Friday, February 15, 2013

Oppose Them All [Repeat with update]

This was originally posted exactly one month ago on Jan 14, 2013-I think with the hearings that have gone on with all three men this post has shown to be even more relevant and confirms that this president has nominated the worst set of nominees in the history of our country.  Anyone who has seen the movie 2016 realizes now how prescient that movie was.  Everyone of these picks, if confirmed, will hurt America. What the movie 2016 would have you believe [and I do believe], that these picks weren't made out of incompetence but on purpose to make the United States a weaker country.  Remember when president Obama was pressed early in his first term on whether he thought America was an exceptional county, he said that we were exceptional just like Greece thinks they're exceptional or Great Britain thinks they are exceptional.  If president Obama gets his way, at the end of his 8 years in office that statement will be true. We will be no more exceptional then any other country is exceptional.

                                            posted originally Jan. 14, 2013:

We are in the process of seeing the worst set of nominees ever appointed by a president of the United States. Amazingly it could have been even worse if the US Ambassador to UN, Susan Rice didn't withdraw consideration of her name for the Secretary of State.   Also, I am not even counting Senator John Kerry, eventually nominated for Secretary of State. When you have John Kerry as the best in a lot of nominees, you can only imagine how bad the rest of the nominees are.

First we get the anti Israel Chuck Hagel nominated by president Obama for Defense Secretary. Tales has two posts already opposing this "in your face" pick by the president.  Just this one "in your face" divisive nominee by the president would have been bad enough, but that was just the start.

After the Hagel pick the president the president then nominates John Brennan, the NSA director, to head the CIA.  John Brennan has made some unbelievably naive and or dangerously weak comments about radical Islam and Jihad as applied by radical Islamists.  In May of 2010, Fox News reported Brennan defended Jihad as a "legitimate tenet of Islam."

Michael Rubin the great foreign policy expert of the American Enterprise Institute said on Bill Bennett's Morning in America radio show on Friday that also in May 2010, Brennan had just come back from a trip to Lebanon and said we [the United States] should reach out to the "moderate" Hezbollah members. I wonder which members those are Mr. Brennan. The ones that have committed just a few terrorists acts against Israel or American interests?

Rubin also talked about his other naive views in the war on terror and said the only thing that is positive in Brennan's favor is that the president first made the awful pick of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, and that bad pick took away the conversation [for the moment] of how bad the Brennan pick was.

After those unbelievably bad picks, coming after the failed attempt at putting Susan Rice in the cabinet, you would think it couldn't get any worse. Think again.

We got another extraordinarily bad nomination from the president of Jack Lew for budget director, who would be taking over from  Timothy "I don't know how to do my taxes" Geithner.  This pick of Jack Lew almost makes you yearn for Geithner to stay on.

This taken directly from an article in the NRO by Nathaniel Botwinick: "Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, announced his opposition yesterday to Jack Lew’s nomination: “Jack Lew must never be Secretary of the Treasury. His testimony before the Senate Budget Committee less than two years ago was so outrageous and false that it alone disqualifies.” In 2011, Senator Sessions and Jack Lew tangled over Lew’s claim that the White House’s budget would not add to the deficit."
note: [to see a video of those remarks, please visit the link of the NRO article by Nathaniel Botwinick]

With these unbelievable weak and even dangerous [to the United States well being] picks, Hugh Hewitt on his radio show has asked this question to his great lineup of guests he has had on recently: "Which one of these picks should the GOP really fight to stop."  He believes, as I do, that Hagel, who can do so much damage to the military and subsequently to the national security of the United States must be the main one who is stopped. Yes, the GOP must do all in its power to stop the Hagel nomination from succeeding.

But I go further than Hugh Hewitt.  I don't think the GOP should choose between these picks of the worst one to stop.  These picks are all so potentially damaging to the United States, I say they all should be opposed.  Damn the main stream media that will accuse the GOP of opposing all the nominations because of some animus toward Barack Obama...they will accuse the GOP of that no matter what they do.

I submit these picks by president Obama are so bad for our country because of  the fiscal and foreign policy damage that can be done, that the GOP should stand united and oppose them all.  The Democrats may still have the votes to put them in, but that doesn't mean we have to join in.  If these weak picks are supported by the Democrats and they go through then the onus of those bad picks will be all on the Democrats.  We don't have to join in and and make this a bipartisan fest of bad decisions.

Tales says: Regarding Hagel, Brennan and Lew, oppose them all.
____________________________________________________
Update:  Since this piece was first posted it has been learned from testimony from Senators Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz that Hagel has in the past talked about "the Jewish Lobby" and that he once said that Israel [when defending themselves against Hezbolah terrorists] committed a "sickening slaughter". To me that takes Hagel past the realm of just being anti Israel and into the realm of being anti Semitic.

And regarding Jack Lew as treasury secretary we have learned from the hearings [this a quote from Dana Milbank of the Washington Post]: "So it’s a bit, well, rich that Obama chose as his new Treasury secretary a man who received a big corporate payout for dubious work and who socked away money in the Cayman Islands."

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

AMEN! I couldn't agree more! We're watching the demise from within. :-(

Krissy in ATX

Big Mike said...

Thanks Krissy!