Liz Cheney for Secretary of State?


**Posted by Phineas

Heck, why not? After President Obama admitted that the last 40 years of bipartisan American policy in the Middle East, through presidents Republican and Democratic, is literally going up in flames, why not? In today’s Wall St. Journal, the former Vice President’s daughter mercilessly chronicles just a portion of the incompetence of Team Smart Power:

It has certainly been a terrible 48 hours. In Libya, violent extremists killed American diplomats. In Cairo, mobs breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, ripped down the American flag and replaced it with the al Qaeda flag.

In response to the attack in Cairo, diplomats there condemned not the attackers but those who “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” The president appeared in the Rose Garden less than 24 hours later to condemn the Libya assault and failed even to mention the attack in Egypt. The message sent to radicals throughout the region: If you assault an American embassy but don’t kill anyone, the U.S. president won’t complain.

Though the administration’s performance in the crisis was appalling, it wasn’t surprising—it is the logical outcome of three-and-a-half years of Obama foreign policy.

Cheney starts in 2009, recalling Obama’s performance at a multilateral summit in Mexico City, in which, after an insulting tirade by once-and-future Nicaraguan dictator Daniel Ortega, Obama hastened to dissociate himself from the policies of his predecessors — an early example of his penchant for “It’s not my fault.”

Then she recounts Obama’s analysis in France that the US could have “moral authority” to criticize rogue states seeking nuclear weapons only if we severely reduced our arsenal first. And there’s more: stabbing Poland and the Czech Republic in the back to appease Moscow; the infamous apology tour that culminated in his Cairo speech (that turned out well, didn’t ?) that was more like an exercise in American breast-beating; and the UN speech that, without explicitly saying so, strongly implied that American prominence was a cause of the world’s problems, not a force for good.

Cheney, perhaps bound by space constraints, left out much else: the war-on-a-whim in Libya, arguably illegal and certainly not thought-through, now bearing poisoned fruit throughout the region (ask Mali if they’re happy we intervened in Libya); the laughable “reset” with Russia that’s earned us what, besides Putin’s contempt? Let’s not forget, either, the utter gelded fecklessness in dealing with Iran, from their silence over the Green Revolution in 2009 to revealing key national secrets to the New York Times in order to look good. And then there’s their general “hug your foes, slap your friends” approach to international relations. Forget the Churchill bust, how do you think Britain feels when we blow their intelligence secrets and give the Russians vital information about the UK’s nuclear arsenal?

After her tour de farce of Obama’s foreign policy record, Cheney describes the inevitable consequences — our allies can no longer rely on us, and our enemies no longer fear us:

If you really want to know whether our adversaries fear us, ask the Russians, whose thuggish President Putin essentially endorsed Mr. Obama recently. Perhaps Mr. Putin is banking on the missile defense “flexibility” Mr. Obama promised he would have after the election.


And it’s not just Russia. Thomas Joscelyn at The Weekly Standard looks at evidence that the recent attacks in Cairo and Benghazi were part of a coordinated effort by jihadist groups to force the release of Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh,” the key conspirator in the 1993 Word Trade Center bombing. These attacks are meant to intimidate us into releasing him.

In other words, thanks to President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and the entire Unicorns and Rainbows Team, our enemies no longer fear us, so they feel safe to attack us.

And kill our people. Again.

Memo to Governor Romney, if you do win the election and John Bolton isn’t available, maybe you should take a long look at Liz Cheney. Like her Dad, she has more intellectual clarity and more spine than the entire Democrat establishment rolled into one.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

“Massive support” in France for taxing “the rich” at a rate of 75 percent


Coming soon to America?

French citizens, those whose income is over one million euros, or just over one and a quarter million dollars, will soon be taxed at a rate of 75 percent.

Many economists have said the rich tax will not do much to boost depressed state coffers because only 3,000 of France’s 66 million citizens make over a million (euros), and that the move is just symbolic.

In fact, the tax hike was the campaign promise many believe won the election for President Francois Hollande who has said he doesn’t like the rich.

The move seems to have garnered massive public support. At the Peugeot-Citroen plant just outside of Paris, workers said they favored the rich paying more. Union Leader Jean-Pierre Mercier told Fox News, “It’s not all, AT ALL, sufficient,” he said. “We should take more of their wealth.”

Even among residents around the posh Place Vendome area it is hard to find anyone against the tax.

“It’s a good idea. If you have money, you can pay taxes,” one woman said, echoing the sentiments of several others.

If you think this couldn’t happen here, remember how our celebrity President has said in complete seriousness how at a certain point you’ve “made enough money”? Also unforgettable are his now-infamous comments as a presidential candidate to Joe the Plumber about “spreading the wealth” around. And his official magic number that marks his cut off point from “rich” to “not rich” is $250,000, although ObamaCare was a huge tax on the “not rich” aka the middle class. And Obama also supports hitting the middle class with other taxes in the forms of fees, fines, etc.

Yes, it can most definitely happen here as well with attitudes like President Obama and his supporters – and future Democrat presidential contenders, who as a general rule believe “the rich” should be punished for being successful, and that the government knows best how to spend their money. Of course, the left claim to want to do this to “help” those less fortunate, even though most “rich” people contribute to society in other ways like – you know – creating jobs, assisting local communities, engaging in philanthropic endeavors, and the like.

Success, unfortunately, breeds contempt in left wing circles – because it means someone has made something of him or herself, while there are others who for whatever reason have not. So the left concludes that because this happens, this system is somehow “unfair”, because – to them – equal opportunity should also mean equal outcome, which they believe they can legislate to make happen via taxes, penalties, stifling regulations, limits, and quota programs designed to “level the playing field.”

A strong rejection of this brand of liberalism, more commonly known as “socialism”, is imperative this coming November. I sure as heck hope a majority of Americans agree with me, or the next four years of a lame duck President will be a nightmarish ride for us all.