Posts
"While there is no law, or set of laws, that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try," Obama said in his rollout of his gun control proposals. However, laws restricting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens should be enacted anyway because they might save "even one life," according to Obama.
So, Obama wants a ban on scary-looking guns, so-called "assault weapons" (which are not true assault weapons because he shot requires a trigger pull). He wants a limit on the capacity of gun clips to ten bullets as well as universal background checks. He admitted these measures, had they been in effect, might not have prevented the Newtown, Columbine or Aurora tragedies. He ignored the fact that the weapon used in Newtown was legally owned by the shooter's mother in a state with an assault weapon ban. The national assault rifle and magazine capacity limitations were in effect at the time of the Columbine High School shootings. The Aurora shooter would have passed a background check since he had no criminal record and had never been adjudicated as mentally incompetent before the theater shooting.
Okay, so let's apply Obama's same logic to another right -- the First Amendment -- and see how far it flies with the liberal gun-hating crowd. Let's address violent video games and movies. Granted, researchers differ on whether or not these cause increased violence or aggression. But, since they might for at least some mentally ill individuals, we should go after them because we might be able to save at least one life.
Let's just outright ban the production and sale of the most graphic, scariest violent video games or movies. Nobody to see them to be entertained; they serve no useful purpose. Let's require background checks on all purchases of permitted video games and movie DVD's or Blu-Rays, including any transfers from one owner to another. And, certainly, we need to restrict the length of such games or movies. Let's issue movie attendance licenses to be allowed to buy violent movie tickets after a thorough background check. Of course, we would need to restrict television viewing of these movies, too, so let's require cable companies to do background checks of their customers. Then, require the cable companies to restrict violent shows to certain stations and only customers who passed the background checks could subscribe to those stations.
Sure, these measures restrict the free exercise of the First Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. But, if we could save just one life by enacting them, wouldn't it be worth it? If it isn't, then neither is it reasonable or right to restrict the free exercise of our Second Amendment rights. What is fair for one is fair for the other.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Friday, July 29, 2011
America's Decline: Where Are We?
On Sunday, July 24th, the Florida Times-Union published one of the most cogent, well-written editorials I've ever read. It's title was "How America Can Get Moving Again." (Go to http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2011-07-24/story/editorial-how-america-can-get-moving-again for the entire text.)
It outlines five stages of decline, taken from How the Mighty Fall: And Why Some Compaines Never Give In by Jim Collins, and applied to our nation. The five stages are:
Frankly, I am not optimistic that our leaders will choose to take the painful medicine that will stop the unsustainable spending and lead us back from the waterfall of national bankruptcy. We may be too far down that river already, out of reach of rescue, to stop our country from going over the precipice.
It outlines five stages of decline, taken from How the Mighty Fall: And Why Some Compaines Never Give In by Jim Collins, and applied to our nation. The five stages are:
- Hubris born of success
- Undisciplined pursuit of more
- Denial of risk and peril
- Grasping for salvation
- Capitulaton or death
Frankly, I am not optimistic that our leaders will choose to take the painful medicine that will stop the unsustainable spending and lead us back from the waterfall of national bankruptcy. We may be too far down that river already, out of reach of rescue, to stop our country from going over the precipice.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Debt Ceiling: Letter to Florida's Senator Bill Nelson
Senator Bill Nelson (Dem.-FL) sent an email asking for his constituents input regarding the debt ceiling issue. Below is a copy of the letter I sent in response:
Dear Senator Nelson:
The cycle of constant expansion of the nation's debt has to stop. It is bankrupting us and our children. It is unsustainable. I support these principles:
1. Every dollar of debt ceiling increase must be matched by spending cuts. These cuts must be made BEFORE additional dollars may be borrowed. The old trick of raising the ceiling on the promise of future cuts that never seem to come must be avoided. For this reason, I do not like either the Boehner or Reid plans. We do not need yet another commission. Congress needs to do its job and cut the red ink.
2. There should be no income tax increases on anyone, especially corporations, during a recession. Even President Kennedy knew tax cuts, not increases, promoted job growth and economic expansion. I support a Fair Tax, but only if the 16th Amendment is repealed. It is wrong that the top 2% of taxpayers pay 80% of taxes and that over 50%, including myself, owe none.
3. No debt ceiling increase should be granted until the President submits a balanced budget. It is dereliction of duty for him not to have submitted a budget for the current fiscal year. He insists we do not need a balanced budget amendment. I say, "Prove it!"
4. The current Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs are not sustainable and must be reformed. I support increasing or even removing the cap on income subject to FICA withholdings. The current $250,000 maximum is too low to keep the system solvent.
5. If a default is unavoidable because Congress continues to fail to act and the President continues to refuse to lead, then payments of our debts need to go out in this order:
Susan M. Lamb
Dear Senator Nelson:
The cycle of constant expansion of the nation's debt has to stop. It is bankrupting us and our children. It is unsustainable. I support these principles:
1. Every dollar of debt ceiling increase must be matched by spending cuts. These cuts must be made BEFORE additional dollars may be borrowed. The old trick of raising the ceiling on the promise of future cuts that never seem to come must be avoided. For this reason, I do not like either the Boehner or Reid plans. We do not need yet another commission. Congress needs to do its job and cut the red ink.
2. There should be no income tax increases on anyone, especially corporations, during a recession. Even President Kennedy knew tax cuts, not increases, promoted job growth and economic expansion. I support a Fair Tax, but only if the 16th Amendment is repealed. It is wrong that the top 2% of taxpayers pay 80% of taxes and that over 50%, including myself, owe none.
3. No debt ceiling increase should be granted until the President submits a balanced budget. It is dereliction of duty for him not to have submitted a budget for the current fiscal year. He insists we do not need a balanced budget amendment. I say, "Prove it!"
4. The current Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs are not sustainable and must be reformed. I support increasing or even removing the cap on income subject to FICA withholdings. The current $250,000 maximum is too low to keep the system solvent.
5. If a default is unavoidable because Congress continues to fail to act and the President continues to refuse to lead, then payments of our debts need to go out in this order:
a. active duty militarySincerely,
b. retired military
c. Social Security recipients (retirees, disabled, & children)
d. government contractors
e. government civil service workers
f. U.S. bondholders
g. foreign aid recipients
h. all other obligations
i. elected officials and their staff
Susan M. Lamb
Thursday, March 24, 2011
“We Don’t Need No Stinking Constitution”
“We don’t need no stinking Constitution. And we sure don’t need no advice and consent from Congress. National sovereignty? Oh, please! That’s so twentieth-century.” At least that seems to be Barack Obama’s position today.
Obama thumbed his nose at Congress and the American people when he authorized the use of American military assets to invoke a no-fly zone over Libya. If news reports are accurate, Obama called Congressional leaders to the White House Saturday, not to discuss with them the pros and cons of U.S. involvement in the Libyan civil war. No, he called them over to inform them of the decision he had already made to commit U.S. forces to enforce a no-fly zone for the United Nations.
Now, there is no question that Muammar el-Qaddafi is a bad guy. Undoubtedly, the Libyan people will suffer greatly if he remains in power after the recent rebellion against his dictatorial rule. He promised to kill his opponents, and we know his ruthlessness in the past. Many innocent civilians have and will die unless he is removed.
Nonetheless, the United Nations’ resolution to order a no-fly zone over Libya to protect the rebels is a dangerous precedent. Our involvement is militarily unwise, financially disastrous, a threat to our national sovereignty, and constitutionally questionable.
Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich declared Obama’s decision an "impeachable offense” because of his failure to consult with Congress or get Congressional authorization beforehand. The Constitution in Article I, Section 8.11 is clear: Congress, not the President, holds the power “to declare war.”
Because of presidential abuses during the Vietnam era, Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 to rein in the President. Under it, the President may engage U.S. troops only if the U.S. or its territories are under imminent threat of invasion by a foreign power or if U.S. citizens need to be extracted from an imminent threat in a foreign nation. Otherwise, the President must go to Congress to seek a declaration of war or a Congressional mandate prior to any military action involving U.S. troops. In no case, can the President use the U.S. military if “imminent hostilities” are expected to last for sixty days or more. Some exceptions allow the timeframe to be extended an additional thirty days.
Thus, technically, the President may have the right to engage U.S. forces without any Congressional consultation first under the War Powers Act. It should be noted, though, that many legal scholars consider the War Powers Act itself to be unconstitutional. It has yet to be fully tested in a Supreme Court case.
Obama is the first President to take military action without any consultation with Congress. Every other President, including the Left’s hated George W. Bush, has made his case to Congress and sought advice or a Congressional resolution before sending our military forces into harm’s way.
The irony is that Obama’s previous position was that it is unconstitutional for a President to go to war without Congressional approval. For example, in a December, 20, 2007 interview with Charlie Savage, a Boston Globe reporter, Obama said: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Savage asked his question specifically in regards to bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, if needed to stop their development of nuclear weapons. Then-Senator Obama elaborated, “As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that ‘any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.’”
Today, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden enthusiastically support the sending of U.S. fighter pilots on the mission to ground Libya’s air defenses under the War Powers Act. They surely did not believe in it when Bush was President.
Savage asked Clinton the same question during her presidential campaign. Then-Senator Clinton gave a very similar answer to Obama’s regarding the War Powers Act. She supported Obama’s S.J. Res. 23 against bombing Iran without Congressional approval.
In 1998, then-Senator Joe Biden gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor in opposition to “monarchist” Presidents who sent troops into military actions without Congressional approval. He fully outlined the history and intent of the Founding Fathers regarding the Constitution’s restrictions on presidential powers to make war. In this speech, Biden criticized fellow Democrats President Harry S. Truman for his “police action” in Korea and President Bill Clinton for bombing Iraq under United Nations resolutions.
Obama thumbed his nose at Congress and the American people when he authorized the use of American military assets to invoke a no-fly zone over Libya. If news reports are accurate, Obama called Congressional leaders to the White House Saturday, not to discuss with them the pros and cons of U.S. involvement in the Libyan civil war. No, he called them over to inform them of the decision he had already made to commit U.S. forces to enforce a no-fly zone for the United Nations.
Now, there is no question that Muammar el-Qaddafi is a bad guy. Undoubtedly, the Libyan people will suffer greatly if he remains in power after the recent rebellion against his dictatorial rule. He promised to kill his opponents, and we know his ruthlessness in the past. Many innocent civilians have and will die unless he is removed.
Nonetheless, the United Nations’ resolution to order a no-fly zone over Libya to protect the rebels is a dangerous precedent. Our involvement is militarily unwise, financially disastrous, a threat to our national sovereignty, and constitutionally questionable.
Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich declared Obama’s decision an "impeachable offense” because of his failure to consult with Congress or get Congressional authorization beforehand. The Constitution in Article I, Section 8.11 is clear: Congress, not the President, holds the power “to declare war.”
Because of presidential abuses during the Vietnam era, Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 to rein in the President. Under it, the President may engage U.S. troops only if the U.S. or its territories are under imminent threat of invasion by a foreign power or if U.S. citizens need to be extracted from an imminent threat in a foreign nation. Otherwise, the President must go to Congress to seek a declaration of war or a Congressional mandate prior to any military action involving U.S. troops. In no case, can the President use the U.S. military if “imminent hostilities” are expected to last for sixty days or more. Some exceptions allow the timeframe to be extended an additional thirty days.
Thus, technically, the President may have the right to engage U.S. forces without any Congressional consultation first under the War Powers Act. It should be noted, though, that many legal scholars consider the War Powers Act itself to be unconstitutional. It has yet to be fully tested in a Supreme Court case.
Obama is the first President to take military action without any consultation with Congress. Every other President, including the Left’s hated George W. Bush, has made his case to Congress and sought advice or a Congressional resolution before sending our military forces into harm’s way.
The irony is that Obama’s previous position was that it is unconstitutional for a President to go to war without Congressional approval. For example, in a December, 20, 2007 interview with Charlie Savage, a Boston Globe reporter, Obama said: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Savage asked his question specifically in regards to bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, if needed to stop their development of nuclear weapons. Then-Senator Obama elaborated, “As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that ‘any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.’”
Today, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden enthusiastically support the sending of U.S. fighter pilots on the mission to ground Libya’s air defenses under the War Powers Act. They surely did not believe in it when Bush was President.
Savage asked Clinton the same question during her presidential campaign. Then-Senator Clinton gave a very similar answer to Obama’s regarding the War Powers Act. She supported Obama’s S.J. Res. 23 against bombing Iran without Congressional approval.
In 1998, then-Senator Joe Biden gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor in opposition to “monarchist” Presidents who sent troops into military actions without Congressional approval. He fully outlined the history and intent of the Founding Fathers regarding the Constitution’s restrictions on presidential powers to make war. In this speech, Biden criticized fellow Democrats President Harry S. Truman for his “police action” in Korea and President Bill Clinton for bombing Iraq under United Nations resolutions.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Chicago-Style Immigration Reform
Whose aunt was caught as an illegal alien? Whose aunt was denied asylum and ordered deported in 2004 by a federal immigration judge? Whose aunt defied this order and stayed in the U.S., living in H.U.D.-financed housing in Boston? When caught a second time, whose aunt was allowed to repetition for asylum instead of being deported in 2009? Whose aunt found another federal judge who voided the previous deportation order and granted her political asylum on May 17, 2010?
If you answered President Barack Obama, you should get a prize. He is the nephew of Zeituni Onyango, a native of Kenya. She entered the country originally on a visitor's visa, which she overstayed. What made the difference between the outcome of her case in 2004 and 2010? Could it possibly be that having your nephew elected President of the United States gave her special privileges and status not enjoyed by other illegals? Is this what we can expect from immigration reform under Obama? For a Chicago politician, it would be business as usual.
If you answered President Barack Obama, you should get a prize. He is the nephew of Zeituni Onyango, a native of Kenya. She entered the country originally on a visitor's visa, which she overstayed. What made the difference between the outcome of her case in 2004 and 2010? Could it possibly be that having your nephew elected President of the United States gave her special privileges and status not enjoyed by other illegals? Is this what we can expect from immigration reform under Obama? For a Chicago politician, it would be business as usual.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
White House Easter Egg Roll
Only Washington public school children have been invited to this year's annual Easter Egg Roll at the White House. Private school students have been excluded from the invitation list. Does this mean that President Obama's daughters will not be allowed to attend since they attend a private school? Unlikely.
Actually, I think the two girls should attend and participate. Then, at the end of the Easter egg hunt, their dad should take their baskets and give away all the eggs they collect to the poor public school children. This would be the perfect lesson for his daughters to learn what income redistribution really means.
Actually, I think the two girls should attend and participate. Then, at the end of the Easter egg hunt, their dad should take their baskets and give away all the eggs they collect to the poor public school children. This would be the perfect lesson for his daughters to learn what income redistribution really means.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Are the Brownshirts on Order Yet?
Several years ago, I told an audience that I considered it child abuse to send children to our public schools. The reason was the humanistic, socialistic propaganda that has become endemic to the public school curriculum. I advised parents who kept their children in public schools to watch like hawks what was being taught in the classroom and the textbooks.
Then, I saw the You Tube clips of New Jersey school children singing the praises of Barack Hussein Obama. The B. Bernice Young School in Burlington Township is for grades K through 2. The video, which came to light in the media last week, dates back to February 2009, a few weeks after Obama's inauguration. It features a class of children in a Black History Month school assembly singing a song that virtually worships Obama. Here are the words:
Proof that Obama is being portrayed as though he was God is in the stanza: "He said red, yellow, black and white, all are equal in his sight." These words are taken from the hymn "Jesus Loves the Little Children." In addition, the children sang "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and included the refrain, "Hooray, Mr. President." (Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090926/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_school_song)
At the end of the video, it appeared as though the children raised their right arms in a stiff-armed salute. Although their hands were clinched, it was chillingly reminiscent of the "Heil, Hitler" salute of the Nazis.
Michelle Malkin said it best, "Out: readin', writin' and 'rithmetic. In: rappin', revolution and radicalism. Mmm, mmm, mmm." (Source: "The three R's in the age of Obama: Rappin', revolution and radicalism" http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=697234)
Has the White House ordered the brownshirts for our youth, yet?
Then, I saw the You Tube clips of New Jersey school children singing the praises of Barack Hussein Obama. The B. Bernice Young School in Burlington Township is for grades K through 2. The video, which came to light in the media last week, dates back to February 2009, a few weeks after Obama's inauguration. It features a class of children in a Black History Month school assembly singing a song that virtually worships Obama. Here are the words:
Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama
He said all should lend a hand to make the country strong again.
Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be fair today, equal work means equal pay.
Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama
He said take a stand, make sure everyone gets a chance.
Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama
He said red, yellow, black and white, all are equal in his sight.
Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama.
Yeah! Barack Hussein Obama.
...Hello, Mr. President, we honor you today
For all your great accomplishments, we all do say hooray.
Hooray, Mr. President, you are No. 1
The first black American to lead this nation.
Proof that Obama is being portrayed as though he was God is in the stanza: "He said red, yellow, black and white, all are equal in his sight." These words are taken from the hymn "Jesus Loves the Little Children." In addition, the children sang "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and included the refrain, "Hooray, Mr. President." (Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090926/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_school_song)
At the end of the video, it appeared as though the children raised their right arms in a stiff-armed salute. Although their hands were clinched, it was chillingly reminiscent of the "Heil, Hitler" salute of the Nazis.
Michelle Malkin said it best, "Out: readin', writin' and 'rithmetic. In: rappin', revolution and radicalism. Mmm, mmm, mmm." (Source: "The three R's in the age of Obama: Rappin', revolution and radicalism" http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=697234)
Has the White House ordered the brownshirts for our youth, yet?
Friday, September 11, 2009
You Rock, Rep. Joe Wilson
Here's the text of an email I just sent to South Carolina's Representative Joe Wilson:
RE: HR 3200.
Dear Rep. Wilson,
Although I am not a constituent, I just want to let you know I support your efforts to get the truth told about the proposed health care reform legislation, especially H.R. 3200. I have read all of it.
The other night when President Obama proclaimed that illegal aliens would not get health care under it, I was shouting at the T.V., "That's a lie." Ditto when he said it wouldn't cover abortion, wouldn't result in benefit cuts in Medicare, and wouldn't increase the deficit.
You apologized to President Obama for shouting out, "You lie." It may have been rude, but you told the truth. Now, I am waiting for the President's apology for lying to you, your colleagues, and the American people.
Best wishes,
Susan M. Lamb
Monday, September 7, 2009
Let Your Children Listen to President Obama's School Speech
Parents, I encourage you to allow your children to hear President Barack Obama's speech to school students scheduled tomorrow, September 8, 2009. I just finished reading the text of his speech, which was released earlier today.
Now, anyone who reads this blog, knows I am no fan of Obama. I oppose his idealogy, his policies, and most of his associates with vigor.
However, there is nothing objectionable in this speech. In fact, it is a speech that every student needs to hear and take to heart. It instructs each student to take responsibility for his or her education and to overcome obstacles. Obama urges them to work hard for their sake and for the good of the country. He uses examples from his own life as well as other students.
Parents should keep a close eye on any follow-up homework assignments. The teacher's guide was revised that asked students to write the President on how they could help him achieve his goals. Instead, the assignment now focuses on how the students can achieve their goals.
Now, anyone who reads this blog, knows I am no fan of Obama. I oppose his idealogy, his policies, and most of his associates with vigor.
However, there is nothing objectionable in this speech. In fact, it is a speech that every student needs to hear and take to heart. It instructs each student to take responsibility for his or her education and to overcome obstacles. Obama urges them to work hard for their sake and for the good of the country. He uses examples from his own life as well as other students.
Parents should keep a close eye on any follow-up homework assignments. The teacher's guide was revised that asked students to write the President on how they could help him achieve his goals. Instead, the assignment now focuses on how the students can achieve their goals.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Latest Obama Jokes
Q: What do God and Obama have in common?
A: Neither has a birth certificate!
Q: What is different about God and Obama?
A: God knows He isn't Obama!
Seriously, if there is no problem with Obama's birth certificate, why has Obama refused to share the original certified copy, which remains under seal with his school records? He has never given his campaign or White House staff permission to release the certified copy. What they released was what Hawaii calls an "authentification." According to The Patriot Post and other media, "Even those not born in Hawaii can obtain a short-form document like the one Obama has posted online" (The Patriot Post, July 17, 2009). It does not show information regarding the birth hospital and attending physician as would the full, certified birth certificate.
Now, we have the case of U.S. Army Major Stefan Frederick Cook, who refused to be deployed to Afghanistan as ordered. According to his lawyer, Orly Taitz, he was afraid he could be prosecuted as a war criminal because he believes Obama is not consitutionally qualified to be President because he was not born a U.S. citizen. Taitz was preparing to fight this issue in court. Cook had previously applied to be a conscientious objector.
The Army's response was surprising. One would have expected that they would have pursued court martial proceeding against Cook for failure to obey a legitimate order. Instead, Cook was granted his conscientious objector status and his deployment order was rescinded.
Taitz's stated afterwards, "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate -- and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order." Does that make the good folks in the Department of Defense "nutballs," the term one radio talkshow host, Andy Johnson (www.radiofreejax.com or http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DowntobusinessAndy/), suggested for anyone who doubts Obama's citizenship?
Obama could easily settle this issue once and for all by releasing the certified copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate. The fact that he will not perpetuates the rumors that he was not born in the United States and that he attended college here as a foreign student.
A: Neither has a birth certificate!
Q: What is different about God and Obama?
A: God knows He isn't Obama!
Seriously, if there is no problem with Obama's birth certificate, why has Obama refused to share the original certified copy, which remains under seal with his school records? He has never given his campaign or White House staff permission to release the certified copy. What they released was what Hawaii calls an "authentification." According to The Patriot Post and other media, "Even those not born in Hawaii can obtain a short-form document like the one Obama has posted online" (The Patriot Post, July 17, 2009). It does not show information regarding the birth hospital and attending physician as would the full, certified birth certificate.
Now, we have the case of U.S. Army Major Stefan Frederick Cook, who refused to be deployed to Afghanistan as ordered. According to his lawyer, Orly Taitz, he was afraid he could be prosecuted as a war criminal because he believes Obama is not consitutionally qualified to be President because he was not born a U.S. citizen. Taitz was preparing to fight this issue in court. Cook had previously applied to be a conscientious objector.
The Army's response was surprising. One would have expected that they would have pursued court martial proceeding against Cook for failure to obey a legitimate order. Instead, Cook was granted his conscientious objector status and his deployment order was rescinded.
Taitz's stated afterwards, "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate -- and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order." Does that make the good folks in the Department of Defense "nutballs," the term one radio talkshow host, Andy Johnson (www.radiofreejax.com or http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DowntobusinessAndy/), suggested for anyone who doubts Obama's citizenship?
Obama could easily settle this issue once and for all by releasing the certified copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate. The fact that he will not perpetuates the rumors that he was not born in the United States and that he attended college here as a foreign student.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Duty to Die, Redux
Former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm declared in March 1984, "We've got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life." (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/29/us/gov-lamm-asserts-elderly-if-very-ill-have-duty-to-die.html) He claimed he was not referring to the elderly only as having this “duty to die,” however his saying that this duty is necessary so “our kids” can “build a reasonable life” puts the lie to that disclaimer. Perhaps Lamm also had in mind younger disabled people in the group with this “duty to die.”
Fast forward twenty-five years to what the Democrats in Congress are proposing in today’s health care reform. H.R. 3200, The American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, has over eighty sections altering or reducing Medicare provider reimbursements. Estimated reductions, if this legislation were passed, would be $361.9 billion (Source: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/lewin-house-bill-heritage.pdf.This would represent a ten percent reduction over a ten-year period at the same time that Medicare enrollment is expected to increase by thirty percent as baby boomers become eligible.
Specifically, Medicare reimbursements would be reduced by 267.6% to hospitals, 10.8% to physicians, 11.2% to home health agencies, and 37.4% to skilled nursing facilities. Reductions for prescription drugs would equal 34.8% (Source: Congressional Budget Office, July 8, 2009, Preliminary Estimate of the Effects on Direct Spending and Revenues of Division B, Titles I-VII and Section 1872, of the House Tri-Committee Health Reform Discussion Draft.) .
The inevitable result will be reduced supply of Medicare providers at a time of rapidly escalating demand. H.R. 3200 demands seniors bear an inordinate burden to pay for health care for younger and working Americans. Under H.R. 3200, seniors on Medicare can expect longer waits for doctor appointments and procedures or outright denial of services.
President Obama recently echoed Gov. Lamm, telling the aged “to consider hospice care instead of treatment.” Tom Daschle, Obama’s first choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services and an advisor on health care reform, wrote, "... Health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them" (Source: whitehouse.gov/assets/hero/hero_weeklyaddress_7-18-09_CK-0081.JPG).
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is Obama’s special health policy advisor. He openly advocated healthcare rationing to the elderly in a January 2009 article in the medical journal The Lancet. In the Hastings Center Report, he wrote it would be appropriate to deny health care to "individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." He said an example would be “patients with dementia." Speaking of H.R. 3200, Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Florida) says "Despite their promise to care for our seniors, Democrats have decided that it's too expensive to care for my senior constituents and everyone else's constituents…in order to pay for the government expansion of healthcare for the young, the healthy, and the wealthy" (Source: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=616402).
Clearly, Obama and the Democrats pushing their draconian health care reform think grandma and grandpa should find a nice iceberg and passively float away. No wonder they are so fearful of global warming. They will need all the icebergs they can get for us baby boomers in the next ten years if H.R. 3200 passes.
Fast forward twenty-five years to what the Democrats in Congress are proposing in today’s health care reform. H.R. 3200, The American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, has over eighty sections altering or reducing Medicare provider reimbursements. Estimated reductions, if this legislation were passed, would be $361.9 billion (Source: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/lewin-house-bill-heritage.pdf.This would represent a ten percent reduction over a ten-year period at the same time that Medicare enrollment is expected to increase by thirty percent as baby boomers become eligible.
Specifically, Medicare reimbursements would be reduced by 267.6% to hospitals, 10.8% to physicians, 11.2% to home health agencies, and 37.4% to skilled nursing facilities. Reductions for prescription drugs would equal 34.8% (Source: Congressional Budget Office, July 8, 2009, Preliminary Estimate of the Effects on Direct Spending and Revenues of Division B, Titles I-VII and Section 1872, of the House Tri-Committee Health Reform Discussion Draft.
The inevitable result will be reduced supply of Medicare providers at a time of rapidly escalating demand. H.R. 3200 demands seniors bear an inordinate burden to pay for health care for younger and working Americans. Under H.R. 3200, seniors on Medicare can expect longer waits for doctor appointments and procedures or outright denial of services.
President Obama recently echoed Gov. Lamm, telling the aged “to consider hospice care instead of treatment.” Tom Daschle, Obama’s first choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services and an advisor on health care reform, wrote, "... Health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them" (Source: whitehouse.gov/assets/hero/hero_weeklyaddress_7-18-09_CK-0081.JPG).
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is Obama’s special health policy advisor. He openly advocated healthcare rationing to the elderly in a January 2009 article in the medical journal The Lancet. In the Hastings Center Report, he wrote it would be appropriate to deny health care to "individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." He said an example would be “patients with dementia." Speaking of H.R. 3200, Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Florida) says "Despite their promise to care for our seniors, Democrats have decided that it's too expensive to care for my senior constituents and everyone else's constituents…in order to pay for the government expansion of healthcare for the young, the healthy, and the wealthy" (Source: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=616402).
Clearly, Obama and the Democrats pushing their draconian health care reform think grandma and grandpa should find a nice iceberg and passively float away. No wonder they are so fearful of global warming. They will need all the icebergs they can get for us baby boomers in the next ten years if H.R. 3200 passes.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
N.I.M.B.Y.: Where to Put Gitmo Detainees?
Most Americans are emphatic when it comes to the Gitmo detainees and their proposed release: Not in My Backyard! President Obama is running into intense opposition to the idea of releasing any of the Guantanemo prisoners here in the United States. Congressmen and Senators have proposed legislation to bar their entrance into the country.
Obama does not seem to understand their concerns, so here is my proposal. Obama has a house in Chicago that he is not using, and it has an empty lot next to it, courtesy of his old pal Riszk. Why not let the Gitmo detainees camp out there? If Obama is so confident that moving them to the U.S. should not be cause for concern, then he should have no objection to making them his family's new neighbors.
Obama does not seem to understand their concerns, so here is my proposal. Obama has a house in Chicago that he is not using, and it has an empty lot next to it, courtesy of his old pal Riszk. Why not let the Gitmo detainees camp out there? If Obama is so confident that moving them to the U.S. should not be cause for concern, then he should have no objection to making them his family's new neighbors.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Goodbye, America
America, as we know it, ended late Friday night, February 13, 2009. When the Senate passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, it plunged the knife up to the hilt into the heart of American capitalism. For all intents and purposes, our financial system and economy have been nationalized.
When President Barack Obama signs this so-called stimulus package into law on Tuesday in Denver, America will become officially a socialist or, more accurately, a fascist nation. Even if businesses remain in private ownership, the federal government will control their operations. In many cases, the government itself will take over majority ownership.
Of course, it is no surprise. Socialists and communists have mentored Obama since his teens. Nor can he bear total blame for this end of American capitalism and financial freedom. We have been on this road for a long time, since President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty and President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Republicans, too, share blame. Never in my wildest dreams [or nightmares] would I have believed that a Republican President, George W. Bush, would nationalize the banks like he did by signing the first “stimulus” package that was rushed through Congress last Fall.
All sides acknowledge, now, that package did not work. Did Congress learn from that hasty mistake? Obviously, it did not. Most Democrats and a few Republicans stubbornly believe, despite all historical evidence to the contrary, that it is possible to spend our way out of recession. They often cite the example of FDR’s New Deal, forgetting that World War II, not the New Deal, lifted this country out of the Great Depression.
Analysis of this legislation has just begun. The Act, which spends $787 billion, is 1,071 pages long. Legislators had only fifteen hours to digest it before the vote. It is safe to say not one single Congressman or Senator read this bill before voting on it. They would have to have read 71 pages per hour or just over one page per minute, without any breaks during those fifteen hours. Previously, Speaker Nancy Pelosi had promised they would have at least 48 hours between release of the bill’s text and the vote being taken. And, it was only released in printed form. Normally, bills are published digitally, which allows Congressional staffers to do computer keyword searches to evaluate the worthiness of any piece of legislation.
The devil will be in the details. Supporters claim this act will create 3.5 million new jobs. Most economists put the number lower, at 2.5 million. But, let’s give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt and go with the 3.5 million number. That means it will cost $224,857 in government spending for each one of those jobs. Let me say that again so its truth can sink in: every single new job created by this stimulus act will cost taxpayers $224,857!
The press, both left and right, is finding all kinds of funky features buried in this bill. Some are silly, like the millions to save some endangered mouse in Speaker Pelosi’s district. Although maddening, voters should not let themselves be diverted by these trifles. This bill is too dangerous at the macro-level for us to be consumed by such micro-details.
The most alarming fact about this stimulus act is how much it raises the statutory limit on the national debt. It allows the national debt to increase from its current limit of $789 billion to $12.1 trillion. Think about it. We have never had a national debt over $1 trillion, yet the Democrats and three “Republicrats”voted for our nation’s credit line to go to a mind-boggling $12.1 trillion.
So far, the media has barely noticed this all-important detail. Yet, it is perhaps the most dangerous provision. What does it mean to allow such an increase in our national debt limit? It tells us just how much spending the Democrats are planning to do. This $787 billion must be just a down payment.
If the Democrats under Obama pass the kind of spending a $12.1 trillion national debt limit allows, it means hyperinflation. Even the U.S. with its sterling international credit rating cannot borrow that kind of money. There simply is not that much investment money in the entire world to support that kind of spending. And, some international bankers are expected to lower our nation’s bond ratings. That means higher interest rates on what we are able to borrow. If we cannot borrow the money to support our spending at reasonable rates, the government has one other option and that is to print money. It monetarizes the debt, lowering the value of the dollar so that high value dollars borrowed are repaid with lower value dollars.
This is what President Carter did in the early eighties when we had the worst recession since the Great Depression. We had double-digit inflation in a stagnant economy. If we come even close to a $12.1 trillion debt, we will have triple-digit inflation. We will be like the Germans during the Weimar Republic before Hitler. Then, it took a wheelbarrow of cash to buy a loaf of bread. That is what Americans will soon face unless the Democrats are held in check, and I am not at all optimistic that we can or will do that.
President James Madison warned, "If our nation is ever taken over, it will be taken over from within." The Socialists have taken possession of the land. Goodbye, America.
When President Barack Obama signs this so-called stimulus package into law on Tuesday in Denver, America will become officially a socialist or, more accurately, a fascist nation. Even if businesses remain in private ownership, the federal government will control their operations. In many cases, the government itself will take over majority ownership.
Of course, it is no surprise. Socialists and communists have mentored Obama since his teens. Nor can he bear total blame for this end of American capitalism and financial freedom. We have been on this road for a long time, since President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty and President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Republicans, too, share blame. Never in my wildest dreams [or nightmares] would I have believed that a Republican President, George W. Bush, would nationalize the banks like he did by signing the first “stimulus” package that was rushed through Congress last Fall.
All sides acknowledge, now, that package did not work. Did Congress learn from that hasty mistake? Obviously, it did not. Most Democrats and a few Republicans stubbornly believe, despite all historical evidence to the contrary, that it is possible to spend our way out of recession. They often cite the example of FDR’s New Deal, forgetting that World War II, not the New Deal, lifted this country out of the Great Depression.
Analysis of this legislation has just begun. The Act, which spends $787 billion, is 1,071 pages long. Legislators had only fifteen hours to digest it before the vote. It is safe to say not one single Congressman or Senator read this bill before voting on it. They would have to have read 71 pages per hour or just over one page per minute, without any breaks during those fifteen hours. Previously, Speaker Nancy Pelosi had promised they would have at least 48 hours between release of the bill’s text and the vote being taken. And, it was only released in printed form. Normally, bills are published digitally, which allows Congressional staffers to do computer keyword searches to evaluate the worthiness of any piece of legislation.
The devil will be in the details. Supporters claim this act will create 3.5 million new jobs. Most economists put the number lower, at 2.5 million. But, let’s give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt and go with the 3.5 million number. That means it will cost $224,857 in government spending for each one of those jobs. Let me say that again so its truth can sink in: every single new job created by this stimulus act will cost taxpayers $224,857!
The press, both left and right, is finding all kinds of funky features buried in this bill. Some are silly, like the millions to save some endangered mouse in Speaker Pelosi’s district. Although maddening, voters should not let themselves be diverted by these trifles. This bill is too dangerous at the macro-level for us to be consumed by such micro-details.
The most alarming fact about this stimulus act is how much it raises the statutory limit on the national debt. It allows the national debt to increase from its current limit of $789 billion to $12.1 trillion. Think about it. We have never had a national debt over $1 trillion, yet the Democrats and three “Republicrats”voted for our nation’s credit line to go to a mind-boggling $12.1 trillion.
So far, the media has barely noticed this all-important detail. Yet, it is perhaps the most dangerous provision. What does it mean to allow such an increase in our national debt limit? It tells us just how much spending the Democrats are planning to do. This $787 billion must be just a down payment.
If the Democrats under Obama pass the kind of spending a $12.1 trillion national debt limit allows, it means hyperinflation. Even the U.S. with its sterling international credit rating cannot borrow that kind of money. There simply is not that much investment money in the entire world to support that kind of spending. And, some international bankers are expected to lower our nation’s bond ratings. That means higher interest rates on what we are able to borrow. If we cannot borrow the money to support our spending at reasonable rates, the government has one other option and that is to print money. It monetarizes the debt, lowering the value of the dollar so that high value dollars borrowed are repaid with lower value dollars.
This is what President Carter did in the early eighties when we had the worst recession since the Great Depression. We had double-digit inflation in a stagnant economy. If we come even close to a $12.1 trillion debt, we will have triple-digit inflation. We will be like the Germans during the Weimar Republic before Hitler. Then, it took a wheelbarrow of cash to buy a loaf of bread. That is what Americans will soon face unless the Democrats are held in check, and I am not at all optimistic that we can or will do that.
President James Madison warned, "If our nation is ever taken over, it will be taken over from within." The Socialists have taken possession of the land. Goodbye, America.
Monday, February 9, 2009
President Barack Obama Spams
On Monday, February 2, 2009 10:33 AM, I received spam from President Barack Obama. It took awhile for me to figure out how he obtained my email address. I have never emailed or registered with either the Obama campaign or the Democratic National Committee. Then, I remembered that I had sent an email message to Hillary Clinton after the last presidential primary, encouraging her to take her fight to the Democratic Convention in Denver. My best guess is that she sold or gave my address to them without my permission.
In any event, it was a shock to see email from the President in my inbox. I was incensed that he had the gall to send unsolicited email to me. Then, when I opened it, I became amused.
The silly man sent a lifelong Republican an invitation to host an “Economic Recovery House Meeting” the weekend of February 7th-8th. Its purpose would be to drum up support for the economic stimulus package. Hosts were suppose to show a video with Governor Tim Kaine “outlining the recovery plan and answering questions about what it means for your community.” I could even submit my questions regarding the plan online prior to the meeting.
Oh, I was so tempted to volunteer to host a meeting. This Republican would have had one heck of a good time explaining and reviewing this so-called stimulus package. I thoroughly reviewed the information on the host guides. They gave the suggested agenda and timeframes as well as action plans before, during, and after the meeting. I chuckled my way through the “talking points” for the economic stimulus plan.
However, I resisted the temptation to host one of these meetings. After all, volunteering would only encourage future email from Obama and the Democrats. I get enough spam, thank you, even with a spam filter.
Instead, I am filing a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This piece of email violates existing anti-spam legislation in two ways. First, it was sent without invitation to someone who has no existing business relationship with the President or the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Secondly, it did not correctly identify the physical address of the sender as required. Finally, the purpose of the email was not clearly defined in the subject line.
The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act), which became effective January 1, 2004, “bans false or misleading header information. Your email's 'From,' 'To,' and routing information – including the originating domain name and email address – must be accurate and identify the person who initiated the email.” This email’s header showed:
From: "President Barack Obama"
However, at the bottom of the email was this information:
“Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org.
This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Democratic National Committee, 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20003”
The FTC clearly instructs that the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 requires that every commercial email “also must include your valid physical postal address.” Now, everyone knows the President’s actual physical address is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., not 430 S. Capitol St. SE, which is where the DNC has its headquarters. Clearly this violates the F.T.C. rules.
Another proviso of the Act “prohibits deceptive subject lines. The subject line cannot mislead the recipient about the contents or subject matter of the message.” The SUBJECT LINE of this email was: “What recovery means for you.” One can legitimately debate if this was deceptive. However, the email did little to answer the question posed in the header’s subject. Instead, it primarily focused on this meeting and organizing support for passage of the stimulus package.
Each violation of these FTC rules “is subject to fines of up to $11,000.” Stay-tuned for the outcome of my complaint. If successful, it will be far more beneficial for my personal economic stimulus than anything in the President’s plan.
In any event, it was a shock to see email from the President in my inbox. I was incensed that he had the gall to send unsolicited email to me. Then, when I opened it, I became amused.
The silly man sent a lifelong Republican an invitation to host an “Economic Recovery House Meeting” the weekend of February 7th-8th. Its purpose would be to drum up support for the economic stimulus package. Hosts were suppose to show a video with Governor Tim Kaine “outlining the recovery plan and answering questions about what it means for your community.” I could even submit my questions regarding the plan online prior to the meeting.
Oh, I was so tempted to volunteer to host a meeting. This Republican would have had one heck of a good time explaining and reviewing this so-called stimulus package. I thoroughly reviewed the information on the host guides. They gave the suggested agenda and timeframes as well as action plans before, during, and after the meeting. I chuckled my way through the “talking points” for the economic stimulus plan.
However, I resisted the temptation to host one of these meetings. After all, volunteering would only encourage future email from Obama and the Democrats. I get enough spam, thank you, even with a spam filter.
Instead, I am filing a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This piece of email violates existing anti-spam legislation in two ways. First, it was sent without invitation to someone who has no existing business relationship with the President or the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Secondly, it did not correctly identify the physical address of the sender as required. Finally, the purpose of the email was not clearly defined in the subject line.
The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act), which became effective January 1, 2004, “bans false or misleading header information. Your email's 'From,' 'To,' and routing information – including the originating domain name and email address – must be accurate and identify the person who initiated the email.” This email’s header showed:
From: "President Barack Obama"
However, at the bottom of the email was this information:
“Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org.
This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Democratic National Committee, 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20003”
The FTC clearly instructs that the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 requires that every commercial email “also must include your valid physical postal address.” Now, everyone knows the President’s actual physical address is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., not 430 S. Capitol St. SE, which is where the DNC has its headquarters. Clearly this violates the F.T.C. rules.
Another proviso of the Act “prohibits deceptive subject lines. The subject line cannot mislead the recipient about the contents or subject matter of the message.” The SUBJECT LINE of this email was: “What recovery means for you.” One can legitimately debate if this was deceptive. However, the email did little to answer the question posed in the header’s subject. Instead, it primarily focused on this meeting and organizing support for passage of the stimulus package.
Each violation of these FTC rules “is subject to fines of up to $11,000.” Stay-tuned for the outcome of my complaint. If successful, it will be far more beneficial for my personal economic stimulus than anything in the President’s plan.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Southerners Snubbed?
The Associated Press reported on December 20, 2008, "The South may have inched toward Democrats in November, but that progress isn't showing in President-elect Barack Obama's Cabinet selections. Obama hasn't nominated a single Southerner among his 15 Cabinet secretaries."
A very few with Southern roots have made it onto Obama's appointment list. Former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk has been tapped for U.S. trade representative, a relatively obscure post. Lisa Jackson, Obama's choice to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, grew up in New Orleans. However, she has lived and worked in the Northeast for most of her life. Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, is from Alabama and has worked for several Southern representatives on Capitol Hill.
Nonetheless, this is the first administration since President Dwight Eisenhower without a Southerner in a cabinet post. Southerners need not apply," said disgruntled Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga. "It's hard to believe that there wasn't anybody qualified for something from the South." It was a region Democrats held without dispute before the Reagan revolution, and they hope to return to their majority status in the South. Does snubbing Southerners make sense, then?
A very few with Southern roots have made it onto Obama's appointment list. Former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk has been tapped for U.S. trade representative, a relatively obscure post. Lisa Jackson, Obama's choice to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, grew up in New Orleans. However, she has lived and worked in the Northeast for most of her life. Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, is from Alabama and has worked for several Southern representatives on Capitol Hill.
Nonetheless, this is the first administration since President Dwight Eisenhower without a Southerner in a cabinet post. Southerners need not apply," said disgruntled Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga. "It's hard to believe that there wasn't anybody qualified for something from the South." It was a region Democrats held without dispute before the Reagan revolution, and they hope to return to their majority status in the South. Does snubbing Southerners make sense, then?
Saturday, January 31, 2009
“Do As I Say, Not As I Do”: Business as Usual in Washington
Word is that President Barack Hussein Obama does not like to be cold, so he has ordered the White House thermostats turned up. Senior advisor, David Axelrod reminds us, “He’s from Hawaii, Okay? He likes it warm.” Axelrod went on to say that it was hot enough in the Oval Office to grow orchids. (Source: The Patriot Post, 1/30/09)
Now, this would be fine except that President Obama is one of those who hyperventilate about global warming. Environmentalists have lectured us that we should all turn our thermostats down to 68ยบ in the winter to save the planet.
Does the President want to destroy spaceship earth? Or, is this just another example of liberal double standards? You and I should sit in our chilly rooms, wearing heavy sweaters, while the liberal elite enjoy warm and cozy rooms in their shirt sleeves.
This is not the only example of double standards in the first two weeks of this new administration. Our new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner fails to pay income taxes on time and still gets confirmed by the Senate. Now, Senator Tom Daschle is reported to have tax-paying troubles, too.
Surely everybody knows tax laws that require paying the full amount of taxes owed on time are only for us “little people,” don’t they? Surely, the liberal elites themselves should not be held to the same standards. After all, if they were, it might inhibit the speed at which they increase taxes and spend revenues.
Then, we have the new ethical standards regarding lobbyists and their relationships to the White House that Obama ordered on his first day in office. The goal is to keep the two at arms’ length by barring lobbyists from working in the administration for two years. While campaigning, Obama promised lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House.” Yet, both Geithner and Daschle have been Washington lobbyists.
Geithner named Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, as his chief of staff. Obama has appointed William Lynn, who lobbied on behalf of defense contractor Raytheon, as deputy defense secretary. Both of these appointments are clear violations of Obama’s self-imposed new ethics.
Ah, but the new rules allow exceptions. Poor Robert Gibbs, the new White House Press Secretary, had the unenviable task of justifying these two appointments. He tried Wednesday to convince us that granting these exceptions does not conflict with “the strongest ethics and transparency policy...seen in the history of our country.”
Can you imagine what the press would be saying if former President George W. Bush had pulled this stunt? He would have been strung up as the most craven hypocrite. But, because this is the press’s darling, a fellow “progressive” President, Obama gets a pass. Ethics rules are for others, not him. Hmm, sounds like Washington business as usual.
Now, this would be fine except that President Obama is one of those who hyperventilate about global warming. Environmentalists have lectured us that we should all turn our thermostats down to 68ยบ in the winter to save the planet.
Does the President want to destroy spaceship earth? Or, is this just another example of liberal double standards? You and I should sit in our chilly rooms, wearing heavy sweaters, while the liberal elite enjoy warm and cozy rooms in their shirt sleeves.
This is not the only example of double standards in the first two weeks of this new administration. Our new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner fails to pay income taxes on time and still gets confirmed by the Senate. Now, Senator Tom Daschle is reported to have tax-paying troubles, too.
Surely everybody knows tax laws that require paying the full amount of taxes owed on time are only for us “little people,” don’t they? Surely, the liberal elites themselves should not be held to the same standards. After all, if they were, it might inhibit the speed at which they increase taxes and spend revenues.
Then, we have the new ethical standards regarding lobbyists and their relationships to the White House that Obama ordered on his first day in office. The goal is to keep the two at arms’ length by barring lobbyists from working in the administration for two years. While campaigning, Obama promised lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House.” Yet, both Geithner and Daschle have been Washington lobbyists.
Geithner named Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, as his chief of staff. Obama has appointed William Lynn, who lobbied on behalf of defense contractor Raytheon, as deputy defense secretary. Both of these appointments are clear violations of Obama’s self-imposed new ethics.
Ah, but the new rules allow exceptions. Poor Robert Gibbs, the new White House Press Secretary, had the unenviable task of justifying these two appointments. He tried Wednesday to convince us that granting these exceptions does not conflict with “the strongest ethics and transparency policy...seen in the history of our country.”
Can you imagine what the press would be saying if former President George W. Bush had pulled this stunt? He would have been strung up as the most craven hypocrite. But, because this is the press’s darling, a fellow “progressive” President, Obama gets a pass. Ethics rules are for others, not him. Hmm, sounds like Washington business as usual.
Monday, January 19, 2009
"We've Only Just Begun" to Deal with Scandals
The Obama transition team has been hit by a number of scandals in its two-month existence. For the most part, they have fumbled on the ball. Given Obama's Chicago and Illinois political roots, scandals will become presidential business-as-usual for the next four years.
The post-election scandals began with the shocking-to-all-who-do-not-live-in-Illinois behavior of Governor Rod Blagojevich. His attempt to essentially sell Obama's senate seat is classic Illinois politics. Blagojevich, most likely, sincerely believes he did nothing wrong. He seems confused that people in other parts of the country are outraged at his alleged actions. After all, in Illinois, you cannot become a dog catcher or trash collector without paybacks of some kind.
Because so many of Obama's most trusted advisors on his transition team come from the Illinois and Chicago political swamps, it is not surprising that they have run into problems with some of their appointments. They simply do not understand the ethical standards that most Americans expect of their politicians.
Thus, they allowed Obama to appoint New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson as Commerce Secretary despite an alleged pay-to-play scandal with state contracts. Timothy Geithner has been nominated as Treasury Secretary. Geithner failed to pay self-employment taxes from 2001-2004. The Obama team is trying to pass this off as a "mistake." However, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)audited him for 2003-2004. Geithner paid $16,732 in taxes and penalties, as a result. However, he failed to amend his 2001-2002 tax returns and pay the $25,970 owed until he was nominated. Given the earlier audit, it is hard to understand how this was not a deliberate omission, not a mistake.
While the team quickly accepted the withdrawal of Richardson's nomination, they are defending Geithner. They do not seem to understand that Americans are not happy to see a Treasury Secretary who will be responsible for the IRS not paying his taxes in a timely fashion.
The problem with Illinois and Chicago politics is there is a double standard. Politicians and citizens have two different, often diametrically opposite, standards of behavior. Politicians there routinely enjoy special privileges not granted to ordinary citizens. Politicians there are given a pass and often do not have to abide by the laws other citizens must.
During the campaign, I tried to warn that it would not be good to have the Chicago machine, financed by the Mafia, running the country. Unfortunately, the American people did not listen to those of us who cautioned them. So, for the next four years, get use to scandal after scandal. For these Illini who are about to enter the White House, it will be business-as-usual.
The post-election scandals began with the shocking-to-all-who-do-not-live-in-Illinois behavior of Governor Rod Blagojevich. His attempt to essentially sell Obama's senate seat is classic Illinois politics. Blagojevich, most likely, sincerely believes he did nothing wrong. He seems confused that people in other parts of the country are outraged at his alleged actions. After all, in Illinois, you cannot become a dog catcher or trash collector without paybacks of some kind.
Because so many of Obama's most trusted advisors on his transition team come from the Illinois and Chicago political swamps, it is not surprising that they have run into problems with some of their appointments. They simply do not understand the ethical standards that most Americans expect of their politicians.
Thus, they allowed Obama to appoint New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson as Commerce Secretary despite an alleged pay-to-play scandal with state contracts. Timothy Geithner has been nominated as Treasury Secretary. Geithner failed to pay self-employment taxes from 2001-2004. The Obama team is trying to pass this off as a "mistake." However, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)audited him for 2003-2004. Geithner paid $16,732 in taxes and penalties, as a result. However, he failed to amend his 2001-2002 tax returns and pay the $25,970 owed until he was nominated. Given the earlier audit, it is hard to understand how this was not a deliberate omission, not a mistake.
While the team quickly accepted the withdrawal of Richardson's nomination, they are defending Geithner. They do not seem to understand that Americans are not happy to see a Treasury Secretary who will be responsible for the IRS not paying his taxes in a timely fashion.
The problem with Illinois and Chicago politics is there is a double standard. Politicians and citizens have two different, often diametrically opposite, standards of behavior. Politicians there routinely enjoy special privileges not granted to ordinary citizens. Politicians there are given a pass and often do not have to abide by the laws other citizens must.
During the campaign, I tried to warn that it would not be good to have the Chicago machine, financed by the Mafia, running the country. Unfortunately, the American people did not listen to those of us who cautioned them. So, for the next four years, get use to scandal after scandal. For these Illini who are about to enter the White House, it will be business-as-usual.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
2009 Fearless Forecasts
Another year, another set of fearless forecasts designed to prove psychics are no more reliable predictors of the future than anybody else. Here are my 2009 predictions. Please join in the fun and make your own. If you are having a New Year’s Eve party, get your guests involved. Write all their forecasts down and save the list to reveal the results at next year’s party.
· The economic downturn will be much worse by year-end. Some economists will say we are in a depression as predicted by the Elliott Wave Theory.
· Deflation will be a problem. Housing prices, in particular, will be in free fall again or still.
· The Dow will drop to 5,500 or lower, then rebound to around 8,000. Gold will go to above 1,000.
· Unemployment will be 9.9% or higher by year-end.
· The bailouts of the financial system will not work, and large banks, brokerage firms, etc. will fail because the Federal Reserve Bank cannot lend at less than 0% interest.
· Thousands of retail stores and restaurants, including national chains, will be forced into bankruptcy or will close to stop losses.
· Shortly after Barack Obama’s inauguration, he and/or his staff will be implicated in Chicago or Illinois political corruption. By year’s end, the media will have turned on Obama with vicious attacks.
· The Midwest will have flooding problems again this year due to higher than normal snowfall.
· A Montana earthquake will surprise people. It will cause little damage and no loss of life.
· We will be mired in an Afghan war where we will be unsure who our enemies and friends are. It will be compared to what the Russians experienced or Vietnam.
· Suicide bombers will come to North America, either in Canada or the U.S. If here, they will target Las Vegas.
· Jacksonville will continue to dodge hurricanes despite a very active hurricane season.
· Israel will attack Iran if we do not, and this will cause an explosive counter-reaction among Arabs. Russia, not the U.S., will intervene. Most of Europe, especially Germany, will side with Russia against Israel.
· Despite saber rattling, Pakistan and India will not go to war.
· U.S. troops will make repeated incursions into Pakistan’s northern areas to flush out Al-Qaeda.
· Mexican drug lord terrorists will continue cross-border intrusions into the U.S. The tragic death of an innocent child will galvanize public opinion and force a reluctant administration to crack down and counter-attack.
Here’s one much longer-term prediction: If Obama fulfills his campaign promise to raise taxes on the wealthy, it will guarantee a depression, and he will become the 21st century’s Herbert Hoover. It will also assure the return of Republican control of the House in 2010 and his defeat in 2012.
· The economic downturn will be much worse by year-end. Some economists will say we are in a depression as predicted by the Elliott Wave Theory.
· Deflation will be a problem. Housing prices, in particular, will be in free fall again or still.
· The Dow will drop to 5,500 or lower, then rebound to around 8,000. Gold will go to above 1,000.
· Unemployment will be 9.9% or higher by year-end.
· The bailouts of the financial system will not work, and large banks, brokerage firms, etc. will fail because the Federal Reserve Bank cannot lend at less than 0% interest.
· Thousands of retail stores and restaurants, including national chains, will be forced into bankruptcy or will close to stop losses.
· Shortly after Barack Obama’s inauguration, he and/or his staff will be implicated in Chicago or Illinois political corruption. By year’s end, the media will have turned on Obama with vicious attacks.
· The Midwest will have flooding problems again this year due to higher than normal snowfall.
· A Montana earthquake will surprise people. It will cause little damage and no loss of life.
· We will be mired in an Afghan war where we will be unsure who our enemies and friends are. It will be compared to what the Russians experienced or Vietnam.
· Suicide bombers will come to North America, either in Canada or the U.S. If here, they will target Las Vegas.
· Jacksonville will continue to dodge hurricanes despite a very active hurricane season.
· Israel will attack Iran if we do not, and this will cause an explosive counter-reaction among Arabs. Russia, not the U.S., will intervene. Most of Europe, especially Germany, will side with Russia against Israel.
· Despite saber rattling, Pakistan and India will not go to war.
· U.S. troops will make repeated incursions into Pakistan’s northern areas to flush out Al-Qaeda.
· Mexican drug lord terrorists will continue cross-border intrusions into the U.S. The tragic death of an innocent child will galvanize public opinion and force a reluctant administration to crack down and counter-attack.
Here’s one much longer-term prediction: If Obama fulfills his campaign promise to raise taxes on the wealthy, it will guarantee a depression, and he will become the 21st century’s Herbert Hoover. It will also assure the return of Republican control of the House in 2010 and his defeat in 2012.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
What's Next?
A League of the South friend sent me a link to an article by Gerald Celente entitled "Food Riots, Tax Rebellions By 2012...Trend forecaster, renowned for being accurate in the past, says." Celente is a well-respected and often accurate prognosticator of future trends. In this article, he predicts that the United States will be in the depths of a severe depression that will result in food riots, tax rebellions, and middle class revolution by 2012. My friend asked for my response to the article, which is posted below. (Go to http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1ad_1226630673 to read it.)
If Barack Obama succeeds in raising taxes as he plans, then he will be the 21st century's Herbert Hoover and a depression will be unstoppable. Even without tax increases, it may be too late to stop the slide. The major difference between now and 1929 is that, back then, most people were able to grow their own food. We were less urbanized, so many people either had or knew relatives who had farms. Most men knew how to hunt and fish. They might be poor but they had sources of food. Even people who lived in towns and cities usually had vegetable gardens that sustained them. Women knew how to can or preserve food and bake bread. Today, hardly anyone knows how to grow or preserve food. So, Celente is on the mark that food riots and desperation will be more likely in a depression today.
Also, the whole moral fabric of society has broken down. In 1929, almost everyone went to church and had a strong belief in Christian values. The whole extended family structure was stronger and closer. Neighbors helping neighbors was the norm, not the exception. So, despite their poverty, crime actually decreased during the Great Depression. That won't be the case today.
Will we have a revolution or a new civil war? I don't know, although Celente isn't the first to expect one. Frankly, I think Celente is being optimistic in thinking we'll have until 2012 before it happens. The likely response with Obama and his Marxist ideology will be martial law and severe repression by the federal government. Current laws and executive orders allow the federal and state governments to confiscate private holdings in declared emergencies. Read them and weep.
My best recommendation for people is to become as debt-free as possible, keep as little as possible in the bank, and buy junk silver coins. I say silver because it is more liquid and less likely to be confiscated or made illegal again than gold.
I'm already doing what my grandfather did before the Crash of '29. It was preceded by a credit crunch like today. All of a sudden, his business's vendors started asking for immediate payments, and he noticed that, if he wrote their salesman a check, they cashed it immediately at his local bank. Since he and his father had done business with these firms for years and he knew it wasn't because he was a poor credit risk, he deduced something bad was coming. So, he started doing the same thing with his customers. (He was a John Deere farm implement dealer.) If he received a check, he cashed it the same day at their bank. He also withdrew almost all his money from his bank accounts, keeping in them only the minimum needed to operate his business or pay personal bills. He sold the few stocks and bonds he owned. He did this several months before the banks collapsed and the stock market crashed. As a result, he was relatively well off during the Depression and was able to help friends and neighbors during it. I now withdraw most of my disability income the same day I receive it. I keep in the bank only what I need to pay rent, phone, cable, etc. I am being very frugal in anticipation that those checks might suddenly stop coming, and I am reviewing my own survival plans and options.
I also recommend people who have any land at all to learn to grow vegetables and plant fruit bushes and trees. Even those who have only a small yard or patio can grow food through intensive farming techniques. Fruit bushes and trees can replace nonproductive landscaping and still look attractive. Buying a small plot (half an acres or more) of sunny, well drained rural land with a water source would be a good idea, too. It could give a refuge from urban riots and a place to grow food. If I have to camp in a tent, I sure don't want it to be in an urban tent city.
Of course, keeping emergency food and household supplies is always recommended. The Mormons set an example in this regard; they advise their followers to keep a two-year supply of all household and food necessities in storage. Getting off the electric grid, having a water well, saving rain water, and composting are all things one can do to become more self-sufficient. All will help you save money today, be good for the environment, and help you survive a crisis.
If you don't have firearms, get them now along with sufficient supplies of ammunition. Obama and the Democrats in Congress will go against our gun rights very quickly. He has long advocated "confiscatory" tax rates on ammunition sales, so stock up. Besides self-defense weapons (handguns), hunting rifles and shotguns provide food, if needed. Training in hunting, shooting, and other outdoor survival skills are essential. Firearms do no good if the owner doesn't know how to use them safely. One of the best books to have is How to Survive in the Woods. Army survival manuals are good to have in your library, also.
Finally, if you don't already have a passport, get one. Worst case, you may want to leave. It takes 6-8 weeks minimum to get one. It costs $100 for a new one if you have never had one or it has been over 15 years since you had one. There is also a new $45 passport card but it is valid only for land or sea travel (no air) to Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda. You can apply for a passport at most post offices. Go to http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html for complete instructions. Personally, I'm applying for mine before January 20th because history tells me repressive governments put travel restrictions in place very quickly.
Thanks for sending this article. Now is the time to prepare. Each family should assess their situation, determine what they need to learn and have in order to be more self-sufficient, and begin executing their plan so they aren't in panic when trouble comes. Nothing beats being prepared for the worst while praying and hoping for the best. Deo Vindice.
If Barack Obama succeeds in raising taxes as he plans, then he will be the 21st century's Herbert Hoover and a depression will be unstoppable. Even without tax increases, it may be too late to stop the slide. The major difference between now and 1929 is that, back then, most people were able to grow their own food. We were less urbanized, so many people either had or knew relatives who had farms. Most men knew how to hunt and fish. They might be poor but they had sources of food. Even people who lived in towns and cities usually had vegetable gardens that sustained them. Women knew how to can or preserve food and bake bread. Today, hardly anyone knows how to grow or preserve food. So, Celente is on the mark that food riots and desperation will be more likely in a depression today.
Also, the whole moral fabric of society has broken down. In 1929, almost everyone went to church and had a strong belief in Christian values. The whole extended family structure was stronger and closer. Neighbors helping neighbors was the norm, not the exception. So, despite their poverty, crime actually decreased during the Great Depression. That won't be the case today.
Will we have a revolution or a new civil war? I don't know, although Celente isn't the first to expect one. Frankly, I think Celente is being optimistic in thinking we'll have until 2012 before it happens. The likely response with Obama and his Marxist ideology will be martial law and severe repression by the federal government. Current laws and executive orders allow the federal and state governments to confiscate private holdings in declared emergencies. Read them and weep.
My best recommendation for people is to become as debt-free as possible, keep as little as possible in the bank, and buy junk silver coins. I say silver because it is more liquid and less likely to be confiscated or made illegal again than gold.
I'm already doing what my grandfather did before the Crash of '29. It was preceded by a credit crunch like today. All of a sudden, his business's vendors started asking for immediate payments, and he noticed that, if he wrote their salesman a check, they cashed it immediately at his local bank. Since he and his father had done business with these firms for years and he knew it wasn't because he was a poor credit risk, he deduced something bad was coming. So, he started doing the same thing with his customers. (He was a John Deere farm implement dealer.) If he received a check, he cashed it the same day at their bank. He also withdrew almost all his money from his bank accounts, keeping in them only the minimum needed to operate his business or pay personal bills. He sold the few stocks and bonds he owned. He did this several months before the banks collapsed and the stock market crashed. As a result, he was relatively well off during the Depression and was able to help friends and neighbors during it. I now withdraw most of my disability income the same day I receive it. I keep in the bank only what I need to pay rent, phone, cable, etc. I am being very frugal in anticipation that those checks might suddenly stop coming, and I am reviewing my own survival plans and options.
I also recommend people who have any land at all to learn to grow vegetables and plant fruit bushes and trees. Even those who have only a small yard or patio can grow food through intensive farming techniques. Fruit bushes and trees can replace nonproductive landscaping and still look attractive. Buying a small plot (half an acres or more) of sunny, well drained rural land with a water source would be a good idea, too. It could give a refuge from urban riots and a place to grow food. If I have to camp in a tent, I sure don't want it to be in an urban tent city.
Of course, keeping emergency food and household supplies is always recommended. The Mormons set an example in this regard; they advise their followers to keep a two-year supply of all household and food necessities in storage. Getting off the electric grid, having a water well, saving rain water, and composting are all things one can do to become more self-sufficient. All will help you save money today, be good for the environment, and help you survive a crisis.
If you don't have firearms, get them now along with sufficient supplies of ammunition. Obama and the Democrats in Congress will go against our gun rights very quickly. He has long advocated "confiscatory" tax rates on ammunition sales, so stock up. Besides self-defense weapons (handguns), hunting rifles and shotguns provide food, if needed. Training in hunting, shooting, and other outdoor survival skills are essential. Firearms do no good if the owner doesn't know how to use them safely. One of the best books to have is How to Survive in the Woods. Army survival manuals are good to have in your library, also.
Finally, if you don't already have a passport, get one. Worst case, you may want to leave. It takes 6-8 weeks minimum to get one. It costs $100 for a new one if you have never had one or it has been over 15 years since you had one. There is also a new $45 passport card but it is valid only for land or sea travel (no air) to Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda. You can apply for a passport at most post offices. Go to http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html for complete instructions. Personally, I'm applying for mine before January 20th because history tells me repressive governments put travel restrictions in place very quickly.
Thanks for sending this article. Now is the time to prepare. Each family should assess their situation, determine what they need to learn and have in order to be more self-sufficient, and begin executing their plan so they aren't in panic when trouble comes. Nothing beats being prepared for the worst while praying and hoping for the best. Deo Vindice.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
What Does Obama Mean When He Calls for a “Civilian National Security Force”?
On July 2, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama said, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." (Joseph Farah, "Obama's 'Civilian national security force'," World Net Daily, July 15, 2008, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=69601) What is a Civilian National Security Force (CNSF) suppose to do that it needs to be “as powerful, strong, and well-funded” as the United States military?
The mainstream media has given no attention to this proposal even though it involves a mind-boggling federal budget expense. Only World Net Daily, the Chicago Tribune, and the Congressional Quarterly reported on it. More interestingly, neither Obama himself nor any of his campaign staff have been willing, so far, to answer any inquiries on the subject. They scrubbed these sentences from the transcript of the speech, claiming they were ad-libbed remarks, and removed the video. A thorough review of the Obama’s official campaign website finds nary a mention of a “Civilian National Security Force.”
The closest approximation of the term was in a section entitled “Develop Whole of Government Initiatives to Promote Global Stability” under “Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan.” There is a paragraph: “Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC): An Obama-Biden administration will set a goal of creating a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill, sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad.” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/defense/)
The Obama-Biden plan calls for “universal voluntary public service.” He has proposed to “expand AmeriCorps from 75,000 slots today to 250,000,” improve “programs that connect individuals over the age of 55 to quality volunteer opportunities,” “double the Peace Corps to 16,000 by 2011,” and “set up an America's Voice Initiative to send Americans who are fluent speakers of local languages to expand our public diplomacy.” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/)
Lee Cary of American Thinker believes this expansion of national service is the context for Obama’s call for a CNSF. “They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers” with Obama as “Community Organizer in Chief.”
Cary calls the plan “Orwellian-like” because the way it extends the tentacles of the federal government into every aspect of traditionally private-sector volunteer efforts. Others have worried that Obama’s plans are more Hitler-like. Is Cary correct in saying that it is the massive expansion of government-run volunteer opportunities that Obama was talking about in Colorado Springs when he spoke of a CNSF? I am among the concerned skeptics.
Joseph Farah, the World Net Daily reporter who broke the story, inquired,
The numbers alone do not add up to mean Obama’s volunteer program proposals alone. The Department of Defense (DOD) budget in 2008 is about $480 billion. Even if Congress authorized funding for every one of Obama’s volunteer expansions, it would not come close to half a trillion dollars. Yet, he said the CNSF must be “just as well-funded" as the military.
As one blogger questioned, “The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such “youth” organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?” (The Blue Collar Muse, “What in the world is Obama’s Civilian National Security Force,” July 16, 2008 http://conservablogs.com/bluecollarmuse/2008/07/16/what-in-the-world-is-obamas-civilian-national-security-force/)
The context just before the CNSF mention in Obama’s Colorado Springs speech was:
Most commentators believe that the CNSF is an additional organization and not part of the previously cited propositions. I agree based on both the context and the key phrases “security force” combined with “just as strong.” Will the CNSF be a way of imposing martial law without violating “posse comatatus” laws? Will it be a federalized police force? Under the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were careful to delineate the boundaries of “civilian” and “military” matters. They put civilians firmly in charge of the military, knowing that without such controls, rights of citizens can be trampled. The CNSF sounds too much like a paramilitary operation.
Of course, the whole matter could be resolved if Obama would answer some questions about what he met when he called for a CNSF. “If what he really meant was Americorps and the the Peace Corps, then why won’t he say so? Why have the video and text been scrubbed from so many places? Why isn’t it available even at his own website? Might it have been a trial balloon that failed in spectacular fashion reminiscent of the Hindenburg?” (Ibid.)
Farang Korat on October 18, 2008, shared a conversation he had with members of the Nation of Islam, “I was told that sometime soon after Obama is ‘elected’ he will announce the creation of large ‘training camps’ in a few large urban cities.” He was told that “the instructors at those camps would be from the ranks of Farrakhan’s ‘Fruit of Islam’ (his bodyguards).” Could this be the beginning of Obama’s CNSF? (Ibid.)
When I first heard this term “CNSF,” I had two reactions. One was a recall of Hitler’s youth corps, the Brown Shirts. The other was Hitler’s SS Corps. Here is the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of “SS”: “An elite quasi-military unit of the Nazi party that served as Hitler's personal guard and as a special security force in Germany and the occupied countries. ETYMOLOGY: German, abbr. for Schutzstaffel : Schutz, defense + Staffel, echelon” [emphasis added]. (The American Heritage Dictionary Fourth Edition 2000 http://www.bartleby.com/61/88/S0688800.html) I report. You decide.
The mainstream media has given no attention to this proposal even though it involves a mind-boggling federal budget expense. Only World Net Daily, the Chicago Tribune, and the Congressional Quarterly reported on it. More interestingly, neither Obama himself nor any of his campaign staff have been willing, so far, to answer any inquiries on the subject. They scrubbed these sentences from the transcript of the speech, claiming they were ad-libbed remarks, and removed the video. A thorough review of the Obama’s official campaign website finds nary a mention of a “Civilian National Security Force.”
The closest approximation of the term was in a section entitled “Develop Whole of Government Initiatives to Promote Global Stability” under “Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan.” There is a paragraph: “Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC): An Obama-Biden administration will set a goal of creating a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill, sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad.” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/defense/)
The Obama-Biden plan calls for “universal voluntary public service.” He has proposed to “expand AmeriCorps from 75,000 slots today to 250,000,” improve “programs that connect individuals over the age of 55 to quality volunteer opportunities,” “double the Peace Corps to 16,000 by 2011,” and “set up an America's Voice Initiative to send Americans who are fluent speakers of local languages to expand our public diplomacy.” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/)
Lee Cary of American Thinker believes this expansion of national service is the context for Obama’s call for a CNSF. “They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers” with Obama as “Community Organizer in Chief.”
“He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.”His plan calls for “a Social Investment Fund Network to link local non-profits with the federal government.” (Lee Cary, "Obama's Civilian National Security Force," American Thinker, July 20, 2008, http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html)
Cary calls the plan “Orwellian-like” because the way it extends the tentacles of the federal government into every aspect of traditionally private-sector volunteer efforts. Others have worried that Obama’s plans are more Hitler-like. Is Cary correct in saying that it is the massive expansion of government-run volunteer opportunities that Obama was talking about in Colorado Springs when he spoke of a CNSF? I am among the concerned skeptics.
Joseph Farah, the World Net Daily reporter who broke the story, inquired,
“Who will Obama appoint to administer this new ‘civilian national security force’? Where will the money come from? Where in the Constitution does he see justification for the federal government creating such a domestic army? The questions are endless. Certainly there have been initiatives like this elsewhere – Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea. But has anything like this ever been proposed in a free country?”(Joseph Farah, "Obama's 'Civilian national security force'," World Net Daily, July 15, 2008, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=69601)
The numbers alone do not add up to mean Obama’s volunteer program proposals alone. The Department of Defense (DOD) budget in 2008 is about $480 billion. Even if Congress authorized funding for every one of Obama’s volunteer expansions, it would not come close to half a trillion dollars. Yet, he said the CNSF must be “just as well-funded" as the military.
As one blogger questioned, “The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such “youth” organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?” (The Blue Collar Muse, “What in the world is Obama’s Civilian National Security Force,” July 16, 2008 http://conservablogs.com/bluecollarmuse/2008/07/16/what-in-the-world-is-obamas-civilian-national-security-force/)
The context just before the CNSF mention in Obama’s Colorado Springs speech was:
“As President, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem - they are the answer.
“We’ll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We’ll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we’ll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.”
Most commentators believe that the CNSF is an additional organization and not part of the previously cited propositions. I agree based on both the context and the key phrases “security force” combined with “just as strong.” Will the CNSF be a way of imposing martial law without violating “posse comatatus” laws? Will it be a federalized police force? Under the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were careful to delineate the boundaries of “civilian” and “military” matters. They put civilians firmly in charge of the military, knowing that without such controls, rights of citizens can be trampled. The CNSF sounds too much like a paramilitary operation.
Of course, the whole matter could be resolved if Obama would answer some questions about what he met when he called for a CNSF. “If what he really meant was Americorps and the the Peace Corps, then why won’t he say so? Why have the video and text been scrubbed from so many places? Why isn’t it available even at his own website? Might it have been a trial balloon that failed in spectacular fashion reminiscent of the Hindenburg?” (Ibid.)
Farang Korat on October 18, 2008, shared a conversation he had with members of the Nation of Islam, “I was told that sometime soon after Obama is ‘elected’ he will announce the creation of large ‘training camps’ in a few large urban cities.” He was told that “the instructors at those camps would be from the ranks of Farrakhan’s ‘Fruit of Islam’ (his bodyguards).” Could this be the beginning of Obama’s CNSF? (Ibid.)
When I first heard this term “CNSF,” I had two reactions. One was a recall of Hitler’s youth corps, the Brown Shirts. The other was Hitler’s SS Corps. Here is the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of “SS”: “An elite quasi-military unit of the Nazi party that served as Hitler's personal guard and as a special security force in Germany and the occupied countries. ETYMOLOGY: German, abbr. for Schutzstaffel : Schutz, defense + Staffel, echelon” [emphasis added]. (The American Heritage Dictionary Fourth Edition 2000 http://www.bartleby.com/61/88/S0688800.html) I report. You decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
How Many of Me Are There?
| HowManyOfMe.com | ||
|
