If you go to You Tube and put in the words "Hank Johnson Guam" you will be treated to a U.S. Congressman pontificating that should the U.S. add another 8,000 servicemen and their families to the island's population, the island will flip over. Yes, I said exactly that, the island will flip over. This man votes on issues that effect our lives every day and he thinks that Guam is like a row boat. Is he really that stupid?
Then we have the Detroit representative, Representative John Conynors Jr., who said he doesn't have time to read the bill before he votes on it. Huh, he doesn't even know what is in the bill and he is voting for or against it? Maybe his wife will have time to read the bills once she goes to the big house for accepting bribes as a Detroit City Councilman!
And of course there is the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pilosi. What can we say about this stellar leader of the House? She definitely set a record of armtwisting and giveaways in the health care bill. She also said "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” Huh? She, Conynors and Johnson are what we have as leaders today. Pretty poor specimens.
Agree? Disagree
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Obama's Strategy In Israel
This posting from Dick Morris discusses Obama's game plan with Israel. Whether Dick is correct or not, treating our only dependable friend in the Middle East as this Administration has is beyond belief. My question is: will the United States support Israel if there is another attack? My belief today is, NO!
OBAMA VS. ISRAELI REGIME
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on March 30, 2010
Why is President Barack Obama so obviously humiliating Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu? Why is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton negating everything she said when she represented New York state and piling on the Jewish state?
They want Netanyahu out. Specifically, they want him to feel such pressure that he dumps his right-wing coalition partners and forms a new government with the center-left party Kadima, headed by former Prime Minister Tzipi Livni. Livni, who thinks nothing of trading land for peace, no matter how flawed the peace might be, will then hold Netanyahu's government hostage and force it to bend to the will of Washington and sign a deal with the Palestinians that cedes them land in return for a handful of vague vapors and promises, none of which will be kept.
On March 3, Livni said, in a Knesset debate, that since Netanyahu took control "Israel has become a pariah country in the world." She is trying to use Obama's and Clinton's rejection of Netanyahu's course to force her way into the government. And Obama and Clinton are intent on helping her do so by publicly humiliating Netanyahu.
Netanyahu insists that he'd be happy to negotiate a peace accord. But, as he told me last year, "I just don't have a peace partner with whom to negotiate."
The Palestinians are expert at playing "good cop/bad cop" with Israel. The good cop -- the Palestinian Authority -- wants to negotiate a peace deal and insists on signs of Israeli good faith in order to do so. Meanwhile, the bad cop -- Hamas -- fires missiles at Israel from Gaza, land Israel ceded to the Palestinians in order to promote the peace process earlier in the decade.
Any peace deal with the Palestinian Authority will not be binding on Hamas, and the pattern of Gaza will likely play out again: First, Israel cedes land to the Palestinian Authority. Second, Hamas seizes the newly ceded land through elections or military action. Third, Hamas refuses to recognize the peace deal and uses the newly acquired territory as a base from which to launch further attacks against Israel.
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome each time.
When Hillary Clinton and President Obama explode in indignation against Israel for building apartments in East Jerusalem, they deliberately miss the point: There is no reason for Israel to catalyze peace negotiations when there is no single entity that is both committed to peace and speaks for the entire Palestinian people. Without a peace partner, negotiations are either a trip to nowhere or a slippery slope to more Gaza-like concessions that do nothing but strengthen the enemies of Israel without providing any advancement to the cause of peace.
The merits of building in East Jerusalem or the need for a moratorium on all settlement construction are quite irrelevant as long as a substantial body of Palestinian opinion wants a war with Israel and the prevailing political authority in Gaza insists on the Jewish state's eradication.
So why are Obama and Clinton so intent on raising the profile of the construction issue and publicizing it? One suspects an effort is afoot to link Israeli resistance to the peace process with the ongoing loss of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not to the global terrorism of al Qaeda.
Gen. David Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples [in the region] … Enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility." In other words -- blame Israel.
And ultimately, the administration's agenda may be to explain its withdrawal of support for Israel by blaming its stubborn insistence on housing construction. One can well see the Obama administration learning to live with an Iranian nuclear weapon, all the while blaming Israel for fomenting Iranian hostility by building housing.
Meanwhile, through American aid to Gaza, the Obama administration is helping Hamas to solidify its position in Gaza and lengthen its lease on political power -- the very power it is using to torpedo the peace process.
OBAMA VS. ISRAELI REGIME
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on March 30, 2010
Why is President Barack Obama so obviously humiliating Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu? Why is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton negating everything she said when she represented New York state and piling on the Jewish state?
They want Netanyahu out. Specifically, they want him to feel such pressure that he dumps his right-wing coalition partners and forms a new government with the center-left party Kadima, headed by former Prime Minister Tzipi Livni. Livni, who thinks nothing of trading land for peace, no matter how flawed the peace might be, will then hold Netanyahu's government hostage and force it to bend to the will of Washington and sign a deal with the Palestinians that cedes them land in return for a handful of vague vapors and promises, none of which will be kept.
On March 3, Livni said, in a Knesset debate, that since Netanyahu took control "Israel has become a pariah country in the world." She is trying to use Obama's and Clinton's rejection of Netanyahu's course to force her way into the government. And Obama and Clinton are intent on helping her do so by publicly humiliating Netanyahu.
Netanyahu insists that he'd be happy to negotiate a peace accord. But, as he told me last year, "I just don't have a peace partner with whom to negotiate."
The Palestinians are expert at playing "good cop/bad cop" with Israel. The good cop -- the Palestinian Authority -- wants to negotiate a peace deal and insists on signs of Israeli good faith in order to do so. Meanwhile, the bad cop -- Hamas -- fires missiles at Israel from Gaza, land Israel ceded to the Palestinians in order to promote the peace process earlier in the decade.
Any peace deal with the Palestinian Authority will not be binding on Hamas, and the pattern of Gaza will likely play out again: First, Israel cedes land to the Palestinian Authority. Second, Hamas seizes the newly ceded land through elections or military action. Third, Hamas refuses to recognize the peace deal and uses the newly acquired territory as a base from which to launch further attacks against Israel.
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome each time.
When Hillary Clinton and President Obama explode in indignation against Israel for building apartments in East Jerusalem, they deliberately miss the point: There is no reason for Israel to catalyze peace negotiations when there is no single entity that is both committed to peace and speaks for the entire Palestinian people. Without a peace partner, negotiations are either a trip to nowhere or a slippery slope to more Gaza-like concessions that do nothing but strengthen the enemies of Israel without providing any advancement to the cause of peace.
The merits of building in East Jerusalem or the need for a moratorium on all settlement construction are quite irrelevant as long as a substantial body of Palestinian opinion wants a war with Israel and the prevailing political authority in Gaza insists on the Jewish state's eradication.
So why are Obama and Clinton so intent on raising the profile of the construction issue and publicizing it? One suspects an effort is afoot to link Israeli resistance to the peace process with the ongoing loss of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not to the global terrorism of al Qaeda.
Gen. David Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples [in the region] … Enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility." In other words -- blame Israel.
And ultimately, the administration's agenda may be to explain its withdrawal of support for Israel by blaming its stubborn insistence on housing construction. One can well see the Obama administration learning to live with an Iranian nuclear weapon, all the while blaming Israel for fomenting Iranian hostility by building housing.
Meanwhile, through American aid to Gaza, the Obama administration is helping Hamas to solidify its position in Gaza and lengthen its lease on political power -- the very power it is using to torpedo the peace process.
The Frog In The Pan
I feel like the frog that is placed in the pan of cool water which is slowly heated. I will not jump out because I feel comfortable. If I had been plunked into the pan of heated water, I would have bolted out of the pan without thought.
The pan in my analogy is the United States and Obama is slowly turning up the heat. We have seen the takeover of banks, autos and now the health care of America. Don't be fooled, this health care plan is just the first step to nationalization which I predict will happen either before 2014 or just afterward. There are two reasons for my negativity. First, the plan's penalty for not having insurance is meaningless. Rationally, would you rather pay a $695 penalty or $1200 per year for insurance? Most would rather pay the penalty especially since I can get insurance anytime I get sick or hurt. Remember there is no pre-existing clause after September. So I get sick, I go to the insurance company or cooperative of my choice and say "give me some of that insurance" and they have to. What is the incentive to purchase insurance when you are not
sick?
Employers also will do the math. Do they provide health insurance for their employees which might cost the corporation $7000-$12000 or more per year or pay the penalty of $2000? If the corporation does provide the insurance, their employees can go to the insurance companies or cooperatives and get their coverage. From a purely economic analysis, the companies are going to do what is in the best interests of the stockholders which is not to provide insurance but to pay the penalty.
Secondly, employer paid insurance will drop off significantly in the next 4 years to a point that Congress will wake to the horror that most people are using the cooperatives and/or personally owned insurance. To remain profitable, largely due to the lack of screening for pre-existing issues, the premium increases for all insurance will rise by double digits. To answer complaints by the populace Congress will declare the experiment of a quasi government/insurance company solution a failure and to declare that "we must control costs and the only entity that can do that is the government."
Whereupon Congress will create an American Health Plan entirely run and administered by the government. All those entities who bought into the current health plan namely AARP, the insurance companies, hospitals and doctors will lose their power and will be dictated to by the government. The heat in the pan just went up some more.
Agree? Disagree?
The pan in my analogy is the United States and Obama is slowly turning up the heat. We have seen the takeover of banks, autos and now the health care of America. Don't be fooled, this health care plan is just the first step to nationalization which I predict will happen either before 2014 or just afterward. There are two reasons for my negativity. First, the plan's penalty for not having insurance is meaningless. Rationally, would you rather pay a $695 penalty or $1200 per year for insurance? Most would rather pay the penalty especially since I can get insurance anytime I get sick or hurt. Remember there is no pre-existing clause after September. So I get sick, I go to the insurance company or cooperative of my choice and say "give me some of that insurance" and they have to. What is the incentive to purchase insurance when you are not
sick?
Employers also will do the math. Do they provide health insurance for their employees which might cost the corporation $7000-$12000 or more per year or pay the penalty of $2000? If the corporation does provide the insurance, their employees can go to the insurance companies or cooperatives and get their coverage. From a purely economic analysis, the companies are going to do what is in the best interests of the stockholders which is not to provide insurance but to pay the penalty.
Secondly, employer paid insurance will drop off significantly in the next 4 years to a point that Congress will wake to the horror that most people are using the cooperatives and/or personally owned insurance. To remain profitable, largely due to the lack of screening for pre-existing issues, the premium increases for all insurance will rise by double digits. To answer complaints by the populace Congress will declare the experiment of a quasi government/insurance company solution a failure and to declare that "we must control costs and the only entity that can do that is the government."
Whereupon Congress will create an American Health Plan entirely run and administered by the government. All those entities who bought into the current health plan namely AARP, the insurance companies, hospitals and doctors will lose their power and will be dictated to by the government. The heat in the pan just went up some more.
Agree? Disagree?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
November Elections--Another View
I had just posted the previous article and into my email box pops this article. Yes, it is great when I find others who are thinking "outside the box" and most importantly that agree with me!! However, I may not be the only looney toon out there when it comes to this Administration. I hope that I am 100% WRONG! Time will tell.
An open letter to America from Aaron Zelman,
Are Politicians Even Worried About The 2010 Elections?
An open letter to America from Aaron Zelman,
Founder and Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
To Those Who Care:
This letter is my personal opinion, and is not meant to reflect the viewpoint of JPFO or its members.
Since the election of Barack Obama, Congress has twice blatantly demonstrated its total lack of concern for the will of the American people. First, the mind boggling and completely secret bank bailouts, and now the passage of so-called “health care reform”.
Sharing some of my present thoughts with you would have seemed overly alarmist on the day Obama was sworn into office. But now? Now there are urgent questions that must be asked.
Now there are urgent questions that must be asked.
With a few laudable exceptions, Senators and Representatives in Washington D.C. do not seem to care about the upcoming elections in November of this year. With a less than eleven percent approval rating from their constituency, these politicians, in normal times, would be cringing at the thought of going home to their own States and Districts to face the wrath of a furious American public.
But look how these arrogant politicians are behaving. They don’t seem to care. Were elections held tomorrow the bums would be tossed out … by the truckload.
And so, the question must be asked: Are there even going to be elections in 2010? And, if there are, will they be honest?
Are there even going to be elections in 2010?
I repeat: On the day of Obama’s occupation of the White House this question would have been the fodder of no one but the most hardened and cynical “conspiracy theorists”.
But this Obama administration, and the Congress he dragged in with him, rival, and perhaps even surpass, the sweeping socialistic change in American life that FDR’s “New Deal”, and LBJ’s “Great Society” instigated. Two years ago, describing what has taken place in this nation recently would have been waved off as the wildest of fiction.
Two years ago, describing what has taken place in this nation recently would have been waved off as the wildest of fiction.
Along with my concern for the 2010 elections, I’ll list some other pertinent questions that can no longer be labeled irrelevant or fanciful:
1. Why is our military spread all over the world right now? These are loyal men and women who most rigidly hold to fundamental American values. They have the will and weapons training to defend these values against all enemies “foreign and domestic”. But now they are dispersed to places like Afghanistan and Iraq. To bring “democracy” to Islam? Additionally, there are hundreds of U.S. military bases in foreign lands around the globe, few of which serve any demonstrable vital purpose.
Why is our military spread all over the world right now?
The explanation given is that they are “fighting for us”. But might it be more appropriately reasoned that they are effectively being prevented from fighting for us (and with us) … right here in America, should that terrible possibility arise?
2. Why are our local police being wooed and seduced with sophisticated military hardware by federal agencies like Homeland Security, the FBI, and BATFE? The “war on drugs” has been the excuse for this militarization of our police departments, but why is there such emphasis now given to “crowd control” weapons?
Why are our local police being wooed and seduced …
3. We now officially have no right to privacy while speaking on a cell phone. How has this immense attack on our Fourth Amendment protection from government incursion into our lives been achieved? Again, there is always an excuse. In this case it is “terrorists”. But what was wrong with the due process procedure of obtaining a lawful search warrant? Have the American people at large become the enemy?
Have the American people at large become the enemy
4. When will the other boot drop on the Internet? Australia has already instituted massive censorship. France is stepping right into line. Is everyone who’d like privacy in their personal communications and web research a kiddie porn purveyor, or a “hate criminal”, or a drug dealer, or a “terrorist”?
When will the other boot drop on the Internet?
5. How long can the Second Amendment remain relevant when our military and police forces keep getting equipped with hi-tech “crowd control” weapons that are prohibited to the rest of us? The Second Amendment was created in recognition of a G-d* (see:footnote) given right to preserve one’s life, and to be a defense against government-gone-bad. Why this escalating domestic “arms race” against the armed citizenry of America? Check out this interesting device.
6. Vast detention camps are being built on U.S. soil. See: New York Times ,and Fox News. Notice the tricky use of the word “immigration” in these stories.
Why has the government been at all secretive about this? Why not just come out and tell us what is being done for our protection and security in case of a bio or nuke attack on an American city?
Why has the government been at all secretive about this?
During the Cold War, civil defense signs pointed out the way to every local bomb shelter. School kids took tours of our missile defense installations. Why keep the location of relocation camps a secret? It instills deep suspicion instead of healthy confidence.
7. What kind of suicidal lunacy allows Islamic Jihadists to come here and get a foothold in our nation? Political correctness will crush us. Why are these America haters even allowed off the plane or across the border? And why aren’t they being profiled and deported by the shipload?
What kind of suicidal lunacy allows Islamic Jihadists to come here and get a foothold in our nation?
8. What do you call ten million illegal aliens in America? Why can’t we call it what it is? It’s an invasion.
Look around. Any American in their right mind has the right to ask what is going on, and not be labeled a “racist”. Our nation is being given away right under our noses. Does anyone else see this? And, it is pretty obvious that the Obama cabal plans to grant all illegal aliens amnesty…and the right to vote. See Washington Times.
Why can’t we call it what it is? It’s an invasion.
9. Why hasn’t computer vote counting been completely abolished in America? The Pentagon’s computers have been hacked. The FBI’s computers have been hacked. The Social Security Administration’s computers have been hacked. But we are supposed to assume that vote counting computers cannot be hacked? What is wrong with hand counted paper ballots? So what if it takes three days to finalize election results? So what?
Why hasn’t computer vote counting been completely abolished in America?
This one is particularly troubling to me. This has happened in America before. See: "Battle of Athens, Tennessee". Because if elections (along with bogus opinion polls that legitimize the staged outcome) become simply a form of cyber social engineering, the ballot box doesn’t mean a thing anymore. At that point, the only recourse we have left is ……
At that point, the only recourse we have left is…
We don’t have time to wait for the 2010 elections to begin our retrieval of the freedom ground we have lost. We must use any and all forms of lawful pressure that can be brought to bear against the leftists who have plunged us into this immense tar pit. They must be reminded of the mistake they have made every minute of their waking lives. They must be reminded that there is a price they will now start paying. Taking a hint from their own guru, Saul Alinsky, we now must “target” them ruthlessly. It doesn’t start in November…it starts now.
It doesn’t start in November…it starts now.
In order to initiate a change in the flow of events, seeds must be planted in people’s minds. In many ways this is a battle for the hearts and minds of our friends, families and neighbors. It is a painful realization, but our complacency is the root cause of what is happening. So do something for Freedom each day:
♦ First, circulate this letter to everyone you know.
♦ Understand the liberty you are losing! JPFO has the Bill of Rights in fifteen languages. The English version has a layman’s explanation of the legalese. Make sure you share this information with others.
♦ Understand the ultimate dangers of “gun control”. Visit JPFO’s “Gun Control/Genocide Chart”. Realize that Obama and his minions would see you completely unarmed. There can now be no question that this is their goal. A socialist takeover of America is happening before our eyes.
♦ Use JPFO’s electronic handbills. They put the heat on our enemies. They can be circulated as you wish. If you have thoughtful ideas for an electronic handbill or cartoon, let me hear from you.
♦ In conversation with friends, speak out! This nation wasn’t born in silence. It was firebrands who brought freedom to America. To get in touch with your real American roots, read Patrick Henry’s famous speech.
Then think about this one: If George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or James Madison came back to life, are you enough of an American that they’d break bread with you?
I will close with a quote from Sir Winston Churchill. All freedom loving Americans should somberly contemplate these words:
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Wake up America. Wake up now!
Sincerely,
Aaron Zelman, Founder and Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
p.s. I’d like to hear your comments and thoughts, so that I may share them with others who care.
* Out of respect, observant Jews do not use the name of the Almighty in secular texts.
Suggested reading. Here are two very articulate insights into what has happened to us: "Destroying America from Within" and "American Tyranny".
2010 Elections--Are They Going To Be Held?
I wrote this article in January and am posting it now in light of the health care bill passage. I was amazed that so many Democratic Representatives and Senators would not listen to their constituents who opposed the bill. Was there a reason? Did they feel they knew better than their voters or did they know there was no downside for them to vote for the bill? If they knew there would be elections in the fall, would their vote have been different?
What is your opinion?
What is your opinion?
2010-A Year of Infamy
Tom Vorenberg
January 7, 2010
The recent decisions by Senators Dodd and Dorgan as well as Governor Bill Ritter of Colorado not to seek re-election must give all Democrats pause. Do these guys really see a bloodbath coming and if so, what does that mean for the legacy of President Barack Obama? The answer is that it means nothing. Either there will be no elections in November or if we do, they will be irrelevant.
You are probably thinking—What….. are you crazy? We have had elections every two years since the country was founded, right? Well my friends, it will not happen this time.
No pundits or commentators are looking at this possibility. They are not imagining the un-imaginable. No one is thinking “outside” the traditional American political lines. Just as we could not imagine people flying planes into buildings, we cannot imagine anything happening in our political system that has never happened before
The current administration came to power by pledging to be the most open, honest and up front that we have ever seen. However, in practice we see the back door deals and absolute lack of transparency. By many measures it has been one of the worst we have ever seen. And this is what we know about. It is scary to think what might have been missed. So how do I get from here to no or meaningless elections?
The Obama Administration believes it is empowered to do whatever it takes regardless of prevailing laws or precedent. We have seen the trampling of bankruptcy and dealer franchise laws that occurred in the case of GM and Chrysler. Today, it was reported that Secretary of the Treasury Gaithner told AIG not to report on the special deal they were getting from the Fed even though it was in essence a bailout of the major banks and contravened SEC regulations.
Laws, which had been on the books for years, were merely shunted aside to do what the Administration wanted. Whether you feel these companies should have been saved is an issue about which we might argue, however, they were saved but at what future cost. If the Administration can terminate laws and make special deals, what else could it do?
President Obama came to office with the “mandate” of 53% of the population who believed they were voting for a person who would change America. What that change meant, most could not verbalize, however, it was going to be different. So what is happening now? His poll numbers are well under 50%. He also has the distinction of being the first President who had angry protestors (tea-baggers) in the streets on April 15th, which was less than two and a half months after his inauguration.
And now, Democrats across the nation are deciding not to run for re-election or in the case of Representative Parker Griffith of Alabama, changing parties. This is not a good sign for someone who wants to advance his program and get himself re-elected in three years.
Should the upcoming election have the disastrous results that appear to be on the horizon, what would happen to President Obama’s program? Could he get it passed if the House was Republican? One would think it would be significantly tougher. So what is Obama to do?
The tea leaves in the bottom of my cup say there are two alternatives. The first is for the President to accept the decision of the American people. Work hard to get critical Representatives and Senators re-elected and then work across the aisle to bring the necessary Republicans on board to get his program passed. I would call this the traditional approach. Clinton had to do that after 1994. It means moving to the political center and governing from there. This, however, would require Mr. Obama to give up on many of his ultimate goals of “changing” America. Would he be willing to do that? Would his ego allow it?
President Obama is a man that believes that for him to succeed as President, he must pass his program. In his mind, it does not matter that the citizens do not approve or want his program. He knows better. Recent polls have indicated that less than one third of the public wants health care as it is currently being proposed. Even prominent Democrats like former Governor and DNC head Howard Dean are not in favor of the plan. Does that stop him? Absolutely not, in his mind, it is the best thing for America. So how does he get his program passed when the Democrats do not control the House and Senate?
It would require an event, a traumatic catalyst that could be used to focus the American people and Congress on the need for immediate Presidential action. It could be a financial crisis that plunges the economy into depression or a massive terrorist attack against the country. Either of these or a number of other events could be used to bring the country together as 9/11 did. A President at this time in history could get anything passed by Congress. Political bickering would go away as we are told that we must all stand behind our President.
With most other men, this would not be an issue. We could depend on the President to make decisions that would be in the best interests of the country like Roosevelt in 1941 or Lincoln during the Civil War. Both of these Presidents presided at times of war and victory in that war took precedence over everything else. However, with President Obama it is different. Yes, we are at war, however, in the midst of war (and economic distress), he has proposed the largest increase in domestic spending. This occurs after taking over the banks and car companies. His appetite for government control is immense and government control of everything is a significant part of his program.
Internationally, in the past year, President Obama has shown his distaste for America whether it was in his speeches in Cairo and Germany, his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize (for what accomplishments?), and his allowing Interpol to interview Americans in the United States and not to have them afforded the rights citizens are granted by the Constitution.
Domestically, he has increased the monitoring of communications within the United States. This expanded monitoring includes calls within the country and not only those, which involved foreign countries, which had been the rule under the Bush Administration. The Administration also has had legislation introduced to control the Internet and in “times of emergency” to shut down this form of communication.
By his actions, President Obama has shown that he cannot be trusted to lead this country during or after a national emergency. His reaction would be to seize the opportunity as in the words of his Chief of Staff, Rham Emanuel, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste”
He will be to seize (yes, that is the word) the reins of power by either Presidential proclamation or by having Congress pass a law that gives him unlimited power.
Would this prevent elections from being held? Initially, elections might be delayed for a couple reasons. First, the argument would be made that an “emergency” exists and the President and Congress should not be distracted from the important work that needed to get done. Campaigning would be a distraction! Secondly and probably more important, to pass his program he would need a compliant Congress, one that would be dependable to follow the President’s lead. A new Congress might not be reliable.
New Congressional elections would bring new Representatives and Senators who would want to make their impact on the nations business. Additionally, if the majority of new Senators and Representatives were Republican, gridlock might result and the President’s program would not get any traction. Elections would not be good for the program.
With the President in total control, he could pass his program without much discussion or disagreement. Congressional grand standing would be meaningless, as he would have total control. He can successfully “change” America to his vision without any distraction.
Eventually the emergency would pass and the people would demand elections. However, what would be the effect of the President having the unlimited power he had either usurped or been granted? Could Congress be effective or would the traditional balance of power that had existed between the branches of government be forever damaged beyond repair? And most importantly, would the President relinquish the power he had received or taken? All are questions that thinking Americans should ponder.
This is one possibility in the world of many. We must think outside the “nine dots” and to contemplate the unimaginable. If not, we are allowing ourselves to be surprised when the unthinkable occurs. 9/11 should have taught us that we should not be comfortable with “what has always happened before.”
As the late radio talk host, Mark Scott used to say, “I love my country, but I fear my government.”
Let’s all hope that he was wrong..
2010-A Year of Infamy
Tom Vorenberg
January 7, 2010
The recent decisions by Senators Dodd and Dorgan as well as Governor Bill Ritter of Colorado not to seek re-election must give all Democrats pause. Do these guys really see a bloodbath coming and if so, what does that mean for the legacy of President Barack Obama? The answer is that it means nothing. Either there will be no elections in November or if we do, they will be irrelevant.
You are probably thinking—What….. are you crazy? We have had elections every two years since the country was founded, right? Well my friends, it will not happen this time.
No pundits or commentators are looking at this possibility. They are not imagining the un-imaginable. No one is thinking “outside” the traditional American political lines. Just as we could not imagine people flying planes into buildings, we cannot imagine anything happening in our political system that has never happened before
The current administration came to power by pledging to be the most open, honest and up front that we have ever seen. However, in practice we see the back door deals and absolute lack of transparency. By many measures it has been one of the worst we have ever seen. And this is what we know about. It is scary to think what might have been missed. So how do I get from here to no or meaningless elections?
The Obama Administration believes it is empowered to do whatever it takes regardless of prevailing laws or precedent. We have seen the trampling of bankruptcy and dealer franchise laws that occurred in the case of GM and Chrysler. Today, it was reported that Secretary of the Treasury Gaithner told AIG not to report on the special deal they were getting from the Fed even though it was in essence a bailout of the major banks and contravened SEC regulations.
Laws, which had been on the books for years, were merely shunted aside to do what the Administration wanted. Whether you feel these companies should have been saved is an issue about which we might argue, however, they were saved but at what future cost. If the Administration can terminate laws and make special deals, what else could it do?
President Obama came to office with the “mandate” of 53% of the population who believed they were voting for a person who would change America. What that change meant, most could not verbalize, however, it was going to be different. So what is happening now? His poll numbers are well under 50%. He also has the distinction of being the first President who had angry protestors (tea-baggers) in the streets on April 15th, which was less than two and a half months after his inauguration.
And now, Democrats across the nation are deciding not to run for re-election or in the case of Representative Parker Griffith of Alabama, changing parties. This is not a good sign for someone who wants to advance his program and get himself re-elected in three years.
Should the upcoming election have the disastrous results that appear to be on the horizon, what would happen to President Obama’s program? Could he get it passed if the House was Republican? One would think it would be significantly tougher. So what is Obama to do?
The tea leaves in the bottom of my cup say there are two alternatives. The first is for the President to accept the decision of the American people. Work hard to get critical Representatives and Senators re-elected and then work across the aisle to bring the necessary Republicans on board to get his program passed. I would call this the traditional approach. Clinton had to do that after 1994. It means moving to the political center and governing from there. This, however, would require Mr. Obama to give up on many of his ultimate goals of “changing” America. Would he be willing to do that? Would his ego allow it?
President Obama is a man that believes that for him to succeed as President, he must pass his program. In his mind, it does not matter that the citizens do not approve or want his program. He knows better. Recent polls have indicated that less than one third of the public wants health care as it is currently being proposed. Even prominent Democrats like former Governor and DNC head Howard Dean are not in favor of the plan. Does that stop him? Absolutely not, in his mind, it is the best thing for America. So how does he get his program passed when the Democrats do not control the House and Senate?
It would require an event, a traumatic catalyst that could be used to focus the American people and Congress on the need for immediate Presidential action. It could be a financial crisis that plunges the economy into depression or a massive terrorist attack against the country. Either of these or a number of other events could be used to bring the country together as 9/11 did. A President at this time in history could get anything passed by Congress. Political bickering would go away as we are told that we must all stand behind our President.
With most other men, this would not be an issue. We could depend on the President to make decisions that would be in the best interests of the country like Roosevelt in 1941 or Lincoln during the Civil War. Both of these Presidents presided at times of war and victory in that war took precedence over everything else. However, with President Obama it is different. Yes, we are at war, however, in the midst of war (and economic distress), he has proposed the largest increase in domestic spending. This occurs after taking over the banks and car companies. His appetite for government control is immense and government control of everything is a significant part of his program.
Internationally, in the past year, President Obama has shown his distaste for America whether it was in his speeches in Cairo and Germany, his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize (for what accomplishments?), and his allowing Interpol to interview Americans in the United States and not to have them afforded the rights citizens are granted by the Constitution.
Domestically, he has increased the monitoring of communications within the United States. This expanded monitoring includes calls within the country and not only those, which involved foreign countries, which had been the rule under the Bush Administration. The Administration also has had legislation introduced to control the Internet and in “times of emergency” to shut down this form of communication.
By his actions, President Obama has shown that he cannot be trusted to lead this country during or after a national emergency. His reaction would be to seize the opportunity as in the words of his Chief of Staff, Rham Emanuel, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste”
He will be to seize (yes, that is the word) the reins of power by either Presidential proclamation or by having Congress pass a law that gives him unlimited power.
Would this prevent elections from being held? Initially, elections might be delayed for a couple reasons. First, the argument would be made that an “emergency” exists and the President and Congress should not be distracted from the important work that needed to get done. Campaigning would be a distraction! Secondly and probably more important, to pass his program he would need a compliant Congress, one that would be dependable to follow the President’s lead. A new Congress might not be reliable.
New Congressional elections would bring new Representatives and Senators who would want to make their impact on the nations business. Additionally, if the majority of new Senators and Representatives were Republican, gridlock might result and the President’s program would not get any traction. Elections would not be good for the program.
With the President in total control, he could pass his program without much discussion or disagreement. Congressional grand standing would be meaningless, as he would have total control. He can successfully “change” America to his vision without any distraction.
Eventually the emergency would pass and the people would demand elections. However, what would be the effect of the President having the unlimited power he had either usurped or been granted? Could Congress be effective or would the traditional balance of power that had existed between the branches of government be forever damaged beyond repair? And most importantly, would the President relinquish the power he had received or taken? All are questions that thinking Americans should ponder.
This is one possibility in the world of many. We must think outside the “nine dots” and to contemplate the unimaginable. If not, we are allowing ourselves to be surprised when the unthinkable occurs. 9/11 should have taught us that we should not be comfortable with “what has always happened before.”
As the late radio talk host, Mark Scott used to say, “I love my country, but I fear my government.”
Let’s all hope that he was wrong..
Government Workers Earn More Than Private Sector
It has been reported several times regarding the disparity between government workers and the private sector. In Michigan, the state with the highest unemployment rate, the Legislature recently granted all employees of the State, a three percent increase in pay. To me that makes no sense. The State of Michigan is essentially bankrupt, has the highest unemployment in the country, has most of its young people leaving the state for ANY opportunity and has school districts dramatically cutting their budgets and the state employees get an increase. I think that is the definition of insanity. When is it going to end?