American Commentaries

Gingrich Goes Left of Obama to Attack Romney & Capitalism

2012-01-12T11:11:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich has earned himself the title of “Ted Baxter of the Republican Party.”

In his scorched earth attack on Mitt Romney, Gingrich joined Barack Obama in attacking capitalism. It is not surprising as Gingrich is a career big government public sector bureaucrat who, even when out of government, continued to suck on the Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac teat.

How can Gingrich claim to be a Reagan conservative when he attacks the very capitalism Reagan supported? Gingrich is not a Reagan conservative. He is a RINO. He calls himself a conservative but in reality he lives off of big government just like Obama does. Republicans can no longer trust Newt Gingrich.

On Fox, Gretchen Carlson asked Gingrich, “Well, what constitutes acceptable capitalist behavior, then, in your mind?” Gingrich indicted capitalism by stating Romney’s Bain Capital took too much money out of companies, in effect agreeing with President Obama that “at a certain point you’ve made enough money . . .”

A vindictive Gingrich has sacrificed principles and any chance of obtaining the presidency by demonstrating he lacks the temperament to be presidential. Gingrich revealed himself to be anti-capitalist and a closet progressive. His actions amount to a draconian disaster for Gingrich.

Gingrich’s catastrophic error also eliminates him from being appointed to any significant position in any Republican administration. He is a loose cannon. We now know how irresponsible he is. This irresponsibility underlies the Mediterranean cruise early in his presidential campaign as well as the staff defections as a result of Gingrich’s decision to take the cruise.

We are seeing the self-destruction of an arrogant bully, bombastic and pompish Ted Baxter type that finally revealed his true colors. He is not a Reagan conservative. He is playing “Boy” to Obama’s Tarzan. He is an echo of Obama. Gingrich’s avaraice and spite have doomed his campaign.

Obama’s Benign Neglect of the Muslim Brotherhood and His Cultural Attachment to Muslim Tradition

2011-12-15T11:56:00.000-08:00

The Muslim Brotherhood, a criminal and terrorist organization, has infiltrated most Muslim groups and mosques. Dangerously, under the guise of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated law enforcement organizations at all levels of government.

Barack Obama has displayed a unique indifference to the Muslim Brotherhood. For example, under the Obama Administration, terms such as “jihadist,” “Islamist,” and Islamist terrorist” are forbidden. The term “War on Terror” has been dropped by the Obama administrations. In its place the Department of Homeland Security uses the term “Man-caused disasters.”

Why is this important? It appears that Obama is playing into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. For example, Barack Obama turned his back on Hosni Mubarak. Now Egypt is lost to the Muslim Brotherhood,

Barack Obama failed to lead (from the front) the coalition forces in Lybia. Once Gadaffi was terminated, Obama turned his back and lost Lybia to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Within the United States, the Obama administration appointed Dalia Mogahed to serve on his Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, making Mogahed the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House. Mogahed explained that her duty in this post would be "to convey... to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want."

Toward this end, Mogahed co-authored a 154-page recommendation paper, a number of whose pro-Muslim recommendations were adopted by the Obama administration. “The paper specifically called on the U.S. to engage opposition parties (including the Muslim Brotherhood) in Egypt, and to use intermediaries to immediately engage Hamas -- in hopes of moderating the terror group.”

Combing the history of the Muslim Brotherhood reveals that the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by the Egyptian activist Hasan al-Banna, who was an admirer of Adolf Hitler and his Nazis. The Muslim Brotherhood is active in more than 70 countries (some estimates range as high as 100+).

Islam expert Robert Spencer has called the Muslim Brotherhood "the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda." In 2003, Richard Clarke – the chief counterterrorism advisor on the U.S. National Security Council during both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations – told a Senate committee that Hamas, al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad were all "descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers." 

Prior to joining al-Qaida, the following individuals were (and still are) members of the Muslim Brotherhood: Osama bin Ladin, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and Blind Shiek Omar Abdul-Rahman. As late as February 2011, Staff investigators with the House and Senate intelligence committees said they are probing the domestic security threat posed by the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

It is quite apparent that Obama is, culturally, a Muslim. He was raised as a Muslim as a child in Indonesia. In October 2010, the press noticed that Obama was wearing neither his watch nor wedding ring. No reasons were given. Coincidentally, Muslims are forbidden to wear jewelry during the month of Ramadan.

Why is Obama so unconcerned with a radical extremist organization in the United States? Why is he moving the administration ever closer to this radical organization by appointing its members to key government posts like Homeland Security? Why has Obama turned his back on Israel?

Me, Me, Me

2011-07-26T15:40:00.000-07:00

President Obama’s prime time speech to the nation was not about the debt ceiling; it was all about Obama. Why? Obama’s ego cannot stand being properly marginalized by Speaker John Boehner.

For the first time in my lifetime, a President of the United States used a primetime telecast to attack his opponent. This is the antics of a Hugo Chavez, an Adolf Hitler, a Fidel Castro, or a Saddam Hussein, all of whom attacked and demonized anyone who opposed them. President Obama has demonstrated himself to be the moral equivalent of these immoral third world dictators.

Then, Obama attempted to blame George Bush (again? . . . please!) because “surpluses were spent on tax cuts.” Tax cuts are a savings to the tax payers. Savings, by definition do not have to be paid for. Obama once again dips into his “Alice in Wonderland” lexicon of confusion where tax spending is called “investment,” where decision-making is a “false choice,” and where “this isn’t about me” really is about him.

Once again Obama promoted his pet program of increased taxes. Let’s tax the rich only a little bit more. They are well off, they can afford it. The problem with Obama’s lexicon is “the rich” start at $250,000 incomes. These are not millionaires or billionaires. These are middle class people that Obama attacks.

The top 50% of taxpayers pay 97% of all taxes. Is it Obama’s aim to have the top 50% to pay 100% of all taxes, so Obama supporters can live on the dole? The top one percent of tax payers pays 39% of all taxes. How much more does Obama want? We are overdue in demanding that Obama’s minions start paying their fair share of taxes before we raise anyone else’s taxes.

Obama threatens the American people with default should he not get his way. He threatens seniors with no Medicare or Social Security should he not get his way.

The problem with Obama’s threats: default is a choice; not sending seniors checks is a choice. It is Obama’s choice to default. It is Obama’s choice to destroy America’s credit rating. It is all Obama’s choice.

Congressional Culture of Corruption 31 - The “But For Rule”

2011-07-20T10:09:00.000-07:00

The so-called bi-partisan “gang of six” proposal is a backroom agreement between six ethically challenged politicians. It does nothing but raise the debt ceiling. How so?

Part of the draft proposal calls for “enacting a comprehensive deficit reduction plan that includes discretionary and entitlement savings as well as fundamental tax reform.” It requires various committees to report legislation within six months that would deliver real deficit savings in entitlement programs over ten years.

For example, the Finance Committee would (not “shall”) permanently reform or replace the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula ($298 billion) and fully offset the cost with health savings, would (not “shall”) find an additional $202/$85 billion in health savings, and would (not “shall”) maintain the essential health care services that the poor and elderly rely upon. Here’s the rub: the “but for rule.”

But for the absence of consequences for failure, there are no incentives to succeed. What happens when the Finance Committee fails to achieve its objectives? Absolutely nothing. The so-called “gang of six” kicked the proverbial can down the road. Obama receives his debt ceiling increases. And the American people are screwed one more time.

The “gang of six” proposal calls for the Armed Services Committee to find $80 billion. What happens when it fails to find $80 billion? What are the consequences?

The “gang of six” proposal calls for the Health, Education, labor and Pensions Committees to find $70 billion. What happens when these committees fail to find $70 billion? What are the consequences?

The “gang of six” proposal calls for the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committees to find $65 billion. What happens when these committees fail to find $65 billion? What are the consequences?

The “gang of six” proposal calls for the Agriculture Committee to find $11 billion. What happens when it fails to find $11 billion? What are the consequences?

The “gang of six” proposal calls for the Commerce Committee to find $11 billion. What happens when it fails to find $11 billion? What are the consequences?

The “gang of six” proposal calls for the Energy Committee to find at least $6 billion. What happens when it fails to find $6 billion plus? What are the consequences?

The “gang of six” proposal calls for the Judiciary Committee to find an unspecified amount through medical malpractice reform. What happens when this committee fails? What are the consequences?

The entire so-called “gang of six” proposal is replete with abdications of responsibility by these Senators. It is nothing but the old “shell game” being played in the Senate.

If there are no consequences for failure, there are no incentives for success. At the very least, failure to achieve the objectives listed should result in committee chairmen and committee members being expelled from the Senate.

The Right to Choose is the Essence of Liberty

2011-07-14T16:20:00.000-07:00

Stephen Chu, Secretary of Energy, discussing the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs, stated “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money” (emphasis mine). Where in the Constitution does it say the Secretary of Energy can take away my right to choose?

This, then, is the objective of the Obama administration: limiting our right to choose severely limits our liberty. This was the objective of the single payor plan originally sought by Obama and his thieves. Limiting one’s liberty means that another entity controls one’s actions.

The essential principle of individualism, as opposed to collectivism, is that man has an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness in a society where men deal with one another as equals.

Unfortunately, our current president is moving our country toward a collectivist state. The massive health care law which is driving up health care costs, the massive entanglement of financial regulations, fiat by executive order . . . all proxies for socialism: why own the company when oppressive regulation is just as effective? Who needs a legislature when an executive order will suffice?

All of this from a presidential candidate who promised, upon his nomination, that, “When the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,” everything would be hunky-dory.

The right to choose is the very essence of liberty. It is an inalienable right. Neither Stephen Chu nor Barack Obama can take it away, try as though they may.

“We’ve gone astray from first principles. We’ve lost sight of the rule that individual freedom and ingenuity are at the very core of everything that we’ve accomplished. Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.”

Ronald Reagan

Rage and Hatred from the Left

2011-07-11T13:07:00.000-07:00

Why does the progressive-socialist left promote incivility, anger and seething rage against America? Is it because they cannot accept the American ideal of freedom, rule of law and limited government?

It is settled that the progressive-socialist wing of the Democratic Party refutes the American ideal of freedom. We see this refutation in progressive-socialist big government programs and increasingly burdensome regulation, which is a proxie for socialist control.

We see this refutation in the Constitutional over reaching of Obamacare; in an Executive Order replicating the Dream Act, which failed to pass in Congress [so Obama assumes legislative prerogative over Congress?]; and in Obama’s rejection of the rule of law in sending armed forces into Lybia without Congressional approval.

We see this refutation in progressive-socialist belief that the ideal individual concept of freedom, which has been successful for over 235 years, is flawed and must be transformed into a progressive-socialist ideal of shared sacrifice, where an all-controlling government chooses the winners and losers.

Recently, Stephen Chu, Secretary of Energy, discussing the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs, stated “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.” Where in the Constitution does it say the Secretary of Energy can take away my right to choose?
First, it was the Liberals who attempted to destroy the American ideal and transform America into a progressive-socialist cesspool. Ironically, whenever socialism has been tried it failed. “All men are created equal,” says the American Declaration of Independence. All men shall be kept equal,” say the socialists” [Winston Churchill].

At a rally, shortly after Representative Giffords survived an assassin’s bullet, President Obama called for civility: "At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized - at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds." Yet, one month later Obama attacked Governor Scott Walker for his assault on public sector unions.

Yet, this bad behavior goes unchecked by the so-called main-stream-news-media. "Rush Limbaugh needs to choke to death on his own fat," according to radio host Mike Malloy. .Michele Bachmann should "slit [her] wrist!" Montel Williams told his Air America radio show. "We ought to rip [Dick Cheney's heart] out and kick it around and stuff it back in him," MSNBC's Ed Schultz raged.

MSNBC host Ed Schulz called conservative talk show host and former attorney Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut” and then a “talk slut. One commentator stated, “Schultz's tone is so nasty as to be disturbing.”

During debt ceiling negotiations, President Barack Obama says the debt ceiling should not "be used as a gun against the heads" of Americans to retain breaks for corporate jet owners or oil and gas companies. So much for civility . . . Barack Obama forgot to sign his own pledge. What would Giffords say?

Liberalism, progressivism and socialism are collectively an ideology of hate and rage. It is long past time for leaders of the Democratic Party to reject this ideology of hate and rage. It will not happen. The Party is controlled by the Ragers and Haters. Obama’s anger is plainly visible below the façade of coolness he usually portrays to others, giving followers license to rage and spew hatred. The vast majority of hate language and rage stems from the liberal-progressive-socialist bloc of the Democratic party.

Washington Specter

2011-07-09T14:30:00.000-07:00

There is a specter in Washington. It has traveled through Congress and the White House. It settled over Washington’s statues and memorials like a heavy mantle. What is this specter? It is the absence of leadership. It permeates everything in Washington.

Yesterday, the unemployment rate rose to 9.2%. This is after President Obama promised that his stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8%. Rasmussen Reports flatly stated that “Americans are less confident than ever that the nation’s policymakers know what they are doing when it comes to the economy.” The absence of leadership, the specter, is visible. It is tactile. It is real.

What other indicators of the specter are there? The absence of presidential leadership in the debt limit discussions is a huge indicator. Obama ignored the national debt in favor of trillion dollar plus deficits. He swept the debt issue over to a commission then ignored the commission’s recommendations.

The House passed a budget. The Democrat controlled Senate has not produced a budget bill two years running. Obama delivered a budget that was so detached from reality and lacking in leadership that the Democrat controlled Senate rejected it by a 97-0 vote. Ouch!

Then Obama delivered, in his debt-plan speech, not a budget plan but a new budget framework. At a committee hearing, Representative Paul Ryan asked the CBO Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf if he had evaluated the impact of Obama’s proposed framework on the federal budget. Elmendorf replied, “We don’t estimate speeches.” Ouch!

The mantle of no leadership weighs heavy on the American people. When will this recession end? Just as there is no leadership in Washington, there is no light at the end of this dark tunnel. Meanwhile, everything Obama touches gets worse.

Rasmussen Reports Consumer Index has fallen to its lowest level since July 2009. Just 6% of consumers rate the economy as good while 59% say it’s getting worse. Getting worse!

All the while, President Obama refuses to govern and is unable to lead. He is in full campaign mode but he can’t run on his failed record. Unemployment is at 9.2%, up from 7.3%, or an increase of 26% since Obama took office. The national debt is at $14.5 trillion, up from $9.9 trillion, or a 46% increase. Ouch!

The Bureau of Labor Statistics documented job losses at 3,600,000 in 2008, 5,063,000 in 2009, and increases of 940,000 in 2010 and 783,000 in 2011 (as of May). This reflects job losses of 9,663,000 vs job gains of 1,723,000, which resulted in a net job loss of 7,940,000 for the period. This 8 million job loss figure does not include those people who have given up looking for work. Some experts have estimated that figure to be around 6 million. That’s 14 million people out of work and Obama’s stimulus package helped only 12% of the total, maybe?

The specter now permeates the private sector. Why are companies not hiring? It is the specter of uncertainty produced by bad health care, tax and business legislation. It is the specter of uncertainty caused by the administration’s continuing attack on those who make more than $250,000 annually. Obama calls them millionaires. They are really middle class and small business, not millionaires. But they produce jobs. Not now, though. They’re waiting out the uncertainty.

This means that the economy will not turn around and grow until Obama leaves the presidency. He’s made everything worse. No leadership. No governance. No integrity. The economy sputters because of the uncertainty caused by his positions on taxes, health care, business . . . and the list goes on.

More and more regulation as a proxy for socialism means less competition as companies struggle with burdensome red tape. As a result, companies are neither hiring nor investing. They’re waiting . . .

We also will wait . . . counting the days to the election that will be Obama’s “last stand.” We will be counting the days until we will rid the country of imperfect dictatorial socialist rule and megalomania, and return America to its role of leadership and example, all without apology to diminutive tyrants.

Ronald Reagan was prescient when he said, “We’ve come to a moment in our history when party labels are unimportant. Philosophy is all-important. Little men with loud voices cry doom, saying little is good in America. They create fear and uncertainty among us. Millions of Americans, especially our own sons and daughters, are seeking a cause they can believe in. There is a hunger in this country today. People yearn once again to be proud of their country and proud of themselves, and to have confidence in themselves. And there’s every reason why they should be so proud. Some may have failed America, but America has never failed us, and there is much to be proud of in this land.”

The specter of Barack Obama will be removed

May God bless America.

Anybody But Obama

2011-06-13T14:55:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama is at war in Iraq. He is at war in Afghanistan. He is at war in Lybia. And he is at war with America. Not one was declared by Congress.

First, Barack Obama is the only president in history actively destroying not only America’s ability to access its own energy sources but also the only president in history who has systemically set about destroying America’s energy infrastructure. He has banned drilling on and off-shore. Never mind that he has opened leases, he forbids drilling. Drilling platforms have moved from the Gulf of Mexico because of the drilling ban. The United States is now more dependent on foreign oil than we ever have been in our history.

Second, under Obama, the so-called “food stamp” program grown from $34.6 billion in 2008 to $64.7 billion in 2010, an 86% increase. In 2011, the program cost $71 billion, or an increase of 105% with the number of recipients increasing by 58%. There is a complete disconnect in the Obama administration. This program has turned into a give-away program.

Third, The USDA announced that food inflation is accelerating. Higher energy prices, caused by Obama’s anti-energy policies, are forcing higher inflation on all foods. The National Inflation Association (NIA) predicts that food inflation will be America’s top crisis. Today, agriculture makes up 1.2% of GDP. Less than 2% of the population farm compared to 28% during 1930s. Food prices are predicted to skyrocket with food shortages caused by hoarding.

Fourth, Obama’s stimulus bills were designed to spend money on government programs and public sector unions not private sector job creation. Between January 2009 and January 2011, the number of unemployed increased by 24.7%; the number of long term unemployed increased by 146.2%; and the national debt increased from $10.627 trillion to $14..052 trillion, a 32.2% increase. Unemployment is still over 9% although Obama promised it would fall below 8% with his stimulus plans.

Fifth, the Obama administration has so mismanaged the mortgage modification program that the country faces a double dip recession, much like Franklin Roosevelt caused during the 1930s. Out of several million problem mortgagaes, Obama’s Home Affordable Modification (HAMP) program, only 700,000 mortgages have been modified. Of the $45 billion allocated for the program, only $1.2 billion has been spent, or less than 3%. Mortgage foreclosures are increasing.

Barack Obama told the American people to be patient as he “fixes” the economy. The American people have been patient . . . for almost three years and it is obvious Obama has made everything worse than it was when he took office. The American people cannot absorb another four years of failure and deceit.

Obama has made America more dependent on foreign oil than any prior president. Inflation is on the rise. Unemployment has increased under Obama’s stimulus policies. Our national debt has increased more under Obama than any prior president. Obama’s annual budgets incorporate trillion dollar plus deficits that America cannot afford.

Obama is the only President who has demonstrated he does not like America. He has not produced any pro-American ideas. He is harmful to America’s future. He is a clear and present danger to our ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Congressional Culture of Corruption Continues 30 - Congressman Weiner’s Ethical Collapse

2011-06-07T16:02:00.000-07:00

Congressman Anthony Weiner, after days of denying he sent lewd pictures of himself over Twitter, after days of being unable to deny that the underwear and underlying bulge might have been a picture he took of himself, finally arrived at the realization that no one believed him and confessed.

Yes, the lewd pictures were of him. Yes he sent them to female acquaintances. Yes, he had been engaged in this activity for years. He apologized for engaging in lewd activity. He apologized for sending lewd pictures to at least six women. He apologized for lying. He even apologized to Andrew Breithart, who broke the story.

Despite this “hugely regrettable” ethical lapse, Congressman Weiner said he will not resign his House seat because he did not break any House rules. What? Does the House of Representatives have a rule requiring that a members"shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House." Oops!

Ethics is not about rhetoric. Ethics is about doing what is right. Ethics is about action. Congressman Weiner cannot claim himself an ethical failure personally then separate his personal and professional lives. They are inseparable. Otherwise , Congressman Weiner may claim a moral equivalency with Mother Theresa.

"Nothing about this should reflect in any way on my official duties or oath of office," said Congressman Weiner. "I engaged in inappropriate online conversations. ... I don't believe I did anything that violates any law or rule." What about right from wrong, Congressman Weiner?
Congressman Weiner’s lewd activity was ethically wrong. His attempted cover-up was ethically wrong. His claims of his Twitter account being hacked were lies, hence ethically wrong. Deception and lying are morally wrong. Character counts Congressman Weiner.

Your unethical behavior reflects badly not only on yourself but also the House of Representatives. Do not bring any more shame on the House of Representatives. Resign now. Your resignation is in the best interests of Congress, the United States Government, and, more importantly, the People of the United States.

Lily Tomlin once said, “The problem with the rat race is that even if you win, you’re still a rat.” Congressman Weiner, you cannot separate your professional from your personal life. If you try, you’re still a rat.

Are You Better Off Than You Were before Barack Obama?

2011-04-19T08:12:00.000-07:00

It is the Bill Clinton “peace dividend” coming again. President Obama is cutting the defense budget by $400 billion while America is engaged in three wars. Regarding Libya, Obama has stated the United States is not pursuing regime change but Obama has repeatedly said Gaddafi has to leave. Isn’t that regime change? What does Obama do? He gives another speech.

President Obama has touted the stimulus bill as creating or saving (a non-existent metric) hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unfortunately, the unemployment rate in December 2008 was recorded at 7.2% ; at its peak the unemployment rate was over 10%. Today, the unemployment rate is 8.8% with 13.5 million unemployed. This is a 22% increase in the unemployment rate. The employed to population ratio is 45%, the lowest ever recorded. Mr. Obama’s stimulus bill is a failure. In response, he gives another speech.

Barack Obama’s energy program is non-existent. He obsesses on renewable energy, spending vast sums of tax dollars in vain. Spain went into renewable energy in a big way, then discovered that each “green job’ created since 2000 cost $774,000: cost transferred to energy customers in the form of higher premiums. Spain also lost 2.2 jobs in other industries for every new “green job” created.

Italy has also discovered the shortcomings of renewable energy. Italian citizens have had to pay over six billion Euros in renewable subsidies. The Italian government passed a decree that could spell an abrupt end in renewable energy construction and severe reduction in subsidies. Other European countries are also seriously cutting back on renewable energy due to the costs involved and damage to the countryside.

What does Mr. Obama do in light of European experience? He has closed off virtually all drilling, increasing taxes on oil companies, instituting anti-carbon regulations, and, oh yes, he gave another speech.

Recently, Mr. Obama stated that America needs to reduce its reliance on foreign oil by 30% over ten years. But replacing this lost oil will require domestic drilling, which Obama refuses to allow. As a result, prices for a gallon of gas have increased from $1.64 in December 2008, the month before he took office, to $ 3.79 in April 2011. What was Obama’s response? He gave another speech.

Experts state that $5.00 a gallon gas could occur by Memorial Day. The April gas price is a 131% increase over December 2008. If the Memorial Day gas price occurs, it will be a 204% increase in the price of gas.

It appears that Mr. Obama is moving away from affordable energy, making what energy we do have more expensive and basing America’s future on renewable energy, which Europe is moving away from as rapidly as possible. Ironically, America is awash in relatively cheap energy. It is just that the President refuses to let us develop it. He would rather invest $2 billion in George Soros’ Brazilian oil company and promise the Brazilian government we’ll buy their oil.

Why does it always seem that Barack Obama says one thing and does the opposite? Obama states that the United States must reduce its deficits and national debt but put forth a budget that does neither. Obama says we must reduce our reliance on foreign oil but tells Brazil we’ll buy all their oil. He says “We’re going to need oil and gas and coal for a long time if America wants to keep the lights on,” but denies American the opportunity to develop cheaper oil, gas and coal.

In 2008, the deficit was $ .438 trillion. Obama has submitted three budgets, all with deficits in excess of $ 1.400 trillion, or 3.5 times larger than President Bush’s last year in office. As a result, the national debt has risen from $10.6 trillion to $14.3 trillion (April 2011): a 35% increase in our national debt in 28 months of Obama’s presidency.

Standard and Poor’s just declared a negative outlook on America’s AAA credit rating, stating
“"The outlook reflects our view of the increased risk that the political negotiations over when and how to address both the medium- and long-term challenges will persist until at least after the national elections in 2012."

The Wall Street Journal, in analyzing he Standard and Poor’s statement, concluded that is was in response to President Obama’s anti-Republican speech last week, indicating that it will be “very difficult for GOP Congressional leaders to believe they can enter into a budget negotiation in which the White House will deal in good faith.”

So as the misery index increases from 7.73 in December 2008 to 11.01 in April 2011, the Rasmussen Presidential Approval Index from 28 on January 21, 2009, his first day in office, to -15 on April 15, 2011, an equivalent of a 96% drop in approval.

Obama’s speeches are incoherent, the topics asynchronous to current events and flawed. To paraphrase Peggy Noonan’s article in her Wall Street journal column (4/16-17/2011, A13), because of these flaws, his speeches “. . . will have no afterlife, and a major speech with no afterlife might as well not have been given.”

Are you really better off than you were before Barack Obama?

Obama and Reagan? No Comparison

2011-01-30T14:55:00.000-08:00

Now the main-stream-media is comparing Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan as transitional leaders. There is a problem with this comparison.

Ronald Reagan was a conservative, a patriot who loved his country and showed it in the way he respected the Oval Office, in the way he conducted himself as Peggy Noonan noted, “When Character was King.”

Barack Obama is a Marxist-socialist with documented membership in the Chicago based socialist New Party, who, in foreign trips, has apologized for America’s past sins, e.g., saving the day in World War I and II, and acting as the world policeman at American expense to ensure the peace. Obama has bowed to a Saudi King, a Japanese Emperor and insulted the Queen of England.

Ronald Reagan said, “Indeed, we gave birth to an entirely new concept in man’s relation to man. We created government as our servant, beholden to us, and possessing no powers except those voluntarily granted to it by us . . .”

Barack Obama views the Constitution as a document containing negative liberties:
“. . . the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf . . .”

Ronald Reagan concluded, “. . . Now a self –annointed elite in our nation’s capital would have us believe we are incapable of guiding our own destiny. They practice government by mystery, telling us it’s too complex for our understanding . . .” How prescient Ronald Reagan was.

Barack Obama’s overreach approached criminality. With Chrysler, Obama violated secured creditor’s contracts by giving them only 28 cents on the dollar and gifting the United Auto Workers 43 cents on the dollar and 55% of the company, an ownership position the UAW neither purchased nor earned. A similar story can be made for General Motors.

The only obstacle preventing Barack Obama from subverting the Constitution of the United States is the Constitution of the United States. Consequently, Obama must challenge and destabilize parts of the Constitution. Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski, in their book, The Blueprint Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency, documented 21 tactics to subvert the Constitution and transform America.

The list includes the appointment of numerous czars who are not Senate-confirmed and who are not accountable to the American people; end running the legislative responsibility of Congress through the issuance of executive orders and administrative rule-making; placing health care under government control; and using the regulatory bureaucracy as a proxy for socialist domination. Proof? “cap and Trade” is dead in Congress so Obama is going to attempt to implement it through executive order and EPA regulation.

Obama has a well-known contempt for term limits. In 2009, a Democrat representative from New York, Jose Serrano, introduced a bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constititution to allow Obama to be president for life. The bill never made it out of committee.

Would Ronald Reagan have approved of unaccountable czars, eliminating the role of Congress and imposing socialism through the proxy of increased regulatory bureaucracy? Just the opposite: “Freedom is not created by government nor is it a gift from those in political power. It is, in fact, secured more than anything else by limitations placed on those in government.”

Ronald Reagan left office with the respect and adulation of foreign leaders. Obama is currently seen as weak and ineffective by foreign leaders. Obama’s foreign policy with North Korea, Iran, and Russia has been a failure. The leaders of these countries mock Obama.

President Obama hosted the Chinese President at the White House where a Chinese pianist performed an anti-American melody from a Chinese movie where Americans are depicted as “jackals” during the Korean war. President Obama was clueless.

There is no comparison between Obama and Reagan. Ronald Reagan believed in “American exceptionalism.” Obama disdainfully refuted it.

“We’re Americans, and we have a rendezvous with destiny . . . No people who have ever lived on this earth have fought harder, paid a higher price for freedom, or done more to advance the dignity of man than Americans.”

Of the two men, only Ronald Reagan can make this statement.

The New “Tax Deal”

2010-12-11T09:35:00.000-08:00

“I’m not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington,” opined President Obama, after agreeing not to raise taxes on the American people.

Too bad he didn’t think of collateral damage to the working families of this country when he signed the bogus health care bill or the financial regulation bill, both of which were packed with onerous taxes and fees adversely impacting the working families of this country.

On November 18th, Mr. Obama warned that if the government piled up too much debt it could lead to a double dip recession. On December 7th, Mr. Obama claimed “we don’t have the danger of a double dip recession.” On December 9th, Lawrence Summers, Mr. Obama’s chairman of the White House National Economic Council, predicted an increased risk of a double dip recession if Congress does not pass the “tax deal.” It is obvious confusion reigns at the White House.

And what is the “tax deal? “The “tax deal” has nothing to do with tax cuts. The only issue was whether there would be a tax increase on the highest wage earners: another act of discrimination and hatred against successful Americans by progressive-socialist Democrats. Divide and conquer: pit black against white; pit Hispanics against blacks and whites; pit the poor against the successful; transfer wealth from those willing to work to those who are not. This is the standard playbook of the Democrats.

Yesterday, the tax rates Congress passed under President Bush were a bad thing because they did not encourage work. Today, the same rates are a good thing and without continuing the Bush tax rates the economy could stall. Confusion is the one constant at the White House.

Democrats in Congress are furious that Obama agreed to a tax package with Republicans. Democrats hold that not increasing taxes on those taxpayers making above $250,000 annually will cost the government $700 billion. How so?

As a government of the people, for the people and by the people, how can a tax savings to the people be a cost to government? It can’t. This fact reveals the utter tyranny underlying the progressive-socialist strategies: government is superior to the people, and the government is not of, for and by the people, but actually works against the will of the people.

Extending the tax rates to all Americans means there is no change in current tax policy. The people avoid a tax increase. The government cannot lose what it did not have: there is no increase in the deficit. There is no cost to government. And since there is no change in tax policy, there is obviously no stimulus in the tax deal.

Capital gains tax rates are extended. Again, no tax increase to the people. No cost to government.

Dividend rates are extended. Again, no tax increase to the people. No cost to the government.

What is the cost of the “tax deal?” It is not even near the $1 trillion hyped by the Democrats; it’s closer to $200 billion based on the payroll tax deduction ($120 billion), unemployment insurance extension ($60 billion) and miscellaneous tax credits, all offset by $11-30 billion in estate tax revenue.

What does this bill actually do for the American people? Nothing! The uncertainty of the business community about the economic outlook has not been resolved. The economy is not helped. Unemployment is at 9.8%.

So why do we see such political theater? It is a function of progressive-socialist class warfare against successful wage earners. It is also a function of House Democrats being kept out of the negotiations between Republicans and Mr. Obama.

The House Democrats, in reaction, have spent two days adding billions of dollars of waste to the proposed tax deal, stating they will not bring Obama’s proposal to the floor of the House. The end result may well be no tax deal in December and a major tax increase in January, which may be preferable in the long run.

If this scenario occurs, the Democratic Party will be irreparably damaged and the Republican majority in the House will have to act quickly in sending a bill to the Senate permanently extending the existing tax rates in order to avoid sending the United States into a double-dip recession: a “tax deal” Mr. Obama cannot refuse.

Foresight of Our Founding Fathers

2010-11-16T07:37:00.000-08:00

The Federalist Papers was written by a number of our Founding Fathers to promote and encourage ratification of the United States Constitution in place of a dysfunctional Articles of Confederation.

There are 83 essays. We will focus only on those essays reflecting the thinking of our Forefathers that had the most impact on the recent 2010 election: the requirement to have the House of Representatives, the House closest to the people, elected every two years.

In November 2008, the American electorate voted the Democrats into power in the House, Senate and White House. The Democrats commanded clear majorities in Congress and closely worked with the White House. Immediately, normal “checks and balances” between the two legislative bodies and the executive branch disappeared, and an oppressive oligarchy was born.

“What method should we use, then, to maintain the necessary partition of power between the different branches as laid down in the Constitution?. . . the government must be structured, designed, so that the three constitutional branches and their relationships will have the ability to keep each other in their proper places.”[1]

What the Founding Fathers did not take into account, because political parties did not exist in 1787, was the tyranny of one political party controlling the executive and legislative branches.

This tyranny was clearly seen during the State of the Union when the President of the United States attacked the Supreme Court before Congress and the nation, an event never before seen in this country. At this time, there was only one “independent” branch of government: the judicial branch.

The Founding Fathers viewed the States as an additional check on the Federal Government. “In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, state and federal. Then the portion allotted to each is subdivided among distinct and separate branches. Hence the rights of the people are doubly protected. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”[2]

The Constitution originally called for Senators to be chosen by State legislatures, giving States an ability to “check and balance” the power of the federal government. State legislature election of federal Senators provided the cornerstone of two important principles: federalism and the separation of powers. The Senate was seen as a link between State governments and the federal government.

However, during the great progressive-socialist surge of the early 20th century, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted, stripping states of the “check and balance power” against the federal government. Thus began the “master-slave” relationship between the federal and state governments, where the federal government expanded its powers at the expense of state governments and imposed unfunded mandates upon the states.

Madison also furthered the appointment of Senators by State legislatures by writing,
“. . . Of all the ways that this branch [Senate] of government might have been formed, the method . . . is probably the most consistent with public opinion. It has two advantages. It is a select appointment that gives the State governments a role in the forming the federal government. It secures the States’ authority and links the two systems.”[3]

The progressive-socialist argument supporting the 17th Amendment rested on the notion that Senators chosen by State legislatures were nothing more than puppets for those legislatures. James Madison, on the other hand, wrote, “The State governments are essential parts of the federal government. But the federal government is in no way essential to the operation or organization of the State governments.”[4]

By eliminating the selection of Senators by their legislatures, the 17th Amendment severed the States’ checks and balances against the federal government, allowing a tyrannical oligarchy, in this case a political party, without checks and balances, to begin transforming the United States from a capitalist free market into a centralized progressive-socialist society dependent on the handouts of a corrupt government. As a result of the 17th Amendments alteration of balance of power and “checks and balances,” there is a growing interest in nullifying the 17th Amendment thereby reverting back to the original design of the Constitution.

What saved America in the 2010 election? The specific design of the Constitution by our Founding Fathers saved America, where the People’s House, the House of Representatives, is subject to direct election every two years. While the President is elected to four year terms and the Senate to six year terms (with one–third of the Senate up for election every two years), the entire House of Representatives is elected every two years. Consequently, the People have an opportunity to impact 100% of their Representatives every two years rather than one third of the Senators every two years.

The Founding Fathers discussed having Representatives elected annually, as many States required of their larger Houses. However, traveling with States was an easier matter that traveling greater distances to a National Capitol. Hence, elections every two years were established. This two year election cycle is, in and of itself, a further check and balance on the excess of the federal government.

This two year “check and balance” allowed the People to break up an oligarchy the People themselves installed two years earlier: it was a clear instance of the People correcting an egregious error in judgment. It was a clear repudiation of the policies and politics of the oligarchy, and a clear repudiation of anti-American progressive-socialist philosophy.

It should noted that during the last two years, a small group of people in the House and the Senate fought a legislative guerilla war against the insidious efforts of progressive –socialists to destroy our Country as we know it. Their courageous stand in voting against bad legislation left the progressive-socialist Democrat oligarch starkly alone in promoting bad public policy.

The American people, confronting this assault upon American principles and values, acknowledged the heroic stance of this small group of Republicans by overturning the unilateral tyranny of the oligarchy. As a result, the American people have not only established a reprieve from continued assault by progressive-socialists but also established a political beachhead from which to begin the counterattack.

[1] Mary. E. Webster, Federalist Papers in Modern Language, (Bellevue, WA., 1999) Number 51, Section 1
[2] Ibid., Number 51, Section 9
[3] Ibid., Number 62, Section 3
[4] Ibid., Number 45, Section 7

The Oligarchy is Broken . . . Checks and Balances To Be Restored

2010-11-04T07:57:00.000-07:00

The Republican Party, riding the crest of Tea Party enthusiasm, broke the back of the progressive-socialist oligarchy and restored historical checks and balances between the House Legislative and the Executive branches.

How did this historic restoration occur? It occurred because responsible adults made comparisons between January 2009 and today.

President Obama promised Americans that passing the stimulus bill would keep unemployment at 8%. Instead, by September 2010 unemployment was 9.6%, or almost a 30% increase over the unemployment rate of 7.4% in January 2009.

Total non-farm jobs in the United States decreased from 134.3 million in December 2008 to 130.2 million in September 2010, a drop of 4.1 million jobs on President Obama’s watch.

Our national debt on December 2008 was $10.7 trillion. By October 2010, our national debt skyrocketed to $13.7 trillion, or a 28% increase in 22 months.

The number of American living in poverty soared by 3.7 million people under the Obama administration, to the highest poverty rate since 1994: 14.3%.

More than 43 million people, an eighth of the population, now receive food stamps.

This is where President Obama’s failed policies have taken us. President Obama claims he inherited a mess but if the truth were known, he helped create the mess, along with Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Now that Constitutional checks and balances will be restored beginning in January, we must ensure that the progressive-socialist Obama agenda does not slip through the cracks in November and December.

We have an opportunity to take back our country, to show the world what American exceptionalism is, to restore honor to the Office of the President and more importantly, reverse every progressive-socialist piece of legislation President Obama signed into law.

We cannot fail. At least this much we owe to our children and grandchildren.

Constitutional Republic or Oligarchy?

2010-10-04T14:02:00.000-07:00

One party rule is essentially despotic oligarchy. In January 2009, the United States was transformed into an oligarchy, where supreme power was centered in the hands of a few people all belonging to the same political party.

As a result of this “transformation,” constitutional law has been violated, ignored and dismissed by the ruling class oligarchy in the Democratic Party.

The oligarchy decided the people need a health care plan. The people overwhelmingly say no. The oligarchy prevailed against the will of the people: The Constitution be damned.

The oligarchy decided the banks need a TARP bailout instead of filing bankruptcy. The people said no. The oligarchy prevailed against the will of the people: The Constitution be damned.

The oligarchy responsible for the housing meltdown decided it need onerous new financial regulation to prevent what it created. The people said no. The oligarchy prevailed against the will of the people: The Constitution be damned.

The oligarchy decided the sovereign State of Arizona could not defend its borders. The people said yes we can. The oligarchy used the people’s tax dollars to sue the people of Arizona: The Constitution be damned.

The oligarchy decided to take over General Motors and Chrysler, not to save them, but to give the United Auto Workers union 43 cents per dollar on its $11 billion in claims and 55 percent ownership it neither purchased nor earned. The people said no. The oligarchy prevailed against the will of the people: The Constitution be damned.

The Democratic Party represents big, all powerful, socialist central planning, heavy-handed government without normal checks and balances, run by appointed czars who are not accountable to the people. The Constitution be damned.

This is why Democrats always irrationally demand that tax cuts (a savings to the people) be paid for (a cost to the people).

Tax cuts do not require funding; only spending requires funding.

Democrat big government thinking reflects a view that the people are subservient to the government and that the people’s wealth belongs to the government for redistribution. Hence the oligarchy, led by Barack Obama, has no qualms about increasing our national debt in excess of Gross Domestic Product, borrowing heavily from China and harming the national security of the United States.

Currently, the only political parties that represent the people are the Republican Party, a traditional political organization, and the Tea Party, an amorphous amalgamation of people in varied size groups. Both share common ground: limited government thinking reflecting a view of a government of the people, for the people and by the people; of a government that derives its power from the consent of the people; and, of a government that is subservient to the people.

This, then, is the great political polarization in this country today: those who believe in the failed collectivist policies of an unfettered power of big government versus those who believe in limited government, individual freedom and American exceptionalism.

The most important election in our country’s history occurs next month. It will determine whether we can break the oligarchy and return the United States to a Constitutional Republic. “Failure is not an option.”

The Character of the Democratic Party

2010-09-27T14:35:00.000-07:00

The history of the Democratic Party is not pretty. Born as a pro-slavery political party under Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic Party maintained a pro-slavery-anti black American stance through the 19th century. After the Civil War, the Democratic Party gave birth and nurtured the first Klu Klux Klan and supported Jim Crow laws and customs.
The second Klu Klux Klan emerged in 1915, during the first administration of Woodrow Wilson. During the first half of the 20th century,. after the Black migration to northern cities, Democratic administrations still kept Blacks “in their place,” creating the equivalent of plantation ghettos.

Progressive Woodrow Wilson, Democrat icon, was an unrepentant racist, lamenting the loss of the antebellum South as he entered the White House in 1913. While telling Black Americans they could count on Wilson for a “fair deal,” Wilson desegregated the desegregated the United States Navy and the United States Government, removing Black officials from their positions. In fact, Wilson’s “History of the American People” was so racially biased that D.W. Griffith quoted Wilson’s comments in the racist silent movie “Birth of a Nation.”

As Black slaves were huddled in shacks on plantations, a majority of today’s Black Americans still are kept isolated and segregated in poor sections of major cities. Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit all have large, segregated populations of Black Americans. All these cities are run by Democrat administrations.
In addition, the progressive-socialist thinking from the turn of the century looked cheaply at life, especially American Blacks. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and birth control, was a major proponent of Black abortions and the use of eugenics against minorities.
Franklin Roosevelt, the “modern progressive,” who actually admired some aspects of National Socialism, not only interned Japanese citizens, removing them from the coast, but also appointed two notorious segregationists to the United States Supreme Court: Jimmy Byrnes and Hugo Black, the latter being a member of the Klu Klux Klan.

Roosevelt admitted his admiration of Stalin and Hitler, stating: “what we are doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we were doing them in an orderly way.”[1]
Roosevelt’s attitude toward Black Americans was exemplified by his refusal to integrate the United States Military. Roosevelt further insisted on segregating the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps.

The turning point for civil rights and for Black Americans occurred in during the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican: the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which led to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was signed by President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, but it was the coalition of Republicans in Congress, especially the Senate that allowed the bill to pass. Senator Everett Dirksen, Republican minority leader, provided the votes for cloture that led to the bill’s vote and passage. Against the bill were numerous Democrats, to include former Klu Klux Klan lead Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr. Only 77% of Democrats but 82% of Republicans voted for the bill.

Since the passage of this historic legislation, the character of the Democratic Party, increasingly controlled by progressive-socialist activists, has changed for the worse. As a result of Martin Luther King’s assassination in 1968, the numbers of Black race exploiters and outright Black racists increased. I call them “drivers,” as that was the name of Black overseers on plantations. These “drivers” kept Black populations “in line” and under the thumb of the Democratic Party bosses.

It was during this period that the character of the Democratic Party changed for the worse. The press became evermore biased in their reporting, precipitating the death spiral of modern journalism. The progressive-socialist faction of the Democratic Party has made it fashionable for Democrats to hate Christianity.

David Brooks wrote a column in 2003 regarding this irrational hatred: “When conservatives look at the newspapers, they see liberal columnists who pick out every tiny piece of evidence or pseudo-evidence of Republican vileness, and then dwell on it and obsess over it until they have lost all perspective and succumbed to fevers of incoherent rage . . . It's mystifying. Fury rarely wins elections. Rage rarely appeals to suburban moderates. . . The Democrats, indeed, look like they're turning into a domestic version of the Palestinians--a group so enraged at their perceived oppressors, and so caught up in their own victimization, that they behave in ways that are patently not in their self-interest, and that are almost guaranteed to perpetuate their suffering.”

Yet, the progressive-scocialist faction of the Democrat Party rages on, spewing hatred at every opportunity. Brian Anderson of the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal wrote: “It's hard not to notice that political discussion over the last decade has increasingly degenerated into name-calling—and that the insults most often come from the left: "racist," "homophobe," "sexist," "mean-spirited," "insensitive." It has become a habit of left-liberal political argument to use such invective to dismiss conservative beliefs as if they don't deserve an argument and to redefine mainstream conservative arguments as extremism and bigotry. . .” And this was his introductory paragraph! But he was right when he wrote this article in 2001.

John Dietrich of the American Thinker captured the irrational hatred of progressive-socialist Democrats in his article, “Liberal Hate Speech:”

“Liberals can demonize entire classes of people. One of the favorite targets of the liberal elite is the Christian right. According to Michael Weisskopf of the Washington Post, the followers of people like the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson ‘are largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command’. . . Chris Matthews has declared, ‘The group in this country that most resembles the Taliban, ironically, is the religious right.’ Rosie O'Donnell asserted, ‘radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America.’ This demonization makes it permissible to say some pretty outlandish things. . . . Sen. Ted Kennedy gave this description of Republicans: ‘The Republican Party is basically anti-civil rights, anti-immigration, anti-women, and anti-worker.’ Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, stated, ‘I hate Republicans and everything they stand for.’ Jesse Jackson after the 1994 GOP victory claimed that ‘[h]ate and hurt are on a roll in America. If what was happening here was happening in South Africa, it'd be called racist apartheid. If it was happening in Germany, we'd call it Nazism. And in Italy, we'd call it fascism. Here we call it conservatism.’”

Actress Janeane Garofalo, certainly not a gleaming example of left intelligentsia, stated, “What you have now is people that are closet racists, misogynists, homophobes, and people who love . . . the politics of exclusion identifying as conservative."

The cumulative effects of Democratic hate speech have parallels in Nazi hate speech and propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s. Comparing the Christians to the Taliban and associated problems is analogous to Hitler blaming the Jews for Germany’s problems. Adolf Hitler rounded up Jewish people and sent them to extermination camps. The Democrats are more sophisticated: they passed legislation making people more dependent on government; they passed legislation interfering with the Doctor-Patient relationship and reducing the level of care; and, they passed legislation allowing unelected bureaucrats to deny needed health care based on who and how old you are.

The underlying character of the progressive-socialist faction of the Democratic Party is demonization of opponents based on lies and misinformation. It is based on bald-faced lies to constituents. President Obama said his health care bill would lower health care costs but costs are rapidly increasing. In response, the Obama administration threatened health plans that increased prices in response to federally mandated “free” benefits and elimination of limits. This reaction is no different from that of a Nazi or Fascist. It is still illegal thuggery.

As long as the progressive-socialist faction controls the Democratic Party, this organization cannot be trusted with America’s national security, financial security and our children’s future. The 2010 election is more important than ever.

[1] Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism – The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, (New York: Doubleday Broadway Publishing Group, 2007), p. 122.

Obama: The Economy is Good

2010-08-27T08:01:00.000-07:00

The Dodd-Frank recession has been ongoing for almost two years. There are fears of a double dip recession but since we really haven’t climbed out of the current one, these fears are premature. All of this, in spite of passing a stimulus bill in excess of $862 billion on top of TARP bailouts. A second $26 billion was passed as a payment to public sector unions. These two laws represent the greatest waste of taxpayer dollars in the shortest time in the history of the United States . . . and this includes President Obama’s $2 billion gift to George Soros.

Four months ago, Vice President Biden proclaimed a summer of recovery that would create 250,000 to 500,000 jobs a months. A few days ago, Vice President Biden stated, “no doubt we’re moving in the right direction” economically. Reality is we have 3.3 million fewer jobs since Obama and Biden took office. Is the right direction purposeful failure?

Earlier this week, the National Association of Realtors reported that July sales of existing homes fell by 27% from June 2010. The Commerce Department reported that sales of new homes fell 12.4% Since June 2010.

Earlier in August, first time claims for unemployment hit a nine month high. Unemployment remains at 9.5% but including those who have stopped looking for work the unemployment rate is around 18%. Forty-eight of fifty states have lost jobs since the stimulus bill was enacted.

General Motors new cars sales are in a death spiral, dropping 36% in September from the prior month; Chrysler new car sales dropped 33% for the same period. The “cash for clunkers” program removed so many cars from the road that used car pricing has soared due to the newly limited supply of used cars.

President Obama claims that 2.3 to 2.6 million jobs were saved by the stimulus package but he can’t support his statement because there is no metric for “saved jobs.” The cold hard fact is 3.3 million people lost jobs since Mr. Obama became President.

Businesses are sitting on $2-3 trillion that could be invested in new jobs. The Obama administration policies of increased taxes, increased health care regulation, increased financial regulation, and the uncertainty created by massive regulation and lack of leadership in Washington, D.C., is making the private sector pause. No one wants to make a long term decision when all the President’s policies do is create more uncertainty rather than answer questions and solve problems.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the Obama administration will spend 24% of GDP during his term in office. Budget deficits will average 8.7% of GDP or 24 times the size of President Clint’s surplus!

Beginning January 2011, the Obama administration will raise taxes on small businesses. In fact, the minimum personal income tax rate increases 50%. Additionally, beginning in January, drug companies, health plans and medical device manufacturers will increase prices to cover their increased taxes. Everyone who has company sponsored health insurance will pay taxes on the cost of this health insurance, which means less take home pay for every worker.

In the face of these stark facts, President Obama still claims the economy is humming along at a good pace. Hello???

The damage inflicted on the United States economy by Obama’s socialist administration is tantamount to a declaration of war against the American people. Never again can the Democratic Party be trusted with the future of the United States or the futures of our children.

It’s Not What It Seems

2010-08-21T11:59:00.000-07:00

While President Obama focused all his energies on passing the health care bill, the American people watched as the first stimulus bill failed to produce jobs.

While President Obama focused all his energies on passing the financial regulation bill, the American people watched as the second stimulus bill failed to produce jobs.

Now, as President Obama begins his ninth vacation in nineteen months, he proposed a third stimulus bill for small business job creation.

As Albert Einstein said, “insanity” is repeating the same process or steps over and over, and expecting a different outcome.

It is now safe to question the President’s sanity . . . or is it. The first stimulus bill was never about producing jobs, nor was the second stimulus bill nor the third. The stimulus bills were authored by the Apollo Alliance, who included in the bill every progressive-socialist agenda except jobs.

As of 8/6/2010, the government has spent only 58% of the first stimulus package of $862 billion (Recovery.gov still shows the original amount of the first stimulus at $787 billion). The second stimulus bill has failed to make it to Recovery.gov.

The stimulus bills have always been about the socialist agenda of population control by keeping the population dependent on government. How? By not producing jobs. Even President Obama’s recent ban on drilling in the gulf coast had nothing to do with oil but everything to do with the elimination of approximately 100,000 direct and indirect jobs in the gulf.

The health care bill was not about providing better health care for the people. It was about population control through government controlled health care plans, government bureaucracies and special panels, all run by unelected political hacks.

The financial regulation bill was not about trying to prevent another financial meltdown, otherwise why did Congress and President Obama exempt Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from the bill? No, it was all about control. It was all about imposing a socialist agenda over a capitalist market.

What can be expected from a progressive-socialist agenda? First, it is an inhumane political philosophy. How do we know? We turn to history. We turn to the tens of millions of innocent people controlled and ruined by Joseph Stalin. We turn to the million of innocent people whose lives were controlled and ruined by Mao Zedong. We turn to the histories of Idi Amin, Kim Il Sung, Mengistu Haile Mariam, and Pol Pot, to name a few more.

Of course, President Obama’s strategy will be more sophisticated. Approximately 40-50% of the population was dependent on the government before he became President. He only needs to nudge another 20% into that dependency category in order to have voting majorities in the country. What citizen dependent on government largesse will refuse to vote for the party of handouts? We already see it in some minority groups who make up the bulk of government dependents.

Second, it is a pro-tyranny, anti-liberty political philosophy. How do we know? Again, we turn to history. As Mark Levin wrote in his book, Liberty and Tyranny, “The Statist . . . misuses equality to pursue uniform economic and social outcomes. He must continuously enhance his power at the expense of self-government and violate the individual’s property rights at the expense of individual liberty, for he believes that through persuasion, deception, and coercion he can tame man’s natural state and man’s perfection can, therefore, be achieved in Utopia. The Statist must claim the power to make that which is unequal equal and that which is imperfect perfect. This is the hope the Statist offers, if only the individual surrenders himself to the all- powerful state. Only then can the impossible be made possible.”

Third, progressive-socialism is steeped in hatred of everything and anything that is anti-collectivist. It is a pro-fear ideology. It is a political philosophy that divides and attempts to conquer its perceived enemies by race, by class, by religion, by ethnicity; it is no surprise that the Democratic Party was founded as a pro-slavery party. History clearly identifies this ugly stain of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party still abuses Black Americans through policies that destroyed the Black family. Look at every large urban population center containing large poor government dependent populations and you’ll find large Black populations under Democratic administrations, e.g., Washington, D.C., Detroit, Atlanta, Oakland, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Los Angeles come to mind.

Four, with progressive-socialists, it’s never what it seems to be. Americans have already picked up on President Obama’s consistency of saying one thing and doing another. Like every dictator in history, progressive-socialists must have enemies to attack and blame for perceived problems. Ninteen months into his first administration, President Obama continues to blame George Bush for every conceivable problem.

Progressive-socialists always use the race card. A case in point is Spencer Ackerman, a so-called journalist from the Washington Independent, who urged his fellow journalists “to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.” Progressive-socialist writers are not necessarily “journalists” but they have proven their dishonesty and bias.

Progressive-socialists love taxes. The current administration efforts to tax the top 2% of taxpayers even more aligns with President Obama’s strategy of not producing jobs. The top 2% of taxpayers are the very people who make the investments that helps grow business and create jobs. Raising taxes on the top 2% keeps this money out of the private sector. Keeping money out of the private sector means jobs are not created. Enacting stimulus bills that do not work means jobs are not created.

It’s not what it seems.

Imperial President’s Repeated Calls for Sacrifice

2010-08-07T09:07:00.000-07:00

Dec 2008 – President-elect Obama vacationed in Hawaii after being immaculated through national election.

Jan 2009 – President Obama , in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopolis, said “that fixing our economy over the long term will require sacrifice from every American and scaling back some of his campaign promises [emphasis mine].”

Stephanopolis: “And eventual sacrifice from everyone?”

Obama: “Everybody’s going to have to give. Everybody’s going to have some skin in the game.”

Feb 2009 - Headline: “Obama calls for sacrifice — and more spending” [emphasis mine].

The Obama’s spent four days in Chicago playing basketball and having a Valentine dinner.

Mar 2009 - Headline: Obama calls on bankers to show 'sacrifice' over pay.

Apr 2009 - US President Barack Obama called on Chrysler bondholders to make sacrifices in order to keep the nation's third largest automakers from filing for bankruptcy.

Jun 2009 - Headline: “Obama tells of sacrifice for next generation” [emphasis mine].
"But I want you to know that what you're doing is making a sacrifice for the next generation."

Aug 2009 - Obama takes the family for a much needed vacation to the Grand Canyon in hateful Arizona

Headline: “The Politics of Sacrifice” [emphasis mine].

“When asked whether Americans will have to sacrifice for the sake of reform, the president replied, ‘They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier.’ But while this may improve care, it represents a significant shift in the mind-set that defines the current patient-doctor relationship.”

Obama takes the family for an even much more needed vacation to Martha’s Vineyard.

Sep 2009 - Obama, Lady Obama and Oprah Winfrey fly to Copenhagen so they can tout Chicago to win the Olympics. . . and do a little shopping.

Dec 2009 - Mr. And Mrs. Obama go to Oslo so he can pickup a Nobel Prize and she can do a little shopping.

The Obama’s fly to Hawaii for an eleven day Christmas vacation, where it took Mr. Obama two days to comment on the Christmas bomber story.

What have Mr. & Mrs. Obama sacrificed?

Washington Alert: “Desiree Rogers Stages One Party Every Three Days In First Year of Obama Reign”

““Let the good times roll” – and roll they have at the Obama White House, while nearly 11% of the workforce remains unemployed, nearly four million Americans are losing their homes, and terrorists ride the open skies

“In fact, according to the Chicago Tribune, the stylish Ms. Rogers and the party-hearty First Couple hosted no less than 170 parties and social events through December 3 of 2009. And that does not even include the 17 parties and 11 open houses – feting more than 50,000 guests – ABC News reported the Obama’s hosted throughout the Holiday Season.

“For those not counting, that means by January, 2010, Ms. Rogers had staged one gala White House event every three days throughout the first year of the Obama Administration, making the once austere Executive Mansion look more like party central.”

Apr 2010 - With BP oil flowing freely in the Gulf , Mr. Obama decided to duck out for a quick family vacation in Asheville, North Carolina.

May 2010 – Mr. Obama takes his second vacation since the BP oil spill began, this time to Chicago, leaving Vice-President Biden to attend Memorial Day ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery.

July 2010 – “Obama took the family to Cadillac Mountain in Acadia National Park in Maine to relax as a reward for skillfully avoiding even the appearance of competence in the BP disaster.”

Headline: Morning Sentinel - “White House wanderers tour Acadia”

“. . . Arriving in a small jet before the Obama’s was the first dog, Bo, a Portuguese water dog given as a present by the late U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.; and the president's personal aide Reggie Love, who chatted with Baldacci.

"We're ready. We're going to do it all," Love said with a big smile.

“Air traffic at the small Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport in Trenton was shut down for the presidential arrival. A U.S. Coast Guard helicopter patrolled the air in anticipation of the first family's touchdown, and a pair of local fire and rescue trucks stood ready on an otherwise empty tarmac at the private air hangar.

“The Obama’s then traveled onto Mount Desert Island in a motorcade of at least 16 vehicles. It was led by two Maine State Police cruisers and included five black Chevrolet Suburbans . . .”

Headline: Obama’s ‘Mandate for Sacrifice’ Costs Thousands of Jobs

“As many as 100,000 Americans who lost their jobs, or will soon, because of GM and Chrysler dealership closings can thank Barack Obama and his "mandate for shared sacrifice," according to a top Obama official.
In a scathing report on the federal auto industry bailout, Special Inspector General Neil M. Barofsky notes that the Obama administration rejected initial automaker plans which would have required relatively minimal dealership closings, insisting instead on far more drastic cuts -- as many as two thousand dealerships between the two corporations.

August 2010 – Mrs. Obama and daughter head to Spain for a “private mother-daughter” trip with forty of their friends, staying at hotels at $2,500 per night. The cost of flying in government transportation is over $450,000.

Again, what have Mr.& Mrs. Obama sacrificed?

They have not sacrificed. They are not sacrificing. They are enjoying a progressive-socialist imperial presidency built on the demands that others sacrifice while they collect; that others service while they are served.

“It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of service and sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.”

-Ayn Rand, 1943, The Fountainhead

Why Mr. Obama Will Never Serve a Second Term

2010-08-03T07:19:00.000-07:00

The 2008-2009 Dodd-Frank Recession shrank United States Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by -10.9%. The policies of the Bush and Obama administrations further worsened the economy as unemployment hovers just below 10%. The Obama administration has followed in the footsteps of Franklin Roosevelt and replicated his failure.

Henry Morganthau, Treasury Secretary under Franklin Roosevelt, admitted, “"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work . . . We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot [emphasis mine]!"

Barrack Obama has done more damage to the financial health of the United States in eighteen months than Franklin Roosevelt did between 1933 and 1941. It took World War II to put America back to work. What will it take Mr. Obama, whose closest comparison is not Franklin Roosevelt but Jimmy Carter?

Add to Mr. Obama’s failed response to the recession not only his inadequate response to the Gulf oil spill but also the fact that he was aware of the hazardous situation in February, two months before the explosion, and still failed to take action. This inaction paints a glaring picture of incompetence and lack of leadership, liabilities already demonstrated in response to the Dodd-Frank financial meltdown.

To the mind of David Walker, former Comptroller General of the United States, even more dangerous than Obama’s failed policies and actions regarding the recession and the Gulf spill is Obama’s irresponsible spending: our mounting national debt is a “fiscal cancer” that is devaluing our currency, putting the future of our country in the hands of the Chinese and, in Obama’s mind, leading to further tax increases and dictatorial control of the population.

Dictatorial control of the population is also the basis for the so-called Obama health care plan. This is a plan that purports to provide health care to all by reducing health care funding for seniors, forcing people into government approved health plans, rationing health care and interfering in the doctor-patient relationship. This plan was signed into law even though the majority of American citizens were against the health care bill. Rasmussen polls show 59% of Americans want to repeal this law.

Now we have learned that the Obama administration has drafted a plan to grant immediate amnesty to illegal aliens by Executive Order. Several Senators have sent Mr. Obama a letter urging him to not pursue this idea. The extraordinary use of an Executive Order in this manner is simply an end run around Congress because the administration fears it cannot gather sufficient votes for a comprehensive immigration bill.

While he fails to secure our border with Mexico, Mr. Obama sues the State of Arizona while Mexican drug cartels place bounties for the murders of Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Within Mexico, several police chiefs and numerous police officers have been killed by the drug cartels. Mexico is close to being classified a failed state. Now Mr. Obama is allowing drug cartels to threaten United States law enforcement personnel and purposely not securing the border. Moreover, Mr. Obama has the FBI wasting precious agency assets investigating whether Sheriff Arpaio has violated the law over the last eighteen months. What a monumental waste of time, effort and tax dollars. Mr. Obama is not just failing “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” he has turned his back to our law enforcement officials and the American people.

In the end, we now know Mr. Obama views the United States Constitution as an impediment to his plans for this country. “Seven years before Barack Obama's ‘spread the wealth’ comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.” This view that our Constitution is flawed reveals a very skewed mindset by our current president. Is this the reason for his extra-constitutional attitude regarding illegal immigration? Regarding border security?

Mr. Obama has noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice. Mr. Obama forgets that the Constitution limits government power to prevent tyranny from occurring. Does Mr. Obama favor a Constitution that forces the government to provide welfare and so-called economic justice (socialist code for redistribution of wealth)?

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama the term “negative liberties” is an oxymoron. Liberty is always positive. The Constitution provides for positive restrictions on government power in order to promote liberty. In his skewed mind, Mr. Obama views the promotion of liberty as negative. This is why he promotes big government, more regulation, government takeover of the auto and mortgagae industries . . . all contrary to the notion of limited government.

Mr. Obama favors a “second bill of rights,” one he calls of “positive rights.” These are “rights” the government must provide, such as jobs, education and housing. But government cannot create wealth. And sooner or later, socialist programs run out of other people’s money. In order to provide a “second bill of rights” Mr. Obama must destroy the original Bill of Rights, which means Obama is intent on taking away our inalieanble rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Since “our Creator” granted these rights to us, Mr. Obama cannot take them away except by force.

Mr. Obama’s “second bill of rights” means that Obama can grant or take away these rights as he sees fit. That means, in Mr. Obama’s skewed mind, the power of government does not derive from the consent of the governed. It means Mr. Obama’s government is all powerful and the people have only those rights the government grants to them. This is the scary, tyrannical Mr. Obama that Americans are beginning to see.

Mr. Obama’s view of a “flawed Constitution” and the need for a “second bill of rights” to replace the first Bill of Rights calles into question whether he can live up to his oath “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?” Based on his own record of inaction, lack of leadership, take-over of the auto and mortgage industries, failure to protect the Gulf coast, take-over of the health care industry, and his irresponsible spending and irreparable harm inflicted on this country, the answer has to be “no.”

NEVER AGAIN can America trust its national security, its financial security and the security of its people to progressive-socialists like Barack Obama.

“To preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” Americans must NEVER AGAIN elect progressive-socialists to elective office.

The American people know it.

This is why Mr. Obama will never serve a second term.

American Observations #11

2010-07-28T13:52:00.000-07:00

Television pundits have stated, “We need to pay for tax cuts,” or words to that effect. Do not fall into this progressive-socialist trap.

Taxes are the peoples’ money, not the government’s money. Tax cuts do not need to “be paid for” as they are a savings to the tax payer. On the contrary, government spending must “be paid for.”

Only big government progressive-socialists would ask the people to accept a tax increase in order to pay for a tax savings. Their skewed view is that government is separate from the people; that the government is not one “of the people, for the people and by the people.” Progressive-socialists believe the people exist to support the government.

This is the great divide between progressive-socialists and the rest of us, who believe that government power is derived from the consent of the people and government exists to serve the people.

American Observations # 10

2010-07-27T07:35:00.000-07:00

The White House called the release of several thousand classified documents by Wikileaks “irresponsible” yet the White House made no effort to stop news organizations from publishing these classified documents.

It wouldn’t surprise me to find the Obama administration behind the “leak” of these classified documents that, for the most part, covered the Bush administration years. Such a massive disclosure of material across numerous data bases and years is either a catastrophic security breach or an intentional breach of security at the very top of government.

The Obama administration is hip deep in bad news and needed something to distract the American public away from its failed stimulus program, lack of jobs, 9.5% unemployment rate, this year’s deficit equaling 10% of our entire economy, and projected unemployment this year at higher than 9%.

Whew! No wonder Obama did nothing to prevent publication of these classified documents.

Obama’s Police State Almost Complete

2010-07-27T07:33:00.000-07:00

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 totaled 31 pages. The Glass-Steagel Act of 1933 totaled 37 pages. The Interstate Banking Efficiency Act of 1994 totaled 61 pages. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 totaled 66 pages. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 totaled 145 pages. The Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill of 2010 totaled 2,319 pages (did anyone read it?).

“One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary.”

By signing the Dodd-Frank financial regulation act, President Obama has almost completed restructuring America into a police state of vast proportions. For the first time, the government will have access to every financial transaction in the United States. Why? Where does the Constitution allow the government this onerous power?

The legislation creates another huge bureaucracy in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), whose responsibilities include policing lending, capping interchange fees charged by banks, and allowing retailers to set minimum and maximum limits on debit card purchases. Why? Where does the Constitution allow the government this onerous power?

Prior to the financial meltdown in 2008, the Democrat controlled Congress manipulated Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac policies to encourage riskier loans on sub-prime mortgages. When responsible Republicans attempted to tighten up policies for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005, Democrats Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd led the charge to protect Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Ironically, the very people who were complicit in causing the meltdown found themselves in power and wrote the new financial regulation bill. But they omitted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from this bill.

The new regulations are so onerous in restricting bank earnings that banks, like airlines, will start eliminating free services and start charging for small services. Start with the elimination of free checking.

The new law allows the federal government to take over a non-bank financial company without due process of law. The law only requires that someone deem a non-bank’s financial condition a threat to the United States. Why? Where does the Constitution allow the government this onerous power?

The bill allows the federal government to force companies to “register” with a government “Board of Governors” that then controls the companies. This is the beginning of the National-Socialist movement as seen in Italy and Germany prior to World War II.

The law also includes numerous provisions that have nothing to do with financial security. For example, the law makes it easier for unions, environmental groups and other activist organizations that hold shares to put their representatives on the boards of directors of every corporation in the United States.

The law forces new burdens on airlines, utilities and other non-financial businesses because they use financial derivatives to hedge their businesses against risks such as fluctuations in oil prices, interest rates and currencies, practices that were not related to the financial meltdown.

The law requires financial institutions and agencies that contract with the federal government to adhere to race and gender quotas. The law requires establishment of the Office of Women and Minority Inclusion (this is not a joke). The Treasury, FDIC, NCAU, the Federal Reserve, and all federal regulatory agencies shall establish an Office of Women and Minority Inclusion within the agency. The Office shall be staffed with a Director and unknown number of staff to to develop policies promoting equal employment opportunities and racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of not just the agency's workforce, but also the workforces of its contractors and sub-contractors. to develop policies promoting equal employment opportunities and racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of not just the agency's workforce, but also the workforces of its contractors and sub-contractors. to develop policies promoting equal employment opportunities and racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of not just the agency's workforce, but also the workforces of its contractors and sub-contractors. to develop policies promoting equal employment opportunities and racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of not just the agency's workforce, but also the workforces of its contractors and sub-contractors.develop policies promoting racial, gender and ethnic diversity of not only the agency’s workforce but also the workforces of its contractors’ and subcontractors’ workforces. Why? Where does the Constitution allow the government this onerous power?

President Obama’s health care legislation shreds the Constitution. For example, for the first time in our history, for failure to obtain health insurance, the government can penalize an individual up to $1,900. In addition, the government can charge the individual with a misdemeanor carrying a one year prison sentence or a $25,000 penalty.

The new health care law also provides for 16,500 IRS agents to enforce mandatory health insurance on every American, whether we like it or not. Why? Where does the Constitution allow the government this onerous power?

Obama does not care about or respect the Constitution. It is about power and control. Obama stated in his campaign, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that 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."

President Obama’s thirst for power knows no limits. The administration that cannot be trusted to observe the limitations of the Constitution must be removed from power. The 2010 election is the only election that stands between a free America and an Obama police state.

American Observations #9

2010-07-26T12:57:00.000-07:00

Mr. Obama gave a pass to Iran and North Korea but chose to attack Arizona with tax dollars. Not only is immigration enforcement not a priority it is a threat to Mr. Obama’s long term strategy to grant amnesty through executive order.

This executive order, if signed, will be the equivalent of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the basis for impeachment.

American Observations #8

2010-07-25T08:42:00.001-07:00

Mark Borkowski, Executive Director of the Secure Border Initiative at the Department of Homeland Security, conceded that the “virtual” border fence is a failure.

Janet Napolitanao, the Secretary of Homeland Security, said the border is more secure than ever.

Is this the gang that couldn’t shoot straight?

Congressional Culture of Corruption Continues 29 – Charles Rangel, an Albatross around the necks of House Democrats

2010-07-25T08:40:00.000-07:00

The House ethics investigators have announced a public trial regarding ethics charges against Representative Charles Rangel. This is not news.

I have written in American Commentaries on numerous occasions about Charles Rangel's unethical behavior under the “Congressional Culture of Corruption Continues” series: #3 – Rangel Violates NY Rent Stabilization Laws (9/8/08); #6 – Rangel’s Tax Evasion (9/13/08); #12 – Rangel Demonstrated His Disdain for ethical Behavior (12/12/08); #21 – Charles Rangel is a disgrace to the House of Representatives (8/27/09); #22 – Rangel Pays Off Democrats on Ethics Committee (9/4/09); #28 – Charles Rangel Ethical Violations Go Unchecked (2/27/10).

As recently as March of this year I posted an article titled “The House Ethics Process is Working?” (3/21/10). My conclusion: “Only if the Democrats designed it to miserably fail.”

The shame of it all is not that Charles Rangel has been allowed to engage in unethical behavior for so long. The shame of it all is not that the ethics committee took so long to arrive at this juncture.

The shame of it all is that Democrats have been negotiating with Rangel for months to avoid the circus of a trial. They have yet to reach agreement. However, talks between the Democrats and Rangel continue. The possibility that another corrupt Democrat Congressman escapes punishment for his unethical acts will surely shatter the 11% approval rating Congress now enjoys.

Rangel is said to be dragging his feet on an agreement because he wants another term in Congress. The Black Caucaus will protect Rangel at any cost, up to and including using the race card against Democrats on the Ethics Committee. Any type of ethics trial dragging close to the November elections will prove to be hazardous to Democrats up for re-election.
Whatever happens, do not look for principled Democrat representatives to do the right thing. The Democrats goal is to cover up, sweep it under the rug, and if Rangel proves obstinate Democrats in the House may throw Rangel under the proverbial bus.

American Observations #7

2010-07-22T14:43:00.000-07:00

Mr. Obama repeatedly alibis he inherited a bad economy. On the contrary, he and the Democratic controlled Congress help create the financial meltdown. Then the Democrat controlled Congress aided and abetted Mr. Obama in increasing our national debt to over $14 trillion, an approximate $4 trillion increase in less than two years. In other words, in about eighteen months in office, Mr. Obama’s increase in national debt equaled the increase in national debt during George Bush’s entire eight years in office.

Mr. Obama is entitled to his own opinion but he is not entitled to his own set of facts.

American Observations #6

2010-07-20T08:22:00.000-07:00

Our Attorney General, Eric Holder, once called Americans cowards on race yet he backed down on prosecuting members of the New Black Panthers who intimidated white voters solely because they were black.

We now know who the real moral coward is.

American Observations #5

2010-07-14T11:42:00.000-07:00

The NAACP, has accused the “Tea Party movement is a threat to the pursuit of human rights, justice and equality for all.”

This charge came from the nation’s largest race based and racist organization. The NAACP is an arm of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party was created as a pro-slavery organization in 1800. The Democratic Party created the Klu Klux Klan and Jim Crow laws.

The NAACP and the Democratic Party have presided of the demise of the black family and black neighborhoods. The NAACP and Democratic Party have encouraged the use of demeaning welfare programs, further destroying black families by making blacks dependent on government handouts.

The NAACP is itself a threat to the pursuit of human rights, justice and equality for not only black people but also for all Americans. At long last, has the NAACP no shame

American Observations #4

2010-07-12T16:24:00.000-07:00

The national unemployment rate fell slightly in June: it's now at 9.5 percent from 9.7 percent in May but expect it to be revised upward in a few weeks. The unemployment rate did not only basically remain static but it also tells us we have a serious structural problem in our economy made worse by Obama’s socialist policies:

(1) Almost half of unemployed Americans have been without a job for over six months.

(2) The average duration of unemployment, which hit a post-World War II record many months ago, continues to go up; last month it clocked in at 35 weeks.

(3) Unemployment is particularly severe among the young: A quarter of Americans between 16 and 19 years old in the labor market are without a job.

Mr. Obama is following in the exact footsteps of Franklin Roosevelt. Obama’s policies are making the recession worse. From 1933 to 1939, Franklin Roosevelt poured hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morganthau admitted that all the spending did not help the economy: “. . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"

Only a terrible war saved Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency and the economy . . .

American Observations #3

2010-07-11T14:24:00.000-07:00

President Obama promised that health care will not be rationed. Then he carved out $500 billion from Medicare, effectively taking Medicare Advantage away from 22 million seniors. Then, through a recess appointment, Mr. Obama appoints a medical doctor that publicly adores the health care rationing of the British National Health System to run Medicare and Medicaid.

It makes one wonder about Mr. Obama’s persisent inability to tell the truth.

Mr. Obama’s Henchman: Eric Holder

2010-07-11T14:23:00.001-07:00

As Mr. Holder announced, in part: “As you all know, the President on Friday reiterated that the first and foremost goal of the entire government is stopping the leak, containing and cleaning up the oil, and helping the people in this region get back on their feet and return to their normal lives . . . But as we have said all along, we must also ensure that anyone found responsible for this spill is held accountable. That means enforcing the appropriate civil – and if warranted, criminal – authorities to the full extent of the law.”

Does this mean Eric Holder will open a criminal investigation against Mr. Obama for his incompetent and inept response to the gulf spill? As noted in a previous article on this blog (“Barack Obama-Gross Criminal Negligence in the Gulf), three days after the accident, the Dutch government offered ships outfitted with skimmers and developed a plan to build sand berms to protect fragile coastlines. The Obama administration refused the help.

In fact, Mr. Obama waited 71 days before accepting the offers of foreign assistance. Of course, by this time the coast lines and marsh lands of Florida and Louisiana had been irreversibly damaged by the oil sludge.

James Carville exploded at on "Good Morning America" about Obama's "political stupidity" in the spill. He accused President Obama of being “lackadaisical.” "He could be commandeering tankers and making BP bring tankers in and clean this up. . . It just looks like he's not involved in this. Man, you got to get down here and take control of this." And Carville was right. Mr. Obama was detached, remote and uninvolved, even though his administration tried to paint a different picture.

Mr. Obama has claimed responsibility for cleaning up the Gulf and he has repeatedly failed. His negligence is criminal. If Holder fails to open up a parallel criminal investigation of President Obama, Eric Holder will be guilty of a cover-up.

American Observations #2

2010-07-10T07:33:00.000-07:00

For someone who asked to be held to a higher standard, President Obama does too much whining when he is held accountable.

American Observations

2010-07-09T07:20:00.000-07:00

President Obama is raising federal income tax rates in 2011:

10% to 15%
25% to 28%
28% to 31%
33% to 36%
35% to 39.6%

Mr. Obama said no one making less than $250,000 annually will receive a tax increase.
Why, then, did the lowest tax bracket increase by 50%?

Barack Obama – Gross Criminal Negligence in the Gulf

2010-07-07T08:24:00.000-07:00

BP appears to be doing everything it can to do the right thing for the people of the gulf coast. The important thing to remember is that the oil spill was an accident. No one wanted to see this happen.

On the other hand, Barack Obama is an obstruction to the clean up of the oil spill and appears to be doing everything he can to hurt the people of the gulf coast.

Three days after the accident, the Dutch government offered ships outfitted with skimmers and developed a plan to build sand berms to protect fragile coastlines. The Obama administration refused the help. As a result, miles of coast line in Louisiana and Florida have been damaged by tar balls.

Seventy-one days after the oil spill, the Obama administration finally accepted offers of aid from twelve countries. However, the Mr. Obama has yet to suspend the Jones act allowing foreign vessels to operate in U. S. waters. This is a glaring example of Mr. Obama’s criminal negligence in responding to the gulf oil spill.

The United States apparently has 2,000 skimmers with only 20 in the gulf. The Obama administration has refused to relocate skimmers to the greatest area of need. Obama’ reply to the question: “We can’t take these skimmers from other places in the country because they might have an oil spill!” Mr. Obama’s answer is contrary to common sense. We now must question whether Mr. Obama’s inaction and slow response are premeditated?

Governor Bobby Jindal submitted a plan to build sand berms to protect Louisiana marshlands. After lengthy delays, only 2% of his request was approved. Then the Coast Guard listed 33 conditions that had to be met before construction of the sand berms could begin. Then the Obama administration refused to fund the berm construction, effectively killing the idea. The result, miles of coast line and marsh lands have been destroyed.

When Governor Jindal created a way to use local barges to siphon the oily sludge, the Obama administration stopped him. The Coast Guard allegedly needed to confirm that the barges had fire extinguishers and life vests on board. The Coast Guard later admitted it was a mistake.

Instead of helping the people of the gulf coast, the Obama administration has threatened BP with criminal prosecution before establishing that a crime has been committed. Then the Obama administration participated in an unprecedented criminal shakedown of BP, forcing the company to establish a $20 billion fund in escrow to be managed by an Obama crony, Kenneth Feinberg, instead of an independent manager.

Damage to the coast lines and marsh lands of Louisiana and Florida, and damage to a large part of the eco-system, are the responsibility of the Obama administration as it could have prevented such damage by a prompt response to the disaster. It is simply breath-taking to compare the response of Barak Obama to Haiti against his response in the gulf. It appears that Mr. Obama’s slow-motion response is pre-meditated: he wants major damage in the gulf to support passage of his “cap and trade” legislation.

In either case, he had the tools at hand to expedite a clean-up and refused to do so. Barack Obama is guilty of gross criminal negligence for the damage to our Gulf, to our Gulf economy and to the citizens of the Gulf States.

Day 57 - He Gave Another Speech

2010-06-16T12:48:00.000-07:00

It is the history of secular progressive-socialists to “declare war” on something, to speak in military terms in an attempt to rally citizens. Franklin Roosevelt declared “war against the emergency [great depression], as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe."

Lyndon Johnson declared “an unconditional war on poverty” in his 1964 State of the Union address, precipitating the greatest expansion of government and spending on domestic issues since the great depression.

True to his secular progressive-socialist roots, Mr. Obama talked about the “battle we’re waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens” and “We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes.” The common theme running from Roosevelt to Johnson to Obama is each has capitalized on a crisis for further political gain and enormous amounts of tax dollars were wasted on progressive-socialist program.

Yes. Day 57. Another useless speech. Is the President focused on plugging the leak? Did the President outline a plan? After eight weeks of continuous spill, President Obama has no plan in place. Yet there literally hundreds of innovative people with workable solutions waiting to be called on.

Governor Huckabee, on his Fox television program, interviewed and demonstrated proven techniques to remove oil from water. Not one of these people has been contacted by the government yet Obama claims responsibility for cleaning up the spill. Kevin Kostner’s company, Real Solutions, has the technology to remove oil from water. He testified before Congress. The Dutch offered to send ships with skimmers three days after the spill occurred. The Obama administration refused the offer.

Mr. Obama still does not have a plan. However, never wanting to let a crisis go to waste, Mr. Obama, in his speech, pushed for his “cap and trade” tax increase. “Cap and trade” legislation has absolutely nothing to do with plugging the oil well. This legislation will destroy jobs and reduce Louisiana’s economy.

It took 58 days for Mr. Obama to meet with the BP Chairman and CEO. Mr. Obama’s inaction surrounding the gulf oil spill has consequences. Mr., Obama was terribly slow in becoming engaged with the disaster. The USAToday/Gallup Poll found 53% of Americans rated Mr. Obama’s performance as “poor” or “very poor.”

Mr. Obama imposed a moratorium on deep water drilling potentially putting 200,000 employees out of work. These are not just oil employees but employees in oil related industries, restaurants, “Mom and Pop” employers, and other industries unrelated directly to oil exploration. Mr. Obama just made the oil spill four times more disastrous. What is this President thinking?

Mr. Obama should be determining what exactly how the oil spill accident happened before claiming we need more regulatory solutions. Heritage Foundation found that “Federal regulatory tape has gotten in the way of the cleanup, including:1) missed opportunities to burn off more of the oil because of overblown air pollution concerns; 2) holdups in the use of dispersants; 3) permit delays in allowing the state of Louisiana to create artificial barriers against the encroaching oil slick; 4) failure to waive regulatory prohibitions against foreign assistance; and, 5) failure to approve barges and booms in time to block oil from reaching Alabama’s Magnolia River.”

It is precisely the lack of federal leadership from Mr. Obama, Secretary Ken Salazar and their minions that are prolonging the disaster. Governor Bobby Jindal, Louisiana’s Governor, has been screaming for the Obama government to issue permits to build 24 sand-berms. After weeks of delay, the federal government, bogged down in its own permit process, approved 5 sand berms, only 20% of Jindal’s original request.

So what is Mr. Obama doing? He selected a lawyer from the Justice Department to replace the Mineral Management Service director who was removed as a result of the oil spill. A lawyer? Mr. Obama is finally meeting with BP’s Chairman and CEO 58 days late. Eight weeks after the oil spill accident occurred, Mr. Obama admitted there was no immediate end in sight.

Instead of leading the nation toward constructive solution, he is isolating BP, talking revenge (for an accident), talking about making BP pay . . . going to the extent of demanding that BP establish an escrow account managed by an independent third party, demands not backed by any Constitutional authority. BP will probably agree for public relations purposes. As of this writing, Kenneth Feinberg, the so-called Pay Czar, has been named to manage the escrow account. So much for an independent manager.

What is needed from the President is an Apollo 13 response, where “failure is not an option” instead of “no immediate end in sight.”

First, stop finger pointing at BP. The company did not intentionally create this disaster. It was a tragic accident. The federal government needs to partner with BP to plug the well.

Second, plug the well.

Third, command and coordinate the cleanup, using all resources available. This is an “all hands on deck” event.

Fourth, in cooperation with the oil industry, evaluate exactly what happened? What caused the well to blow? What could have prevented the accident?

Fifth, in cooperation with the oil industry, create responsible response plans for deep water drilling accidents, including all available resources.

Sixth, do not play politics with this disaster. Having Attorney General Eric Holder fly to the Gulf to announce the beginning of criminal investigations is just plain stupid. Pushing for a “cap and trade” bill to be passed is not only wrong it is criminal. We’ve seen what happened when the White House took advantage of the mortgage meltdown: a waste of billions of dollars.

Seventh, plan for the future. This means removing the moratorium on deep water drilling. It means opening up shallow water drilling and drilling on land. After all, it was the banning of on shore and shallow water drilling that forced the oil companies to move to deep water drilling, policies that were not clearly thought out and short sighted.

Mr. Obama’s continuing failure to lead will only increase the time required to plug the well, extend the damage to fragile shorelines of our Gulf States, damage Mr. Obama’s slim legacy and restrict him to a one term presidency.

Mr. Obama’s Foreign Policy Failures

2010-06-14T09:41:00.000-07:00

President Obama, in consultation with Russia and China, fashioned the fourth weak and useless sanction against Iran, which the United Nations, another weak and useless third world organization, passed. Far from being isolated, as Mr. Obama claims, Mr. Ahmadinejad was meeting with representatives from Brazil and Turkey. So much for Mr. Obama’s foreign policy with Iran.

Regarding North Korea, it appears Mr. Obama has another failure on his hands. North Korea has nuclear weapons. North Korea sank a South Korean vessel. Mr. Obama sent his condolences to the families of the dead and injured. Then he did what he always does when he doesn’t know what to do: he gave another speech, this time to the Korea Society 2010 Annual Dinner.

Then Mr. Obama turned his back on our only friend and ally in the Middle East, Israel, and reached out to Turkey, the country responsible for attempting to run the Gaza blockade. Mr. Obama appears intent on aiding and abetting the growing tide of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiment in the Middle East. Yet one more policy triumph for Mr. Obama.

Now, Mr. Obama has created an international incident in Great Britain for his incompetent handling of the BP gulf oil spill. “John Napier, the chairman of the British insurer RSA, accused the President of being anti-British and ‘prejudicial and personal’ in his dealings with BP.” Mr. Obama had to call British Prime Minister Cameron to try and control the damage to relations between the two countries.

Of course, Mr. Obama never thought to call the CEO of BP. Mr. Obama never thought to partner up with BP to bring the best minds to attack the problem. Mr. Obama multiplied the disaster fourfold by announcing a mortorium on deep sea drilling, putting 200,000 people out of work. How incompetent and simple can he be? But not to worry. Mr. Obama is planning another speech for June 15th from the Oval Office.

Now we turn toward Afghanistan, where Mr. Obama has openly stated that U.S troops will start leaving the country in July 2011. It is now midway through 2010. Can we really win the peace, and defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban, in one year? The Marja and Kandahar offensives have failed. It appears Mr. Obama will have to keep troops in Afghanistan, allow President Karza to recruit Taliban insurgents into his government (to this end, the United States is delisting Taliban insurgents from its Terrorist lists) or admit defeat: Mr. Obama’s foreign policy at its best.

Japan attempted to renegotiate the military agreements for U.S. troops on Okinawa but Mr. Obama refused to negotiate. As a result, there is a growing sense that Mr. Obama has been less than respectful toward Japan. Yukio Hatoyama, the Prime Minister who resigned last week as a result of the failed negotiations, made campaign promises to renegotiate the treaties. Mr. Obama will have to spend considerable capital in damage control later this year.

The United States cannot long afford the secular progressive-socialist definition of foreign policy “success.”

President Obama’s Multiple Conflicts of Interest with BP

2010-06-12T16:14:00.000-07:00

What do we know about President Obama, his administration, BP and the Gulf oil spill?

First, Barack Obama received “a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years . . .”

Second, Barack Obama has finger pointed at BP’s Chief Executive Officer yet has failed to even talk to him: executives do not act in this manner.

Third, environmental officials are collecting samples of water, sediment and marine animal tissues for analyses. The results of these analyses may well be used in litigation to establish liability claims against BP. However, the laboratory officials have chosen is part of an oil and gas service company that counts BP as one of its largest clients.

Fourth, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for land and minerals management at the Interior Department and helps oversee the Minerals Management service, which regulates offshore drilling, worked for BP for eight years before arriving at the Interior Department. The employee, Sylvia Baca, was not made available for questioning.

Fifth, within days of the accident, the Dutch Government offered the Obama administration assistance with the clean-up by sending ships equipped with oil-skimming booms. The assistance also included a plan for creating sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands. President Obama rejected Dutch assistance.

Seven weeks after the rejection, the Obama administration agreed to partial Dutch assistance by accepting Dutch booms but not Dutch ships. The Obama administration is “also making it difficult for the Dutch to provide assistance in creating sand barriers to prevent the spilled oil from reaching the gulf shores.”

“Van Oord, a Dutch company and Deltares, a Dutch research institute provided plans to build 60 mile sand dikes and the government rebuffed their offer of assistance. The government has now changed its tune and has accepted the plan, but the Jones Act prevents the Dutch from operating in America’s coastal waters.”

“The United States Maritime Administration could issue a waiver of the Jones Act limitations, and has done so several times in the past. Doing so, however, would subject the Obama administration to criticism from labor unions who demand protection from global competition.”

Sixth, 53 days into the Gulf oil spill, the Obama administration refuses to use the most effective method of oil clean-up. During 1993-1994, Saudi Arabia faced an oil spill 65 times worse that the Exxon-Valdez spill. American Engineer Nick Pozzi’s idea was to use empty tankers to vacuum the oil off the water. As a result 85% of the oil was recovered.

Instead, the Obama administration is using untested techniques, including chemical dispersements, manufactured and sold by NALCO, a company in which Obama cronies, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Hathaway-Berkshire, and BP are heavily invested.

Harrison Schmidt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. Senator from New Mexico believes President Obama may want BP to fail for ideological reasons:

“President Obama and those claiming to have been on top of the Gulf oil spill situation "from day one" assumed that failure is an option and, indeed, may want BP to fail for their own ideological reasons . . . It has been left to BP engineers and managers and to Gulf state officials to respond as best they can in a regulatory environment that is politically charged, incompetent, fearful, and hesitant. Rather than allowing BP to stay focused only on solving the problems of the spill, Attorney General Holder now has launched a civil and criminal investigation! And let's then follow with sending an unsupported bill to BP for $69 billion! For good measure, let’s also stop offshore oil exploration by the United States. How misguided (or ignorant and devious) can our president be!

I think there is sufficient cause to believe that President Barack Obama has severe conflicts of interest with BP and the gulf oil spill and, as a result, a special prosecutor should be named to investigate Obama’s conflicts of interest.

Another White House Cover-up

2010-05-30T15:02:00.000-07:00

During a February 18, 2010, interview, Philadelphia newsman Larry Kane asked Congressman Joe Sestak the following questions:

Kane: “Were you ever offered a job to get out of this [Senate] race?”

Sestak: “Yes.”

Kane: “Was it Navy Secretary?”

Sestak: “No comment?”

Sestak admitted to Kane that he “was called many times” and asked to pull out of the race [emphasis mine].

Kane: “So you were offered a job by someone in the White House?[emphasis mine]”

Sestak: “Yes.”

Why did Sestak say “no comment” to the Secretary of the Navy question when he had already admitted he had been called not once but “many times?”

Robert Bauer, White House Counsel, issued a belated statement on May 28th, months after repeated denials by the White House of having offered Sestak a high ranking job.
Specifically addressing the Secretary of the Navy position, Bauer states that the position was never offered but fails to address other high-ranking positions.

Speaking of uncompensated advisory board positions, Bauer admits that these options were discussed with Congressman Sestak.

Bauer stated that White House staff did not talk to Sestak directly but utilized President Clinton as a go-between. President Clinton, after meeting with President Obama, refuses to comment. Sestak reveals only one telephone call with President Clinton. Who, then, repeatedly called Congressman Sestak as he himself admitted? He stated it was “someone in the White House.”

Robert Bauer’s statement contradicts Sestak’s initial comments to Larry Kane. Since Bauer works for President Obama, not only is Bauer’s integrity questioned but also his statement is not comprehensive. Bauer’s statement is disingenuous at best.

After the interview, Kane called the White House for a response. Fifteen hours later, the White House called to say the Sestak statements were not true. And the White House kept denying it until Friday, May 28th , from February 18th to May 28th, stone-walling every query.

If the White House did nothing wrong, why the attempted cover-up?

What did Rahm Emanuel know and when did he know it?

What did President Obama know and when did he know it?

Who repeatedly called Congressman Sestak after the lone Clinton call in July?

Why is there a contradiction between the White House and Congressman Sestak on what precisely was offered: a high ranking job in the administration (Sestak’s story) or an uncompensated advisory position (the White House version)?

What to believe?

President Clinton did call Congressman Sestak to offer an advisory position. Sestak confirms that single telephone call.

There were several telephone calls to Congressman Sestak made by one or more administration representatives. Congressman Sestak confirmed this fact. Who made the calls? A good bet is Rahm Emanuel, who does President Obama’s bidding..

Was a high-ranking position offered by someone in the White House? Yes. Congressman Sestak confirms this fact but refuses to say which position. Robert Bauer’s statement addresses only the Secretary of the Navy position.

Also on May 26th, the White House called Congressman Sestak’s brother, Richard Sestak, the Congressman’s campaign chief, to coordinate their respective stories. Congressman Sestak stated that the White House “got hold of my brother on his cell phone, and he spoke to the White House . . . about what’s going to occur.” This is an official statement of the cover-up.

There is little doubt a cover-up is occurring. Why? A high-ranking position was offered to Congressman Sestak, which is a violation of law. This is why the Justice Department refuses to appoint a special investigator to the case.

Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence resigned under pressure effective May 28th. President Obama has known for some time he was going to remove Blair. It is becoming apparent that Congressman Sestak was offered the position of National Intelligence Director. This position is high-ranking and compensated.

The position of Director of National Intelligence is the smoking gun. This is why the White House lawyer Robert Bauer singularly focused his statement on only the Secretary of the Navy position. This is why Congressman Sestak continues to obfuscate on the details.

The Arizona Immigration Debate

2010-05-05T04:26:00.000-07:00

The killing of Arizona Rancher Robert Krentz and the wounding of Pinal County Deputy Sheriff Lou Puroll, at the hands if illegal immigrants, has put a laser like focus on the reaction of Hispanic citizens who profess their rights are being violated by Arizona’s new law (the law does not take effect until July).

There is no doubt that there are those race exploiters who are taking advantage of the situation and inflaming passions. People like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Raul Grijalda, and President Obama come to mind. But, this is in keeping with the history, traditions, and practices of the progressive-socialist Democratic Party since its inception: the Democratic Party can never escape its racist heritage.

Hispanic writers like Ernest Portillo Jr, in the Arizona Daily Star (5/2/2010), quoted legal immigrants saying that the intensity of anti-immigrant sentiment is growing. The intensity of anti-illegal immigrant is growing but just about everyone I’ve talked to is very positively pro-immigration as long as you follow the rules. As Dennis Miller once said, “We don’t mind you visiting us, just sign the guest book.”

The biggest issue with those who disagree with the new law is that Hispanics will have to have identification to show law enforcement. If anyone is stopped by a law enforcement official for a violation of motor vehicle law, he or she has to provide a driver’s license. Federal law requires any foreigner to carry identification. Why are illegal Hispanic immigrants not protesting federal law? Ignorance and misinformation are the tools of the progressive-socialist radicals managing the protest.

If I write a check for groceries, the vendor always asks to see identification. I leased a sump pump from Home Depot the other day and was asked for my driver’s license and a credit card. What’s the big deal about showing identification?

The big deal is that illegal immigrants cannot show they are in the country legally. The big deal is Hispanics traditionally vote with Democrats even though, like Blacks, the Democratic Party, treats Hispanics badly. The Democratic Party would like nothing better than to have illegal immigrants voting Democratic. This was proven by the use of ACORN activists by the Democratic Party during the presidential election in numerous instances of fraud.

The Wall Street Journal article, “Killing Stokes Immigration Debate,”(5/2/2010) described a young 20 year community college student living in Mesa who was protesting the law because his family had been living illegally in Arizona for ten years. The student claimed his family will have to leave Arizona. Probably so, as he self-identified and admitted his family was here illegally. The student talked about moving to California or New Mexico. What he did not talk about was correcting the problem.

Hispanic immigrants who came to the United States legally have nothing to worry about.
Only those Hispanic immigrants who came here illegally should be worried. Since there are anywhere from 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States, I’m not surprised that they are reacting.

The repeated failure of the federal government to secure our borders makes the federal government complicit and responsible for the death of Robert Krentz and the wounding of Deputy Sheriff Lou Puroll.

The Arizona law mirrors federal law. Why didn’t Hispanic activists react to the federal law? Primarily because the federal government did not enforce it. Arizona intends to enforce the law: thus, the reaction primarily by radical progressive-socialists and illegal immigrants.

President Obama has called the Arizona law misguided. Does he also call the federal law misguided? Is this why his administration refuses to enforce it? Then, again, Mr. Obama has an aunt living in this country illegally.

American citizens of Hispanic descent have started voicing their disapproval of the race exploitative reaction to the law by illegal immigrants and progressive-socialist radicals.. They or their ancestors came to the United States legally and they think illegal immigrants should follow the same rules. My mother immigrated to the United States over sixty years ago. My wife immigrated to the United States over forty years ago. They followed the rules. So must Hispanic immigrants in this country illegally.

There are two Hispanic communities in this country: the legal community and the illegal community. The legal Hispanic community must not allow itself to be emotionally swept up by race exploiters.

As Americans, we must stand for border security and promote legal immigration. As Americans, we cannot tolerate murders or shootings of innocent people by illegal immigrants. As Americans, we must eliminate the illegal immigrant issue, thoughtfully and legally. The Arizona law is a sensible first step in the process.

Where's the Evidence?

2010-03-26T06:37:00.000-07:00

The Huffington Post reported that Tea Party demonstrators shouted abusive, racist and even the feared “N-word” at House Democrats. How did they know it was a Tea Party demonstrator? Where’s the independent evidence? Where is the video proving this behavior ever occurred.

Representative Emanual Cleaver, D-MO, was allegedly spat on by a protestor. Where’s the proof? There is none.

Representative John Lewis, D-GA, was allegedly called the “N-word.” Where’s the proof. Surely it must have been captured on film, especially with so many House Democrats carrying personal cameras.

And, of course, Barney Frank, D-MA, was allegedly called a “faggot” by some Demonstrator. Proof? None.

How strange. All this bad behavior but not one shred of evidence it ever occurred. Yet the progressive-socialists keep reiterating baseless charges, transforming themselves into victims, all in order to move the focus away from the worst piece of legislation ever passed by Congress.

In 1933, Hitler’s Nazis did the same thing. In order to obtain full control of the country, the Nazis burned down the Reichstag, forcing the suspension of the legislature. The Nazis blamed the Communists to shift focus away from the truth, just as the progressive-socialist Democrats storm troopers are doing with the Tea Party demonstrators.

This is standard behavior for Nazis, community activists, communists and progressive-socialist Democrats. How convenient that so many Democrats reported abusive behavior at the same time. It reminded my of the progressive-socialist main-stream-news media all using the same script, almost word for word, for the same news coverage.

Who’s to say it wasn’t a left wing radical organization backing this abusive behavior? This is typical of progressive-socialist Democrats strategy. One only has to realize these people are utterly devoid of an ethical framework. To the progressive-socialists, it’s all about the “ends justifies the means.” This is why they can make up false charges, fabricate victim-hood and not feel guilty. They have no values. And, they have no evidence. If they had evidence, they would have been the first to produce it.

Progressive-socialist Democrats have been caught in the glare of their own dishonesty and the stench of health care reform will not go away.

Washington is Different

2010-03-24T09:52:00.000-07:00

The last time my wife and I visited Washington, D.C., the City was exciting. We visited the White House, the Senate and House, and numerous museums that we looked forward to seeing again. We finished another anticipated tour of the City. This time, the visit felt empty.

Post-9/11 Washington is different. Washington is now an armed camp. Every where you go there are Secret Service Police, Washington Police, private security police, FBI swat vans . . . It reminded us of France, years ago, when police searched purses before you could enter a department store. Arab terrorists were the cause of French security precautions. Unfortunately, Arab terrorists are the cause of Washington’s security precautions.

We sat in the House gallery . . . after being physically “wanded” twice by security personnel. The House of Representatives was virtually deserted with maybe ten people in the chamber. Steny Hoyer, assistant whip to Nancy Pelosi, was giving a speech extolling the virtues of John Lewis, Representative from Georgia. It was simply an exercise in ego masturbation: a waste of taxpayer money.

Steney Hoyer and John Lewis could care less about the American people. They are wrapped in a security cocoon of draconian proportions; they are oblivious to the real world. With each layer of security they take another step further away from the people they ostensibly serve. This is not unique to Hoyer and Lewis.

Beyond the layers of security is another factor ensuring the remoteness and imperialism of our royal representatives: seniority. The longer our Senators and Representatives stay in Washington, the more insulated they become from the people they serve, the more entrenched they become in the surrealism of Washington the more they identify with Government.

They become the problem, not the instruments of solution. They demonstrate an “inside the beltway” group-think: pro-big government and pro-big government spending. Ronald Reagan rightfully concluded, in his first inaugural speech, that government was not the solution; government was the problem.

This is the Washington my wife and I found this trip. Pre-9/11, my wife visited the White House and experienced a well choreographed tour led by a knowledgeable guide. This trip, visitors experienced a self-guided tour of the East Wing . . . after having gone through two check points, a screening of bags and the presence of innumerable Secret Service Police and swat personnel . . . and who knows how many we did not see on roof tops, basements, and critical access points?

Washington has changed . . . for the worse. It is a sadder place. There is air of defeat in the City. It is now a place that questions its own greatness. Just as during the Carter administration, there is a palpable loss of confidence among the citizens. This gloom was precipitated by a President who “dissed” his own country, bowed to foreign leaders and denied American exceptionalism: a President who hates capitalism and all the good that America represents; a President who wishes to transform the United States into a mediocre European-equivalent socialist state; and a President who lacks values and ethics but relies on a lame excuse of “the ends justifies the means” for every act or omission.

A free people will always reject progressive-socialism and opt for liberty. As Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

We do need to take back our country and again see our “shining city on the hill” as a beacon of light guiding all mankind’s freedom loving people in a holy war against the tyranny of progressive- socialism.

An Act That Will Live In Infamy

2010-03-23T12:43:00.000-07:00

March 21, 2010, Health Care Reform passed the House: a Democrat controlled Congress trampled on the Constitutional rights of all Americans, moving America one step closer to the tyranny of a progressive-socialist political system.

The majority of Democrats in the House voted for the bill, a Senate bill that Representatives said they could not stomach: so much for the so-called values of progressive-socialist Democrats.

Progressive-socialist Democrats have already proven they cannot be trusted with America’s financial system or national security. The passage of the bill proves once and for all that the American people cannot trust the present or future of America to Democrats.

This bill was never about health care. It was solely focused on control of the American people. How do we know this to be true? Since Roe v. Wade in 1973 legalized abortions, the progressive-socialist sect within the Democratic Party has argued that the government cannot tell women what to do with their bodies. It’s a woman’s choice.

Today, in a 180 degree turn in rationale, the progressive-socialist Democratic Party is stating that no man or woman has control of their body, that the government can and will control what a man or woman does with or to their bodies, and that government will decide through higher taxes and health care rationing.

Why the reversal in rationale? In Roe v. Wade, it was simply “the ends justifies the means.” With regard to health care reform, it was simply “the ends justifies the means.” As Representative Alcee Hastings, D-FL, said about passing the health care reform bill, “When the deal goes down, all of this talk about the rules – we make them up as we go along.”

This is progressive-socialist politics devoid of ethical values, absent compassionate humanity and utterly lacking any redeeming intellectual rigor. This is tyranny in the making. This is the road the progressive-socialists want to take America. They want to rob from the successful and distribute wealth to those who did not earn it: witness the United Auto Workers and their ownership of General Motors and Chrysler. They want to make Americans dependent on a progressive-socialist government for the purposes of control.

The passage of this so-called health care reform bill is a giant step backward to the socialist Eden of the Soviet Union. A progressive-socialist, like Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter, D-NY, in the Wall Street Journal, was quoted as saying, “It makes me so happy that, after 100 years, we can finally catch up with the rest of the world.”

The rest of the world is essentially “third world.” Representative Slaughter must really miss the Soviet Union. If nothing else, she has voted for a “third world” soviet style medicine of health rationing for the masses and superior health care for the privileged progressive-socialist political tyrants.

The real story behind the so-called Health Care Reform bill is the government takeover of one-sixth of the American economy, introducing the tyranny of progressive-socialist government policy and the progressive loss of liberty for 306 million Americans: an act that will live in infamy.

The House Ethics Process is Working?

2010-03-21T15:22:00.000-07:00

Only a progressive Democrat could write that “The ethics process is working,” [USAToday, Opposing View, 3/10/2001). When the Democrats took power in the House, Nancy Pelosi stated she would drain the proverbial swamp and make work transparent to the public. We now see what that really meant. The first thing Nancy Pelosi did was to relax rules that required public disclosure of contributions and parties paid for by lobbyists.

Then Charlie Rangel tripped on New York City’s rent stabilization laws, reported to the so-called House ethics committee without consequence. Congressman Robert Wexler, Democrat, Florida, was caught in violation of residency and citizenship requirements? Ethics committee action? None. Nada!

Charlie Rangel then was caught failing to report taxable income from his villa in Punta Cana. Then comes Barney Frank’s role in the financial meltdown (we won’t mention his former boy friend running a male prostitution ring out of Frank’s residence). Ethics action? Nada.

Oh, there was William Jefferson, who was not condemned or punished (or even mentioned) by Pelosi’s ethics committee but who was sent to prison on the basis of an FBI investigation for taking bribes.

Then came . . . Charlie Rangel . . . again. . . this time for soliciting donations for a government sponsored Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service using his office letterhead. Ethics action? Nope.

Representative Edolphus Towns, Democrat, New York, who chaired the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, admitted to receiving “Friends of Angelo” loans that ordinary citizens could not receive: the terms of the loans were very favorable.

Then came . . . Representative Charles Rangel who submitted revised financial disclosure reports two years after the fact to correct a financial disclosure report he submitted in May of 2009 for 2007. Ethics action? Nada.

Then came . . . Charlie Rangel? Has he no shame? Does his hypocrisy have no limits? Providing further evidence of his dishonesty, Rangel has gave campaign donations to Democrat members of the House, including three Democrats on the House ethics panel who are charged with objectively investigating several ethics violations by Rangel. Now we understand the ethics committee’s continued failure.

In 2000, Congressman Mollohan, D-WV, owned assets of less than $500,000 generating income of approximately $80,000. In 2008, Mollohan owned assets ranging from $7 million to $29 million with liabilities totaling $2 million to over $7 million. In 2006, Mollohan was forced to file two dozen corrections to his past six financial disclosure documents. Ninety-five per cent of Mollohan’s assets are in real estate. Congressman Mollohan was able to increase his assets by a factor of 14 to 58 over his 2000 asset value on an annual salary of about $174,000. CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) lists Mollohan as one of Congress’ fifteen most corrupt members. Ethics committee, anyone? Not a chance.

Last July, Senator Robert Menendez basically demanded that the Federal Reserve approve an acquisition to save an ailing bank in New Jersey. Menendez failed to reveal that the bank was owned by two major contributors to his campaign coffers. While forwarding requests from constituents is not unusual, promoting a specific action or course of action is not. Where was the ethics committee?

Finally, after two years, the ethics committee found Charles Rangel guilty of accepting Caribbean trips from a corporation in violation of House rules. One of the outrages about this finding is the ethics panel decided against formal charges against Rangel that could lead to censure and loss of his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee. Obviously, the Democrat led ethics panel lacks a spine. Rangle agreed to "voluntarily" step down from his chairmanship.

And Representative Michael Capuano, D-MA, believes the ethics process is working?

Only if the Democrats designed it to miserably fail.

Health Care Summit Failure

2010-02-28T07:50:00.000-08:00

It started after a long presidential introductory speech that accomplished two things: it established that the president was going to control the process and it eliminated any notion of compromise or bipartisanship. It was simply political theater.

The Republicans refused to knuckle under to Democrat health care oratory, tactic or strategy. Republicans understood the deeper meaning of protecting the American people from the progressive/socialist attack on basic American freedoms.

The shrill health care oratory of progressive/socialist Democrats was deflected by the keen rational analysis of Republicans who saw the Democrats’ health care plan for what it is: a path to tyranny not health care reform.

Polls have shown the American people do not want any of the Democrats’ health care bills or their resort to reconciliation. The summit did not change the pre-summit dynamics: Republicans refuse to sign on to the horrific bills offered by the Democrats; the Democrats refuse to start over with a clean sheet of paper.

Pelosi and Reid are at odds. Reid wants The House of Representatives to approve the senate bill first, then he will send a second bill amending the Senate bill to Pelosi’s satisfaction. Pelsoi wants the House to Representatives to pass a reconciliation bill first then the House will approve the Senate bill. The Democrats still cannot come to agreement.

Add to stalemate the changes in the House and Senate. Pelosi needed 220 votes to pass health care last year. Now she’ll need 217 votes due to vacancies since last year, and as the one Republican who voted yes last year will vote no this year, Pelosi only has 216 votes . . . if all the representatives who are up for re-election vote for the bill.

In addition, there are eleven Democrats who do not like the Senate bill’s language on abortion. Pelosi now has 205 votes versus the needed 217. Reid lost his 60 seat majority but he can still pass a bill through reconciliation. But it doesn’t matter if Pelosi doesn’t have the votes.

It seems the Republican Party may be the party of “know.”

Congressional Culture of Corruption Continues 28 – Charles Rangel Ethical Violations Go Unchecked

2010-02-27T11:32:00.000-08:00

American Commentaries has previously reported on Charles Rangel’s continuing ethics violations. Beginning in 2008, American Commentaries has documented Rangel’s violations of New York City rent stabilization laws, his tax evasion for unreported rental income, his disdain for ethical behavior and his political donations to members of the ethics panel investigating his ethical violations.

Finally, after two years, the ethics panel has found Charles Rangel guilty of accepting Caribbean trips from a corporation in violation of House rules. One of the outrages about this finding is the ethics panel decided against formal charges against Rangel that could lead to censure and loss of his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Aides to Charles Rangel informed him that the trips were paid for by corporations. One of the aides stepped down from his position last year. Rangel, of course, doesn’t “recollect” anything of the sort. It is no surprise that polls show Americans view their politicians so negatively.

Nancy Pelosi, acknowledging there are more serious ethics violations against Rangel under investigation by the ethics panel, refused to remove Rangel from his chairmanship. This is the same Nancy Pelosi who promised to end a “culture of corruption” in the House but who has, instead, nurtured a more corrupt culture of corruption. It is being reported that Charles Rangel will receive a “public admonishment” for his violation of House rules, just a slap on the wrist.

The stench of corruption in the Democrat controlled House reeks stronger as each day passes.

Congress: A Trojan Horse for Progressives/Socialists

2010-02-24T07:57:00.000-08:00

Capitalism is the economic engine behind the greatness of the United States. Capitalism and liberty are reciprocal values culminating in American exceptionalism that allowed the United States to save the international community from two world wars, force the collapse of communism without firing a shot, and willingly share our wealth with those less fortunate.

American exceptionalism is based on the ideas of men. American exceptionalism flows from a nation based on the rule of law rather than a nation arbitrarily ruled by despots; a nation based on the notion of individual liberty and equal justice before the law; with government based on enumerated powers and limitations to protect this individual liberty and equal justice.

In our 234 year history, since the Declaration of Independence, we have proven to be the greatest country in the world; the world’s greatest republic based on democratic principles; the world’s greatest economic engine, the greatest developer of of ideas, medicines and products; the most compelling cultural influence in the world; and the most humanitarian culture in the world.

And there are those who wish to destroy America: Progressives/Socialists who are members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the Socialist International (SI). Progressives/Socialists want to take ownership away from shareholders and illegally give it to those that have not earned or purchased ownership.

The DSA states that “Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy.” Yet, in every instance where socialism developed we have seen massive government bureaucracy. Currently, the radical left fringe of the Democratic Party is attempting to takeover 17% of the American economy by nationalizing health care. The only way the Progressives/Socialists can be successful is to destroy capitalism and employ tyrranical rule, utlitimately destroying the American exceptionalism they fear and loathe.

The DSA touts the nations of Western Europe and Scandinavia as examples of “tremendous prosperity and economic equality. Yet there are no current models of fully instituted democratic socialism. Why? It doesn’t work. It reduces people to mere servants of the State. It destroys exceptionalism.

Then why are members of the United States Congress members of the DSA? The goal of the DSA is to destroy capitalism and liberty yet they all took an oath of office to protect and defend America from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I submit that one cannot be a member of the DSA or SI and be a member of Congress. Each and every member of the DSA who is a member of Congress swore a false oath. By definition, each DSA/SI member of Congress is a domestic enemy of the United States.

Who are these enemies of the United States in Congress? There are 76 members of Congress who are known members of the DSA. From Arizona, it is Representative Raul M. Grijalva, D-CD7.

The House Judiciary Committee has 23 Democrats and 11 are members of the DSA: John Conyers D-MI, Tammy Baldwin D-WI, Jerrold Nadler D-NY, Luis Gutierrez D-IL, Melvin Watt D-NC, Maxine Waters D-CA, Hank Johnson D-GA, Steve Cohen D-TN, Barbara Lee D-CA, Robert Wexler D-FL, and Linda Sanchez D-CA.

These Progressive/Socialists belong to the Democratic Socialists of America, an organization that is committed to destroying capitalism and replacing it with “social ownership” or collectivism, controlled by the State. These people cannot promote and defend the United States of America as elected representatives while holding a political view that calls for the destruction of capitalism and liberty.

Socialism was tried in the Soviet Union and failed. It was tried in Communist China and failed. Today, China employs capitalism to expand its economy. Despite the repreated failures of socialism, American Progressives/Socialists still attempt to destroy the United States in their effort to promote socialism.

Today, Progressives/Socialists employ class warfare to divide the America people: hate crime laws protect everyone but straight white people; bankers are attacked by the President of the United States, yet the finacial crisis was precipitated by a Democrat controlled Congress that used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for a failing sub-prime social program; and the President and Congress have engaged in unconstitutional actions absent checks and balances that have been in place 224 years.

The Tea Party phenomenon of 2009 was the awakening of the American people to the Socialist takeover of America’s health care. The so-called Global Warming initiative has been proven a scam, built on false radical left science with a goal of control of the American people and American economy.

President Obama has proven himself to be not a President but a Czar, uncomfortable in governing but very adept at royal fiat, with a very real contempt for economic realities. We have seen a House of Representatives run amok with the power of a vast majority ramming through two thousand page bills without the benefit of even reading the bill. We have seen a corrupt Senate employing the socialist “ends justifies the means” unethical philosophy to enforce the Nebraska Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase and the Florida Medicare Advantage deal.

This week, Progressives/Socialists are still attempting to salvage their massive health care take over. President Obama, himself a Socialist with ties to the New Party in Chicago, invited Republicans to the negotiating table not to negotiate a new health care bill but to have Republicans buy into a compromise of the two Democratic health bills. This is not bipartisanship. It is political theater designed to entrap Republicans into supporting a bill the American people overwhelmingly do not want.

Progressives/Socialists cannot be trusted. Their “ends justifies the means” doctrine defines them as void of ethical values. Socialists are starving for political control and massive collectivist government. Capitalism is to be abhored and collectivism embraced. Liberty is to be sacrificed and people are to be servants of the State.

To Progressives/Socialists government is the solution yet history shows otherwise. Progressives/Socialists cannot remain in government as the peoples’ representative when their purpose is not to represent the people but to destroy America. Congress is a Trojan Horse within which the Progressive/Socialist enemies of America hide.

Okay, Let’s Be Bipartisan Now

2010-02-19T13:51:00.000-08:00

President Obama’s first year in office was marked by total isolation of the Republican minority by a Democrat super-majority in Congress, one party back room rule absent checks and balances and a President who failed to extend a hand of bipartisanship but did extend his middle finger to the Republican minority.

Now President Obama wants to have a televised “summit” of Democrat and Republican Congressional leaders to find “common ground.” Democrats rejected bipartisanship in 2009. Now they want bipartisanship in 2010? And the Democrats want to televise it?

Regarding health care, Republicans want to start over and scrap the existing health care bills. President Obama wants to start with the existing health care bills. This certainly is not bipartisanship. It is an outright rejection of Republican principles of limited government and a proposed capitulation of Republicans to Democrat massive government. It is apparent that President Obama is not serious about bipartisanship.

Republicans are willing to compromise when their ideas are honestly evaluated and if their principles are not sacrificed. One radical progressive suggested that no one’s principles are violated by ensuring kids have medical care. Yet, if the offer of health care for children is but one step toward a single payer government system then principles are being sacrificed. If adults are covertly covered by a government health care for children then principles are being sacrificed.

The real issue now is, as Obama stated, we have a “deficit of trust.” Plainly speaking, the majority of Americans no longer trust President Obama. Rasmusson’s presidential approval index has had Obama in negative numbers since June 2009. Seventy-five percent of Americans are angry and/or disappointed in Congress. There is absolutely no reason to believe that President Obama or a Democrat led Congress can be trusted to lead in an honest and honorable fashion.

In fact we can expect just the opposite. In June 2007, candidate Obama promised transparency: any bill requiring his signature will be posted online for five days before his signature is affixed. President Obama broke this promise to the American people.

Candidate Obama promised that C-SPAN would televise health care negotiations between Democrats and Republicans, and House and Senate reconciliation committees. Actually, only Democrats participated in the crafting of the bill in each House of Congress. Then Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rhame Emanuel, negotiated in secret with House and Senate Democrats. President Obama broke this promise to the American people.

Candidate Obama promised that no one making less than $250,000 would have their taxes increased. But cigarette taxes were increased on primarily poor people. The House passed “cap and trade” that levied the largest proposed tax increase in U.S. history on all
American citizens. Both health care bills in Congress require everyone to have health insurance or pay a tax as penalty.

Candidate Obama campaigned for change. So far in one year, more people are out of work than there were in President Bush’s last two years: 5 million vs. 3 million. Democrat policies produced under a Democrat led Congress helped create the financial crisis and President Obama did not inherit a bad economy. He helped create it as a Senator voting in favor of policies that contributed toward the financial meltdown.

Candidate Obama promised to be a different kind of president. He did keep this promise. He is the most radical left wing progressive to ever hold the presidency. He is the first president to willingly appoint avowed communists to White Hose jobs. However, he is not the first President to willingly lie to the American people.

Now that his poll numbers have tanked, he s` tacking toward the center in campaign mode. He is now “fighting for the middle class” after he has “screwed” the middle class on taxes; he is “fighting for jobs” after his dismal stimulus package not only failed to stimulate but also prolonged the recession; and now he’s engaged in “class warfare” against Wall Street “fatcats,” all the while protecting Democratic political “fatcats” such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, etc., all millionaires who use legislation to protect their personal assets, just like Nancy Pelosi did to protect her husband’s $17 million investment in StarKist Tuna.

The one consistent fact about the Obama administration and the Democrats controlling Congress is they are the largest organized criminal cartel in American history: larger and more dangerous than Al Capone; larger and more dangerous than the Mafia; larger and more dangerous than the Mexican drug cartels.

Congressional Culture of Corruption Continues 27 – Senator Menendez, D-NJ, Urges Fed to Approve Acquisition of Bank Owned by Major Contributors

2010-02-15T16:17:00.000-08:00

Last July, Senator Robert Menendez almost demanded that the Federal Reserve approve an acquisition to save an ailing bank in New Jersey. Menendez failed to reveal that the bank was owned by two major contributors to his campaign coffers.

While forwarding requests from constituents is not unusual, promoting a specific action or course of action is not. Senator Menendez wrote Chairman Bernanke, “I write to ask the Federal Reserve to grant the attached application of JJR Bank Holding Company (“JJR”) to acquire First BankAmericano, and given the circumstances surrounding this request, I urge you to expedite this review, as they need a decision before this coming Friday, July24th.”

At the time of Menendez’s letter, the Chairman of First BankAmericano was Joseph Ginarte, a well known attorney with offices in New York and New Jersey. The Vice-Chair was Raymond Lesniak. Both had given generously to Menendez over the years.

The Federal Reserve did not act on the Menendez letter. The bank failed on July 31st.
William Black, a former federal bank regulator during the savings and loan crisis in the late 1980s and early 1990s, described Senator Menendez’s letter as grossly inappropriate considering his ties to Ginarte and Lesniak. Black also condemned Menendez for asking regulators to approve an application instead of asking the Federal Reserve for consideration.

The failed bank cost the FDIC $15 million. Senator Menendez is a member of the Senate Banking Committee and cannot deny that he knew what he was doing. This is but one more example of the culture of corruption in Congress.

A Retrospective on Liberals and Progressives aka Collectivists

2010-02-03T13:49:00.000-08:00

We are still fighting the same issues Ronald Reagan warned us about prior to his presidency: excessive government spending and regulations, taxation, a faltering economy, devalued dollar, high unemployment, approaching inflation, threats from abroad and weak national leadership.

Now we have additional issues in terms of one party control (despite Scott Brown’s election) absent checks and balances, a lack of presidential or congressional leadership, and an increase in secrecy not only in the White House but also in Congress.

When President Carter was in office the OPEC cartel had cut oil production and raised prices, a problem compounded because Carter had closed off exploration for oil and gas in Alaska. Now another Democrat in the White House has intentionally reduced oil production by refusing to let oil companies drill in or around America. Gas prices are rising again moderated only by today’s massive unemployment.

In 1979, Islamic radicals invaded the American Embassy and took sixty-six Americans hostage. Today President Obama’s failed overtures and veiled threats against Iran have been laughed at by the Iranian government. Development of nuclear weapons in Iran continues because of Obama’s lack of leadership: another clueless Jimmy Carter.

There is a growing loss of confidence in the government’s ability to solve problems. President Obama called it a “deficit of trust.” The people do not trust President Obama or his Democratic Party for cause.

America is a great country but it isn’t being run like a great country. President Obama repeatedly apologizes for America and bows before foreign government leaders. I’m sick and tired of my president apologizing for America.

The United States of America is the bastion of Capitalism. Our Liberty and Capitalism paved the way for American Exceptionalism.

What other country has sent its military to distant lands to fight for freedom and asked nothing in return. World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan are all familiar place names now. America’s Liberty and Capitalism drove the economic engine that allowed the United States to aid the people of each of these countries. Yet, the people of the United States asked nothing in return.

The American people are exceptional. When disasters occur, whether in Malaysia, former Yugoslavia, Mexico or, currently Haiti, the American people become the most generous people on earth. Our government’s foreign aid, while questionable at times, serves a purpose in keeping the free world strong.

The President’s unprecedented attack on banks is a classic example of a socialist or fascist strategy to define an enemy of the State and persecute them. Hitler did it to the Jews. Stalin did it to his enemies and Mao to his opponents. Saddam Hussein did it to the Kurds and Shiites. President Obama is doing it to the banks in the name of collecting TARP tax money.

The problem with this strategy is all the financial firms except AIG, Citi-Bank, General Motors, Chrysler, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has repaid TARP loans. Obama has exempted the last four companies from the tax. Why? Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Government Sponsored Entities, General Motors and Chrysler are union owned, AIG and CitiBank are owned by the government. President Obama is attacking only the private sector.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill:

Liberals and Progressives want to redistribute wealth to those who did not earn it.
Conservatives want to raise people from poverty through individual effort.

Liberals and Progressives would destroy private interests.
Conservatives would preserve private interests.

Liberals and Progressives seek to kill enterprise.
Conservatives seek to rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege, preference and one party rule absent checks and balances.

Liberals and Progressives attack the pre-eminence of the individual and strip the people of their identity through collectivism.
Conservatives seek to honor the individual.

Liberals and Progressives believe the people exist only to serve the State.
Conservatives believe in the individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Liberals and Progressives represent the danger of tyranny as seen in the attempted take over of the health care industry, as seen in President Obama’s attack on the financial industry and as seen in the complete takeover of the so-called mainstream news media.

They represent a future of national bankruptcy through uncontrolled spending and borrowing, a future of high inflation caused by the massive printing of dollars of decreasing value. Obama’s budget provides the country with a $1.556 trillion deficit in 2010 with another $1.267 trillion deficit in 2011. Over the next five years, the Obama administration forecasts $5.08 trillion in debt, up by 35% more than projected one year ago.

It is imperative that we take back our country at the next election. Never again can Liberals or Progressives be allowed to harm our national security, our financial security and our national family’s security. Liberals and Progressives are fast becoming domestic enemies of the United States.

Progressive or Liberal = Social Darwinism + Eugenics

2010-01-16T09:53:00.000-08:00

What is “progressivism?” Hillary Clinton, among many other former liberals, wants to be known as “progressive.” The reason: they are attempting to avoid the tainted political label of ‘liberal.” But the new label of “progressive” has been around for over a century and is just as tainted.

Progressivism is rooted in George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s philosophy of German idealism. Hegel produced a teleological account of history, a school of thought that holds all things are designed for or directed toward a final result or purpose. Karl Marx adopted Hegel’s philosophy then molded it into his scientific interpretation of society and history, a theory in which class struggle is a central element in the analysis of social change in Western societies.

In the United States, Progressivism was the so-called reform movement that ran from the late 19th century through the first decades of the 20th century, seeking to answer the economic, political, and cultural questions arising from rapid changes brought with the Industrial Revolution and the growth of modern capitalism in America.

Herbert Croly, a progressive leader in the early 1900s, rejected Alexander Hamilton’s argument for institutional checks on a pure national democracy and also rejected Jefferson’s arguments for limited government. Croly, in attempting to transcend the doctrine of individual rights, rejected the natural rights principles of our nation’s founding. Progressives believed the only way to save America's promise was to mobilize its people through a new, more centralized government that could coordinate their efforts and provide new national unity.

Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” natural selection theory was woven into the Progressive movement as a negation of natural rights principles and the notion of a Supreme Being. “This trend continues in full force with the so-called “new Progressives”, who many times pay lip-service to the idea of “God”, but are in the main Darwinian, Nietzschean atheists. Man, they would tell us, would have to fix his own ills and so it would take the best and the brightest (i.e. scientists, enlightened and brilliant political and entertainment figures) to right the ship. An oligarchy of the intelligentsia if you will.”

Many proponents of Darwin’s natural selection also promote the notion of eugenics as applied to social, political and economic areas. Eugenics, simply defined, is improvement of the human gene pool. In the United States, it included Margaret Sanger’s push for birth control and abortion. It included the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment with poor black men. It included the forced sterilization of selected people: prisoners, idiots, imbeciles and rapists. Throughout history, despots and dictators effectively used eugenics: Hitler against the Jews; Stalin against millions of people; Mao’s cultural revolution.; Arabs against Jews, members of lower castes, etc.

Progressives believe in big government, big government programs, and massive spending. Progressive President after Progressive President has sought to fight American individualism by new big government program offensives in the war. Many different public service programs have been introduced, each billed as the final push that would simultaneously meet the national needs and unleash the energies of the American people in national service.

President Theodore Roosevelt campaigned on a Progressive platform in an attempt at a third term. He defeated William Taft, the Republican candidate, but lost to Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic candidate.

President Wilson, who campaigned under the banner “New Freedom,” primary legislative accomplishments included the Underwood Act and the Federal Reserve Act, creating tariff reform and relinquishing Congressional control of the nation’s money to twelve Federal Reserve Banks. In addition, he introduced the income tax to the country. All these programs are centralized, big government programs designed to control the people.

President Roosevelt campaigned on a “New Deal,” which promoted big government programs that failed spectacularly to overcome the Great Depression but did permanently leave the welfare state in America. Our huge, complex modern regulatory bureaucracies are a vestige of the Big Government Progressive Statists.

President Johnson’s War on Poverty and his Great Society are classic progressive programs that also spectacularly failed, just as FDR’s great progressive programs failed. In fact, Henry Morganthau, Treasury Secretary under Franklin Rooselvelt, admitted, “"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot [emphasis mine]!"

President Obama’s mega-big government health care program is classic progressive politics, including eugenic policies that allegedly will improve the human gene pool in the United States but, in effect, it is nothing less than massive health care rationing. Obama supported eugenics as a State of Illinois Senator when he voted no on a law to provide medical help for babies who survived botched abortions. He can be labeled callous and unfeeling.

Included in the House health care bill is the creation of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The goal of this Federal Coordinating Council is the implementation of eugenics specifically targeted at Medicare patients. The Federal Council is modeled after England’s version, the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) that approves or rejects treatment. For example, NICE has a rule of thumb that states health expenditures are inappropriate if they involve spending more than $22,000 to save six months of life. Consequently, British cancer patients do not have access to drugs that are available to patients in the United States. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 25,000 British cancer patients die prematurely every year due to these arbitrary restrictions.

Interestingly enough, Betsy McCaughey, former Lt. Governor of New York, read the Obama Stimulus Plan (something Congress failed to do before voting for the bill) and found the health aspects of the bill chilling. The creation of a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, an appointed body with vast powers as described in Tom Daschle’s book, “Critical:What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis,” is the “death panel”described by Governor Sarah Palin.

Ms. McCaughey writes, “. . . The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept ‘hopeless diagnoses’ and ‘forgo experimental treatments,’ and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system . . . Daschle says health-care reform ‘will not be pain free.’ Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them . . .” You can be assured that Daschle’s “rules” will not apply to Daschle when he needs health care.

When people willingly describe themselves as “progressive” you now know what kind of person that is: a person who believes in social Darwinism and eugenics, who is willing to engage in reducing the most vulnerable among the population through health care rationing; a person who makes no distinction between withholding or rationing health care and premeditated murder; and a person who is willing to do so on a massive scale. This is what a so-called progressive is.

Dear President Obama . . .

2009-12-27T09:44:00.000-08:00

December 27, 2009

Barack H. Obama
President of the United States
White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama:

The Declaration of Independence clearly states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…”

The history of the Obama administration and 111th Congress is one of stark partisan politics, total lack of transparency, back room political deals giving some states illegal tax breaks over other states, a quadrupling of our annual deficit and a $12 trillion dollar debt all in the first year of your administration. You claim to have inherited a bad economy; on the contrary, you, as a Senator, and your fellow Democrats helped create a bad economy.

The legacy of the Democrat health care bill reeks with the stench of bribery and corruption, with votes purchased with Medicaid cost buy-offs. Included in the bill is a reduction of physician payments by 21.5% to lower the total cost of the bill, yet in a separate bill Senate Democrats restored physician reimbursements: absolute dishonesty on the part of Democrats.

In addition, numerous Democrats in Congress have engaged in criminal behavior that has been aided and abetted by incompetent and dishonest ethics committees controlled by the Democratic leadership.

Your powers to govern are derived from “the Consent of the Governed.” I withdraw my consent to be governed by such a corrupt administration and Congress.

Sincerely,

/s/ Richard D. Brinkley

c: Senator Jon Kyl
Senator John McCain
Senator Harry Reid
Representative Nancy Pelosi
Representative Gabrielle Giffords

Congressional Culture of Corruption Continues 25 – Max Baucus’ Nomination Fails to Pass Proverbial Sniff Test

2009-12-13T04:36:00.000-08:00

Max Baucus came under intense scrutiny after news broke that he had nominated his girlfriend and state director, Melodee Hanes, for the $149,000-a-year job as Montana's U.S. attorney earlier this year, while keeping their relationship secret. Hanes in March withdrew as a candidate. That occurred only after a Missoulian reporter and two editors asked some hard questions about whether Baucus and Hanes were having a relationship and whether he had recommended her for the job.She later withdrew her name, citing “other opportunities.”

Baucas not only kept his romantic relationship hidden during his paraour’s nomination but also he claimed objectivity by nominating Melodee Hanes along with two others for the U.S. Attorney post. Baucas also failed to inform his fellow Montana Senator Jon Testor, who interviewed all three nominees.

Ethically, Max Baucas’ nomination of his girl friend failed the proverbial sniff test. In addition, in participating in this ruse, his girl fried, Melodee Hanes, an attorney, also participated in an unethical act.

The citizens of Montana are fortunate to not have Melodee Hanes as their U.S. Attorney. Now, they need to remove Max Baucas from office.

The Day Climate Science Died

2009-12-09T14:26:00.000-08:00

Dr. Roy Spencer and other leading climate scientists (“‘Cap and Trade’ or ‘Cap and Tax,’” American Commentaries, 6/28/09) must feel vindicated at the news revealing that a group of scientists in England and America conspired to manufacture “global warming” as a world wide menace. Unfortunately for the “good” climate scientists, climate science died at East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

It is now known, thanks to an unidentified whistle blower, that thousands of emails and documents, now posted online, support the fact that radical left climate researchers have been tampering scientific evidence to show a non-existent trend in global warming. The evidence of the global warming scam has been in the hands of the so-called main stream media for over a month but they refused to report it, thus contributing to a cover-up of what can be described as a crime against humanity.

In the absence of the so-called main stream media, bloggers and climate change skeptics analyzed the data and found convincing evidence that Climate Research Unit scientists manipulated data to not only falsify but also outright counterfeit data to support global warming. These same scientists cooperatively worked to hide their crimes from external auditors and deleted information to avoid freedom of information requests (a violation of the law). They also conspired to keep contrary opinions from being published in respected journals and United Nations reports, while denying the legitimacy of skeptics because they were not published in these same journals and reports.

Who are these so-called radical left scientists? Doctor Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit, who has been forced to step down from his position until the completion of an independent review. Doctors Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes of Pennsylvania State University, who authored the fabricated “hockey stick” graph that falsely abolished the medieval warm period. Keith Briffa, another Hockey-Team leader, whose temperature graphs, derived from tree ring data from Yamal, Russia, were cited by the IPCC as supporting evidence of Mann-Bradley-Hhughes assertion of unprecedented 20th-century warming.

“The whistleblower’s data file reveals that there is very close collusion indeed between key figures in the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and in both NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. Members of all of these entities in the scientific establishment are also members of the Team. They co-ordinate their results, and they co-ordinate how they present their results, and they co-ordinate how, between them, they control or seek to control – to a remarkable extent – the entire process of the UN’s climate panel, as well as the process of publication of learned papers in scientific journals, and even the appointment of reviewers and editors.”

It is clear that those radical left community has perpetrated a political fraud on humanity in the name of science. As a result, climate science is dead as is ‘global warming.” Not only the corrupt scientists involved but also those like Al Gore and other dishonest politicians pushing a radical left change in society based on fabricated data for the sole purpose of dictatorial political control have been discredited.

The people in the East Anglia Climate Research Unit profited in the amount of $20 million in research grants. Al Gore has made millions from his fraudulent propaganda film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” The so-called “Cap and Trade” bill passed by the House would have cost Americans hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes and increased energy prices. The dishonesty of the radical left is palpable. Even Al Gore has backed out of a speaking engagement in Copenhagen. Why? He can’t stand being questioned about the global warming scam.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s cynical Endangerment Finding in April that green house gas emissions qualify as an air pollutant and this false finding is the basis for a draconian increase in regulations and regulatory bureaucracies is based on a so-called “precautionary approach.” Let’s remember that “the defining characteristic of a green house gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation . . . That said, the main green house substances in the earth’s atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds.” It’s apparent that the EPA’s conclusion is not only “precautionary,” it doesn’t even come close to being called science.

CO2 emissions are not pollutants, they are plant food. Plants take in CO2 and emit oxygen. This is another balancing act brought to us by nature. We need the plants to keep taking in CO2 emissions so we can have more oxygen. Wind and rain circle the globe to cool hot spots. We don’t need radical left bureaucrats, scientists and ex-politicians to take away our liberty through the fraudulent science of global warming or climate change.

The day that global warming was exposed as fraudulent is the day climate science died.

Mistakes of the Great Depression Repeated by Radical Left in Government

2009-12-07T07:07:00.000-08:00

The unemployment rate dropped by two tenths of one percent and President Obama claimed victory. This shows just how clueless he is when it concerns his understanding of basic economics. Add to the mix that 300,000 people just stopped looking for work and the two tenths of one per cent drop becomes a rounding error.

A broader measure of employment, which includes people who are working part time when they want full-time jobs and those who've stopped looking for jobs but want to work, shows unemployment or underutilization over 17 percent.

In June of this year, on Meet the Press, that great economist slow Joe Biden admitted that Obama’s stimulus plan was a failure. Biden further admitted that the administration had guessed wrong. Guessed wrong? This was the stimulus package to keep unemployment below 8 percent. This was the stimulus plan that would “save,” a statistic that cannot be measured, or create 3.5 million jobs. Twelve months later, four million people are unemployed with three million of those due to the failure of Obama’s so-called stimulus.

Now even Democrats on Capitol Hill are showing increasing anxiety as voters are angry over the lack of jobs. Obama is now holding seminars on how to create jobs! Obama has never had to meet a payroll. He has not created a job. In fact, the only real job he held was as a community activist, which still begs the question.

I have had to meet payrolls. I have created jobs. I’ve worked in small business to large corporations. The reason why jobs are not being created is due to the uncertainty about the economy in general and the never ending tax increases in particular. No responsible business person is going to start hiring when the economy is being changed from a capitalist to a socialist base with the attendant transfer of wealth from those who create jobs to those who parasitically suck the life blood of the country without providing added value to society.

Take the health care bills in Congress. The Senate bill alone, if passed, will cost $2.5 trillion over ten years, with most of the cost borne by the top 50 percent of income earners. For those making $250,000 or more, they can look forward to tax increases over the next ten years of $338 billion (expiration of the Bush tax cuts), $179 billion (elimination of itemized deductions), and $118 billion (capital gains tax hike). And, of course, there is a special surcharge tax in the health bills attacking those who make more than $250,000. This totals over $3.1 trillion over ten years.

Businesses also face draconian tax increases that will destroy jobs faster the Obama’s so-called stimulus bill. Business taxes total $353 billion over ten years. Taken together, the Democrats are imposing over $3.4 trillion in new taxes over the next ten years, all to be paid by the top 50% of income earners. Why would any sane person believe that now is the time to create jobs? Why would any sane person want to spend more of personal funds instead of hunkering down and protecting his or her family?

This is the state of the economy Obama has manufactured for all Americans. Obama and Timothy Geitner, Treasury Secretary, repeatedly say they inherited a bad economy. Not true. Obama helped create a bad economy as Senator. In fact, Democrats, who controlled Congress in President Bush’s last two years, when the financial meltdown occurred, can rightfully be assigned blame (“Congressional Culture of Corruption Continues 7 – Democrats behind the Mortgage Meltdown,” American Commentaries, 9/26/08).

Henry Morganthau, Treasury Secretary under Franklin Rooselvelt, admitted, “"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot [emphasis mine]!"

As Andrew B. Wilson wrote in his Wall Street Journal article, “As the root cause of a great deal of mismanagement and inefficiency, government was responsible for a lost decade of economic growth.” What brought the United States out of the Great Depression was World War II.

So-called radical left politicians whose recipe for recovery today is a repeat of the New Deal should remember that America's biggest industrial collapse occurred in 1937, eight years after the 1929 stock market crash and nearly five years into the New Deal. In 1939, after a decade of frantic federal spending -- President Herbert Hoover increased it more than 50 percent between 1929 and the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt -- unemployment was 17.2 percent.

Furthermore, Hoover's 1932 increase in the top income tax rate, from 25 percent to 63 percent, was unhelpful. And FDR's hyperkinetic New Deal created uncertainties that paralyzed private-sector decision making. Does this sound familiar? Barack Obama’s failed stimulus bill along with a health care takeover of 20 per cent of the economy will not improve the economy. It will continue to destroy jobs. As the economy progressively gets worse, the true definition of “progressive”, Obama will call for even larger takeovers of the economy.

We have our job cut out for us next year.

Congressional Culture of Corruption Continues 24 – Congressman Mollohan’s Mysterious Wealth

2009-12-05T15:14:00.000-08:00

In 2000, Congressman Mollohan, D-WV, owned assets of less than $500,000 generating income of approximately $80,000. In 2008, Mollohan owned assets ranging from $7 million to $29 million with liabilities totaling $2 million to over $7 million. In 2006, Mollohan was forced to file two dozen corrections to his past six financial disclosure documents. Ninety-five per cent of Mollohan’s assets are in real estate. Congressman Mollohan was able to increase his assets by a factor of 14 to 58 over his 2000 asset value on an annual salary of about $174,000.

CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) lists Mollohan as one of Congress’ fifteen most corrupt members. CREW’s website documents:

“Over the past ten plus years, Rep. Mollohan has earmarked $369 million in federal grants to his district for 254 separate programs. Between 1997 and 2006, $250 million of that total was directed to five nonprofit organizations that were created by Rep. Mollohan and staffed by his friends. During the same period, top-paid employees, board members and contractors of these organizations gave at least $397,122 to Rep. Mollohan’s campaign and political action committees. . . If Rep. Mollohan accepted campaign donations in direct exchange for earmarking federal funds to the nonprofits run by these donors he may have committed bribery and honest services fraud in violation [of] House rules prohibiting dispensing special favors and engaging in conduct that does not reflect creditably on the House.”

Congressman Mollohan has been chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that controls the $65 billion budget of the Justice Department. . . at the same time he has been under investigation by the Justice Department. This is clearly a conflict of interest. The Congressman should have stepped down and Nancy Pelosi failure to remove Mollohan is clear a breach of ethics on her part. Interestingly, Pelosi urged Mollohan to give up his seat on the House ethics committee. He did relinquish his seat.

CREW documentation also shows that ethics staff members were asked by the Justice Department to not move forward on the Mollohan inquiry “at this time,” an indication that the Justice department has an ongoing criminal investigation regarding Congressman Alan Mollohan.

Obama Bows to His Base, Surrenders Afghanistan

2009-12-03T09:59:00.001-08:00

President Barack Obama, in announcing his long awaited strategy at West Point, also revealed his plan for the future surrender of Afghanistan to Al Quaeda and the Taliban: United States troops will begin leaving by July 2011. By making this announcement, Obama has essentially told Al Quaeda and the Taliban what counter strategy they should pursue.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney accused President Obama of dithering over his decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan. The three month delay from receiving General McChrystal’s assessment to making his decision was revealing of Obama’s thinking. During this period, 116 U.S. troops died. In October alone, 58 U.S. casualties died, making October the deadliest month in the eight year war. A true leader, a true Commander-in-Chief does not needlessly waste the lives of his military. While Obama dithered, our military suffered 116 needless deaths.

When General McChrystal provided President Obama his assessment in August 2009, the General identified three troop options with associated mission risk levels: first, an additional 20,000 troops that would run a high risk of failure; second an additional 80,000 troops representing a low risk option; and three, an additional 40,000 troops representing a medium risk option. General McChyrstal also stated that under-resourcing the military will result in failure. President Obama’s strategy fits snuggly between high risk of failure and a medium risk.

President Obama outlined four goals of his strategy: first, deny Al Quaeda a safe-haven; second, the 30,000 additional troops he is sending to Afghanistan are not expected to defeat the enemy but only to reverse the momentum of previous years; third, strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government so they can join the fight; and four, create the conditions to transfer responsibility for the war to the Afghanistan people. Oh, and do it all in eighteen months because that’s when we’re leaving.

This is not a strategy for success but for failure. Troop strength is far too low to even reverse the momentum of previous years. Obama has told the enemy when we’re leaving so they can adjust their strategy accordingly. And there isn’t a whole lot that can be accomplished in 18 months. How many more American lives will be sacrificed by a clueless President incapable of making hard decisions?

As I stated in a prior article (“President Obama Owns the War on Terror in Afghanistan,” American Commentaries, 9/8/09), “It is clear that liberals and the radical left will always turn their backs on our troops. It is clear that liberals and the radical left, of the Democratic Party, cannot be trusted with the welfare of our troops or the security of our nation. When the day comes that the liberals and radical left abandon our troops and Afghanistan, the sacrifice of our troops will have had no meaning.”

The radical left and liberals of the Democratic Party betrayed us in Vietnam. I know. I was there. And they are starting to betray our troops in Afghanistan with a no-win strategy.

Stupidity or Treachery?

2009-11-20T14:42:00.000-08:00

President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have the guaranteed conviction of Khalid Sheik Mohammed in the civilian trial to be held in New York City. This can only mean the “fix” is in: the trial is rigged. Obama and Holder have undermined the very concept of fairness they profess to uphold. There is no way this trial can viewed as fair. It also means the defendants and the American people can only receive a fair trial through a military commission.

Or it means the Obama and Holder are willing to lose the case by (1) attacking President Bush’s policies in court, (2) exposing and identifying CIA operatives in court, and (3) exposing intelligence community interrogation techniques. It is apparent Obama and Holder are willing to risk thousands of American lives in New York to play out this political strategy.

Obama and Holder desperately want to expose the so-called torture of Mohammed by water-boarding. Why? To subject the United States to further embarrassment in a public forum. The problem is water-boarding was legal when performed on Mohammed. It was made illegal only by Obama’s executive order, not to outlaw the procedure, but to officially bash the Bush administration.

Unfortunately for Obama, “torture” is defined as “the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information.” Water-boarding does not rise to the level of this definition. Yes, water-boarding makes one feel that he is drowning but the creating the sensation of drowning is not “inflicting excruciating pain.” Our own military special operations personnel undergo water-boarding as part of their training! Is Obama implying that we “torture” our own troops? Obama’s politicization of water-boarding was a cynical, sinister political act to attack United States intelligence community policies and operatives.

Moving the trial from the setting of a military tribunal to a civilian setting in New York City is also a cynical, sinister political act: it provides the defendants the ability to file discovery motions that will identify CIA operatives, methods and sources. It is an act of treachery by Eric Holder.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who as a judge presided over the first attack on the World Trade Center, attended a recent Federal Society’s National Lawyers Convention, described the move, as “a decision I consider not only unwise, but based on a refusal to face the fact that what we are involved with here is a war with people who follow a religiously-based ideology that calls on them to kill us, and to return instead to the mindset that prevailed before Sept. 11 that acts like the first World Trade Center bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa and other such acts can and should be treated as conventional crimes and tried in conventional courts.”

Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas, is quoted as saying that if anything goes awry at the trial resulting in the suspects not receiving a guilty verdict President Obama would be booted out of office in 2012. Continuing, Governor Huckabee said, “God help us if they get off on a technicality because of the way the evidence was gathered, I would tell you not only is the Obama administration finished, I think the Democratic Party is finished . . . I think it's absurd,” he added, "and I think the Obama administration will be as much on trial as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."
And this is the only good news arising from this sordid mess.

Obama’s Series of Failures

2009-11-12T13:11:00.000-08:00

President Obama has been in office just shy of eleven months. During this time he has quadrupled our national debt to its highest level in history, he managed to produce the greatest one year deficit in our 222 history, and he has failed to solve any problems of significance.

The administration’s “cash for clunkers” program turned out to be a dismal failure. The goals of the program were to jumpstart the auto industry and remove aging, gas guzzling vehicles from the country’s road. The Obama administration spent just over $2.8 billion to support the trade-in of 690,000 vehicles. Edmunds.com found that only 125,000 new sales could be credited to the program. What else did it accomplish?

* Of the top ten cars purchased, eight belonged to Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and Nissan. The other two spots went to Ford. Where were government owned General Motors and Chrysler?

* Removing 690,000 vehicles also caused used car prices to increase by 16% or more than three times the normal 4.6% annual increase, removing more used cars out of the reach of lower and middle classes.

The administration’s mismanagement of the H1N1 “swine flu” vaccine program is a disaster. The Obama administration promised 120 million doses of the vaccine by October, then November, then early 2010. Almost 100 children have died. Obama declared a national emergency on October 24, 2009. So where is the vaccine?

* Pharmacists and physicians submitted their orders months ago but receive a fraction of their vaccine order.

* Volumes of vaccine have been significantly smaller than the Obama administration led everyone to believe.

* The rush to produce sufficient quantities of vaccine has led to safety concerns to the extent that private and public health care workers have refused to take the vaccine.

* As always, President Obama’s administration blamed everyone but George Bush for the vaccine shortage. Surely it was an oversight.

The Obama administration’s stimulus bill is an utter failure. President Obama said Congress had to pass the bill to keep unemployment below 8%. Unemployment is now 10.2%. Millions of Americans are without jobs. So what does Obama do? He blames George Bush for creating the “mess.” Obama did not inherit a bad economy he helped create it as a Senator in a Democrat led Congress.

* The Obama administration claimed to “save” 600,000 jobs but it cannot prove it. The main stream news media, normally very supportive of Obama, discovered that the Obama administration has been overstating this claim. Even the White House was forced to admit “over reporting.”

* The whole idea of a stimulus package is to stimulate. By July 2009, only 10% of the stimulus bill was spent.

* No one in government can state with any accuracy where and how the TARP bailout funds were used.

President Obama has repeatedly stumbled over foreign affairs.

* Obama’s Cairo speech was criticized in the United States and abroad. His repeated apologies for America’s past not only emboldened America’s enemies but also were interpreted as a policy of appeasement by middle-east nations like Iran.

* President Obama’s refusal to make a timely decision (in itself a form of capitulation) with regard to military planning not only places the lives of our military at higher risk but also proves to Al Quaeda and the Taliban that the United States is weak. This perceived weakness empowers Al Quaeda and the Taliban to increase their attacks on innocent people here and abroad.

* President Obama sided with Hugo Chavez and other communist nations that Honduras had to reinstate its President who had violated that country’s Constitution in an effort to become “President for Life,” even though Honduras’ President was legally removed from office.

* Obama has continued to undermine America’s dollar by doubling the money supply and placed America’s future in the hands of our Chinese and Saudi enemies through increased borrowing.

* President Obama has insisted that Israel freeze their settlement construction but he has refused to define the settlements as illegal (as prior Presidents did), consequently undermining American credibility to all sides.

* “ . . .In the larger sense, however, deeper impressions have emerged about the president since the beginning of the administration – suggestions of a reflexive discomfort with American power that too often seems to range Obama on the side of those hostile to America, and worse yet, against those who have always stood with us . . .”

* He has failed to respond to North Korea’s missile firings and renewed processing of nuclear weapons grade uranium. Yet, today, Obama is in Germany to celebrate the fall of the Berlin wall where he mentions himself in the speech but fails to mention the one person responsible for the elimination of the Berlin Wall: Ronald Reagan.

* Obama’s treatment of Prime Minister Gordon Brown was a brazenly incompetent diplomatic act against our strongest ally.

Now, for the first time since “9/11,” America has suffered a terrorist attack on American soil. A violent jihadist, this Muslim extremist killed 14 souls (to include an embryo) and wounded 42 people. Yet, the suspected gunman in the attack, a 39-year-old Army psychiatrist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, survived his wounds, and remains in intensive care at an Army hospital in San Antonio, Texas. President Obama, in discussing the terrorist massacre, repeatedly failed to admit the truth: this was a terrorist act. How do we know?

* A radical American imam on Yemen’s most wanted militant list, who had contact with two 9/11 hijackers, praised Hasan as a hero on his personal website.

* Hasan apparently was in contact or attempting to contact Al Quaeda prior to the terrorist attack.

* Hasan had unexplained connections to individuals being investigated by the FBI.

* Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, claimed that the Obama administration has been withholding critical information on the terrorist attack.

* Representative Hoeksra sent a letter on Select Committee letterhead to Dennis Blair (Director of National Intelligence), Robert Mueller (Director, FBI), Lt. General Keith Alexander (Director, National Security Agency), and Leon Panetta (CIA), directing all agencies to presaerve all documents and materials connected to the terrorist attack. The letter was based on information from the intelligence community received by Hoestra related to the performance of the intelligence personnel in connection to the Hasan terrorist attack.

* Senator Joe Lieberman (I –CN), stated "There are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act."

It is apparent that President Obama does not know how to lead or manage. First, there are the problems President Obama has staffing his government. A number of high level nominees have been forced to withdraw themselves from nomination due to things in their past that were revealed that should have been uncovered during the vetting process.

Earlier this year, Chas Freeman, was appointed to the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council but, as it turns out, he was too much of a friend to Saudi Arabia and China. Even today, there are 200 key positions in Obama’s administration left unfilled, e.g., the heads of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Drug Enforcement Administration, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are still vacant.

Candidate Obama campaigned on a theme of hope and change supported by a notion “that exceptional men of character and vision shape history by rising to the challenge of great events.[1]” This notion is seen in his egotistic and euphemistic mantra: “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”

President Obama, on the other hand, shows us “we live in an age of great events and little men.”[2] Based on his performance to date, Obama shows not only incompetence but also a cluelessness not seen in the White House since President Carter. It shows in the Rasmussen Presidential Index, where Obama’s performance rating has been negative since June 30th of this year. And it shows every day Obama is in the White House.

[1] Mansfield, Stephen, Never Give In The Extraordinary Character of Winston Churchill, Nashville: Cumberland House Publishing, Inc., 1995, p. 131
[2] Humes, James C., The Wit & Wisdom of Winston Churchill, New York; Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. 1994, p. 598.

Congressional Culture of Corruption Continues 23 : Edolphus Towns Protecting Countrywide to Hide His Own Sweetheart Loans

2009-10-24T14:48:00.000-07:00

Representative Edolphus Towns, D-New York, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has been under pressure from the Committee’s ranking minority, Darrell Issa, R – California, to investigate the Countrywide VIP loan program that provided special benefits to members of Congress and other members of Government.

Town’s has repeatedly resisted the pressure to subpoena Countrywide records and investigate Countrywide’s sweetheart loan program but reversed himself last Friday (10/23/09) when Issa declared he would push for a full committee vote on the subpoena. Several Democrats supported Darrell Issa.

The loan program is known to have provided favorable loans to influential members of Congress such as Senators Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, and Conrad Kent, D – North Dakota, and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, among others.

Representative Issa claimed that GOP investigator uncovered information that indicated Countrywide successfully curried favor with members of Congress. Towns’ original position was that Countrywide was not a priority with him. In August of this year, Wall Street Journal investigators uncovered evidence that Edolphus Towns had received two Countrywide loans in 2003, one for his New York home and one for his Florida house.

No wonder Towns resisted issuing the subpoena for Countrywide records and opening an investigation into who in Congress received sweetheart loans: he had tow loans to hide.

The Wall Street Journal interviewed a spokesman for Edolphus Towns who said that “any such handling [of the loans] was without his [Towns’] knowledge and had nothing to do with his resistance to issuing a subpoena.” The Congressional cult of corruption continues . . .

The stench of corruption attaches to Edolphus Towns. He should step down as Chairman of the Committee and recuse himself from participating in the investigation.

Elections Have Consequences

2009-10-24T10:11:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama ran for the presidency on a platform of Hope and Change. He had nothing else to offer the American people. Barack Obama was elected to the presidency as one of the most unaccomplished Presidents-elect to take office.

He was 18 years old when he graduated from Punahou Academy in 1979. In 1983, at age 22, he graduated from Columbia University. In 1991, at age 30, he graduated from Harvard. Between Columbia and Harvard, Obama worked as a community organizer with or for ACORN in the Southside of Chicago. After law school, Obama returned to Chicago as a civil rights lawyer, where, again, he becomes involved with ACORN. In 1996, Obama was elected the Illinois State Senate representing the Southside. In 2003, he was elected to the United States Senate. There is no gravitas in this biography.

Obama barely has a work history. Work as a community activist seemed to occupy his time the longest. Did Obama run a company or even a large department of a company? No. Did Obama have to meet payroll? No. Did Obama produce a product or service for sale? No. He spent approximately seven years in the State Senate, where he voted present 129 times or about once every thirty-one votes. Voting present as opposed to yes or no is a clear indication of indecision.

This indecision is evidenced by his dithering over whether to send troops to Afghanistan.
Obama’s vacillation is exposing our troops to greater danger. Previously, in American Commentaries, I wrote about the liberals’ historical tendency to turn their backs on our military (“President Obama Owns the War on Terror in Afghanistan,” 9/8/09).

It has started. The Wall Street Journal quoted Senator Carl Levin as stating he was against sending more troops to Afghanistan until the Afghan security forces were trained. In the same column, Nancy Pelosi opined, “I don't think there is a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in Congress."

Pentagon officials are concerned that President Obama, aware that some polls indicate falling support for a continued presence in Afghanistan, may roll over for his radical left constituency. The liberals and radical left of the Democratic Party are already laying the ground work for turning their backs on our troops.

The question is, will the liberals and radical left (along with the main stream media they control) create an atmosphere in the United States (much like they did in Vietnam) that forces Obama to pull our troops out of Afghanistan?

If Obama acquiesces to his radical left base, he will be forever known as an appeaser, a presidential quisling. It will be only a matter of a few months before Al Quaeda possesses Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Then the liberals and radical left will have aided and abetted Al Quaeda in placing the United States at great risk.

Elections do have consequences.

The Politicization of National Intelligence Estimates

2009-10-22T14:50:00.000-07:00

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate countermanded the 2005 National Intelligence Estimate used by the Bush administration its foreign policy planning. The release of the 2007 NIE gave ammunition to the radical left to attack President Bush’s Iran policy. The 2007 NIE directly contradicts the Bush administration's position over Iranian intentions regarding nuclear weapons. The radical left claimed that the 2007 NIE dealt the Bush administration a serious setback. At the time, numerous sources questioned the politicization of the NIE by the Bush administration. However, new evidence strongly suggests intelligence estimates were politicized by radical left members of the intelligence community.

“National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) are the Intelligence Community’s (IC) most authoritative written judgments on national security issues and designed to help US civilian and military leaders develop policies to protect US national security interests. NIEs usually provide information on the current state of play but are primarily “estimative”—that is, they make judgments about the likely course of future events and identify the implications for US policy.”

The NIE is a consensus, created by all agencies within the Intelligence Community (IC), built upon the best information and credible indicators. As a result, over time, successive NIEs should build on prior information, building a picture that becomes clearer and more understandable. Should an NIE suddenly backtrack on a particular subject, either the prior NIE or the current NIE is seriously in error. If this event were to occur, the people who created the NIE and the information and credible indicators must be reviewed and questioned.

Iranian intelligence timeline:

1993 – The CIA says Iran is 8-10 years away from acquiring nuclear weapons.

1998 – The CIA reports Iran is ‘attempting to acquire fissile material and technology for weapons development.’

2000 – The director of the CIA’s Nonproliferation Center testifies that Iran is attempting to produce plutonium and enriched uranium.

2002 – Iranian opposition group reveals existence of a nuclear facility at Nantanz and a heavy water facility at Arak.

2004 – U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell says the U.S. has information suggesting Iran is working on a nuclear warhead for a missile.

2005 – Intelligence Community (2005 NIE):

(A) Assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure, but we do not assess that Iran is immovable.

(B) We have moderate confidence in projecting when Iran is likely to make a nuclear weapon; we assess that it is unlikely before early-to-mid next decade.

(C) Iran could produce enough fissile material for a weapon by the end of this decade if it were to make more rapid and successful progress than we have seen to date.

2007 – Intelligence Community (2007 NIE):
(A) Judges with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (DOE and the NIC have moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.) Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. Judge with high confidence that the halt was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work. Assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.

(B) We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely. We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges that Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.)
(C) We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.

2008 – In December of 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear program was released, publicly countermanding the 2005 NIE. In its publicly released “Key Judgments” section, the Intelligence Community stated: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.” Note the footnote before the semi-colon. The footnote reads:

“For the purposes of this Estimate, by “nuclear weapons program” we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.” [Note the second clause explicitly defining what the NIE authors meant by “nuclear weapons program].

September 2009 - President outlines intelligence charging Iran with developing a uranium-enrichment facility.”

Now, with a radical left Democrat President at the helm, America’s intelligence community, run by newly appointed Democrats, are considering rewriting the 2007 NIE that claimed Iran halted its efforts to build nuclear efforts in 2003. Why? To cover up the fact that the authors of the 2007 NIE had intentionally misled the President and the American people with a doctored NIE?

From 1993 through 2006, the intelligence community consistently reported that Iran was moving steadily toward creation of nuclear weapons. Suddenly, in 2007, after thirteen years of consistent reporting, the authors of the 2007 NIE countermanded all previous intelligence concerning Iran. The authors of NIE 2007, Tom Fingar, Vann Van Diepin and Kenneth Brill, were known Bush-haters and members of the radical left.

Fingar, Van Diepen, and Brill have been accused of trying to torpedo the threat that the Bush administration would pose to their [Fingar, Van Diepin and Brill] desired policy outcomes on Iran. The officials accuse Fingar, Van Diepen, and Brill of working to block economic and military sanctions against Iran and sabotaging the administration’s attempt to pressure foreign allies to impose sanctions. Van Diepen is particular criticized and accused of having a personal animosity towards conservative Ambassador John Bolton, and of opposing anything unfavorable Iran. Brill is accused of being “extremely close” to Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, an agency which these officials view as an Iran apologist.

In retrospect, it is obvious that radical left members of the intelligence community who authored the 2007 NIE, in effect reversing the findings of the 2003 NIE that the Bush administration relied upon (and that had been disputed by British, French and German intelligence agencies), committed an act of deliberate betrayal against the United States. This revision allows President Obama greater latitude than President Bush over the Iran question.

Most recently, President Obama, accompanied by the British Prime Minister and French President, revealed “Iran is building a secret second site to enrich uranium, among other emerging intelligence details. The Qom site—too small for civilian purposes but ideal for producing weapons-grade uranium—is supervised by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and was only declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency after Tehran got wind that the nuclear watchdogs knew about it.”

The false 2007 NIE maintaining a retroactive halting of Iran’s nuclear weaponization can be nothing less than an act of betrayal by radical left members of the intelligence community, an act of betrayal against the American people bordering on treason. Now that the radical left have their President in office, they can now initiate the cover-up by rewriting the offensive 2007 NIE.

President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-09T11:37:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama has been named the 2009 recipient for the Nobel Peace Prize. But what did he do to earn the prize? Obama has been in office for only eight months.

The Nobel Committee said the prize was for Obama’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” Essentially, President Obama is receiving the Peace Prize for failing to establish peace in Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East and the United States. In America, Obama is the most polarizing President in my life time. But Obama is in good company.

President Jimmy Carter won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to establish peace in the Middle East. Carter did not win the Nobel Prize for achievement, only for trying. To this day, peace has not been established between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. But, hey, Jimbo tried . . . that’s all that counts!

Former Vice President Al Gore accepted the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for “his strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures films and books [and] has strengthened the struggle against climate change.” Essentially, Al Gore’s flawed propaganda film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” could not be shown without “serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush” were explained to children prior to viewing the film. Al Gore should have been greatly embarrassed at having his flawed propaganda film exposed for what it is. But not Big Al. He proudly accepted the prize despite the fact that Global Warming has been proven a scam by serious scientists.

Shouldn’t President Obama be ashamed for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize when nothing he has done in his presidency to promote or establish peace? Gideon Rachman, a foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Times, wrote in his blog, What did Obama do to win the Nobel Peace Prize:

“ . . . I doubt that I am alone in wondering whether this award is slightly premature. It is hard to point to a single place where Obama’s efforts have actually brought about peace - Gaza, Iran, Sri Lanka? The peace prize committee said that he is being rewarded for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy”. But while it is OK to give school children prizes for “effort” - my kids get them all the time - I think international statesmen should probably be held to a higher standard.

It is also very odd timing. In the next couple of weeks, Obama is likely to yield to the wishes of his generals and to send many thousands more troops to Afghanistan. That will mean he is a wartime president, just as much as Bush or Lyndon Johnson. If Afghanistan ends up being Obama’s Vietnam, giving him the Nobel Peace Prize will look even sillier in a few years time.”

President Obama stated he will go to Norway to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. The hypocrisy of awarding Obama the Peace Prize is exceeded only by Obama accepting the Peace Prize. If President Obama accepts the Prize, he should publicly state that he is accepting the Prize on behalf of every man and woman serving in our military, for it is our military that has done far more than anyone to promote peace, even making the ultimate sacrifice in the quest for peace.
President Obama did not earn the Nobel Prize; the men and women of our armed forces have earned the Nobel Peace Prize . . . many times over.

Physician Shortages: How’s That for Hope and Change?

2009-10-09T11:35:00.000-07:00

Currently, the United States has approximately 921,823 medical physicians. Of this total, there are 320,795 Primary Care Physicians (excluding OB/GYN).

The U.S. population is approximately 306 million. Subtracting 46 million “uninsured” leaves a “net insured” population of 260 million.

There are 123 Primary Care Physicians per 100,000 “net insured” population. Adding 46 million “uninsured” to the covered health care population reduces the number of Primary Care Physicians from 123 per 100,000 population to 105 per 100,000 population. This is not only a 16% drop in Primary Care Physicians per 100,000 population but also recognition that this statistic represents very real health care rationing.

“A study by the Association of American Medical Colleges found that if the current pattern of declining first-year enrollment at American medical schools continues, "the country will have about 159,000 fewer doctors than it needs by 2025.” In light of the 16% drop in Primary Care Physicians per 100,000 population, how many new physicians will the United States require to maintain a ratio of 123 Primary Care Physicians per 100,000 population?

Mathematically, the United States will need an additional 54,205 Primary Care Physicians (Medical Specialists are another story). Primary Care Physicians represent about a third of the physician population. Another study calculated that the United States will need to produce an additional 10,000 physicians annually to avoid a signifiant physician deficit by 2025. This 10,000 is over and above the numbers graduating now.

Assuming (1) that a third of the 10,000 physicians needed go into Primary Care, (2) that graduating physicians go into Primary Care at the rate they have over the last few years, and (3) excluding a growing poulation to keep the calculation simple, it will take over sixteen years to reach 54,205 additional Primary Care Physicians. During this sixteen year period, health care will be rationed due to a lack of physicians. And a growing population will only exacerbate the situation.

None of the bills floating through Congress address the lack of physicians. The United States has a shortage of Primary Care Physicians now. Faced with the growing shortage of Primary Care Physicians, federal officials are considering several proposals.

One would increase enrollment in medical schools and residency training programs. However, finding sufficient numbers of qualified future physicians and maintaining medical schools standards are issues that have not been solved.

Another proposal would encourage greater use of nurse practitioners (NP) and physician assistants (PA). Depending on individual State laws, Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants can diagnose and treat patients under a Physician’s supervision. Increasing the number of NPs and Physician Assistants in a timely manner faces the same obstacles as increasing the number of qualified physicians.

A third would expand the National Health Service Corps, which deploys doctors and nurses in rural areas and poor neighborhoods. If increasing the number of Physicians, Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants is problematic in the first two proposals, it is certainly a non-starter in this instance.

What is certain is Americans will face health care rationing on a significant scale as a result of a Democratic Congress and Administration ramming a flawed health care bill, absent any checks or balance, against the American people.

Where is my President?

2009-09-30T10:23:00.000-07:00

The economy is still ailing. Unemployment continues to grow. Banks still are not lending as they should. People are suffering and my President cannot be found! He took his family on a junket to Copenhagen to help Chicago win a spot for the 2016 Olympics!!!

Iran has admitted to a secret nuclear sight and fired off a newer missile capable of reaching Israel. And where is my President? He’s in Copenhagen with his wife and children, acting as though he did not have a care in the world.

Afghanistan is growing hotter. General McChristal has requested additional troops. Obama wants to review strategic options in Afghanistan before determining troop levels. Obviously, representing Chicago before the Olympics selection committee has a higher urgency than talking to General McChristal more than once in almost three months. It appears Obama is more concerned with going to Copenhagen than winning the war in Afghanistan.

Obama has all but abandoned health care, leaving it to Max Baucas to lead the charge. As of this writing, Baucas’ committee voted against a “public option,” not just once but twice. The “public option” seems to be a new “third rail” for Democrats.

So where is my President? In Copenhagen with his family and advisors, ostensibly to help Chicago win the 2016 Olympic site, but who wants to be in Chicago where school children are killing each other.

President Obama certainly has a skewed vision of his priorities. He’s AWOL on America’s economy; he’s AWOL on the Iran matter; he’s AWOL on the Iraq question; he’s AWOL on the health care question; and, in General McChristal’s eyes, Obama is AWOL on the Afghanistan question.

At the very least, I hope the Obama family likes Danish cooking.

Democratic Party Cannot Escape Its Racist Roots

2009-09-18T09:51:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday of this week, former President Jimmy Carter proved the cult of idiocy still survives: “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he is an African American.” Democrats are always the first to drop the “race card” in any discussion. It creates a verbal smoke screen to obscure the truth about Democrats and racism.

The Democratic Party was formed in 1792, under the moniker Democratic Republicans, on a pro-slavery, State’s Rights platform. Around 1830, the Democratic Republican Party became the Democratic Party under President Jackson. The Democratic Party strongly supported slavery and, under President Jackson, forced Indian tribes to relocate west of the Mississippi.

The Republican Party was formed on an anti-slavery platform in 1860. The Democratic Party maintained a strong pro-slavery platform, wanting to extend slavery to the western territories. When Lincoln won the Presidency, the pro-slavery Democratic States began seceding from the union.

“After the Civil War, most white Southerners opposed Radical Reconstruction and the Republican Party's support of black civil and political rights . . . The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated," even though whites were in control. Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats "redeemed" state after state -- sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.”

In place of Reconstruction, the Democratic Party created Jim Crow, a name often used to describe the segregation laws, rules, and customs which arose after Reconstruction ended in 1877 and continued until the mid-1960s.

“During [Democrat] Woodrow Wilson’s 1912 presidential campaign, he promised African Americans advancement. He stated, ‘Should I become President of the United States, [Negroes] [sic] may count upon me for absolute fair dealing and for everything by which I could assist in advancing the interests of their race in the United States.’(1) Believing in his promise, many African Americans broke their affiliation with the Republican Party and voted for Wilson. He did not, however, fulfill the promises he made during the campaign to the African American community during his presidency. Less than a month after his March 4, 1913 inauguration, (2) President Wilson’s Administration took the first steps towards segregating the federal service.”

The National Black Republican Association provides an intriguing list of questions, the answers to which prevent any Democratic Party obfuscation:

“What political party was founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery?”

“What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?”

“What Party passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, and was the Party of most blacks prior to the 1960’s, including Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, Sojurner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King?”

“What was the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP who were themselves white?”

“What Party, by the greatest percentage, passed the 1957 Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s?”

If you answered Republican Party to each question, you are correct.

“What political Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Klu Klux Klan?”

“What Party from 1870 to 1930 used fraud, whippings, lynching, murder, intimidation, and mutilation to get the black vote, and passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws which legalized racial discrimination and denied blacks their rights as citizens?”

“What was the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman who rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?”

“What was the Party of John F. Kennedy, who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., after becoming President, and later had the FBI (supervised by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy) investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?”

“What Party is against the faith-based initiative, against school vouchers, against school prayers, and takes the black vote for granted without ever acknowledging their racist past or apologizing for trying to expand slavery, lynching blacks and passing Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that caused great harm to blacks?”

If you answered Democratic Party to each question, you are correct. And the Democratic Party continues its practice of racism.

The largest obstacle to true equality is education. It is the next civil rights issue. Racism is alive and well in the Democratic Party. Senator Dick Durban a white guy inserted language in a spending bill that closed a scholarship program in Washington D.C. that allows poor black children to attend the same school President Obama’s children attend.

Of course, the teachers unions and the press are mum on the topic. They can’t stand well-run private schools and prefer to see the low-income black children suffer in bad public schools. Barack Obama signed the bill, forcing black children back into bad public schools and lesser opportunities. The uproar forced Obama to allow the existing 1,700 children to finish the program.

The real issue is why are Obama, Durbin, et. al., willing to send their own children to private schools but oppose any effort to extend the same choice and opportunity to poor black children?

“‘Affirmative action’ has become the touchstone of Democratic racial politics. Democrats portray anyone who opposes affirmative action as racist. But affirmative action, as currently practiced, is racist to the core. It is based on the assumption that African-Americans are incapable of competing with whites. . . For the modern liberal Democratic racist as for the old-fashioned one, blacks are simply incapable of
freedom . . . And woe be to any African-American who wanders off of the Democratic plantation. Ask Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, or Ward Connerly. Although they echo the call for a "color-blind society" that once characterized the vision of Martin Luther King Jr., they are pilloried as "Uncle Toms" of "Oreos" by such enforcers of the Democratic plantation system as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.”

Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes fame once asked Morgan Freeman how they could get rid racism. Freeman responded, “"Stop talking about it! I'm gonna stop calling you a white man, and I'm gonna ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace and you know me as Morgan Freeman.” Can it be this easy?.

The Democratic Party has been steeped in racism since its birth. Even today, if a person challeges a policy or program that the Obama administration supports, the cult of idiocy raises its ugly head in the form of Jimmy Carter to drop the race card.

When Professor Henry Gates was being questioned about a reported break-in, the first statement he made was, "[t]his is what happens to black men in America" when asked for identification and repeatedly told the police officer that "[y]ou don't know who your [sic] messing with," according to the report. Gates used the race card. It is easy to use the race card as a weapon of intimidation but we, as a nation, have heard it used so often by those in the Democratic Party that it is beginning to wear thin

Essentially, Morgan Freeman is on the right path. If we want to stop racism we do need to stop talking about it. “African-American” should simply be American. And “Black History Month,” commented Morgan Freeman, “should not be relegated to a month.” Freeman continued, “Black history is American history.”

President Obama’s Afghanistan Conundrum

2009-09-11T13:08:00.000-07:00

Three days ago I wrote about the history of liberals and the radical left of the Democratic Party turning their backs on our troops when the “going got tough” (“President Obama Owns the War on Terror in Afghanistan,” American Commentaries, 9/8/09). I concluded:

“It is clear that liberals and the radical left will always turn their backs on our troops. It is clear that liberals and the radical left, of the Democratic Party, cannot be trusted with the welfare of our troops or the security of our nation. When the day comes that the liberals and radical left abandon our troops and Afghanistan, the sacrifice of our troops will have had no meaning.”

Today, in the Wall Street Journal (A9, 9/11/09), it is starting. Headline: “Pelosi Sees Support Ebbing for Afghan War.” Pelosi told reports, “I don’t think there’s a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in the Congress.”

Pelosi’s statement is a warning shot across President Obama’s bow. Obama already approved an extra 21,000 troops in advance of the Afghanistan election. Pentagon officials are concerned that President Obama, aware that some polls indicate falling support for a continued presence in Afghanistan, may roll over for his radical left constituency.

August was the worst month for American casualties: 51, with a total of 747 deaths since the invasion. Sending additional forces means greater exposure to casualties. However, leaving Afghanistan would create a void to be filled by the Taliban and Al Quaeda. With Pakistan in an unstable state and its nuclear weapons at risk of capture by Al Quaeda, President Obama finds himself conflicted.

An August 2009 Washington Post poll showed 42% of Americans say the United States is winning in Afghanistan, while 36% say the United States is loosing:

“Overall, seven in 10 Democrats say the war has not been worth its costs, and fewer than one in five support an increase in troop levels. Republicans (70 percent say it is worth fighting) and conservatives (58 percent) remain the war's strongest backers, and the issue provides a rare point of GOP support for Obama's policies. A narrow majority of conservatives approve of the president's handling of the war (52 percent), as do more than four in 10 Republicans (43 percent).”

The liberals and radical left of the Democratic Party are already laying the ground work for turning their backs on our troops. The question is, will the liberals and radical left (along with the main stream media they control) create an atmosphere in the United States (much like they did in Vietnam) that forces Obama to pull our troops out of Afghanistan? If so, it will be only a few months before Al Quaeda possesses Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Then the liberals and radical left will have aided and abetted Al Quaeda in placing the United States at great risk.

Staying the course in Afghanistan is Obama’s only option. The United States must stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan in the interest of world peace. It will not be easy but it must be done.

The Uninsured Problem?

2009-09-09T12:40:00.000-07:00

Here is a breakdown of our uninsured population:

46,000,000 Total estimate of uninsured

(9,700,000) Are not U.S. citizens

(17,000,000) Have annual incomes greater than $50,000

(14,000,000) Already qualify for Medicaid

4,700,000 Truly uninsured

307,000,000 Total U.S. population

10.22% Truly uninsured as a percent of total uninsured

1.53% Truly uninsured as a percent of total U.S. population

Why is the Obama administration attempting to destroy health care for 98.47% of the population in order to provide coverage for 1.53% of the population?

Would it not be far less expensive to give the 1.53% truly uninsured access to Medicaid?

The issue is not health care; the issue is the radical left’s unfulfilled need to control our lives and make all American subservient to another “President for Life.”

President Obama Owns the War on Terror in Afghanistan

2009-09-08T09:01:00.000-07:00

The liberals and radical left of the Democratic Party started the war in Vietnam (remember the U.S.S. Maddox and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution?). President Lyndon Johnson used a questionable incident to escalate the war. A few years later, when the “going got tough,” liberals and the radical left turned their backs on the military. The Democratic Party spurned returning members of the military.

President Obama falsely labeled the war on terrorism in Iraq a war of choice not necessity. The war on terror (I refuse to use the Obama administration’s euphemisms) in Iraq was and is a war of necessity. Dr. Hakan Tunc reviewed the causes of going to war against Iraq. Dr. Tunc’s analysis focused on three distinct rationales:

First, the removal of Saddam Hussein eliminated the threat that Iraq would be a prime source of weapons of mass destruction (the military rationale).

Second, a demonstration of American power will negate the common Middle East view of a weak America (the psychological rationale).

Third, the Iraq war was seen as a major step towards the political and cultural transformation of the Middle East: establishing a Democratic regime in Baghdad would serve as a model of freedom and liberation for other Arab countries and Iran (the ideological rationale).

Iraq became the battlefield for the war on terror. Al Quaeda, with sub rosa support from Iran and Syria, along with groups from the Sunni and Shia religious sects, fought against the coalition forces. The war was difficult and the “going got tougher.” Liberals and the radical left started criticizing the President and the military. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, among others, flatly stated the war was lost, directly damaging our troop’s morale in Iraq. Even with the success of the “surge,” liberals and the radical left predictably turned their backs on our military.

Contrary to President Obama’s assertion, the Afghanistan war is Obama’s war of choice not necessity. Upon taking office, Obama approved increasing troop levels by 17,000. By year-end, upwards of 70,000 American troops will be in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Already, David Obey, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and a member of the radical left, warned the President that unless concrete progress is shown within a year continued funding is questionable. Once again, when the “going gets tough” liberals and the radical left start turning their backs on our troops.

It is clear that liberals and the radical left will always turn their backs on our troops. It is clear that liberals and the radical left, of the Democratic Party, cannot be trusted with the welfare of our troops or the security of our nation. When the day comes that the liberals and radical left abandon our troops and Afghanistan, the sacrifice of our troops will have had no meaning.

Congressional Culture of Corruption Continues 22 – Rangel Pays Off Democrats on Ethics Committee

2009-09-04T13:06:00.000-07:00

Charles Rangel, Dem-NY, has done it again. Providing further evidence of his dishonesty, Rangel has given campaign donations to Democrat members of the House, including three Democrats on the House ethics panel who are charged with objectively investigating several ethics violations by Rangel.

The three Democrats on the ethics committee are Ben Chandler, D-KY; G.K.Butterfield, D-NC; and Peter Welch, D-VT (Welch saw fit to return Rangel’s campaign donations). Rangel has been quoted as saying he expects the ethics committee to rule quickly on the ethics charges against him. No kidding! He bought his exoneration from these charges.

Existing ethics charges against Charles Rangel include:

* Violation of New York City statutes for misusing rate four stabilized apartments. Because that apartment is rent-stabilized, Mr. Rangel paid $630 per month, while similar market-rate units in the building rent for $1,700 a month and higher [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/nyregion/15rangel.html].

* It appears Rangel’s latest problem stems from his “no interest” investment in a villa in Punta Cana, which is a favorite resort of the rich and famous. Rentals of the villas can be lucrative, with the best drawing $1,100 per night. Rangel’s villa has been described as the best casita on the beach. The problem Rangel has is failure to report taxable income. Rangel has reported sporadic rental income over the years averaging about $5,000 per year, which, at approximately $1,000 per night rental, indicates he rented his villa out for only five days of the year. Question: how much undeclared rental income has Rangel hidden over the years? His record of receiving only $5,000 per year on average doesn’t pass the “sniff test.”

* In addition, Rangel has been soliciting donations for a government sponsored Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service using his office letterhead. House rules state: “no letterhead or envelope used in a solicitation may bear the words ‘Congress of the United States,’ ‘House of Representatives,’ or ‘Official Business,’ nor may the letterhead or envelope bear the Seal of the United States, the Congress, or the House.” Rangel’s response: The laws have been so vague in what we can solicit for not-for-profits that I am certain that they’re making them up as we go along.” So, what part of the word “no” doesn’t Rangel understand. Once again, Rangel’s actions fail the “sniff test.”

* The New York Times reported that while “Rangel had help raise $11 million for a City College of New York school of public service to be named in his honor,” he also was key in preserving a tax loophole for a particular oil-drilling firm. It just happens that the CEO of the oil-drilling firm was donating $1 million to the so-called Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service. The New York Times reported while the oil-drilling firm, Nabors Industries, saved millions annually in taxes avoided, the U.S. Treasury lost $1.1 billion in revenues over the last decade.

* Representative Charles Rangel submitted revised financial disclosure reports last month to correct a financial disclosure report he submitted in May of this year for 2007. This disclosure certainly should result in another ethics investigation. His amended report reveals Rangel failed to report a Congressional Federal Credit Union account worth approximately $250,000 to $500,000 and an investment account with approximately $250,000 to $500,000. In addition, Rangel reported owning shares in PepsiCo (valued at $15,000 to $50,000) and YUM! Brands (valued at $1,000 to $15,000). In addition, Rangel disclosed ownership of two or three empty lots values at less that $15,000 (which sounds ridiculously low) and formerly undeclared investment income valued at $45,423 to $134,700 . . . formerly reported at $6,511 to$17,900 in value. All of this accomplished on a salary of $174,000 annually?

Representative Rangel’s actions do not pass the sniff test. His actions have been unethical and criminal. Yet, Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to remove him from his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee until the ethics committee confirms charges against Rangel. Of course, Rangel is not worried. He paid off the Democrat members of the ethics committee.

Charles Rangel is nothing short of being a tax cheat, an arrogant tax cheat at that. The base criminality of the radical left of the Democratic Party is evident in the actions of its members.

Congressioanl Culture of Corruption Continues 21 - Charles Rangel is a disgrace to the House of Representatives

2009-08-27T14:25:00.000-07:00

Representative Charles Rangel, the subject of two ongoing investigations by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, submitted revised financial disclosure reports this month to correct a financial disclosure report he submitted in May of this year for 2007. This disclosure certainly should result in another ethics investigation . . . but don’t hold your breath.

His amended report reveals Rangel failed to report a Congressional Federal Credit Union account worth approximately $250,000 to $500,000 and an investment account with approximately $250,000 to $500,000. In addition, Rangel reported owning shares in PepsiCo (valued at $15,000 to $50,000) and YUM! Brands (valued at $1,000 to $15,000).

In addition, Rangel disclosed ownership of two or three empty lots values at less that $15,000 (which sounds ridiculously low) and formerly undeclared investment income valued at $45,423 to $134,700 . . . formerly reported at $6,511 to$17,900 in value.

American Commentaries has recorded Rangel’s unethical behavior in Congressional Culture of Corruption issues 3, 6 and 12. Failing to disclose upwards of $700,000 is not only a breech of ethics but also it is possibly a criminal action.

How can Charles Rangel just “forget” about $250,000 in the Congressional Federal Credit Union?

How can Charles Rangel just “forget” about $250,000 in a brokerage account?

How can Charles Rangel just “forget” about his investments and investment income?

More importantly, how did Charles Rangel amass this fortune on an annual salary of $174,000?

The stench of corruption in Congress is stronger than ever and much of this stench emanates from Charles Rangel’s congressional office.

Congressional Culture of Corruption Continues 20 – Ted Kennedy’s Final Hypocrisy

2009-08-22T15:53:00.000-07:00

Senator Ted Kennedy sent a letter to Governor Deval Patrick, Democrat, proposing a change in the succession law regarding his Senate seat should he vacate it prior to the end of his term.

Current succession law, passed in 2004, calls for a special election to fill a vacant Senate seat at least 145 days after the seat becomes available. Ted Kennedy had the State law changed, while a member of the United States Senate, to protect John Kerry’s seat should Kerry become President. At the time, Mitt Romney, a Republican, was Governor of the State. Kennedy was fearful that Romney would appoint a Republican to Kerry’s former seat. The fact the law was changed shows the extent of Kennedy’s influence in State politics.

Now Kennedy wants the law changed back to the original version so a Democrat Governor can appoint a Democrat to the vacant seat. Kennedy’s hypocrisy and dishonesty are palpable.

If Kennedy succeeds in having the law changed, it will reveal the Marxist “ends justify the means” mentality of a corrupt and dysfunctional politician, who survived a dysfunctional family, and who essentially wasted his life pursuing women and alcohol, and who is responsible for the homicide of Mary Jo Kopechne.

The congressional culture of corruption continues and, if the Massachusetts’ legislature and governor accede to Kennedy’s request, the stench of congressional corruption will have reached Massachusetts’ State government, once again.

Obama's Approval Rating Plummets

2009-08-14T14:26:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama’s approval rating at the Rasmussen President Approval Index has plummeted. Obama’s approval index, the difference between those that strongly approve of Obama less those who strongly disapprove, has stayed negative since June 30, 2009. His index is -8 compared to his index rating of +28 the day after his inauguration.
This is a 36 points swing in his approval rating.

Of particular interest is the difference in “total approve” versus “total disapprove.” On January 21st, Obama’s total approval index was +35. This same index on August 13th
is -5. This is a 40 point swing for the worse.

Obama’s negative numbers are a reflection of the growing dissatisfaction with his performance:

*Concern about his demonstrated inability to govern;

*Concern about his failed European trip (he failed to convince Europe to contribute 17,000 troops to Afghanistan);

*His failure to convince Europe to increase its economic stimulus packages;

*His timid response to North Korea’s missile launch.

*His plan to spend only 10% of the stimulus bill in 2009, the year the American public needed the stimulus;

*The back-loading of the stimulus bill into the out years when a stimulus is not needed;

*His quadrupling of the deficit in the first six months of his term;

*His nationalization of General Motors and Chrysler absent Constitutional authority;
*His nationalization of major portions of the mortgage and banking industries absent Constitutional authority;

*The massive government intrusion into the private sector through his “cap and trade” scheme;

*His administration’s attempt to demonize and marginalize innocent Americans exercising their constitutional right to dissent;

*The passage of massive bills by Democrats who not only did not read the bills but also excluded the minority party from participating in negotiations;

*His use of ACORN employees to harass innocent Americans;

*And, his attempt to control almost one-fifth of the economy with his massive and invasive health care reform initiative, which he now calls health insurance reform in an effort to marginalize health care providers and in some cases, actually extort money from them.

This is the culture of corruption in politics when you have one party rule, absent any checks and balances.

Congressional Culture of Corruption 19 - Another Powerful Democrat Received Favorable Countrywide Loans

2009-08-07T13:30:00.000-07:00

Representative Edolphus Towns, Democrat, New York, who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, apparently has admitted to receiving “Friends of Angelo” loans that ordinary citizens could not receive: the terms of the loans were very favorable. Towns has been resisting calls for a subpoena of his loan records from Countrywide.

The ranking Republican on the Committee, Darrell Issa, has been urging the Committee to subpoena loan records from Countrywide to determine who received loans from Countrywide under the “Friends of Angelo” program. Issa claimed that initial investigation by his staff indicates that not all “Friends of Angelo” loans are publicly available implying that many members of Congress may have received special treatment by Countrywide.

Bank of America’s spokesman stated that Countrywide, which Bank of America purchased, is ready to hand over loan documentation upon receipt of a subpoena from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Representative Towns has refused to order a subpoena, thereby protecting himself: the cover-up is in place. The stench of corruption permeates the halls of Congress.

President Obama Endorses Negative Eugenics

2009-07-24T12:13:00.000-07:00

In President Obama’s world, universal health coverage includes the use of negative eugenics as a way to reduce health care expense. Obama supported negative eugenics as a State of Illinois Senator when he voted no on a law to provide medical help for babies who survived a botched abortion. Now he is willing to deny health care to needy patients, starting with seniors in his quest for health care reform.

The only way Obama can impact health care costs is to reduce the level of care received by seniors on Medicare. This means forcing doctors to provide less care through a reduction of tests, procedures and prescriptions. Obama’s plan to reduce Medicare funding by $500 billion at the same time the boomer generation begins retirement is no mistake.

Included in the House health care bill is the creation of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The goal of this Federal Coordinating Council is the implementation of negative eugenics specifically targeted at Medicare patients. The Federal Council is modeled after England’s version, the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) that approves or rejects treatment. For example, NICE has a rule of thumb that states health expenditures are inappropriate if they involve spending more than $22,000 to save six months of life. Consequently, British cancer patients do not have access to drugs that are available to patients in the United States. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 25,000 British cancer patients die prematurely every year due to these arbitrary restrictions.

Ezekiel J. Emanuel[1], brother to Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, wrote in a 1996 Hastings Center Report:

“The fundamental challenge to theories of distributive justice[2] for health care is to develop a principled mechanism for defining what fragment of the vast universe of technically available, effective medical care services is basic and will be guaranteed socially and what services are discretionary and will not be guaranteed socially. Such an approach accepts a two-tiered health system –some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and discretionary health services. Within the discretionary tier, some citizens will receive few discretionary services, other richer citizens will receive almost all available services, creating a multi-tiered system.”

More recently, Ezekiel Emanuel co-authored another article focused on the allocation of scarce medical interventions. The article reviewed eight simple allocation principles categorized into four separate classifications: treating people equally, favoring the worst-off, maximizing total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. The article then reviewed multi-principle allocation systems: The United Network for Organ Sharing points system, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. These reviews were simply a lead-up to recommending an alternative system: Complete Lives System.[3]

The Complete Lives System “. . . prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid . . . individual human lives, rather than individual experiences [are] the units over which any distributive principle should operate . . . complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and young adults over infants . . . When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.

The Complete Lives System discriminates against older people . . . Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they had more life-years is not.”

This is the twisted thinking of Hitler’s final solution, which led to the Holocaust. This is the tortured thinking behind President Obama’s Federal Coordinating Council, whose mission is to ration health care.

President Obama and Senator Ted Kennedy have repeatedly said the American people deserve the same health insurance that Federal employees have, the same health insurance that Senator Kennedy has. Both have betrayed the American people by opting for a sun-standard “public option.” We now know that Congress is exempt from the “public option” in the House bill. We now know that President Obama is intent on rationing health care through the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. We now know that President Obama has removed $500 billion from Medicare’s budget to help pay for the “public option.” We now know that people over 65 will be targeted for heath care rationing because their lives are considered of lesser value.

Liberal fascism is alive and well in Washington, D.C. We now have one party rule, absent any checks or balances. Obama is the Fuhrer: universal health care is not his goal. As an authoritarian and Statist, power and control are what Obama craves.

End Notes:

[1] Ezekiel J. Emanuel, “Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet,” Hastings Center Report, November-December 1996, p.12.
[2] Principles of distributive justice are normative principles designed to guide the allocation of the benefits and burdens of economic activity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
[3] Govind Persad, Alan Wertheimer, Ezekiel J. Emanual, “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions,” www.thelancet.com, Vol 373, January 31, 2009, pp.423-431.

True Health Care Reform?

2009-07-21T14:17:00.000-07:00

Senator Edward M. Kennedy wrote, in Newsweek Magazine, an article entitled, “The Cause of My Life – Inside the fight for universal health care.” In the article, Kennedy declared: “Every American should be able to get the same treatment that senators are entitled to.” Included in the massive health care bills running through the House and Senate is language exempting House and Senate members from having to participate in the universal health plan. Do you want to guess as to which health plan has richer benefits?

In the House version, there are four benefit designs: Basic Plan, Enhanced Plan, Premium Plan, and Premium Plus Plan. The levels of coverage are to be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services working with the new Benefits Advisory Commission. The Commission is to be staffed with physicians, other health care providers, business representatives, consumers and other health care experts. The bureaucracy grows.

The benefits designs must include the following coverage:

Inpatient hospital services
Outpatient hospital services
Physician services
Equipment and supplies incident to physician services
Preventive services
Maternity services
Prescription services
Rehabilitative and habilitative services
Well baby and well child visits and oral, vision, and hearing services for children
Mental health and substance abuse services

Note that dental, vision and hearing services are allowed only for children not adults. Of course, the health plan Senator Kennedy has includes such coverage.

Normally, actuaries and underwriters create benefit designs and then calculate the costs of the health plans. Since Congress is creating the broad benefit designs (without the underlying actuarial analysis), it is not surprising that the both Houses of Congress were caught by surprise at the draconian costs of their many health care bills.

President Obama spoke to members of the American Medical Association, on June 16, 2009, reminding the doctors of his promise: “And that means that no matter how we reform healthcare, we will keep this promise. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your health plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

Seven days later, at a White House news conference, President Obama admitted that delivering on his promise might be beyond his control. President Obama said, “what I’m saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.”
Then, on June 24th, President Obama made another promise that employers could not just drop health care coverage: “One of the things that we’ve said is that, if you are eligible for your employer plan, then you can’t just go into the public plan, you can’t decide that you’re already having a pretty good deal in insurance, and you’re just going to dump that, what’s called a firewall.”

In the House bill, a “public option” is included. It will be a Medicare-like plan with provider payments slightly higher than Medicare . . . at least in the beginning. So the idea is to have four tiers of Medicare-like coverage.

In addition to the four tier “public option,” Medicare itself is to be improved by eliminating the Part D (prescription benefit) donut hole by $500 in 2011 and total eliminate the donut hole by 2024. In addition, Drug manufacturers have allegedly agreed to 50% discounts on brand name drugs in the donut hole to reduce costs during the phase-out.

Medicaid improvement is on the table too. Effective 2013, individuals under age 65, with family incomes at or below 133% of poverty ($14,400) would be eligible for Medicaid. The cost of this improvement will be borne by the Federal Government alone. The best news for physicians is increased payments from 80% of Medicare to parity with Medicare by 2012.

At this point in time, the Obama administration and Congress are searching for additional tax revenue sources to pay for health care reform. A surcharge of 5% or more on the top 2% of wage earners will place 39 of 50 states at taxation rates of 50% or more, which is similar to European socialist States. The CBO Director told Congress that the current bills increase deficits, despite President Obama’s pledge to not add to the deficit.

Both President Obama and his Democrat controlled Congress must either find additional revenue sources, meaning higher taxes, or the health care reform needs to be scaled down. The rush to pass health care reform without knowing its true cost and scope is either dangerously naïve or politically cunning. Several parts of the health care reform requirements have been quietly passed as part of the Stimulus Bill not the Health Care Reform Bill.

Interestingly enough, Betsy McCaughey read the Obama Stimulus Plan (something Congress failed to do before voting for the bill) and found the health aspects of the bill chilling. For example, the stimulus bill calls for creation of a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, an appointed body with vast powers as described in Tom Daschle’s book, “Critical:What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.”

Ms. McCaughey writes, “. . . The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept ‘hopeless diagnoses’ and ‘forgo experimental treatments,’ and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system . . . Daschle says health-care reform ‘will not be pain free.’ Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them . . .”

Daschle’s book appears to endorse negative eugenics, regarded by the world as a “brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people. The ‘interventions’ advocated and practised by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, "promiscuous" women, homosexuals and entire "racial" groups——such as the Roma and Jews—as "degenerate" or "unfit"; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and in the extreme case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination . . . The practices engaged in by eugenicists involving violations of privacy, attacks on reputation, violations of the right to life, to found a family, to discrimination are all today classified as violations of human rights.”

Letting senior citizens endure preventable pain or withholding critical medical treatment appears to be a Tom Daschle standard. It is similar to Barack Obama’s vote to withhold treatment for babies born in a botched abortion. In either case, the patient is deemed expendable. Negative eugenics includes euthanasia. I call it premeditated murder.

The ABC's of Cap and Tax

2009-07-13T13:45:00.000-07:00

“Cap and Trade,” pollution offsets, a bill passed by the House because eight Republicans voted with the radical left. What exactly does the bill, as passed by the House, really mean? How will the program work? Here are some questions and answers about the bill.

What is the purpose of the “Cap and Trade” bill?

The proponents of the bill left will say the purpose of the bill is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming and move to cleaner sources of energy. This would be good, if it were true. But it’s not.

In reality, “global warming” has been proven a scam. Over 700 scientists, over thirteen times more than the United Nations group that “discovered” “global warming,” state that “global warming” is based on flawed science. “Global warming” has never been about science. “Global warming” is a strategy on a radical left political agenda. It is about power and control. Now that it has been proven that the earth has been in a cooling period, the radical left has changed “global warming” to “climate change” to cover all bases.

What does the bill propose to accomplish?

The proponents of the bill say the bill places limitations on carbon based gas emissions, places a cost on continued use of carbon based fuels that cause global warming, and provides an incentive to move to cleaner fuels.

As “global warming” has been proven a scam, what does the bill really accomplish? It creates a new taxing system on energy, producing hundreds of billions of dollars of new tax revenue for radical left programs. It will accomplish a doubling of electricity rates, a doubling of gasoline costs, and a doubling of natural gas costs, all of which the consumer must pay with inflation ravaged dollars from Obama’s draconian spending.

Who supports the bill?

So-called environmentalists, United Nations scientists, and the radical left support the bill, along with Al Gore and his flawed propaganda film.

Who opposes this bill?

Over 700 serious scientists over the world decry the bill as bad or built on flawed science. Actually, there is no science behind “global warming.” Serious scientists have proven global warming to be scientifically false. The bill is the first step in the radical left’s agenda to gain control and power over our energy sector, just as they did with banking, financial, and automotive industries.

How will this bill work?

The bill creates a limit or cap in the amount of carbon based gases that can be released into the environment. Companies with facilities falling within the authority of the bill will receive an annual carbon gas allowance equal to the carbon gas permits they receive under the bill.

Companies whose carbon gas emission exceeds the arbitrary limits set by the bill must find ways to reduce their emissions or buy additional permits from companies who have surplus permits (this is the trade aspect of “Cap and Trade). Companies can also engage in another scam in lieu of buying permits: they can invest in carbon offsets, e.g., plant trees.

What happens to companies who violate the regulations imposed on them?

Violators will have to pay a fine equal to two times the cap and trade price for each ton of gas emissions over the limit.

How does the bill impact ordinary people?

This bill, if passed, will drastically alter our lives. It will essentially double energy costs for everyone. For those of us in the Southwest, where electric bills of $200 plus per month in the summer are common, plan on paying $400. Plan on gas prices around $4-5 per gallon. If you use natural gas, it will double. And, by the way, neither your salary nor fixed income, depending on your status, will double. In fact. Based on Obama’s spending, the value of the dollar will shrink by half due to inflation.

Obama’s Government Motors, in line with this bill, will produce the dinky little cars we do not want to buy.

Wind management will be in . . . except no one has figured out to manage the wind.

Solar will be in – except the Northeast doesn’t have much solar in the winter time and storing and transmitting solar energy efficiently is a long way off.

The purpose of this bill is to give the radical left power and control over the lives of American citizens by altering the conditions under which we live.

Yet, no where in the Constitution does it give Obama or Congress this power and control.

What does it all mean?

“Cap and Trade” is the greatest example of tyranny and theft of liberty in this nation’s history. Obama and his one party rule, absent any checks and balances, are now the new National Socialistic Democratic Party, the synthesis of Marxism and Fascism, the new Statism. Obama campaigned as a centrist, promoting hope and change. He and his Statist party have brought only misery and tyranny. Are you better off than you were seven months ago?

Obama stated that if Congress didn’t hurriedly pass his stimulus package, unemployment would hit eight percent. Congress passed the stimulus package and unemployment hit 9.4%, with expectations of being over 10% soon.

Obama stated he had no desire to nationalize the banking, financial, or automotive industries. Then he nationalized them.

Obama stated he has no desire to nationalize health care but he is working to do exactly that.

Obama stated he has no desire to nationalize the energy sector but he is working to do exactly that.

Obama has said he loves America . . .

Obama's Approval Rating Stays Negative for Six Consecutive Polls

2009-07-08T14:55:00.000-07:00

The Rasmussen President Approval Index reveals President Obama’s approval, those that strongly approve of Obama less those who strongly disapprove, has dropped to -5 from a high of +28 the day after his inauguration. This is a staggering drop of 33 points or 118%.

From January 21st this year to April 8th, those who strongly approve of Obama’s performance fell from 44% to 32%; total approval of Obama’s performance fell from 65% to 53%.

For the same period, those strongly disapproving of Obama’s performance increased from 16% to 37%, an131% increase; total disapproval of Obama’s performance increased from 30% to 46%, a 53% increase. President Obama has received negative ratings for the last six days that Rasmussen has polled with -5 being the lowest rating he has received in this poll.

The 33 point index drop from January 21st is a reflection of the growing dissatisfaction with Obama’s performance domestically, concern about his demonstrated inability to govern, concern about his failed European trip (he failed to convince Europe to contribute 17,000 troops to Afghanistan); he failed to convince Europe to increase its economic stimulus packages; France offered to take only one prisoner from Guantanamo and Austria said it will take none), and his timid response to North Korea’s missile launch.

From the domestic side, President Obama’s over reach regarding his nationalization of AIG, CitiBank, General Motors and Chrysler, with the impending attempt to nationalize health care and draconian tax increase buried in his “cap and trade” bill has caused all Americans to take a second look and they’re not liking what they’re seeing. That’s why is Congress is trying to pass every bill before August.

The “cap and trade” bill was neither written nor read when the House passed it along party lines. The amendment to “cap and trade” was issued at 3:00 AM so no one had a chance to read it.

The proposed health care bill will shift 20% of our economy from the private sector to the government if the public option succeeds and the bill passes.

This is the corruption in politics when you have one party rule, absent any checks and balances. This is the closest we have been as a nation to a dictatorship.

Congressional Culture of Corruption Continues 18 - Conyers Trades ACORN Congressional Hearing for Future Presidential Pardon

2009-07-06T15:55:00.000-07:00

Congressman John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, intent on investigating ACORN for voter fraud and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) complaint filed by former ACORN, has suddenly backed off his plans for Congressional hearings.

Democrats were angry at the possibility of Congressional hearings that would reveal President Obama’s close relationship with ACORN. According to sources with access to the full court press by leading Democrats say a deal was struck between Obama and Conyers: Conyers backs away from the proposed hearing regarding ACORN and Obama will give Conyers’ wife, who was indicted for bribery and who could face a five year prison term, a presidential pardon.

The stench of Congressional corruption reeks more than ever.