Wednesday, January 30, 2013

What Can We Learn from Fast and Furious and Benghazi?

Is there anything we can learn from Fast and Furious and Benghazi? Other than the fact that the government is inept, these failings teach us that the federal government is much too big.

Eric Holder, head of the Department of Justice (DOJ), was cleared of any wrong doing in the Fast and Furious operation basically because he had no knowledge of the operation. If this is true, is ignorance about the largest gun walking program in U.S. history a good excuse? Holder should have been aware of a program and operation as large as Fast and Furious. If he is unable to have clear knowledge of a program that was designed to infiltrate the Mexican drug cartel then it proves that either he is inept and or the DOJ is much too large and convoluted for Holder to perform his job properly. The consequences of the government losing track of the guns led to the death of a U.S. border agent and hundreds, if not thousands, of Mexican lives. Still, the Manti Te’o hoax story has garnered more headlines than the death of hundreds of people. And this story has never received the same scrutiny as the Bush administration received for dismissing seven federal judges or the outing of CIA agent Valarie Plame.

If the Fast and Furious debacle is not bad enough, the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya may be a better example of government size, ineptness, and breach of power.

"I didn't see those requests," Secretary of State Clinton added when asked about the dozens of cables sent to the State Department by Ambassador Stevens about the declining security in Libya. Although Clinton said that she accepted responsibility for the tragedy, this does not escape the fact she should have seen these requests. Once again this is ineptness and or the fact the size of the State Department is too big.

Still, no one has been brought to justice for the Benghazi attack: “We continue to hunt the terrorists responsible for the attacks in Benghazi and are determined to bring them to justice,” Clinton said.

Clinton scolded Senator, Ron Johnson, who queried her about being “misled” by the original talking points which claimed the Benghazi attack occurred because of an anti-Muslim video. “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make” Clinton scolded Johnson, raising her voice. “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.” But it does make a difference for several reasons. First, it took place prior to an election making motive to change the talking points more relevant. Second, Obama campaigned that Al-Qaida had been decimated and this would prove otherwise. Third, Obama moved unilaterally to aid the Libyan rebels with air support – this makes the President complicit in this attack. And finally, this once again shows the size and scope of government is too big. At least a dozen people and government groups had their hands on the Benghazi talking points, otherwise it would be easy to ascertain who changed the talking points and why.

Among Clinton’s more notable – and chilling – other comments made at her Congressional testimony about Benghazi: Islamist fighters around the region are now equipped with heavy weapons seized from unsecured Libyan arsenals after the fall of strongman Moammar Gadhafi. Critics of the NATO-led campaign to help rebels topple him had warned of the prospects that his arsenals would fall into extremist hands.

That proliferation is “the source of one of our biggest threats” in the region, Clinton said. The American mission in Benghazi was trying to “track down and find and recover” weapons like missiles that can bring down an airplane, she said. But there is “no doubt” that the extremists who carried out a bloody hostage-taking in Algeria, members of Al-Qaida in the Maghreb (AQIM) in Mali, and fighters in Syria, all had arms from Libya.

Yes, Clinton confirmed the same weapons used by Libyan rebels were used to kill 36 hostages in Algeria. And what’s worse, she confirmed that the American mission in Libya was responsible to track down heavy weaponry that got in the wrong hands - doesn’t this sound like a dangerous mission that would require extensive security? This mission sounds important enough that any head of the State Department would want to be updated on daily. This was more than an egregious oversight; it is an example of government incompetence!

Remember, our President, aided the Libyan rebels with air support – a move he did so unilaterally without congressional consent. In essence, Obama was the only American complicit in creating and arming Al-Qaida in Northern Africa. Yet, all we hear about in the news is the Manti Te’o hoax. Is anyone going to be held accountable for all these deaths and it isn’t time to reduce the size and scope of government to prevent future blunders, mistakes, incompetence, cover ups, corruption, waste, and fraud.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Obama's Arab Spring is a Colossal Failure

When Obama decided to go to war unilaterally in Libya (without the consent of Congress – against the writings of the Constitution), I wrote that this was a big mistake. Not just for violating the Constitution, but because he was only going to use our Air Force and no ground troops. Yes, this move probably saved the lives of American soldiers (in the short term), but without a ground presence Obama could not influence the creation of a democratic state free of Islamic extremists and most importantly, Obama could not tell what type of people the Libyan rebels were. After all, it makes little sense to overthrow Qaddafi and install a government that is less sympathetic to the West. And this is exactly what happened and now terrorist cells, especially linked to al-Qaida, are growing in Northern Africa. The attack on our embassy in Benghazi and now the attack on the Amenas oil compound in Algeria illustrates exactly what happens when we go to war blindly. Obama sided with Libyan rebels without understanding their intentions and he was not alone. France and other NATO powers also supported the Libyan rebels and provided them weaponry to oust Qaddafi. For these reasons, if the U.S. is going to go to war, it is best to have a debate over the subject to prevent errors from a sole egomaniac. That is why the Constitution says only Congress can go to war, not the President.

Obama campaigned that al-Qaida was dead and on the run. The events in Benghazi and Algeria, in a period of less than 5 months, shows that al-Qaida in Asia may be on the run, but al-Qaida in Northern Africa is alive and well and we were complicit in their growth. Both of these attacks were complicated and took months of planning. To make matters worse, despite video coverage of the Benghazi assault, to date no arrests have been made. It seems as if the administration does not want to get to the bottom of this attack and simply hopes the story goes away. Not that there is too much concern over the media’s allegiance since there was more coverage over the Manti Te’o hoax at Notre Dame than the terrorist assault that transpired in Algeria – killing at least 29 hostages.

Many of the Islamist terrorists shot their way into the In Amenas compound using the AK104 model of Kalashnikov, which was typically used by Libyan rebels in the war against Muammar Gaddafi. They brought F5 rockets that also surfaced in the Libyan war. The Islamists wore the same type of outfits that Qatar provided to Libyan National Transitional Council rebels by Qatar (remember the Qatar government sponsors Al-Jazeera and now Al Gore) – yellow flak jackets with brown patches, known as "chocolate chip" camouflage. The garments are copies of ones worn by Americans in the Gulf war. The terrorists also employed 60mm gun-mortars used by France and Libyan rebels.

So there you have it! Obama and NATO allies provided the weaponry and avenue to power for Libyan rebels who have, in turn, used their weapons and power to successfully attack Westerners using well devised plans. Obama has created a monster in Northern Africa and how has his administration responded? By trying to cover up the attacks and doing nothing to find the culprits. Why? They want the story to go away! Besides, only a few media outlets are covering this rise of al-Qaida in Northern Africa. Where is the liberal outrage over this? Why isn’t this being as scrutinized as the Iraq War (which Congress voted for)?

Friday, January 25, 2013

Obama Lays Out Second Term Agenda: More Spending

Obama gave more of State of the Union Address than an inauguration speech. To me, this speech was no different than any other Obama speech which calls for increased government intervention and spending. We have gone four years under this President without a budget and we can expect much of the same.

“No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.” said Obama. He continued “We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.” What can we interpret from these words – Government is the uniting force in this country and without its spending America would crumble and people would stay impoverished. The facts are clear, no President has poured more money into infrastructure (stimulus) and anti-poverty programs (increase over 20%). And what is the end result of this spending? - No net infrastructure improvements (no more miles of interstate, no improvements to our power grid, and no net expansion of our power grid) and more people living in poverty. Throwing money at problems does not work because money is only one variable out of hundreds.

Obama also said “We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.” Once again, how can we interpret these words? It means Obama will continue to spend. It is always easy to spend other people’s money and therefore, it is easier to be wasteful with other people’s money. Does anyone find it the least bit curious Obama talks about reducing the cost of healthcare after passing his multi-trillion dollar ObamaCare act into law? Obama said that ObamaCare would reduce healthcare costs, but anyone who can read this law understands why healthcare and insurance costs are more out of control than ever before.

Obama said “The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.” Once again there is only one way to interpret these words. It means we can expect no cuts to entitlement spending even though they are the fastest growing sector of our national budget. These programs are not sustainable and reforms are needed. There is no way Obama is serious about the size of our deficit without addressing entitlements.

Obama continued “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.” Obama is using fear mongering as a ploy to initiate more spending to stop climate change. And anyone who truly understands science realizes there is not enough money in the world to accomplish this task. Also from these words we can conclude that Obama will continue investing in green companies (these are vulture government policies used for quid pro quo purposes to gain favors, to pick winners and losers in industry, create tax loopholes and convolute tax forms, and to increase lobbying) and not new technology. Investing in companies who have no technological advantages over foreign competition will not win and that is why billions of these dollars are being squandered on company after company that is going bankrupt.

Obama said “Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.” From this we can conclude that immigration reform is on the way. And that is fine, but we must realize adding many more citizens will continue to strain our government spending in the form of entitlements and healthcare. And if comprehensive immigration reform passes, it will mark the fourth time in our history that a plurality of Republicans, not Democrats, passed legislation to end slavery, women’s suffrage, civil rights, and now immigration.

How will Obama accomplish these tasks? The Obama campaign machine is now in 24/7/365 mode. This means Obama will continue to use his campaign machine to win public opinion on climate change, to demonize the Right, and to expand government spending. The Obama machine has raised more money than any other President and will continue to add to this record even though he will never run for office again. The Left calls these monies gained through corporations as evil, but really this only applies when the money goes to Republicans. It is okay that corporations paid for the biggest inauguration party in history – so long as it is a Democrat president. I have read several liberal posts these past few weeks and they want Obama to crush conservatives. And he will have the money to accomplish this task – to hit the airwaves with Obama’s ideologue message to brainwash Americans. If Barack and Michele’s reaction to Boehner comments is to roll their eyes, this is an indication of their intolerance and arrogance towards their adversaries. Hence, we can expect Obama to use money and his political machine to destroy conservatives. These are the same reactions and consequences we can expect from children. Yes, the first family basically consists of four children. Only children would lack respect for competition and adversaries. This is our narcissistic generation at work when we no longer consider the ideas of others and think we are always 100% correct. Personally, I hope liberals get their way because we have to hit rock bottom before we can fix the problem of a government dependent nation.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Why Obama's Gun Proposals are Wrong

I am going to take the opposite argument on Obama’s gun executive orders Personally, I have little issue with making background checks to purchase guns more stringent and universal. And I have little problem with banning assault guns and limiting ammunitions in magazines or clips. Actually, I think the best way to control gun violence and gain more forensic crime data is to use smart guns I know conservatives hate the ideas I propose in this article, but they are better than having the government passing laws banning guns and making it harder to buy a weapon.

My personal perspective is based on being a victim of gun violence as a youth. This tends to make me more liberal on the gun issues. That being said, none of the Obama proposals nor my owning a weapon would have stopped what happened to me because the predator was living in my house. The same can be said that Obama executive orders on guns would not have prevented what happened in Newtown Connecticut or Aurora Colorado this past year. I highlight reasons including the Constitution, Fast and Furious, mental illness, and so forth as to why Obama’s executive orders are wrong, won’t work, meaningless, and are hypocritical in this article:

All of this being said, there is one glaring reason why Obama’s executive orders are wrong regardless if I think they are acceptable. Obama argues that these executive orders do not infringe on anyone’s second amendment rights. Even if the Supreme Court agrees, this is “progressive” politics at work. And “progressive” is the appropriate name given to liberal politics. That is because progressives want to progressively change the Constitution and this country to mirror their ideology. And allowing the President to pass an executive order on gun control is only the first step. With progressives, they will not be satisfied until further steps are taken to control and eliminate guns. The government and liberals are never satisfied with their level of intrusion in the American way of life. After Obama got his way on the fiscal cliff negotiations, which resulted in a tax rate increase on wealthy Americans, the next day Nancy Pelosi said further tax rate increases are still on the table. It is never enough. And for this reason, Obama and liberals will not stop on gun legislation. Once the next massacre occurs, the liberals will politicize the event to push for further gun legislation. They do not care if their legislation fails to address the root cause of violent gun crimes (mental illness) - that is not what they are trying to accomplish. Their goal is to eliminate guns and abolish the second amendment and they will not keep pushing for progressive changes in gun laws until this happens. If the government has the right to force Americans to buy a product (ObamaCare), then what is going to stop them from eventually forcing Americans to not buy a product (guns)? Heck, localities such as New York City have already banned 16 ounce drinks and Happy Meals.

The bottom line is that Obama’s executive orders on guns are nothing more than another liberal and government power grab and citizens should fight this. That is because liberals and government are never satisfied with their power which is progressively finding ways to intrude into the personal lives of Americans.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Obama Stoops to New Low

There is very little that the Obama administration has done in four years that is remotely acceptable. And just when I thought my opinion of the White House could not get any worse, it just did. Not only am I angry that this administration feels it can continually avoid debate and transparency on tough issues such as education, war, immigration, and now guns, but it feels compelled to get children involved in the charade. Obama also had a child present when he signed ObamaCare into law. Just because Obama and Biden behave like children it does not mean it is acceptable for them to involve children in their shenanigans. There are many words that I can use to describe this type of action – indoctrination, inexcusable, propaganda, influence, drama, repulsive, sickening, bullying, emotional, and cowardly. If the NRA used children to support or gain public favor for guns this too would be wrong.

Why does Obama get children involved in his politics? The reason is simple, when public opinion is against your policy you try to make it more personal. And there is nothing more personal than something that affects children. But that is what makes these actions hypocritical. On one hand, Obama may argue his gun and healthcare policies are good for children; but on the other hand, Obama is taking away the innocence of children’s minds by indoctrinating them with biased and opinionated political propaganda. When only one side of the debate is presented whether we like it or not, its purpose is to manipulate and otherwise impartially influence opinion. Involving youths in the gun debate is a manipulative type of bullying, not much different than the type of behavior used by child predators to gain children’s trust and to take advantage of their nativity and innocence. Preying on the emotions of youths is predatory in nature and borders on child abuse.

Youths should not be involved in politics no more than 6 year olds should dating. Once a child is old enough to date than maybe they are ready for politics. Politics today is dirty and vial and is not appropriate for children. It is sad, but politics is solely for mature minds. Children should not be exposed to behavior that is influenced by money, backstabbing, quid pro quo, mudslinging, name calling, and gimmicks. Unfortunately, politicians are by no means ideal role models for children.

It does not matter if Obama bans assault guns, large ammunitions clips, and places the onus on educators to identify bullying and mental illness. This would not have stopped previous and it will not stop future massacres of children or adults. Areas like Chicago with the toughest gun laws also have the highest rates of gun violence. Why? Because liberal laws and sentences are too lenient for gun offenders. And even if an educator identifies bullies and mental illness in children, it is still up to the parents to follow through with medication and medical help. And unfortunately, most parents and people with mental defects live in denial until it is too late.

And how is making health insurance more expensive (ObamaCare) going to help children. If healthcare and insurance costs continue to spiral out of control then how can families afford the medications to keep their children lucid and behaving properly? These are questions that should be open to debate, not unilateral action.

Here is a quick example of liberal hypocrisy when it comes to children and influence. I created a practical project at the elementary school where I volunteer to tutor kids in math and science. We are making our own product and learning how to price the product, the math and science behind building the product, and how to market the product. A few parents told me I was teaching the kids the evils of corporations and profits. I do not politicize anything with the children I teach, I am simply trying to make learning math and science more practical and fun. If what I am doing to educate children, in the minds of some, is evil, then how is what Obama is doing on a national stage alright or remotely appropriate?

Friday, January 18, 2013

Obama's Meaningless Power Grab and Hypocrisy on Guns

Obama’s executive order on gun control is a meaningless and hypocritical power grab. Most executive orders issued by presidents are on mundane issues and have little bearing on our culture. However, Obama has moved unilaterally, using executive orders, on complicated and controversial issues that will have both a huge bearing on American culture especially in terms of taxpayer costs. Obama has used his executive order privilege power grab to circumvent Congress (avoid debate and transparency) on the war in Libya, immigration reform, and now gun control. It seemingly makes more sense to hold open and transparent debates and pass an amendment to the constitution or legislation that supports the will of the people. Obama is using executive orders to bypass the will of the people and uphold the will of the far progressive left.

Why is this Obama executive order hypocritical? The first reason is the failed Fast and Furious program by the administration! Under this program the ATF with approval from the DOJ allowed over 2000 assault weapons to walk from the United States to Mexico. The goal was to track the weapons to infiltrate drug cartels. Sounds good, unfortunately the ATF lost track of the guns and they have since been used to murder thousands of Mexicans and have showed up at crime sites in the United States, including the killing of border agent, Brian Terry. Yes, these are the same weapons Obama and liberals want to ban, but they have hid behind executive privilege instead of trying to hold those responsible for all these deaths accountable. Secondly, according to the FBI, in 2011, there were 754.5 violent crimes per 100,000 people in cities with populations of 250,000 or more. Compare that to the national average that year of 386.3 per 100,000. Incidentally, the locations of this highest violent crime rates also corresponds to the areas that vote Democrat and re-elected Barack Obama. That’s right, the areas with the biggest gun issues are not rural conservative areas where hunting licenses are the highest, but in Democratic run urban areas. Much of this may be attributed to lenient sentences and punishments for violent gun offenders in liberal areas.

Why is the executive order on gun control meaningless? First, executive orders can be overturned by the next President, they are by no means permanent. Secondly, the executive order violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I do not see any wiggle room for any court to uphold a ban on any type of gun or ammunitions. Thirdly, the executive order does absolutely nothing to resolve the root cause of many violent crimes – mental disorders. It is one thing to say that gun shops cannot sell guns to people with mental disorders, it is another thing to identify who the people are that have mental disorders. The biggest issue with mental disease is denial by both families and individuals and they are simply not going to sign up on mental illness lists. And fourthly, statistics show that an executive order to ban assault weapons will do nothing to resolve crime rates. According to statistics compiled by the FBI there were a total of 12,664 homicides reported in 2011. Of those, 8,583 were committed with a firearm. Of those, only 323 were committed with a rifle. Now realize that assault rifles are a subset of the 323, which means that they account for less than 3.8% of homicides committed by firearms and less than 2.6% of all homicides. There were 9.3 homicides per 100,000 people in 1992 and that number dropped to 4.7 homicides per 100,000 in 2011. That’s a reduction of 49.4% in the homicide rate in the past twenty years despite more guns. However, over the same period of time severe mental illness has increased from 1 in 20 adults to 1 in 15 adults. And let’s not forget that mental disease is costing the U.S. taxpayer nearly 200 billion dollars per year in medical expenses and disability.

The Obama executive order for more gun control and regulation which bypassed debate illustrates his super ego at work. Executive orders do not resolve any issues, but merely bypass the issue. Democrats will continue to use catastrophes to push their agenda.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

A Tale of Two Obama's

Once upon a time Obama had this to say about the debt ceiling “The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.”

At his last press conference Obama had this to say about the debt ceiling “If congressional Republicans refuse to pay America’s bills on time, Social Security checks, and veterans benefits will be delayed. We might not be able to pay our troops, or honor our contracts with small business owners. Food inspectors, air traffic controllers, specialist who track down loose nuclear materials wouldn’t get their paychecks. Investors around the world will ask if the United States of America is in fact a safe bet. Markets could go haywire, interest rates would spike for anybody who borrows money. Every homeowner with a mortgage, every student with a college loan, every small business owner who wants to grow and hire.”

As usual, Obama is not being entirely truthful in the above statement. The federal government has a protocol to follow in the event of a government shutdown. First, the federal government does not completely shut down. Tax revenues are still being collected and those funds are used to 1. Pay off the interest on treasury bills so America does not default on their obligations. Hence, investors around the world do not have to worry about the U.S. credit rating being downgraded. 2. Remaining revenues are then used to pay off commitments to American citizens such as Social Security, Medicare, Veterans pay, and so forth. So these items would also be covered if the event of a government shutdown. If there is any money left over, the government will then have to prioritize what jobs to keep active, such as Air Traffic controllers, food inspectors, nuclear materials specialists, etc.

Obama also had this say at the press conference about spending cuts “Over the past two years, I’ve signed into law about $1.4 trillion in spending cuts. Two weeks ago, I signed into law more than $600 billion in new revenue, by making sure the wealthiest Americans begin to pay their fair share. When you add the money that we’ll save in interest payments on the debt, altogether that adds up to a total of about $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the past two years, not counting the $400 billion already saved from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Once again there are lies in the above statement. The one thing Obama said that was truthful is the 600 billion in new revenue – this was the result of raising taxes on the wealthy over the fiscal cliff negotiations. The rest of the statement about spending cuts is all fabricated. The 1.4 trillion in spending cuts Obama is referring to are 800 billion saved from ending the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and 600 billion in Medicare cuts. However, the Medicare cuts were used to pay or fund a portion of ObamaCare costs and unfortunately, future budgets have no allocation for War revenue beyond 2015 and that is only 44 billion dollars. Hence, there are no 1.4 trillion in spending cuts and therefore, there are no 500 billion in interest savings. Most economists believe the U.S. must trim at least 4 to 5 trillion in debt over the next five years to keep the U.S. financially stable. Thus far Obama has only reduced the debt by 600 billion over 10 years and this is due solely through tax increases, there are no spending cuts.

Bottom line is Obama is not even telling half-truths. He makes these statements with a straight face, but less than 30% of what he is saying is factual or truthful. Obama was right back in 2006 when he said it was bad leadership and fiscally irresponsible for Bush to keep raising the debt ceiling. Now, when the shoe is on the other foot Obama must lie to win public favor.

Monday, January 14, 2013

The Trillion Dollar Coin

About a year after Obama was in office, I walked into a small business in our town. And posted on their wall was a trillion dollar bill and Obama’s face was on it. It looked real and I laughed. Well, I am not laughing anymore. Due to a loophole in the Treasury coin printing process, the treasury can print any monetary value of coin so long as the coin is made of platinum. There are rules and restrictions on printing paper money, and copper, silver, gold, and coins. And for good reason, printing money to get out debt usually leads to massive inflation. Many countries have done a similar process with bad results. Some economists argue if the FED keeps spending at current levels they can avoid inflation. If inflation does become an issue the FED can counteract the effect of the trillion dollar coin by selling off treasuries. Maybe this is true, but this is a dangerous experiment and sets a bad precedent by giving the executive branch too much power.

The purpose of the trillion dollar coin is a gimmick so Obama can avoid the “debt ceiling limit” debate in the next month. This way, Obama can continue spending money without facing a debate over spending cuts. I admit, defaulting on our debt would have catastrophic economic global consequences. At the same time, Democratic calls for moving control of the “debt ceiling limit” under the president or starting a litigation process that would attempt to abolish the “debt ceiling limit” as unconstitutional is just as insane as the trillion dollar coin.

I really do not think a President who has failed to pass a budget and has created more debt than any other President should be given a blank check to keep spending – especially since most of the spending is wasteful due to government bureaucracy. There are real consequences of running up too much debt and we see this situation unraveling in Europe – Ireland, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece have massive debt to GDP levels and this is threatening the existence of the Euro. These countries created massive debts because of increases in welfare and entitlement spending. This is the same situation in the U.S. The scary thing is that our true debt is approaching 100 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities for retirement funds (Social Security, Pensions, and Medicare).

Defaulting on our debt will have more catastrophic consequences than going over the fiscal cliff. What’s worse, there are no good options here – Obama who insists we do not have a spending problem – can increase the power of the executive branch by coining more money to avoid default. In this instance, our spending will continue with no cuts and or reform to entitlement programs. Obama can try to abolish the debt ceiling limit through litigation calling it unconstitutional (I do not think he can win this one) giving the President the power to continue spending policies with no checks and balances. Republicans can hold out for spending cuts, but defaulting on our debt would be bad and trigger a massively adverse economic effect around the globe.

So there have it, more doom and gloom, loopholes, tricks, gimmicks, and expansion of government being thought about by Democrats. Republicans will introduce a bill to try to block Obama from creating a trillion dollar coin, but there is not much they can do. Democrats carry on about companies and individuals using loopholes to avoid paying taxes, but they seem to like loopholes when it comes to them spending more.

Friday, January 11, 2013

The Role Model for Liberal Hypocrisy: Al Gore (Part II)

In other words, women are gaining rights in the country but are still light years behind Western Nations and Qatar’s immigration work program has been said to be “Modern-Day Slavery” that supports forced labor and human trafficking. In a recent free speech case, Mohammed Ibn al-Dheeb was sentenced to life in prison for protesting against the Qatar government at the 2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Qatar. Liberals openly say Republicans and conservatives are waging war on women and minorities in America, but yet they remain silent as the once head of the Democratic Party lives off the wealth of a nation that supports horrific human rights violations.

Over half of Qatar’s GDP comes from oil productions. So it comes as no surprise that Qatar, with 55.4 tons of carbon dioxide per person per year has the highest footprint globally, about 10 times the global average. And now Gore, the man who is neither a scientist nor mathematician (well maybe a guy who invented the Internet should be able to read and understand a climate change model), but claims he has scientific proof CO2 is causing manmade climate change is helping to fund massive oil production efforts (Assuming Al-Jazeera stands to profit from the acquisition of Current TV). And remember, this data only takes into account the CO2 emitted by the people of Qatar and emissions to drill for oil, not the CO2 that will be produced once the oil is manufactured into gas and used in its end product.

If all these reasons are not bad enough, the most egregious offense of the Al-Jazeera deal is they are an anti-American propaganda machine who gives a voice to terrorist organizations. Although I have no proof that Al-Jazeera finances terrorist organizations, it is certainly not out of the realm of possibilities. In fact, Al-Jazeera is such a toxic organization in the eyes of the U.S. that even the liberally run cable network, Time Warner, voided their contract with Current TV once the deal was complete. To think Al Gore is giving Al-Jazeera an opportunity to reach up to 60 million households in the U.S. should warrant liberal outrage.

Why aren’t liberals outraged by Gore’s actions? The Current TV program lineup is loaded with hypocritical and sex offending hosts whose purpose was and is to fundamentally transform America into their progressive view – so in many regards Current TV is similar to Al-Jazeera in that it is very much anti-American. In a day and age where liberals use political correctness claims, civility claims, and find everything that makes America great offensive – then why should they care Gore is giving a voice to the terrorists that destroyed over 3000 American families on 9/11.

Liberals are using the Newtown massacre as a reason to push for gun control, but at the same time they are okay with Al Gore giving a voice to terrorist groups that are responsible for genocide and destruction around the globe. Liberals blame American military influence around the globe for what they call retaliation terrorism. Although this is far from the truth, it explains why liberals seem willing to protect the first and second amendment rights of terrorists before protecting the same rights for Americans. Liberals want to influence how Americans choose to use money to express themselves or ban certain types of guns they purchase, but they seem perfectly okay with protecting the rights of terrorists and their dirty money and weaponry.

In summary, Al Gore is gaining wealth at the expense of human rights violation including slavery, massive oil production and CO2 emissions, and the promotion of anti-American propaganda including the support of terrorism. Where is the media and liberal outrage over this hypocrite? It is scary to think this carbon emitting oxygen thief was almost President.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

The Role Model for Liberal Hypocrisy: Al Gore (Part I)

Al Gore has proven he is not only the world’s biggest hypocrite, but the world’s largest carbon emitting oxygen thief. Gore is set to collect 100 million dollars for selling his Current TV network to Al Jazeera which is primarily funded by the Qatar government. Gore has proven he is all about profits and wealth even if it conflicts with his core “green” and progressive ideological beliefs.

Gore had several interested parties wanting to purchase his failed Current TV network. However, Gore chose the most controversial option, Al Jazeera, simply because he profited the most from this deal. Also, according the New York Times, Gore tried to get the deal done before the end of 2012 so he could be locked into lower capital gain tax rates. Yes, this is the same guy who just two months ago said he should pay more in taxes (Anyone wanting to pay higher taxes can do so by failing to claim deductions - so this argument of wanting his tax rate increased is just nonsense). And this is the same guy who said Romney’s tax rate (which is driven by the capital gains rate) was too low. This is an example of liberal hypocrisy at its best, do as I say, not as I do. Liberals expect their neighbors to make sacrifices but at the same time they are exempt from living by the ideology they preach. Liberals want to be perceived as being sympathetic towards the environment, people living in poverty, women, and minorities, but in actuality most are living a lie behind closed doors – just like Al Gore. And what’s worse, nobody has railed against big oil for profiteering than Al Gore, yet in a mere 10 years his net worth has grown nearly 200 million dollars, profiting on the “green” industry bubble which incidentally is mostly subsidized by the tax dollars of his fellow Americans.

Gore has openly criticized Republicans for being anti-minority and anti-women for their immigration and abortion policies. Here is a human rights report on Qatar from the U.S. State Department in 2010: “Qatar is a constitutional monarchy headed by Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. The population is approximately 1.7 million, of whom approximately 225,000 are citizens. The emir exercises full executive power. The 2005 constitution provides for hereditary rule by the emir's male branch of the al-Thani family. Sharia (Islamic law) is a primary source of legislation. The emir approves or rejects legislation after consultation with the appointed 35-member Advisory Council and cabinet. There are no elections for national leadership, and the law forbids political parties. In 2007 citizens elected the 29 members of the Central Municipal Council. Reports based on monitoring by the government-appointed National Human Rights Committee (NHRC) and informal observations by diplomatic missions noted no irregularities. Security forces reported to civilian authorities.

Citizens lacked the right to change the leadership of their government by election. There were prolonged detentions in crowded facilities, often ending with deportation. The government placed restrictions on civil liberties, including freedoms of speech, press (including the Internet), assembly, association, and religion. Foreign laborers faced restrictions on travel abroad. Trafficking in persons, primarily in the labor and domestic worker sectors, was a problem. Legal, institutional, and cultural discrimination against women limited their participation in society. The unresolved legal status of "Bidoons" (stateless persons with residency ties) resulted in discrimination against these noncitizens. Authorities severely restricted worker rights, especially for foreign laborers and domestic servants.”

Monday, January 7, 2013

Katrina-Bush Bad; Sandy-Obama Good

Neither the response to Hurricane Katrina nor Hurricane Sandy had been good. In fact, they have been abysmal. Despite the fact that Homeland Security and FEMA have had over 6 years to prepare and learn from past failures since Katrina, the response to Sandy has gotten worse. The media slammed President Bush (and rightfully so) for the slow response and to make matters worse they politicized the event by turning it into a race issue. Nearly three months since Sandy devastated the East Coast, Obama has avoided the same scrutiny and in fact, Speaker Boehner and House Republicans are mistakenly receiving the blame for the slow Sandy response. Leading the charge against House Republicans is Republican New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie. Christie and Democrats are criticizing Boehner for refusing to put a 60 billion dollar “Sandy Relief” bill up for a vote. Unfortunately, Boehner was right to do this because the bill bypassed Senate committee votes and the bill is laced with the following pork:

The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. It also includes a whopping $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC.
An eye-popping $13 billion would go to “mitigation” projects to prepare for future storms.
Other big-ticket items in the bill include $207 million for the VA Manhattan Medical Center; $41 million to fix up eight military bases along the storm’s path, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; $4 million for repairs at Kennedy Space Center in Florida; $3.3 million for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center and $1.1 million to repair national cemeteries.
Budget watchdogs have dubbed the 94-page emergency-spending bill “Sandy Scam.”

$58.8 million for forest restoration on private land.
$197 million “to protect coastal ecosystems and habitat impacted by Hurricane Sandy.”
$10.78 billion for public transportation, most of which is allocated to future construction and improvements, not disaster relief.
$17 billion for wasteful Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), a program that has become notorious for its use as a backdoor earmark program

Unfortunately, passing the proposed Senate Sandy Relief Bill would have been fiscally irresponsible especially in the face of a Fiscal Cliff debate as government spending is pushing the nation towards bankruptcy. This bill would have relegated fewer than half the dollars to help relieve Hurricane Sandy victims. Senate Democrats should be disgraced by their actions and answering questions about their fiscally irresponsible behavior by attempting to sneak unnecessary pork in necessary legislation.

Still, the blame is placed on the shoulders of Republicans even though liberal New York City Mayor called Senate Democrats disgraceful for trying to pay for pet projects instead of focusing on the people in need. This is what Democrats mean when they say “Never let a good crisis go to waste”. Where was Obama when this bill came through Congress? Vacationing in Hawaii, but he is doing a great job in the medias eyes. Yet, I have not heard one victim from this storm praise the government response at any level (I am from the Jersey Shore). Why can’t we admit that FEMA and Homeland Security are not getting the job done and the buck stops at the President? Obama should be scolded just as rigorously as Bush for his failure. And Democrats should be ridiculed by the media for trying pass unnecessary spending in a critical bill.

Friday, January 4, 2013

Americans Still Lose In Fiscal Cliff Deal

The day after the fiscal cliff deal there were hundreds of headlines about Obama and Biden winning the fiscal cliff battle over the Republicans: “Obama Riding High, Wins Fiscal Cliff Showdown” – The Daily Beast; “Obama Wins Big, Gets His Tax Hikes” – New York Post; “Biden May Be Most Influential VP Ever” – National Journal; “Obama Took Republicans to the Cleaners” – MSNBC; “Decent Deal for Liberals” – Paul Krugman; “A Fleeting Victory for Democrats” – New Republic; and many more just like it.

There are many reasons why these headlines from liberal outlets have it all wrong and are prematurely celebrating. First, most liberals are in full agreement that if we went off the fiscal cliff Democrats and their ideology would have won for numerous reasons – 1. The public would have blamed Republicans 2. Democrats would have gotten huge tax increase on all Americans and 3. Most of the spending cuts would have affected the military and nothing else. This is all a win – win scenario for Democrats.

Although I would agree from a political standpoint that Democrats won on most points in the new fiscal cliff deal – they got their tax hike on high income earners; they got their extension of unemployment insurance benefits; they won the battle of no entitlement reforms and essentially no spending cuts. Still, the Republicans maintained one bargaining advantage in future fiscal fights – the debt ceiling limit. Maybe they can earn budget cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling in two months.

But there is one thing that these giddy liberal media outlets are completely forgetting about and ignoring. Time will tell if this is a good deal. If the economy remains sluggish or even worse we go into a double dip recession, then will liberals continue to be giddy and think Obama is the winner if Americans remain out of work, incomes continue to decrease, and government spending threatens the fiscal wellbeing of future Americans? Maybe they will, to liberals, it is all about their ideology and they care very little about the economy.

The bottom line, I do not understand how people can count political points in a time when people are suffering. Liberals will still point to Obama winning political fights even if the unemployment rate and economy is stagnant when his second term expires. They will point to ObamaCare as a big win even if the implications are more debt and a stagnant economy. It is sad when our ideology rules over the economy.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Oliver Stone's Propaganda

Oliver Stone has a new mini-series on Showtime called the “The Untold History of the United States”. The reason it is “untold” is because it’s his view and opinion of history, not at all based on facts, but on his biases. In fact, Stone makes assumptions of how history would have changed for the better had for instance, Truman not been President. This is conjecture, not historical facts.

Stone is a huge a fan of FDR and his vice president Henry Wallace. These two can do no wrong in his view. Stone raves about FDR’s handling of World War II politics between Churchill and Stalin and of course loves Wallace’s labor view as being pro union. Stone falsely gives FDR credit for ending English imperialism even though this did not officially happen until 1997. The truth is that England was bankrupt after World War II and they could not maintain their empire and some states gained their independence shortly after the War (India), but many other states did not gain their independence for decades after the war. Although U.S. presidents after FDR did not like English imperialism, they were correct to view it as better than the expansion of communism. FDR did not stop English imperialism, but was responsible for the spread of communism. Thus, FDR failed on both fronts. Stone hails FDR for winning U.S. best interests at the Yalta conference by getting the Russians to agree to enter the war against Japan three months after the surrender of Germany. In return, the U.S. would allow for Russian expansion in Asia. Stone says FDR was unfairly criticized over Yalta, but does not say why. That is because most historians agree FDR gave Stalin and the Russians what they wanted. Isn’t it odd that in FDR’s view it was not okay for English imperialism to exist, but at the same time he betrayed Poland and handed them over to the Soviet Union as part of the Yalta agreement? And why was it okay for Russia to expand their empire and influence in Asia if English imperialism was intolerable? And why didn’t FDR object to Stalin annexing Estonia and Lithuania during the war and holding Stalin accountable for killing, raping, and recruiting their citizens into the Red Army (untold by Stone)? Stalin had most of the leverage at Yalta because the Red Army was within 100 miles of Germany. FDR and the allies delayed their plans to invade Europe for nearly a year and half. Had FDR acted sooner, maybe the U.S. and England would have had more leverage over Stalin at Yalta – a point Stone fails to mention. Maybe the U.S. could have gotten Germany to surrender and liberated Eastern Bloc nations before Russia invaded them. When the war ended, Stalin turned all Russian occupied states into Soviet Satellites – Czechoslovakia, Hungry, Bulgaria, Albania, Romania, and East Germany. This was the start of the Cold War and the Yalta agreement and FDR’s weakness allowed for it to happen. Yes, Stalin ignored many provisions made during the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, but this is what happens when the President negotiates with a genocidal maniac. FDR trusted Stalin while history showed there was no reason for FDR to trust Stalin. FDR was a fool. Also, Oliver Stone conveniently fails to mention the involvement of socialists, such as Alger Hiss, at the Yalta Conference. Hiss was a top aide to the Secretary of State and he sympathized with Russia and communism.

Stone insists the Russian Army stopped raping and killing German civilians when FDR made this request to Stalin. This is nonsense, the Soviet Army never stopped torturing, raping, and killing not only Germans, but citizens of all countries occupied by Russia. In fact, over 3 million German prisoners of war were assigned to hard labor after the war and nearly one half million died. It is ludicrous and an outright lie for Stone to insist that one of the biggest genocidal figures in history heeded to any civil liberties request made by FDR. Stalin not only defied FDR at every point in history Stalin, for the most part, dictated his terms to FDR.

Stone raves about the huge sacrifices made by Russia in World War II and says the Western allies would not have won the war without Russian involvement (maybe true). Over 20 million Russians died in WWII, but Stone says very little about how millions of Russians were slaughtered by Stalin himself. Stone admits that fewer than 100 thousand Russians were killed by the Russian Army and Stalin himself (not factual). Stone is very complimentary of the Russians and applauds JFK for his acknowledgement of the Russian sacrifice in WWII in one of his speeches. But let it be known, Stalin was one of the worst genocidal maniacs in world history (if not the worst) responsible for killing up to 6 million of his own people and well over two million during World War II. And this does not include when he turned his back on thousands of Ukrainian’s who died of famine.

Stone despises Truman because of his ordering to drop the atomic bomb on Japan only two days before Russia would was to enter the war based on the Yalta agreement. Stone’s distaste for Truman is evident when he resorts to calling Truman the names he was called as a youth - four eyes, coward, etc.. Stone is not giving historical facts when he hypothesizes the outcome of the war would have been better had Truman not dropped the atomic bomb. He also infers that neither FDR nor Henry Wallace would have dropped the atomic bomb if they were President. But remember, the Manhattan Project started under the guidance of the FDR / Wallace executive branch. Stone dismisses the fact that dropping the atomic bomb saved the lives of thousands of Americas and stopped the expansion of communism into Asia. And why is Stone is so harsh on Truman’s decision to kill innocent civilians while at the same time being lenient about Stalin’s genocidal rule throughout the war? The truth is that Stone only tells the side of history which paints FDR in a good light and most of his assumptions are unfounded and we will never know the answers to. This is not history being told, but it’s solely Stone peaching his biases and beliefs.