. with deaths often reaching 35,000 among the more vulnerable, especially the elderly.

Again with the prospect of an invasion of Ebola – against which there is not yet a cure with mortality in Africa running as high as 70% – Americans face a possibility, however remote, of a health catastrophe.

That the U.S. was not prepared is obvious; how could it be otherwise? That the Obama Administration did not take adequate measures when a threat was identified will be debated long after the November mid-term elections are decided and gone. At what level blame for the initial chaotic preparation for an onslaught should be assigned to the $3 trillion annual government and private health care establishment will also be a subject for discussion. Will the Ebola crisis focus the spotlight on hospital-acquired infections costing $30 billion annually and leading to nearly 100,000 patient deaths a year?

But what appears already clear is that the whole Ebola affair forces a turn on the political consciousness of the American electorate. It goes further than identifying the immediate culprits/scapegoats. Just as Pearl Harbor destroyed for all time the U.S. dogma that it was protected from foreign attack by two wide oceans, 9/11/2001 demonstrated how vulnerable the homeland – a word rarely employed before that time – was to clever if accident-prone fanatics. That both these episodes could have been prevented, that with 20-20 hindsight the most fundamental aspects of security were breached, is not a new phenomenon in the history of the U.S. and other great powers. Historical calamities, however destructive, most often are like personal disaster, are the result of pervasive stupidity — even in political circles.