Trickle Down Tyranny (2 page)

Gloatingly she said, “We came, we saw, he died.”

Did she oversee the execution of a head of state who begged for his life?

Are we the new Visigoths?

Ghadafi looks like an angel of mercy compared to the National Transitional Council that has taken over governing in Libya.

The independent militias that Ghadafi was able to keep in check have resurfaced. They promised to give up their weapons after Ghadafi was taken down, but they’ve reneged on those promises. Violent clashes and revenge killings have become the norm. I don’t see any chance of a government that can centralize control over this tribal society and the warring militias forming anytime soon. The idea of a national army in a tribal state such as Libya is a joke without Ghadafi.

It doesn’t get any more promising when I look beyond Libya and Egypt.

In November 2011, Great Britain severed banking ties with Iran, suspending all business relationships and bank transactions between British and Iranian banks. The Brits were worried that the financial sector was “being unknowingly used by Iranian banks for [nuclear] proliferation transactions.”
⁷

The Iranians responded by overrunning the British Embassy in Tehran, forcing Britain to withdraw its embassy personnel and to cease diplomatic relations with Iran. The embassy takeover was staged by the Iranian government in order to make it look like Iranian citizens supported the ruling regime.

Obama responded with this: “[F]or rioters essentially to be able to overrun the embassy and set it on fire is an indication that the Iranian government is not taking its international obligation seriously.”

“Not taking its international obligation seriously?”

Since when has Iran ever taken its international obligation seriously?

Since when has Iran done anything except laugh behind Barack Obama’s back as Obama neglected
his
international obligation to protect the U.S. and our allies when he failed to step in and stop a rogue terrorist nation from threatening the world?

Where the British actually instituted economic sanctions that will have a serious detrimental effect on Iran’s economy, the U. S. has failed to do anything meaningful. In fact, when the Senate voted 100-0 on a bill to penalize foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran, Obama insisted that they “soften” their stance against the terrorist nation.
⁸
No mention by Barack Obama of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, no mention of their killing demonstrators who did rise up against the government in 2009, only a mealy-mouthed statement about “international obligations.”

How do we change it?

The next president of the United States must follow the British lead and institute real economic sanctions on Iran . . . if it’s even necessary. Because the first step the next president must take is to make it clear that we are Israel’s ally and will stand with Israel in support of preemptive strikes against Iranian nuclear weapon production sites, if the Israelis haven’t already taken them out.

The next president of the United States must reverse the support of Islamist governments and parties in the Middle East that has characterized the Obama presidency. The next president must abandon Obama’s commitment to Islamist dictatorships and realign the U.S. with America’s traditional allies, the oil-producing nations in the Middle East who understand and have made it clear to us that they want Iran’s nuclear development stopped.

The next president must reestablish a military presence in the Middle East, possibly negotiating a return of our troops to Iraq, but minimally establishing and rebuilding our military forces in the region. Our mission must be based on defending our allies who recognize that Iran is out to do nothing less than take over the entire region and turn it into a new caliphate with designs on expanding throughout the world.

Above all, the next president must restore our relationship with our most important ally in the Middle East: Israel. In early December 2011, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta slammed Israel for its “isolationist” policies. He called on Israel to mend fences with Turkey and Egypt, two countries coming increasingly under Islamist rule, while he neglected to mention that the U.S. supported the overthrow of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, one of the few allies supporting both Israel and the U.S. in the Middle East.
⁹

In restoring U.S. ties with Israel, the next president must make it clear that Palestinians acknowledge the legitimacy of the nation of Israel and that that will be the basis of a Palestinian state. In addition, the next president must come out strongly against the anti-Semitism that has spread like a plague among liberals and leftists around the world, making it clear that U.S. support for Israel is uncompromising.

Restoring National Defense

If you look for this information in the newspapers and broadcasts of the Obama media acolytes, you won’t find it: Under Barack Obama, defense spending has fallen to the smallest percentage of our gross domestic product since Bill Clinton’s administration. Under Obama’s rapidly shrinking defense budget, the fleet is set to be reduced even further. The 2012 defense budget of $513 billion represents only
3.4 percent of GDP
.
¹⁰
That’s down from 5 percent only three years ago, and it’s down from 6.2 percent during the Reagan administration. There’s an additional $117.5 billion to fund the ongoing military actions in this budget, but Obama’s cuts to the defense budget itself actually put our troops in danger of not having the logistical support they need in the field.
¹¹

The vote in the Senate to approve the defense spending bill was 93 to 7.

Obama’s response?

He threatened to veto it because there’s a provision in the bill that says enemy combatants detained anywhere in the world, including in the United States, are subject to mandatory military custody.

Here’s what Obama’s veto means:
If you don’t give me civilian trials for enemy combatants, I will not sign the defense spending bill.

He’s holding the U.S. military hostage to his desire to see terrorists on trial in American courtrooms. The threatened veto is part of Obama’s ongoing effort to undermine U.S. national security.

Are you aware of the additional cuts Obama has in store for the military?

You remember the failed “select committee” that was supposed to find $1.2 trillion in budget cuts? Obama knew they would fail, so he set it up to automatically cut an additional $600 billion from the defense budget over the next ten years. That’s another $60 billion a year. He did it through the automatic spending cuts that kicked in when the Select Budget Committee of six Democrats and six Republicans was unable to agree on how to cut $1.2 trillion from the federal budget.

Obama is threatening to veto any legislation that would prevent those automatic $60 billion annual additional defense cuts from kicking in, too.

Even leftist Defense Secretary Panetta, who backed some of the most devastating defense spending cuts in U.S. history during the Clinton administration, has said that the United States could become a “paper tiger” if further cuts are made.

Obama either doesn’t understand or refuses to acknowledge that we are at war. We face continuing danger in Iraq and Afghanistan because of troop drawdowns and ongoing state-sponsored terrorism. Iran and North Korea are closer than we acknowledge to being able to deliver nuclear strikes through their missiles. Al Qaeda is still actively seeking nuclear and biological weapons capabilities. China and Russia are becoming more defiant and threatening in the face of the weakest U.S. president in our history.

Obama’s already reduced defense spending and his threats to allow draconian defense cuts to kick in benefit our enemies. He’s determined to cede our military superiority to Russia, China, even Iran, in order to hasten the formation of a new George Soros-defined world order, where national borders disappear and the rule of the international mob becomes a reality.

We are at war on many fronts, and the next president must increase defense spending as a percentage of GDP to wartime levels. That means returning defense spending, not including funding for military actions, to at least 5.2 percent of GDP—that’s the 45-year average—while making sure that the drawdown in troops Obama has implemented is reversed and the buildup of new weapons, warships, and military aircraft is restarted.

Reversing the Obama Energy Policy

Here’s something Barack Obama will never admit: Despite his efforts to cripple it, the oil industry is booming in the United States. The oil industry has accounted for more than 20 percent of the new jobs in the United States in the past seven years. Texas—which Obama is trying to give away to Mexico—has accounted for most of the rest of them.

What is the president’s energy policy?

Obama and his bought-and-paid-for secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, have done everything in their power to keep America dependent on foreign oil. They’ve all but permanently banned offshore drilling in the United States, and they’ve managed to kill the Keystone XL pipeline so we can’t buy and ship more oil from our ally, Canada, directly through to Gulf Coast refineries.

Obama’s energy policy is also compromising America’s electric grid and putting Americans at risk of not being able to afford electricity—if there’s even enough to go around. After the freak October snowstorm in 2011 that knocked out power to millions in the New England states, some homeowners were without electricity for as long as a month before their power was restored. And Southern California has experienced rolling blackouts that are an omen of future electricity shortages throughout the Southwest.

Obama’s assault on coal-fired electricity generation has meant that, even in the short span of three years, he’s making sure that no new electric production facilities will be brought online. Obama has weakened the grid in many areas of the U.S. because he’s bent on shutting down coal-fired electricity production, not in the name of making life better for humans but of making it better for plants and animals.

Obama’s energy secretary, Steven Chu, has lied shamelessly to Congress and the American public about the threat of global warming. He’s perpetuating the myth that our continued use of carbon-based fuels threatens the planet. He couldn’t be further from the truth, as I’ll show you in chapter 9. Like Obama, he favors windmills and electric cars and forcing energy prices high enough to make green technology viable.

Obama concurs: “I share the view of . . . most scientists in the world that climate change is a real problem and that human activity is contributing to it, and that we all have a responsibility to find ways to reduce our carbon emissions.”

The fact is that he doesn’t share the views of “most scientists”; he’s parroting the party line about a phenomenon that has been in decline for the past decade and poses no real threat whatsoever—except that rising temperatures make things better for all forms of life on earth. He’s spouting Stalinist science in the face of evidence he does his best to suppress that global warming is not a threat to our way of life. The real threat is a false belief that we have to protect ourselves from global warming. In fact, the path Obama is taking us down weakens our economy and our national security.

I’ve understood for a long time that the whole global warming debate should have ended in 2009 when it was revealed that so-called “scientists” who supported the idea that the earth was in a disastrous warming period had phonied up the numbers and corrupted climate science irrevocably. It didn’t end there. In November 2011, more than 5,000 new e-mails sent back and forth among top climate “scientists” reveal that they’re still fudging data, trying to intimidate those who disagree with them into silence. Despite the collapse of the evidence they themselves invented, they’re still spouting the party line.
¹²

Climate change is still the rationale behind this administration’s push to close down the U.S. oil industry. Leftist Lisa Jackson still controls the future of the oil industry in the U.S. She can single-handedly dictate whether or not taking oil out of the ground goes ahead. Now she’s even taken over the design of U.S. automobiles. A new diktat by Jackson’s EPA will drive up the cost of automobiles and reduce their safety dramatically in an effort to meet artificially set CO
₂
emission standards.
¹³

What this administration hasn’t been able to do is completely shut down the expansion of the oil industry. Across the country, more than 440,000 people are working in the oil industry. That’s up from 200,000 less than a decade ago. North Dakota now has an unemployment rate under four percent because of the oil boom in that state. They’re producing nearly half a million barrels of oil a day. In Pennsylvania, natural gas production from the Marcellus shale formation is turning around that state’s economy. Nationwide, more than 200,000 people now work in the natural gas industry.
¹⁴

It’s new oil and gas technology—not green technology—that’s driving this expansion.

Hydraulic fracturing—“fracking”—and horizontal drilling technology have made the extraction of oil and natural gas easier and safer than it has ever been. Fracking involves pumping a mixture of sand and fluid at high pressure into shale rock formations that contain oil and gas. This fractures the rock and frees up the oil and gas for recovery. It means that tens of billions of barrels of oil and virtually limitless supplies of natural gas in U.S. fields can now be taken out of the ground.