So good ol’, “lovable” Joe Biden was in Youngstown Ohio yesterday, firing up the Base.

Click here to view the embedded video.

MSNBC’s Martin Bashir is calling it “Biden’s fire vs. Romney’s misfires“.

“Vigorous blue collar battlecry”?! He “sounds like one of them”? Really?!?!

ABC News:

At a campaign stop in Youngstown, Ohio, today, Vice President Joe Biden lit into Republicans and their presumed presidential nominee Mitt Romney for what he described as a failure to understand the plight of the middle class.

“I resent when they talk about families like mine that I grew up in. I resent the fact that they think we’re talking about envy: it’s job envy, it’s wealthy envy; that we don’t dream,” an impassioned Biden told a crowd of manufacturing workers.

“My mother believed and my father believed that if I wanted to be president of the United States, that I could be, I could be vice president! My mother and father believed that if my brother or sister wanted to be a millionaire, they could be a millionaire! My mother and father dreamed as much as any rich guy dreams!

“They don’t get us! They don’t get who we are!” he yelled before the crowd, drawing loud applause.

And who is Joe Biden? Someone from a blue collar, working middle class family background?

Steve Chapman:

Joe Biden once got in trouble for plagiarizing a speech and inflating his academic record. So it will not surprise you to find that his famous working-class background turns out to be mythical. But it may surprise you to learn that Biden isn’t the one who has trouble with the facts.

~~~

But the legend of Joe Biden, born in a welding shop, dies hard with political reporters, who find it easier to romanticize a gritty, hardscrabble childhood than a conventionally comfortable one.

The facts are there for anyone who wants to look at them.

~~~

So where did he get his working-class reputation? Partly it comes from Biden’s streetwise demeanor and his preoccupation with the fact that his family wasn’t as well-off as some of the people he knew — which seems to have given him a permanent chip on his shoulder. Partly it comes from his frequent tributes to blue-collar folks, such as the firefighters who took him to the hospital when he suffered an aneurysm.

But mostly it reflects journalists’ weakness for simple, vivid narratives.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Michelle Malkin on Uncle Joe’s audience a few days ago:

The nation’s vice campaigner in chief went on the attack against Republicans this week, clad in full populist armor. “These guys don’t have a sense of the average folks out there,” said The Everyman. “They don’t know what it means to be middle class.” But who was his audience?

Nope, not blue-collar workers in Allentown, Pa. Biden was speaking to an exclusive club of $10,000-per-couple campaign donors gathered at the home of the Senate’s $200 million man, Democratic Mass. Sen. John Kerry, in Georgetown, D.C.

That’s smack dab in the middle of Beltway America, where they like a twist of cognitive dissonance with their aperitifs.

The White House is once again drawing on the fantastical myth of middle-class Joe to portray Republicans as out-of-touch elitists. A Washington Post headline described Biden “digging back into his roots to move Obama forward.” But the administration’s leading populist poster child is a wretched symbol of entrenched Washington power. And his fables are getting oldy-moldy.

And on his speech in Youngstown yesterday, Malkin writes:

While Biden’s family came from humble beginnings, the wheeler-dealer politician and his family (including two lobbyist sons) have reaped the benefits of public office for nearly a half-century. The entrenched senior senator from Delaware amassed wealthy donors and crooked cronies over six Senate terms. These are some of the stories, reported in my book “Culture of Corruption,” that have been whitewashed out of the loquacious veep’s campaign folklore:

–Biden’s custom-built house in Delaware’s ritziest Chateau Country neighborhood, assessed at $2.5 million four years ago, is the Bidens’ most valuable asset. He secured the estate with the help of a corporate executive who worked for Biden’s top campaign donor, credit card giant MBNA. In 1996, Biden sold his previous mansion to MBNA Vice Chairman John Cochran. The asking price was $1.2 million. Cochran forked over the full sum. Biden then paid $350,000 in cash to real estate developer Keith Stoltz for a 4.2-acre lakefront lot. Stoltz had paid that same amount five years earlier for the undeveloped property.

–Among Pal Joey’s dearest old pals: campaign finance “rainmaker” William Oldaker, who showered generous benefits on both the elder Biden and his lobbyist son, Hunter; Baltimore-based Peter Angelos, whose law firm gave Biden $156,250; Wilmington-based Young Conaway Stargatt and Taylor, which kicked in $127, 979; and Pachulski Stang Zielhl and Jones, which donated $145,625, according to The American Lawyer.

–Disgraced trial lawyer Richard Scruggs donated $11,500 to Biden in 2008. After Scruggs was convicted of attempting to bribe a federal judge, Biden tried to show his ethical bona fides by donating the money to a worthy charity. But Biden couldn’t steer clear of nepotism. The money ended up with the National Prostate Cancer Coalition — a charity where, The American Lawyer pointed out, Biden’s son Hunter sits on the board of directors.

–Another Biden family pal in the trial lawyers’ community: Jeff Cooper. With his partner, John Simmons, the 39-year-old Cooper built one of the biggest asbestos litigation firms in the country. SimmonsCooper, based in Madison County, Ill., has donated a whopping $196,050 to Biden’s campaigns since 2003, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C. In that same time frame, the firm poured $6.5 million into lobbying against a key tort reform bill — which Sen. Biden worked hard to defeat. Without a hint of irony, Cooper extolled Biden’s anti-tort reform stance: “He understands the plight of the little guy and is against huge corporate interest.” But what Biden did was help fuel lucrative business for the tort bar. When courts in SimmonsCooper’s home base in Illinois finally started cracking down on what had become “America’s No. 1 judicial hellhole” for filing out-of-control tort claims, the firm turned East. And in Joe Biden’s Delaware, they created a new sanctuary.

Back on Obama 2012 Fantasy Island, Biden insists on marketing himself as the humble “son of an automobile man.” Give him this: He spins like a used-car salesman.

The Blaze also points out:

There are plenty of gems in that segment, but how about when he seems to catch himself while discussing his parents telling him he could be president if he wanted to, only to realize quickly he only ended up being vice president:

My mother believed and my father believed, that if I wanted president of the United States, I could be, I could be vice president. [Actual quote as it was delivered]

There’s also this:

I resent the fact that they think we’re talking about, we’re envy* — “it’s job envy”, “it’s wealth envy.” [Emphasis added]

President Obama is also hardly of a modest means, non-privileged background.

Yet Democrats continue to identify themselves with the working middle class rather than with the 1 percenters.

Hear it?

It’s getting louder.

The sounds of a election come nearer.

And it’s making a particular President wet his pants.

Reacting to the stinging criticism from two members of Congress in a key election state Barack Obama modified his “All of the Above” energy website.

The Obama campaign changed its website Thursday night to include a reference to “clean coal” in the president’s “all-of-the-above” energy plan after Republicans lawmakers criticized the omission.

Under the heading “President’ Obama’s approach to energy independence,” an entire section on the campaign website was altered from “fuel efficiency” to “clean coal.” The sections now appear as: oil, natural gas, clean coal, biofuels, wind, solar and nuclear.

Earlier this week, Rep. Ed Whitfield, a Republican from Kentucky who chairs a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, criticized the president for excluding coal and hydropower, two energy resources that together provide for more than half of the country’s electricity, from his “all-of-the-above” energy plan.

“This administration has been openly in the business of putting coal out of business,” Mr. Whitfield said. “And for the president to run around talking about an ‘all of the above’ energy policy, even on his campaign website, and to not mention coal as an important energy sector is unbelievable to me.”

Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio Republican, on Wednesday tweeted his disappointment about the exclusion of coal, saying Mr. Obama was “out of touch [with Ohio’s] needs.”

In what has to be an act of desperation the Obama website was changed from this

to this

Let’s have a close look at what the newest version says:

“President Obama has set a 10-year goal to develop and deploy cost-effective clean coal technology.”

Obama’s coal industry goals can be properly summarized this way:

1. Bankrupt the coal industry.
2. See #1
3. See #2
4. See #3
5. See #4

Anything else he says is but pablum meant for the liberal (i.e. weak, gullible) mind expressly for the purposes of re-election. Obama knows well liberals suffer from CRS syndrome (Can’t Remember Sh*t) and will have forgotten everything he and Biden have said about the coal industry in the past.

Not me. I remember what Obama said. Here he is saying he would bankrupt the coal industry:

Click here to view the embedded video.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

And did someone mention Joe Biden?

Click here to view the embedded video.

No clean coal for you!

Anyone with half a brain will see right through this current ruse. The problem is, Obama supporters come up short on the brain thing. Obama has been conducting the war on coal for some time.

With the country focused on this week’s high drama at the Supreme Court, President Obama’s EPA quietly released long-delayed regulations to apply global warming rules never authorized by Congress to new coal-fired power plants.

That Obama’s EPA would release a rule to destroy coal-fired electricity while the president gives stump speeches about an “all of the above” energy policy is an insult to the American people.

This rule will effectively block any new coal-fired power plants from being built in America, and a second round of related rules – expected after the election, of course – will shut down existing coal-fired power plants.

The result will be steeply higher electricity prices, lost jobs, and lower standards of living. Remarkably, this is all done in the name of global warming, but even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson admits it will have no discernible impact on global temperatures. Obama’s EPA is crippling the U.S. economy not to accomplish anything, but just to enjoy a nice, warm, green feeling of self-satisfaction.

Consequently, coal plants are being shut down with no energy substitutes in sight.

Edison International (EIX) plans to shut down at least two aging coal-fired power plants in what could be a growing wave of retirements as low natural-gas and electricity prices and stricter pollution rules make many of these facilities unprofitable.

Edison will shut down its two Chicago coal-fired power plants — one this year and one by 2014 — rather than install pollution-control equipment to comply with state pollution limits, the company said. Edison said it also would likely shut down a third coal plant in Waukegan, Ill., and possibly others. …

Companies are increasingly announcing plans to shut down aging coal plants as the cost of installing pollution-control equipment can exceed the value of the plant.

If you believe Obama has a goal for clean coal that ends anywhere else but in bankruptcy, you’re an idiot.

Good question: Why is President Obama still “evolving” on gay marriage?

I guess the addiction to decisively voting “present” is still a tough option to let go…

“I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual – men and women marrying – are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden said on “Meet the Press”. “And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that.”

The idea that Biden had gone beyond the previous position staked out on the issue was quickly stamped out — with Administration sources and the Vice President’s office insisting that there was nothing new in what he said.

“The Vice President has made similar comments many times before,” said Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter in an interview Monday afternoon on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports”.

The whole kerfuffle over what Biden said (and meant) has re-opened a somewhat heated debate within Democratic circles: Why won’t President Obama simply come out in favor of gay marriage once and for all?

Obama, who supports civil unions but not same-sex marriage, has said repeatedly that the issue is very personal for him and acknowledged that he struggles with it. In an interview with liberal bloggers in the fall of 2010, Obama said he “wrestles” with the issue, adding: “I think it’s fair to say that it’s something that I think a lot about.”

~~~

Obama, himself, seems to be well aware of what he called the “arc of history” in that 2010 interview. “The one thing I will say today is I think it’s pretty clear where the trendlines are going,” said Obama at the time.

But rather than trailblazing and leading from the front, President Obama would rather vote “present”. He’d rather not see a show of his open support trending worldwide. That would take political cajones.

Chris Cillizza goes on to point out the trendlines that president Obama alludes to, along with chart. Blacks remain the biggest constituency that are opposed to a redefinition of traditional marriage:

On the other hand, African Americans, one of the main pillars of the President’s political coalition, remain decidedly skeptical about gay marriage. In the last year’s worth of Post-ABC data, just 42 percent said they support legalization while 55 percent oppose it.

Viewed through that lens, coming out in support of gay marriage looks like an unnecessary political risk for Obama.

Yes, it would clearly thrill a portion of his base (gays and lesbians) but it could alienate — at least in parts — another portion of his base (African Americans) that he desperately needs to win reelection this fall.

I’d recommend he take the gamble and stick his neck out. Unless of course he doesn’t have the courage of conviction and is “still evolving”….*snicker*

I really don’t see this as a great political risk, anymore than a likelihood of losing the LGBT vote:

And, it’s hard to see the LGBT community abandoning Obama — either for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney or to simply sit on the sidelines — given that the President can point to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the decision to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act as signs that he is working to address their concerns. (Cutter made mention of both moves to argue that the Obama Administration has a strong record on matters of gay rights.)

Simply put: The political upside of coming out in support of gay marriage is simply not as high as the political downside of coming out in support of gay marriage. Hence, the quick work of the Obama team to minimize Biden’s comments — and the fact that the Administration nas been decidedly low profile on a measure that would ban civil unions set to be voted on in North Carolina on Tuesday. (Make sure to read Amy Gardner’s terrific story on Obama’s delicate dance in the Tarheel State.)

“On any such issue that is not part of your game plan, the art of communications is limiting the time that it is a major issue that is moving you off your game plan or off your message,” explained Chris Lehane, a veteran Democratic communications consultant.

The other thing to consider when it comes to the politics of gay marriage is that while it might not be a slam dunk for Obama to be for it before November, it could well be just that sort of issue if he is elected to a second four-year term.

Why? Because the Post-ABC polling shows a huge generational divide — with young people overwhelmingly supportive of legalization. Fully 65 percent of people aged 18-29 say gay marriage should be legal while 61 percent of those aged 30-39 agree. And there is every indication that each younger generation feels increasingly comfortable with the idea of gay men and women being married.

Given those numbers, in even three years time — and unburdened from concerns about reelection — it’s not inconceivable (with apologies to Vizzini in “The Princess Bride”) to imagine that President Obama’s evolution on the issue will be complete.

So his “evolving beliefs” are based on political opportunism and the weathervane method of decision-making? Not in being a bold visionary and strong leader who takes calculated risks to do what he feels is right?

Nice.

On the one hand we have a candidate accused of being a flip-flopper; on the other, we have a president afraid to flip for fear of flopping.

Always dependable for a laugh…

This was said in support of President Obama’s foreign policy and in criticism of Mitt Romney.

Click here to view the embedded video.

More from good ol’, “lovable” Joe:

“As my brother would say, ‘Go figure,’” Biden said, accusing Romney of a Cold War mentality that viewed foreign policy through a rear view mirror. Bin Laden and Obama’s successes in combating terrorism were front and center and Biden emphasized the administration’s largest foreign policy accomplishments.

“This guy’s got a backbone like a ramrod. No, no, for real,” Biden said, describing the decision to send Navy SEALs after bin Laden in Pakistan. “We can’t say for certain what Gov. Romney would have done.”

Well, we do know how Joe Biden would have fared if he was sitting in the executive chair.

And where President Obama has fared well on issues of national security, he’s behaved more like Bush than not.

President Obama, succeeding President George W. Bush, largely adopted Bush’s approach to Iraq; decided to use a version of that approach in prosecuting the war in Afghanistan; and widened the terror war beyond the targets pursued by the Bush administration. In the end, the administration even adopted parts of the Bush doctrine. True, Obama cast aside its more idealistic aspect: using American power to build democracy. On the other hand, President Obama has adopted wholeheartedly what we might call the Bush doctrine’s political science: the determination to fight our enemies overseas, eliminating them where possible, rather than wait to be attacked.

Kate Hicks notes:

Another line hitting Romney: “Americans know we cannot afford to go back to the future,” implying that Romney would take a George W. Bush-style approach to foreign policy, heavy on military force and light on “asking the tough questions.”

The Obama of ’04-’08 would be criticizing the Obama of ’09-’12 if he had an “R” to his name when it comes to Gitmo/Bagram detainees, renditions, Afghanistan, surveillance, Patriot Act, predator drones, endless wars, signing statements, etc. (and even out-Bushing Bush).

What kind of foreign policy doctrine will a Romney presidency look like?

How about a Petraeus vs. Biden vice presidential debate on foreign policy?

In reality only Joe Biden thinks that Joe Biden is something other than a village idiot. Biden has a long history of making ridiculous and stupid statements.

Click here to view the embedded video.

And here he demonstrates his math prowess:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And here is his health advice:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Now Joe Biden says that the Taliban is not our enemy:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Jay Carney then tried to defend Biden.

Click here to view the embedded video.

We’re fighting the Taliban, but they’re not our enemy??

Glad we got that straightened out.

Oddly, it wasn’t always this way:

Obama: Step up effort against Taliban, al-Qaida

Obama: Taliban and al Qaeda must be stopped

SAN DIEGO —

Senator Barack Obama is proposing that the United States deploy about 10,000 more troops to battle resurgent forces in Afghanistan, a plan intended to shift the American military focus from the Iraq war to the marked rise in violence from the Taliban.

Making peace treaties with the Taliban was once a bad thing- according to Obama.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I have said repeatedly that democrats depend heavily on their supporters having zero long term memory and once again it proves to be true. One thing that is hard to forget, though, is that Joe Biden is not just stupid, he is dangerously stupid.

Ann Coulter has accurately described the selection of Joe Biden for VP as “assassination insurance.” At times Joe Biden is is a doofus and the rest of the time he is incomprehensibly stupid.

He can’t count.

Click here to view the embedded video.

He tends to lie. A lot.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The facts:

• Biden got in trouble in 1965, during his first year in law school. He wrote a paper in which he lifted five pages verbatim from the Fordham Law Review. He was given an “F” in the course. He managed to avoid being bounced from law school, retook the course and earned a B.

• He claimed that he was “the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship.” He didn’t. He did have a half scholarship that was need-based.

• He did not graduate from law school in the top half of his class. He graduated 76th out of 85 — and he was near the bottom of his class all three years.

• If he won the moot court competition — and he claimed at the time that he actually did — he did not put it on his resume, surprising for a man prone to so egregiously exaggerating his accomplishments.

• He did not win the award for being the outstanding student in the political science department at Delaware, and he graduated with one degree, not three. He had a “C” average and graduated 506th in a class of 688.

And he is a plagiarist.

A Dukakis staffer noticed and fed to Maureen Dowd, then a New York Times reporter rather than columnist, that Biden had lifted almost verbatim his closing remarks at a debate at the Iowa state fairgrounds in August 1987. The lines were lifted from a passionate speech delivered by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.

Now as part of an effort to promote Barack Obama’s jobs bill, Biden makes dark overtures about an increase in robberies and sex crimes if Obama’s bill does not pass.

“Well let me tell you, it’s not temporary when that 911 call comes in and a woman’s being raped, if a cop shows up in time to prevent the rape. It’s not temporary to that woman,” said Biden. “It’s not temporary to the guy whose store is being held up and there’s a gun pointed at his head, if a cop shows up and he’s not killed. That’s not temporary to that store owner. Give me a break! Temporary. ”

And he just can’t stop. The WaPo Fact Checker scrutinizes Biden’s claims:

“Let’s look at the facts: in 2008, when Flint had 265 sworn officers on their police force, there were 35 murders and 91 rapes in this city. In 2010, when Flint had only 144 police officers, the murder rate climbed to 65 and rapes–just to pick two categories–climbed to 229. In 2011, you now only have 125 shields.”

–Vice President Biden, October 18, 2011

“In Flint, Michigan, they cut their force in half; murder rates have doubled in the last year…Police departments, as I said, in some cases literally cut in half, like Camden, New Jersey, and Flint, Michigan. In many cities, the result has been — and it’s not unique — murder rates are up, robberies are up, rapes are up…I said rape was up, three times in Flint. There are the numbers. Go look at the numbers.”

–Biden, October 19, 2011, on Capitol Hill

They observe:

Murder did go up—though the rate did not double from 2009 to 2010, as Biden claimed. But rape has gone down. Biden actually asserted it had tripled.

And conclude:

The Pinocchio Test

Biden, when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1994, was author of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the largest crime bill in U.S. history. On the face of it, a threefold increase in rape in two years—when other violent crime statistics show relatively modest increases in the same city—should raise serious questions for anyone knowledgeable about crime or statistics. Clearly, the city of Flint supplied bad data, and either Biden or someone in Biden’s office should have caught it.

In any case, the vice president should know better than to spout off half-baked facts in service of a dubious argument. Even if one believes there is a link between crime and the number of police—which is debatable and subject to many caveats—there is no excuse to make the dramatic claim that more people will die or be raped without additional funds for police. When making such a breathtaking charge, you had better have your facts straight.

They give Biden Four Pinocchios.

The White House says about Biden claims:

“I think it would be hard to find anyone that doesn’t agree,”

When there is no conscience there is no embarassment.

Hat tip: Guy Benson

You just had to know this administration was going to pull these kind of acrobatics regarding the Vice President’s remarks on China’s “one-child” policy:

As I mentioned in my previous post, I contacted the White House this afternoon for an explanation of Vice President Biden’s stunning remarks regarding China’s odious one-child policy. Moments ago, I received the following on-the-record statement from Biden’s press secretary, Kendra Barkoff:

“The Obama Administration strongly opposes all aspects of China’s coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and sterilization. The Vice President believes such practices are repugnant. He also pointed out, in China, that the policy is, as a practical matter, unsustainable. He was arguing against the One Child Policy to a Chinese audience.”

Oh. So when he said “Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family.” that really meant he was against it.

Who do they think they are trying to kid here?

He never once argued that the One Child Policy was unsustainable…just that expecting one child to support four elderly grandparents is unsustainable. He never once argued against the policy’s outcome…forced abortions and sterilization

If he does believe, as the White House states, that the policy is “repugnant”…do ya think he might of brought that up in the speech?

He didn’t….I wonder why? (h/t Hot Air)

…we owe ‘em a ton of money. Which means you can figure for yourself the likelihood of an American vice-president standing up in public and expressing his repugnance at the wholesale slaughter of China’s baby girls. A few lines before the passage above, I quote Jonathan Swift’s “Run Upon The Bankers”: “They have his soul, who have his bonds.” China has our bonds, and thus in a certain sense they have our soul. Or at any rate Joe Biden’s. The big theme of my book’s prologue is that it starts with the money but it never stops there. For three decades, US foreign policy “realists” have assured us that China’s economic liberalization would inevitably lead to political liberalization. As Biden’s wretched remarks suggest, the inverse was always more likely: the reality of China’s economic dominance is western acquiescence in its repulsive politics.

Just more evidence that one, Biden is a moron, and two, the left loves it when the government can force you to do anything. This time its forced abortions:

What we ended up doing is setting up a system whereby we did cut by $1.2 trillion upfront, the deficit over the next 10 years. And we set up a group of senators that have to come up with another $1.2 to $1.7 trillion in savings or automatically there will be cuts that go into effect in January to get those savings. So the savings will be accomplished. But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.

So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that.

He fully understands forcing people sterilized against their will:

Health authorities are planning to sterilise nearly 10,000 people in southern China over the next four days as part of a population control programme.

Some of the people in Puning City will be forced to have the procedure carried out against their will.

…Chinese newspaper reports say that those who refuse to be sterilised have seen their elderly mothers or fathers taken away and detained.

Hundreds of people in Puning are said to have been locked up.

…More than 1,300 people in the city have been held in local government buildings where they were given “lectures” on China’s family planning regulations.

Or forced abortions?

During the past week, dozens of women in southwest China have been forced to have abortions even as late as nine months into the pregnancy, according to evidence uncovered by NPR.

more:

Sources in Linyi City and its surrounding counties claimed that up to 120,000 women had been coerced into submitting to the procedures and that some of them were in the ninth month of their pregnancies.

The arrests follow the detention on 6 September of a local activist, Chen Guangcheng. Mr Chen had claimed that women with two children were being forced to undergo sterilisations, while women pregnant with their third child were required to have abortions.

Human rights groups have long insisted that China used compulsory abortions and sterilisations as a way of enforcing its one-child policy, which restricts couples to just one child and was introduced in 1979 as a means of controlling the growth of its population.

Because those are most assuredly the results of any government policy that requires couples have no more than one child.

From NRO:

“China’s One Child Policy causes more violence to women and girls than any other official policy on earth. To merely mention the economic consequences is to turn a blind eye to the terrible human suffering caused by forced abortion. Chinese women are literally dragged out of their homes, strapped to tables and forced to abort.”

At least Boehner had the balls to speak out against this cruelty when he met with the Chinese President:

…And finally, we raised our strong, ongoing concerns with reports of human rights violations in China, including the denial of religious freedom, and the use of coercive abortion as a consequence of the ‘one child’ policy. When it comes to guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of all her citizens, including and especially the unborn, Chinese leaders have a responsibility to do better, and the United States has a responsibility to hold them to account.”

But not our Vice President.

I can’t shake the feeling that it was a trap. A set-up. An ambush.

And that Obama bought it. And Joe Biden made it all possible.

There was no end to self-adulation of Barack Obama following the raid in which Osama Bin Laden was killed. In the revelry, the brainiac that is the Vice President opened his mouth and identified those who carried out the Bin Laden raid.

He can tell you more about and understands the incredible, the phenomenal, the just almost unbelievable capacity of his Navy SEALs and what they did last Sunday.

Following the Biden outing, SecDef Gates made clear that increased security was necessary to protect the SEALS and their families. He also noted that the Obama administration could not shut the hell up.

Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday, the next day.”

Gates turned out to be prophetic:

“There is an awareness that the threat of retaliation is increased because of the attacks – because of the action against bin Laden,” he said.

Obama then let everyone know where the SEAL Team was.

(Reuters) – President Barack Obama, basking in U.S. public approval for the killing of Osama bin Laden, flew to a military base in Kentucky on Friday to thank special forces who carried out the deadly raid and led a rally filled with cheering troops.

By the end of May, the Taliban was promising revenge.

Nicholas Schmidle wrote a highly detailed play by play of the raid. He’ll probably get a Pulitzer Prize for it. He also helped the Taliban devise a trap.

“One option entailed flying helicopters to a spot outside Abbottabad and letting the team sneak into the city on foot. The risk of detection was high, however, and the SEALS would be tired by a long run to the compound. The planners had contemplated tunneling in — or at least, the possibility that bin Laden might tunnel out…Eventually, the planners agreed that it made the most sense to fly directly into the compound. ‘Special operations is about doing what’s not expected, and probably the least expected thing here was that a helicopter would come in, drop guys on the roof, and land in the yard,’ the special operations officer said.”

“Forty-five minutes after the Black Hawks departed, four MH-47 Chinooks launched from the same runway in Jalalabad. Two of them flew to the border, staying on the Afghan side; the other two proceeded into Pakistan. Deploying four Chinooks was a last-minute decision made after President Barack Obama said he wanted to feel assured that the Americans could “fight their way out of Pakistan.” Twenty-five additional SEALs from DEVGRU, pulled from a squadron stationed in Afghanistan, sat in the Chinooks that remained at the border; this “quick-reaction force” would be called into action only if the mission went seriously wrong. The third and fourth Chinooks were each outfitted with a pair of M134 Miniguns. They followed the Black Hawks’ initial flight path but landed at a predetermined point on a dry riverbed in a wide, unpopulated valley in northwest Pakistan. The nearest house was half a mile away. On the ground, the copters’ rotors were kept whirring while operatives monitored the surrounding hills for encroaching Pakistani helicopters or fighter jets. One of the Chinooks was carrying fuel bladders, in case the other aircraft needed to refill their tanks.

In the detailed description, there is more prophecy

One month before the 2008 Presidential election, Obama, then a senator from Illinois, squared off in a debate against John McCain in an arena at Belmont University, in Nashville. A woman in the audience asked Obama if he would be willing to pursue Al Qaeda leaders inside Pakistan, even if that meant invading an ally nation. He replied, “If we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable, or unwilling, to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden. We will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national-security priority.” McCain, who often criticized Obama for his naïveté on foreign-policy matters, characterized the promise as foolish, saying, “I’m not going to telegraph my punches.”

Obama did. So did Biden. And so did Schmidle.

They offered the Taliban an outline of how high value target raids are conducted. And it was another high value target they were after.

KABUL—U.S. Special Operations troops were closing in on a clandestine Taliban meeting thought to include a high-value commander in Afghanistan’s rugged Tangi Valley when they ran into an insurgent patrol that pinned them down.

Rangers just happened to “run into” an insurgent patrol that just happened to be there in a position to pin them down??

Bin Laden’s remains were necessary to provide DNA evidence of his death. The alleged “target(s)” of this disastrous raid must also have been very high value as the raid bears a striking similarity to the Bin Laden raid. This time they knew the SEALS were coming and they were prepared for them.

Bin Laden was located from threads of intelligence gathered over four years, and it all derived from a phone call.

So now thanks to the eager press the Taliban knew how Bin Laden was found, they knew who participated in the raid and they knew how it went down. All they needed to do was set bait that someone at the top could not refuse.

The Taliban could leak information about a high value target- it had to be someone high on the food chain, someone else whose DNA would be be required for a positive ID- someone like Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Then they could pin down the first team looking for the high value target and hold out for reinforcements. And they came. The Taliban KNEW SEAL Team 6 comes after high value targets and could well be involved. They KNEW the equipment that would be used. They KNEW pretty much how it would be done. They KNEW how to furnish the fake intel.

It all fits. I believe the Taliban got its revenge by playing the game and I cannot help but wonder who made the decision to send in Special Ops and then the SEALs instead of using a drone. That decision probably came from the top. Perhaps someone was looking for another trophy- someone who needs a boost at the polls.

We still don’t know who got Khalid Sheik Muhammad.

I wrote this well before the following appeared.

UPDATE: Yes, it was a trap.

The Taliban lured US forces into an elaborate trap to shoot down their helicopter, killing 30 American troops in the deadliest such incident of the war, an Afghan official said Monday.