The New Civil War?

The next four months could turn out to be the most treacherous the United States has seen since the Civil War. In this time we will see the conflict between the entrenched Political class against the citizens of the United States. What could happen and why?

Pols from both parties have been shocked and dismayed by the rise of the Tea Party Revolution. Its headless, leadership style is the antithesis of how the other parties work. They do not know how to attack this new monster on the political landscape as it is a movement that has its own internal propulsion. It is a people's movement not unlike the Poles in the 1980's or later the ending of East Germany except there were leaders who headed those movements and most probably there will come to be leaders of the Tea Party. However, ordinary, work a day Americans are now driving this movement as a result of their dissatisfaction with everything connected to how Washington gets things done. They are unhappy with the spending, the passage of laws unpopular with a majority of the American public (i.e. Health Care) and the lack of attention by our legislators for the one most important issue. That being jobs.

In my "not so humble" opinion, I believe that there will be 100 new Representatives and around 15 new Senators, mostly Republicans. The winners for the most part will be espousing a fiscal conservative platform (it will be interesting to see how many really are.) So, if we have this major sea change in Washington, how will those who currently hold those seats react? I am afraid, not well. We already have seen the reaction by some candidates who lost their primaries like Crist in Florida who changed their allegiance and became "independents." There are other examples in Alaska (Murkowski also became an independent) and Delaware (Castle--a forty year political operative-- who refuses to endorse O'Donnell). My point is these losers are acting like spoiled children. They are indeed LOSERS!

So what will these LOSERS do in the upcoming Lame Duck session of Congress. Are they going to be statesmen/stateswomen and do what is in the best interests of the United States or are they going to take their anger out against the people who voted them and their fellow travellers out of office? I believe the latter will be their modus operandi. So what things could they do? Could they pass a law that provides them and their offspring with a salary and full health insurance for 200 years? Could they pass a measure that gives President Obama unlimited power, essentially gutting the Constitution? Could they pass regulations allowing for the immediate confiscation of all guns? One can only speculate about the nefarious issues that could raise their heads during a "let's screw the American people because they screwed us" session.

If these LOSERS go "off the tracks" and do pass legislation detrimental to the United States, it will cause civil unrest. Will it be a full Civil War depends upon the legislation and the action the Congress that is seated in January takes. However, my impression with many to whom I have talked, is that there is an anger that currently is being expressed through the Tea Party, however, it would not take a lot to make it take another more volatile tact. So, we are in a very tenuous place in American history. Which way the country goes, depends upon how the defeated legislators take their medicine.

I hope they will take the high road. I fear they will not.

Legislative Modernization Act

I want your opinion on some new legislation that may be introduced after the November elections. The working title is the Legislative Modernization Act. When passed it will:

Require Committee meetings in the House or Senate three business days after the bill is submitted

Require a vote in the respective House or Senate within 30 business days of the bills submission. If the bill comes over from the other house, the bill would have to have hearings start within three days and a vote within 30 days.

Would require that all votes be on a simple majority, no super majorities for any vote.

Elimination of the fillibuster in the Senate.

The President, if he designates the bill as "of significant national importance", can override any action the Congress takes, including an override of a Presidential veto.

The objective of the legislation is to improve the productivity of Congress by moving legislation from submission to action more rapidly and to eliminate the abusive use of the fillibuster. Congress operates as if it were still in the 1700's and not in the 21st century.

What is your opinion?

Saudi King Demands Israel Give Back Land

I could not understand the treatment the Obama Administration has shown Israeli leadership. It made no sense to me to treat an ally with such outward hostility. There are many rationales for the shabbiness of the relationship but none seemed to answer the question--why? I believe the attached article really does. The Saudi King (who Obama bowed deeply to) demanded that Israel retreat to the 1967 borders, give land back to the Palestinians and create a Palestinian state and Obama and early Holbrook said "no problem." Well, I for one think it is a problem and encourage the leadership of Israel to not agree to the terms that are demanded.

Here is the link to the article--what is your opinion?

http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/news/?p=5624

Unintended Results

When you read the attached article, ponder this thought: What if the State Department deemed Israel to be a terrorist government? We already know the State Department hates Israel so is it a major jump to say that an event--such as a bombing of Iran or an attack at the heart of Hezbollah would prompt such a response by the State Department. So before we cheer the Supreme Court, I think we need to soberly look at what the unintended results of this action might be.

Would you be willing to violate a State Department edict not allowing you to contribute or to visit Israel? And before you say, "that will never happen", step back and think.

Supreme Court takes a correct step to fight terrorism

Tawfik Hamid - www.tawfikhamid.com, July 1st, 2010

The supreme court upheld the government's authority Monday to ban aid to designated terrorist groups, even if such support may be intended to direct groups toward peaceful and legal activities (1). Once the State Department places a group on the list, it is illegal for Americans or others in the country to provide ''material support or resources'' to the group. The law also bars travel to the U.S. by representatives or by members of the group and freezes any assets that the organization has in U.S. jurisdictions.

The justices voted 6-3 to reject a free-speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups to the law that bars ''material support'' — everything from money to technical know-how to legal advice — to foreign terrorist organizations.

Human rights organizations say the law's ban on providing training and advice to nearly four dozen organizations on a State Department list squanders a chance to persuade people to renounce extremism.

Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court that material support intended even for benign purposes can help a terrorist group in other ways.

I add my voice to the decision of the Supreme Court, as meeting with terrorist groups and giving them any form of support (even humanitarian) can have several negative consequences. These include the following:

1 – Terrorist groups who have a humanitarian wing can do different forms of money laundering to use the money given to them under the banner of a humanitarian 'aid' to ultimately support their terrorism agenda

2 – More humanitarian support for terrorist groups decreases the pressure on them to spend part of their own money to support the humanitarian needs of their own societies. This actually allows such groups to have more available money to spend on their violent activities.

3 – Giving humanitarian aid to these groups can help them improve their image among their local population and thus allow them to get more votes in democratic elections. For example, giving support to Hamas in the form of a humanitarian aid can help them to win in the next election against the PLO. To the contrary, depriving these groups from such an aid can help turn their society against them for failure to provide the basic needs of the population. The latter approach can also send a clear and strong message to the societies that choose terrorists to represent them (such as the Palestinians who choose Hamas in their last election), that violence and barbarism will not solve their problems.

4 – Giving aid or support to Islamist terrorist groups under the banner of humanitarian purposes can be perceived by the jihadists as sign of weakness by the US. The jihadists can interpret this humanitarian American hand as a failure of its anti-terrorism and military measures and thus may aggravate the desire of the radical groups to further attack the “weak” US at the military front.

5 – Giving the terrorist the advantage of getting humanitarian support for their local population is a form of acknowledging the legitimacy of these groups. This can make such terrorist groups more reluctant to accept the decisions of the international community as they simply get what they want in the form of aid and some element of recognition without accepting the international laws.

Depriving the terrorists from all forms of support including the humanitarian one is crucial to defeat terrorism. Any form of support or recognition given to these groups can be counterproductive and can actually give more fuel to the radicals to continue using violence. This is like giving a humanitarian aid to the Nazi regime in Germany during WWII. It can only help this regime to continue fighting.

The above decision of the Supreme Court is certainly a correct one to help the US defeat terrorism. The next step that needs to be addressed by both the Executive and Legislative branches is the formal definition of “material support” to include ideological support in the phenomenon of terrorism. Persons, organizations, and governments that promote publishing or promoting material that undervalue the lives of non-Muslims and dehumanize them must be held accountable for giving material support for terrorism, as these texts help terrorists to lure young Muslims and recruit more people to their groups. For example, best-selling mainstream Islamic books that are written by leading Muslim scholars and mainstream Islamic institutes and mosques promote the idea that the lives of non-Muslims have less value than that of Muslims (2). Also, they promote the idea that fighting and killing non-Muslims to subjugate them to Islam is a religious duty (3) and that dying as a martyr in violent Jihad is the greatest deed for a Muslim person (4). This form of teaching to young Muslims is probably one of the -or the- most important support factor for the terrorists, as it guarantees a continuous breeding ground for jihadists and suicide bombings. A decision by the Supreme Court to consider the promotion of such an ideology and value system that disrespects human life as a material support for the terrorist groups is desperately needed.

1 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/opinion/22tue1.html?hp

2 – Fiqh: According to the Quran & Sunna by Muhammad Subhi bin Hasan Hallaq Vol 2 Page494-495

3 – Minhaj Al-Muslim by Al-Jaza'iry first editin Vol 2 Page 529

4 – Fiqh Al-Sunna by Saiid Sabeq (Arabic) Vol 3 Pages 27-29

http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/news/?p=5613

A Soldier's General

Having read the Rolling Stone piece on General McChrystal and measured that against the press reports, I am confused. Yes, the General's staff had some colorful descriptions of Obama's advisors. The article did not have the General saying outrageous statements which would have guaranteed his "canning." On the contrary, the article is a description of a General in charge of an operation of his own creation, how he has to fight for that operation and the disagreements that he has with the current administration. One could hardly say this was an attack on the administration but more of an explanation of the two forces at work.

McChrystal comes off as a soldier's general. A man who is not afraid to get into the middle of a firefight, who arrives at the front without a entourage, and one who cares for his guys. When his guys do not understand the reason for certain actions, he takes the time to go out and address them.

Yes, I guess that is a positive view of the General which generally runs contrary to the current view of our President who would not get into a firefight, does not care for the people of the United States and would not take time to sit down with people and take suggestions from those in the know. He surrounds himself with "yes" men and cannot stomach any disagreement with his ideas. (Although he profess the opposite.)

McChrystal is not a "yes" man. He is a man of action, who knows what he wants to achieve and goes out and tries to accomplish it. It is a shame that Obama feels the need to pump up his own testosterone by firing the General. It will not be good for the war in Afghanistan or the soldiers fighting there.

Agree or disagree, I would like to hear from you.

Thomas Sowell's Thought Provoking Article

Today in Investors.com Thomas Sowell writes a very thought provoking article on the BP "shakedown" orchestrated by President Obama. Whether you agree with Mr. Sowell or President Obama, it is worthwhile to consider the impact that the demand to set up a fund of $20 Billion is legal. BP and its subcontractors are undoubtedly responsible for the spill, however, I do not understand the Presidential power that allows him to extract the money from the company. Are there any circumstances which might mitigate the responsibility? How was that number arrived at? Will 100% of those dollars go to the effected parties or will some of it find its way to Obama supporters? What audit will there be of these funds?

Regardless, as Mr. Sowell says, we are a country of laws, not men. BP, et all, has not been found guilty by a jury of their peers and yet they have been found guilty and punished without a trial. Would we execute someone who was captured on video killing someone without a trial? BP could be run out of business by this spill and the "fund." It that right?

Now before you jump through the wires to hang me, let me make a couple things perfectly clear. First of all, BP should pay for the cleanup of the Gulf and beaches as well as the damage to wildlife and income to the residents of the area. Secondly, I have been very concerned that no one at BP seems to know how to stop the leak and the government should encourage others to come forward with ideas to help "plug the hole" also at BP's expense.

BP must be held responsible but not through demands, but rather through the courts.

What do you think?

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

THOMAS SOWELL - Investors.com, June 22nd, 2010

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

“Useful idiots” was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.

But our government is supposed to be “a government of laws and not of men.”

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without “due process of law.”

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.

And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a “crisis” — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to “go to waste” as an opportunity to expand the government's power.

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law “for the relief of the German people.”

That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed “czars” controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the “useful idiots” of our time. But useful to whom?

We Need To Declare War On The Gulf Oil Spill

After listening to President Obama's mealy mouth, woefully poor speech the other night, I woke up last night thinking about what I would have said had I been in the Oval Office. My approach would have been to "declare war on the spill' bringing together all the creativity and "get er done" attitude that exemplifies the American spirit and exceptional ism. Here are some of the points that I would have covered:

a. I would immediately establish a clearing house for ideas on cleaning up the oil. Suggestions would be submitted to a committee of marine and environmental engineers with the instructions to encourage "out of the box" solutions. Decisions would be given an immediate yes or no in no less than a week. If the decision was positive, the entrepreneur suggesting the plan would be given a week to be on scene in the Gulf at an assigned location. He/she would be given a week for initial progress report. An evaluation would be made if there would be additional time given. If successful, payment would be based upon several criteria all depending the amount of oil removed from the Gulf.

We have already seen many ideas by people like Kevin Costner who has developed a machine to remove oil from water. When the leak occurred, he called the White House and offered his machines, he was rebuffed. I understand that BP has now ordered 30+ machines now. This is just one example of machines available now which could have helped to minimize the damage to the Gulf. Did we hear anything like that from the President?

b. I would immediately authorize ships from around the world to work on the oil spill. At last count there were over 3o nations that offered oil skimmers, ships and equipment to help control the spill. Obama has told them, no.

c. I would immediately authorize the dredging of the Gulf and creating berms to prevent the oil from getting into the marshes. Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana has been asking for this for weeks. Why did it take weeks?

d. I would authorize payment to the shrimpers and crabbers in Louisiana and Florida to use their boats to put out the booms and to assist the people who were approved by the clearinghouse. Why are we we not using these boats already in the area? Also why is the firm in Maine, not being allowed to ship the booms they have made? We need all hands on deck whereever they live.

e. I would authorize the use unemployed workers to clean beaches, birds and do whatever work was necessary to return the Gulf to its previous condition. Why are we not encouraging the unemployed to work on a project? Is this not a "shovel ready" project? We could use them to monitor the work being done by the project approved by the clearinghouse. We already are paying them unemployment, it would not cost us any more. We might also move some of the FEMA trailers from New Orleans to house these people.

f. I would immediately authorize the continued drilling in the Gulf. Any platform that was in place would continue. All drilling would continue under strict Coast Guard and Mineral review.

g. I would immediately order the Coast Guard to inspect all skimmers operating in the Gulf for safety. These inspections would be done while the skimmers were in operation. If there were not enough life vests or fire extinguishers or other equipment, they would be provided by the government. There should be no suspension of work while these inspections are on going.

h. I would authorize a non-governmental investigation of the cause of the fire on the rig. No government wonks blowing smoke. We need to find out why the fire started, why the fire was not allowed to burn and why the rig was sunk. We also need to find out what procedures should be in place on similar platforms and what preventative measures should be taken anytime we are drilling in these deep waters. The investigation must be done by those who have in depth knowledge of drilling rigs operating in deep water. For example, it should include everyday people like tool pushers who understand that operation . BP should also be represented.

i. And lastly, I would have never talked about cap and trade at this time. We are in a war. A war with an enemy that keeps oozing to the surface, covering the Gulf with the black goo and killing birds and other marine life. We can beat this enemy but it will take the same imagination and determination that Americans showed in the early days of WWII. We cannot do it by creating new government programs. We cannot do it when we stop local governments from acting in the interests of their citizens. We must break down the bureaucracy, get it out of the way. We cannot do it with off-the-shelf ideas, we need creativity. We must be willing to try new ideas, new remedies and yes, maybe seemingly crazy plans. We can do it but we need a leader to express the American exceptional ism that I know there is.


President Obama failed on all levels. He did not inspire, he did not have a plan, and he had no new ideas. All he has is more government programs. I do not know about you, but for me, Americans have always been able to conquer adversity if only allowed to do it on their own. It is time the President learned that.