The following appeared on Rush Limbaugh.com and on the Patriot Update:
Obama Begins Covert Attack on Second Amendment
By Joel McDurmon
Published: May 5, 2010
370
Share1 Print Obama has apparently taken a step to disarm America, according to a document that has been leaked. The step is strategic and very cunning: begin with the military.
Access the document here.
The document reveals a proposal to force all military personnel to register all firearms—even privately owned firearms that are kept in their private residences. It would force a regular inventory of all such firearms concurrent with the regular inventories of military weapons.
Soldiers maintaining privately owned firearms in their private residences, off base, would be required to keep their weapons in locked containers or with trigger locks, unloaded, and have the ammunition secured separately from the weapon in a locked container.
The proposal calls for a complete prohibition of concealed carry of any weapon—even folding knives with blades 3 inches and larger—while on base. This prohibition will override state and county permits for concealed carry.
Personnel will be required to request in writing for permission to keep privately owned weapons off-base. Privately owned weapons and ammunition kept on-base must be kept in a monitored room and can be accessed only with approval of a commander.
While all this is bad enough in itself, the fear is that once enacted, such regulations could be used as a precedent for civilian infringements as well. "If this arms law is good enough for the military.…" Let’s stop them before they have the precedent. Please forward this to everyone you know, and anyone you believe may have influence: lawyers, NRA officials, GOA, press outlets, news organizations, representatives, etc., etc.
I believe the document is legitimate. While I cannot vouch for this 100%, I can say that it came from a source within the military.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
The Limits of Federal Policy
The following appeared in the New York Times and on Lou Dobbs.com:
Brooks: The Limits of Policy
May-04-2010
Many of us believe the policies of our federal government determine our outcomes in life. But as NY Times columnist David Brooks suggests, there are limits to public policy and politics.
It's entirely counter-intuitive, but as Brooks points out, the "influence of politics and policy is usually swamped by the influence of culture, ethnicity, psychology and a dozen other factors." And he lays out the case for why we should all calm down when it comes to politics and policy. Brooks begins:
"Roughly a century ago, many Swedes immigrated to America. They've done very well here. Only about 6.7 percent of Swedish-Americans live in poverty. Also a century ago, many Swedes decided to remain in Sweden. They've done well there, too. When two economists calculated Swedish poverty rates according to the American standard, they found that 6.7 percent of the Swedes in Sweden were living in poverty.
"In other words, you had two groups with similar historical backgrounds living in entirely different political systems, and the poverty outcomes were the same.
"A similar pattern applies to health care. In 1950, Swedes lived an average of 2.6 years longer than Americans. Over the next half-century, Sweden and the U.S. diverged politically. Sweden built a large welfare state with a national health service, while the U.S. did not. The result? There was basically no change in the life expectancy gap. Swedes now live 2.7 years longer.
"Again, huge policy differences. Not huge outcome differences.
"This is not to say that policy choices are meaningless. But we should be realistic about them."
Brooks: The Limits of Policy
May-04-2010
Many of us believe the policies of our federal government determine our outcomes in life. But as NY Times columnist David Brooks suggests, there are limits to public policy and politics.
It's entirely counter-intuitive, but as Brooks points out, the "influence of politics and policy is usually swamped by the influence of culture, ethnicity, psychology and a dozen other factors." And he lays out the case for why we should all calm down when it comes to politics and policy. Brooks begins:
"Roughly a century ago, many Swedes immigrated to America. They've done very well here. Only about 6.7 percent of Swedish-Americans live in poverty. Also a century ago, many Swedes decided to remain in Sweden. They've done well there, too. When two economists calculated Swedish poverty rates according to the American standard, they found that 6.7 percent of the Swedes in Sweden were living in poverty.
"In other words, you had two groups with similar historical backgrounds living in entirely different political systems, and the poverty outcomes were the same.
"A similar pattern applies to health care. In 1950, Swedes lived an average of 2.6 years longer than Americans. Over the next half-century, Sweden and the U.S. diverged politically. Sweden built a large welfare state with a national health service, while the U.S. did not. The result? There was basically no change in the life expectancy gap. Swedes now live 2.7 years longer.
"Again, huge policy differences. Not huge outcome differences.
"This is not to say that policy choices are meaningless. But we should be realistic about them."
Hooray for Arizona #16--We Show Our Papers All the Time!
The Following appeared on the Daily Beast and on Lou Dobbs.com:
Must Read
Show Your Papers? So What!
May-05-2010
Another voice of reason weighs in on the new Arizona law. Travel writer Paul Theroux writes in the Daily Beast that asking for proper identification is commonplace in most countries. So why not here?
Sometimes it takes a travel writer with experience outside the United States to put this all in perspective for us. Theroux begins his column:
"These people who are protesting being asked for identification by Arizona cops-have they been anywhere lately, like out of the country? Like Mexico, or Canada, or India, or Italy, or Tanzania, or Singapore, or Britain-places where people in uniforms have routinely demanded my papers? Chicago White Sox Manager Ozzie Guillen is offended ("as a Latin American") by the Arizona law and recently claimed that all illegal immigrants are 'workaholics.' Has he been back to the land of his birth lately, Venezuela, and expected not to be asked for his papers? Ozzie, tell the police in Ocumare del Tuy, 'I'm a Latin American,' and see if that will end the interrogation. And spare a thought for the policeman two days ago who was gunned down in the desert by a workaholic drug dealer.
"The request for papers is not just a line in Casablanca. I have been hearing the question my whole traveling life. I had an Alien Registration Card in Britain and got occasional visits from the police at my home, to make sure I was behaving myself. Seventeen years in Britain as an alien: papers. Six years in Africa: 'Where are your papers, bwana?' Three years in Singapore: another alien identity card and immense red tape in that fussy, litigious bureaucracy.
"As for the U.S., it is annoying, but understandable, especially in a country with 12 million illegal immigrants using the public services. 'Who are you?' is a routine question: The necessity to identify yourself to authority is something that happens every day. You present a credit card at the supermarket and they want to see your license to make sure you're not a grafter. All over the place, renting a car, at the bank: 'I'll need to see two forms of ID.'"
Later, he continues: "As for this Arizona law (which is understandable until the federal government takes a stand), I am delighted to be reassured that there will be no racial profiling. The illegals in Arizona are not just Hispanics. Those of you who have read Dark Star Safari, my book about traveling through Africa, might remember how, in the Sudan, I met a Sudanese man (on vacation in Khartoum from New York) who explained very carefully how he had entered the United States illegally, the best way: Go to Mexico, pay someone some money, and then hide in a fish truck or a vegetable van and hop the border. Sudanese, Nigerians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Indians, Bangladeshis, Brazilians. Illegal aliens come from all over the world to converge on the Arizona, California, and New Mexico borders. The Hispanics are right to be a little indignant, but just a little. It is much easier to sneak into the U.S. than to apply for a residence permit."
Must Read
Show Your Papers? So What!
May-05-2010
Another voice of reason weighs in on the new Arizona law. Travel writer Paul Theroux writes in the Daily Beast that asking for proper identification is commonplace in most countries. So why not here?
Sometimes it takes a travel writer with experience outside the United States to put this all in perspective for us. Theroux begins his column:
"These people who are protesting being asked for identification by Arizona cops-have they been anywhere lately, like out of the country? Like Mexico, or Canada, or India, or Italy, or Tanzania, or Singapore, or Britain-places where people in uniforms have routinely demanded my papers? Chicago White Sox Manager Ozzie Guillen is offended ("as a Latin American") by the Arizona law and recently claimed that all illegal immigrants are 'workaholics.' Has he been back to the land of his birth lately, Venezuela, and expected not to be asked for his papers? Ozzie, tell the police in Ocumare del Tuy, 'I'm a Latin American,' and see if that will end the interrogation. And spare a thought for the policeman two days ago who was gunned down in the desert by a workaholic drug dealer.
"The request for papers is not just a line in Casablanca. I have been hearing the question my whole traveling life. I had an Alien Registration Card in Britain and got occasional visits from the police at my home, to make sure I was behaving myself. Seventeen years in Britain as an alien: papers. Six years in Africa: 'Where are your papers, bwana?' Three years in Singapore: another alien identity card and immense red tape in that fussy, litigious bureaucracy.
"As for the U.S., it is annoying, but understandable, especially in a country with 12 million illegal immigrants using the public services. 'Who are you?' is a routine question: The necessity to identify yourself to authority is something that happens every day. You present a credit card at the supermarket and they want to see your license to make sure you're not a grafter. All over the place, renting a car, at the bank: 'I'll need to see two forms of ID.'"
Later, he continues: "As for this Arizona law (which is understandable until the federal government takes a stand), I am delighted to be reassured that there will be no racial profiling. The illegals in Arizona are not just Hispanics. Those of you who have read Dark Star Safari, my book about traveling through Africa, might remember how, in the Sudan, I met a Sudanese man (on vacation in Khartoum from New York) who explained very carefully how he had entered the United States illegally, the best way: Go to Mexico, pay someone some money, and then hide in a fish truck or a vegetable van and hop the border. Sudanese, Nigerians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Indians, Bangladeshis, Brazilians. Illegal aliens come from all over the world to converge on the Arizona, California, and New Mexico borders. The Hispanics are right to be a little indignant, but just a little. It is much easier to sneak into the U.S. than to apply for a residence permit."
Hooray for Arizona #15--Newsweek Article on the Necessity of the Bill
The following appeared in Newsweek and on Lou Dobbs.com:
Must Read
New AZ Law: Something Had To Be Done
May-05-2010
Newsweek isn't exactly about fair-minded journalism anymore, but columnist Eve Conant wrote this great piece about how if you spend some time in Arizona, and you will see why so many Arizonans want this new law.
We've been reporting since the start that Arizonans overwhelmingly support this new immigration enforcement law. In a Rasmussen poll, 70 percent said they support the bill. Nationally, Gallup reports the American people support the new law by a 51-39 percent margin, and a new poll from Bellweather Research puts that spread at 61-29 percent. But it's Arizona that counts, and outside of the liberal lamestream media's spin, the people really do want this law.
So Newsweek's Eve Conant decided to see for herself, and she says that it's obvious to see why many Arizonans want this new law. Conant writes:
"It's terrifying to live next door to homes filled with human traffickers, drug smugglers, AK-47s, pit bulls, and desperate laborers stuffed 30 to a room, shoes removed to hinder escape. During a month's reporting with police and other law-enforcement agents in Arizona last year, I met many scared people. One man who lived next to a 'drop house' for Mexican workers slept with two guns under his bed, his children not allowed to play in the backyard. The sound of gunshots was not uncommon. 'Four years ago this neighborhood was poodles and old ladies,' he said, too frightened to give his name. 'Now it's absolutely insane.' That morning, authorities had raided the drop house. When the neighbor told me how his kids had been evacuated behind riot shields, he began to cry. Others, too, were unhappy: the undocumented workers taken from the house were exhausted, sweaty, and dead quiet as they sat on a curb with their hands cuffed, waiting to be taken away.
"Within 24 hours I witnessed another bust, this one prompted by a tip from Tennessee authorities. They reported a threat to kill a kidnap victim, and a ransom demand for $3,500. Sheriff's deputies went to a pleasant house with a two-car garage. Inside, they found dozens of immigrants crammed into unfurnished bedrooms, the windows boarded from the inside, shoes and belts piled up in the closet. The search also turned up a Taser-like device, a sawed-off shotgun, and two pistols. Another day, I watched the Phoenix police break up a 'stash house' filled with guns and hundreds of pounds of marijuana. An hour later they raided a McMansion adorned with hunting trophies and Scarface posters; a white SUV jammed with 300 pounds of marijuana was parked out front. (Sixty percent of all the marijuana that reaches the U.S. transits Arizona.) Again, the house was in a high-end development, nowhere near the border."
She confesses that personally she doesn't necessarily think the law is a good idea. But something has to be done: "The overwhelming majority of Mexicans who come here are not criminals. Most are just desperate for honest work. But clearly something needs to be done about the traffickers who bring them to the U.S."
Must Read
New AZ Law: Something Had To Be Done
May-05-2010
Newsweek isn't exactly about fair-minded journalism anymore, but columnist Eve Conant wrote this great piece about how if you spend some time in Arizona, and you will see why so many Arizonans want this new law.
We've been reporting since the start that Arizonans overwhelmingly support this new immigration enforcement law. In a Rasmussen poll, 70 percent said they support the bill. Nationally, Gallup reports the American people support the new law by a 51-39 percent margin, and a new poll from Bellweather Research puts that spread at 61-29 percent. But it's Arizona that counts, and outside of the liberal lamestream media's spin, the people really do want this law.
So Newsweek's Eve Conant decided to see for herself, and she says that it's obvious to see why many Arizonans want this new law. Conant writes:
"It's terrifying to live next door to homes filled with human traffickers, drug smugglers, AK-47s, pit bulls, and desperate laborers stuffed 30 to a room, shoes removed to hinder escape. During a month's reporting with police and other law-enforcement agents in Arizona last year, I met many scared people. One man who lived next to a 'drop house' for Mexican workers slept with two guns under his bed, his children not allowed to play in the backyard. The sound of gunshots was not uncommon. 'Four years ago this neighborhood was poodles and old ladies,' he said, too frightened to give his name. 'Now it's absolutely insane.' That morning, authorities had raided the drop house. When the neighbor told me how his kids had been evacuated behind riot shields, he began to cry. Others, too, were unhappy: the undocumented workers taken from the house were exhausted, sweaty, and dead quiet as they sat on a curb with their hands cuffed, waiting to be taken away.
"Within 24 hours I witnessed another bust, this one prompted by a tip from Tennessee authorities. They reported a threat to kill a kidnap victim, and a ransom demand for $3,500. Sheriff's deputies went to a pleasant house with a two-car garage. Inside, they found dozens of immigrants crammed into unfurnished bedrooms, the windows boarded from the inside, shoes and belts piled up in the closet. The search also turned up a Taser-like device, a sawed-off shotgun, and two pistols. Another day, I watched the Phoenix police break up a 'stash house' filled with guns and hundreds of pounds of marijuana. An hour later they raided a McMansion adorned with hunting trophies and Scarface posters; a white SUV jammed with 300 pounds of marijuana was parked out front. (Sixty percent of all the marijuana that reaches the U.S. transits Arizona.) Again, the house was in a high-end development, nowhere near the border."
She confesses that personally she doesn't necessarily think the law is a good idea. But something has to be done: "The overwhelming majority of Mexicans who come here are not criminals. Most are just desperate for honest work. But clearly something needs to be done about the traffickers who bring them to the U.S."
MSNBC Anchor Frustrated That Times Square Bomber Wasn't Tea Partier
The following is from Lou Dobbs.com:
On Lou's Radar
MSNBC Host's Bizarre Frustration
May-05-2010
It should come as no surprise that MSNBC's hosts and analysts swing wildly to the left. But even we were surprised when anchor Contessa Brewer expressed "frustration" at the fact that the Times Square bomber had Islamic ties. Why?
MSNBC daytime host Contessa Brewer on Tuesday appeared on the liberal Stephanie Miller radio show and actually lamented the fact that the person arrested for the attempted Times Square bombing has "ties to any kind of Islamic country." Well, Contessa, we're sorry that the people attacking us don't fit the image you want them to!
Brewer told Miller: "I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry. And so there was part of me was really hoping this would not be the case that here would be somebody who is not the defined."
Watch Brewer's comments here:
If that wasn't bad enough, MSNBC's Chris Matthews let former CIA analyst Robert Baer use the airwaves to express concern that this Times Square bombing attempt will strengthen the Tea Party. Huh? Here's what Baer said: "You're gonna see the Tea Party being -- you know -- being strengthened. You're gonna see people blaming the White House for a situation it did not create."
What is going on over at the network that's GE's gift to the Obama administration?
Posted by Lou Dobbs Staff at 12:04 AM - Link to this entry Share this entry
On Lou's Radar
MSNBC Host's Bizarre Frustration
May-05-2010
It should come as no surprise that MSNBC's hosts and analysts swing wildly to the left. But even we were surprised when anchor Contessa Brewer expressed "frustration" at the fact that the Times Square bomber had Islamic ties. Why?
MSNBC daytime host Contessa Brewer on Tuesday appeared on the liberal Stephanie Miller radio show and actually lamented the fact that the person arrested for the attempted Times Square bombing has "ties to any kind of Islamic country." Well, Contessa, we're sorry that the people attacking us don't fit the image you want them to!
Brewer told Miller: "I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry. And so there was part of me was really hoping this would not be the case that here would be somebody who is not the defined."
Watch Brewer's comments here:
If that wasn't bad enough, MSNBC's Chris Matthews let former CIA analyst Robert Baer use the airwaves to express concern that this Times Square bombing attempt will strengthen the Tea Party. Huh? Here's what Baer said: "You're gonna see the Tea Party being -- you know -- being strengthened. You're gonna see people blaming the White House for a situation it did not create."
What is going on over at the network that's GE's gift to the Obama administration?
Posted by Lou Dobbs Staff at 12:04 AM - Link to this entry Share this entry
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Britons See Dangers Ahead in U.S. Relationship
This article appeared in USA Today:
Britons see 'dangers ahead' in U.S. relationship
Updated 9h 29m ago
Comments 258
Recommend 5 E-mail
Save
Print
Enlarge By Jeff Overs, BBC, via Getty Images
Conservative Party leader David Cameron, left, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, center, and Prime Minister Gordon Brown shake hands after a debate at the University of Birmingham on April 29.
NOT-SO-GRAND TOURS
Gordon Brown, current prime minister, leader of the Labor Party. In 2009, Brown paid the first visit by a European foreign leader to President Obama. Brits complained when Obama gave Brown DVDs of classic American movies in return for a gift from Brown of a carved desktop pen holder fashioned from the timber of HMS Gannet, a 19th-century British ship that served for a time on anti-slavery missions off Africa.
David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party. Cameron met President Bush on a visit to Washington in 2007. The British media sniped at him for laying a $200 wreath, criticized as chintzy, at Arlington National Cemetery.
Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats. Clegg spent a year in graduate school at the University of Minnesota. On a road trip, he and two British pals blew out their tires in the Blue Ridge Mountains and ran over a roadrunner in Arizona.
By Traci Watson
ShareYahoo! Buzz Add to Mixx Facebook TwitterMore Fark Digg Reddit MySpace StumbleUpon Propeller LinkedInSubscribe myYahoo iGoogleMore Netvibes myAOL
By Traci Watson, Special for USA TODAY
LONDON — For Americans, "the special relationship" sounds like the title of a guidebook on marriage.
Many Britons instantly recognize the phrase as Winston Churchill's description of the tight bond between Great Britain and the United States. That alliance is on the rocks, experts say, and the results of Thursday's election may weaken it further.
The special relationship is "in tatters," says Nile Gardiner, head of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. "I do see … significant dangers ahead."
Poll such as a recent ComRes poll and a YouGov poll show voters are likely to turn the government over to two men who speak bluntly about the need to get tough with the United States. Both David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, and Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, emphasize that they won't kowtow to the superpower across the pond.
Britain "should never be frightened of saying 'no' to America," Cameron said this year. He has said the relationship between the two nations needs to be "rebalanced" into an alliance that is "solid but not slavish."
Clegg said the British "still too readily put ourselves in a position of unthinking subservience to American interests." He called on Britain to wake up from the "spell of default Atlanticism."
The ComRes poll predicts the Conservatives will win the popular vote but won't gain a majority in Parliament. That may force them to strike a deal with the Liberal Democrats, spelling a powerful role for Clegg in the government.
The links between the two nations go beyond a common language and an intertwined history.
Britain and the United States share intelligence and plot strategy in the United Nations. The number of British troops in Afghanistan is second only to the U.S. presence. Britain supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, prompting newspapers such as The Daily Mail to paste then-prime minister Tony Blair with the sneering nickname "Bush's poodle."
In the past few years, the special relationship has taken a back seat to U.S. worries about China, Iran and the Middle East.
"The U.S. is less focused on the U.K., and the U.K. is less important to the U.S.," says David Dunn of the University of Birmingham-Britain.
The trend has been particularly pronounced during the Obama administration, which has thrown the British news media into a frenzy through a series of perceived slights against Britain.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown was denied a formal news conference in his first visit to Obama, who angered some Britons by removing a Churchill bust on loan from Britain from the Oval Office.
"Barack Obama has sent Sir Winston Churchill packing," The Daily Telegraph blared.
"There's been a series of political sins of omission and commission" by the Obama administration, says Lisa Aronsson of the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank. "It's clear that investing in the relationship with the U.K. was not a priority."
Obama's secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said in March that she wanted "discussion" between Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands, a British territory. The U.K and Argentina fought a war over the Atlantic islands in 1982. Argentina recently demanded to negotiate over the islands' future, but Britain is adamant that the matter is closed.
It's telling, Dunn says, that "the U.S. regards it as more important to focus on a certain Latin American agenda rather than … respecting the wishes of the U.K."
The State Department emphasizes the tightness of the alliance.
"We share a unique and uniquely productive relationship with the U.K. based on our common values and shared strategic view of the world," spokesman Michael Tran says.
Britain's huge deficit is likely to make things worse. Experts consider it all but certain that the next prime minister, no matter who he is, will have to slash the British defense budget, which could imperil Britain's usefulness to the United States.
"A sharp decline in U.K. defense spending … will have a significant impact on the special relationship," Aronsson says.
Still, political analysts say the election may help matters somewhat if Cameron becomes prime minister. The Conservatives are by tradition ardently pro-America, and the affable Cameron may get along better with Obama than the notoriously touchy Brown, whose party runs third in election polls.
Reginald Dale of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington says that if the two leaders have good chemistry, it's more likely "that Obama will pay attention to what Britain has to say rather than saying, 'Oh God, Gordon Brown again.' "
Britons see 'dangers ahead' in U.S. relationship
Updated 9h 29m ago
Comments 258
Recommend 5 E-mail
Save
Enlarge By Jeff Overs, BBC, via Getty Images
Conservative Party leader David Cameron, left, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, center, and Prime Minister Gordon Brown shake hands after a debate at the University of Birmingham on April 29.
NOT-SO-GRAND TOURS
Gordon Brown, current prime minister, leader of the Labor Party. In 2009, Brown paid the first visit by a European foreign leader to President Obama. Brits complained when Obama gave Brown DVDs of classic American movies in return for a gift from Brown of a carved desktop pen holder fashioned from the timber of HMS Gannet, a 19th-century British ship that served for a time on anti-slavery missions off Africa.
David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party. Cameron met President Bush on a visit to Washington in 2007. The British media sniped at him for laying a $200 wreath, criticized as chintzy, at Arlington National Cemetery.
Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats. Clegg spent a year in graduate school at the University of Minnesota. On a road trip, he and two British pals blew out their tires in the Blue Ridge Mountains and ran over a roadrunner in Arizona.
By Traci Watson
ShareYahoo! Buzz Add to Mixx Facebook TwitterMore Fark Digg Reddit MySpace StumbleUpon Propeller LinkedInSubscribe myYahoo iGoogleMore Netvibes myAOL
By Traci Watson, Special for USA TODAY
LONDON — For Americans, "the special relationship" sounds like the title of a guidebook on marriage.
Many Britons instantly recognize the phrase as Winston Churchill's description of the tight bond between Great Britain and the United States. That alliance is on the rocks, experts say, and the results of Thursday's election may weaken it further.
The special relationship is "in tatters," says Nile Gardiner, head of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. "I do see … significant dangers ahead."
Poll such as a recent ComRes poll and a YouGov poll show voters are likely to turn the government over to two men who speak bluntly about the need to get tough with the United States. Both David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, and Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, emphasize that they won't kowtow to the superpower across the pond.
Britain "should never be frightened of saying 'no' to America," Cameron said this year. He has said the relationship between the two nations needs to be "rebalanced" into an alliance that is "solid but not slavish."
Clegg said the British "still too readily put ourselves in a position of unthinking subservience to American interests." He called on Britain to wake up from the "spell of default Atlanticism."
The ComRes poll predicts the Conservatives will win the popular vote but won't gain a majority in Parliament. That may force them to strike a deal with the Liberal Democrats, spelling a powerful role for Clegg in the government.
The links between the two nations go beyond a common language and an intertwined history.
Britain and the United States share intelligence and plot strategy in the United Nations. The number of British troops in Afghanistan is second only to the U.S. presence. Britain supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, prompting newspapers such as The Daily Mail to paste then-prime minister Tony Blair with the sneering nickname "Bush's poodle."
In the past few years, the special relationship has taken a back seat to U.S. worries about China, Iran and the Middle East.
"The U.S. is less focused on the U.K., and the U.K. is less important to the U.S.," says David Dunn of the University of Birmingham-Britain.
The trend has been particularly pronounced during the Obama administration, which has thrown the British news media into a frenzy through a series of perceived slights against Britain.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown was denied a formal news conference in his first visit to Obama, who angered some Britons by removing a Churchill bust on loan from Britain from the Oval Office.
"Barack Obama has sent Sir Winston Churchill packing," The Daily Telegraph blared.
"There's been a series of political sins of omission and commission" by the Obama administration, says Lisa Aronsson of the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank. "It's clear that investing in the relationship with the U.K. was not a priority."
Obama's secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said in March that she wanted "discussion" between Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands, a British territory. The U.K and Argentina fought a war over the Atlantic islands in 1982. Argentina recently demanded to negotiate over the islands' future, but Britain is adamant that the matter is closed.
It's telling, Dunn says, that "the U.S. regards it as more important to focus on a certain Latin American agenda rather than … respecting the wishes of the U.K."
The State Department emphasizes the tightness of the alliance.
"We share a unique and uniquely productive relationship with the U.K. based on our common values and shared strategic view of the world," spokesman Michael Tran says.
Britain's huge deficit is likely to make things worse. Experts consider it all but certain that the next prime minister, no matter who he is, will have to slash the British defense budget, which could imperil Britain's usefulness to the United States.
"A sharp decline in U.K. defense spending … will have a significant impact on the special relationship," Aronsson says.
Still, political analysts say the election may help matters somewhat if Cameron becomes prime minister. The Conservatives are by tradition ardently pro-America, and the affable Cameron may get along better with Obama than the notoriously touchy Brown, whose party runs third in election polls.
Reginald Dale of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington says that if the two leaders have good chemistry, it's more likely "that Obama will pay attention to what Britain has to say rather than saying, 'Oh God, Gordon Brown again.' "
Defending Freedom is a Choice
This article appeared on the Heritage Foundation website:
Defending Freedom is a Choice
In April 2009 in Strasbourg, France, President Barack Obama was asked at a press conference if he "subscribe[d], as many of your predecessors have, to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy?" President Obama then responded: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."
In other words, the President does not see anything unique about America's role in history or the world. Some of our past Presidents have seen it differently, including President Ronald Reagan who once explained to Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev:
When World War II ended, the United States had the only undamaged industrial power in the world. Our military might was at its peak, and we alone had the ultimate weapon, the nuclear weapon, with the unquestioned ability to deliver it anywhere in the world. If we had sought world domination then, who could have opposed us? But the United States followed a different course, one unique in all the history of mankind. We used our power and wealth to rebuild the war-ravished economies of the world, including those of the nations who had been our enemies.
So strongly did Reagan believe in American exceptionalism that he often described our country as "this experiment in liberty, this last, best hope of man." But President Obama disagrees. He sees the United States as just another declining power like Britain or Greece. These were telling examples for President Obama to choose since both countries are facing crushing government debt crises due to profligate welfare state spending. And President Obama's budget puts us on the exact same path. It would: 1) borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010; 2) leave permanent annual deficits that top $1 trillion as late as 2020; and 3) dump an additional $74,000 per household of debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren.
All of President Obama's aggressive welfare state spending leaves little left over for national defense. Heritage Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies Kim Holmes, Ph.D., writes:
We are headed down a European path. ... According to the President’s budget, defense spending over the next few years will continue to fall relative to the economy, from 4.9 percent to 3.6 percent of GDP by 2015. Indeed, defense was the target of roughly half of the Administration's $17 billion in spending cuts in 2010. Some 50 defense programs were truncated or eliminated, compromising not only our future air and naval superiority, but also our defense against ballistic missiles.
Are Americans really ready to abandon President Reagan's "peace through strength" doctrine and replace it with President Obama's strength through apology tour? We think not. That is why starting today The Heritage Foundation is promoting Protect America Month, starting with a speech this morning at 10 a.m. by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA). You can watch the event live, here.
And then for the next four weeks, join The Heritage Foundation as we examine defense spending and foreign policy in our nation, by releasing special publications and hosting events that showcase why we must commit to protecting America in an increasingly dangerous world. Events and products will include speeches by former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, as well as special commentaries from Members of Congress and Heritage scholars regarding the need for a strong national defense.
Dr. Holmes concludes: "Freedom and prosperity at home and abroad depend on America’s continued projection of power around the world. But that will depend on our commitment to national defense, which is the first obligation of the federal government listed in the U.S. Constitution. We have been here before. We have seen darker days ... We may well be at that moment again. After Jimmy Carter, we elected Ronald Reagan. He restored not only our belief in America, but our commitment to defense. Conservative principles and traditional American values prevailed then. They can prevail
Defending Freedom is a Choice
In April 2009 in Strasbourg, France, President Barack Obama was asked at a press conference if he "subscribe[d], as many of your predecessors have, to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy?" President Obama then responded: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."
In other words, the President does not see anything unique about America's role in history or the world. Some of our past Presidents have seen it differently, including President Ronald Reagan who once explained to Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev:
When World War II ended, the United States had the only undamaged industrial power in the world. Our military might was at its peak, and we alone had the ultimate weapon, the nuclear weapon, with the unquestioned ability to deliver it anywhere in the world. If we had sought world domination then, who could have opposed us? But the United States followed a different course, one unique in all the history of mankind. We used our power and wealth to rebuild the war-ravished economies of the world, including those of the nations who had been our enemies.
So strongly did Reagan believe in American exceptionalism that he often described our country as "this experiment in liberty, this last, best hope of man." But President Obama disagrees. He sees the United States as just another declining power like Britain or Greece. These were telling examples for President Obama to choose since both countries are facing crushing government debt crises due to profligate welfare state spending. And President Obama's budget puts us on the exact same path. It would: 1) borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010; 2) leave permanent annual deficits that top $1 trillion as late as 2020; and 3) dump an additional $74,000 per household of debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren.
All of President Obama's aggressive welfare state spending leaves little left over for national defense. Heritage Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies Kim Holmes, Ph.D., writes:
We are headed down a European path. ... According to the President’s budget, defense spending over the next few years will continue to fall relative to the economy, from 4.9 percent to 3.6 percent of GDP by 2015. Indeed, defense was the target of roughly half of the Administration's $17 billion in spending cuts in 2010. Some 50 defense programs were truncated or eliminated, compromising not only our future air and naval superiority, but also our defense against ballistic missiles.
Are Americans really ready to abandon President Reagan's "peace through strength" doctrine and replace it with President Obama's strength through apology tour? We think not. That is why starting today The Heritage Foundation is promoting Protect America Month, starting with a speech this morning at 10 a.m. by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA). You can watch the event live, here.
And then for the next four weeks, join The Heritage Foundation as we examine defense spending and foreign policy in our nation, by releasing special publications and hosting events that showcase why we must commit to protecting America in an increasingly dangerous world. Events and products will include speeches by former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, as well as special commentaries from Members of Congress and Heritage scholars regarding the need for a strong national defense.
Dr. Holmes concludes: "Freedom and prosperity at home and abroad depend on America’s continued projection of power around the world. But that will depend on our commitment to national defense, which is the first obligation of the federal government listed in the U.S. Constitution. We have been here before. We have seen darker days ... We may well be at that moment again. After Jimmy Carter, we elected Ronald Reagan. He restored not only our belief in America, but our commitment to defense. Conservative principles and traditional American values prevailed then. They can prevail
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)