Karl's Weekend Reading

Karl Rove frames the socialized health care issue extremely well in his WSJ Opinion piece, Obama Can't Be Trusted With Numbers. The first half is a review of false promises and other propaganda that has helped Obama push 'change' in the past few months that would normally be rejected by most Americans. The second half is devoted to that same MO as it is being applied to the so-called health care debate. No quote will do this article justice - you must read it in full - but we'll share his concluding paragraph:

Mr. Obama has already created a river of red ink. His health-care plans will only force that river over its banks. We are at the cusp of a crucial political debate, and Mr. Obama's words on fiscal matters are untrustworthy. His promised savings are a mirage. His proposals to reshape the economy are alarming. And his unwillingness to be forthright with his numbers reveals that he knows his plans would terrify many Americans.

As of this post, Honduras remains free. The communists are circling, and pressure is coming from both the North and the South for the commie president's reinstatement. Cliff Kincaid, of Accuracy in Media, shares information not seen in elsewhere on just what level of coordination exists between Chavez and his like-minded friend in DC. Leading "Progressive" Describes Obama-Chavez Axis:

According to eyewitness sources, under the apparently blind eye of the global media, the two leaders had lengthy conversations. The media covered the friendly photo of the initial handshake between the two leaders, then made much ado about an apparently-impertinent Chavez handing Obama a book in Spanish by Eduardo Galleano. What has not been reported is that Obama, leaving his advisers behind, held lengthy private conversations with Chavez where only an interpreter was present."
---
But why would Obama be appeasing Chavez? Could the "appeasement" reflect the fact that Obama and Chavez are ideologically in sync and see events in Latin America through the same Marxist lens?
---
The communist paper [The Militant] reported that, before there could be a revolution in the United States, Marxist forces would have to take control of Latin America. "Another idea frequently expressed by speakers from the floor and by a few panelists was that 'change has to come from the South,'" referring to Latin America, the paper said.

Almost two years later, that "change" has come to America and is threatening Honduras.

UPDATE 7.11 10am. The risk of posting a Weekend Reading post on a Thursday is that Friday brings a brilliant article.

Charles Krauthammer discusses Obama's anxious deal-making in Russia, the new START treaty (or memo of understanding).

Once again, a Democrat president pursues an arms treaty for the purpose of a photo-op. And once again a Democrat president weakens our national security - this time by offering missile defense as a negotiating chip. Treaties are meant to strengthen national security. Other than the IMF treaty (Reagan), can one think of a treaty that benefitted the US?

Plumage - But at a Price:

Obama says that his START will be a great boon, setting an example to enable us to better pressure North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs. That a man of Obama's intelligence can believe such nonsense is beyond comprehension. There is not a shred of evidence that cuts by the great powers -- the INF treaty, START I, the Treaty of Moscow (2002) -- induced the curtailment of anyone's programs. Moammar Gaddafi gave up his nukes the week we pulled Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole. No treaty involved. The very notion that Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will suddenly abjure nukes because of yet another U.S.-Russian treaty is comical.
---
Obama doesn't even seem to understand the ramifications of this concession. Poland and the Czech Republic thought they were regaining their independence when they joined NATO under the protection of the United States. They now see that the shield negotiated with us and subsequently ratified by all of NATO is in limbo. Russia and America will first have to "come to terms" on the issue, explained President Dmitry Medvedev. This is precisely the kind of compromised sovereignty that Russia wants to impose on its ex-Soviet colonies -- and that U.S. presidents of both parties for the last 20 years have resisted.