"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day, November 2008
THE HOW OF OBAMA
Some call him the founder of modern community organizing, who profoundly influenced Barack Obama. Some claim his book on revolutionary tactics influenced the 60's radicals, who have since infiltrated all institutions of our society, in order to destroy a system they viewed as oppressive and unjust.
Saul Alinsky was a Communist/Marxist from Chicago, (1909-1972), born of Russian parents, whose "Rules for Radicals", published in 1971, impacted a generation of left wing radicals. Alinsky had strong convictions that America needed a dramatic overhaul, that the Have-nots must learn strategies on how to take from the Haves, as this country, in his belief, was rife with economic injustice. But not just economic injustice; he felt that all of society's problems were interrelated - crime, unemployment, disease, racism, inadequate housing, etc. In his view, what was needed was a revolution to turn the society upside-down and inside-out. Destroy it. Rebuild it in the utopian vision held by these leftist radicals.
In the Alinsky model, community organizing was a euphemism for revolution; "the goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels and Lenin predicted..." As writer Richard Poe put it, "Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to
penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political
parties.” He advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly
gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions,
and to introduce changes from that platform. This was precisely the
tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin. In David Horowitz's analysis of "Rules for Radicals", he quotes Alinsky: "From the moment an organizer enters a community, he lives, dreams, eats, breathes, sleeps only one thing, and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army." "The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution." Organizing for power was supreme. And one of the guiding principles was, 'the ends justify the means'. One vehicle for achieving the ends is miscommunication; it "is the precise art that he teaches radicals who are trying to impose socialism on a country whose people understand that socialism destroys freedom: Don’t sell it as socialism; sell it as as "progressivism", "economic democracy" and "social justice."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Rules%20for%20Revolution%20%282%29.pdf
Forward to 1986. Barack Obama is hired by the Alinsky team to organize residents on the South Side of Chicago. Three of Obama's mentors were trained in Alinsky's 'rules', and Obama himself, for several years, taught workshops on the Alinsky methods.
According to Awr Hawkins, of Breitbart.com, Alinsky's impact on Obama has manifested itself demonstrably in his ability to say one thing and do another. This duplicitousness is perfectly acceptable behavior within the model; "For it was Alinsky who spent his life teaching would-be radicals (like Obama) that you can say what you have to say to get over the hump, but once you're over the hump, you do whatever you want to do. In other words, it's okay to present yourself as something moderate, even centrist, for the purposes of securing power, and once you've secured that power it is perfectly acceptable to revert to who (and what) you really are." Hence, Obama's pose as a moderate in the run-up to an election, but sharply leftist after his victories. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/05/how-saul-alinsky-taught-obama-to-say-one-thing-and-do-the-opposite
Examples of Alinsky's tactics manifested in Obama's methods include: Change is brought about through relentless agitation and "trouble making" of a kind that radically disrupts society as it is. Think about the very disruptive and violent Occupy Wall Street movement triggered in large part by the endless speeches about the wealthy 1% (the Haves) and the disadvantaged 99% (the Have nots). Think about all the anger and racial resentment stirred up during the Trayvon Martin case, when Obama had made clear which side of the case he was on. These two examples, of many, served to 'make trouble' and divide the country, since Obama clearly does not want unity. Obama wants polarization.
The organizer can never focus on a single issue. He must move inexhaustibly from one issue to the next. Obama constantly moves from one issue to the next. From taxing and spending at an unmatched pace, to amnesty for illegals, to health care, to gun control, to climate change policies, to education...the list goes on and on.
In the list of Alinsky's rules, Rule #5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." The mocking of climate change skeptics, policy critics, gun owners, conservative talk show hosts, Fox News...The president himself has actually resorted to name calling and has recruited his minions to do the same.
Rule#12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Nothing is more illustrative of this than the Tea Party, which has been targeted, by the media, by the government, and by the President himself, as an extreme right-wing faction of the Republican Party, which is to be feared and destroyed. Many Americans have a negative view of the Tea Party, not because of who they are and what they stand for, but because of the successful polarization tactics.
For a list of the 'rules': http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals
While Alinsky provided the tactics for Obama, Alinsky also provided the inspiration for other '60's radicals, Cloward and Piven, who devised the strategy in Obama's playbook. Richard Andrew Cloward and his wife Frances Fox Piven, both formerly of Columbia University and long-standing members of the Democratic Socialists of America, created a strategy of crisis to help empower poor people. They believed that only when the rest of society is afraid of them, poor people can then advance.
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, as it has become known, is to overwhelm the government bureaucracy system, flooding it with impossible demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to handle it. This is designed to break the budget, force them into gridlock and bring the system down. This then results in fear, turmoil, and violence - conditions they believed were just ripe for bringing in radical change. And that radical change was to collapse the capitalist system and its institutions and usher in socialism. There are several examples of their strategy at work, one of which is the aggressive attempt to get more people on welfare rolls. We have seen in the past few years, the explosive rise in food stamp recipients, the extended handouts of long term unemployment benefits, and increased benefits going to illegal immigrants. For further information on other crises designed to overwhelm the system (e.g. voter fraud, the mortgage meltdown, and ACORN's role in all of this, including Obama's role, as their lawyer and supporter in his early days), see these articles.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/obama-voter-fraud/2008/09/22/id/325456
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/recenteffortstooverloadtheamericansystem.html
Since the start of his administration, Obama has surrounded himself with advisers and czars who share his socialist/communist utopian vision. He has appointed far left thinkers to the federal bench and to his cabinet. For further information on many, but not all of his extreme left wing appointees, go to: http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/obama-surrounds-himself-with-the-most-extreme-appointees-in-american-history/
After reading about Obama's inspirational 'advisers' - Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven, it's easy to see how Obama is pursuing his objectives. And judging by the goals of these revolutionaries, it's also easy to see that they all share the same endgame. Destroy this country as we know it and replace it with socialism or communism. Or, as Obama puts it, the fundamental transformation of the United States of America.
Oh, by the way, another notable official was inspired by Saul Alinsky. This person interviewed him and wrote a 92-page college thesis on Alinsky's theories and methods. Upon graduation, this person was offered a job by Alinsky, but instead chose to go to Yale Law School. This person could very well be the next President of the United States. This person was Hillary Clinton.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Monday, February 24, 2014
"You Can't Gag America" - An Update on Justina
Today there was a court hearing to determine the fate of Justina Pelletier, the teen who has been held over in a hospital for the past year against the wishes of her parents. Now the judge ordered Justina to be moved to a non-medical foster care facility! According to eyewitnesses, the mother collapsed in the courtroom and had to be taken to the hospital on a stretcher. The father, who has been speaking out as of late, came out yelling and crying.
About a dozen protestors were outside the courtroom ahead of the hearing, holding signs like "free Justina" and "you can't gag America", referring to the gag order that was placed on the parents for the past year.
The court should get the hell out of this family's life and let the parents care for their child the way they see fit. Justina was living an active, normal life before officials butted in; now her health has deteriorated and she is in a wheelchair. (For more information on this story, see post "Do Parents Have Rights To Their Children?).
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/24/report-judge-rules-to-put-justina-pelletier-in-foster-care/
About a dozen protestors were outside the courtroom ahead of the hearing, holding signs like "free Justina" and "you can't gag America", referring to the gag order that was placed on the parents for the past year.
The court should get the hell out of this family's life and let the parents care for their child the way they see fit. Justina was living an active, normal life before officials butted in; now her health has deteriorated and she is in a wheelchair. (For more information on this story, see post "Do Parents Have Rights To Their Children?).
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/24/report-judge-rules-to-put-justina-pelletier-in-foster-care/
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Do Parents Have Rights To Their Children?
Do parents have rights when it comes to their children? I'm not talking about the right to abuse or hurt them in any way, I'm talking about the right to make decisions about/for them.
The Pelletiers took their daughter Justina, who, a few years back, had been diagnosed with mitochondrial disorder, to the hospital for the flu. Her disorder had been under control at that point. However, doctors at the hospital (different from the team who had been helping to treat her all along) diagnosed her differently, and said she had a psychological disorder instead; the parents were not allowed to take her home.
It was at that point they not only lost custody of her, but were issued a gag order about the case. Since then, Justina had been residing in the psych ward of the hospital. The 15 year-old girl had been there for one year, while the parents were only allowed to speak with her on the phone for 20 minutes once a week! This week the father sat down with Glenn Beck to tell the horrifying story, against the judge's ruling to keep silent. "She needs physical therapy. She needs to be back on the vitamin cocktail. She needs to be treated for the goddamn diagnosis she had from the beginning," Lou said. "I need to save my daughter. If we don’t do something, she is going to die." Since her time there, her health has deteriorated to the point where she is currently in a wheelchair. (One year ago in January, before this fiasco, Justina was ice skating).
As an added horror, this all took place in the world-renowned Boston Children's Hospital, which, as it turns out, has had several complaints lodged against them for similar reasons; this has led to an investigation into this facility. At this point, Justina is out of the Boston hospital - she has been transferred to a psychiatric facility outside of the city. The family has been trying desperately to get her released and back into their care.
So, let me get this straight. Parents take daughter to hospital for flu. Hospital won't release her to parents. Parents ordered to shut-up by judge. One year later parents are still fighting for custody. What country is this again? You can hear the interview with all the details at this link: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/17/ready-jon-father-so-heartbroken-about-daughter-held-at-hospital-against-his-will-he-just-defied-a-judges-order-to-talk-to-us-i-want-to-have-all-my-guns-blazing/
To help this family who have been financially devastated, go to: http://freejustina.com/
UPDATE: Lou Pelletier, since speaking out on TheBlazeTV, has been slapped with contempt of court charges for not following the gag order.
Parental rights have been under assault for many years, but the trend seems to be growing, as the court system has been increasingly disregarding these rights when it comes to upbringing, education, or as in Justina's case, medical decisions.
And if our local or federal court system wasn't bad enough in these situations, new international laws are seeking to empower the government to override parental decisions through a treaty called UN Convention on the Rights of a Child. If the U.S. ratifies this treaty, "the government would have the power to intervene in any child's life to advance its definition of 'the best interests of the child'." The consequence of this will be that parents will have the burden of proof in demonstrating to the State that they are good parents, instead of the State proving otherwise.
The only solution to this threatening law, would be for Congress to write a constitutional amendment to protect parental rights. http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?SEC={81C1F260-4A9F-4013-8164-68A360E295A5}
The Pelletiers took their daughter Justina, who, a few years back, had been diagnosed with mitochondrial disorder, to the hospital for the flu. Her disorder had been under control at that point. However, doctors at the hospital (different from the team who had been helping to treat her all along) diagnosed her differently, and said she had a psychological disorder instead; the parents were not allowed to take her home.
It was at that point they not only lost custody of her, but were issued a gag order about the case. Since then, Justina had been residing in the psych ward of the hospital. The 15 year-old girl had been there for one year, while the parents were only allowed to speak with her on the phone for 20 minutes once a week! This week the father sat down with Glenn Beck to tell the horrifying story, against the judge's ruling to keep silent. "She needs physical therapy. She needs to be back on the vitamin cocktail. She needs to be treated for the goddamn diagnosis she had from the beginning," Lou said. "I need to save my daughter. If we don’t do something, she is going to die." Since her time there, her health has deteriorated to the point where she is currently in a wheelchair. (One year ago in January, before this fiasco, Justina was ice skating).
As an added horror, this all took place in the world-renowned Boston Children's Hospital, which, as it turns out, has had several complaints lodged against them for similar reasons; this has led to an investigation into this facility. At this point, Justina is out of the Boston hospital - she has been transferred to a psychiatric facility outside of the city. The family has been trying desperately to get her released and back into their care.
So, let me get this straight. Parents take daughter to hospital for flu. Hospital won't release her to parents. Parents ordered to shut-up by judge. One year later parents are still fighting for custody. What country is this again? You can hear the interview with all the details at this link: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/17/ready-jon-father-so-heartbroken-about-daughter-held-at-hospital-against-his-will-he-just-defied-a-judges-order-to-talk-to-us-i-want-to-have-all-my-guns-blazing/
To help this family who have been financially devastated, go to: http://freejustina.com/
UPDATE: Lou Pelletier, since speaking out on TheBlazeTV, has been slapped with contempt of court charges for not following the gag order.
Parental rights have been under assault for many years, but the trend seems to be growing, as the court system has been increasingly disregarding these rights when it comes to upbringing, education, or as in Justina's case, medical decisions.
And if our local or federal court system wasn't bad enough in these situations, new international laws are seeking to empower the government to override parental decisions through a treaty called UN Convention on the Rights of a Child. If the U.S. ratifies this treaty, "the government would have the power to intervene in any child's life to advance its definition of 'the best interests of the child'." The consequence of this will be that parents will have the burden of proof in demonstrating to the State that they are good parents, instead of the State proving otherwise.
The only solution to this threatening law, would be for Congress to write a constitutional amendment to protect parental rights. http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?SEC={81C1F260-4A9F-4013-8164-68A360E295A5}
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Witnessing the Fundamental Transformation Pt. 7
"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day, November 2008
The Environment
In the last several years there has been increasing evidence that the dire predictions of Al Gore's 'inconvenient truths' were just not materializing. We were warned that the warming of the Earth was to bring about cataclysmic weather patterns resulting in whole swaths of land being submerged under water, that polar bears were disappearing, that the polar ice caps were melting, that severe storms would increase in frequency. The problem is, these predictions didn't happen. In fact, there was much evidence to the contrary. Remember the Climategate scandal of 2009 in which thousands of emails among climate scientists were leaked? And remember they showed that data was manipulated to 'prove' man-made global warming, because it was politically necessary? Now, it seems, there is a growing number of climate scientists who are reporting that the earth is cooling, and has been for the past decade or so. They predict this cooling trend will last many years, perhaps decades. So, being skeptical about warming doesn't seem all that unreasonable.
Yet, Barack Obama has said on more than one occasion, the science on global warming is "settled." Anyone who is skeptical of this, according to him, has the mentality of a 'flat-earther.' Why? Why is it so important that this be the case, and that anyone with differing views should be ridiculed?
Well, there is an abundance of writing on the subject of climate, the predictions, the inaccuracies, the scandals, the spending, the world reaction, and it is difficult here to distill all of that information into a concise summary. One must do the reading on this to come to his/her own conclusion. Following this post on Environment is a list of links to some worthwhile articles on the subject. One might realize after reading these articles that being skeptical may be the only way to be with this issue.
It seems that much emphasis is put on carbon pollution; in fact, Obama has been aggressively pushing this concept, as it seems to be an engine for environmental policy change. Obama mentions carbon pollution frequently in his speeches about climate. However, carbon dioxide is what we exhale; it is not a toxin. According to Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute, it is
"a natural substance that is not toxic to humans at many times greater than current ambient concentrations and that protects plants from various environmental stresses. It is unlike any other effluent regulated by the EPA for which less is better. Too little carbon dioxide would make life difficult..." http://american.com/archive/2013/june/carbon-pollution-and-wealth-redistribution
Let's also remember that climate changes. Climate is not static, it is cyclical in nature. There has been no trend in the frequency of strong tornadoes, Category 3 or higher hurricanes, or frequency of wildfires in the U.S. Worldwide, there has been no trend in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, and there is no long-term trend in sea level increases. There is no trend in the area of drought; to the contrary, there are more areas in the U.S. with an increase in soil moisture. Emissions of greenhouse gases emanating from the U.S. is proportionately declining in relation to the rest of the world. Just when you think the 'extremes' in weather are unusual, there will always be historic records to contradict it. When you think we've never seen these types of storms before, there will always be precedents to prove you wrong.
So, what is gained from believing (or at least stating) that global warming poses dangers ahead? What's gained is that Obama can then make a case for trying to control it, and in the process, control our lives (the cars we drive, the energy we use, the houses we build), extract more money from taxpayers, force more regulations on businesses, placate a very powerful and vocal environmental lobby, and redistribute wealth within our country, as well as from our country to the rest of the world. We know he will act without Congress when he needs to, as he's stated many times. Like many of his other policies, climate change policies will ultimately be redistributive in nature. All of this will put more power in the hands of the federal government.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/11/30/global-warming-e-mails-scandal-show-scientists-may-have-cooked-the-facts
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/13/Study-Climate-Predictions-Wildly-Overestimated-Global-Warming
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/04/30/global-warming-alarm-continued-cooling-may-jeopardize-climate-science-and-green-energy-funding/
http://www.examiner.com/article/meteorologist-joe-bastardi-blasts-rolling-stone-over-global-warming-article
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/05/obamas-climate-action-plan-directs-officials-to-act-not-wait-for-congress-not-wait-for-laws-to-be-passed/
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/03/this-sundays-nfl-game-in-green-bay-coldest-ever/
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/15/forget-the-temperature-plateau-earth-undergoing-global-cooling-since-2002-climate-scientist-dr-judith-curry-attention-in-the-public-debate-seems-to-be-moving-away-from/
Energy
Since the EPA placed crippling CO2 emission limits on the coal industry which no plant could meet, Obama's promise to bankrupt this industry will one day come to fruition. His refusal, to date, to endorse the Keystone Pipeline, which would reduce fuel costs for the U.S. and make us less dependent on unfriendly oil-rich nations, comes from the belief that it would increase carbon emissions, among other problems, according to environmental groups. And at the same time, he has cut the number of licenses and permits to drill for natural gas on federal land. His moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the huge oil spill, left us without that source of oil for one year, yet he had no problem financing offshore drilling for Brazil. And, he proposed to heavily tax oil and gas companies in the coming decade. Although critics of fracking have claimed the process is environmentally unsafe, former Obama Interior Secretary Ken Salazar insists that hydraulic fracking is safe and sound.
Obama says that alternative energies of solar, wind and biofuels are the future for our economy. This is either naive or Machiavellian - you be the judge. The bottom line is, if this country does not produce the carbon fuels for our energy needs, the economy will decline, our standard of living will decrease, jobs will be lost, energy costs will be higher. Promoting carbon-free energy should be part of a 'do-everything' approach, including gas, oil and coal production. And yet, the pouring of more taxpayer money into more green energy business failures continues. Seemingly, Obama chooses the political decisions, rather than the right decisions, in the push for his transformational agenda.
As mentioned, what the President can't get Congress to do, he will do on his own. The regulatory agencies which are part of the executive branch, have enjoyed more power and authority under this president, than ever before. The EPA, for example, has run roughshod over the states by disregarding the states' regulatory authority. It has essentially substituted input from the states to input from environmental groups (that is a post for another day). Obama has allowed the EPA to issue ruinous limitations and restrictions on energy companies, which in turn, will cause less energy production. It is not a stretch to say this will, in turn, bring down our status as a world power. But, as we have seen, Barack Obama desires to fundamentally transform the United States of America.
Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day, November 2008
The Environment
In the last several years there has been increasing evidence that the dire predictions of Al Gore's 'inconvenient truths' were just not materializing. We were warned that the warming of the Earth was to bring about cataclysmic weather patterns resulting in whole swaths of land being submerged under water, that polar bears were disappearing, that the polar ice caps were melting, that severe storms would increase in frequency. The problem is, these predictions didn't happen. In fact, there was much evidence to the contrary. Remember the Climategate scandal of 2009 in which thousands of emails among climate scientists were leaked? And remember they showed that data was manipulated to 'prove' man-made global warming, because it was politically necessary? Now, it seems, there is a growing number of climate scientists who are reporting that the earth is cooling, and has been for the past decade or so. They predict this cooling trend will last many years, perhaps decades. So, being skeptical about warming doesn't seem all that unreasonable.
Yet, Barack Obama has said on more than one occasion, the science on global warming is "settled." Anyone who is skeptical of this, according to him, has the mentality of a 'flat-earther.' Why? Why is it so important that this be the case, and that anyone with differing views should be ridiculed?
Well, there is an abundance of writing on the subject of climate, the predictions, the inaccuracies, the scandals, the spending, the world reaction, and it is difficult here to distill all of that information into a concise summary. One must do the reading on this to come to his/her own conclusion. Following this post on Environment is a list of links to some worthwhile articles on the subject. One might realize after reading these articles that being skeptical may be the only way to be with this issue.
It seems that much emphasis is put on carbon pollution; in fact, Obama has been aggressively pushing this concept, as it seems to be an engine for environmental policy change. Obama mentions carbon pollution frequently in his speeches about climate. However, carbon dioxide is what we exhale; it is not a toxin. According to Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute, it is
"a natural substance that is not toxic to humans at many times greater than current ambient concentrations and that protects plants from various environmental stresses. It is unlike any other effluent regulated by the EPA for which less is better. Too little carbon dioxide would make life difficult..." http://american.com/archive/2013/june/carbon-pollution-and-wealth-redistribution
Let's also remember that climate changes. Climate is not static, it is cyclical in nature. There has been no trend in the frequency of strong tornadoes, Category 3 or higher hurricanes, or frequency of wildfires in the U.S. Worldwide, there has been no trend in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, and there is no long-term trend in sea level increases. There is no trend in the area of drought; to the contrary, there are more areas in the U.S. with an increase in soil moisture. Emissions of greenhouse gases emanating from the U.S. is proportionately declining in relation to the rest of the world. Just when you think the 'extremes' in weather are unusual, there will always be historic records to contradict it. When you think we've never seen these types of storms before, there will always be precedents to prove you wrong.
So, what is gained from believing (or at least stating) that global warming poses dangers ahead? What's gained is that Obama can then make a case for trying to control it, and in the process, control our lives (the cars we drive, the energy we use, the houses we build), extract more money from taxpayers, force more regulations on businesses, placate a very powerful and vocal environmental lobby, and redistribute wealth within our country, as well as from our country to the rest of the world. We know he will act without Congress when he needs to, as he's stated many times. Like many of his other policies, climate change policies will ultimately be redistributive in nature. All of this will put more power in the hands of the federal government.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/11/30/global-warming-e-mails-scandal-show-scientists-may-have-cooked-the-facts
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/13/Study-Climate-Predictions-Wildly-Overestimated-Global-Warming
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/04/30/global-warming-alarm-continued-cooling-may-jeopardize-climate-science-and-green-energy-funding/
http://www.examiner.com/article/meteorologist-joe-bastardi-blasts-rolling-stone-over-global-warming-article
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/05/obamas-climate-action-plan-directs-officials-to-act-not-wait-for-congress-not-wait-for-laws-to-be-passed/
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/03/this-sundays-nfl-game-in-green-bay-coldest-ever/
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/15/forget-the-temperature-plateau-earth-undergoing-global-cooling-since-2002-climate-scientist-dr-judith-curry-attention-in-the-public-debate-seems-to-be-moving-away-from/
Energy
Since the EPA placed crippling CO2 emission limits on the coal industry which no plant could meet, Obama's promise to bankrupt this industry will one day come to fruition. His refusal, to date, to endorse the Keystone Pipeline, which would reduce fuel costs for the U.S. and make us less dependent on unfriendly oil-rich nations, comes from the belief that it would increase carbon emissions, among other problems, according to environmental groups. And at the same time, he has cut the number of licenses and permits to drill for natural gas on federal land. His moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the huge oil spill, left us without that source of oil for one year, yet he had no problem financing offshore drilling for Brazil. And, he proposed to heavily tax oil and gas companies in the coming decade. Although critics of fracking have claimed the process is environmentally unsafe, former Obama Interior Secretary Ken Salazar insists that hydraulic fracking is safe and sound.
Obama says that alternative energies of solar, wind and biofuels are the future for our economy. This is either naive or Machiavellian - you be the judge. The bottom line is, if this country does not produce the carbon fuels for our energy needs, the economy will decline, our standard of living will decrease, jobs will be lost, energy costs will be higher. Promoting carbon-free energy should be part of a 'do-everything' approach, including gas, oil and coal production. And yet, the pouring of more taxpayer money into more green energy business failures continues. Seemingly, Obama chooses the political decisions, rather than the right decisions, in the push for his transformational agenda.
As mentioned, what the President can't get Congress to do, he will do on his own. The regulatory agencies which are part of the executive branch, have enjoyed more power and authority under this president, than ever before. The EPA, for example, has run roughshod over the states by disregarding the states' regulatory authority. It has essentially substituted input from the states to input from environmental groups (that is a post for another day). Obama has allowed the EPA to issue ruinous limitations and restrictions on energy companies, which in turn, will cause less energy production. It is not a stretch to say this will, in turn, bring down our status as a world power. But, as we have seen, Barack Obama desires to fundamentally transform the United States of America.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Who Wants to Work?
It's official. The Democrats no longer stand for the working middle class. Of course, conservatives have known for decades that liberals stood for dependency, but now the mask is off at their own undoing.
When unemployment numbers are still at an unacceptable rate, (and no incentive to even look for work with benefits lasting nearly two years), when the usage of food stamps is at an all time high, when disability benefits are dispensed at record numbers, and when Obamacare promises to subsidize those making under a certain wage, the Democrats come out in full force and celebrate that our government can offer all these entitlements.
And, when it was revealed that Obamacare would cause a drop in work hours equal to the loss of 2.5 million full time workers over the next decade, the reaction by the Democrats was - great! Who needs to work so hard? Now you can cook dinner for your family instead of getting takeout, says Rep. Keith Ellison. Now you can write poetry or paint with your free time, says Rep. Pelosi. Whatever your passion is, you can now pursue it leisurely. Those pesky full time jobs that people held onto for their health insurance and caused people to have job-lock - whew! That's finally over! According to Pelosi, Schumer, and other far left politicians, Obamacare stands for freedom!
If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable. The Democrats, or the far left, which is who they've become, are happy to be realizing their dream of a dependent nation.
When unemployment numbers are still at an unacceptable rate, (and no incentive to even look for work with benefits lasting nearly two years), when the usage of food stamps is at an all time high, when disability benefits are dispensed at record numbers, and when Obamacare promises to subsidize those making under a certain wage, the Democrats come out in full force and celebrate that our government can offer all these entitlements.
And, when it was revealed that Obamacare would cause a drop in work hours equal to the loss of 2.5 million full time workers over the next decade, the reaction by the Democrats was - great! Who needs to work so hard? Now you can cook dinner for your family instead of getting takeout, says Rep. Keith Ellison. Now you can write poetry or paint with your free time, says Rep. Pelosi. Whatever your passion is, you can now pursue it leisurely. Those pesky full time jobs that people held onto for their health insurance and caused people to have job-lock - whew! That's finally over! According to Pelosi, Schumer, and other far left politicians, Obamacare stands for freedom!
If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable. The Democrats, or the far left, which is who they've become, are happy to be realizing their dream of a dependent nation.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
"I Can Do Whatever I Want"
"I've got a pen and I've got a phone." This is all you need to know about this imperial President.
Obama has brazenly and openly put Congress on notice recently that he will move forward with his agenda whether he has their votes on legislation or not. He has been increasingly bypassing Congress to do what he wants with existing laws, such as Obamacare. For the 27th time he has unilaterally amended the law. Obviously driven by political timing, he chose to postpone the most unpopular parts of Obamacare until after midterm elections, even until after the next presidential election. Another such example, among many, is the decision to relax the rules for potential immigrants who gave limited support to terrorists. This directly conflicts with the strict laws that were passed by Congress and already on the books. Apparently, Obama does not consider the three branches of government as co-equal branches, and acts as though the Executive Branch supercedes the others.
So, when he jokes around with French President Hollande as they are touring Monticello, Obama remarks "That's the good thing as a President, I can do whatever I want" - he reveals his true feelings about his Presidency.
"I've got a pen and I've got a phone."
Obama has brazenly and openly put Congress on notice recently that he will move forward with his agenda whether he has their votes on legislation or not. He has been increasingly bypassing Congress to do what he wants with existing laws, such as Obamacare. For the 27th time he has unilaterally amended the law. Obviously driven by political timing, he chose to postpone the most unpopular parts of Obamacare until after midterm elections, even until after the next presidential election. Another such example, among many, is the decision to relax the rules for potential immigrants who gave limited support to terrorists. This directly conflicts with the strict laws that were passed by Congress and already on the books. Apparently, Obama does not consider the three branches of government as co-equal branches, and acts as though the Executive Branch supercedes the others.
So, when he jokes around with French President Hollande as they are touring Monticello, Obama remarks "That's the good thing as a President, I can do whatever I want" - he reveals his true feelings about his Presidency.
"I've got a pen and I've got a phone."
Sunday, February 9, 2014
The Militarization of Our Police
Are the lines between the police and the military starting to blur? This is a question that many, including the American Civil Liberties Union, are raising, since the federal government is exerting more control over local law enforcement. Surplus military equipment in the way of armored vehicles, helicopters, military style weapons and surveillance drones are going to local police departments, thanks to grants from the Department of Homeland Security.. .but, not without strings attached. Fusion centers are being created to share information among federal, state and local law enforcement. And, as police departments buy up military grade equipment, there is also an increasing use of heavily armed SWAT teams being utilized for non-violent causes, for example executing routine administrative searches, and using more militaristic tactics in the process. http://www.businessinsider.com/local-police-military-weapons-tactics-2013-3
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17056-obama-flooding-u-s-streets-with-weapons-of-war-for-local-police
The militarization of the police has been happening over many years. In recent times, however, there seem to be more reports of excessive police force and overreaction in situations. They appear to be blatantly violating our Fourth Amendment right to be secure in our "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.."
One would think that if the police are investigating credit card fraud, a white collar crime, that a SWAT team of police literally breaking down a door wouldn't be necessary. But that's precisely what happened in Iowa, even though the police had a 'knock and announce' warrant, designed to give the homeowner a chance to answer the door without a violent intrusion to the property and persons inside. In this case, the knock and announce part was merely a formality, for no one waited for an answer. They rammed in the door and announced they were police. Inside though, was a legal gun owner who was coming out of the bathroom and heard the break-in; he pulled his gun but when he realized it was the police in the house, put the gun back into his holster. This could have ended tragically, had he not heard it was police. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/02/04/scenes-from-a-militarized-america-iowa-family-terrorized//?print=1
Several months ago, several black and Hispanic owned barbershops were turned upside down by heavily armed sheriff's deputies - people were handcuffed and held at gunpoint, while the SWAT team looked for illegal guns and drugs. In the end, 34 of the 37 were charged with "barbering without a license," a misdemeanor. All done without a search warrant, because these were 'licensure' searches, not criminal searches. In New Haven, a SWAT team was sent to investigate underage drinking at a local bar. Several other raids such as these are outlined in the following article. http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/13/the-swat-team-would-like-to-se
Now that more and more police departments are purchasing surveillance drones, we can expect to see more of our local police deploying them to locate suspects. A North Dakota man has the distinction of being the first American to have been arrested with the assistance of a Predator drone. He was accused of keeping a few cows who had wandered onto his property, and the drone helped locate him. This opens up many questions about the right of law enforcement to use surveillance drones without a warrant. http://betabeat.com/2014/01/north-dakota-cow-thief-is-first-american-arrested-jailed-with-drones-help/
And in Florida recently, a woman was told to leave her house during a police standoff with one of her neighbors. She left her home, and when she returned six hours later, her home had been tampered with. It seems the police had used her home, without permission, to gain a tactical advantage with the suspect, and entered her house without a warrant. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/05/florida-woman-furious-after-swat-team-orders-her-out-of-her-own-home-during-standoff-with-neighbor-and-what-she-found-when-she-returned-home/
Although it appears as though the Fourth Amendment is being violated with these tactics, there is legitimate questions over whether the Third Amendment too is being trampled on - "no soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner...". If our police are looking and acting like soldiers in war, then these incidents will challenge our Constitution in more ways than one. This should be concerning to all Americans, no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17056-obama-flooding-u-s-streets-with-weapons-of-war-for-local-police
The militarization of the police has been happening over many years. In recent times, however, there seem to be more reports of excessive police force and overreaction in situations. They appear to be blatantly violating our Fourth Amendment right to be secure in our "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.."
One would think that if the police are investigating credit card fraud, a white collar crime, that a SWAT team of police literally breaking down a door wouldn't be necessary. But that's precisely what happened in Iowa, even though the police had a 'knock and announce' warrant, designed to give the homeowner a chance to answer the door without a violent intrusion to the property and persons inside. In this case, the knock and announce part was merely a formality, for no one waited for an answer. They rammed in the door and announced they were police. Inside though, was a legal gun owner who was coming out of the bathroom and heard the break-in; he pulled his gun but when he realized it was the police in the house, put the gun back into his holster. This could have ended tragically, had he not heard it was police. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/02/04/scenes-from-a-militarized-america-iowa-family-terrorized//?print=1
Several months ago, several black and Hispanic owned barbershops were turned upside down by heavily armed sheriff's deputies - people were handcuffed and held at gunpoint, while the SWAT team looked for illegal guns and drugs. In the end, 34 of the 37 were charged with "barbering without a license," a misdemeanor. All done without a search warrant, because these were 'licensure' searches, not criminal searches. In New Haven, a SWAT team was sent to investigate underage drinking at a local bar. Several other raids such as these are outlined in the following article. http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/13/the-swat-team-would-like-to-se
Now that more and more police departments are purchasing surveillance drones, we can expect to see more of our local police deploying them to locate suspects. A North Dakota man has the distinction of being the first American to have been arrested with the assistance of a Predator drone. He was accused of keeping a few cows who had wandered onto his property, and the drone helped locate him. This opens up many questions about the right of law enforcement to use surveillance drones without a warrant. http://betabeat.com/2014/01/north-dakota-cow-thief-is-first-american-arrested-jailed-with-drones-help/
And in Florida recently, a woman was told to leave her house during a police standoff with one of her neighbors. She left her home, and when she returned six hours later, her home had been tampered with. It seems the police had used her home, without permission, to gain a tactical advantage with the suspect, and entered her house without a warrant. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/05/florida-woman-furious-after-swat-team-orders-her-out-of-her-own-home-during-standoff-with-neighbor-and-what-she-found-when-she-returned-home/
Although it appears as though the Fourth Amendment is being violated with these tactics, there is legitimate questions over whether the Third Amendment too is being trampled on - "no soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner...". If our police are looking and acting like soldiers in war, then these incidents will challenge our Constitution in more ways than one. This should be concerning to all Americans, no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)