There’s a lot in the news today so let’s get started.

- Tonight the Republicans will hold their debate in New Hampshire and all eyes will be on Herman Cain as new polls showing him becoming the front runner.  In Virgina, Cain and Romney are tied for 1st place and in South Carolina Cain leads Romney by 1 point and Perry by 11 points.  Meanwhile, the liberal attacks continue to grow.  Cain responded to the attacks by far left pro-Castro activist Harry Belafonte who called Cain “a bad apple” by saying, “I left the plantation a long time ago.”

- Questions are mounting for Democrat Nancy Pelosi and why she failed to disclose real estate holdings of millions of dollars belonging to her and her real estate developer and investment banker husband.  Pelosi disclosed the holdings only 1 month after the Washington Times revealed business dealings between Mr. Pelosi and Mr. Tsakopoulos and Mrs. Pelosi’s successful efforts to help his daughter, Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis, become ambassador.  The real estate deal was put together by Mr. Tsakopoulos for the Pelosi’s and could net them a return of $24 million on an investment of $1-$5 million.  Perhaps, the march on Wall Street crowd should be marching on Pelosi’s investment banker hubby.

- And wouldn’t you know we have another scandal brewing and yes it involves another solar company and another Democrat.  Question are being raised how SunPower, another solar company, received $1.2 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees despite mounting rumors that it is heading into bankruptcy… follow the money trail.  First, SunPower donated more than $15k to Democrats and its chief lobbyist is the son of Rep. George R. Miller III, (D.-Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee and the co-chairman of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. It’s amazing the connections that all these Democrats have to all these failing “green” companies.  It’s no wonder why they’re so adamant pushing the global warming myth- it’s worth billions to them.

-  The Democrat-controlled Senate defeated President Barack Obama’s job-creation package Tuesday in a sign that Washington is likely too paralyzed to take major steps to spur hiring before the 2012 elections.

-  A plot to kill the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the US was uncovered.  US officials say that the Iranian government was involved. The terror plot called for blowing up a restaurant frequented by members of Congress and a favorite of the Ambassador.  The Obama administration did not respond to questions how they would respond to Iran which is said to be within months of developing a nuclear bomb.

Those are the top stories for today.

Courtesy:  John Paulus

_________

The pictures above; innocent children killed by Gaddafi?  Civilian hangings in Libya?  No, they are massacred children at the hands of Saddam Hussein. And the hanging- they are happening in Iran.

Obama told the American people tonight that America had to react because it could no longer stand by as innocent people were massacred and hung.  This reasoning alone justifies are going to war in Iraq.

Now, while I applaud the President for finally recognizing the unique role America must play in the world, I was embarrassed by the length he went to try to explain how his reasons for intervening were different from Bush’s actions.  In fact, the more he tried to explain the more pronounced the similarities.  But, hey, he needed to placate his liberal friends by giving them something they could parrot.

One of the most amusing parts of the President’s speech was the comparison between the length of the operation in Libya and that of Iraq.  Obama left out the part that Iraq was a militaristic country with the 5th largest Army in the world with the 3rd most powerful air defenses… Nearly as humorous was the comparison between how long it took to get a resolution for the bombings in Bosnia as compared to Libya.  The President must not be versed in history. First, Russian ground troops occupied many parts of what was then Yugoslavia. Which brings up the second point… Bosnia had not been recognized as a sovereign nation. I hope Obama wasn’t suggesting that we bomb Bosnia without first allowing the Russians to withdraw its troops.  I was imagining how Bill Clinton felt when he heard that part of the speech.

By the way, were any of you confused by Obama’s speech?  In one breath the President says that our mission there isn’t regime change, but two paragraphs later he wants Gaddafi out. Some other contradictions; the United States and the world can’t stand by while innocent lives are slaughter, but Syria and Iran… well, those innocent lives aren’t as important.

I, for one, am happy that Obama found time between golfing and partying to tell the American people why we are involved in Libya.  I just wonder if he could justify his reasons without making comparison to Iraq.  Perhaps his argument for going to war was weak.  And, I’m glad that he informed the Congressional leadership, but as a Constitutional lawyer you would think that he would know that he must get approval from the entire Congress for military action.

Finally, as Commander in Chief, you would think Obama would know that we do have ground forces in Libya.  Perhaps he does know and he was being purposely dishonest when he said we don’t.  Facts are that laser guided precision bombs do not work unless there are ground troops “lazing” targets in order to guide those bombs.

______________

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.” That was Obama on December 20th, 2007 when he was a candidate, but like many of Obama’s lofty words, few are ever adhered to.

There are some liberals who are bending over backwards trying to defend Obama’s illegal war in Libya. Some are defending the action calling it necessary in order to put a halt to the killing of Libyans by Gaddafi. Odd, since some of those same liberals didn’t feel removing Saddam for murdering hundreds of thousands of Kurds, Marsh Arabs, and Southern Shiites was reason to go to war.

There are some liberals who are also saying that Obama has coalition support for his illegal war in Libya. Somehow they ignore the fact that George W. Bush had twice as much support (Liberals tend to parrot whatever they hear on MSNBC).

Coalition Forces / Iraq vs. Libya

Coalition Countries – Iraq – 2003

Afghanistan,
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan

[Source: US State Department]

Coalition – Libya – 2011

United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
Qatar
United Arab Emirate

I think most would agree that Iraq had posed a much graver danger to the United States than Libya does today. What is Obama’s motivation for attacking Libya? Is it what some liberals are claiming- to protect innocent people from Gaddafi’s murdering hand? If that’s the case, when will Obama invade Bahrain? When can we expect Obama to attack Sudan? Or maybe it’s regime change? Can we expect Obama to overthrow the regime in Iran? North Korea? Cuba?

Maybe it is about oil. Liberal Congressman Ed Markey said of the war in Libya, “Well, we’re in Libya because of oil. And I think both Japan and the nuclear technology and Libya and this dependence that we have upon imported oil have both once again highlighted the need for the United States to have a renewable energy agenda going forward.”

Obama owes it to the American people to tell us why he’s wasting billions of dollars in taxpayer money for an illegal war.  Well, have to wait until the president returns from his vacation trip to South America.

______________

Do you remember candidate Obama, the guy who said he would sit down and negotiate with Iran- pursue a diplomatic approach with the nefarious regime?  How, through his leadership, he’d bring together UN Security Council members to impose sanctions that would force Iran to halt their nuclear ambitions?  Well, after 13 months of lost time and wasted efforts it appears that the Obama administration is about to adopt the same Bush policies Obama campaigned against.

As the apprentice President continues to discover,  you can’t negotiate with terrorist or terrorist regimes.  Regardless of how many times you apologize or placate those with a radical ideology, it will not alter their determination to destroy you.  Regardless of whether you try terrorist in military court or in civilian courts, you will not earn their respect.  Perhaps the apprentice President has finally learned a lesson from a seasoned President, and that lesson is that it’s his duty to protect and defend this country even if he means you won’t be personally loved.

From the Guardian:

Hillary Clinton’s sudden volley of shots at Iran marks the end of an engagement policy that never really began. She wants to convince the world that the regime in Tehran is opposed to serious talks with the west. That may be true, but we’ll probably never know because in fact, no one has offered such talks.

In laying out the American approach to Iran, Clinton showed how little US foreign policy has changed since the last years of the Bush administration. President Bush famously explained that he would not negotiate with unfriendly regimes because he didn’t want to “reward bad behaviour”. He wanted states like Iran to change of their own accord, not as a result of negotiation but as a pre-condition for being allowed to negotiate.

Clinton embraces this same idea. She rejects the view that as Iran becomes more threatening and approaches nuclear breakout capacity, diplomatic engagement becomes more urgent. Instead she takes the opposite view. “We don’t want to be engaging while they are building their bomb,” she said this week.

___________

It was just a few weeks ago that the liberal media began touting the “success” of Obama’s foreign policy approach toward Iran. One day after the Obama administration threw Poland and the Czech Republican under the bus by announcing it would not deploy an anti-missile defense system in their country, Russia hinted that it would be open to stronger sanctions toward Iraq. Well, it appears the celebrations by the liberal media were a bit premature.

What did Obama get for screwing over two of our strongest allies, Poland and the Czech Republic? Nothing. On a trip to Russia, Hillary Clinton was told, “Nyet”. Russian Prime Minister Putin said that he saw no need in frightening the Iranians or for sanctions against the country.

Obama and Clinton were foolish to believe that weakening our defense and shafting our allies would win any sort of concession from the Russians.  The Obama administration’s foreign policy is naive and dangerous.  They lack the political and foreign policy acumen to fully grasp the savvy approach that the Russians are employing.  The Russian government knows that sanctions will not work and that the United States will not tolerate a nuclear Iran.  The Russian need only to sit back and claim that they were not responsible nor did they participate in any actions that would be viewed negatively by the Iranian people and Muslims.

And if deciding not to deploy an anti-missile defense system in Eastern Europe wasn’t bad enough, the Obama Administration has agreed to let the Russians visit all of our nuclear sites and count all of our missiles.  I suppose the next thing this administration will do is provide the Sears’ Tower structural engineering plans to Osama Bin Laden.  Or maybe they can provide the North Koreans with our defense plans we have implemented in South Korean.  For the life of me, I can not understand what this guy is trying to do with the national security of this country.  I truly want to believe that it’s plain ignorance and lack of experience that’s to blame for this inexcusable actions, but I have a growing suspicion that there may be something more insidious at play.

______________