Saturday, December 10, 2011
Obama’s campaign for class resentment
From The Washington Post
By Charles Krauthammer,
In the first month of his presidency, Barack Obama averred that if in three years he hadn’t alleviated the nation’s economic pain, he’d be a “one-term proposition.”When three-quarters of Americans think the country is on the “wrong track” and even Bill Clinton calls the economy “lousy,” how then to run for a second term? Traveling Tuesday to Osawatomie, Kan., site of a famous 1910 Teddy Roosevelt speech, Obama laid out the case.
It seems that he and his policies have nothing to do with the current state of things. Sure, presidents are ordinarily held accountable for economic growth, unemployment, national indebtedness (see Obama, above). But not this time. Responsibility, you see, lies with the rich.
Or, as the philosophers of Zuccotti Park call them, the 1 percent. For Obama, these rich are the ones holding back the 99 percent. The “breathtaking greed of a few” is crushing the middle class. If only the rich paid their “fair share,” the middle class would have a chance. Otherwise, government won’t have enough funds to “invest” in education and innovation, the golden path to the sunny uplands of economic growth and opportunity.
Where to begin? A country spending twice as much per capita on education as it did in 1970 with zero effect on test scores is not underinvesting in education. It’s mis-investing. As for federally directed spending on innovation — like Solyndra? Ethanol? The preposterously subsidized, flammable Chevy Volt?
Our current economic distress is attributable to myriad causes: globalization, expensive high-tech medicine, a huge debt burden, a burst housing bubble largely driven by precisely the egalitarian impulse that Obama is promoting (government aggressively pushing “affordable housing” that turned out to be disastrously unaffordable), an aging population straining the social safety net. Yes, growing inequality is a problem throughout the Western world. But Obama’s pretense that it is the root cause of this sick economy is ridiculous.
As is his solution, that old perennial: selective abolition of the Bush tax cuts. As if all that ails us, all that keeps the economy from humming and the middle class from advancing, is a 4.6-point hike in marginal tax rates for the rich.
This, in a country $15 trillion in debt with out-of-control entitlements systematically starving every other national need. This obsession with a sock-it-to-the-rich tax hike that, at most, would have reduced this year’s deficit from $1.30 trillion to $1.22 trillion is the classic reflex of reactionary liberalism — anything to avoid addressing the underlying structural problems, which would require modernizing the totemic programs of the New Deal and Great Society.
As for those structural problems, Obama has spent three years on signature policies that either ignore or aggravate them:
●A massive stimulus, a gigantic payoff to Democratic interest groups (such as teachers, public-sector unions) that will add nearly $1 trillion to the national debt.
●A sweeping federally run reorganization of health care that (a) cost Congress a year, (b) created an entirely new entitlement in a nation hemorrhaging from unsustainable entitlements, (c) introduced new levels of uncertainty into an already stagnant economy.
●High-handed regulation, best exemplified by Obama’s failed cap-and-trade legislation, promptly followed by the Environmental Protection Agency trying to impose the same conventional-energy-killing agenda by administrative means.
Moreover, on the one issue that already enjoys a bipartisan consensus — the need for fundamental reform of a corrosive, corrupted tax code that misdirects capital and promotes unfairness — Obama did nothing, ignoring the recommendations of several bipartisan commissions, including his own.
In Kansas, Obama lamented that millions “are now forced to take their children to food banks.” You have to admire the audacity. That’s the kind of damning observation the opposition brings up when you’ve been in office three years. Yet Obama summoned it to make the case for his reelection!
Why? Because, you see, he bears no responsibility for the current economic distress. It’s the rich. And, like Horatius at the bridge, Obama stands with the American masses against the soulless plutocrats.
This is populism so crude that it channels not Teddy Roosevelt so much as Hugo Chavez. But with high unemployment, economic stagnation and unprecedented deficits, what else can Obama say?
He can’t run on stewardship. He can’t run on policy. His signature initiatives — the stimulus, Obamacare and the failed cap-and-trade — will go unmentioned in his campaign ads. Indeed, they will be the stuff of Republican ads.
What’s left? Class resentment. Got a better idea?
Friday, December 9, 2011
Plot To Undermine Right To Bear Arms
From INVESTER’S BUSINESS DAILY
Scandal: Newly obtained documents show that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives discussed using its covert operation Fast and Furious to argue for new rules about gun sales. We told you so.
As we observed in June, the way Fast and Furious — the government's gun-running operation that resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry — was conducted made no sense unless its intent was to facilitate violence with U.S. weapons in the interests of pursuing the administration's gun-control agenda.
Now documents obtained by CBS News confirm that our first suspicions were correct.
As CBS' Sharyl Attkisson reports, emails show ATF officials discussed using the deliberate transfer of weapons to Mexican drug cartels to justify a new gun regulation known as "Demand Letter 3."
We say deliberate because congressional testimony by ATF agents demonstrates how the tracking of Fast and Furious weapons stopped at the border and that requests to interdict the weapons transfers and arrest the gun traffickers were denied by higher-ups.
Demand Letter 3 was so named because it was the third ATF attempt to have Southwest gun shops report all long-gun (rifle or shotgun) sales to the ATF — even those to law-abiding American citizens with all the proper registration and other forms.
On July 14, 2010, five months before Terry's murder, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, the ATF's Phoenix special agent in charge of Fast and Furious: "Bill, can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time? We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long-gun sales. Thanks."
On Jan. 24, as the ATF was preparing to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, another email showed Newell saw it as an opportunity "to address multiple sales on long guns issue."
After the press conference, Chait emailed Newell that in "light of our request for Demand Letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of the case."
Two earlier Demand Letters affected only a handful of dealers.
As it was funneling some 2,000 guns to Mexican criminals and drug lords, the Justice Department announced April 25 that it was requiring 8,500 gun stores in Arizona, California, Texas and New Mexico to report individual purchases of multiple rifles of greater than .22 caliber by law-abiding American citizens to the ATF because — get this — such guns are "frequently recovered at violent crime scenes near the Southwest border."
Like the ATF-supplied guns found next to the body of Brian Terry?
These documents show that Fast and Furious was intended not to interdict gun trafficking, but to make the administration's case for more gun control.
According to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, "there's plenty of evidence developing that the administration planned to use the tragedies of Fast and Furious as rationale to further their goals of a long-gun reporting requirement."
As he did Thursday in testifying before Congress trying to justify his incompetence or seeming ignorance concerning the operation, Attorney General Eric Holder tried to shift the blame to Congress and American gun dealers: "Unfortunately, earlier this year the House of Representatives actually voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchase multiple semiautomatic rifles and shotguns in Southwest border gun shops."
Holder suggested that weapons allowed to "walk" into the hands of drug cartels during the course of the failed Fast and Furious operation will continue to show up at crime scenes in the U.S. and Mexico "for years to come." And, no doubt, at the deaths of more people on both sides of the border.
It is you, Eric Holder, who has kept the American people in the dark as to how and why Brian Terry had to die to further a domestic policy goal of the Obama administration. And it is you who must go.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
THE BORDER WAR
The United States has been defending South Korea’s northern border for the past 59 years. We built a fence along that border and we have had our military there all these years. The United States has spared no expense to maintain the security of that border.
It is most unfortunate that our Government is not as concerned about the safety of Americans citizens as the safety of citizens of a country half way around the world.
Almost every day armed criminals come across our southern border for sole purpose of committing all sorts of crimes including murder. Not only is our government purposely ignoring the problem, they are suing states for attempting to defend themselves.
Article 1, Section 8 of the United States constitution clearly states that “Congress will provide for the common defense of the country”. The inactions by our government are treasonous. Our leadership in Washington, DC continues on a rudderless course when it comes to National Security especially along our Southern Border.
The current administration just does not understand that this is more than a debate point during election season; it’s an active international disaster that threatens national security. We need leaders now that understand the current threat and vulnerabilities.
America must defeat major criminal forces and provide a firm, regulated path for international exchange with Latin America or we will lose this war; those forces will overtake us. Our rule of law will end and their rule of man will dominate as it does in most of Latin America.
A major problem is that, the U.S. government prioritizes environmental preservation over national security by keeping Border Patrol agents out of wildlife refuges that are heavily transited by Mexican drug and human smugglers.
“For years, Border Patrol agents have been prohibited by the Interior Department and the U.S. Forest Service from actively patrolling such areas because it threatens natural resources,” Tom Fitton, president of the public-interest watchdog Judicial Watch, following the release of the GAO report recently.
“Motorized vehicles, road construction and the installation of surveillance structures required to adequately secure the vast areas are forbidden because it could endanger the environment and its wildlife. In the meantime, Mexican drug cartels and human smugglers regularly use the sprawling, unmanned and federally protected land to enter the U.S. The areas have become the path of choice for illicit operations that endanger American lives and, ironically, cause severe environmental damage,” said Fitton.
The Law Enforcement Examiner obtained copies of the original reports—GAO-11-38 and GAO-11-117—and discovered that environmental concerns took precedence over law enforcement and public safety concerns.
According to the GAO report, 40 percent of Southwest border lands are managed by the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, and coordination and cooperation between Border Patrol and land management agencies is critical to ensure national security.
The Government Accountability office summarized its findings from two previous reports regarding the U.S.-Mexico border in the fall of 2010. The first report, GAO-11-38, focused on the key land management laws that Border Patrol must comply with and how these laws affect the agency’s operations. The second report, GAO-11-177, focused on the extent to which Border Patrol and land management agencies’ law enforcement units share threat information and communications.
When operating on federal lands, Border Patrol must comply with the requirements of several federal land management laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, Wilderness Act, and Endangered Species Act. Border Patrol agents must obtain permission or a permit from federal land management agencies before agents can undertake operations, such as maintaining roads and installing surveillance equipment, on federal lands.
To fulfill these requirements, Border Patrol generally coordinates with land management agencies through national and local interagency agreements. The most comprehensive agreement is a 2006 memorandum of understanding between the Departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture, and the Interior that is intended to guide Border Patrol activities on federal lands. Border Patrol’s access to some federal lands along the southwestern border has been limited because of certain land management laws, according to 17 of 26 patrol agents-in-charge that GAO analysts interviewed.
For example, these patrol agents-in-charge reported that implementation of these laws had resulted in delays and restrictions in their patrolling and monitoring operations. Specifically, 14 patrol agents-in-charge reported that they had been unable to obtain a permit or permission to access certain areas in a timely manner because of the time it takes for land managers to conduct required environmental and historic property assessments. The 2006 memorandum of understanding directs the agencies to cooperate and complete, in an expedited manner, all compliance required by applicable federal laws, but such cooperation has not always occurred.
For example, when Border Patrol requested permission to move surveillance equipment, it took the land manager more than 4 months to conduct the required historic property assessment and grant permission, but by then illegal traffic had shifted to other areas.
Despite two congressional reports documenting the obstacles Border Patrol officers face in these dangerous areas, little has been done to remedy the situation and improve security. An overwhelming majority of Border Patrol agents told congressional investigators that “land management laws” continue to limit their access to federal lands along the treacherous southwestern border.
Information sharing and communication among the agencies have increased in recent years, but critical gaps remain in implementing interagency agreements. Agencies established forums and liaisons to exchange information; however, in the Tucson sector, agencies did not coordinate to ensure that federal land law enforcement officials had access to threat information and compatible secure radio communications for daily operations.
The situation is so dire that a group of lawmakers have introduced legislation to prohibit any federal agency—especially the Department of the Interior—from using environmental regulations to hinder the Border Patrol from securing the area. The measure would essentially ensure that Border Patrol, not federal land managers, have operational control of the nation’s borders. ...previously reported by Jim Kouri in the Examiner.
It is now time to enforce the rule-of-law and the protection of Americans and our country. No more excuses…no more delays…no more politics, no more kowtowing to special interest groups, or claims by open-border believers. The fact is, the Citizens of the USA are in daily danger and are being killed because the border and interior states of Mexico are controlled by thugs, savvy drug cartel leaders, terrorists and who knows what or who else!
The problems on and across our southern borders of California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas are in the news every day. We have a war of gigantic proportions…illegal invasions, jihadists, treacherous drug cartels, gangs, human trafficking, drugs (is there not a war on drugs???), smuggling, kidnappings, and corruption of officials on both sides of the borders.
If our Federal Government will not execute an operational plan to secure our southern borders then the States and all Americans must demand it.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
AND THEN THERE WERE TWO
THE LAST TWO STANDING WILL BE NEWT AND MITT.
By the time the Oklahoma Republican Primary rolls around, it will be down to these two. Ron Paul may still be hanging on, but by then he won’t really be a serious contender.
Newt Gingrich is head and shoulders above anyone else in the race intellectually. In terms of pure brain power, he has a real grasp of most issues.” In fact, he has a grasp of every side of every issue because, at one time or another, he has been on it. In my view, the “New Newt” seems to be on the “right” side of most issues.
There is absolutely no doubt that he would wipe the floor with Obama in a debate. For all his flaws—and who does not have flaws—he has both an historian’s and a working politician’s grasp of issues. I don’t agree with him on every single issue but I think he could make the changes needed to turn this nation around, and I believe he has a passionate love of America.
Which leaves us with Mitt Romney; sure-and-steady, a man who has had the political misfortune of actually changing his mind over the years, largely because he ran as a Republican in one of the most Democratic States of the Union…and won!
Romney is very presidential looking, intelligent, and a very well qualified candidate, having succeeded in both politics and business. Some people are still bothered by the fact he is a Mormon. To that I say “we are electing a President, not a pastor”. Let’s also give him points for having lived a moral life as a good husband and father. He has made it this far without a single major gaffe, but Romney increasingly gives the impression of being robotic. He is locked into his political game plan and talking points, and it has worked for him up to this point. It may get him the nomination.
Of the two, Gingrich is just more fun to listen to as he speaks, without teleprompter, citing Jefferson and Lincoln, quoting the Declaration of Independence, reminding us why the first Americans fought a Revolution. Gingrich has already made some history of his own, wresting control of Congress away from the Democratic Party in the mid-1990s. He could very well do it again.
I think the Iowa primary will give Gingrich a win. I think the New Hampshire primary will give Romney a win. After that, who knows? When the day comes to make my choice, I will pick the one I feel has the best chance to send Obama packing. Because then, and only then will America’s future begin to improve.
Monday, December 5, 2011
TIME TO IMPEACH OBAMA
|
Are you sick and tired of losing more
and more of your freedom?
|
|
|
|
Are you fed up with paying more and
more taxes which are wasted to help countries that hate us?
|
|
|
|
Are you at your wits end watching a
President that can’t even stand up for America?
|
|
|
|
Solution – Time to
Impeach our President for Treason, Now!!!!
|
|
|
|
TREASON - This word imports a betraying,
treachery, or breach of allegiance.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. |
|
|
|
Watch the video’s below and follow the links to the articles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)