From almost the moment President Obama Assumed office, observers began calling attention to his unusual proclivity to use “I”.                Terrence Jeffrey of CNS counted 34–“I”s in the president’s speech federal rescue of General Motors but, of ominously, just one mention of “Congress” and none of “law.” Just last week, a report in Grabien charged the president with referencing himself (I )or we) 118 times in 33 minutes in his departure speech from India, which computed to a rate of “3.5 Obama references per minute.”

Obama’s pronominal binging they assert, bespeaks a dangerous personalism in his view of governance, a boundless narcissism in his psychological disposition, and a peculiar solipsism that demands that his listeners see the world as filtered through his eyes.

A quick survey by BuzzFeed in 2014 purported to show that in press conferences Obama           . has been more sparing in his use of         personal pronoun-(I);     me, my. mine, and myself than most of his predecessors.          According to BuzzFeed, “Obama is maybe the least narcissistic president since 1945. This means less than Truman, Eisenhower, or George H. W Bush.

A team of researchers at the U of VA prestigious Laputa Institute of Computational Linguistics undertook a detailed analysis of the use of “I” in spoken ”State of the Union addresses delivered before Congress. The list With some minor technical adjustments— counting an incoming president’s first speech to Congress as a State of the Union address, and excluding the            :e lame-duck address of an outgoing president—the institute team was able to construct a data set consisting of 97 speech a respectable N Tiodern social scientific standing. Researchers   — were able to determine the average number of I’s per speech (41.2), the average for each president, William J. Clinton 102.1 H Barack Obama 72.9,           George H.W. Bush 65.8, Gerald R. Ford 62.0, Lyndon B. Johnson 58, Richard Nixon 5O.3

The most highly ranked presidents, the Democrats Clinton and Obama, stand out for being more than a full standard deviation above the mean, while the two low the Federalists Washington and John Adams, are more than a standard deviation below it. Clinton and Obama together managed to hold 7 of the top 10 places for individual speeches, while Washington and Adams delivered 8 of the 10      bottom-ranking speeches. While Clinton and Obama held center stage before a much larger body, complete with galleries packed with human props, and spoke to the entire American public. It is also worth considering whether Washington’s I’s lean toward the self-effacing, while Obama’s suggest self-absorption.

source–weekly standard (2/16/15), james ceaser, terence jeffrey,




At what point do we—the institution and our nation—lose our soldiers’ trust? The trust that we will provide them the right resources—the training and equipment—to properly prepare them and lead them into harm’s way. Trust that we will appropriately take care of our soldiers, our civilians, and their families, who so selflessly sacrifice so much. This was the question Army chief of staff Gen. Raymond Odierno posed to the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 28, and it’s one that presses a point of view rarely considered in Washington: We “honor their service” without irony. But we have shortchanged their ability to fight, depriving them of sufficient resources—of personnel, equipment, and training—first to win the wars to which we sent them, then to prepare them for the next conflict. The 2011 Budget Control Act stands at the moment.

Even before 2011, the Obama administration had slashed something ”approaching $500 billion from Bush-era defense plans; the BCA, with its “sequestration” provision, might eliminate another $1 trillion. Under the BCA, the military is shrinking      Active-duty Army troop strength will fall to about 420,000 barely m an half what it was in 1990. The Navy, once a fleet of 600 ships, is on course to drift down to the mid–200s, while the Air Force, which once had 188 fighter squadrons, will soon have just 49.

Nor do the Chinese military’s boat-and-plane-bumping antic’s or Beijing’s aggressive and destabilizing behavior toward our allies in the region create any groundswell for a Pacific “pivot” with any muscle. A few highlights from — the January 28 hearing, held to “receive testimony on the impact of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and sequestration on national security”: Gen. Odierno: “Readiness has been degraded to its     lowest level in 20 years. [Two years ago], only 10 percent of our brigade combat teams were ready.” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert:      “The Navy’s fleet readiness will likely not recover from the ship and aircraft maintenance backlogs until about 2018.”            Marine Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford Jr. approximately half of our non deployed units… are suffering personnel, equipment, and training shortfalls. In a major conflict, those shortfalls will result in a delayed response and/or additional casualties.” Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh III: “Today, just under 50 percent of our combat squadrons are fully combat ready. … We will not be able to simultaneously defeat an adversary, deny a second adversary, and defend the homeland. And I don’t think that’s good for America.”

In 2012, the administration gave up that requirement for the military, believing Europe would never face a security problem again and hoping retreat from the Middle East would somehow make its problems go away. So inured have our governing elites become to our declining capabilities.

source–weekly standard (2/16/15), thomas donnelly, gary schmitt



The Obama administration succeeded in pressuring Democrats to insist there not be a vote on senate floor in support of the Nuclear Weapon                 free Iran act of 2015. Lacking the votes in the Senate to impose closure.               Senate Democrats may simply have ensured that sometime prior to the deadline, the administration will announce a framework agreement with Iran      as deeply flawed as the current interim agreement, which the White House claimed, falsely we now know, would freeze Iran’s nuclear program.

It’s a good time to take a look at what’s happening in the real world. While talking away at negotiating tables in various European capitals, the Iranian regime is also on the march.             In the Middle East. The Iranians know that           they can fight (e.g., in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen) and bargain at the same time. so there is no real harm to them in talking. On one condition. What the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatoilah Ali Khameini, cannot afford is rapprochement, with the United States. A framework deal that gives Iran cover for an eventual nuclear breakout, while effectively acknowledging Iranian interests around the region.

From Iran’s perspective, it’s fine if the Obama White wants to believe that it’s thawing relations and getting to know the Iranians better by talking. What Iran gets out of talks is delay and, as a bonus, some discord in DC.

The Obama administration never wanted sanctions in the first place. In time, the White House came to see sanctions largely as a form of concession to and deterrence of its domestic opponents, a way to mollify critics and show that, all evidence to the contrary, it was serious about stopping Iran from getting the bomb.        Accordingly, the Iranians understood that the White House would be willing to provide sanctions relief. If Obama didn’t sweeten the pot, and if Tehran then threatened to walk away and crash negotiations, that          would potentially unleash the wrath of a foe the administration considers more hateful than the Iranians            -Its opponents on Capitol Hill.

So in order to fend off Republicans and a few hawkish Democrats, Obama had to keep appeasing the Iranians. That meant not only            sanctions relief, but also, among Other things, laying off Bashar al-ashar and recognizing Iranian interests in Syria. It meant coordinating with IRGC-Quds Force commander Qassem Suleimani in Iraq           against the Islamic State. It meant sharing intelligence with Hezbollah in Lebanon. All these are serious strategic victories for Tehran. But perhaps Iran’s most valuable win is to have neutralized the power capable of stopping its drive for nuclear weapons—the United States—by inducing American policymakers to tie themselves down in a fight over sanctions.

No policy of sanctions, bargaining, or inducements can work unless the use of force becomes once more a credible possibility. But so is that possible with this president?

source–weekly standard (2/9/15), lee smith



Josesph Douphertv. the longtime Philadelphia union boss of Ironworkers Local 401. told his members they were at war with non union workers. On Jan 20,2015           Dougherty was convicted in a major racketeering case of using violence, vandalism, and intimidation to secure construction jobs for his members. Arson of a Quaker meetinghouse being constructed with non-union labor.    Non-union workers assaulted with baseball bats, and cars vandalized. agitators called themselves “the goon squad”. The Helpful union          Guys,” ‘thugs.” 1,OOO members in his shop, was paid handsomely for his wartime efforts, earning over $200,000 a year. He will      face a 15-year-minimum sentence in April. Unions are the Democrats’ enforcers, and their skull-cracking.

Michael Mulgrew, president of New York’s United Federation of Teacherswent off on critics of Common Core at the July 2014 UFT convention. “We do not back down from a fight. if someone takes something from me, I’m gonna grab it right back out of their old, twisted sick hands and say it is mine! Punch you in the face and push your face in the dirt because this is the teachers’. set a policy or hold a political view due to the crap they’ll get from a vocal minority of virulently liberal customer’s who disapprove.

That sort of bellying rhetoric is of a piece with some other famous democrat lines Such as: • “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” — Barack Obama, Politico, 6/13/08

  • “I want you to argue with them and get in their face.” — Barack Obama, ap, 9/18/08 ;
  • “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us.–BarackObama. Univision. 10/25/10

The iron fisted stance of the left is the reason that half the people in this country are afraid to voice their views. Speaking of which, get a load of Obama’s chutzpah during his January 19 press conference, I think they [Sony] made a mistake … We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship :Because if somebody is able to intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they’ll start doing when they see a documentary they don’t like. Or news reports that they don’t like. Or even worse imagine if producers and distributors and others start engaging in self-censorship because they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of somebody whose sensibilities probably need to be offended. So that’s not who we are. That’s         s not what America is about … I wish [Sony] had spoken to me first. I would have told them, do not get into a pattern in which you’re intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks.

Obama own organization that he’s running out of the White House, Organizing for America, as well as, acorn, Media matters are built on intimidating and silencing opponents. Obama specializes in censorship. They try to eliminate opposing views. not only caving to North Korea, but      also caving to “Al Sharpton. This is not who we are, from the guy whose mentor Saul Alinsky codified these tactics. From a guy who put a video maker Makoula Basseley Nakoula in prison based on a lie.

Let’s say you’re a business that’s decided to advertise on a radio or TV show and suddenly you are hit with supposed             emails and tweets from customers, threatening you and claiming that if you continue to do business with that radio or TV show, you’ll lose      them as customers. Then you find out that all those emails and tweets are being sent by Twitter robots.

The purpose of their intimidation is precisely to get us to shut up.

source–rush, 2/2015


HARD TIMES FOR HEZBOLLAH–1H. B5                             Is Iran’s Lebanese client losing its grip:

last week Hezbollah buried one of its princes, jihad Mughniyeh, the 22-vear-old son of the late Imad Mughniyeh, a legendary Hezbollah commander implicated in such infamous operations as the 1983 bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut. Israel Jan.18 strike killed the younger Mughniyeh and five other Hezbollah operatives, is evidence of a dangerous crisis for Hezbollah. The [Lebanese Shiites] don’t want another war with Israel, “but they also want to know Hezbollah can protect them like it says. if Hezbollah’s retaliation brings a crushing Israel response Nasrallah will have opened not only a fight with Israel, but a third confrontation as well, inside Lebanon, with the county’s Sunni community. “It would mean the Sunni-Shia conflict has come to Lebanon in earnest,” fighting across the border in Syria. The Sunni extremist groups like Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS. Pitched battles between Hezbollah and Sunni fighters on the Syria border.

As it turns out, Mughniyeh and the others, including Iranian Revolutionary Guards Brigadier General Mohamed Ali Allahdadi   confidant of Iran’s Ouds Force commander Qassemg Suleimani, to open a second front against Israel, in addition to the group’s South Lebanon stronghold, on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

‘The Shia are supposed to side with justice against injustice.” Hezbollah has also staked the Shiites to a position against the regional Sunni majority in a war whose best outcome, says Slim, can only be a political settlement.

checkpoints, traffic—everythings_worse than when I was last here nearly three years ago. There’s less electric and more blackouts, the water shortages are worse, and so is the sewage. There’s no president, no elections on the horizon to elect a new parliament, the economy is moribund with    parents urging their children       to formulate a Plan B—how to get out of Lebanon and start a career and family elsewhere.

Hezbollah is falling and a new chapter is beginning for the Shiites, exactly how many Lebanese shiites have been killed there is unknown—high-end estimates more than a thousand in the last two years—”Let’s say there are 3,000 Hezbollah combatants in Syria, with 20,000 committed to the war.

Hezbollah is unaccustomed to waging a Iong war of attrition like this, they are worried that the women will become more powerful.”

the sheikh’s political and theological mission is taking on wilayet al-faqih, the theological concept developed by the founder of the lslamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, But with wilayet al-faqjh, the supreme leader is effectively able to bypass Muhammad the prophet as well as the Koran. The If        it’s such an obviously bad and un-Islamic, idea I ask the sheikh, why did the Iranian people buy it? “Ignorance,”Khomeini was charismatic.”

Ignorance is a problem with many of the Lebanese too. The fact that Hezbollah takes care people. For them, fighting for Iran isn’t fighting just another country, it’s God’s country. Just because we attend a fighter’s funeral doesn’t mean we are behind the cause.” Hezbollah’s war in Syria is a good thing, as the sheikh sees it. becausc it will destroy the organization and turn the Shiites against it.           Much of Hebollah young cadre comes from the tech schools the organization has opened throughout the south. Education is a good business investment for Hezbollah, and they’ve made lots of good investments.”

cautionsi against believing Western media reports that Hezbollah is going broke. “In addition to their own investments, they have money from the Lebanese state.” They also still get what they need from Irag, they’re also still making money from criminal enterprise ”       think of mansions as the counterpoint to martyrs.”          the Shiite community’s foreign policy is largely made in Tehran.

weekly standard (2/2/15), lee smith,lokman slim



And secret friend of the one percent

His domestic agenda consists of more spending on roads and infrastructure, new entitlement programs for community college and preschool. and tax preferences targeted to middle and low-income earners. All of is he would pay for with new inheritance taxes on the wealth, a hike in the capital gains tax, and a special levy on the highest financial institutions.

His record shows him to be a corporate liberal, and a closer look at last week’s proposals confirms it. The Corporate liberal offers the following deal: In exchange for greater authority—to tax, to regulate, to distribute—government will dispense benefits to the top and bottom of society.                the poor will receive more generous social welfare benefits: the wealthy will be granted special provisions, exemption , and benefits.

Obamacare is a perfect illustration, The government subsidizes health insurance, but it does so through private companies. The government implicitly guarantees that insurers will profit in the individual marketplace. The welfare state is expanded. The more interests are drawn in, the more our Madisonian system resists reform, and the more ensconced in power corporate liberalism becomes.

Corporate liberals go to great lengths to distract voters from discerning the actual nature of the regime. Obamacare: Its supporters regularly and viciously attacked insurance companies during the debate. Obama talked like a populist about taxes, but note his timing. He is calling for massive new taxes on top individual earners from the most re-publican Congress in generations.

Why not have asked for this in 2009 or 2010, when Democrats were in charge. He may claim that he is committed to fairness, but our deeply unfair corporate tax code     will remain intact for at least two years. There are two types of tax fairness—vertical and horizontal. By insisting on greater vertical fairness, he has killed any hope of reforms enhancing horizontal fairness. Vertical tax fairness is the principle that those who make more money should pay more. A flat tax which      applies the same percentage to all earners, achieves vertical fairness: A progressive tax, which taxes higher earners at higher rates, intensifies this effect.

Our system of taxation is progressive, and last week Obama called for making it more steeply so. Horizontal fairness is the principal that individual or business with similar incomes or assets should pay similar amounts of tax.

Uncle Sam discriminates based on how we earn and spend our money.

source–weekly standard, (2/2/15), jay cost



Netanyahu to address congress. Top Obama administration officials made clear they considered the invitation itself an affront and the acceptance of it a breach of protocol.             Same White House that last week had British David Cameron making calls to Capitol Hill to lobby lawmakers against more sanctions on Iran. Had to apologoze to senator Marco Rubio and others for violating its pledge to “consult Congress” before making any unilateral changes to U.S. policy on Cuba. Who has boasted repeatedly of his ability and willingness to ignore the legislative branch and use his “pen and phone to do what he wants. That used the cover of anonymity to callNetanyahu “chickenshit” in a recent interview.

consider the section on Iran in President Obama’s State of the union. It took up just l72 words of his 6,500-word address. First time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material. Agreement that prevents nuclear-armed Iran, secures America and our allies, including Israel. There are no guarantees that negotiations will succeed, and Ikeep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran.

Alienating America from its allies; making it harder to maintain sanctions; and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again.      This is delusional. The United States hasn’t “halted” Irans nuclear program. A week before that claim, Iran announced it would build two more reactors. During this diplomacy, it has made progress on its       plutonium program and continued enriching. It was suppose to freeze centrifuge activities at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz,              but IAEA reported last fall it was feeding uranium hexa-fluoride gas into the IR-5 centrifuge there.

Obama implied that congress—not Iran—would be at fault if military, conflict erupted.      Obama accused Senator Bob Menendez of bowing to the interests of campaign contributors. The State Department lists Iran as the foremost state sponsor of terror in the world. According to a former top U.S. military official the Iranian regime is responsible for more than a third of American troop deaths in Iraq. The regime talks openly about eliminating Israel.

source–weekly standard (2/2)–stepehen hayes