Would Sarah Palin have made this mistake?
The President addressing the 10th Mountain Division today at Fort Drum:
"First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I HAD THE GREAT HONOR OF SEEING SOME OF YOU BECAUSE A COMRADE OF YOURS, JARED MONTI, WAS THE FIRST PERSON WHO I WAS ABLE TO AWARD THE MEDAL OF HONOR TO WHO ACTUALLY CAME BACK AND WASN’T RECEIVING IT POSTHUMOUSLY."
As we all know, SSG SAL GIUNTA, OF THE 173RD AIRBORNE, WAS THE FIRST LIVING RECIPIENT (2011) of the MOH who fought in Iraq/Afganistan. SFC JARED MONTI, 10TH MOUNTAIN DIVISION, WAS KIA IN AFGHANISTAN IN 2006. HE WAS POSTHUMOUSLY AWARDED THE MOH BY OBAMA IN 2009.
How does the Commander-in-Chief mix these heroes up? He put that medal around Giunta's neck and he stood with Monti's parents as they grieved. These fallen heroes leave such a great legacy, and we should know all their names. The ironic part of the speech, and this comes after the announcement of the politically pressured drawdown of troops in Afghanistan, was Obama's closing remark, "Know that your Commander-in-Chief has your back."
I used this headline because the left likes to portray Palin as the stupidest person in the political world. It appears our President isn’t nearly as smart as they like to think he is.
How the Democrats Nearly Destroyed the Economy
There is history -- a chronicle of human events -- and then there is perceived history. So often, the two are wildly at odds.
In 1963, a popular Democratic president was assassinated by a Marxist named Oswald, who had actually defected to the Soviet Union and returned to the U.S. with a Soviet wife, was an active member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and had attempted to assassinate a right-wing general named Edwin Walker earlier in the year.
Yet those who write history found these facts inconvenient. They created a different history in which the "atmosphere of hate" in the southern city of Dallas, Texas, led to the terrible political violence. In other words, it was political conservatism that led to John F. Kennedy's assassination. This perceived history was recycled as recently as the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. ABC's Christiane Amanpour, interviewing Jean Kennedy Smith, noted that the Kennedy assassination was "eerily relevant" and asked Kennedy to evaluate the "political atmosphere" in the country today….
….IN "RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT," MORGENSON AND ROSNER OFFER CONSIDERABLE CENSURE FOR RECKLESS BANKERS, LAX RATING AGENCIES, CAPTURED REGULATORS AND UNSCRUPULOUS BUSINESSMEN. But the greatest responsibility for the collapse of the housing market and the near "Armageddon" of the American economy belongs to FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC AND TO THE POLITICIANS WHO CREATED AND PROTECTED THEM. With a couple of prominent exceptions, THE POLITICIANS WERE DEMOCRATS CLAIMING TO DO GOOD FOR THE POOR. ALONG THE WAY, THEY ENRICHED THEMSELVES AND THEIR FRIENDS, STUFFED THEIR CAMPAIGN COFFERS, and resisted all attempts to enforce market discipline. When the inevitable collapse arrived, the entire economy suffered, but no one more than the poor….
…. "Reckless Endangerment" utterly deflates the perceived history of the 2008 crash. Yes, there was greed -- when is there not? BUT IT WAS GOVERNMENT DISTORTIONS OF MARKETS -- NOT "UNREGULATED CAPITALISM" -- THAT LED THE ECONOMY TO DISASTER.
There’s more here about how the left rewrites history to their liking and benefit. But as I’ve been saying for almost three years, the economic crisis is fundamentally the unintended consequences of liberal good intentions. And as we all know, the road to hell is paved….
The Aristocracy of incompetence
Today's liberal leaders have divested themselves of the responsibilities of duty and prudence, resulting in an aristocracy of incompetence. Liberal vanity and fondness for central direction, ends justifying means, unbridled experimentation, tactics and the political warfare of cracking eggs for an omelet have resulted in widespread political irresponsibility. The good concept of a duty owed to the electorate no longer underpins the Democratic Party, apparently unnecessary to its dreamy march toward technocratic monarchy. As with prior aristocratic governance, the governing liberal has quickly ditched responsibilities, the same responsibilities he adamantly requires of his subjects. Consider these double standards.
The Obama SEC plans to pursue fraud charges against Moody's and S&P for apparently incorrect debt ratings and inadequate investment research, while at the same time the President gets away with a joke about wasting billions of our tax dollars on "shovel ready" opportunities that never existed. Like the rating agencies, Mr. Obama was paid and painted a rosy picture, but assuredly did less research.
Likewise, Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes Oxley required ever higher policing of conflicts of interest by corporate directors and advisors, yet Rep. Frank appointed his boyfriend to a position with a company Frank regulated and Rep.Waters allegedly steered federal funds to a bank her husband owned.
What's wrong here is not new and should have been taught to President Obama, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters by their parents. A MILLENNIUM AGO ST. THOMAS AQUINAS EXPLAINED THAT A BAD ACTION CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY A GOOD INTENTION, THAT THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. Like the private sector, public actors should answer for their bad actions.
It’s worse than the end justifies the means. The intention justifies the means even if the ends are never reached.