A tactical maneuver was in place as Barack Obama took office. It was the political version of Fast and Furious without guns, but yet a clear and present danger. Obama’s strategy, along with the Progressive-Democrat Party, was to unleash a blitzkrieg of legislation on the U.S. economy and its citizens before the opposition could grasp who and what had been voted into office. Much like a military “kill box area,” congressional authority and government agencies were sectioned off, targeted and undermined with a deluge of legislation and executive orders. The goal: Obama’s “transformation of America.” The free-enterprise economy was flooded with a strangle-hold of regulations that took over health care, corporations, housing, insurance and banking. Obama unleashed his “change” with such a fury that opponents experienced a political version of “shock and awe.” With the system overwhelmed, moderate and conservative members of Congress were blind-sided and ineffective to stop the “transformation” being thrust upon the American people.

For two years, Barack Obama had free reign as he appointed over three dozen, unelected Czars to advise him and oversee government policy and agencies. Among the Czars were admitted Socialists, Marxists and radical environmentalists seeking to “transform America” to meet Obama’s Liberal-Progressive agenda. In 2010, the American voter became wise to the destructive governmental changes that usurped their Constitutional freedoms and ravaged their pocketbooks. The conservative base of American voters abruptly woke up the GOP by voting compromising enablers out of office followed by warnings to clean house even further.

Warning number two is now in play for the GOP. With the Progressive-Democrat’s game plan unveiled and its raw corruption exposed, Congress is again on notice as the nation faces elections in 2012. Republicans must now take the offensive and formulate a blitzkrieg of policies and investigations of their own. Every GOP member of the House and Senate, in parity with their committees, must be assigned direct oversight of Obama’s Czars and department heads. Every move, every piece of legislation, every regulation and every request for funding must be tracked and brought out of the shadows and into the light. Obama’s shadow-government of Czars is embedding itself and is being paid by taxpayer dollars to sit in government offices while deconstructing America’s founding policies and principles. The Czars primary targets are free-market capitalism, Constitutional freedoms and U.S. sovereignty. The call to action and accountability by members of Congress has never been greater. Pick a czar or department head, expose their agenda and defund their fiefdoms. If Obama and a Progressive-Democrat majority are elected in 2012, expect the full fury of Obama’s Czars to be unleashed on America in 2013.

American voters need to understand that whether Obama is re-elected or replaced by Hillary Clinton, Progressive-Democrat goals are the same. Both Obama and Clinton are advocates of radical Socialist/Marxist Saul Alinsky whose goal was to radicalize then socialize America and its government. Clinton’s college thesis praised her socialist professor, Saul Alinsky. One of Alinsky’s guiding principles, to all his disciples, was that in order to gain real power and overthrow capitalism it is necessary to crush the middleclass. As a Chicago street activist, Alinsky taught that class and race warfare are the most effective ways to bring about “change.” As the race-and-class-warfare-in-chief, Obama demonstrates he learned Alinsky’s lessons well.

PS – Partial plan of action for the GOP: 1.) Block Obama’s so-called “infrastructure labor union bank” that is a replacement for Obama’s planned money-funneling, climate-change bank in Chicago that was put on-hold by the man-made global warming scandal. 2.) Rein in the unelected National Labor Relations Board that is wielding unauthorized fascist authority. 3.) Assign additional oversight teams to prevent potential election fraud and vote tampering in 2012. Fecklessly investigating voter fraud after the fact does no good. Al Franken, anyone?

That’s right, folks, if you thought Porkulus one was a laugh a minute, get ready for “Porkulus II: The Next Fail,” a new flick coming soon from Obama/Alinsky/Marx productions.

If you thought the last Porkulus was a failure wait till you see the next one.

Click image to see larger version

Yes, all your favorites are back. There’s Slow Joe Biden grinning like the useless jackal he is, Harry “This War is Lost” Reid, Timmy “Tax Cheat” Geithner, Hilary Clinton, Reverend Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright, Jeffery “What Jobs?” Immelt, Austan “Sell Out” Goolsbee, Ben “Fed Head” Bernanke, and a host of other halfwits and clowns all meant to tickle your funny bone and rob you blind.

Remember the days when you had to actually pay to see a movie? Well, not this time! THIS movie is FREE we are told. Why, just show up and we’ll let you in gratis. But if you don’t want to see the movie, well at a later date there is a fine, some jail time, and the kind of harassment that even Muamar Gaddhafi would be ashamed of employing.

This is a production of Obama/Alinsky/Marx Productions and Wastrel Belief, Inc. Present Barack Hussein Obama’s PORKULUS II: THE NEXT FAIL executive producers the Democrat Party. Written by Karl Marx and John Maynard Kenyes. Produced by Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrat Party. Available in paperback by Saul Alinsky. A 20th Century Marx film. This movie is rated “F” for abject Failure.

What went on in those discussions and who was arguing against action? We may never know for certain but a “White House insider” says that Obama was so indecisive that the order to act was eventually given by CIA director Panetta without Obama’s prior knowledge. Obama was brought in only after the operation was underway. I reproduce below the opening paragraphs of the story concerned. They are in the form of an interview with the “source” — JR

Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?

A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.

I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position.

This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.

More HERE

It rings true to me. Note that in the famous picture from the operations room, Obama looks very much an outsider — JR

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

If you don’t want it to get even harder for a U.S. citizen to get a passport — now required for travel even to Canada or Mexico — you only have until Monday to let the State Department know.

The U.S. Department of State is proposing a new Biographical Questionnaire for some passport applicants: The proposed new Form DS-5513 asks for all addresses since birth; lifetime employment history including employers’ and supervisors names, addresses, and telephone numbers; personal details of all siblings; mother’s address one year prior to your birth; any “religious ceremony” around the time of birth; and a variety of other information. According to the proposed form, “failure to provide the information requested may result in … the denial of your U.S. passport application.”

The State Department estimated that the average respondent would be able to compile all this information in just 45 minutes, which is obviously absurd given the amount of research that is likely to be required to even attempt to complete the form.

The 45 minutes comes from the supporting statement. Anyone else think they can list all their jobs in 45 minutes? Heck, some of the places I have worked no longer even exist. I might get all my residences in that time, provided I was given a computer, though, one no longer exists. Wiped out by flooding after TS Floyd. And mom’s pre and post natal records? Good luck with that: I’m adopted.

Consumer Travel points out that “no criteria have been made public for determining who will be subjected to these additional new written interrogatories.” Well, it’s probably like the TSA’s groping project, where only a few people get sexually violated….oh, wait.

Say, who’s president now?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

As the White House works to assuage congressional anger over U.S. entry into armed conflict in Libya, four top national security officials will give a classified briefing to lawmakers on the war next Wednesday afternoon.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are all expected to speak on the topic of “U.S. Policies and Military Operations in Libya,” according to an invitation circulated to House members.

Oh, sorry, my bad, I though Hillary Clinton was president, what with all her face time on TV explaining what’s going on in Libya. Apparently, the real elected POTUS is avoiding any major Libyan address, like a boy avoiding mother after he broke the cookie jar

President Barack Obama is resisting pressure to deliver an Oval Office speech explaining his policy on Libya — in part, because he doesn’t want to equate what he regards as a smaller, time-limited mission with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Administration officials haven’t ruled out a big speech, but Obama is reluctant to make a major address on Libya until the United States hands over most command and combat duties to its allies.

That’s not to say the president won’t talk about Libya over the next few days, aides say, but he’s not likely to succumb to pressure to deliver a long, explanatory address to outline his elusive endgame to the nation until the path ahead becomes clearer

He doesn’t have to give a long, rambling lecture on the actions in Libya, but, a week later, it’d be nice if Champ would say something. We’ve witnessed him having fun in Latin America, kicking soccer balls and stuff, now it’s time to BE president, and discuss the situation with the American people.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

But apparently, if you don’t call it WAR, you don’t have to get approval from Congress, thus we have “kinetic military action.”

Where does this leave Obama? And Soros?

It took a while, but the U.S. State Department is now tweeting in Arabic.

With unprecedented political turmoil rocking Egypt and protesters turning to social media such as Twitter and Facebook, the mouthpiece of U.S. foreign policy wants in on the game. Its first message?

(Wordpress having problems retaining the Arabic, turns it all into question marks)

(Translation: “We want to be a part of your conversation!”) (Teach: “Recognized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of America’s historic role played by social media in the Arab world and want to be part of your conversation” is the translation I get)

The new State Department Arabic Twitter feed, @USAbilaraby, joins a growing chorus of Twitter feeds describing and commenting on events in Egypt and across the Arab world, where social media is helping to broadcast political ferment.

I can think of a few things they could have said otherwise, something like “we support your protest against your dictator” and “why do you support radical Islam?”It’d be nice if they actually kept the feed going, since the last tweet was 8 hours ago.

The feed, which currently has a scant 161 followers (555 as of my posting time), has passed along messages including President Barack Obama’s statement that the future of Egypt is in the hands of the Egyptian people and Vice President Joe Biden’s demand that Egypt immediately stop harassing journalists and scrap its emergency law.

We should be glad that Sheriff Joe is putting his vast foreign policy experience, you remember, that is why he was picked for the Team Obama ticket, to good use in such a productive manner.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has directed the State Department to spare no effort to harness the power of the Internet to spread the U.S. message….

What is the US message? Is it that Mubarak should go now, starting yesterday, or, an orderly transition? Is it all the mixed messages, forcing Team Obama to combat a rift between the State Dept. and White House? Is the message much better after all the initial missteps? Maybe it’s all the smart power, which has seen the US standing in Egypt go from 30% to 17%? Just remember, when Obama or Little Bobby Gibbs stutter through some response about what to do with Egypt, one of the Tweets said: “President Obama: There is no room to return to the previous situation. can u donate $3 dollars?”

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

George W. Bush

The UK’s Daily Mail is quizzical:

“For someone who mangled words on a regular basis, it’s an impressive feat,”

No surprise to me. Bush came to office and nine months later had Islamic terror on his hands. Clinton had Mon…well…Clinton talked about terror a tad, and did even less about it.

Maybe the American people understand that a man who lived by his faith and through his God-given grace, who never dropped his drawers with the help of state troopers, who seldom uttered a rude word about anyone, and had no need to tell the world “I didn’t have sex with that woman,” is worth listening to.

George Bush did not, and would not have pardoned fugitive financier, Marc Rich in exchange for campaign donations or funds for the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor, and a suspected tete-a-tete with the ex-wife. Bush had his flaws, he made mistakes, but he did not need to hide them from the public. I can argue that his mistakes were his “decision points,” and he doesn’t blame anyone else for them.

Bush’s “mangled words” were understood. He hasn’t called a sailor a “corpseman,” even once, which Obama did twice. Bush knows we don’t have 57 states, and he certainly knows that “the” bomb was not dropped on Pearl Harbor.

While Clinton is often said to be brilliant, it was not brilliant to let a woman into the Oval Office for an illicite affair – a young woman who could have easily blackmailed him. He, and we, are fortunate that Lewinsky did not…fortunate that she was not a modern-day Mata Hari. It wasn’t only about sex and infidelity. It was about breaching the office of the president and possibly national security.  Clinton convincingly lied to Hillary until she actually went on nationwide television to support him and claim it was all a lie and a “vast rightwing” conspiracy. Affair or no, if you think George Bush would ever put Laura, his beloved wife, in that position, you are delusional.

A Crown Publishing spokesman says the sales of Bush’s Decision Points is “remarkable,” and he cannot think of any other hardcover nonfiction books in 2010 that have even sold one million copies. No surprise. No surprise.

George Bush on his most important task, making decisions: Decision Points (video)

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook

At the Clinton Global Initiative today, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and various partners described details of a plan to curb the clouds of toxic cooking smoke killing nearly 2 million people a year in the world’s poorest places. More than 2 billion people rely on firewood or dried dung for cooking and often burn these fuels in unvented stoves or fireplaces. (The photo above was shot for The Times in Kohlua, India, by Adam Ferguson.)

The lead organization, the United Nations Foundation, pledges to get cleaner, more efficient stoves into 100 million homes by 2020. Read John Broder’s news story for the basics, which include a commitment of $50.8 million over five years from the United States as seed money. Also visit the alliance Web site cleanercookstoves.org.

Despite the fact that Mankind has been cooking with wood and dung since Prometheus stole fire from god, oh, OK, since man first noticed fire, the way many in poorer countries cook is not healthy. The smoke often stays in the domicile and causes health problems. Buuuuuuuut, is this really about helping the poor out?

The black smoke from such stoves also could be contributing to the melting of Himalayan snow and, by absorbing sunlight, can add local warming to whatever comes in a particular region from climate change.

And there you have it. It’s about anthropogenic global warming. The article writer, Andrew Revkin, manages to cite the Himalayas, without mentioning that the evidence for the glacier melt was fabricated and a load of camel fritters. The Global Alliance For Cleaner Cookstoves also mentions globull warming as one of the reasons on their Overview pages. A lot. Anyone think that isn’t the primary reason for this initiative? They also link in carbon credits, so, this could be a good way to attempt to make some cash off the plight of these poor people. Who often avoid using the “clean stoves”, because they do not provide the heat necessary to cook their foods, such as breads.

I have a better idea: why not create power plants? Studies have shown again and again that the best way to pull people out of poverty is with modern energy. Instead of giving them climate change friendly stoves, how about bringing them electricity? Oh, wait, sorry, I forgot that our modern life is killing Gaia, so, we can’t allow these folks living in real poverty to harm it more. Even though modern energy would decrease all the health problems this initiative mentions.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Re-Change 2010!

Shrillary Clinton is an Alinskyite socialist, just like Comrade Obama; but unlike Obama, she’s smart enough that if she were captain, she wouldn’t sink the ship on purpose, not wanting to go down with it. Because of her interest in being captain and not going down with a sinking ship, she’s likely to bail soon on Comrade Obama’s farcical presidency. Guess who may replace her as Secretary of State:

Word on Capitol Hill is that Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee with a well-worn passport to the world’s hot spots, is in the mix to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who’s been hinting of an exit before the end of President Obama’s first term. Kerry, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has acted as an emissary for Obama.

Hanoi John Kerry has also acted as an emissary for the anti-American left. Here’s what he had to say about our military during the Vietnam War:

…on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command… [American troops in Vietnam] personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Here’s what he had to say about it during the height of the conflict in Iraq:

American soldiers [are] going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women…

These are examples of treason in spirit. Hanoi John came close to treason by actual deed when he met secretly with the North Vietnamese in Paris, where he represented the Jane Fonda contingent of the useful idiot left.

It’s true that his violations of the Logan Act at least gave Kerry some experience in international diplomacy. But with the possible exception of Ms. Fonda herself, a worse choice for Secretary of State would be difficult to imagine. He’ll fit right in with Obama et al.

On a tip from G. Fox. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.