Obama: “I will Negotiate with Russia…” – Reason #75

Only 80 Days Remaining!

Obama to Slow Development of Combat Systems

Obama has sometimes proven as good as his word.  While on the campaign trail in 2007, he shared a few of his Presidential plans for the national defense.  While some may sound normal and prudent, a few of these plans could easily be construed as short sighted, naïve – even treasonous.  Worst of all, some of his aims remain unknown.  What was he promising when he was caught with an open mic, telling Russian President Dimitri Medvedev that the would have more flexibility after the election?  What was he planning when he asked for recommendations on the reduction of our nuclear arsenal?  Here’s what he told us in 2007.  Was anybody listening?

“I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning.  And as President, I will end it.  Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.  I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.  I will not weaponize space.  I will slow our development of future combat systems and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.  Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons.  To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”[i] (Emphasis added)

Recall Obama’s decision to scrap our missile shield system in Eastern Europe,[ii] his later intention of sharing classified missile defense system specs with the Russians[iii] and his change of focus in the space program.[iv]In noting Obama’s plan to “slow our development of future combat systems,” I couldn’t help being reminded also, of the words of the late Albert E. DuBois, a good friend and a 1940 graduate of the FBI National Academy.  Mr. DuBois once told me of a NAZI methodology of slowing U.S. war production.  The example he gave was the infiltration of fifth columnists to work in ancillary factories, such as those manufacturing ball bearings for use in military aircraft.  These workers were trained to slow production and, when possible, to shut down operations by causing labor strife.  Since the ball bearings were such a minor part of aircraft production, the link between these slowdowns and the war effort was often successfully hidden.

In retrospect however, there is nothing clandestine about Obama’s plan.  He simply and arrogantly announces his plan – calls it “Transparency” – mesmerizes the mainstream media and continues to “Fundamentally Transform” our country.


[i] Senator Barack Obama (October, 2007) in a recorded message to the liberal group Caucus 4 Priorities, quoted in Andrew Walden (June 10, 2008), American Thinker Blog, Obama’s War, retrieved January 10, 2012 from http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/obamas_war.html

[ii] MSNBC (Sep 17, 2009), MSNBC web-site, Obama scraps Bush-era Europe missile shield, retrieved January 10, 2012 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32889934/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-scraps-bush-era-europe-missile-shield/

[iii] Bill Gertz (Jan. 4, 2012), Washington Times web-site, Inside the Ring, Pentagon Shifts East, retrieved January 5, 2012 from http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/4/inside-the-ring-215329133/?page=all#pagebreak

[iv] Gene Cernan, (Dec. 30, 2011), Fox Nation web-site, Interview with Megyn Kelly, Last American to Walk on Moon Tears Obama Apart Over Weak U.S. Space Program, retrieved December 31, 2011 from http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/12/30/last-american-walk-moon-tears-obama-apart-over-weak-us-space-program

Obama and his Constant Struggle for the Low Ground! – Reason #73

Only 82 Days Remaining!

When Convictions and Campaigns Conflict

During his 2010 State of the Union Address, President Obama startled America when he directed his displeasure directly at the black robed figures respectfully congregated a few yards in front of him and representing the Supreme Court of the United States and the third branch of government – the Judiciary.  Showing his ire, Obama placed the Justices on a “Hot seat” from which they were neither invited nor expected to respond:

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

Obama was addressing the issue of the so-called “Super PACs.”  Later, at a 2010 Campaign rally in  Philadelphia, Obama added to and clarified his State of the Union remarks, pronouncing:

“Now that’s not just a threat to Democrats, that’s a threat to our democracy.”[i]

Here was obviously a man of conviction.  Recall that in a 2007 campaign rally, candidate Obama excoriated John Edwards for saying he was against 527s (PACs), but, then having such a group, headed by his former campaign manager, purchase $750,000 in television time.  Obama righteously went on to say at that time:

“So, you can’t say yesterday, you don’t believe in them and today, you have ¾ of a million dollars being spent for you.  You can’t just talk the talk.  The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during an election time.  Everybody talks about change during election time.  You’ve got to look at how do they act when it’s not convenient – when it’s hard…”[ii]

Still apparently protecting Democracy and standing on his convictions – even in hard times – oops!  It seems a funny thing happened on the way to the 2012 election…Obama’s Campaign Manager – Jim Messina – stated in February, 2012, that:

“With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules. Democrats can’t be unilaterally disarmed.” [iii]

Unilateral disarmament in this administration, is apparently restricted to nuclear warheads and national defense – not for campaigns.  And with that, the Super PACs were alive and well in the Obama campaign.  Apparently, there was more at stake than walking the talk – more at stake than Democracy.  Apparently, President Obama’s principled stand is largely contingent upon his re-election prospects.

What a surprise.


[i] President Barack Obama, quoted in My Fox Orlando web-site, (Feb. 7, 2012), Team Obama Wants Super PAC Spending… So Obama Can Stop Super PAC Spending; Romney Attacks Elevate, retrieved February 7, 2012 from http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/Team-Obama-Wants-Super-PAC-Spending-So-Obama-Can-Stop-Super-PAC-Spending-Romney-Attacks-Elevate-Santorum_67703630

[ii] FoxNation, (Feb. 9, 2012), video provided by TheRightScoop.com, Right Scoop: Obama Will Do and Say Anything to Get Reelected, retrieved February 9, 2012 from http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/02/09/right-scoop-obama-will-do-and-say-anything-get-reelected

[iii] Jim Messina, quoted in My Fox Orlando web-site, (Feb. 7, 2012), Team Obama Wants Super PAC Spending… So Obama Can Stop Super PAC Spending; Romney Attacks Elevate, retrieved February 7, 2012 from http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/Team-Obama-Wants-Super-PAC-Spending-So-Obama-Can-Stop-Super-PAC-Spending-Romney-Attacks-Elevate-Santorum_67703630

Congress Now Optional? – Reason #69

Only 86 Days Remaining!

Obama Sees Congress as Optional

According to a recent New York Times article by Peter Baker, the President has now signed into law, a bill that gives him the right to immediately appoint scores of presidential appointees without Senate confirmation.  While many would agree that this bipartisan bill further erodes our system of checks and balances, few should be surprised.  We might even argue that the new law merely gives legitimacy to a practice already implemented by Obama – a practice exemplified by his appointment of Richard Cordray.

While Obama seems to have manufactured a “Recess Appointment” scenario in order to appoint Richard Cordray as the first Director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the problem appears much worse than a single abusive action to avoid Senate Confirmation hearings on one appointee.  Indeed, in an interview with Rob Quirk, of KOAA, Colorado Springs, Colorado, the President commented easily on what has become his increasingly familiar position:

“Well, what we’re going to have to do is continue to make progress on the economy over the next several months. And where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves. But it would be nice if we could get a little bit of help from Capitol Hill.”[i]

While this may seem very action oriented, it also provides a clear distinction between the prerogatives of a President and the prerogatives of a Monarch.  If every President had the prerogative to decide when and why to circumvent congressional authority, our Democracy would soon be a historical footnote.  A vote for Obama in 2012 will take us one step closer to that day.


[i] President Barack Obama, (2011), Real Clear Politics web-site, Obama: “Where Congress Is Not Willing To Act, We’re Going To Go Ahead And Do It Ourselves”, retrieved January 7, 2012 from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/14/obama_where_congress_is_not_willing_to_act_were_going_to_go_ahead_and_do_it_ourselves.html

Obama – Promises to Disregard Law – Reason #68

Only 87 Days Remaining!

Obama – Promises to Disregard Law

During his campaign for the Presidency in 2008, then Senator Obama was asked by a member of the audience:  “When Congress offers you a bill, do you promise not to use Presidential Signage to get your way?”  His one word answer was “Yes.”  His follow-up explanation however, drove the point home, that this was an unconstitutional and reprehensible act for any President.  In his own words:

“We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there would be checks and balances.  You don’t want a President that’s too powerful, or a Congress that’s too powerful, or Courts that are too powerful.  Everybody’s got their own role.  Congress’ job is to pass legislation.  The President can veto it, or he can sign it.  But, what George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the Presidency, he’s been saying ‘Well, I can basically change what Congress passed, by attaching a letter saying I don’t agree with this part, or I don’t agree with that part.  I’m going to choose to interpret it this way, or that way.’  That’s not part of his power.  But, this is part of the whole theory of George Bush – that he can make laws as he’s going along.  I disagree with that.  I taught the Constitution for ten years.  I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.  We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.  All right?”[i]

Very strong language indeed for a President who boasts an ability and intention to go around Congress, and who noted in signing into law the National Defense Authorization Act, that he disagreed with 14 sections of the bill, saying:

“…should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.”[ii]

In still another of the 19 signing statements issued by President Obama thru the end of 2011, Obama blocked the defunding of four of his “Czar” positions, stating that:

“Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President’s ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Therefore, the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.”[iii]

Which of the campaign promises Obama makes in the run-up to the 2012 Presidential election will be as solid as his assurances against “Signing Statements”?  Which other Constitutional principles will he defend with equal respect and passion?


[i] Senator Barack Obama, (2008), Doug Powers (Oct. 28, 2011), Michelle Malkin web-site, Charles Rangel: Obama Working Around Congress is Okay Because of the Gridlock, video in article posted by “brianamburgey”, Obama on Presidential Signing Statements, retrieved January 6, 2012, from http://michellemalkin.com/2011/10/28/charles-rangel-gridlock/

[ii] President Barack Obama, (Dec. 31, 2011) White House web-site, Statements & Releases, Statement by the President on H.R. 1540, retrieved January 6, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

[iii] President Barack Obama, (April 15, 2011), White House web-site, Statements & Releases, Statement by the President on H.R. 1473, retrieved January 6, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/15/statement-president-hr-1473

Did Obama Describe an American Gestapo? – Reason #66

Only 89 Days Remaining!

 

Did Obama Describe an American Gestapo?

On July 2, 2008, during a rally in Colorado Springs, then Senator Obama made one of the most startling statements ever heard from a Presidential candidate.  Obama told the American public:

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that 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.” [i]

FactCheck.org soundly ridiculed Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), after Broun responded to Obama’s comment, saying “It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s [Obama’s] the one who proposed this national security force. … That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did.”[ii]

How does any person, news, or other organization of any kind justify ridiculing anyone questioning such a bizarre announcement from a sitting Senator and would-be President of the United States?  The ridiculing of Rep. Broun was no less dangerous than the Obama statement itself.


            [i] Brooks Jackson, (November 11, 2008), FactCheck.org website, Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like “civilian national security force”? retrieved February 17, 2011 from http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html

            [ii] Brooks Jackson, (November 11, 2008), FactCheck.org website, Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like “civilian national security force”? retrieved February 17, 2011 from http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html

Obama Unfazed by Constitution – Reason #65

Only 90 Days Remaining!

Obama Unfazed by Constitution

In a 2008 article that otherwise appeared very defensive of the Obama campaign, ABC News at least provided the following glimpse into Presidential Candidate Obama’s thought process:

“The Missouri Truth Squad, an Obama campaign press release stated last week, would ‘respond quickly, forcefully, and aggressively when John McCain or his allies launch inaccurate claims or character attacks about Barack Obama, or when they distort Barack Obama’s record or plans.’”[i]

Members of this “Truth Squad,” included members with “law enforcement powers, such as St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, and Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer,” [ii] giving a very different tone to the campaign’s promise to respond to so called inaccuracies, “…quickly, forcefully, and aggressively.”

When the NRA-Political Victory Fund called into question, “Sen. Obama’s statements and support for restricting access to firearms,” Obama reportedly “sent ‘cease and desist letters’ to news outlets in the two states, ‘denouncing the ads,” “demanding their removal from the airwaves,’” and “…warning station managers that in order to stay in the Federal Communication commission’s good graces, they should not air the ads.”[iii]

Missouri Governor Matt Blunt weighed in, saying:

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights…”[iv]


[i] Natalie Gewargis, (Sept. 29, 2008), ABC News web-site, Political Punch, Attacking Obama’s Missouri ‘Truth Squad,’ retrieved December 23, 2011, from http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/09/attacking-obama/

[ii] Natalie Gewargis, (Sept. 29, 2008), ABC News web-site, Political Punch, Attacking Obama’s Missouri ‘Truth Squad,’ retrieved December 23, 2011, from http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/09/attacking-obama/

[iii] World Net Daily staff, (Sept. 27, 2008) World Net Daily Web-Site, Backlash to Obama Officials Squelching Political Speech: Law Enforcement Threats, intimidation likened to ‘Police-State Tactics,’ by Missouri Governor, retrieved December 23, 2011, from http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=76438

[iv] World Net Daily staff, (Sept. 27, 2008) World Net Daily Web-Site, Backlash to Obama Officials Squelching Political Speech: Law Enforcement Threats, intimidation likened to ‘Police-State Tactics,’ by Missouri Governor, retrieved December 23, 2011, from http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=76438

Bulletin: White Houise Seeking Informants – Reason #64

Only 91 Days Remaining!

Bulletin: White House Seeking Informants

If you’re old enough to remember the early days of Fidel Castro, then you remember when neighbors were urged to inform on neighbors – particularly, against those expressing contrary political opinions.  But then, Castro wasn’t the first and he won’t be the last dictator to sponsor this type of nightmarish reality.  Most Americans feel an icy chill, just thinking about a government that divisive – that controlling – that paranoid – that dangerous.  Welcome to the Obama Administration.

In August, 2009, Linda Douglass, Communications Director for the White House’s Health Reform Office, appeared on national television, sitting at her computer screen, ostensibly tracking misinformation circulating about the new President’s Healthcare Reform plan.  Turning towards the TV cameras, Douglass explained:

“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.” [i] (Emphasis Added)

Is this the type of request you anticipated from the office of the President of the United States?  It’s an easily explainable request and a case can certainly be made for the paranoia of those who see it as sinister.  Yet, it runs along the periphery of very ugly territory – informing on our neighbors’ exercise of free speech.  The loss of liberty in minute doses is hardly felt until it is suddenly gone.  Arguably, this type of request provides a clear indication of how quickly, how far, by what means and in what areas the American people can be pushed into compliance with new policies.


[i] Posted by Macon Phillips, (August 4, 2009), The White House Blog, Facts are Stubborn Things,” retrieved March 2, 2011 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/08/04/facts-are-stubborn-things

Treasury Employees Owe $8 million in Taxes – Checking Your Return – Reason #61

Meet the Taxing Authority!

Only 106 Days Remaining!

Treasury Employees Owe $8 million in Taxes – Checking Your Return

According to the Los Angeles Times, in 2010, federal employees in total, owed approximately one billion dollars in back taxes, with $831,000 owed exclusively by individuals working In the White House.  If that’s not sufficiently troubling, nearly eight million dollars was owed by just over 1,200 Treasury employees[i] – you know – Treasury.  This is the Dept. running the Internal Revenue Service!

We keep hearing that nearly 50% of Americans pay no taxes.  We just never thought they were the ones running our government.


[i] Andrew Malcolm, (Sept. 10, 2010), LA Times web-site, Top of the Ticket, 41 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $831,000 in back taxes — and they’re not alone, retrieved February 24, 2012 from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/congress-taxes-irs.html

Constitution, Law and Justice

Talk and Actions Matching? – Reason #55

Only 116 Days Remaining!

Obama – A New Washington Culture?

In a speech in Green Bay on Sept. 22, 2008, then candidate Obama was quoted as saying:

“We must change Washington.  We must reform our regulations, our politics and our government, but we will not be able to make these changes with the same policies, the same lobbyists or the same Washington culture that allows politicians and special interests to set their own agenda.”[i]

Nice sentiments indeed, for a politician who only a few months later, nominated a Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, who had allegedly made “hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting and speaking fees from health and pharmaceutical interests, some of which would be at the heart of any effort to overhaul the nation’s health care system” [ii] – an HHS Secretary also found to be owing $128,000 in back taxes.

No hypocrisy here.


[i] Barack Obama, quoted in Linton Weeks, (Feb. 3, 2009), NPR web-site, Obama Nominees: Who’s in and Who’s out, retrieved February 5, 2012 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100249850

[ii] Linton Weeks, (Feb. 3, 2009), NPR web-site, Obama Nominees: Who’s in and Who’s out, retrieved February 5, 2012 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100249850

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is This Hope and Change? – Reason #54

Only 117 Days Remaining!

Safe Schools Czar – Really?

From 2009 – 2011, Kevin Jennings served as Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar,” with the formidable official title of Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, U.S. Department of Education.

According to Fox News, Jennings – a former teacher himself – has advocated for the promotion of homosexuality in schools and, on one known occasion, failed to report a probable sexual encounter between a 15 year old student and an older adult.[i]  When told by the boy: ‘Well, I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him,'” Jennings told the student, “You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.”  The young man answered “Why should I? My life isn’t worth saving anyway.”[ii]

Following media reports showing the boy as 15 and therefore, underage in Massachusetts, where the incident occurred, the ex-student reportedly came forward to advise that he was actually 16 at the time – the Massachusetts age of consent.  He also said in an interview with Media Matters, that he “…had no sexual contact with anybody at the time.”[iii]  In a 2000 speech however, Jennings indicated the boy was 15.[iv] This was apparently Jennings’ belief at the time of the incident.


[i] Maxim Lott, (September 23, 2009), Fox News web-site: Politics, Critics Assail Obama’s ‘Safe Schools’ Czar, Say He’s Wrong Man for the Job, retrieved March 3, 2011 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/critics-assail-obamas-safe-schools-czar-say-hes-wrong-man-job/

[ii] Fox News, (October 3, 2009), Fox News web-site:Politics, Former Student Defends Obama’s ‘Safe Schools’ Czar Against Allegations, retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/03/student-defends-obamas-safe-schools-czar-allegations/

[iii] Ibid

 

[iv] William F. Jasper, (December 7, 2009), The New American, Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar”: Homosexual Activist and Founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network Kevin Jennings, Now Obama’s Safe-Schools Czar, Is Using His Position to “Queer” American Education, Volume 25, Issue 25, 17+

 

Enhanced by Zemanta