As inevitably happens following nearly any political campaign, we expected a number of broken promises. But now it seems that we’re getting ‘em in spades! The hopes and expectations following Barack Obama's inauguration had many people thinking that perhaps he could “pull us together again”. Unfortunately, his performance over the last few months makes Bill Clinton look like the ideal of integrity and follow-through! From healthcare to torture, from the economy to the war, Mr. Obama has backed off on a wide assortment of the nearly 500 campaign promises he made.
Certainly I wasn’t all that happy with many of President Bush’s programs, or his way of doing things, but at least I could understand the “what and why” of most of what he was attempting. Some of his failings could be blamed on simple bureaucratic failures and others on a totally partisan congress. Many were pure and simply his own darn fault. Still, during his first-term, President Bush was unwilling to go to Congress to get expanded presidential powers, even where Congress would have been happy to give them to him; during his second term, Bush, like Obama today, was more than willing to allow Congress to rubber stamp his proposals, hence, the Military Commissions Act, the Protect America Act, the FISA Amendments Act, etc. and etc. ad nauseaum.
Mr. Obama travels overseas (at taxpayer expense) to apologize to our enemies for being the richest and most powerful country in the world. He apologizes to Muslim nations because we’re a Christian nation. He apologizes to Marxist dictators because Americans believe in liberty. He apologizes to Africa over a slavery situation that occurred a hundred and fifty years ago. What’s next, will he apologize to Germany for the Normandy invasion?! He’s reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide, apparently in fear of annoying the Turkish government. He’s reneged on his campaign promise to allow a period of public comment before signing Bills presented by Congress. We are currently engaged in two comparatively “small” wars in which our military is terribly overextended and taking an unnecessary beating. The Generals are begging for troops to prosecute those wars and save American lives, and Mr. Obama now wants to cut our faltering military strength by 25%! He appoints “Czars” to handle everything under the sun, bypassing the normal federal bureaucracy. The only qualification necessary to be a Czar is an avowed belief in Marxism! He runs the federal deficit up to astronomical numbers in the name of “sharing the wealth”, but it seems the only people getting a share are corporate campaign contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists, and assorted corrupt politicians! He won’t (or can’t) even prove that he’s legally qualified to hold office! Obama apparently knows nothing about economics, diplomacy, the military, or national affairs. Effectively he’s useless. Worse than that, he's dangerous, which is why he ought to resign before he drags us even further down the path to destruction.
The latest pronouncement from the anointed one is “preventive detentions.” Essentially, Mr. Obama wants an "entirely new chapter in American law". With this latest bright idea, if a cop or any other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, they can arrest you or anyone else right off the street, and hold you indefinitely in what’s called "prolonged detention." Media reports imply that this new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, any potential “sorta-kinda thinking about terrorism” types. Of course the authorities also get to define just what that potential terrorism is, which would likely include what George Orwell called "thought-crime" in his book “1984”. (If Congress buys into this plan, please don’t annoy anyone in authority!) Preventive detention under whatever name is a classic characteristic of any dictatorship, because a dictatorial regimes top priority is self-preservation rather than improving the people's lives. They worry about the one thing they can't control, individual thought that just might lead to rebellious activity. Independent thoughts are potentially dangerous to a totalitarian regime. (Vietnam vets will remember Charlie’s habit of torturing and killing anyone who might ever become a threat to communist control.) Locking people away who haven't done anything wrong is not only un-American; it’s a direct attack on the basic principles of law. It’s also contrary to the notions of human decency. What kind of monster do we have sitting in the White House, who would even consider promoting such an offense against civilization itself! And even if you’re comfortable with Mr. Obama having this sort of power because you trust him not to abuse it, are you comfortable with the idea of some future President having the power of indefinite "preventive detention"?
The New York Times pontificated that "Prolonged detention” would be inflicted upon "terrorism suspects who cannot be tried." Ah… Okay, and just why can’t they be tried? What they mean of course, is that the hundreds of men and boys imprisoned at Gitmo and the thousands of "detainees" the Obama Administration apparently anticipates arresting in the future cannot be convicted of any actual crime. Much like the Soviet Union, where putting enemies of the state on trial wasn't enough, conviction had to be guaranteed, or there would be no trial, just a long time in “detention”. The Soviets had their Gulag… and now we get “Detention Centers”. Obama stated that "Yet another question is what to do with the most problematic group of Guantánamo detainees: those who pose a national security threat but cannot be prosecuted, either for lack of evidence or because evidence is tainted." If we follow the law, any terrorist suspect can be tried. Rightfully, anyone can be tried for committing any crime, within a specific jurisdiction. But consider that there is a Somali teenager sitting in a New York prison, charged with piracy in the Indian Ocean, where U.S. law has no legal jurisdiction. Anyone accused of committing a crime can be tried. However, where the legal system still works it’s assumed that people against whom there is a "lack of evidence" are innocent. They walk. Where the rule of law prevails, in places free of leaders whose only concern is staying in power, "tainted evidence" is not even considered evidence. If you can't prove that the defendant committed a crime--an actual crime, not a thought crime—the last I heard you have to release him. Mr. Obama is a Law Proffessor 'fer 'th luvva Pete, and he dosen't understand that!? It’s amazing that after all the illegal things the Democrats accused President Bush of, they don’t understand these basic rules either. Obama's White House Counsel described him as "The first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law". Well, technically that is a form of change I guess, but probably not what many Obama supporters expected.
It’s ironic that the man who campaigned on “transparency in government” is less transparent than the president he attacked for excessive secrecy. At least Bush and Cheney believed they had the constitutional right to act in any way they saw fit, regardless of what the public understands about Constitutional law. Bush declared "I'm the decider" and he definitely meant it. This administration apparently believes it has the same right, and just pretends otherwise.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Alienated
“If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.” –Candidus in the Boston Gazette, 1772
I’ve commented several times in these pages that when I joined the armed forces of this nation I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. I’ve also stated that even now, in my declining years, I still consider that oath binding. The one question that always arises is, who is the enemy, and who has the authority to make such a declaration? Back in the “old days” that really wasn’t much of a problem, as the “enemy” was whoever the President and Congress jointly said they were. A few things have changed in the intervening years however, and have added quite a bit of confusion to the issue. The President of the United States is considered to be the supreme command authority by the armed forces, and by all federal agencies, and there are strict constitutional restraints placed on his exercise of power. But nowdays, it seems the President can determine that we have an enemy, without the advice and consent of Congress.
With the sole exception of habeas corpus, the Constitution does not allow the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency, yet with the “War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933”, Congress placed the United States under a “state of emergency” (and effectively suspended the Constitution), that has never rescinded that act. With this act, the President now has a variety of extraordinary powers to use in response to crisis or emergency circumstances threatening the nation, and they are not limited to military or war situations either. Some of these emergency powers are continuously available, while others exist on a standby basis and remain dormant until the President formally declares a national emergency. Under those dormant powers, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize control of transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, and restrict travel, all within the United States, thus controlling the everyday lives of United States citizens. With this, if the President (not Congress) determines that a State of Emergency exists for whatever reason, he can immediately assume dictatorial powers. On top of that, we have Executive Order 11921, which states that Congress may not review any presidential emergency action for a period of six months! (After six months of a complete dictatorship, would we even have a congress?)
In the brief time Mr. Obama has been in office, we’ve had "truthers," "birthers," Tea Party activists and town-hall dissenters disturbing the loony left’s peace of mind, and I’ll bet causing more than a few ulcers. Now we have the "Oath Keepers", causing a few more sleepless nights at the White House. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Oath Keepers, depending on your view, are "either strident defenders of liberty or dangerous peddlers of paranoia." Recently formed, “they are ex-military and police who repledge themselves to defend the Constitution, even if it means disobeying orders.” Thus, if the U.S. government ordered law enforcement agencies to violate our Second Amendment rights by disarming the people (in obedience to Executive Orders), Oath Keepers say they will not obey. "The whole point of Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship from ever happening here," says founder Stewart Rhodes, an ex-Army paratrooper and Yale-trained lawyer. "My focus is on the guys with the guns, because they can't do it without them.” "We say if the American people decide it's time for a revolution, we'll fight with you." The establishment's reaction to the Oath Keepers will be interesting to watch. Particularly so as our political and media elite seem to have lost touch with the nation, and are locked into a socialist vision of America that is totally divorced from reality. If you think the Pelosi-Reid branch of the loony left went ballistic over town-hall protesters, you can imagine what they’ll do with the Oath Keepers! The credo of this group is expressed in their “Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey”, which states in part…
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
(The “Oath Keepers” can be found at: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/ )
One pundit wrote: “This sounds all well and good, if you do not obey the orders you will be relieved of duty, court-martialed, and thrown out of whatever service you are in. There is not enough of you to make a difference or to stop the government from doing what they want, or enforcing whatever law they decide to make against the American people.” He is in all likelihood correct as to their numbers, but their mere existence should give the government pause for thought. These are the same Americans who dedicated their lives to the defense of the nation and the American people. As to a Court-Martial, well… if they’re no longer in military service, they’re not subject to the UCMJ. If they are in military service, they’re duty bound not to obey illegal orders. And what can you do to a disobedient Cop… other than fire him? And I also noticed that they don’t say anything about starting the rebellion either.
Liberals are the people who cannot comprehend that Middle America distrusts its burgeoning liberal/socialist government, yet we’ve seen these folks many times before. They were Perot supporters in 1992, opposed NAFTA in 1993, blocked the Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty in 2007, and supported Ron Paul in 2008. America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right.
I’ve commented several times in these pages that when I joined the armed forces of this nation I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. I’ve also stated that even now, in my declining years, I still consider that oath binding. The one question that always arises is, who is the enemy, and who has the authority to make such a declaration? Back in the “old days” that really wasn’t much of a problem, as the “enemy” was whoever the President and Congress jointly said they were. A few things have changed in the intervening years however, and have added quite a bit of confusion to the issue. The President of the United States is considered to be the supreme command authority by the armed forces, and by all federal agencies, and there are strict constitutional restraints placed on his exercise of power. But nowdays, it seems the President can determine that we have an enemy, without the advice and consent of Congress.
With the sole exception of habeas corpus, the Constitution does not allow the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency, yet with the “War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933”, Congress placed the United States under a “state of emergency” (and effectively suspended the Constitution), that has never rescinded that act. With this act, the President now has a variety of extraordinary powers to use in response to crisis or emergency circumstances threatening the nation, and they are not limited to military or war situations either. Some of these emergency powers are continuously available, while others exist on a standby basis and remain dormant until the President formally declares a national emergency. Under those dormant powers, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize control of transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, and restrict travel, all within the United States, thus controlling the everyday lives of United States citizens. With this, if the President (not Congress) determines that a State of Emergency exists for whatever reason, he can immediately assume dictatorial powers. On top of that, we have Executive Order 11921, which states that Congress may not review any presidential emergency action for a period of six months! (After six months of a complete dictatorship, would we even have a congress?)
In the brief time Mr. Obama has been in office, we’ve had "truthers," "birthers," Tea Party activists and town-hall dissenters disturbing the loony left’s peace of mind, and I’ll bet causing more than a few ulcers. Now we have the "Oath Keepers", causing a few more sleepless nights at the White House. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Oath Keepers, depending on your view, are "either strident defenders of liberty or dangerous peddlers of paranoia." Recently formed, “they are ex-military and police who repledge themselves to defend the Constitution, even if it means disobeying orders.” Thus, if the U.S. government ordered law enforcement agencies to violate our Second Amendment rights by disarming the people (in obedience to Executive Orders), Oath Keepers say they will not obey. "The whole point of Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship from ever happening here," says founder Stewart Rhodes, an ex-Army paratrooper and Yale-trained lawyer. "My focus is on the guys with the guns, because they can't do it without them.” "We say if the American people decide it's time for a revolution, we'll fight with you." The establishment's reaction to the Oath Keepers will be interesting to watch. Particularly so as our political and media elite seem to have lost touch with the nation, and are locked into a socialist vision of America that is totally divorced from reality. If you think the Pelosi-Reid branch of the loony left went ballistic over town-hall protesters, you can imagine what they’ll do with the Oath Keepers! The credo of this group is expressed in their “Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey”, which states in part…
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
(The “Oath Keepers” can be found at: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/ )
One pundit wrote: “This sounds all well and good, if you do not obey the orders you will be relieved of duty, court-martialed, and thrown out of whatever service you are in. There is not enough of you to make a difference or to stop the government from doing what they want, or enforcing whatever law they decide to make against the American people.” He is in all likelihood correct as to their numbers, but their mere existence should give the government pause for thought. These are the same Americans who dedicated their lives to the defense of the nation and the American people. As to a Court-Martial, well… if they’re no longer in military service, they’re not subject to the UCMJ. If they are in military service, they’re duty bound not to obey illegal orders. And what can you do to a disobedient Cop… other than fire him? And I also noticed that they don’t say anything about starting the rebellion either.
Liberals are the people who cannot comprehend that Middle America distrusts its burgeoning liberal/socialist government, yet we’ve seen these folks many times before. They were Perot supporters in 1992, opposed NAFTA in 1993, blocked the Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty in 2007, and supported Ron Paul in 2008. America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Destabilization
I read Kathy Hedberg’s recent column about tech-challenged folks the other day, and had to laugh quite a bit. It’s nice to know that I’m not the only person in the world that has trouble with computers and all these other new-fangled gadgets. Not that I’m computer illiterate you understand, just severely impaired. Our local computer guru considers me to be one of his steadiest customers, and a call to my place is his idea of the next best thing to a low-cost coffee shop. Strange as it may seem however I’m really not a total stranger to technology either. I used to be a radar and computer technician of sorts… back when the US Air Force had some of the biggest radars and the best computers in the world, even if they were the size of a very large barn, and took the greater part of Hoover Dam’s total output to power ‘em up. That of course was long ago and far away, back in the days when I was a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed kid, and was proudly wearing the uniform of my countries armed forces.
Back in those days almost every kid was expected to serve a hitch in the military if he was physically qualified. Why? Well, among other things we were taught that as American citizens we had certain civic duties that included respecting our parents (and Mom’s apple pie), obeying the law, and defending the nation as needed. Those duties even included silly little things like being informed voters, although that was somewhat difficult at times. We somewhat reluctantly went to school, and even attended church on a semi-regular basis. In school we learned things like American history and how our government worked (well, how it used to work), and about a concept called patriotism, although I understand that in our modern day and age those subjects are considered propaganda and are very much out of favor with politically correct “educators”, while attending church taught us morality, and how to tell right from wrong. Christianity also seems to be somewhat politically incorrect nowdays as well. Some of us enlisted in the military directly out of high school, others went to college first, and quite a few went to work and waited for the draft to catch up with them, but eventually all of us had a chance at becoming soldiers.
It’s an old American tradition to avoid military service during peacetime, stemming I believe from our long distrust of large standing armies. Yet those same folks who avoided the military like the plague in peacetime were the first in line to enlist whenever war was forced upon us, and they proved to be pretty darn good soldiers. Most of us were imbued with the ideals of “Duty, Honor, Country”, (which just happens to be the West Point motto), irregardless of whether or not we realized that fact. Yet it seems like a lot of younger folk of today take the view that even wartime military service is only for fools and incompetents. Where, might we ask, after two hundred years of American dedication to the defense of our lifestyle and our country, have we lost that proud tradition?
Back in the 1950’s there were numerous books published that stressed the dangers of communism. The authors came from a very wide range of anti-communist zealots, people who had extensive experience with communism, and were very well aware of the threat. One fact constantly stressed by all was the threat of ideological subversion or “psychological warfare”, which is essentially a means to change the targeted person’s perceptions of reality. Most of us have heard the quote “if you tell a lie often and long enough, people will believe it”, and that is quite true. In the early 1800’s, many political thinkers observed the unfairness of the then almost feudal social/economic system existent in Europe, and began looking for a better way to do things. The ideas they developed were later described by Karl Marx in his rather turgid “Communist Manifesto”, were rapidly adopted by the socialists of the era, and were taught as gospel to their students. In America, philosophers (who were largely educators) were quick to follow the lead of their European brethren, and began teaching the glories of socialist theories to their students (a practice that continues to this day). Following the revolution, Russian communists under Lenin found a ready made following in the believers of American socialism, jumped to their aid, and soon began the subversion of the worlds leading capitalist country.
Essentially, communist subversion is divided into several stages, the first being Demoralization. Generally it takes about 15 to 30 years to demoralize a nation, because this is the time needed to educate one generation of students. Today, after being exposed to Marxist socialist ideology for three generations, with none of it being counter-balanced by morality and basic American values, is it really any wonder that so many of America’s youth are totally confused and lack any direction? Stage two is Destabilization. With a fragmented, demoralized people who have no idea of what or who they are, it only takes a few years to destabilize their economy and wreck their foreign relations. The nest stage of course is Crisis. It may take only a few weeks to bring the country to the verge of an internal crisis, as we often see happening in the third world. And after crisis with its violent changes of power, structure, and economy, you have so called period of normalization. Normalization is what happens when the following dictatorship assumes absolute power.
The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, and aptly demonstrated that Marxism is an unworkable political system. Still, once the demoralization of a nation has begun, it continues by its own inertia, and needs no further aid or direction from outside. Wannabe “Benevolent dictators” get themselves elected and will promise people all kind of goodies in order to continue destabilizing the nation… they will try to eliminate the principle of free market competition, wreck the economy, and will endeavor to put a Big Brother Government in charge of nearly everything. Once a dictator comes to power, all these fuzzy headed people who believe in a free lunch and who preach socialism are no longer needed, they will probably be lined up and shot. For an example of that we have only to look at the French revolution and the ensuing mass executions of the “Terror”.
Back in those days almost every kid was expected to serve a hitch in the military if he was physically qualified. Why? Well, among other things we were taught that as American citizens we had certain civic duties that included respecting our parents (and Mom’s apple pie), obeying the law, and defending the nation as needed. Those duties even included silly little things like being informed voters, although that was somewhat difficult at times. We somewhat reluctantly went to school, and even attended church on a semi-regular basis. In school we learned things like American history and how our government worked (well, how it used to work), and about a concept called patriotism, although I understand that in our modern day and age those subjects are considered propaganda and are very much out of favor with politically correct “educators”, while attending church taught us morality, and how to tell right from wrong. Christianity also seems to be somewhat politically incorrect nowdays as well. Some of us enlisted in the military directly out of high school, others went to college first, and quite a few went to work and waited for the draft to catch up with them, but eventually all of us had a chance at becoming soldiers.
It’s an old American tradition to avoid military service during peacetime, stemming I believe from our long distrust of large standing armies. Yet those same folks who avoided the military like the plague in peacetime were the first in line to enlist whenever war was forced upon us, and they proved to be pretty darn good soldiers. Most of us were imbued with the ideals of “Duty, Honor, Country”, (which just happens to be the West Point motto), irregardless of whether or not we realized that fact. Yet it seems like a lot of younger folk of today take the view that even wartime military service is only for fools and incompetents. Where, might we ask, after two hundred years of American dedication to the defense of our lifestyle and our country, have we lost that proud tradition?
Back in the 1950’s there were numerous books published that stressed the dangers of communism. The authors came from a very wide range of anti-communist zealots, people who had extensive experience with communism, and were very well aware of the threat. One fact constantly stressed by all was the threat of ideological subversion or “psychological warfare”, which is essentially a means to change the targeted person’s perceptions of reality. Most of us have heard the quote “if you tell a lie often and long enough, people will believe it”, and that is quite true. In the early 1800’s, many political thinkers observed the unfairness of the then almost feudal social/economic system existent in Europe, and began looking for a better way to do things. The ideas they developed were later described by Karl Marx in his rather turgid “Communist Manifesto”, were rapidly adopted by the socialists of the era, and were taught as gospel to their students. In America, philosophers (who were largely educators) were quick to follow the lead of their European brethren, and began teaching the glories of socialist theories to their students (a practice that continues to this day). Following the revolution, Russian communists under Lenin found a ready made following in the believers of American socialism, jumped to their aid, and soon began the subversion of the worlds leading capitalist country.
Essentially, communist subversion is divided into several stages, the first being Demoralization. Generally it takes about 15 to 30 years to demoralize a nation, because this is the time needed to educate one generation of students. Today, after being exposed to Marxist socialist ideology for three generations, with none of it being counter-balanced by morality and basic American values, is it really any wonder that so many of America’s youth are totally confused and lack any direction? Stage two is Destabilization. With a fragmented, demoralized people who have no idea of what or who they are, it only takes a few years to destabilize their economy and wreck their foreign relations. The nest stage of course is Crisis. It may take only a few weeks to bring the country to the verge of an internal crisis, as we often see happening in the third world. And after crisis with its violent changes of power, structure, and economy, you have so called period of normalization. Normalization is what happens when the following dictatorship assumes absolute power.
The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, and aptly demonstrated that Marxism is an unworkable political system. Still, once the demoralization of a nation has begun, it continues by its own inertia, and needs no further aid or direction from outside. Wannabe “Benevolent dictators” get themselves elected and will promise people all kind of goodies in order to continue destabilizing the nation… they will try to eliminate the principle of free market competition, wreck the economy, and will endeavor to put a Big Brother Government in charge of nearly everything. Once a dictator comes to power, all these fuzzy headed people who believe in a free lunch and who preach socialism are no longer needed, they will probably be lined up and shot. For an example of that we have only to look at the French revolution and the ensuing mass executions of the “Terror”.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Peace Prize?
Mr. Barack Obama is the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. At best, the world was “stunned” and “shocked” by the rather “unexpected” choice so early in the presidential term, a term that began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. A beaming Obama told reporters in the White House Rose Garden that he that was honored and humbled to win the Nobel Peace Prize, but that he wasn't sure he had done enough to earn the award, or deserved to be in the company of the others who had won it before him. But, he said, "I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century." Obama is the third U.S. president to win the prize while in office, after Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
Obama's selection as winner of the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday left many Americans puzzled about why he deserved the honor. Quoting a few comments: "It would be wonderful if I could think why he won." "They wanted to give him an honor I guess but I can't think what for." "My first opinion is that he got it because he's black. What did he do that was so great? He hasn't even finished office yet." Former President Jimmy Carter, who won the prize in 2002, said "It is a bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment to peace and harmony in international relations." Then we have Rush Limbaugh’s comment: "Obama gives speeches trashing his own country and he gets a prize for it." Others have commented that: "This is the Nobel committee giving Obama the 'you are not George W. Bush' award." "Why not give him the literature prize? At least he's actually written a couple of books." And of course my own immortal comment upon reading of the award… “Huh?”
The Peace Prize has been handed out for 108 years, supposedly for activities involving peaceful activities. Recipients include Jean Henri Dunant, founder of the International Red Cross and initiator of the Geneva Convention, Teddy Roosevelt, who brought about the 1905 peace treaty between Russia and Japan. In 1919 the prize was awarded to Woodrow Wilson, who is credited with founding the League of Nations. However, I’d think that awards to such people as Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, and Martin Luther King Jr. are somewhat counter-balanced by the rather dubious awards to Yasser Arafat and Le Duc Tho!
The Nobel Prize was established by the 1895 will and estate of Swedish chemist and inventor Alfred Nobel, and was first awarded in 1901. The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines (Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, and Literature) and the Prize in Economics, which is commonly identified with them, are widely regarded as the most prestigious award one can receive in those fields. The Nobel Peace Prize on the other hand conveys social prestige and is often controversial. This year’s award will apparently be no exception.
Really though, we have to stop and think about what the award committee was trying to say, and what were they trying to do? Mr. Obama is not Woodrow Wilson who won it because he created the League of Nations, the forerunner to the United Nations. That I can understand. I can understand Teddy Roosevelt’s win for stopping a particularly nasty war between Japan and Imperial Russia. But in this case I’d be tempted to think it’s more of an anti-Bush statement from Europe. And I think that they are saying that the United States has been resistant to the kind of peaceable fraternal efforts that are the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize. The odd part is we’re still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Guantanamo Bay is still open. Mr. Obama has made some nice sounding statements to a number of tyrants, and has apologized to the Muslims for the Twin Towers getting in front of a couple of Arab piloted airliners. But I really find it difficult to believe that this makes him the equal of Albert Schweitzer! Still, Europeans do have what I consider to be rather odd ideas of war and peace. I’m mindfull of World War One, where all of Europe exploded into a mass frenzy of mayhem and destruction over the deaths of two people. Then there was World War Two, where Europeans spent years weeping and wailing about the evils of Nazi Germany, and were still wringing their hands when Hitler burst out of his borders. But I also notice that FDR didn’t get any prize for bringing the United States into Europe’s fight and pulling their chestnuts out of the fire. Ike didn’t get one for ending the Korean War, nor did Nixon for ending the Vietnam War. But Mr. Obama gets one for nothing more than mouthing a few platitudes? I guess this goes to prove that you really can become anything you want in America.
A straw poll by MSNBC asked whether Obama deserved the honor. 62 percent of more than 194,000 responders said no, 24 percent said yes, and 13 percent said the award was premature. Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who generally applauds Obama, praised the award, saying it was "a positive measure" that was more a criticism of past U.S. policies than recognition of Obama's accomplishments. The Nobel Committee announced that it was trying "to promote what he stands for and the positive processes that have started now." It lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change. So being able to listen to Europe’s lectures on international goodwill is enough to win a prize worth $1.4 million, and have a place in history. And that diminishes both the president and the prize in a way that it should not. Obama got his award for the kind of fuzzy internationalism in which he bows to the United Nations. They might love that in Norway but it’s not what an American president is elected to do.
Dunno about the motives of the Nobel Committee, nor do I really care about world opinion, but had I been President in the aftermath of 911, and tasked with the defense of America, either the Moslems would have quickly gotten a hammerlock on their fanatics, or the Nobel Committee would have had to invent a prize for war. "Shock and Awe" would have taken on entirely new meanings!
Obama's selection as winner of the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday left many Americans puzzled about why he deserved the honor. Quoting a few comments: "It would be wonderful if I could think why he won." "They wanted to give him an honor I guess but I can't think what for." "My first opinion is that he got it because he's black. What did he do that was so great? He hasn't even finished office yet." Former President Jimmy Carter, who won the prize in 2002, said "It is a bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment to peace and harmony in international relations." Then we have Rush Limbaugh’s comment: "Obama gives speeches trashing his own country and he gets a prize for it." Others have commented that: "This is the Nobel committee giving Obama the 'you are not George W. Bush' award." "Why not give him the literature prize? At least he's actually written a couple of books." And of course my own immortal comment upon reading of the award… “Huh?”
The Peace Prize has been handed out for 108 years, supposedly for activities involving peaceful activities. Recipients include Jean Henri Dunant, founder of the International Red Cross and initiator of the Geneva Convention, Teddy Roosevelt, who brought about the 1905 peace treaty between Russia and Japan. In 1919 the prize was awarded to Woodrow Wilson, who is credited with founding the League of Nations. However, I’d think that awards to such people as Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, and Martin Luther King Jr. are somewhat counter-balanced by the rather dubious awards to Yasser Arafat and Le Duc Tho!
The Nobel Prize was established by the 1895 will and estate of Swedish chemist and inventor Alfred Nobel, and was first awarded in 1901. The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines (Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, and Literature) and the Prize in Economics, which is commonly identified with them, are widely regarded as the most prestigious award one can receive in those fields. The Nobel Peace Prize on the other hand conveys social prestige and is often controversial. This year’s award will apparently be no exception.
Really though, we have to stop and think about what the award committee was trying to say, and what were they trying to do? Mr. Obama is not Woodrow Wilson who won it because he created the League of Nations, the forerunner to the United Nations. That I can understand. I can understand Teddy Roosevelt’s win for stopping a particularly nasty war between Japan and Imperial Russia. But in this case I’d be tempted to think it’s more of an anti-Bush statement from Europe. And I think that they are saying that the United States has been resistant to the kind of peaceable fraternal efforts that are the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize. The odd part is we’re still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Guantanamo Bay is still open. Mr. Obama has made some nice sounding statements to a number of tyrants, and has apologized to the Muslims for the Twin Towers getting in front of a couple of Arab piloted airliners. But I really find it difficult to believe that this makes him the equal of Albert Schweitzer! Still, Europeans do have what I consider to be rather odd ideas of war and peace. I’m mindfull of World War One, where all of Europe exploded into a mass frenzy of mayhem and destruction over the deaths of two people. Then there was World War Two, where Europeans spent years weeping and wailing about the evils of Nazi Germany, and were still wringing their hands when Hitler burst out of his borders. But I also notice that FDR didn’t get any prize for bringing the United States into Europe’s fight and pulling their chestnuts out of the fire. Ike didn’t get one for ending the Korean War, nor did Nixon for ending the Vietnam War. But Mr. Obama gets one for nothing more than mouthing a few platitudes? I guess this goes to prove that you really can become anything you want in America.
A straw poll by MSNBC asked whether Obama deserved the honor. 62 percent of more than 194,000 responders said no, 24 percent said yes, and 13 percent said the award was premature. Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who generally applauds Obama, praised the award, saying it was "a positive measure" that was more a criticism of past U.S. policies than recognition of Obama's accomplishments. The Nobel Committee announced that it was trying "to promote what he stands for and the positive processes that have started now." It lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change. So being able to listen to Europe’s lectures on international goodwill is enough to win a prize worth $1.4 million, and have a place in history. And that diminishes both the president and the prize in a way that it should not. Obama got his award for the kind of fuzzy internationalism in which he bows to the United Nations. They might love that in Norway but it’s not what an American president is elected to do.
Dunno about the motives of the Nobel Committee, nor do I really care about world opinion, but had I been President in the aftermath of 911, and tasked with the defense of America, either the Moslems would have quickly gotten a hammerlock on their fanatics, or the Nobel Committee would have had to invent a prize for war. "Shock and Awe" would have taken on entirely new meanings!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Yet more on Obama
When the votes were tallied, and Mr. Barrack H. Obama was more or less declared the winner of our latest presidential election, the American media burst out singing his praises in the loudest possible terms. The European media was beside themselves with joy, proclaiming to all and sundry that those ignorant gun slinging American cowboys had finally elected a President who would properly respect the wishes of “civilized” Europeans, follow their “wiser” lead, and refrain from “dangerous excursions” in international relations. Worldwide, the socialists declared a day of rejoicing while the conservatives were looking at this latest American development with a wary eye. Back at the ranch, Mr. Obama’s approval rating was at a high 69%, the Democrats were gloating, and the Republicans were finding out how it felt to be run over by a steamroller. Sen. McCain hobbled home to lick his wounds, chubby Michael Moore was reportedly doing handsprings in the streets, and the RNC seemed to be blaming the entire fiasco on Sarah Paulin. All-in-all, Mr. Obama certainly started out with a bang!
Now however, looking back at the last few months of Mr. Obama’s administration, things seem to have changed somewhat. Barrack’s popularity rating is now hovering around the 51% level here at home, and I have no doubt it will fall even more. (That’s normal for almost every administration I understand.) It is rather strange that the average approval rating for all presidents since FDR at the 9 month point of their first term is 64%, somewhat higher than Mr. Obama’s current 51%. Democrats consistently rate him very high, Independents consider him somewhat mediocre, and I won’t mention his standing with the Republicans. Still, his ratings remain generally high in Europe, although wavering somewhat. Not surprisingly his popularity in both Russia and Iran has increased significantly… after the announcement that he was abandoning the “Missile Shield” that is. Asia remains somewhat neutral at the moment, well aware that US policies can change with only a moments notice, and usually to the detriment of our Far Eastern Allies. Still, US Presidents aren’t elected by Europeans, Asians, or any other foreign national (unless we start letting illegal immigrants vote), and the liberal’s New Messiah seems to be a lot lower in the public standings than I might expect.
I’ve nearly worn out the old saying that “If we can’t learn from history we’re cursed to relive it”, and often compared what happened to the Roman Republic with what is happening to the United States today. Our nation’s founders were students of Roman history and could readily understand what had happened to the Romans. Despite that, they had boundless faith in the common sense of the American people, and presented us with a republic anyhow. Both of course were ruled by the people rather than the local nobility, and it follows that that rule was intended to be in the best interest of the people and not necessarily that of the nobility. Both had the foundation of their law “set in stone”, literally so in the “Twelve Tablets” of Rome, and figuratively in the Constitution of the United States. The Romans started out with term limits applied to the holders of political office, and placed a lot of severe restrictions on just who could hold office and how long they had to wait before they could stand for another election. Our founders passed on term limits unfortunately, but set things up so that “any boy could grow up to be President”. Both governmental systems had any numbers of checks and balances that severely limited government authority. Both nations became the premier world power of their era, both ran up a tremendous national debt, and both entered any number of ill advised foreign excursions. Then, over time, both slowly slipped away from their plebian base, ignored their constitution, and became (or in our case are rapidly becoming) imperial states, feared by others but certainly not respected. In the case of Rome it took over 450 years for the Republic to die. In the United States, our Republic has nearly vanished, and we haven’t even been around for 250 years!
Many Americans see this shift away from those things that made America great, and loudly bemoan the fact. Nor is this destruction of America un-noticed elsewhere. The British Media calls Mr. Obama “President Pantywaist”, and asks why does he hate America so badly, with one editorial saying “If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.” The editorial continues; “Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens.”
It appears he has never abandoned the campaign trail, and that’s why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to make a quick trip Langley, to try to reassure a demoralized CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.
"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. So, the next senior al-Qaeda hood that’s captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers. Mr. Obama’s recent world tour wherein he was all buddy-buddy with the bad guys, and apologizing to all and sundry for just about everything in our history indicates that his only enemies are Americans. And that brings up the question, why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
Who would have believed that an American President would distance himself from America's Christian heritage and speak of the "Holy Quran" in a nation that will not allow Christian conversions to take place? Who would have believed that an American President would speak about "common ground" with a theocratic political system that wants to rule the world and eliminate all other religions? Who would have believed that the government of the United States, at the direction of the President, would own major private businesses with no opposition from the media or Congress? Who would have believed that a few members of the media would refer to a sitting president as "some sort of god"?
All these recent events remind me of happenings in the fictional “Twilight Zone”!
Now however, looking back at the last few months of Mr. Obama’s administration, things seem to have changed somewhat. Barrack’s popularity rating is now hovering around the 51% level here at home, and I have no doubt it will fall even more. (That’s normal for almost every administration I understand.) It is rather strange that the average approval rating for all presidents since FDR at the 9 month point of their first term is 64%, somewhat higher than Mr. Obama’s current 51%. Democrats consistently rate him very high, Independents consider him somewhat mediocre, and I won’t mention his standing with the Republicans. Still, his ratings remain generally high in Europe, although wavering somewhat. Not surprisingly his popularity in both Russia and Iran has increased significantly… after the announcement that he was abandoning the “Missile Shield” that is. Asia remains somewhat neutral at the moment, well aware that US policies can change with only a moments notice, and usually to the detriment of our Far Eastern Allies. Still, US Presidents aren’t elected by Europeans, Asians, or any other foreign national (unless we start letting illegal immigrants vote), and the liberal’s New Messiah seems to be a lot lower in the public standings than I might expect.
I’ve nearly worn out the old saying that “If we can’t learn from history we’re cursed to relive it”, and often compared what happened to the Roman Republic with what is happening to the United States today. Our nation’s founders were students of Roman history and could readily understand what had happened to the Romans. Despite that, they had boundless faith in the common sense of the American people, and presented us with a republic anyhow. Both of course were ruled by the people rather than the local nobility, and it follows that that rule was intended to be in the best interest of the people and not necessarily that of the nobility. Both had the foundation of their law “set in stone”, literally so in the “Twelve Tablets” of Rome, and figuratively in the Constitution of the United States. The Romans started out with term limits applied to the holders of political office, and placed a lot of severe restrictions on just who could hold office and how long they had to wait before they could stand for another election. Our founders passed on term limits unfortunately, but set things up so that “any boy could grow up to be President”. Both governmental systems had any numbers of checks and balances that severely limited government authority. Both nations became the premier world power of their era, both ran up a tremendous national debt, and both entered any number of ill advised foreign excursions. Then, over time, both slowly slipped away from their plebian base, ignored their constitution, and became (or in our case are rapidly becoming) imperial states, feared by others but certainly not respected. In the case of Rome it took over 450 years for the Republic to die. In the United States, our Republic has nearly vanished, and we haven’t even been around for 250 years!
Many Americans see this shift away from those things that made America great, and loudly bemoan the fact. Nor is this destruction of America un-noticed elsewhere. The British Media calls Mr. Obama “President Pantywaist”, and asks why does he hate America so badly, with one editorial saying “If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.” The editorial continues; “Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens.”
It appears he has never abandoned the campaign trail, and that’s why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to make a quick trip Langley, to try to reassure a demoralized CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.
"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. So, the next senior al-Qaeda hood that’s captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers. Mr. Obama’s recent world tour wherein he was all buddy-buddy with the bad guys, and apologizing to all and sundry for just about everything in our history indicates that his only enemies are Americans. And that brings up the question, why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
Who would have believed that an American President would distance himself from America's Christian heritage and speak of the "Holy Quran" in a nation that will not allow Christian conversions to take place? Who would have believed that an American President would speak about "common ground" with a theocratic political system that wants to rule the world and eliminate all other religions? Who would have believed that the government of the United States, at the direction of the President, would own major private businesses with no opposition from the media or Congress? Who would have believed that a few members of the media would refer to a sitting president as "some sort of god"?
All these recent events remind me of happenings in the fictional “Twilight Zone”!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Tax and Spend
According to the White House website, Mr. Obama’s “stimulus” plan was to focus on economic recovery, whereby “America would become a stronger and more prosperous nation”. The thought is that “the current economic crisis is the result of many years of irresponsibility, both in government and in the private sector.” The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is supposed to make long-term investments in health care, education, energy, and infrastructure. Among other objectives, the recovery will increase production of alternative energy, modernize and weatherize buildings and homes, expand broadband technology across the country, and computerize the health care system. It’s also claimed that the recovery plan will save or create about 3.5 million jobs while investing in priorities that create sustainable economic growth, and will create a new regulatory framework that holds market players responsible for their actions and stops fraudulent practices before they take hold. The White House is also demanding accountability and transparency on Wall Street and in Washington. On the surface this all sounds well and fine, but the question remains, will it work? First, in my not so humble opinion, is the fact that the current economic crisis was brought about by nothing more than greed in our financial system, and government controls that did little more than augment that greed. And I’ll certainly agree with the “irresponsibility” part and lay that at the doorstep of big government as well, particularly when considering the social welfare state we seem to have become.
The disaster of the 1929 depression established the conditions where FDR could get elected in 1932 on a welfare platform. In his acceptance speech, Roosevelt declared: “Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people... This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms.” As we all know, Roosevelt was elected, and the “New Deal” became a reality. But, both during and for long after his presidency conservative critics questioned not only his policies but also the enormous expansion of government debt during Roosevelt's time in office. In 1929 the national debt was a bit less than 20% of the Gross National Product. The New Deal raised that to slightly over 40%, and WW II ran that up to a wopping 130%! By 1950 the debt was paid down to a meer 90% of the GNP. By 1980 the debt had been paid down to almost 35%, and has again been climbing slowly but steadily ever since. By 2008 the debt had reached slightly over ten trillion dollars, then with the Bush bailouts and now Mr. Obama’s continuation of the stimulus programs, we’re well over 80%, and the line on the graph is going straight up! Just who pray tell, is going to pay off that debt… and how long is it going to take!? Well shoot, HOW are we going to pay off that debt!? Remember that with consumer spending going down in our current crisis, business is going to be laying people off — not hiring them. Nor can you blame business for doing this, as its all part of a vicious economic cycle. And you can't blame consumers for not spending (or paying high taxes), when the economy is in the basement. Much like FDR’s public works projects, “stimulus” might put a few people to work for awhile, but what happens when the money runs out? And run out it will.
In the meantime, the current crisis has taught us once again just how dependant we’ve become on financial markets and institutions, and the severe impact they can have on working folks. Following the current meltdown, the government has tried (unsuccessfully it seems) to get credit flowing once again so that small businesses can rebuild, and American families can again afford to send their kids off to college. And how was this done? By “bailing-out” the banking industry with taxpayer money, and not incidentally putting my grandkids deep into debt! Adding insult to injury, the ‘Fed’ has lowered the Federal Reserve interest rate to about the lowest level in history. Effectively this hands a LOT of ‘free’ federal money to big banks so they can loan it to us… at whatever interest rates the market will bear, and putting the profits into their pockets. You might make note that all that very profitable federal money has to go through the big banks, it’s certainly not directly available to John Q. Citizen at that nearly nonexistent interest rate.
All of this economic slight-of-hand has to be paid for somehow, and that’s supposed to be done through taxes. And that, according to Mr. Obama, will be accomplished by “taxing the rich”, and that nobody making less than $250,000 a year will see a tax increase. Well, he might consider the fact that the richest 1% of Americans already pay nearly 41% of our total tax burden. This year New York’s rich were tapped like never before. The state’s wealthy pay higher income tax rates, higher taxes on their limos, airplanes, and yachts, more to enter their ponies in a horse race, and more to play in the real estate market. They’re also losing tax loopholes and deductions that others get. Now, early figures indicate that taxing the wealthy may have driven away richer New Yorkers. “You heard the mantra, ‘Tax the rich, tax the rich’” Gov. David Paterson said, “We’ve done that. We’ve probably lost jobs and driven people out of the state. People aren’t wedded to a geographic place as they once were. It’s a different world.” Both Buffalo Sabres owner Tom Golisano who was paying $13,000 a day in New York income taxes, and Rush Limbaugh became ex-New Yorkers this year, due to the higher tax rates. Golly, could any liberal have anticipated that happening?
Stimulus money is helping many states to plug the leaks in their budget, but a lot of officials are now worried about supporting assorted programs after the federal funds run out. Around $90 billion of the $787 billion stimulus package was dedicated to supporting state Medicaid programs. The money, which is known as FMAP funds, has moved faster than other stimulus dollars allocated to many other spending categories. The GAO found that most states were using their Medicaid funds to cover increased caseloads and to maintain their current services and eligibility criteria. Some states are using the funds to avoid cutting overly large payments to doctors and hospitals. Some State officials “expressed concern about the longer-term sustainability of their Medicaid programs after the increased FMAP funds are no longer available, beginning in January 2011,” the GAO report said. The report also found some states were using Medicaid funds to finance general state budget needs. No wonder a good friend of mine is having so much trouble getting Medicaid assistance following a catastrophic illness.
Republicans have criticized the funds for state governments, saying they encourage states to postpone hard budget decisions and do little to create jobs or growth. They have also attacked the plan’s effectiveness overall, citing the 26-year high in unemployment. Members of the administration say the plan is working, and that it has kept the recession from being worse.
To all this federal waste and confusion we may add “Social justice has been served and government is here to help you…”
The disaster of the 1929 depression established the conditions where FDR could get elected in 1932 on a welfare platform. In his acceptance speech, Roosevelt declared: “Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people... This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms.” As we all know, Roosevelt was elected, and the “New Deal” became a reality. But, both during and for long after his presidency conservative critics questioned not only his policies but also the enormous expansion of government debt during Roosevelt's time in office. In 1929 the national debt was a bit less than 20% of the Gross National Product. The New Deal raised that to slightly over 40%, and WW II ran that up to a wopping 130%! By 1950 the debt was paid down to a meer 90% of the GNP. By 1980 the debt had been paid down to almost 35%, and has again been climbing slowly but steadily ever since. By 2008 the debt had reached slightly over ten trillion dollars, then with the Bush bailouts and now Mr. Obama’s continuation of the stimulus programs, we’re well over 80%, and the line on the graph is going straight up! Just who pray tell, is going to pay off that debt… and how long is it going to take!? Well shoot, HOW are we going to pay off that debt!? Remember that with consumer spending going down in our current crisis, business is going to be laying people off — not hiring them. Nor can you blame business for doing this, as its all part of a vicious economic cycle. And you can't blame consumers for not spending (or paying high taxes), when the economy is in the basement. Much like FDR’s public works projects, “stimulus” might put a few people to work for awhile, but what happens when the money runs out? And run out it will.
In the meantime, the current crisis has taught us once again just how dependant we’ve become on financial markets and institutions, and the severe impact they can have on working folks. Following the current meltdown, the government has tried (unsuccessfully it seems) to get credit flowing once again so that small businesses can rebuild, and American families can again afford to send their kids off to college. And how was this done? By “bailing-out” the banking industry with taxpayer money, and not incidentally putting my grandkids deep into debt! Adding insult to injury, the ‘Fed’ has lowered the Federal Reserve interest rate to about the lowest level in history. Effectively this hands a LOT of ‘free’ federal money to big banks so they can loan it to us… at whatever interest rates the market will bear, and putting the profits into their pockets. You might make note that all that very profitable federal money has to go through the big banks, it’s certainly not directly available to John Q. Citizen at that nearly nonexistent interest rate.
All of this economic slight-of-hand has to be paid for somehow, and that’s supposed to be done through taxes. And that, according to Mr. Obama, will be accomplished by “taxing the rich”, and that nobody making less than $250,000 a year will see a tax increase. Well, he might consider the fact that the richest 1% of Americans already pay nearly 41% of our total tax burden. This year New York’s rich were tapped like never before. The state’s wealthy pay higher income tax rates, higher taxes on their limos, airplanes, and yachts, more to enter their ponies in a horse race, and more to play in the real estate market. They’re also losing tax loopholes and deductions that others get. Now, early figures indicate that taxing the wealthy may have driven away richer New Yorkers. “You heard the mantra, ‘Tax the rich, tax the rich’” Gov. David Paterson said, “We’ve done that. We’ve probably lost jobs and driven people out of the state. People aren’t wedded to a geographic place as they once were. It’s a different world.” Both Buffalo Sabres owner Tom Golisano who was paying $13,000 a day in New York income taxes, and Rush Limbaugh became ex-New Yorkers this year, due to the higher tax rates. Golly, could any liberal have anticipated that happening?
Stimulus money is helping many states to plug the leaks in their budget, but a lot of officials are now worried about supporting assorted programs after the federal funds run out. Around $90 billion of the $787 billion stimulus package was dedicated to supporting state Medicaid programs. The money, which is known as FMAP funds, has moved faster than other stimulus dollars allocated to many other spending categories. The GAO found that most states were using their Medicaid funds to cover increased caseloads and to maintain their current services and eligibility criteria. Some states are using the funds to avoid cutting overly large payments to doctors and hospitals. Some State officials “expressed concern about the longer-term sustainability of their Medicaid programs after the increased FMAP funds are no longer available, beginning in January 2011,” the GAO report said. The report also found some states were using Medicaid funds to finance general state budget needs. No wonder a good friend of mine is having so much trouble getting Medicaid assistance following a catastrophic illness.
Republicans have criticized the funds for state governments, saying they encourage states to postpone hard budget decisions and do little to create jobs or growth. They have also attacked the plan’s effectiveness overall, citing the 26-year high in unemployment. Members of the administration say the plan is working, and that it has kept the recession from being worse.
To all this federal waste and confusion we may add “Social justice has been served and government is here to help you…”
Racist
It’s now official I guess, I’m a racist… and no less a personage than former president Jimmy Carter has said so. Apparently, according to the loony left that is, if I oppose the government takeover of another 17% of our national economy under the guise of health care reform, I hate black people. (“Another 17%”? Well, remember that the federal government has already nationalized about 60% of the auto industry, and a large part of the major banks.) Now there’s a major push to cram “ObamaCare” down out throats, which is nothing less than an attempt to nationalize the Health Care industry. A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that twelve percent (12%) of voters nationwide believe that most opponents of Mr. Obama’s health care reform plan are racist, 67% of voters disagree, and 21% are not sure. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans reject the notion, as do 78% of voters not affiliated with either party, and 39% of Democrats. Twenty-two percent (22%) of the Democrats believe that most of the opposition to his plans come from racists, and another 39% aren’t sure.
‘Racism’ is defined as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others”, and also includes “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races”. Since the presidential campaign, many Democrats have claimed that opposition to Mr. Obama is nothing less that racism, a claim I find rather difficult to believe. Presidents are always criticized, and it’s always been that way. But now that Obama is in the oval office, criticism is racism, and anyone who see things a different way than those on the left are racists! But even Mr. Obama disagreed with this when he told NBC's David Gregory, “The media loves to have a conversation about race, this is catnip to the media because it is a running thread in American history that’s very powerful. And it invokes some very strong emotions.” The leftist media does have a habit of making mountains out of molehills after all.
The defining moment of the racism card came when Joe Wilson, in a rather unparliamentarily manner, shouted "liar!" at Obama when he said that the new law would not entail rationing. Yet the program he’s pressing uses that word to describe how it would work, therefore Mr. Obama was indeed lying, or at least stretching the point considerably, but to say so in public is racist?! As to the central problem, certainly the US faces healthcare policy problems, and something needs to be done about it! But, what would happen if the uninsured were allowed the option of buying into the existing MediCare program? Or if the individual states were allowed to run their own healthcare systems as California does with MediCal? I seriously doubt that would be considered racism… at least not by anyone to the right of Max Baucus! The real problem facing Mr. Obama is that “We the People” are sick and tired of watching our liberties being eroded by the socialist left, and are ready to fight for our rights, leaving the question; is the left able to see the peoples resolve? The recent march on Washington should have demonstrated that determination, hence the racism card is somewhat like an old child's trick, i.e. when you’re losing start calling people names! People who claim this is racist only want to distract others from discussing the real issues. Also, the left seem to think that they alone get to define racism, sexism, etc. They do not, they are not in charge of the language, and they have been revealed as a bunch of people who only want power and money… without working for it. Carter's comment is insulting, as a good majority of those Washington marchers didn’t support “HillaryCare” fifteen ago either, and that certainly wasn’t “racism”. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, and protests against Mr. Obama’s policies are not only about health care. We objected to the erosion of our liberty Under President Bush, with his Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, but that didn’t make us racist. We objected to the “Bailout” and the “Stimulus” giveaways under both Bush and Obama, but that didn’t make us racists either. But now, if we object to ObamaCare we’re suddenly racists who hate Black people and Illegal immigrants?
My objection to the present administration, and the congressional majority, is their head-long rush to spend my grandchildren's future. I don't see how that makes me a racist, but, since I'm of European descent I must be, at least in the view of the liberal left. ‘Course I also believe that most politicians are so far removed from normal people's lives that they have no business saying what the average American thinks.
For the most part Americas loathed the policies of Democrat Jimmy Carter and his filibuster proof Democratic majority in Congress. They turned him out of office by a landslide in favor of a Conservative Republican, Ronald Reagan. They rejected the policies of Walter Mondale and re-elected the Republicans by an even larger landslide. America rejected the policies of Michael Dukakis and elected Bush the Elder, another conservative Republican, by a large margin. That President broke his read-my-lips no-new-taxes pledge, and was rejected in favor of Democrat Bill Clinton (who promised to cut middle-class taxes), by less than a 50% popular majority. After Clinton broke his tax cut pledge, pushed for gays in the military, and tried to impose socialized health care on America, we turned the House of Representatives over to the GOP for the first time in 40 years. Clinton was re-elected after he followed the lead of the Conservative GOP Congress to enact welfare reform, push for free trade and supply side tax cuts. Al Gore ran far to the left of Slick Willie’s marginally successful Presidency and lost to Bush the Younger, a Republican who favored tax cuts. “Dubbya”, who enacted the tax cuts that prevented a post-911 recession, and who somehow kept the terrorists at bay after 911, was re-elected over another liberal Democrat. Shortly thereafter the Great Recession hits White and Black Americans alike, and the American electorate (more than 78% White) selected a Liberal Black Democrat, Barack Obama, who promised he would not raise taxes on anyone earning over $250K, and gave him a filibuster proof Congress. So he promptly repeats the mistakes of Carter and Clinton by advocating a horde of far left liberal policies, causing both he and Congress to fall in the polls. The vast majority of Americans care a whole lot about their wallets, their liberty, and about national security. BUT… because they object to liberal policies… they are suddenly raciest? Seems to me that what those rejected politicians have in common is not skin color, but rather their failed liberal policies!
I watched a movie on TV the other evening (about vampires of course, which seems to be the stock fare in this day and age), and I noticed that all the victims were sweet, innocent, young ladies (cute ones at that). I can only guess that power hungry self centered politicians don’t taste all that good to a vampire. Come to think of it, I can’t stomach ‘em either…
‘Racism’ is defined as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others”, and also includes “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races”. Since the presidential campaign, many Democrats have claimed that opposition to Mr. Obama is nothing less that racism, a claim I find rather difficult to believe. Presidents are always criticized, and it’s always been that way. But now that Obama is in the oval office, criticism is racism, and anyone who see things a different way than those on the left are racists! But even Mr. Obama disagreed with this when he told NBC's David Gregory, “The media loves to have a conversation about race, this is catnip to the media because it is a running thread in American history that’s very powerful. And it invokes some very strong emotions.” The leftist media does have a habit of making mountains out of molehills after all.
The defining moment of the racism card came when Joe Wilson, in a rather unparliamentarily manner, shouted "liar!" at Obama when he said that the new law would not entail rationing. Yet the program he’s pressing uses that word to describe how it would work, therefore Mr. Obama was indeed lying, or at least stretching the point considerably, but to say so in public is racist?! As to the central problem, certainly the US faces healthcare policy problems, and something needs to be done about it! But, what would happen if the uninsured were allowed the option of buying into the existing MediCare program? Or if the individual states were allowed to run their own healthcare systems as California does with MediCal? I seriously doubt that would be considered racism… at least not by anyone to the right of Max Baucus! The real problem facing Mr. Obama is that “We the People” are sick and tired of watching our liberties being eroded by the socialist left, and are ready to fight for our rights, leaving the question; is the left able to see the peoples resolve? The recent march on Washington should have demonstrated that determination, hence the racism card is somewhat like an old child's trick, i.e. when you’re losing start calling people names! People who claim this is racist only want to distract others from discussing the real issues. Also, the left seem to think that they alone get to define racism, sexism, etc. They do not, they are not in charge of the language, and they have been revealed as a bunch of people who only want power and money… without working for it. Carter's comment is insulting, as a good majority of those Washington marchers didn’t support “HillaryCare” fifteen ago either, and that certainly wasn’t “racism”. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, and protests against Mr. Obama’s policies are not only about health care. We objected to the erosion of our liberty Under President Bush, with his Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, but that didn’t make us racist. We objected to the “Bailout” and the “Stimulus” giveaways under both Bush and Obama, but that didn’t make us racists either. But now, if we object to ObamaCare we’re suddenly racists who hate Black people and Illegal immigrants?
My objection to the present administration, and the congressional majority, is their head-long rush to spend my grandchildren's future. I don't see how that makes me a racist, but, since I'm of European descent I must be, at least in the view of the liberal left. ‘Course I also believe that most politicians are so far removed from normal people's lives that they have no business saying what the average American thinks.
For the most part Americas loathed the policies of Democrat Jimmy Carter and his filibuster proof Democratic majority in Congress. They turned him out of office by a landslide in favor of a Conservative Republican, Ronald Reagan. They rejected the policies of Walter Mondale and re-elected the Republicans by an even larger landslide. America rejected the policies of Michael Dukakis and elected Bush the Elder, another conservative Republican, by a large margin. That President broke his read-my-lips no-new-taxes pledge, and was rejected in favor of Democrat Bill Clinton (who promised to cut middle-class taxes), by less than a 50% popular majority. After Clinton broke his tax cut pledge, pushed for gays in the military, and tried to impose socialized health care on America, we turned the House of Representatives over to the GOP for the first time in 40 years. Clinton was re-elected after he followed the lead of the Conservative GOP Congress to enact welfare reform, push for free trade and supply side tax cuts. Al Gore ran far to the left of Slick Willie’s marginally successful Presidency and lost to Bush the Younger, a Republican who favored tax cuts. “Dubbya”, who enacted the tax cuts that prevented a post-911 recession, and who somehow kept the terrorists at bay after 911, was re-elected over another liberal Democrat. Shortly thereafter the Great Recession hits White and Black Americans alike, and the American electorate (more than 78% White) selected a Liberal Black Democrat, Barack Obama, who promised he would not raise taxes on anyone earning over $250K, and gave him a filibuster proof Congress. So he promptly repeats the mistakes of Carter and Clinton by advocating a horde of far left liberal policies, causing both he and Congress to fall in the polls. The vast majority of Americans care a whole lot about their wallets, their liberty, and about national security. BUT… because they object to liberal policies… they are suddenly raciest? Seems to me that what those rejected politicians have in common is not skin color, but rather their failed liberal policies!
I watched a movie on TV the other evening (about vampires of course, which seems to be the stock fare in this day and age), and I noticed that all the victims were sweet, innocent, young ladies (cute ones at that). I can only guess that power hungry self centered politicians don’t taste all that good to a vampire. Come to think of it, I can’t stomach ‘em either…
Monday, September 21, 2009
National Police?
It’s reported that Mr. Obama is once again calling for a “National Police Force”, intended apparently to provide federal augmentation to the local Gendarmes nationwide, and naturally to provide “security” within our borders. During the late presidential campaign, Mr. Obama claimed that “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Something might occur within the United States that the US ARMY with a million or so soldiers can’t handle!? That I find very hard to believe! And now we need a civilian police type “security force” armed with machine guns, tanks, and attack helicopters!? And all this time I thought that having Police SWAT teams and FBI snipers was quite bad enough.
My first thought was why can’t the Army handle things? After all, the Posse Comitatis Act was passed in 1878 and was intended to severely limit the federal government in using the military for law enforcement. But, recent bills passed by our Congress allow the armed forces to be used under the revised “Insurrection Act”, to “restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or other such condition occurs in the United States, or when the President determines that domestic violence has occurred, where the legal authorities of that State are unable to maintain public order, or to suppress any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy. Also, if such a condition hinders the execution of the laws of a State, or if a State opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States.”
Then there are an entire series of “Executive Orders” authorized in times of “increased international tension, economic crisis, and/or financial crisis”, to “institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to establish control over the mechanisms of production, distribution, energy sources, wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money”. “Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20”, signed by President Bush, claims the power to execute procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency", construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." Naturally most of these presidential directives and executive orders are classified, so we really have no idea of what they say the president can or can’t do, and at present even interested congressmen are denied access to them. But an unclassified portion of one directive claims that the president has the power to declare a catastrophic emergency, but does not specify who has the power to declare the emergency over. The signing of these directives were not covered by the media, or discussed by Congress, which has, according to the National Emergencies Act passed in 1976, oversight of presidential emergency powers. On October 1, 2002 the United States Army established it’s “Northern Command”, to provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense mission, and to coordinate the DoD support of civil authorities. Again, the Army is supposed to handle whatever situation, not some sort of presidential Preatorian Guard. What’s interesting here is that Congress has over the years delegated much of it’s authority to the office of the president, with no oversite or “checks and balances” in place, and I have yet to see anything in the Constitution allowing them to do that! It sounds to me as if the White House has pretty well covered everything needed to seize total control of this country and everyone in it, and yet Mr. Obama is now calling for additional federal forces!?
So what are we to think of this “National Police” organization? Perhaps we’re to have our very own Secret Police? Secret police (sometimes called political police) are defined as a government agency which operates in secrecy against internal threats to the state. Such police forces are nearly always associated with totalitarian regimes where they’re used to maintain the “president for life” in political power, and are quite often used to uphold the dictator’s orders by operating above and beyond duly established law. “Secret police” are accountable only to the executive branch, with their operations hidden from the public and most government officials, and are used as instruments of political repression. And we might remember that, after the Ruby Ridge and Waco Texas incidents, and along with the clandestine records keeping and electronic eavesdropping going on, the FBI is considered by many people to be a secret police agency in it’s own right.
Probably the best known secret police organization was the Geheime Staatspolizei (Secret State Police, abbreviated “Gestapo”) organized by the Nazis in 1933. The Gestapo, through its power of arrest and confinement without recourse to law, was the principal means for eliminating any enemies of the Nazi regime. They operated without any restriction by civil authority, which meant that its members could not be tried for any crimes committed in the course of their “police” activities. Under the law, the only appeal of the accused was to the next higher authority within the Gestapo itself. They were given the responsibility of administering the concentration camps, wherein the arrest and commitment to the camps was usually because the person “endangered, by his attitude the existence and security of the people and the State”. This included offenses like "working against the Greater German Reich with an illegal resistance organization," "being a Jew," "suspected of working for the detriment of the Reich," "being strongly suspected of aiding desertion," "because as a relative of a deserter he is expected to take advantage of every occasion to harm the German Reich," "refusal to work," "sexual intercourse with a Pole," "religious propaganda," "working against the Reich," "loafing on the job," or "defeatist statements." Concentration Camps huh… Well, at least we don’t have to worry about that… or do we?
While the stories are impossible to properly confirm or deny, reports abound that a number of internment camps have been established, and are ready to detain citizens if mass insurrections occur. These reports come from a wide range of sources, both from the far right, and even from members of the US Congress! Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) declared that the government “might use a pandemic disease or national disaster as an excuse to declare martial law.” (I’ve noticed that the government is threatening us with a Swine Flu epidemic this fall…) In his September 2008 newsletter, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) stated “Even though we know that detention facilities are already in place, [the government] now wants to legalize the construction of FEMA camps on military installations using the ever-popular excuse that the facilities are for the purposes of a national emergency.” Legislation introduced by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl.) would have the DHS establishing at least half a dozen national emergency centers for large-scale imprisonment of American citizens on military installations in a Guantanamo-style setting… after martial law is declared. To counteract these charges, some claim the “renovated military bases” will simply be used to hold illegal aliens. The Idaho Observer recently reported that “… it was revealed that Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), had received a $385 million contract to build detention facilities ‘for an emergency influx of immigrants.’” Halliburton? It figures.Claiming that these camps are to hold illegal immigrants doesn’t make much sense either, considering that the government is so “undocumented immigrant” friendly. More likely detainees would be tax protesters and those deemed “extremists” and “enemies of the state” by the recent DHS report about “homegrown right-wing terrorists.” I’ve personally seen the rather disturbing U.S. Army advertisement recruiting soldiers who might be interested in becoming ‘internment / resettlement’ specialists. The job description is “Internment/Resettlement (I/R) specialists in the Army are primarily responsible for day-to-day operations in a military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility.” That’s normally not a military job that needs much recruiting, as there isn’t much call for those troops, and the position is usually filled by regular Military Police personnel. With that, I’ve also seen pictures of what are reported to be the prison railcars, again built by Halliburton, to be used to transport “detainees” to the camps.
Is all this for real, or is it nothing more than another panicky conspiracy theory? Personally I don’t know, and I guess I won’t know until it happens. But remember, the US Government has a history of illegally imprisoning dissidents that goes clear back to 1836, and Mr. Obama did quite plainly tell us that he planned to “Change America”. He just didn’t say what he and the far left intend to change us to… And remember that government, no matter how well intentioned it may claim to be, is inherently the enemy of freedom.
A lot of European Jews disbelieved the rumors of Nazi evils, right up to the point they were being herded into the gas chambers.
My first thought was why can’t the Army handle things? After all, the Posse Comitatis Act was passed in 1878 and was intended to severely limit the federal government in using the military for law enforcement. But, recent bills passed by our Congress allow the armed forces to be used under the revised “Insurrection Act”, to “restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or other such condition occurs in the United States, or when the President determines that domestic violence has occurred, where the legal authorities of that State are unable to maintain public order, or to suppress any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy. Also, if such a condition hinders the execution of the laws of a State, or if a State opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States.”
Then there are an entire series of “Executive Orders” authorized in times of “increased international tension, economic crisis, and/or financial crisis”, to “institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to establish control over the mechanisms of production, distribution, energy sources, wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money”. “Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20”, signed by President Bush, claims the power to execute procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency", construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." Naturally most of these presidential directives and executive orders are classified, so we really have no idea of what they say the president can or can’t do, and at present even interested congressmen are denied access to them. But an unclassified portion of one directive claims that the president has the power to declare a catastrophic emergency, but does not specify who has the power to declare the emergency over. The signing of these directives were not covered by the media, or discussed by Congress, which has, according to the National Emergencies Act passed in 1976, oversight of presidential emergency powers. On October 1, 2002 the United States Army established it’s “Northern Command”, to provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense mission, and to coordinate the DoD support of civil authorities. Again, the Army is supposed to handle whatever situation, not some sort of presidential Preatorian Guard. What’s interesting here is that Congress has over the years delegated much of it’s authority to the office of the president, with no oversite or “checks and balances” in place, and I have yet to see anything in the Constitution allowing them to do that! It sounds to me as if the White House has pretty well covered everything needed to seize total control of this country and everyone in it, and yet Mr. Obama is now calling for additional federal forces!?
So what are we to think of this “National Police” organization? Perhaps we’re to have our very own Secret Police? Secret police (sometimes called political police) are defined as a government agency which operates in secrecy against internal threats to the state. Such police forces are nearly always associated with totalitarian regimes where they’re used to maintain the “president for life” in political power, and are quite often used to uphold the dictator’s orders by operating above and beyond duly established law. “Secret police” are accountable only to the executive branch, with their operations hidden from the public and most government officials, and are used as instruments of political repression. And we might remember that, after the Ruby Ridge and Waco Texas incidents, and along with the clandestine records keeping and electronic eavesdropping going on, the FBI is considered by many people to be a secret police agency in it’s own right.
Probably the best known secret police organization was the Geheime Staatspolizei (Secret State Police, abbreviated “Gestapo”) organized by the Nazis in 1933. The Gestapo, through its power of arrest and confinement without recourse to law, was the principal means for eliminating any enemies of the Nazi regime. They operated without any restriction by civil authority, which meant that its members could not be tried for any crimes committed in the course of their “police” activities. Under the law, the only appeal of the accused was to the next higher authority within the Gestapo itself. They were given the responsibility of administering the concentration camps, wherein the arrest and commitment to the camps was usually because the person “endangered, by his attitude the existence and security of the people and the State”. This included offenses like "working against the Greater German Reich with an illegal resistance organization," "being a Jew," "suspected of working for the detriment of the Reich," "being strongly suspected of aiding desertion," "because as a relative of a deserter he is expected to take advantage of every occasion to harm the German Reich," "refusal to work," "sexual intercourse with a Pole," "religious propaganda," "working against the Reich," "loafing on the job," or "defeatist statements." Concentration Camps huh… Well, at least we don’t have to worry about that… or do we?
While the stories are impossible to properly confirm or deny, reports abound that a number of internment camps have been established, and are ready to detain citizens if mass insurrections occur. These reports come from a wide range of sources, both from the far right, and even from members of the US Congress! Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) declared that the government “might use a pandemic disease or national disaster as an excuse to declare martial law.” (I’ve noticed that the government is threatening us with a Swine Flu epidemic this fall…) In his September 2008 newsletter, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) stated “Even though we know that detention facilities are already in place, [the government] now wants to legalize the construction of FEMA camps on military installations using the ever-popular excuse that the facilities are for the purposes of a national emergency.” Legislation introduced by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl.) would have the DHS establishing at least half a dozen national emergency centers for large-scale imprisonment of American citizens on military installations in a Guantanamo-style setting… after martial law is declared. To counteract these charges, some claim the “renovated military bases” will simply be used to hold illegal aliens. The Idaho Observer recently reported that “… it was revealed that Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), had received a $385 million contract to build detention facilities ‘for an emergency influx of immigrants.’” Halliburton? It figures.Claiming that these camps are to hold illegal immigrants doesn’t make much sense either, considering that the government is so “undocumented immigrant” friendly. More likely detainees would be tax protesters and those deemed “extremists” and “enemies of the state” by the recent DHS report about “homegrown right-wing terrorists.” I’ve personally seen the rather disturbing U.S. Army advertisement recruiting soldiers who might be interested in becoming ‘internment / resettlement’ specialists. The job description is “Internment/Resettlement (I/R) specialists in the Army are primarily responsible for day-to-day operations in a military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility.” That’s normally not a military job that needs much recruiting, as there isn’t much call for those troops, and the position is usually filled by regular Military Police personnel. With that, I’ve also seen pictures of what are reported to be the prison railcars, again built by Halliburton, to be used to transport “detainees” to the camps.
Is all this for real, or is it nothing more than another panicky conspiracy theory? Personally I don’t know, and I guess I won’t know until it happens. But remember, the US Government has a history of illegally imprisoning dissidents that goes clear back to 1836, and Mr. Obama did quite plainly tell us that he planned to “Change America”. He just didn’t say what he and the far left intend to change us to… And remember that government, no matter how well intentioned it may claim to be, is inherently the enemy of freedom.
A lot of European Jews disbelieved the rumors of Nazi evils, right up to the point they were being herded into the gas chambers.
Pride
Somewhere along the line, the idea of going to Congress to serve the country for a couple of terms has changed into going off to Congress as self serving long term career politicians. With that, politics have become increasingly polarized into left and right; conservative and liberal; with only a few middle of the road politicians representing those who see themselves as moderates. Fortunately, there are sometimes a few notable exceptions to this general rule. However, far too many recent members of Congress fall into the category of "gutless wonders", and it’s totally amazing to me that these clowns can keep getting re-elected! From what I’ve seen and read lately, there is less respect for members of Congress today than there is for lawyers or used car salesmen, because of their embarrassing antics, chronic misbehavior, elitist attitudes, and constant bowing down to what has become an imperial presidency! Still, with a little effort Congress could restore the Republic and accomplish just about anything else it set its mind to. But here the question is, will Congress ever again work as a unified political body rather than as a mob of self centered special interest supporters? After all, our political system is supposed to be about what is best for America and American citizens, and not necessarily what’s best for illegal aliens, petty South American dictators, or perhaps even Toyota!
I also find it quite disturbing that we don't seem to be making anything in North America anymore. A quick check through nearly any store will reveal that most of the products for sale are cheap made-in-China junk that self-destructs within a few weeks of purchase. Even NASA buys rocket engines from Russia, the Air Force buys tanker planes from Europe, the Marines buy armored vehicles from Canada, and the Army buys machine guns from Belgium. “Cash for Clunkers” saw a big boost in auto sales… for Toyota and Nissan. Our Electronics come from Asia, as do most of our clothes. American auto parts are… made in Mexico. Buy a steak at the grocery store, and chances are that the beef came from Argentina or Australia! There was a time when we had confidence in our society and our beliefs, which was reflected in our institutions, our manufacturing, and in our inventiveness. We were confident, strong, proud, mostly self supporting, and not afraid to say so. Yet today it seems we are ashamed of ourselves, and want to apologize to the world for who we are and what we have accomplished (I won't mention any names here), which amounts to little more that national suicide! One quite important reason to produce our own products is called "NATIONAL SECURITY", the antithesis of globalization. Sure, we have the knowledge and technical skills to do most anything, but where is the manufacturing capability? When our leadership comes back to the realities of national pride, strong borders, take no crap - give no excuses, protect our citizens, and live by the "Walk Softly and Carry A Big Stick" attitude we will be much safer as a nation. Why is it that we have the resources and the know-how to be almost completely self-sufficient, yet we steadily send our jobs and our money overseas… and import their oil? Our armed forces are ready, willing, and able to defend this nation, yet it appears that our government can’t get its national defense act together no matter what… why is that? What caused this rapid deterioration in the American national character?
There was a time when we were all “Americans”, primarily of European Celtic-Germanic-Norse stock, and that did included a hefty mix of other “races” as well. But today, with rampant illegal immigration, and of course the loony left’s politically correct “diversity”, we’ve happily become a hodge-podge of African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arabic-Americans, and lord only knows what else. All these hyphenated groups cling to their perceived “national identity” complete with language, social mores, mode of dress, national allegiance, and even their criminal gangs! America, and the few “American-Americans” remaining, are rapidly becoming a shrinking minority! It appears we have a poison flowing through our national character and our politics. We not only disagree with each other more than ever, but have almost come to detest one another. Politically, culturally, racially, we seem ever ready to go for each others' throats. Pat Buchanan recently asked “In what sense are we one nation and one people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry, faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays, and share the same music, poetry, art and literature?” Well, Christmas and Easter once united Americans in a common celebration. Now we fight over whether they should even be mentioned in our public schools! We used to share classical, pop, country & Western and jazz music, now we have varieties tailored to specific generations, races and ethnic groups. One part of America loves her history, another reviles it as racist, imperialist and genocidal. Our old heroes like Columbus, George Washington, and Stonewall Jackson are being replaced by Che Guevara, Dr. King and Cesar Chavez. The American Left has pretty well rewritten our history books, and they are now loaded with PC garbage that makes the Founding Fathers into greedy racist slaveholders, the pioneers into a rapacious mob of outlaws and gunfighters, and of course FDR’s welfare state is turned into our ultimate social triumph. From the Puritans to the Clinton administration, everything is “explained” from a far left view, irregardless of the truth.
In quotes from letters written by fourth-graders in 1976, predicting life in the 'year 2000', there are many of the old images of life in the future as envisioned in that era. But one little girl's thoughts are evidence that the leftist propaganda was being drummed into children's brains fairly successfully by 1976. She wrote “The government will pay every person as much as they want without them having to work.” Another thought is that these children would now be in their mid-40’s. I wonder if they still believe in the government paying every person as much as they want without them working'? If they’re Democrats, I doubt they’ve changed their thinking since the fourth grade.
Are our present difficulties a result of our loss of confidence and optimism, or was it just the constant liberal cries of 'waste!' that caused us to lose interest in the future? Or perhaps the liberals among us feel guilty because we excelled at just about everything we set our hand to, and thus caused the rest of the world to feel envious and resentful? As our social spending increased throughout the seventies and afterward, one wonders what might have been, had we not been pressured into a ''war on poverty''. In retrospect, did all that spending help ''pull people up from poverty'' as promised, or result only in the demand for even more handouts? Meanwhile the kids of the 70s are now middleaged, and having been spoon-fed that leftist pap since birth, is it any wonder we've come to where we are now?
I also find it quite disturbing that we don't seem to be making anything in North America anymore. A quick check through nearly any store will reveal that most of the products for sale are cheap made-in-China junk that self-destructs within a few weeks of purchase. Even NASA buys rocket engines from Russia, the Air Force buys tanker planes from Europe, the Marines buy armored vehicles from Canada, and the Army buys machine guns from Belgium. “Cash for Clunkers” saw a big boost in auto sales… for Toyota and Nissan. Our Electronics come from Asia, as do most of our clothes. American auto parts are… made in Mexico. Buy a steak at the grocery store, and chances are that the beef came from Argentina or Australia! There was a time when we had confidence in our society and our beliefs, which was reflected in our institutions, our manufacturing, and in our inventiveness. We were confident, strong, proud, mostly self supporting, and not afraid to say so. Yet today it seems we are ashamed of ourselves, and want to apologize to the world for who we are and what we have accomplished (I won't mention any names here), which amounts to little more that national suicide! One quite important reason to produce our own products is called "NATIONAL SECURITY", the antithesis of globalization. Sure, we have the knowledge and technical skills to do most anything, but where is the manufacturing capability? When our leadership comes back to the realities of national pride, strong borders, take no crap - give no excuses, protect our citizens, and live by the "Walk Softly and Carry A Big Stick" attitude we will be much safer as a nation. Why is it that we have the resources and the know-how to be almost completely self-sufficient, yet we steadily send our jobs and our money overseas… and import their oil? Our armed forces are ready, willing, and able to defend this nation, yet it appears that our government can’t get its national defense act together no matter what… why is that? What caused this rapid deterioration in the American national character?
There was a time when we were all “Americans”, primarily of European Celtic-Germanic-Norse stock, and that did included a hefty mix of other “races” as well. But today, with rampant illegal immigration, and of course the loony left’s politically correct “diversity”, we’ve happily become a hodge-podge of African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arabic-Americans, and lord only knows what else. All these hyphenated groups cling to their perceived “national identity” complete with language, social mores, mode of dress, national allegiance, and even their criminal gangs! America, and the few “American-Americans” remaining, are rapidly becoming a shrinking minority! It appears we have a poison flowing through our national character and our politics. We not only disagree with each other more than ever, but have almost come to detest one another. Politically, culturally, racially, we seem ever ready to go for each others' throats. Pat Buchanan recently asked “In what sense are we one nation and one people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry, faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays, and share the same music, poetry, art and literature?” Well, Christmas and Easter once united Americans in a common celebration. Now we fight over whether they should even be mentioned in our public schools! We used to share classical, pop, country & Western and jazz music, now we have varieties tailored to specific generations, races and ethnic groups. One part of America loves her history, another reviles it as racist, imperialist and genocidal. Our old heroes like Columbus, George Washington, and Stonewall Jackson are being replaced by Che Guevara, Dr. King and Cesar Chavez. The American Left has pretty well rewritten our history books, and they are now loaded with PC garbage that makes the Founding Fathers into greedy racist slaveholders, the pioneers into a rapacious mob of outlaws and gunfighters, and of course FDR’s welfare state is turned into our ultimate social triumph. From the Puritans to the Clinton administration, everything is “explained” from a far left view, irregardless of the truth.
In quotes from letters written by fourth-graders in 1976, predicting life in the 'year 2000', there are many of the old images of life in the future as envisioned in that era. But one little girl's thoughts are evidence that the leftist propaganda was being drummed into children's brains fairly successfully by 1976. She wrote “The government will pay every person as much as they want without them having to work.” Another thought is that these children would now be in their mid-40’s. I wonder if they still believe in the government paying every person as much as they want without them working'? If they’re Democrats, I doubt they’ve changed their thinking since the fourth grade.
Are our present difficulties a result of our loss of confidence and optimism, or was it just the constant liberal cries of 'waste!' that caused us to lose interest in the future? Or perhaps the liberals among us feel guilty because we excelled at just about everything we set our hand to, and thus caused the rest of the world to feel envious and resentful? As our social spending increased throughout the seventies and afterward, one wonders what might have been, had we not been pressured into a ''war on poverty''. In retrospect, did all that spending help ''pull people up from poverty'' as promised, or result only in the demand for even more handouts? Meanwhile the kids of the 70s are now middleaged, and having been spoon-fed that leftist pap since birth, is it any wonder we've come to where we are now?
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Gadsden Flag
It would seem that the Obamacrats are somewhat angry about the public opposition to Mr. Obama’s ideas of universal health care, which of course I can well understand. Having looked through the proposed universal health insurance system, it is, in my view, nothing more than a European style plan for socializing our medical care nationwide. That however is not the subject of this weeks rant. But rather, the loony left is also upset by the “small yellow flags” being handed out as a symbol of “resistance” at some of the Town Hall Meetings where assorted politicians attempt to convince us that all those expensive ideas are intended to do “what’s good for us”, and of course to “save us from ourselves”.
Those small flags being passed out are copies of the renown “Gadsden Flag”, reputed to be the first flag flown by the fledgling the United States of America. The flag was designed by, and is named after, an American general and statesman, Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina. It was reportedly used by the United States Navy and Marine Corps as their first national banner. There's also an interesting history behind the Gadsden flag, and its diamondback rattlesnake, entwined with one of America’s most outstanding personalities, Benjamin Franklin.
In 1751, Franklin wrote a satirical commentary in his Pennsylvania Gazette suggesting that as a way to thank the British for their policy of sending convicted felons to the colonies, Americans should send rattlesnakes to England. In 1754 he published the first known political cartoon in an American newspaper, which was the image of a snake cut into eight sections, each representing one of the individual colonies. The small New England colonies were combined into one section as the head of the snake, while South Carolina was at the tail. Beneath the snake were the ominous words "Join, or Die", meaning that the colonies must unite politically if they were to survive England’s ministrations. The snake illustration or variations of it were reprinted from Massachusetts to South Carolina, and Franklin's rattlesnake became an early symbol of American national identity.
A merchant ship called the Black Prince returned to Philadelphia in 1775 from a voyage to England, and was carrying letters to the Second Continental Congress informing them that the British government was sending ships to America loaded with munitions for the British troops stationed in the colonies. Congress decided that General Washington needed those arms more than General Howe, and devised a plan to capture the British ships. They authorized the creation of the first Continental Navy, and additionally the mustering of five companies of Marines. Christopher Gadsden was an American patriot leading the Sons of Liberty in South Carolina who was later made a colonel in the Continental Army. In 1775 he was in Philadelphia representing his home state in the Continental Congress. He was also one of the Marine Committee who decided to outfit and man the first Navy ships (one of which was the Black Prince, armmed and renamed “Alfred”).
In December 1775, "An American Guesser" wrote to the Pennsylvania Journal: "I observed on one of the drums belonging to the marines now raising, there was painted a Rattle-Snake, with this modest motto under it, 'Don't tread on me.' As I know it is the custom to have some device on the arms of every country, I supposed this may have been intended for the arms of America." The writer then speculated on why a snake might be chosen as a symbol for America. First, "the Rattle-Snake is found in no other quarter of the world besides America. The rattlesnake also has sharp eyes, and may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance." Furthermore, "She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage. ... she never wounds 'till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her." "I confess I was wholly at a loss what to make of the rattles, 'till I went back and counted them and found them just thirteen, exactly the number of the Colonies united in America; and I recollected too that this was the only part of the Snake which increased in numbers. "'Tis curious and amazing to observe how distinct and independent of each other the rattles of this animal are, and yet how firmly they are united together, so as never to be separated but by breaking them to pieces. One of those rattles singly, is incapable of producing sound, but the ringing of thirteen together, is sufficient to alarm the boldest man living." Many scholars agree that this "American Guesser" was Benjamin Franklin.
Congress chose a Rhode Islander, Esek Hopkins, as the first commander of the new Navy. The flag that Hopkins used as his standard was designed by Gadsden, adapted from those yellow drumheads with their fierce rattlesnake, and was presented to Hopkins. It's reported that John Paul Jones, as the first lieutenant aboard the flagship, ran it up the gaff. The Gadsden flag was widely used during the American Revolution as there was no standard flag at that time, which left people free to choose their own banner. After the Revolution, George Washington and many members of Congress preferred stars and stripes to rattlesnakes, and the Gadsden flag, losing official favor, became associated with the spirit of the rebellion and its resistance to tyranny, rather than serving as our national ensign.
Reportedly, a Louisiana driver was recently stopped and detained for having a "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker on his car. The "suspect" was held for some time, being investigated for "extremist" activities, and warned about the "subversive" message it sent before he was released. This incident is rather suspicious I’d say, particularly as it occurred shortly after the DHS report warning of “potential terrorists” and political bumper stickers was sent to tens of thousands of law enforcement officers. Still, the report can’t be confirmed, and it does read somewhat like an advertisement for bumper stickers.
But then perhaps I’ll be an extremist as well, and acquire a Gadsden flag with its fierce coiled rattlesnake and defiant ‘Don't Tread on Me’ motto, flying it as a reminder to all that some of us still prefer our liberty and independence, rather than the latest home grown version of communism.
Those small flags being passed out are copies of the renown “Gadsden Flag”, reputed to be the first flag flown by the fledgling the United States of America. The flag was designed by, and is named after, an American general and statesman, Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina. It was reportedly used by the United States Navy and Marine Corps as their first national banner. There's also an interesting history behind the Gadsden flag, and its diamondback rattlesnake, entwined with one of America’s most outstanding personalities, Benjamin Franklin.
In 1751, Franklin wrote a satirical commentary in his Pennsylvania Gazette suggesting that as a way to thank the British for their policy of sending convicted felons to the colonies, Americans should send rattlesnakes to England. In 1754 he published the first known political cartoon in an American newspaper, which was the image of a snake cut into eight sections, each representing one of the individual colonies. The small New England colonies were combined into one section as the head of the snake, while South Carolina was at the tail. Beneath the snake were the ominous words "Join, or Die", meaning that the colonies must unite politically if they were to survive England’s ministrations. The snake illustration or variations of it were reprinted from Massachusetts to South Carolina, and Franklin's rattlesnake became an early symbol of American national identity.
A merchant ship called the Black Prince returned to Philadelphia in 1775 from a voyage to England, and was carrying letters to the Second Continental Congress informing them that the British government was sending ships to America loaded with munitions for the British troops stationed in the colonies. Congress decided that General Washington needed those arms more than General Howe, and devised a plan to capture the British ships. They authorized the creation of the first Continental Navy, and additionally the mustering of five companies of Marines. Christopher Gadsden was an American patriot leading the Sons of Liberty in South Carolina who was later made a colonel in the Continental Army. In 1775 he was in Philadelphia representing his home state in the Continental Congress. He was also one of the Marine Committee who decided to outfit and man the first Navy ships (one of which was the Black Prince, armmed and renamed “Alfred”).
In December 1775, "An American Guesser" wrote to the Pennsylvania Journal: "I observed on one of the drums belonging to the marines now raising, there was painted a Rattle-Snake, with this modest motto under it, 'Don't tread on me.' As I know it is the custom to have some device on the arms of every country, I supposed this may have been intended for the arms of America." The writer then speculated on why a snake might be chosen as a symbol for America. First, "the Rattle-Snake is found in no other quarter of the world besides America. The rattlesnake also has sharp eyes, and may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance." Furthermore, "She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage. ... she never wounds 'till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her." "I confess I was wholly at a loss what to make of the rattles, 'till I went back and counted them and found them just thirteen, exactly the number of the Colonies united in America; and I recollected too that this was the only part of the Snake which increased in numbers. "'Tis curious and amazing to observe how distinct and independent of each other the rattles of this animal are, and yet how firmly they are united together, so as never to be separated but by breaking them to pieces. One of those rattles singly, is incapable of producing sound, but the ringing of thirteen together, is sufficient to alarm the boldest man living." Many scholars agree that this "American Guesser" was Benjamin Franklin.
Congress chose a Rhode Islander, Esek Hopkins, as the first commander of the new Navy. The flag that Hopkins used as his standard was designed by Gadsden, adapted from those yellow drumheads with their fierce rattlesnake, and was presented to Hopkins. It's reported that John Paul Jones, as the first lieutenant aboard the flagship, ran it up the gaff. The Gadsden flag was widely used during the American Revolution as there was no standard flag at that time, which left people free to choose their own banner. After the Revolution, George Washington and many members of Congress preferred stars and stripes to rattlesnakes, and the Gadsden flag, losing official favor, became associated with the spirit of the rebellion and its resistance to tyranny, rather than serving as our national ensign.
Reportedly, a Louisiana driver was recently stopped and detained for having a "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker on his car. The "suspect" was held for some time, being investigated for "extremist" activities, and warned about the "subversive" message it sent before he was released. This incident is rather suspicious I’d say, particularly as it occurred shortly after the DHS report warning of “potential terrorists” and political bumper stickers was sent to tens of thousands of law enforcement officers. Still, the report can’t be confirmed, and it does read somewhat like an advertisement for bumper stickers.
But then perhaps I’ll be an extremist as well, and acquire a Gadsden flag with its fierce coiled rattlesnake and defiant ‘Don't Tread on Me’ motto, flying it as a reminder to all that some of us still prefer our liberty and independence, rather than the latest home grown version of communism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)