Obama above the law and the Constitution

Today in The Wall Street Journal, Michael McConnell, a former federal judge and law professor, makes virtually the same point about President Obama as John Yoo, formerly of the Bush Justice Department and now a law professor, made this past October.

WSJ illustration

McConnell says that the Obama administration decision to suspend the employer mandate in the ObamaCare law for a year is a blatant abrogation of the constitutional obligation under Article II, Section, which states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

“This is a duty, not a discretionary power,” McConnell writes. “While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.”

Writing at Fox News in October, Yoo used the same constitutional citation to explain why it was wrong for the Obama to basically legislate by executive fiat a law Congress refused to pass — the DREAM Act.

“Obama has pursued a dangerous change in the powers of his office that disregards the Constitution’s careful separation of power between the branches of the federal government,” Yoo writes. “The Constitution imposes on the president two clear duties – to protect the national security and to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’ Obama is the first chief executive since Richard Nixon to ignore a duly-enacted law simply because he disagrees with it, in clear defiance of his constitutional duty.”

McConnell concludes with this:

“As the Supreme Court said long ago (Kendall v. United States, 1838), allowing the president to refuse to enforce statutes passed by Congress ‘would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.'”

But Obama’s law breaking extends far beyond these two incidents.

As an extension of the suspension of the employer mandate in ObamaCare, his administration also suspended the requirement that individuals seeking subsidized health insurance prove their eligibility. Not to mention all those waivers from ObamaCare requirements for hundreds of unions and companies.

As with the DREAM Act, Obama is working to enact “law” to prevent climate change by unilaterally declaring war on coal. As he said in a letter to me and a few other of his closest friends:

“I told Congress in February that if they didn’t take action to fight climate change, then I would.

“Today, I announced a plan of action to make good on that promise.

“My administration is taking steps to cut carbon pollution, prepare our nation for the unavoidable impact of climate change, and put America’s best and brightest to work to solve this issue on a global scale.”

Even though the law requires foreign aid be cut off to a country that has undergone a coup, Obama’s administration refuses to halt the flow of $1.5 billion in U.S. tax money to Egypt.

Though the No Child Left Behind law contained no provision for waivers, Obama’s administration granted waivers.

Tough the 1996 Welfare Programs Act required people on welfare to work or prepare for a job in order to continue to receive federal benefits, Obama’s administration waived the requirement.

Then there was the Obama decision to tell Attorney General Eric Holder to not defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act.

Don’t forget the regulatory contortions the administration attempted to get around the fact ObamaCare unconstitutionally interferes with the First Amendment rights of the Catholic Church.

Obama missed four deadlines for submitting a budget to Congress. He missed the deadline to report on planned defense cuts. He missed the deadline to report on Medicaid costs.

In 1868, the House impeached President Andrew Johnson for defying the Tenure of Office Act, which prohibited him from firing anyone from Lincoln’s cabinet. Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton anyway. The Senate refused to convict by a single vote.

The Constitution says:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

How many does it take? Nonfeasance of office is surely at least a misdemeanor.

Obama’s senseless and futile gesture with our money

In his speech declaring war on coal, Obama was utterly dismissive of everyone who deigned to disagree with him:

Nobody has a monopoly on what is a very hard problem, but I don’t have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real.  (Applause.)  We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.  (Applause.)  Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.  And ultimately, we will be judged as a people, and as a society, and as a country on where we go from here.

Doesn’t it make you feel all warm and fuzzy that in exchange for making our power bills necessarily skyrocket, we will be saving the planet from disastrous global warming, extreme weather, swarms of locust and plague.

Dr. John Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, recently showed a PowerPoint at a climate confab showing just how much our reductions in carbon output will prevent temperatures from rising. This charts shows what will happen if we do nothing (P50) compared to cutting carbon output by 50 or even 80 percent by 2050:

You can also see charts showing the “dramatic” increases in tornadoes, hurricanes and lack of snow cover, as well as what climate models projected would happen to temperatures compared to what really has happened.

Meanwhile, China is building more and more coal-fired power plants. Guess which way the prevailing winds blow.

Here is a chart of how far off those climate warming models have been:

If you think Christy is a quack, try reading what Tom M. L. Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., reports:

There are a number of points to note. First, the greatest separation is between the 450ppm and 550ppm cases, while the least is between the 650ppm and750ppm cases. This results mainly from the logarithmic dependence of CO2 radiative forcing on concentration, which means that as the CO2 level increases, the forcing increment for a 100ppm concentration increment decreases. Second, although CO2 concentrations stabilize in all cases (as early as 2100 in the WRE450 case), warming continues beyond 2250. This is partly due to the influence of the nonCO2 gases, and partly because of the large thermal inertia of the climate system. Third, even though the emissions in the CO2 stabilization cases are much less than in the baseline P50 case (see Figure 4), the reduction in warming achieved through these emissions reductions is relatively small. For example, in 2100 the baseline emissions level is 17.57GtC/yr, while the WRE550 emissions level is approximately 60% less than this at 6.85GtC/yr. The corresponding 1990-2100 warmings are 2.81o C for the baseline and 2.22oC for WRE550 (only 20% less). This again is a consequence of the thermal inertia of the climate system.

I said “try.”

Newspaper column: A funny thing happened on the way to Utopia

While the Nevada Legislature was passing a bill that would require NV Energy to prematurely close perfectly good, reliable, acceptably clean and inexpensive coal-fired power plants, the rest of the country was flocking to coal, as reported in this week’s newspaper column, available online at The Ely Times and the Elko Daily Free Press.
In the first quarter of the year, electrical power generation with coal went up 13 percent, while power generated with natural gas dropped 8 percent. This was due to huge price price for natural gas, which went up 78 percent from March so12 to March of this year, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The iconic polar bear photo.

But in the wisdom of our lawmakers, no matter what the price, coal plants are being replaced with natural gas-fired and renewable energy plants.
Meanwhile, the price of coal dropped four cents per million Btus. 

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, this year the price of fuel for power generation is $2.36 per million Btus from coal and $4.65 for the same generating capacity from natural gas. The cost of renewables is several times higher due to capital costs, though the price of fuel is nil.

Fuel costs in Nevada are passed on directly to the consumer.

At one point NV Energy officials predicted their plan to switch from coal to natural gas and renewables, cutely labeled NVision, would add no more than 4 percent to power bills over the next 20 years. Instead of rising by 32 percent under current plans, rates would climb 36 percent, plus inflation. It is unclear whether that figure took into account the 78 percent spike in gas prices.

Ostensibly the shuttering of coal-fired plants is so that Nevada power customers can do their part to save the planet from global warming or climate change or extreme weather or whatever it is called this week, but realistically power company executives probably believe President Obama will make good on his 2008 campaign promise: “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them. … Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

The administration is behind schedule in finishing EPA emissions rules that would effectively ban new coal-fired plants using current technology. In a speech on Tuesday, Obama said he is unilaterally pressing forward on those rules and existing coal plants would be affected, too.

A funny thing happened on the way to the Apocalypse.

According to a New York Times article recently, the rise in the temperature of the planet has been markedly slower during the past 15 years than the 20 years before that, even though greenhouse gases have poured into the air at a record pace.

“The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists,” the Times conceded. Their models did not predict this and cannot explain it, but don’t dare question the models.

Can someone please explain why Nevadans must pay handsomely for decades to come to prevent something that isn’t happening?

Read the entire column at the Ely or Elko websites.

A funny thing happened on the way to the climate Apocalypse

On Tuesday at Georgetown University, Obama unilaterally declared war on coal and the U.S. economy, directing the Environmental Protection Agency to set limits on how much carbon electric power plants may emit.

He said he is doing this because “science, accumulated and reviewed over decades, tells us that our planet is changing in ways that will have profound impacts on all of humankind.”

He said the 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years, Arctic ice is shrinking, New York Harbor is a foot higher than a century ago, 2012 was the warmest year in our history. “These are facts.”

Obama wipes brow at speech at Georgetown University.

He proclaimed there is no doubt. It is set in stone. No uncertainty whatsoever: “So the question is not whether we need to act.  The overwhelming judgment of science — of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements — has put all that to rest.  Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest.  They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”

Well, maybe there is a little doubt. A couple of days ago in an interview in Spiegel, Hans von Storch, a German climate scientist and empathic believer in the presence of anthropogenic planet warming, conceded that almost all the climate change models had predicted temperatures would rise 0.45 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 10 years, but instead the increase in the past 15 years was just 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit — almost zero.

This is a fact.

“If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models,” von Storch said. “A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”

Asked what could be wrong with the models, von Storch, replied, “There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.”

So, those 97 percent of scientists might have been wrong, according one of the 97 percent.

Yet Obama shouts damn the costs and orders the EPA to push on, by passing Congress.

Sen. Dean Heller put out a statement Tuesday afternoon addressing the cost aspect of Obama’s unilateral move:

“Middle-class families across Nevada and this entire nation have already been forced to tighten their belts, and the last thing they need is to feel the squeeze of higher energy prices.  Now, the President is using his executive orders to institute what amounts to a new tax on the American people, which would crush job growth and make life even more difficult for Nevadans. Instead of pursuing a far-left agenda with a new national energy tax, President Obama should focus on a comprehensive energy policy that allows us to develop our own resources, as well as find ways to develop renewable resources efficiently and affordably.”

Renewables cost double and triple what coal and natural gas cost to produce electricity, and there is no technology in sight to reduce the cost.

The cost-benefit ratio should be recalculated based on facts, not on flawed models and consensus.

Also Tuesday afternoon, I got an email from Barack. We’re on a first-name basis, you know.

Barack wrote:

Tom —

I told Congress in February that if they didn’t take action to fight climate change, then I would.

Today, I announced a plan of action to make good on that promise.

My administration is taking steps to cut carbon pollution, prepare our nation for the unavoidable impact of climate change, and put America’s best and brightest to work to solve this issue on a global scale.

One thing we know is we’ll face a well-organized and well-financed opposition by the special interests that profit from keeping things the way they are — and there are members of Congress who fundamentally deny the science on this issue.

But we cannot stand by any longer.

I need to know you’ll fight alongside me. Say you will.

Over the next few months and years, I’m going to need the millions of OFA supporters who understand that we have a responsibility to future generations to fight climate change to join me, and be a force of change in your communities.

We owe it to our children and grandchildren to take action — and now is the time.

Today, I’m here to tell you I am committed to doing my part.

Say you’ll do yours:




What climate change, Barack?

For good measure, the folks at the Heritage Foundation report what glorious achievement this nation could achieve if we went to the extreme, far beyond what the president is dictating:

“But let’s pretend we were able to stop emitting all carbon immediately. Forget the electricity to cool our homes in the summer months. Shut down the power plants. Stop driving our cars. No talking. The Science and Public Policy Institute found that the global temperature would decrease by 0.17 degrees Celsius—by 2100. These regulations are all pain no gain.”

Data mining not only violates the Fourth Amendment, but it doesn’t work

It is one thing to give up your liberty and privacy in exchange for security, but it is quite another to give up your liberty and privacy and not get any security.

”We have to make choices as a society … It’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,” Obama told us.

Dzhokar Tsarnaev, not caught. (FBI photo)

Our NSA snooping through phone records and online data hasn’t stopped any attacks. Sure they trotted out that 2009 plot to bomb the New York subways as an example of the effectiveness of their dragnet, but that’s been found to be a bald-faced lie because it was the Brits who provided the information to foil that plot.

Did the data mining catch the Tsarnaev brothers who were making phone calls and posting radical comments online before the Boston Marathon bombing? No.

Did it stop the Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan, who was swapping chatty emails with radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki? No.

Did it keep a guy who was communicating with Pakistani Taliban from parking a bomb-laden car in Times Square in New York? No.

Edward Snowden, leaker

Did it allow intelligence agents to listen in on phone calls placed by Americans overseas to family back home and encourage each other to listen into a call where “there’s good phone sex” or “some colonel making pillow talk.” Yes.

“Nobody is listening to your telephone calls,” Obama reassured us.

The only thing the American taxpayers are getting out of the multimillion-dollar operation is the bill. What does it cost to store all that data and pay $122,000 a year to an untold number of 29-year-old high school dropouts?

FHA caught trying to cover-up an audit showing potential for huge losses

Speaking of the most transparent administration in the history of the universe, have you heard the one about how the FHA deep-sixed a report showing in a worst-case scenario that it could lose $115 billion? Perhaps because 40 precent of FHA-backed home loans are subprime?

Obama on Friday (AP photo)

FHA emails handed over to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee reveal an FHA official told an independent auditor: “We just do not want that analysis to be in the actuarial review report,” according to Investor’s Business Daily editorial in the Monday edition of the paper which was delivered on Saturday.

They continued: “In congressional hearings, it is quite possible that we will be required to present this information on-the-record, but that will be well after the actuarial review is released and the initial media coverage takes place.”

It was a political cover-up pure and simple.

IBD quoted Edward Pinto, a former chief Fannie Mae credit officer, as saying, “Any publicly traded private company engaging in practices similar to what FHA is alleged to have done, would be hearing from the SEC and be on the wrong side of a flurry of class-action lawsuits.”

But it is just business as usual in the Obama administration.

Orwell as prophet: ‘If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever’

On this day in 1949 “Nineteen Eighty-Four” was published.

It added to the lexicon: Big Brother, thoughtcrime, newspeak, doublethink, Room 101, as well as the painted slogans WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Today our ignorance is indeed strength for politicians who get away with telling us debt is wealth and “green” will save us all from a warming planet. 

In fact the president recently told us we are not at war with Muslim jihadist, we are at peace.

This week we learned Big Brother really is watching — tapping data from phone companies, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple and soon Dropbox, grabbing email, phone numbers, video, photos, audio, documents.

“Nobody is listening to your telephone calls,” Obama reassured us Friday. “We have to make choices as a society … It’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience.”

He went on to say: “If people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress and don’t trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.”

Trust the executive branch in which the IRS targets tea partiers? Trust the Congress, which passes bills no one has read or understands? Trust the judiciary where something is a fine one day and a tax the next and it is OK to gather the DNA of people who have not been convicted of anything?

The Constitution was written expressly because the Founders did not trust government, and the Bill of Rights was added to even further tie its hands, such as the Fourth Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

As I pointed out some time ago, our one-worlder president doesn’t believe in fighting a global war against man-caused disasters. His Defense Department (They don’t call it the War Department anymore.) sent out a memo saying: “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’” And a man standing on a table, firing a gun, shouting Allahu Akbar is merely workplace violence.

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?” Orwell wrote in “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” “In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

The last words of the book: “He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

It’s good to be kin to the boss

I’m sure all those tea partiers who ran into a brick wall while seeking tax exempt status from the IRS will be glad to hear that sometimes the agency is the epitome of efficiency.

Let’s allow Mark Steyn to explain in this clip from his column in today’s Investor’s Business Daily:

Malik Obama

“Although acting Commissioner Steven Miller apologized for the ‘horrible customer service’ conservative taxpayers had gotten, a gentleman by the name of Malik Obama received impeccable, express service when he took the precaution of mailing in his non-profit application from N’giya, Kenya, rather than notoriously slower mail processing centers such as Phoenix and Dallas. Malik, the brother of President Obama, runs the Barack H. Obama Foundation, named for the president’s father. On May 30, 2011, it applied for tax-exempt status, and had its approval signed less than a month later by Lois Lerner herself, and conveniently backdated by Lois to cover the two-and-a-half years the enterprising Malik had already been raking in ‘tax-deductible’ donations from Americans.

“The Washington address of the Barack H. Obama Foundation appears to be bogus, and it’s not clear whether the funds are being used back in Kenya for anything other than supporting the famously lavish lifestyle of Malik and his 12 wives.”

Malik Obama was best man at the president’s wedding, but it is unclear whether he attended any of his half-brother’s 12 weddings.

Here is a pdf of the letter granting the tax exemption on June 26, 2011, and backdated to April 30, 2008, which exceeds to time allowed under the law.

The Daily Caller reveals the remarkable speed at which the IRS worked.

In May of 2011 The National Legal and Policy Center complained to the IRS in May 2011 that the Barack H. Obama Foundation was soliciting tax-deductible contributions though it had never applied for an exemption. The foundation filed its 990 forms for 2008 and 2009 on the same day, May 30, as the letter was sent from Kenya. Its 2010 990 filing came on on May 23, 2011.

No doubt the IRS is not concerned with what books Malik Obama reads or who his donors are or how the charitable donations are spent, nor with the fact he has close ties to the leaders of war-torn Sudan, one of only four countries designated by the U.S. “terrorist state.”

If asked, he can always take the Fifth Amendment.

There was plenty to criticize in Obama speech ending the ‘global war on terror’

In an earlier posting I remarked that Obama’s speech this past week at the National Defense University was basically a unilateral capitulation in the “global war on terror.”

In the 7,000-word speech he said “a perpetual war — through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments — will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways,” and he outlined his plan to win the hearts and minds of people who wouldn’t mind cutting out our hearts. We’ve tried the hearts-and-mind strategy and it never ceases to fail.

But I was kind compared to Newt Gingrich, who called the speech “just stunningly, breathtakingly naïve.”

The former Speaker of the House added:

“He says at one point ‘wars have to end.’ Well, [Leon] Trotsky said, ‘you may not care about war, but war cares about you.’ I mean, right after you have somebody beheaded in London, you have a bomb go off in Boston, you have the Iranians … every day trying to penetrate our system with cyber, you have an Iranian nuclear program underway and the president announces cheerfully, ‘the war’s going to end because I’m not happy being a war president.’”

Bret Stephens at The Wall Street Journal called message delivered in the speech Obama’s “Retreat Doctrine:”

“It’s alluring to think that, merely by declaring an end to ‘continual warfare,’ we can end continual warfare; that we can define our problems as we’d like them to be, rather than take them as they are and have them define us in turn.

“Thus the operating assumption of Mr. Obama’s speech, and for that matter his entire presidency: Saying it makes it so.”

Obama at National Defense University capitulating.

Stephens also pointed out the absurdity of Obama’s claim that war has cost us “well over a trillion dollars … exploding our deficits and constraining our ability to nation-build at home,” when the federal government has spent $31.3 trillion since 2002. The war has hardly exploded our deficits. It is the lavish spending from Washington on all those stimulus programs, entitlements, ObamaCare, green energy and so much more that is the problem.

Even the Obama-friendly New York Times pointed out a few incongruities, including the fact this Nobel Peace Prize recipient has a “kill list.”

According to the piece by Peter Baker, Obama is trying to repair his legacy:

“He wanted to be known for healing the rift with the Muslim world, not raining down death from above.

“Over the past year, aides said, Mr. Obama spent more time on the subject than on any other national security issue, including the civil war in Syria. The speech he would eventually deliver at the National Defense University became what one aide called ‘a window into the presidential mind’ as Mr. Obama essentially thought out loud about the trade-offs he sees in confronting national security threats.”

The Times tale ends aptly with a quote from South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, “At the end of the day, this is the most tone-deaf president I ever could imagine, making such a speech at a time when our homeland is trying to be attacked literally every day.”

“But this war, like all wars, must end,” Obama said Thursday. The best way to end a war, like a fistfight, is to win. Just dropping your hands to your side is an invitation for trouble.

It reminds me of a really, really old Aggie joke — with Obama playing the role of the assistant coach from Texas A&M dispatched to Austin  to win the hearts and minds of the Longhorn’s coaching staff and discover the secret as to why the Longhorns kept beating the Aggies in football.

The assistant coach went straight to then coach Darrell Royal (that’s how old the joke is) and asks, “Why do you beat us every year?”

Royal replies, “Because Aggies are stupid.”

The coach asks, “What do you mean?”

“Allow me to demonstrate,” Royal answers and holds his hand up to a brick wall and says, “Hit my hand.”

When the coach obliges, Royal pulls his hand away.

Back at College Station, with his right hand in a cast, the assistant is asked by his head coach what Royal said. He replies, “He said Aggies are stupid.”

“What do you mean?”

“Allow me to demonstrate.” The assistant holds his left hand in front of his face and says, “Hit my hand.”

Ramirez cartoon today

Memorial Day: Remembering not just their sacrifices, but also how they won … and lost

My father was 16 when the joined the Army by lying about his age. He was in Pearl City when the harbor was bombed, and hopped islands across the Pacific with his artillery unit until the war ended in victory on two fronts.

The war was waged with determination, skill, industry, sacrifice, pride and eventually the most destructive weapon ever used in war.

Obama at National Defense University. (Getty Images via WSJ)

My generation was tasked with stopping the falling dominoes of communism. Politicians dictated strategy, technology and even targets. That war ended with the April 30, 1975, big bug out.

This past week at the National Defense University, President Obama basically declared a unilateral end to the  “global war on terror.”

In a 7,000-word speech that covered reducing drone strikes, closing Gitmo and reciting a litany of terrorist attacks, Obama said:

“We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the wellspring of extremism, a perpetual war — through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments — will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.

“So the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism — from North Africa to South Asia.  As we’ve learned this past decade, this is a vast and complex undertaking.  We must be humble in our expectation that we can quickly resolve deep-rooted problems like poverty and sectarian hatred.”


Osama bin Laden was the son of a billionaire Saudi construction magnate. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were well educated and well off.

Sectarian hatred, not Islamic hatred? He said “the United States is not at war with Islam.”

He went on to say:

“Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue.  But this war, like all wars, must end.  That’s what history advises.  That’s what our democracy demands.”

Claiming the “best analogy to the current conflict is the Cold War, which lasted more than 40 years from the Truman Doctrine through the fall of the Soviet Union,” he seemed to forget the never ending war on poverty and war on drugs. He also neglected the point that while a few Islamic terrorists have been killed they have not “fallen,” as Fort Hood, Benghazi, Boston and London attest. Meanwhile, Islamist dominoes are falling from Libya to Egypt to Syria with one despotic regime being replaced by another equally as despotic and hateful of America.

In Vietnam they called it winning the hearts and minds, but nonetheless Obama calls for:

“For what we spent in a month in Iraq at the height of the war, we could be training security forces in Libya, maintaining peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists.  That has to be part of our strategy.”

It worked so well before.

Obama seems oblivious to the potential for terrorists to use chemical weapons from Syria or nukes from Iran or North Korea.

Maybe we should just call this Obama’s big bug out. Give them all lawyers and Miranda rights and televise the trials.

On a day on which we pay homage to the veterans of past wars, perhaps we should pay heed to what they did that worked and what failed.

How do you win these hearts and minds?